Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 13459 

Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

Where Can I Get a Copy of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this notice 

and an electronic copy of the proposed 

heavy-duty OBD and associated service 

information availability requirements 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ 

obd/regtech/heavy.htm. The request 

from the Engine Manufacturers 

Association to extend the comment 

period can be found in the docket with 

the document ID number EPA–HQ–

OAR–2005–0047–0016. 

Dated: March 16, 2007. 

Margo T. Oge, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality. 

[FR Doc. E7–5266 Filed 3–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Parts 20 and 21 

RIN 1018–AV15 

Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations 

for Managing Resident Canada Goose 

Populations 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On August 10, 2006, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or 

‘‘we’’) published a final rule on resident 

Canada goose management. This 

proposed rule clarifies and slightly 

modifies several program requirements 

regarding eligibility, definitions, 

methodologies, and dates. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by April 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 1018–AV15, by any of 

the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Fax: (703) 358–2217. 

Mail: Chief, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, Mail Stop MBSP 4107, Arlington, 

Virginia 22203–1610. 

Hand Delivery: Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax 

Drive, Room 4091, Arlington, Virginia 

22203–1610. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) 1018–AV15 at the 

beginning. All comments received, 

including any personal information 

provided, will be available for public 

inspection at the address given above 

for hand delivery of comments. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

Public Participation heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

You may obtain copies of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

on resident Canada goose management 

from the above address or from the 

Division of Migratory Bird Management 

Web site at http://fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/issues/cangeese/ 

finaleis.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Blohm, Chief, Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, or Ron 

Kokel (703) 358–1714 (see ADDRESSES). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority and Responsibility 

Migratory birds are protected under 

four bilateral migratory bird treaties the 

United States entered into with Great 

Britain (for Canada in 1916 as amended 

in 1999), the United Mexican States 

(1936 as amended in 1972 and 1999), 

Japan (1972 as amended in 1974), and 

the Soviet Union (1978). Regulations 

allowing the take of migratory birds are 

authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (16 U.S.C. 703–711), and the Fish 

and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

(16 U.S.C. 712). The Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (Act), which implements the 

above-mentioned treaties, provides that, 

subject to and to carry out the purposes 

of the treaties, the Secretary of the 

Interior is authorized and directed to 

determine when, to what extent, and by 

what means allowing hunting, killing, 

and other forms of taking of migratory 

birds, their nests, and eggs is compatible 

with the conventions. The Act requires 

the Secretary to implement a 

determination by adopting regulations 

permitting and governing those 

activities. 

Canada geese are Federally protected 

by the Act by reason of the fact that they 

are listed as migratory birds in all four 

treaties. Because Canada geese are 

covered by all four treaties, regulations 

must meet the requirements of the most 

restrictive of the four. For Canada geese, 

this is the treaty with Canada. All 

regulations concerning resident Canada 

geese are compatible with its terms, 

with particular reference to Articles VII, 

V, and II. 

Each treaty not only permits sport 

hunting, but permits the take of 

migratory birds for other reasons, 

including scientific, educational, 

propagative, or other specific purposes 

consistent with the conservation 

principles of the various Conventions. 

More specifically, Article VII, Article II 

(paragraph 3), and Article V of ‘‘The 

Protocol Between the Government of the 

United States of America and the 

Government of Canada Amending the 

1916 Convention between the United 

Kingdom and the United States of 

America for the Protection of Migratory 

Birds in Canada and the United States’’

provides specific limitations on 

allowing the take of migratory birds for 

reasons other than sport hunting. Article 

VII authorizes permitting the take, kill, 

etc., of migratory birds that, under 

extraordinary conditions, become 

seriously injurious to agricultural or 

other interests. Article V relates to the 

taking of nests and eggs, and Article II, 

paragraph 3, states that, in order to 

ensure the long-term conservation of 

migratory birds, migratory bird 

populations shall be managed in accord 

with listed conservation principles. 

The other treaties are less restrictive. 

The treaties with both Japan (Article III, 

paragraph 1, subparagraph (b)) and the 

Soviet Union (Article II, paragraph 1, 

subparagraph (d)) provide specific 

exceptions to migratory bird take 

prohibitions for the purpose of 

protecting persons and property. The 

treaty with Mexico requires, with regard 

to migratory game birds, only that there 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
13460 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

be a ‘‘closed season’’ on hunting and 

that hunting be limited to 4 months in 

each year. 

Regulations governing the issuance of 

permits to take, capture, kill, possess, 

and transport migratory birds are 

promulgated in title 50, Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), parts 13 and 21, and 

issued by the Service. The Service 

annually promulgates regulations 

governing the take, possession, and 

transportation of migratory birds under 

sport hunting seasons in 50 CFR part 20. 

Background 

On August 10, 2006, we published in 

the Federal Register (71 FR 45964) a 

final rule establishing regulations in 50 

CFR parts 20 and 21 authorizing State 

wildlife agencies, private landowners, 

and airports to conduct (or allow) 

indirect and/or direct population 

control management activities, 

including the take of birds, on resident 

Canada goose populations. Since 

publication of the August 10 rule, 

several questions and issues have been 

raised by the public regarding various 

restrictions and requirements of the new 

regulations. This proposed rule clarifies 

and slightly modifies several program 

requirements regarding eligibility, 

definitions, methodologies, and dates. 

Definition of Resident Canada Geese 

The current definition of resident 

Canada geese contained in § 20.11 and 

§ 21.3 states that ‘‘Canada geese that 

nest within the lower 48 States in the 

months of March, April, May, or June, 

or reside within the lower 48 States and 

the District of Columbia in the months 

of April, May, June, July, or August’’ are 

considered resident Canada geese. The 

proposed change would modify the first 

portion of this definition by inserting 

‘‘add the District of Columbia’’

following the word ‘‘States’’ to clarify 

that those Canada geese that nest within 

the District of Columbia in the months 

of March, April, May, or June, are 

included. It was not our original 

intention to exclude them from the 

definition. 

Expanded Hunting Methods During 

September Special Seasons 

One of the components in the resident 

Canada goose management program is to 

provide expanded hunting methods and 

opportunities to increase the sport 

harvest of resident Canada geese above 

that which results from existing 

September special Canada goose 

seasons. The regulatory changes in 

§ 20.21(b) and (g) codified in the August 

10 final rule provide State wildlife 

management agencies and Tribal 

entities the option of authorizing the use 

of electronic calls and unplugged 

shotguns during the first portion of 

existing, operational September Canada 

goose seasons (i.e., September 1–15). 

The August 10 final rule also stated that 

utilization of these additional hunting 

methods during any new special 

seasons or other existing, operational 

special seasons (i.e., September 16–30) 

could be approved by the Service and 

would require demonstration of a 

minimal impact to migrant Canada 

goose populations. Further, these 

seasons would be authorized on a caseby-case basis through the normal 

migratory bird hunting regulatory 

process. All of these expanded hunting 

methods and opportunities must be 

conducted outside of any other open 

waterfowl season (i.e., when all other 

waterfowl and crane hunting seasons 

were closed). 

However, the regulatory changes 

codified in the August 10 final rule did 

not allow for utilization of these 

additional hunting methods outside of 

the September 1–15 period, although 

this was clearly our intent. We propose 

to modify § 20.21(b) and (g) to allow 

State selection of these expanded 

hunting methods during the September 

16–30 period, when approved in the 

annual regulatory schedule in subpart K 

of part 20. 

Clarification of Airports’ Radius 

Since publication of the August 10 

final rule we have received questions 

regarding interpretation of the 3-mile 

radius restriction on resident Canada 

goose activities at airports and military 

airfields. We propose a change to clarify 

this restriction by inserting the term 

‘‘boundary’’ at the end of the first 

sentence. Thus, resident Canada goose 

management activities at airports and 

military airfields would be restricted to 

a radius of 3 miles from the airports’

boundaries. 

Eligibility and Participation in the Nest 

and Egg Depredation Order 

Currently, § 21.50 authorizes private 

landowners and managers of public 

lands to destroy resident Canada goose 

nests and eggs on property under their 

jurisdiction when necessary to resolve 

or prevent injury to people, property, 

agricultural crops, or other interests. We 

propose modifying this eligibility to 

include also homeowners’ associations 

and village, town, municipal, and 

county governments (collectively 

termed local governments). 

Homeowners’ associations and local 

governments would be allowed to 

register under the nest and egg 

depredation order and conduct nest and 

egg destruction anywhere within their 

jurisdiction, provided that they have 

landowner permission to conduct such 

activities. 

Our proposal is based on several 

factors. First, we currently issue 

individual depredation permits 

allowing resident Canada goose nest and 

egg destruction to these groups, 

particularly in the northeastern United 

States. We believe the extension of 

eligibility to these groups to operate 

under the nest and egg depredation 

order is not outside the intent of the 

depredation order, is formalization of an 

already established practice under our 

permit system, and is simply an 

administrative modification. Second, 

since the publication of the August 10 

rule, we have received numerous public 

comments requesting this modification. 

Modification of this requirement would 

help ensure public satisfaction and 

satisfy our original objective of 

providing affected States and the public 

with flexibility sufficient to deal with 

the problems caused by resident Canada 

geese. Lastly, since local governments 

are in an obvious position of local 

authority and jurisdiction, we believe 

they are a logical extension of our 

existing landowner definition. The 

proposed changes would include 

referring to these persons and entities 

collectively as ‘‘registrants.’’ Necessary 

conforming changes in a number of 

subsections also would be made. 

Nest and Egg Destruction Methodologies 

Under Section 21.50 

We propose to modify the approved 

methodologies for nest and egg 

destruction under the depredation order 

for resident Canada geese nests and eggs 

in § 21.50(d)(3). Currently, the 

regulations state that eggs may be oiled 

or eggs and nest material may be 

removed and disposed of. All of the 

other depredation and control orders 

pertaining to resident Canada geese 

(§§ 21.49, 21.51, and 21.52) allow egg 

oiling and egg and nest destruction. We 

believe the latter language is more 

comprehensive and includes such 

methodologies as egg addling (egg 

shaking), puncturing, and egg 

replacement. It was not our intent to be 

more restrictive regarding nest and egg 

destruction methodologies under the 

nest and egg depredation order than the 

other resident Canada goose 

depredation and control orders or what 

we currently allow on permits allowing 

nest and egg destruction. We believe 

this modification is minor in nature, 

satisfies numerous public requests for 

clarification and alignment, simplifies 

restrictions, and maintains the original 

intent of the regulation. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 13461 

Web Address Under Section 21.50 

We have modified the Web address 

for registering and submitting annual 

reports of the take of nests and eggs 

under the depredation order for resident 

Canada geese nests and eggs in 

§ 21.50(d)(1) and (6). 

Applicable Dates of Section 21.61 

Population Control 

We have corrected § 21.61(d)(2) to 

read ‘‘August 31’’ rather than ‘‘August 

30.’’ This was strictly an oversight. 

Public Participation 

You may submit written comments on 

this proposal to the location identified 

in the ADDRESSES section, or you may 

submit electronic comments to the 

Internet address listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We must receive your 

comments before the date listed in the 

DATES section. Following review and 

consideration of comments, we will 

issue a final rule on the proposed 

regulation changes. 

When submitting electronic 

comments, please include your name 

and return address in your message, 

identify it as comments on the resident 

Canada goose management regulations 

change, and submit your comments as 

an ASCII file. Include RIN 1018–AV15 

in the subject line of your message. Do 

not use special characters or any 

encryption. 

When submitting written comments, 

please include your name and return 

address in your letter and identify it as 

comments on the resident Canada goose 

management regulations change, RIN 

1018–AV15. You must submit written 

comments on 81⁄2-inch-by-11-inch 

paper. 

All comments on the proposed rule 

will be available for public inspection 

during normal business hours at Room 

4091 at the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Migratory Bird Management, 

4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, 

Virginia 22203–1610. 

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. 

NEPA Considerations 

In compliance with the requirements 

of section 102(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulation for 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500–

1508), we published the availability of 

a DEIS on March 7, 2002 (67 FR 10431), 

followed by a 91-day comment period. 

We subsequently reopened the comment 

period for 60 additional days (68 FR 

50546, August 21, 2003). On November 

18, 2005, both the Service and the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

published notices of availability for the 

FEIS in the Federal Register (70 FR 

69966 and 70 FR 69985). On August 10, 

2006, we published our Record of 

Decision (ROD) in the Federal Register 

(71 FR 45964). The FEIS is available to 

the public (see ADDRESSES). The 

proposed changes to the resident 

Canada goose regulations fall within the 

scope of the FEIS. 

Endangered Species Act Consideration 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531–1543; 87 Stat. 884) 

provides that ‘‘Each Federal agency 

shall, in consultation with and with the 

assistance of the Secretary, 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 

* * *.’’ We completed a biological 

evaluation and informal consultation 

(both available upon request; see 

ADDRESSES) under Section 7 of the ESA 

for the action described in the August 

10 final rule. In the letter of concurrence 

between the Division of Migratory Bird 

Management and the Division of 

Endangered Species, we concluded that 

the inclusion of specific conservation 

measures in the final rule satisfied 

concerns about certain species and that 

the action was not likely to adversely 

affect any threatened, endangered, or 

candidate species. 

Prior to issuance of any final rule on 

these proposed modifications, we will 

comply with provisions of the ESA, to 

ensure that these proposed 

modifications and clarifications are not 

likely to adversely affect any species 

designated as endangered or threatened 

or modify or destroy its critical habitat 

and is consistent with conservation 

programs for those species. As such, we 

have requested a letter of concurrence 

from the Division of Endangered 

Species on these proposed changes. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the 

preparation of flexibility analyses for 

actions that will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, which 

includes small businesses, 

organizations, or governmental 

jurisdictions. We discussed these 

impacts in the August 10 final rule. For 

the reasons detailed in that rule, we 

have determined that a Regulatory 

Flexibility Act analysis is not required. 

Executive Order 12866 

In accordance with the criteria in 

Executive Order 12866, this action is 

not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review. This rule will not 

have an annual economic effect of $100 

million or adversely affect any 

economic sector, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, or 

other units of government. Therefore, a 

cost-benefit economic analysis is not 

required. This action will not create 

inconsistencies with other agencies’

actions or otherwise interfere with an 

action taken or planned by another 

agency. The Federal agency most 

interested in this action is Wildlife 

Services. The action is consistent with 

the policies and guidelines of other 

Department of the Interior bureaus. This 

action will not materially affect 

entitlements, grants, user fees, loan 

programs, or the rights and obligations 

of their recipients. This action will not 

raise novel legal or policy issues 

because we have previously managed 

resident Canada geese under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

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

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It 

will not have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more; nor 

will it cause a major increase in costs or 

prices for consumers, individual 

industries, Federal, State, or local 

government agencies, or geographic 

regions. It 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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act and 

Information Collection 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any new information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OMB has approved 

and assigned control number 1018–

0133, which expires on 08/31/2009, to 

the regulations concerning the control 

and management of resident Canada 

geese. We may not conduct or sponsor 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
13462 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

and you are not required to respond to 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires agencies to assess the 

effects of Federal regulatory actions on 

State, local, and tribal governments and 

the private sector. The purpose of the 

act is to strengthen the partnership 

between the Federal Government and 

State, local, and tribal governments and 

to end the imposition, in the absence of 

full consideration by Congress, of 

Federal mandates on these governments 

without adequate Federal funding, in a 

manner that may displace other 

essential governmental priorities. We 

have determined, in compliance with 

the requirements of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et 

seq., that this action will not 

‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect small 

governments, and will not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

more in any given year on local or State 

government or private entities. 

Therefore, this action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

We have determined that these 

regulations meet the applicable 

standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 

Specifically, this rule has been reviewed 

to eliminate errors and ambiguity, has 

been written to minimize litigation, 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct, and specifies in clear 

language the effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation. We do not anticipate 

that this rule will require any additional 

involvement of the justice system 

beyond enforcement of provisions of the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 that 

have already been implemented through 

previous rulemakings. 

Takings Implication Assessment 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, this action, authorized by the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not 

have significant takings implications 

and does not affect any constitutionally 

protected property rights. This action 

will not result in the physical 

occupancy of property, the physical 

invasion of property, or the regulatory 

taking of any property. In fact, this 

action will help alleviate private and 

public property damage and concerns 

related to public health and safety and 

allow the exercise of otherwise 

unavailable privileges. 

Federalism Effects 

Due to the migratory nature of certain 

species of birds, the Federal 

Government has been given statutory 

responsibility over these species by the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. While legally 

this responsibility rests solely with the 

Federal Government, it is in the best 

interest of the migratory bird resource 

for us to work cooperatively with the 

Flyway Councils and States to develop 

and implement the various migratory 

bird management plans and strategies. 

The August 10 final rule and this 

proposed rule were developed following 

extensive input from the Flyway 

Councils, States, and Wildlife Services. 

Individual Flyway management plans 

were developed and approved by the 

four Flyway Councils, and States 

actively participated in the scoping 

process for the DEIS. This rule does 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. The rule allows 

States the latitude to develop and 

implement their own resident Canada 

goose management action plan within 

the frameworks of the selected 

alternative. Therefore, in accordance 

with Executive Order 13132, this rule 

does not have significant federalism 

effects and does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

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 

determined that this rule has no effects 

on Federally-recognized Indian tribes. 

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. This rule is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866 and 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. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 20 and 

21 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, we hereby propose to amend 

parts 20 and 21, of subchapter B, 

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 20—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 20 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 

Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703–712; Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a–j; Pub. 

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

16 U.S.C. 703. 

2. Amend § 20.11 by revising 

paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§ 20.11 What terms do I need to 

understand? 

* * * * * 

(n) Resident Canada geese means 

Canada geese that nest within the lower 

48 States and the District of Columbia 

in the months of March, April, May, or 

June, or reside within the lower 48 

States and the District of Columbia in 

the months of April, May, June, July, or 

August. 

3. Revise paragraphs (b) and (g) of 

§ 20.21 to read as follows: 

§ 20.21 What hunting methods are illegal? 

* * * * * 

(b) With a shotgun of any description 

capable of holding more than three 

shells, unless it is plugged with a onepiece filler, incapable of removal 

without disassembling the gun, so its 

total capacity does not exceed three 

shells. However, this restriction does 

not apply during: 

(1) A light-goose-only season (greater 

and lesser snow geese and Ross’ geese) 

when all other waterfowl and crane 

hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are 

closed while hunting light geese in 

Central and Mississippi Flyway portions 

of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North 

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming. 

(2) A Canada goose only season when 

all other waterfowl and crane hunting 

seasons, excluding falconry, are closed 

in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi 

Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, 

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 13463 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 

New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, 

North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, 

West Virginia, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming, as set forth below: 

(i) During the period of September 1 

to September 15; and 

(ii) During the period of September 16 

to September 30, when approved in the 

annual regulatory schedule in subpart K 

of this part. 

* * * * * 

(g) By the use or aid of recorded or 

electrically amplified bird calls or 

sounds, or recorded or electrically 

amplified imitations of bird calls or 

sounds. However, this restriction does 

not apply during: 

(1) A light-goose-only season (greater 

and lesser snow geese and Ross’ geese) 

when all other waterfowl and crane 

hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are 

closed while hunting light geese in 

Central and Mississippi Flyway portions 

of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North 

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming. 

(2) A Canada goose only season when 

all other waterfowl and crane hunting 

seasons, excluding falconry, are closed 

in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi 

Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, 

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 

New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, 

North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, 

West Virginia, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming, as set forth below: 

(i) During the period of September 1 

to September 15; and 

(ii) During the period of September 16 

to September 30, when approved in the 

annual regulatory schedule in subpart K 

of this part. 

* * * * * 

PART 21—[AMENDED] 

4. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 

Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703); Pub. L. 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. 

5. In subpart A, amend § 21.3 by 

revising the definition for ‘‘Resident 

Canada geese’’ to read as follows: 

§ 21.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Resident Canada geese means Canada 

geese that nest within the lower 48 

States and the District of Columbia in 

the months of March, April, May, or 

June, or reside within the lower 48 

States and the District of Columbia in 

the months of April, May, June, July, or 

August. 

* * * * * 

6. In subpart D, amend § 21.49 by 

revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 21.49 Control order for resident Canada 

geese at airports and military airfields. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(5) Resident Canada geese may be 

taken only within a 3-mile radius of the 

airport’s or military airfield’s boundary. 

Airports and military airfields or their 

agents must first obtain all necessary 

authorizations from landowners for all 

management activities conducted 

outside the airport or military airfield’s 

boundaries and be in compliance with 

all State and local laws and regulations. 

* * * * * 

7. In subpart D, amend § 21.50 by 

revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d)(1) 

through (d)(7), the introductory text of 

(d)(8), and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 21.50 Depredation order for resident 

Canada geese nests and eggs. 

* * * * * 

(b) What is the depredation order for 

resident Canada geese nests and eggs, 

and what is its purpose? The nest and 

egg depredation order for resident 

Canada geese authorizes private 

landowners and managers of public 

lands (landowners); homeowners’

associations; and village, town, 

municipality, and county governments 

(local governments); (and the employees 

or agents of any of these persons or 

entities) to destroy resident Canada 

goose nests and eggs on property under 

their jurisdiction when necessary to 

resolve or prevent injury to people, 

property, agricultural crops, or other 

interests. 

(c) Who may participate in the 

depredation order? Only landowners, 

homeowners’ associations, and local 

governments (and their employees or 

their agents) in the lower 48 States and 

the District of Columbia are eligible to 

implement the resident Canada goose 

nest and egg depredation order. 

(d) * * * 

(1) Before any management actions 

can be taken, landowners, homeowners’

associations, and local governments 

must register with the Service at 

https://epermits.fws.gov/eRCGR. 

Landowners, homeowners’ associations, 

and local governments (collectively 

termed ‘‘registrants’’) must also register 

each employee or agent working on 

their behalf. Once registered, registrants 

and agents will be authorized to act 

under the depredation order. 

(2) Registrants authorized to operate 

under the depredation order must use 

nonlethal goose management techniques 

to the extent they deem appropriate in 

an effort to minimize take. 

(3) Methods of nest and egg 

destruction or take are at the registrant’s 

discretion from among the following: 

(i) Egg oiling, using 100 percent corn 

oil, a substance exempted from 

regulation by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act, and 

(ii) Egg and nest destruction, 

including but not limited to the removal 

and disposal of eggs and nest material. 

(4) Registrants may conduct resident 

Canada goose nest and egg destruction 

activities between March 1 and June 30. 

Homeowners’ associations and local 

governments or their agents must obtain 

landowner consent prior to destroying 

nests and eggs on private property 

within the homeowners’ association or 

local government’s jurisdiction and be 

in compliance with all State and local 

laws and regulations. 

(5) Registrants authorized to operate 

under the depredation order may 

possess, transport, and dispose of 

resident Canada goose nests and eggs 

taken under this section. Registrants 

authorized to operate under the program 

may not sell, offer for sale, barter, or 

ship for the purpose of sale or barter any 

resident Canada goose nest or egg taken 

under this section. 

(6) Registrants exercising the 

privileges granted by this section must 

submit an annual report summarizing 

activities, including the date, numbers, 

and location of nests and eggs taken by 

October 31 of each year at https:// 

epermits.fws.gov/eRCGR before any 

subsequent registration for the following 

year. 

(7) Nothing in this section authorizes 

the destruction of resident Canada goose 

nests or the take of resident Canada 

goose eggs contrary to the laws or 

regulations of any State or Tribe, and 

none of the privileges of this section 

may be exercised unless the registrant is 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
13464 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

authorized to operate under the program 

and possesses the appropriate State or 

Tribal permits, when required. 

Moreover, this section does not 

authorize the killing of any migratory 

bird species or destruction of their nest 

or eggs other than resident Canada 

geese. 

(8) Registrants may not undertake any 

actions under this section if the 

activities adversely affect species 

designated as endangered or threatened 

under the authority of the Endangered 

Species Act. Persons operating under 

this order must immediately report the 

take of any species protected under the 

Endangered Species Act to the Service. 

Further, to protect certain species from 

being adversely affected by management 

actions, registrants must: 

* * * * * 

(e) Can the depredation order be 

suspended? We reserve the right to 

suspend or revoke this authorization for 

a particular landowner, homeowners’

association, or local government if we 

find that the registrant has not adhered 

to the terms and conditions specified in 

the depredation order. Final decisions 

to revoke authority will be made by the 

appropriate Regional Director. The 

criteria and procedures for suspension, 

revocation, reconsideration, and appeal 

are outlined in §§ 13.27 through 13.29 of 

this subchapter. For the purposes of this 

section, ‘‘issuing officer’’ means the 

Regional Director and ‘‘permit’’ means 

the authority to act under this 

depredation order. For purposes of 

§ 13.29(e), appeals must be made to the 

Director. Additionally, at such time that 

we determine that resident Canada 

goose populations no longer need to be 

reduced in order to resolve or prevent 

injury to people, property, agricultural 

crops, or other interests, we may choose 

to terminate part or all of the 

depredation order by subsequent 

regulation. In all cases, we will annually 

review the necessity and effectiveness of 

the depredation order. 

* * * * * 

8. In subpart E, amend § 21.61 by 

revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 21.61 Population control of resident 

Canada geese. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Control activities may be 

conducted under this section only 

between August 1 and August 31. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 6, 2007. 

David M. Verhey, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. E7–5199 Filed 3–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 216 

[Docket No. 070125020–7020–01; I.D. 

010907A] 

RIN 0648–AV15 

Protective Regulations for Killer 

Whales in the Northwest Region under 

the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: We, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), listed the 

Southern Resident killer whale distinct 

population segment (DPS) as 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) on November 18, 

2005. In the final rule announcing the 

listing, we identified vessel effects, 

including direct interference and sound, 

as a potential contributing factor in the 

recent decline of this population. Both 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) and the ESA prohibit take, 

including harassment, of killer whales, 

but these statutes do not prohibit 

specified acts. We are considering 

whether to propose regulations that 

would prohibit certain acts, under our 

general authorities under the ESA and 

MMPA and their implementing 

regulations. The Proposed Recovery 

Plan for Southern Resident killer whales 

(published November 29, 2006) includes 

as a management action the evaluation 

of current guidelines and the need for 

regulations and/or protected areas. The 

scope of this advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPR) encompasses the 

activities of any person or conveyance 

that may result in the unauthorized 

taking of killer whales and/or that may 

cause detrimental individual-level and 

population-level impacts. NMFS 

requests comments on whether—and if 

so, what type of—conservation 

measures, regulations, or other measures 

would be appropriate to protect killer 

whales from the effects of these 

activities. 

DATES: Comments must be received at 

the appropriate address (see ADDRESSES) 

no later than June 20, 2007. Public 

meetings have been scheduled for April 

18, 2007, 2–4 p.m. in The Grange Hall, 

Friday Harbor, WA and April 19, 2007, 

7–9 p.m. at the Seattle Aquarium, 

Seattle, WA. Requests for additional 

public meetings must be made in 

writing by April 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: orca.plan@noaa.gov. 

• Federal e-rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Protected Resources 

Division, Northwest Regional Office, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 

Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynne Barre, Northwest Regional Office, 

206–526–4745; or Trevor Spradlin, 

Office of Protected Resources, 301–713–

2322. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Viewing wild marine mammals is a 

popular recreational activity for both 

tourists and locals. In Washington, killer 

whales (Orcinus orca) are the principal 

target species for the commercial whale 

watch industry—easily surpassing other 

species, such as gray whales 

(Eschrichtius robustus), porpoises, and 

pinnipeds (Hoyt, 2001). NMFS is 

concerned that some whale watch 

activities may cause unauthorized 

taking of killer whales or cause 

detrimental individual-level and 

population-level impacts. 

Killer whales in the eastern North 

Pacific have been classified into three 

forms, or ecotypes, termed residents, 

transients, and offshore whales. 

Resident killer whales in the North 

Pacific consist of the following groups: 

Southern, Northern, Southern Alaska 

(includes Southeast Alaska and Prince 

William Sound whales), Western 

Alaska, and Western North Pacific 

Residents. The Southern Resident killer 

whale population contains three pods—

J pod, K pod, and L pod and was 

designated as a depleted stock under the 

MMPA and listed as endangered under 

the ESA. 

During the spring, summer, and fall, 

the Southern Residents’ range includes 

the inland waterways of Puget Sound, 

Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Southern 

Strait of Georgia. Their occurrence in 

the coastal waters off Oregon, 

Washington, Vancouver Island, and 

more recently off the coast of central 

California in the south and off the 

Queen Charlotte Islands to the north has 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS