Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45689 

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. You also 

may e-mail the comments to this 

address: Exsec@ios.goi.gov. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information other than 

those already approved under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) and assigned Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number 1018–0094. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, need not be prepared in 

connection with regulations adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rule is available upon request from 

the Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this document 

are Ms. Karen Marlowe, Pacific Islands 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and 

Jesse D’Elia, Pacific Regional Office, 

Portland, Oregon. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the 

entry for ‘‘Hawk, Hawaiian’’ under 

‘‘BIRDS’’ from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. 

Dated: July 14, 2008. 

H. Dale Hall, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–16858 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[FWS–R9–MB–2008–0090; 91200–1231–

9BPP–L2] 

RIN 1018–AW19 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Hunting 

Methods for Resident Canada Geese 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service or ‘‘we’’) proposes to 

amend the regulations on resident 

Canada goose management. This 

proposed rule clarifies the requirements 

for use of expanded hunting methods 

during special September hunting 

seasons. One requirement in the 

regulations has been misinterpreted, 

and we are taking this action to make 

sure that our regulations are clear for the 

States and the public. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by September 5, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposals by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: 1018–

XXXX; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

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 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
45690 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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. On August 

20, 2007, we published in the Federal 

Register (72 FR 46403), a final rule that 

clarified and slightly modified several 

program requirements in 50 CFR parts 

20 and 21 regarding eligibility, 

definitions, methodologies, and dates. 

This proposed rule further seeks to 

clarify the use of expanded hunting 

methods during special September 

hunting seasons. 

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, 2006, and August 20, 2007, final 

rules provide State wildlife management 

agencies and Tribal entities the option 

of authorizing the use of unplugged 

shotguns (paragraph (b)) and electronic 

calls (paragraph (g)) during the first 

portion of existing, operational 

September Canada goose seasons (i.e., 

September 1–15, § 20.21(b)(2)(i) and 

§ 20.21(g)(2)(i)). The final rules 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, § 20.21(b)(2)(ii) and 

§ 20.21(g)(2)(ii)) can be approved by the 

Service and require demonstration of a 

minimal impact to migrant Canada 

goose populations. Further, we will 

authorize these seasons (i.e., those after 

September 15) on a case-by-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 

are closed). Thus, any State listed in 

§ 20.21(b)(2) and (g)(2) may select the 

use of these expanded hunting methods 

during September 1–15 without annual 

Service approval, and during September 

16–30 with annual Service approval. 

This Proposed Rule 

We have become aware of concerns 

that, as written, the regulations in 

§ 20.21(b)(2) and (g)(2) do not require 

annual promulgation in the Federal 

Register of a State’s decision to use 

these expanded hunting methods during 

the period September 1–15. Language in 

§ 20.21(b)(2)(ii) and (g)(2)(ii) requires 

that any decision by the States to use 

these expanded hunting methods during 

the period of September 16–20 be 

incorporated in the annual migratory 

bird hunting regulations. The result is 

that the States are required to notify us 

of their decision. Because this same 

language does not appear in 

§ 20.21(b)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(i), the existing 

regulations could be interpreted as 

requiring notification by a State only for 

the period September 16–20 and not for 

the period September 1–15. We codify 

all the other season dates, daily bag 

limits, area restrictions, shooting hours, 

etc., annually in late August, so this 

interpretation of the regulations was 

clearly not our intention. 

Therefore, we propose to amend 

§ 20.21(b)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(i) by adding 

the phrase ‘‘when approved in the 

annual regulatory schedule in subpart K 

of this part’’ to expressly require States 

to inform us of their annual selections 

on the use of these expanded hunting 

methods during the period of September 

1–15. This is the same language that 

currently exists in § 20.21(b)(2)(ii) and 

(g)(2)(ii) that requires such notification 

by the States for the period September 

16–30. As a result of these proposed 

amendments, all State selections, or 

nonselections, of these expanded 

hunting methods during September 

would require publication in the annual 

regulatory schedule in subpart K of part 

20. 

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 a final 

regulation, 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. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 

address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We will not accept anonymous 

comments; your comment must include 

your first and last name, city, State, 

country, and postal (zip) code. Finally, 

we will not consider hand-delivered 

comments that we do not receive, or 

mailed comments that are not 

postmarked, by the date specified in the 

DATES section. 

We will post your entire comment—

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in 

addition to the required items specified 

in the previous paragraph, such as your 

street address, phone number, or e-mail 

address, you may request at the top of 

your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Room 4107, 4501 North 

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45691 

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 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(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. This proposed 

change falls within the scope of that 

informal consultation. 

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 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has reviewed this 

rule under Executive Order 12866. OMB 

bases its determination upon the 

following four criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

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 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 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
45692 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 Part 20 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, we hereby propose to amend 

part 20 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; Public 

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

16 U.S.C. 703. 

2. Revise paragraphs (b)(2) and (g)(2) 

of § 20.21 to read as follows: 

§ 20.21 What hunting methods are illegal? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(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, when approved in the 

annual regulatory schedule in subpart K 

of this part; 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) * * * 

(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, when approved in the 

annual regulatory schedule in subpart K 

of this part; and 

(ii) During the period of September 16 

to September 30, when approved in the 

annual regulatory schedule in subpart K 

of this part. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 23, 2008. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E8–18003 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS