Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 29917 

adopted, or to suggest that a change 

should be made to the rule. Under the 

direct final rule process, FMCSA does 

not consider the following types of 

comments to be adverse: 

(1) Comments recommending another 

rule change, unless the commenter 

states that the direct final rule will be 

ineffective without the change; 

(2) Comments outside the scope of the 

rule and comments suggesting that the 

rule’s policy or requirements should or 

should not be extended to other Agency 

programs outside the scope of the rule; 

(3) Comments in support of the rule; 

or 

(4) Comments requesting clarification. 

(c) Confirmation of effective date. 

FMCSA will publish a confirmation rule 

document in the Federal Register, if it 

has not received an adverse comment or 

notice of intent to file an adverse 

comment by the date specified in the 

direct final rule. The confirmation rule 

document tells the public the effective 

date of the rule. 

(d) Withdrawal of a direct final rule. 

(1) If FMCSA receives an adverse 

comment or a notice of intent to file an 

adverse comment within the comment 

period, it will publish a rule document 

in the Federal Register, before the 

effective date of the direct final rule, 

advising the public and withdrawing 

the direct final rule. 

(2) If FMCSA withdraws a direct final 

rule because of an adverse comment, the 

Agency may issue a notice of proposed 

rulemaking if it decides to pursue the 

rulemaking. 

Issued on: May 24, 2010. 

Anne S. Ferro, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12834 Filed 5–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

[FWS–R9–MB–2010–0020; 91200–1231– 

9BPP] 

RIN 1018–AX09 

Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the 

Regulations Governing Migratory Bird 

Rehabilitation 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, published a final rule 

in the Federal Register on October 27, 

2003, to create regulations governing 

migratory bird rehabilitation in the 

United States. Before creation of those 

regulations, rehabilitators were required 

to obtain a special purpose permit to 

engage in rehabilitation activities. The 

language in the final paragraph of the 

2003 regulations dealt with the 

transition of special purpose permit 

holders to operation under the new 

rehabilitation permit regulations. This 

paragraph is no longer relevant, so we 

remove it from the regulation. 

DATES: This regulations change will be 

effective on May 28, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

George T. Allen, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 703–358–1825. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 27, 2003, we published a 

final rule in the Federal Register (68 FR 

61123) to establish regulations for the 

issuance of permits to rehabilitate 

migratory birds in the United States. 

These regulations are at 50 CFR 21.31. 

Prior to issuance of the rehabilitation 

permit rule, migratory bird 

rehabilitators were required to obtain a 

special use permit to engage in 

rehabilitation activities. The last 

paragraph in the rehabilitation permit 

rule dealt with how we would handle 

issuing permits during the transition to 

the (then) new regulations. Since 

publication of that rule, all persons 

interested in having a permit to 

rehabilitate migratory birds must have 

transitioned from a special purpose 

permit to a rehabilitation permit. 

Because special purpose permits are 

valid for only 3 years, all of those 

permits in existence in 2003 have 

expired by now. 

Therefore, the text in 50 CFR 21.31(i), 

‘‘Will I need to apply for a new permit 

under this section if I already have a 

special purpose permit to rehabilitate 

birds, issued under § 21.27 (Special 

purpose permits)?’’ is no longer needed. 

With this final rule, our only change to 

the rehabilitation regulations is to 

remove all of the language under 

paragraph (i). This change is simply a 

ministerial administrative action to 

remove text that is no longer necessary 

from the Code of Federal Regulations 

and, therefore, will have no substantive 

effect on the general public. 

Administrative Procedure 

In accordance with section 553 

(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), we 

are issuing this final rule without prior 

opportunity for public comment 

because public notice and comment 

procedures are unnecessary. We find 

that good cause exists to delete 

paragraph (i) of section 21.31 without 

going through the public-notice-andcomment procedure because the 

transition language is anachronistic and 

no public input received through an 

open comment period could justify 

retention of this paragraph. For the same 

reasons stated above, we find that there 

is good cause to have this final rule take 

effect immediately upon publication in 

the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant under Executive Order 

12866. OMB bases its determination 

upon the following four criteria: 

a. Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

b. Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

c. Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

d. Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 

104–121)), whenever an agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (that 

is, small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide the statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We have examined this rule’s 

potential effects on small entities as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, and have determined that this 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

29918 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

change in the regulation is simply to 

eliminate language that is no longer 

needed. Consequently, we certify that 

because this rule will not have a 

significant economic effect on any 

entity, let alone a substantial number of 

small entities, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

This rule is not a major rule under the 

SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

a. This rule does not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. There are no costs to 

permittees or any other part of the 

economy associated with these 

regulation changes. 

b. This rule will not cause a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions. The 

practice of migratory bird rehabilitation 

does not significantly affect costs or 

prices in any sector of the economy. 

c. This rule will not have significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. Neither regulation 

nor practice of migratory bird 

rehabilitation significantly affects 

business activities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we have determined the following: 

a. This rule will not ‘‘significantly or 

uniquely’’ affect small governments. A 

small government agency plan is not 

required. Neither regulation nor practice 

of migratory bird rehabilitation affects 

small government activities. 

b. This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year; i.e., it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. No 

revisions of State, tribal, or territorial 

regulations will be necessary. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630, the 

rule does not have significant takings 

implications. A takings implication 

assessment is not required. This rule 

does not contain a provision for taking 

of private property. 

Federalism 

This rule does not have sufficient 

Federalism effects to warrant 

preparation of a Federalism assessment 

under E.O. 13132. It will not interfere 

with the States’ abilities to manage 

themselves or their funds. No significant 

economic impacts are expected to result 

from the regulation of migratory bird 

rehabilitation. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that the rule does not unduly burden the 

judicial system and meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

We examined this rule under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB 

has approved the information collection 

requirements of the Migratory Bird 

Permits Program and assigned OMB 

control number 1018–0022, which 

expires November 30, 2010. This rule 

does not change the approved 

information collection. Information 

from the collection is used to ensure 

that rehabilitation permit applicants are 

qualified and that their activities are 

documented. A Federal agency may not 

conduct or sponsor and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We evaluated the environmental 

impacts of the change to the regulations, 

and determined that, within the spirit 

and intent of the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and 

other statutes, orders, and policies that 

protect fish and wildlife resources, the 

regulatory change does not have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. Under the guidance in 

Appendix 1 of the Department of the 

Interior Manual at 516 DM 8, we 

conclude that the regulatory change is 

categorically excluded because it has 

‘‘no or minor potential environmental 

impact’’ (516 DM 8.5(A)(1)). No more 

comprehensive NEPA analysis of the 

regulations change is required. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

evaluated potential effects on Federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and have 

determined that this rule will not 

interfere with tribes’ ability to manage 

themselves or their funds or to regulate 

migratory bird rehabilitation on tribal 

lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 

prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. 

Because this rule only affects the 

practice of migratory bird rehabilitation 

in the United States, it is not a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866, and will not significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. No 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Environmental Consequences of the 

Proposed Action 

This action has no environmental or 

socioeconomic impacts. 

Compliance With Endangered Species 

Act Requirements 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that ‘‘The 

Secretary [of the Interior] shall review 

other programs administered by him 

and utilize such programs in 

furtherance of the purposes of this 

chapter’’ (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It further 

states that the Secretary must ‘‘insure 

that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out * * * is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of [critical] 

habitat’’ (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). This 

regulatory change will not affect 

threatened or endangered species or 

their habitats in the United States. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

we amend subpart C of part 21, 

subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 

Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703–12); Public Law 95– 

616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Pub. L. 

106–108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 

U.S.C. 703. 

§ 21.31 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 21.31 by removing 

paragraph (i). 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 103 / Friday, May 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 29919 

Dated: May 17, 2010. 

Thomas L. Strickland, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12882 Filed 5–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES