Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31789 

that telecommunications providers 

require further customer passwordrelated security procedures to access 

CPNI data. The Commission could also 

require telecommunications providers 

to track customer contact through the 

use of audit trails or to limit their 

retention of data related to CPNI. 

Additionally, the Commission could 

require additional physical safeguards 

be implemented to protect the transfer 

of CPNI. Further, the Commission could 

require telecommunications providers 

and/or manufacturers to configure 

wireless devices so consumers can 

easily and permanently delete personal 

information from mobile 

communications devices. These 

proposals may impose additional 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements on entities. Also, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

any of these proposals places burdens 

on small entities. Entities, especially 

small businesses, are encouraged to 

quantify the costs and benefits or any 

reporting requirement that may be 

established in this proceeding. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

49. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

(among others) the following four 

alternatives: (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

50. The Commission’s primary 

objective is to secure the privacy of 

customer information collected by 

telecommunications carriers and stored 

in mobile communications devices. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

burdens, including those placed on 

small carriers, associated with related 

Commission rules and whether the 

Commission should adopt different 

requirements for small businesses. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

51. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

52. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that 

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 222, 

and 303(r) of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 

154(i)–(j), 222, 303(r), this Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96–115 

and WC Docket No. 04–36 IS 

ADOPTED, and that Part 64 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR part 64, is 

amended as set forth in Appendix B. 

The Order shall become effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register 

subject to OMB approval for new 

information collection requirements or 

six months after the Order’s effective 

date, whichever is later. 

53. It Is Further Ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, Shall Send a copy 

of this Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis and the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–10734 Filed 6–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

RIN: 1018–AV12 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental 

Proposals for Migratory Game Bird 

Hunting Regulations for the 2007–08 

Hunting Season; Notice of Meetings 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), proposed in 

an earlier document to establish annual 

hunting regulations for certain 

migratory game birds for the 2007–08 

hunting season. This supplement to the 

proposed rule provides the regulatory 

schedule, announces the Service 

Migratory Bird Regulations Committee 

and Flyway Council meetings, provides 

Flyway Council recommendations 

resulting from their March meetings, 

and provides regulatory alternatives for 

the 2007–08 duck hunting seasons. 

DATES: The Service Migratory Bird 

Regulations Committee will meet to 

consider and develop proposed 

regulations for early-season migratory 

bird hunting on June 20 and 21, 2007, 

and for late-season migratory bird 

hunting and the 2008 spring/summer 

migratory bird subsistence seasons in 

Alaska on August 1 and 2, 2007. All 

meetings will commence at 

approximately 8:30 a.m. Following later 

Federal Register documents, you will be 

given an opportunity to submit 

comments for proposed early-season 

frameworks by July 31, 2007, and for 

proposed late-season frameworks and 

subsistence migratory bird seasons in 

Alaska by August 31, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The Service Migratory Bird 

Regulations Committee will meet in 

room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Arlington Square Building, 

4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA. Send 

your comments on the proposals to the 

Chief, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior, MS 

MBSP–4107–ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20240. All 

comments received, including names 

and addresses, will become part of the 

public record. You may inspect 

comments during normal business 

hours in room 4107, Arlington Square 

Building, 4501 North Fairfax Dr., 

Arlington, VA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior, MS 

MBSP–4107–ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20240; (703) 358–

1714. For information on the migratory 

bird subsistence season in Alaska, 

contact Fred Armstrong, (907) 786–

3887, or Donna Dewhurst, (907) 786–

3499, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1011 E. Tudor Road, MS–201, 

Anchorage, AK 99503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations Schedule for 2007 

On April 11, 2007, we published in 

the Federal Register (72 FR 18328) a 

proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The 

proposal provided a background and 

overview of the migratory bird hunting 

regulations process, and dealt with the 

establishment of seasons, limits, and 

other regulations for hunting migratory 

game birds under §§ 20.101 through 

20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. 

This document is the second in a series 

of proposed, supplemental, and final 

rules for migratory game bird hunting 

regulations. We will publish proposed 

early-season frameworks in early July 

and late-season frameworks in early 

August. We will publish final regulatory 

frameworks for early seasons on or 

about August 17, 2007, and for late 

seasons on or about September 14, 2007. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
31790 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Service Migratory Bird Regulations 

Committee Meetings 

The Service Migratory Bird 

Regulations Committee will meet June 

20–21, 2007, to review information on 

the current status of migratory shore and 

upland game birds and develop 2007–08 

migratory game bird regulations 

recommendations for these species, plus 

regulations for migratory game birds in 

Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands. The Committee will also 

develop regulations recommendations 

for September waterfowl seasons in 

designated States, special sea duck 

seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and 

extended falconry seasons. In addition, 

the Committee will review and discuss 

preliminary information on the status of 

waterfowl. 

At the August 1–2, 2007, meetings, 

the Committee will review information 

on the current status of waterfowl and 

develop 2007–08 migratory game bird 

regulations recommendations for regular 

waterfowl seasons and other species and 

seasons not previously discussed at the 

early-season meetings. In addition, the 

Committee will develop 

recommendations for the 2008 spring/ 

summer migratory bird subsistence 

season in Alaska. In accordance with 

Departmental policy, these meetings are 

open to public observation. You may 

submit written comments to the Service 

on the matters discussed. 

Announcement of Flyway Council 

Meetings 

Service representatives will be 

present at the individual meetings of the 

four Flyway Councils this July. 

Although agendas are not yet available, 

these meetings usually commence at 8 

a.m. on the days indicated. 

Atlantic Flyway Council: July 26–27, 

Sheraton Harborside Hotel, Portsmouth, 

NH. 

Mississippi Flyway Council: July 28–

29, Sawmill Creek Resort, Huron, OH. 

Central Flyway Council: July 26–27, 

Holiday Inn of the Northern Black Hills, 

Spearfish, SD. 

Pacific Flyway Council: July 27, Red 

Lion Hotel at the Park, Spokane, WA. 

Review of Public Comments 

This supplemental rulemaking 

describes Flyway Council recommended 

changes based on the preliminary 

proposals published in the April 11, 

2007, Federal Register. We have 

included only those recommendations 

requiring either new proposals or 

substantial modification of the 

preliminary proposals and do not 

include recommendations that simply 

support or oppose preliminary 

proposals and provide no recommended 

alternatives. We will publish responses 

to all proposals and written comments 

when we develop final frameworks. In 

addition, this supplemental rulemaking 

contains the regulatory alternatives for 

the 2007–08 duck hunting seasons. We 

have included all Flyway Council 

recommendations received relating to 

the development of these alternatives. 

We seek additional information and 

comments on the recommendations in 

this supplemental proposed rule. New 

proposals and modifications to 

previously described proposals are 

discussed below. Wherever possible, 

they are discussed under headings 

corresponding to the numbered items 

identified in the April 11 proposed rule. 

Only those categories requiring your 

attention or for which we received 

Flyway Council recommendations are 

discussed below. 

1. Ducks 

Duck harvest management categories 

are: (A) General Harvest Strategy; (B) 

Regulatory Alternatives, including 

specification of framework dates, season 

length, and bag limits; (C) Zones and 

Split Seasons; and (D) Special Seasons/ 

Species Management. 

A. General Harvest Strategy 

Council Recommendations: The 

Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 

Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 

Council recommended that regulations 

changes be restricted to one step per 

year, both when restricting as well as 

liberalizing hunting regulations. 

The Pacific Flyway Council 

recommended that the proposal 

developed by the Service for a revised 

protocol for managing the harvest of 

mallards in Western North America be 

implemented in 2008. The Council 

stated that this delay is needed to fully 

understand and pick a management 

objective, to incorporate explicit 

consideration of mallards derived from 

those portions of Alberta that contribute 

mallards to the Pacific Flyway, to 

determine how this strategy relates to 

Alaska’s early season regulations, and to 

investigate the addition of alternative 

models. 

Service Response: As we stated in the 

April 11 Federal Register, the final 

Adaptive Harvest Management protocol 

for the 2007–08 season will be detailed 

in the early-season proposed rule, 

which will be published in July. 

B. Regulatory Alternatives 

Council Recommendations: The 

Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 

Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 

Council and the Central Flyway Council 

recommended that regulatory 

alternatives for duck hunting seasons 

remain the same as those used in 2006. 

Public Comments: The Wisconsin 

Department of Natural resources 

recommended that regulatory 

alternatives for duck hunting seasons 

remain the same as those used in 2006. 

Service Response: Last year in the 

May 30, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 

30786), we discussed the March 11, 

2005, Adaptive Harvest Management 

(AHM) Task Force draft final report 

(http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ 

mgmt/ahm/taskforce/taskforce.htm) to 

the IAFWA Executive Committee 

concerning the future development and 

direction of AHM. The Task Force 

endeavored to develop a strategic 

approach that was comprehensive and 

integrative, that recognized the diverse 

perspectives and desires of 

stakeholders, that was consistent with 

resource monitoring and assessment 

capabilities, and that hopefully could be 

embraced by all four Flyways Councils. 

We stated then, and reiterate here, that 

we appreciate the extensive discussion 

the report has received and look forward 

to continuing dialogue concerning the 

future strategic course for AHM. 

One of the most widely debated issues 

continues to be the nature of the 

regulatory alternatives. The Task Force 

recommended a simpler and more 

conservative approach than is reflected 

in the regulatory alternatives used since 

1997, which are essentially those we 

proposed for the 2007–08 hunting 

season (April 11 Federal Register). As 

yet, however, no consensus has emerged 

among the Flyway Councils concerning 

modifications to the regulatory 

alternatives, nor is such consensus 

expected in time to select a regulatory 

alternative for the 2007–08 hunting 

season. 

Therefore, the regulatory alternatives 

proposed in the April 11 Federal 

Register will be used for the 2007–08 

hunting season. In 2005, the AHM 

regulatory alternatives were modified to 

consist only of the maximum season 

lengths, framework dates, and bag limits 

for total ducks and mallards. 

Restrictions for certain species within 

these frameworks that are not covered 

by existing harvest strategies will be 

addressed during the late-season 

regulations process. For those species 

with existing harvest strategies 

(canvasbacks and pintails), those 

strategies to be used for the 2007–08 

hunting season. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31791 

D. Special Seasons/Species Management 

iii. Black Ducks 

Council Recommendations: The 

Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 

Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 

Council endorsed the draft International 

Harvest Strategy for Black Ducks 

developed by the Black Duck AHM 

Working Group until such time that a 

full AHM model is available and 

requested a dialogue with the Service on 

options for implementing harvest 

restrictions, assuming harvest 

restrictions are warranted. 

v. Pintails 

Council Recommendations: The 

Pacific Flyway Council recommended 

that the proposal developed by the 

Service for the addition of a 

compensatory model for Northern 

Pintail harvest management be 

incorporated in 2007 and that work 

continue on improving the harvest 

management decision-making process 

for pintail. Additionally, the Council 

urged the Service to complete its 

banding needs assessment and to work 

with the Flyways and the Canadian 

Wildlife Service to improve the basic 

biological data to more fully inform 

decision making. 

vi. Scaup 

Council Recommendations: The 

Central Flyway Council recommended 

not implementing a scaup harvest 

strategy that uses an objective function 

based on Maximum Sustained Yield 

(MSY). They suggested that scaup 

regulatory alternatives for the Central 

Flyway in 2009 be based on the most 

recent 3-year running mean of the May 

Breeding Population estimates (BPOP) 

as follows: 

a. BPOP mean > 4.0 million, daily bag 

limit of 3. 

b. BPOP mean 3.25—4.0 million, 

daily bag limit of 2. 

c. BPOP mean 2.5—3.25 million, daily 

bag limit of 1. 

d. BPOP mean < 2.5 million, Hunter’s 

Choice or 1-bird daily bag limit with a 

season-within-a-season. 

The Pacific Flyway Council was 

supportive of the proposed approach 

outlined in the recently proposed 

Service assessment and decision-making 

framework to inform scaup harvest 

management, and endorsed a shoulder 

strategy of less than Maximum 

Sustained Yield (MSY). In developing 

regulation packages to implement the 

framework, the Council further 

requested recognition of flyway 

differences in scaup populations and 

harvest potential. 

Service Response: In 2006, we did not 

change scaup harvest regulations with 

the understanding that a draft harvest 

strategy would be available for Flyway 

Council review prior to the 2007 winter 

meetings (see September 22, 2007, 

Federal Register, 71 FR 55654) and be 

in place to guide development of scaup 

hunting regulations in 2007. As part of 

this effort, we developed an assessment 

framework that uses available data to 

help predict the effects of harvest and 

other uncontrollable environmental 

factors on the scaup population. The 

final assessment was presented during 

the Winter Flyway Technical Section 

meetings, made available to the public 

in the April 11 Federal Register, and 

has been subject to both extensive and 

rigorous peer review. That peer review 

has resulted in many improvements in 

the assessment, and we believe it now 

represents an objective, efficient, and 

comprehensive synthesis of data 

relevant to scaup harvest management. 

Also, we have now completed 

additional work that we believe can 

help frame a viable scaup harvest 

strategy. The most recent technical 

analysis focuses on predicting scaup 

harvest from various combinations of 

Flyway-specific season lengths and bag 

limits, and this analysis has been 

appended to the assessment report 

previously available (http:// 

www.fws.gov/reports). 

We have received a number of 

comments from the Flyway Councils, 

States, and other interested publics on 

the assessment. As we indicated in the 

April 11 proposed rule, the final scaup 

harvest strategy will be detailed in the 

July early-season proposed rule (see 

Schedule of Regulations Meetings and 

Federal Register Publications in the 

April 11 Federal Register for further 

information). Of immediate concern, 

however, is the Flyway Councils’ review 

of our most recent assessment. We urge 

the Flyway Councils to evaluate our 

latest assessments. 

vii. Mottled Ducks 

Council Recommendations: The 

Central Flyway Council recommended 

that the Service take no action with 

respect to further harvest reduction for 

West Gulf Coast mottled ducks until 

there is a better understanding of 

population dynamics and until 

implications of the Central Flyway’s 

Hunter’s Choice evaluation have been 

reviewed. 

4. Canada Geese 

A. Special Seasons 

Council Recommendations: The 

Atlantic Flyway Council made several 

recommendations dealing with early 

Canada goose seasons. First, the Council 

recommended that the Service allow the 

use of special regulations (electronic 

calls, unplugged guns, extended hunting 

hours) later than September 15 during 

existing September Canada goose 

hunting seasons in Atlantic Flyway 

States. Use of these special regulations 

would be limited to the geographic areas 

of States that were open to hunting and 

under existing September season ending 

dates as approved by the Service for the 

2007 regulation cycle. Lastly, the 

Council recommended allowing the 

experimental seasons in portions of 

Florida, Georgia, New York, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Vermont 

to become operational in 2007. 

The Upper- and Lower-Region 

Regulations Committees of the 

Mississippi Flyway Council 

recommended that the closing dates for 

Canada goose hunting during the 

September goose season in the 

Northwest goose zone of Minnesota be 

extended through September 22 to 

coincide with the remainder of the state 

with a waiver of the experimental 

season requirements of collecting 

Canada goose parts. 

B. Regular Seasons 

Council Recommendations: The 

Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 

Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 

Council recommended that the 

framework opening date for all species 

of geese for the regular goose seasons in 

Michigan and Wisconsin be September 

16, 2007. 

9. Sandhill Cranes 

Council Recommendations: The 

Central Flyway Council recommended 

using the 2007 Rocky Mountain 

Population sandhill crane harvest 

allocation of 1,321 birds as proposed in 

the allocation formula using the 2004–

06 3-year running average. 

The Pacific Flyway Council 

recommended initiating a limited hunt 

for Lower Colorado River sandhill 

cranes in Arizona, with the goal of the 

hunt being a limited harvest of 5 cranes 

in January. To limit harvest, Arizona 

would issue permit tags to hunters and 

require mandatory check of all 

harvested cranes. To limit disturbance 

of wintering cranes, Arizona would 

restrict the hunt to one 3-day period. 

Arizona would also coordinate with the 

National Wildlife Refuges where cranes 

occur. 

14. Woodcock 

Council Recommendations: The 

Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 

allowing compensatory days for 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
31792 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

woodcock hunting in States where 

Sunday hunting is prohibited by State 

law. 

16. Mourning Doves 

Council Recommendations: The 

Atlantic Flyway Council and the Upperand Lower-Region Regulations 

Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 

Council recommended that, based on 

criteria set forth in the current version 

of the Mourning Dove Harvest 

Management Strategy for the Eastern 

Management Unit (EMU), no changes in 

bag limit and season length components 

of the mourning dove harvest 

framework are warranted. They both 

further recommended that EMU States 

should be offered the choice of either a 

12-bird daily bag limit and 70-day 

season or a 15-bird daily bag limit and 

60-day season for the 2007–08 mourning 

dove hunting season, with a 

standardized 15-bird daily bag limit and 

70-day season beginning with the 2008–

09 mourning dove hunting season. The 

standardized bag limit and season 

length will then be used as the 

‘‘moderate’’ harvest option for revising 

the Initial Mourning Dove Harvest 

Management Strategy. 

18. Alaska 

Council Recommendations: The 

Pacific Flyway Council recommended 

maintaining status quo in the Alaska 

early-season framework, except for 

increasing the dark goose daily bag limit 

in selected units to provide more 

harvest opportunity for white-fronted 

geese. 

Public Comments Solicited 

The Department of the Interior’s 

policy is, whenever practicable, to 

afford the public an opportunity to 

participate in the rulemaking process. 

Accordingly, we invite interested 

persons to submit written comments, 

suggestions, or recommendations 

regarding the proposed regulations. 

Before promulgation of final migratory 

game bird hunting regulations, we will 

take into consideration all comments 

received. Such comments, and any 

additional information received, may 

lead to final regulations that differ from 

these proposals. We invite interested 

persons to participate in this rulemaking 

by submitting written comments to the 

address indicated under the caption 

ADDRESSES. Before including your 

address, phone number, e-mail address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

You may inspect comments received 

on the proposed annual regulations 

during normal business hours at the 

Service’s Division of Migratory Bird 

Management office in room 4107, 4501 

North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA, 

22203. For each series of proposed 

rulemakings, we will establish specific 

comment periods. We will consider, but 

possibly may not respond in detail to, 

each comment. As in the past, we will 

summarize all comments received 

during the comment period and respond 

to them after the closing date in any 

final rules. 

NEPA Consideration 

NEPA considerations are covered by 

the programmatic document ‘‘Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement: Issuance of Annual 

Regulations Permitting the Sport 

Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88–

14),’’ filed with the Environmental 

Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We 

published a notice of availability in the 

Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 

FR 22582). We published our Record of 

Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 

31341). In addition, an August 1985 

environmental assessment entitled 

‘‘Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting 

Regulations on Federal Indian 

Reservations and Ceded Lands’’ is 

available (see ADDRESSES). 

In a notice published in the 

September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 

FR 53376), we announced our intent to 

develop a new Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

migratory bird hunting program. Public 

scoping meetings were held in the 

spring of 2006, as detailed in a March 

9, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 12216). 

A scoping report summarizing the 

scoping comments and scoping 

meetings is available by either writing to 

the address indicated under ADDRESSES

or by viewing on our Web site at 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds. 

Endangered Species Act Consideration 

Prior to issuance of the 2007–08 

migratory game bird hunting 

regulations, we will comply with 

provisions of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

1531–1543; hereinafter, the Act), to 

ensure that hunting is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any species designated as endangered or 

threatened, or modify or destroy its 

critical habitat, and is consistent with 

conservation programs for those species. 

Consultations under Section 7 of this 

Act may cause us to change proposals 

in this and future supplemental 

rulemaking documents. 

Executive Order 12866 

The migratory bird hunting 

regulations are economically significant 

and were reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

Executive Order 12866. As such, a cost/ 

benefit analysis was initially prepared 

in 1981. This analysis was subsequently 

revised annually from 1990 through 

1996, updated in 1998, and updated 

again in 2004. It is further discussed 

below under the heading Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. Results from the 2004 

analysis indicate that the expected 

welfare benefit of the annual migratory 

bird hunting frameworks is on the order 

of $734 to $1,064 million, with a 

midpoint estimate of $899 million. 

Copies of the cost/benefit analysis are 

available upon request from the address 

indicated under ADDRESSES or from our 

Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/reports/SpecialTopics/ 

EconomicAnalysis-Final-2004.pdf. 

Executive Order 12866 also requires 

each agency to write regulations that are 

easy to understand. We invite comments 

on how to make this rule easier to 

understand, including answers to 

questions such as the following: (1) Are 

the requirements in the rule clearly 

stated? (2) Does the rule contain 

technical language or jargon that 

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the 

format of the rule (grouping and order 

of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to 

understand if it were divided into more 

sections? (5) Is the description of the 

rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of the preamble helpful in 

understanding the rule? (6) What else 

could we do to make the rule easier to 

understand? 

Send a copy of any comments that 

concern how we could make this rule 

easier to understand to: Office of 

Regulatory Affairs, Department of the 

Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20240, or e-mail to 

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

These regulations have a significant 

economic impact on substantial 

numbers of small entities under the 

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

et seq.). We analyzed the economic 

impacts of the annual hunting 

regulations on small business entities in 

detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit 

analysis discussed under Executive 

Order 12866. This analysis was revised 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31793 

annually from 1990 through 1995. In 

1995, the Service issued a Small Entity 

Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which 

was subsequently updated in 1996, 

1998, and 2004. The primary source of 

information about hunter expenditures 

for migratory game bird hunting is the 

National Hunting and Fishing Survey, 

which is conducted at 5-year intervals. 

The 2004 Analysis was based on the 

2001 National Hunting and Fishing 

Survey and the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s County Business Patterns, 

from which it was estimated that 

migratory bird hunters would spend 

between $481 million and $1.2 billion at 

small businesses in 2004. Copies of the 

Analysis are available upon request 

from the address indicated under 

ADDRESSES or from our Web site at 

htttp://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ 

reports/SpecialTopics/ 

EconomicAnalysis-Final-2004.pdf. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

For the reasons outlined above, this rule 

has an annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more. However, because 

this rule establishes hunting seasons, we 

do not plan to defer the effective date 

under the exemption contained in 5 

U.S.C. 808 (1). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

We examined these regulations under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The various recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements imposed under 

regulations established in 50 CFR part 

20, Subpart K, are utilized in the 

formulation of migratory game bird 

hunting regulations. Specifically, OMB 

has approved the information collection 

requirements of the surveys associated 

with the Migratory Bird Harvest 

Information Program and assigned 

clearance number 1018–0015 (expires 2/ 

29/2008). This information is used to 

provide a sampling frame for voluntary 

national surveys to improve our harvest 

estimates for all migratory game birds in 

order to better manage these 

populations. OMB has also approved 

the information collection requirements 

of the Sandhill Crane Harvest Survey 

and assigned clearance number 1018–

0023 (expires 11/30/2007). The 

information from this survey is used to 

estimate the magnitude and the 

geographical and temporal distribution 

of the harvest, and the portion it 

constitutes of the total population. 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. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

We have determined and certify, in 

compliance with the requirements of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 

U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking 

will not impose a cost of $100 million 

or more in any given year on local or 

State government or private entities. 

Therefore, this rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

The Department, in promulgating this 

proposed rule, has determined that this 

proposed rule will not unduly burden 

the judicial system and that it meets the 

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

of Executive Order 12988. 

Takings Implication Assessment 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, this proposed rule, authorized by 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not 

have significant takings implications 

and does not affect any constitutionally 

protected property rights. This rule will 

not result in the physical occupancy of 

property, the physical invasion of 

property, or the regulatory taking of any 

property. In fact, these rules allow 

hunters to exercise otherwise 

unavailable privileges and, therefore, 

reduce restrictions on the use of private 

and public property. 

Energy Effects—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. While this 

proposed rule is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, it 

is not expected to adversely affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Federalism Effects 

Due to the migratory nature of certain 

species of birds, the Federal 

Government has been given 

responsibility over these species by the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually 

prescribe frameworks from which the 

States make selections regarding the 

hunting of migratory birds, and we 

employ guidelines to establish special 

regulations on Federal Indian 

reservations and ceded lands. This 

process preserves the ability of the 

States and tribes to determine which 

seasons meet their individual needs. 

Any State or Indian tribe may be more 

restrictive than the Federal frameworks 

at any time. The frameworks are 

developed in a cooperative process with 

the States and the Flyway Councils. 

This process allows States to participate 

in the development of frameworks from 

which they will make selections, 

thereby having an influence on their 

own regulations. These rules do not 

have a substantial direct effect on fiscal 

capacity, change the roles or 

responsibilities of Federal or State 

governments, or intrude on State policy 

or administration. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

these regulations do not have significant 

federalism effects and do not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

The rules that eventually will be 

promulgated for the 2007–08 hunting 

season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 

703–712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a–j. 

Dated: May 29, 2007. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
31794 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 110 / Friday, June 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. 07–2838 Filed 6–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALSEP08JN07.017</GPH>