[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 15, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34695-34698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11783]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 21

RIN 1018-AT63


Migratory Bird Permits; Determination That Falconry Regulations 
for the State of Connecticut Meet Federal Standards

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We add the state of Connecticut to the list of states whose 
falconry laws meet or exceed Federal falconry standards. We have 
reviewed the Connecticut falconry regulations and public comments on 
the proposed rule to add Connecticut to the list of states with 
approved falconry regulations. We have concluded that the Connecticut 
falconry regulations are in compliance with the regulations governing 
falconry at 50 CFR 21.28 and 21.29. This action will enable citizens to 
apply for Federal and state falconry permits and to practice falconry 
in Connecticut.

DATES: This rule is effective June 15, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, at the Division of Migratory Bird 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, 
Room 4091, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703-358-
1714; Dr. George Allen, Wildlife Biologist, 703-358-1825; or Diane 
Pence, Regional Migratory Bird Coordinator, Hadley, Massachusetts, 413-
253-8577.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Why Is This Rulemaking Needed?

    The need for the change to 50 CFR 21.29(k) arose from the desire of 
the state of Connecticut to institute a falconry program for the 
benefit of citizens interested in the sport of falconry. Accordingly, 
the state promulgated regulations that we have concluded meet the 
Federal requirements protecting migratory birds. The change to 50 CFR 
21.29(k) is necessary to allow persons in the state of Connecticut to 
practice falconry under the regulations the state submitted for 
approval.

[[Page 34696]]

Background

    The Fish and Wildlife Service is the Federal agency with the 
primary responsibility for managing migratory birds. Our authority is 
based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et. seq.), 
which implements conventions with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, 
Japan, and the Soviet Union (Russia). Raptors (birds of prey) are 
afforded Federal protection by the 1972 amendment to the Convention for 
the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Animals, February 7, 1936, 
United States--Mexico, as amended; the Convention between the United 
States and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Danger of 
Extinction and Their Environment, September 19, 1974; and the 
Convention Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics (Russia) Concerning the Conservation of Migratory 
Birds and Their Environment, November 26, 1976.
    The taking and possession of raptors for falconry are strictly 
prohibited except as permitted under regulations implementing the MBTA. 
Raptors also may be protected by state regulations. Regulations 
governing the issuance of permits for migratory birds are authorized by 
the MBTA and subsequent regulations. They are in title 50, Code of 
Federal Regulations, parts 10, 13, 21, and (for eagle falconry) 22.
    Federal falconry standards contained in 50 CFR 21.29(d) through (i) 
include permit requirements, classes of permits, examination 
procedures, facilities and equipment standards, raptor marking 
restrictions, and raptor taking restrictions. Regulations in 50 CFR 
part 21 also provide for review and approval of state falconry laws by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service. A list of states whose falconry laws are 
approved by the Service is found in 50 CFR 21.29(k). The practice of 
falconry is authorized in those states.
    On December 20, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (69 FR 75892) to add the state of Connecticut to the list of 
states whose falconry laws meet or exceed Federal falconry standards. 
As provided in 50 CFR 21.29(a) and (c), the Director had reviewed 
certified copies of the falconry regulations adopted by the state of 
Connecticut and had determined that they meet or exceed Federal 
falconry standards. Connecticut regulations also meet or exceed all 
restrictions or conditions found in 50 CFR 21.29(j), which includes 
requirements on the number, species, acquisition, and marking of 
raptors.
    This rule adds the state of Connecticut under Sec.  21.29(k) as a 
state that meets Federal falconry standards. Inclusion of Connecticut 
in this list eliminates the previous restriction that prohibited 
falconry within that state. The practice of falconry is now authorized 
in Connecticut.
    This rule is effective immediately. The Administrative Procedure 
Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)) allows us to do so because this final rule 
relieves a restriction that prohibited the state of Connecticut from 
allowing the practice of falconry.

What Comments on the Proposed Rule Did We Receive?

    We received 80 applicable comments on the proposed rule from 
individuals and organizations. We received no comments from government 
agencies. Fifty-one of the comments endorsed approval of the 
Connecticut falconry regulations. Thirteen of the comments expressed 
opposition to the approval of the Connecticut falconry regulations 
because the writers were opposed to falconry. None, however, addressed 
whether the Connecticut regulations are in compliance with the Federal 
falconry regulations.
    We received 16 comments asking that we not approve the Connecticut 
falconry regulations for reasons related to the regulations themselves. 
These comments addressed the Connecticut regulations as more 
restrictive than the Federal regulations, or they dealt with local 
issues such as falconry facilities and zoning requirements. We 
concluded that these comments also failed to address whether the 
Connecticut regulations are in compliance with the Federal falconry 
regulations. Issues they raised, such as recapture of lost falconry 
birds, zoning that makes construction of outdoor falconry facilities 
difficult, or the ``cumbersome,'' ``difficult,'' and ``overly 
restrictive'' nature of the state regulations, are aspects of falconry 
regulation that are under the governance of the state.

Changes in the Regulations Governing Falconry

    We add the state of Connecticut to the list of states with approved 
falconry regulations that will enable citizens to practice falconry in 
the state.
    Regulatory Planning and Review. In accordance with the criteria in 
Executive Order 12866, this rule is not a significant regulatory 
action.
    a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, 
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and 
economic analysis is not required. This rule will affect a limited 
number of potential falconers in Connecticut.
    b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. The rule deals solely with governance of falconry in 
Connecticut. No other Federal agency has any role in regulating 
falconry.
    c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. 
There are no entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
associated with the regulation of falconry.
    d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. This rule 
simply adds Connecticut to the list of states with approved falconry 
regulations.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), 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 (i.e., 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.
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. SBREFA amended 
the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 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 RFA, and have determined that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because the change will merely approve the falconry regulations for 
Connecticut and allow the practice of falconry there. This 
determination is based on the fact that we are simply adding one state 
to the list of states with approved falconry regulations. This rule 
will have no significant economic effect on a substantial number of 
small entities, and no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
    This rule is not a major rule under SBREFA, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

[[Page 34697]]

    a. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more. Approval of the Connecticut regulations will have only 
a very small effect on the economy. We estimate that 20 individuals 
would obtain falconry permits as a result of this rule, and many of the 
expenditures of those permittees would accrue to small businesses. The 
maximum number of birds allowed a falconer is 3, so the maximum number 
of birds likely to be possessed is 60. Some birds would be taken from 
the wild, but others could be purchased. Using one of the more 
expensive birds, the northern goshawk, as an estimate, the cost to 
procure a single bird is less than $5,000, which, with an upper limit 
of 60 birds, translates into $300,000. Expenditures for building 
facilities would be less than $32,000 for 60 birds, and for care and 
feeding less than $60,000. These expenditures, totaling less than 
$400,000, represent an upper limit of potential economic impact from 
the addition of Connecticut to the list of approved states.
    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 falconry 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 foreign-based 
enterprises. Falconry is an endeavor of private individuals. Neither 
regulation nor practice of falconry significantly affects business 
activities.
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In accordance with the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Falconry 
is an endeavor of private individuals. Neither regulation nor practice 
of falconry affects small government activities in any significant way.
    b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year. It is not a ``significant regulatory action.''
    Takings. In accordance with Executive Order 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 Executive Order 
13132. It will not interfere with the state's ability to manage itself 
or its funds.
    Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with Executive Order 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 these regulations under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved the information 
collection requirements of the Migratory Bird Permits Program and 
assigned clearance number 1018-0022, which expires 7/31/2007. This 
regulation does not change or add to the approved information 
collection. Information from the collection is used to document take of 
wild raptors for use in falconry and to document transfers of birds 
held for falconry between permittees. 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 have analyzed this rule in 
accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) and Part 516 of the Department of the Interior Manual (DM). This 
rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting 
the quality of the human environment, and does not require the 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental 
Assessment (EA). We prepared an EA in July 1988 to support 
establishment of simpler, less restrictive Federal regulations 
governing the use of most raptors in falconry. You can obtain a copy of 
the EA by contacting us at the address in the ADDRESSES section. This 
rule simply adds Connecticut to the list of states with approved 
falconry regulations. In the last 5 years we have added several states 
to the list of those with approved falconry regulations. Those 
additions generated few public or agency comments. We view this action 
as a routine action with precedent. Therefore, pursuant to the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service's NEPA procedures, located in the Department 
of the Interior's Manual, this action is categorically excluded as 
``changes or amendments to an approved action when such changes have no 
or minor potential environmental impact'' (516 DM 8.5(A)(1)).
    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 there are no potential effects. This rule will not 
interfere with the Tribes' ability to manage themselves or their funds 
or to regulate falconry on tribal lands.
    Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (Executive Order 13211). On May 
18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations 
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. 
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule only 
affects the practice of falconry in the United States, it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, and will not 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 
this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.
    Are There Environmental Consequences of the Action? The 
environmental impacts of this action are extremely limited.
    Socioeconomic. We do not expect this action to have discernible 
socioeconomic impacts.
    Raptor populations. This rule does not significantly alter the 
conduct of falconry in the United States. We believe that there only 
about 10 falconers or individuals interested in being falconers in 
Connecticut, and take of raptors for falconry in the state will be 
prohibited by the state falconry regulations. Therefore, this rule will 
have a negligible effect on raptor populations.
    Endangered and Threatened Species. This regulation change will not 
affect threatened or endangered species in Connecticut for the reasons 
set forth below.
    Is This Rule in Compliance With Endangered Species Act 
Requirements? Yes. 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 
Act.'' 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.'' The Division of

[[Page 34698]]

Threatened and Endangered Species concurred with our finding that the 
revised regulations are not likely to adversely affect any listed or 
proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat.
    Author. The author of this rulemaking is Dr. George T. Allen, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 
North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203-
1610.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend part 21, subpart C, 
subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below:

PART 21--MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS


Sec.  21.29  [Amended]

0
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712; Pub. L. 106-108; 16 U.S.C. 668a.


0
2. Amend Sec.  21.29 by adding to paragraph (k) the word 
``Connecticut,'' between the words ``*Colorado,'' and ``*Delaware,''.

    Dated: June 1, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-11783 Filed 6-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P