Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 51 / Friday, March 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 13785 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

REPORTING TO CONGRESS—THE 

COSTS OF OPERATING PRIVATELY 

OWNED AUTOMOBILES 

Paragraph (b) of Section 5707 of Title 

5, United States Code, requires the 

Administrator of General Services to 

periodically investigate the cost to 

Government employees of operating 

privately owned vehicles (airplanes, 

automobiles, and motorcycles) while on 

official travel, to report the results of the 

investigations to Congress, and to 

publish the report in the Federal 

Register. This report on the privately 

owned automobile mileage 

reimbursement rate is being published 

in the Federal Register. The 

investigations pertaining to the 

reimbursement rates for airplanes and 

motorcycles are still pending. Therefore, 

there are no changes to these rates at 

this time. 

Dated: February 20, 2008. 

Lurita Doan, 

Administrator of General Services. 

Reporting To Congress—The Costs of 

Operating Privately Owned 

Automobiles 

5 U.S.C. 5707(b)(1)(A) requires that 

the Administrator of General Services, 

in consultation with the Secretary of 

Defense, the Secretary of 

Transportation, and representatives of 

Government employee organizations, 

conduct periodic investigations of the 

cost of travel and operation of privately 

owned vehicles (airplanes, automobiles, 

and motorcycles) to Government 

employees while on official travel, and 

report the results to the Congress at least 

once a year. 5 U.S.C. 5707(a)(1) requires 

that the Administrator of General 

Services issue regulations prescribing 

mileage reimbursement rates and 

determine the average, actual cost per 

mile for the use of each type of privately 

owned vehicle based on the results of 

these cost investigations. Such figures 

must be reported to the Congress within 

5 working days after the cost 

determination has been made in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5707(b)(2)(C). 

Pursuant to the above, the General 

Services Administration (GSA), in 

consultation with the above-specified 

parties conducted an investigation of 

the cost of operating a privately owned 

automobile (POA). As provided in 5 

U.S.C. 5704(a)(1), the automobile 

reimbursement rate cannot exceed the 

single standard mileage rate established 

by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 

The IRS has announced a new single 

standard mileage rate for POAs of 

$0.505, which was effective January 1, 

2008. As required, GSA is reporting the 

results of the investigation and the cost 

per mile determination. Based on cost 

studies conducted by GSA, I have 

determined the per-mile operating costs 

of a POA to be $0.505. Reimbursement 

rates for the use of a privately owned 

airplane and a privately owned 

motorcycle remain unchanged at this 

time as these investigations are still 

pending. 

This report to Congress on the cost of 

operating POAs will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

[FR Doc. E8–5091 Filed 3–13–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–14–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 447 

[CMS–2238–IFC] 

RIN 0938–AP26 

Medicaid Program; Multiple Source 

Drug Definition 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Interim final rule with comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: On July 17, 2007, we 

published a final rule with comment 

period in the Federal Register that 

implemented provisions of the Deficit 

Reduction Act of 2005 pertaining to 

prescription drugs under the Medicaid 

program. In that rule, we finalized 

certain provisions of the Medicaid drug 

rebate program, including definitions 

concerning average manufacturer price, 

best price, single source drug, and 

multiple source drug. In this interim 

final rule with comment period, we are 

revising the definition of ‘‘multiple 

source drug’’ to better conform with the 

statutory provisions. This interim final 

rule with comment period solicits 

additional public comment on the 

revised definition of ‘‘multiple source 

drug.’’

DATES: Effective date: These regulations 

are effective on April 14, 2008. 

Comment date: To be assured 

consideration, comments must be 

received at one of the addresses 

provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on 

April 14, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer 

to file code CMS–2238–IFC. Because of 

staff and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (FAX) 

transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (please choose only one of the 

ways listed): 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments on this regulation 

to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the instructions for ‘‘Comment or 

Submission’’ and enter the filecode to 

find the document accepting comments. 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments (one original and two 

copies) to the following address only: 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Attention: CMS–2238–

IFC, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 

21244–8016. 

Please allow sufficient time for mailed 

comments to be received before the 

close of the comment period. 

3. By express or overnight mail. You 

may send written comments (one 

original and two copies) to the following 

address only: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Attention: 

CMS–2238–IFC, Mail Stop C4–26–05, 

7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 

21244–1850. 

4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, 

you may deliver (by hand or courier) 

your written comments (one original 

and two copies) before the close of the 

comment period to either of the 

following addresses: a. Room 445–G, 

Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. 

(Because access to the interior of the HHH 

Building is not readily available to persons 

without Federal Government identification, 

commenters are encouraged to leave their 

comments in the CMS drop slots located in 

the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in 

clock is available for persons wishing to 

retain a proof of filing by stamping in and 

retaining an extra copy of the comments 

being filed.) 

b. 7500 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, MD 21244–1850. 

If you intend to deliver your 

comments to the Baltimore address, 

please call telephone number (410) 786–

7195 in advance to schedule your 

arrival with one of our staff members. 

Comments mailed to the addresses 

indicated as appropriate for hand or 

courier delivery may be delayed and 

received after the comment period. 

For information on viewing public 

comments, see the beginning of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail 

Sexton, (410) 786–4583. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Inspection of Public Comments: All 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period are available for 

viewing by the public, including any 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
13786 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 51 / Friday, March 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. We post all comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period on the following Web 

site as soon as possible after they have 

been received: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the search 

instructions on that Web site to view 

public comments. 

Comments received timely will be 

also available for public inspection as 

they are received, generally beginning 

approximately 3 weeks after publication 

of a document, at the headquarters of 

the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday 

through Friday of each week from 

8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an 

appointment to view public comments, 

phone 1–800–743–3951. 

I. Background 

On July 17, 2007, we published a final 

rule with comment period (72 FR 

39142) in the Federal Register 

implementing the provisions of the 

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) 

pertaining to prescription drugs under 

the Medicaid Program. In that rule, we 

defined terms used in the Medicaid 

drug rebate program. We codified 

requirements pertaining to the 

calculation and reporting of the average 

manufacturer price (AMP) and best 

price by pharmaceutical manufacturers 

and amended existing regulations 

concerning Federal upper payment 

limits for certain covered outpatient 

drugs. The final rule was effective 

October 1, 2007. This interim final rule 

is not being issued in response to public 

comments received on the July 2007 

AMP final rule with comment period. 

We are still considering those 

comments. 

On November 15, 2007, the National 

Association of Chain Drug Stores and 

the National Community Pharmacists 

Association filed a motion for a 

preliminary injunction in the United 

States District Court for the District of 

Columbia. They contended, in part, that 

the definition of ‘‘multiple source drug’’

adopted in the July 17, 2007, final rule 

(‘‘drug rebate rule’’) is contrary to the 

statutory language in that it defined a 

multiple source drug, in part, as a drug 

which is sold or marketed in the United 

States, as opposed to the State. Plaintiffs 

are concerned that all drug products are 

not generally available in every State. 

National Association of Chain Drug 

Stores, et al. v. Health and Human 

Services, Civil Action No. 1:07–cv–

02017 (RCL). In light of these concerns, 

we are issuing this interim final rule 

with comment period and revising the 

definition of ‘‘multiple source drug.’’

We believe, however, that when an 

FDA-approved equivalent generic drug 

is sold or marketed in the United States, 

at least one generic drug product is sold 

or marketed in every State. Accordingly, 

we expect the effect of this revision, if 

any, to be small. 

This interim final rule to the extent 

that it may affect Medicaid 

reimbursement rates for retail 

pharmacies is subject to the injunction 

issued by the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia in 

National Association of Chain Drug 

Stores, et al. v. Health and Human 

Services, Civil Action No. 1:07–cv–

02017 (RCL). 

II. Provisions of the Interim Final Rule 

In 42 CFR 447.502, we defined key 

terms used to calculate payment and 

rebates concerning Medicaid 

prescription drugs. We defined multiple 

source drug as a covered outpatient drug 

for which there is at least one other drug 

product which is rated as 

therapeutically equivalent, is 

pharmaceutically equivalent and 

bioequivalent, as determined by the 

FDA, and is sold or marketed in the 

United States during the rebate period. 

We are revising this definition of 

multiple source drug to state that the 

drug product is sold or marketed in the 

‘‘State’’ during the rebate period, as 

opposed to sold or marketed in the 

‘‘United States’’ during the rebate 

period. By changing ‘‘United States’’ to 

‘‘State’’ we define the term, ‘‘multiple 

source drug’’ in accordance with the 

language in the Social Security Act (the 

Act). Further, in accordance with 

section 1927(k)(7)(C)(iii) of the Act, we 

consider the drug to be sold or marketed 

in a State if it appears in a published 

national listing of average wholesale 

prices that we have selected—currently, 

Red Book, Bluebook, or Medi-Span—

provided the listed product is generally 

available to the public through retail 

pharmacies in that State. 

In light of our experience with the 

Federal upper limit (FUL) program, we 

believe that there is a national market 

for prescription drug products, and that 

if a drug is available in a State, it will 

be available in every State. From our 

experience, once an FDA-approved 

equivalent generic drug enters the 

market, there are nearly always at least 

two equivalent products available 

everywhere (the brand drug and at least 

one equivalent generic drug) such that 

a FUL will be properly applied. 

Furthermore, we do not have any record 

of receiving requests to delete or modify 

a FUL price based on a drug not being 

available in a particular State or a 

geographic location. Plaintiffs in the 

National Association of Chain Drug 

Stores litigation contend, however, that 

there may be situations where certain 

drug products are not available to the 

public through retail pharmacies in 

every State. We do not interpret the law 

to require us to continually survey drug 

availability in the retail pharmacies of 

every State, and note that pharmacies 

and States are in a substantially better 

position to assess the availability of 

drugs in their areas. Therefore, we will 

consider all covered outpatient drugs to 

be generally available in a State except 

in those situations where there is 

evidence to the contrary. Such evidence 

could include notification from 

pharmacies to the State that a drug 

cannot be purchased in that State, 

provided the State can confirm that to 

be the case. CMS will issue regulatory 

guidance on this issue in the future 

should the need arise. 

When the State confirms that a 

covered outpatient drug is not a 

multiple source drug in the State, that 

drug is not subject to the FUL in that 

State for the applicable rebate period. 

Where the drug does not qualify as a 

multiple source drug in the State, the 

State should apply its alternative 

pricing methodologies as set forth in the 

approved State plan. 

While this change in the definition of 

multiple source drug may impact the 

FUL program, it should have no impact 

on the manufacturer’s calculation of 

rebates. The definition as revised is 

consistent with the statutory provision, 

which has been in effect since the 

inception of the drug rebate program. 

Manufacturers calculate rebates based, 

in part, on whether the drug product is 

produced, distributed, or marketed 

under a new drug application approved 

by the FDA. In such situations, the 

rebate calculation is based on a 

percentage of the AMP or the difference 

between AMP and best price, whichever 

is greater. Where a drug is not marketed 

pursuant to such a new drug 

application, the manufacturer calculates 

rebate payments based on a fixed 

percentage (11 percent) of the average 

manufacturer price. Accordingly, rebate 

calculations should not be affected by 

the revisions in this regulation. Thus, 

we are not changing our policy 

regarding rebates or manufacturer 

reporting requirements for these drugs. 

III. Response to Comments 

Because of the large number of public 

comments we normally receive on 

Federal Register documents, we are not 

able to acknowledge or respond to them 

individually. We will consider all 

comments we receive by the date and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 51 / Friday, March 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 13787 

time specified in the DATES section of 

this preamble, and, when we proceed 

with a subsequent document, we will 

respond to the comments in the 

preamble to that document. 

IV. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking 

We ordinarily publish a notice of 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register and invite public comment on 

the proposed rule. The notice of 

proposed rulemaking includes a 

reference to the legal authority under 

which the rule is proposed, and the 

terms and substances of the proposed 

rule or a description of the subjects and 

issues involved. This procedure can be 

waived, however, if an agency finds 

good cause that a notice and comment 

procedure is impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest and incorporates a statement of 

the finding and its reasons in the rule 

issued, or if the agency is promulgating 

interpretive rules, general statements of 

policy, or rules of agency procedure or 

practice. 

We do not believe that we need to 

delay publication of this rule pending 

completion of a notice and comment 

period. We are conforming the 

regulation to the statutory definition of 

multiple source drug and informing the 

public of the procedures and practices 

the agency will follow to ensure 

compliance with those statutory 

provisions. However, to the extent that 

notice and comment rulemaking would 

otherwise apply, we find good cause to 

waive such requirements. 

Specifically, we find it unnecessary to 

undertake notice and comment 

rulemaking in this instance in light of 

the statutory language. We are applying 

the definition specified in statute and 

we believe it is redundant to, in effect, 

propose a rule to incorporate the words 

of a provision already contained in the 

statute. We would not be able to change 

the definition in this regulation in 

response to public comment. We are 

also describing a procedure to ensure 

compliance with the relevant provisions 

of the statute. This description is 

exempt from notice and comment 

rulemaking as an interpretive rule, 

general statement of policy, and/or rule 

of agency procedure or practice. As we 

have previously stated, we believe that 

there is a national market for 

prescription drugs and that a drug 

product available as a multiple source 

drug in one State will be available as a 

multiple source drug in every State. 

However, in light of the concerns raised 

in litigation, we believe it is necessary 

to establish a process to ensure State 

availability and consistency with the 

statute. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b), we find good cause to waive 

notice and comment rulemaking 

procedures for this revision, if such 

procedures are required at all. 

V. Collection of Information 

Requirements 

This document does not impose any 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Consequently, it need not be reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under the authority of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 35). 

VI. Regulatory Impact Statement 

We have examined the impact of this 

rule as required by Executive Order 

12866 (September 1993, Regulatory 

Planning and Review), the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 

1980, Pub. L. 96–354), section 1102(b) of 

the Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), and 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

if regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety effects, distributive impacts, 

and equity). A regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) must be prepared for 

major rules with economically 

significant effects ($100 million or more 

in any 1 year). This interim final rule 

does not reach the economic threshold 

and thus is not considered a major rule. 

The RFA requires agencies to analyze 

options for regulatory relief of small 

entities. For purposes of the RFA, small 

entities include small businesses, 

nonprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. Individuals 

and States are not included in the 

definition of a small entity. We are not 

preparing an analysis for the RFA 

because we have determined, and the 

Secretary certifies, that this interim final 

rule with comment period will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The only small entities that will 

potentially be affected by this interim 

final rule are small pharmacies. We 

believe that the effect will be small 

because we have not identified any 

situation in which there is at least one 

FDA-approved equivalent generic drug 

available as a multiple source drug in 

one State but in which no FDAapproved equivalent generic is available 

in another State. To the extent a State 

would find, however, that a drug is not 

a multiple source drug in that State 

because no FDA-approved equivalent 

product is available in that State, the 

only effect will be to permit that State 

to disregard the FUL price for the one 

drug that is available in that State when 

determining the aggregate limit that the 

State can reimburse for that drug and 

claim Federal financial participation. 

States may choose not to change their 

reimbursement to pharmacies for those 

drugs. Should States decide to change 

reimbursement, the change would 

usually be to increase the price paid to 

pharmacies. 

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act 

requires us to prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis if a rule may have a 

significant impact on the operations of 

a substantial number of small rural 

hospitals. This analysis must conform to 

the provisions of section 604 of the 

RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of 

the Act, we define a small rural hospital 

as a hospital that is located outside of 

a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 

fewer than 100 beds. We are not 

preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) 

of the Act because we have determined, 

and the Secretary certifies, that this 

interim final rule with comment period 

will not have a significant impact on the 

operations of a substantial number of 

small rural hospitals. Small rural 

hospitals would be affected only to the 

extent that no FDA-approved equivalent 

product is available in that State for a 

particular outpatient drug provided 

through their outpatient pharmacies. As 

discussed above for pharmacies, States 

may choose to change reimbursement 

for drugs in such groups, but this 

change is expected to be to increase 

reimbursement. Section 202 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

also requires that agencies assess 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule whose mandates 

require spending in any 1 year of $100 

million in 1995 dollars, updated 

annually for inflation. That threshold 

level is currently approximately $120 

million. This interim final rule will 

have no consequential effect on State, 

local, or tribal governments or on the 

private sector. 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

requirement costs on State and local 

governments, preempts State law, or 

otherwise has Federalism implications. 

This regulation will impose only a very 

small burden, if any, on States. When a 

pharmacy has notified a State that a 

drug on the CMS FUL list may not be 

available as a multiple source drug in 

that State, the State must confirm that 

the drug is generally not available in the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
13788 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 51 / Friday, March 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

State. The State, however, has no 

obligation to make an independent 

assessment of drug availability in the 

absence of such notification by a 

pharmacy. We believe that the vast 

majority of drugs of manufacturers that 

participate in the Medicaid program are 

generally available on a national basis. 

We believe that all or nearly all of the 

drugs are distributed by national 

wholesalers and are generally available 

in every State. This interim final rule 

will only apply in those rare cases in 

which a particular FDA-approved drug 

product is not available to the retail 

pharmacies in a particular State and, as 

a result, only one FDA-approved drug 

product is available to those 

pharmacies. In this circumstance, a 

State would need to verify the 

information received from its 

pharmacies that no equivalent drug is 

available. This would impose only a 

small burden on States. State systems 

are designed to allow for payment 

changes as a routine matter and to 

change the composition of the FUL 

groups or delete FUL groups. Since this 

regulation does not impose any 

significant costs on State or local 

governments, the requirements of E.O. 

13132 are not applicable. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Executive Order 12866, this regulation 

was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

List of Sections in 42 CFR Part 447 

Accounting, Administrative practice 

and procedure, Drugs, Grant programshealth, Health facilities, Health 

professions, Medicaid, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rural 

areas. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR 

chapter IV as set forth below: 

PART 447—PAYMENTS FOR 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 447 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1302). 

■ 2. Section 447.502 is amended by: 

■ A. Republishing the introductory text 

of the definition for ‘‘Multiple source 

drug’’; and 

■ B. Revising paragraph (3) of the 

definition for ‘‘Multiple Source Drug’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 447.502 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Multiple source drug means, with 

respect to a rebate period, a covered 

outpatient drug for which there is at 

least one other drug product which—

* * * * * 

(3) Is sold or marketed in the State 

during the rebate period as follows: 

(i) A covered outpatient drug is 

considered sold or marketed in a State 

if it appears in a published national 

listing of average wholesale prices, 

selected by the Secretary, provided the 

covered outpatient drug is generally 

available to the public through retail 

pharmacies in that State. 

(ii) A covered outpatient drug is not 

subject to the FUL for a rebate period if 

it is not a multiple source drug in the 

State for that rebate period. 

* * * * * 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance 

Program) 

Dated: February 21, 2008. 

Kerry Weems, 

Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

Approved: February 21, 2008. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 08–1022 Filed 3–10–08; 2:42 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 92 

[FWS–R7–MB–2007–0009; 91200–1231–

9BPP L2] 

RIN 1018–AV53 

Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest in 

Alaska; Harvest Regulations for 

Migratory Birds in Alaska During the 

2008 Season 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service or we) is publishing 

migratory bird subsistence harvest 

regulations in Alaska for the 2008 

season. This proposed rule establishes 

regulations that prescribe dates when 

harvesting of birds may occur, species 

that can be taken, and methods and 

means excluded from use. These 

regulations were developed under a Comanagement process involving the 

Service, the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, and Alaska Native 

representatives. These regulations 

enable the continuation of customary 

and traditional subsistence uses of 

migratory birds in Alaska. The 

rulemaking is necessary because the 

regulations governing the subsistence 

harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are 

subject to annual review. This 

rulemaking enacts region-specific 

regulations that go into effect on April 

2, 2008, and expire on August 31, 2008. 

DATES: The amendments to subpart C of 

50 CFR part 92 become effective April 

14, 2008. The amendments to subpart D 

of 50 CFR part 92 are effective April 2, 

2008, through August 31, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Armstrong, (907) 786–3887, or Donna 

Dewhurst, (907) 786–3499, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor 

Road, Mail Stop 201, Anchorage, AK 

99503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

How Do I Find the History of These 

Regulations? 

Background information, including 

past events leading to this action, 

accomplishments since the Migratory 

Bird Treaties with Canada and Mexico 

were amended, and a history addressing 

conservation issues can be found in the 

following Federal Register documents: 

Date Federal 

Register citation 

August 16, 2002 ................ 67 FR 53511. 

July 21, 2003 ..................... 68 FR 43010. 

April 2, 2004 ...................... 69 FR 17318. 

April 8, 2005 ...................... 70 FR 18244. 

February 28, 2006 ............. 71 FR 10404. 

April 11, 2007 .................... 72 FR 18318. 

These documents, which are all final 

rules setting forth the annual harvest 

regulations, are readily available at 

http://alaska.fws.gov/ambcc/ 

regulations.htm. 

Why Is This Current Rulemaking 

Necessary? 

This current rulemaking is necessary 

because, by law, the migratory bird 

harvest season is closed unless opened 

by the Secretary of the Interior, and the 

regulations governing subsistence 

harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are 

subject to public review and annual 

approval. The Alaska Migratory Bird Comanagement Council (Co-management 

Council) held a meeting in April 2007 

to develop recommendations for 

changes effective for the 2008 harvest 

season. These recommendations were 

presented to the Service Regulations 

Committee (SRC) on August 1 and 2, 

2007, and were approved. 

This rule finalizes regulations for the 

taking of migratory birds for subsistence 

uses in Alaska during 2008. This rule 

lists migratory bird species that are open 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES