Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the Regulations Governing Falconry and Raptor Propagation; Draft Environmental Assessment on Take of Raptors From the Wild for Falconry and Raptor Propagation, 35599-35600 [E6-9725]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
such a restriction. Based on the
Commission’s experience in
administering the designated entity
program and the record developed in
response to the FNPRM, the Second
FNPRM seeks further comment on those
issues, including comment to obtain
additional economic evidence regarding
how and under what circumstances an
entity’s size might affect its
relationships and agreements with
designated entity applicants and
licensees. The Second FNPRM also
seeks comment on whether the
Commission should adopt additional
rule changes that would restrict the
award of designated entity benefits
under certain circumstances and in
connection with relationships with
certain types of entities and individuals
with high personal net worth, including
whether and how in-region
relationships and personal net worth
should be considered in determining
eligibility for designated entity benefits.
The Second FNPRM seeks guidance
from the industry on how it should
define the elements of any restrictions it
might adopt regarding the award of
designated entity benefits. Small entity
comments are specifically requested.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
34. The Commission will not require
additional reporting, recordkeeping or
other compliance requirements
pursuant to the Second FNPRM.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Second FNPRM would be of general
applicability to all services, applying to
all entities of any size that apply to
participate in Commission auctions.
Accordingly, this IRFA provides a
general analysis of the impact of the
proposals on small businesses rather
than service by service analysis. The
number of entities that may apply to
participate in future Commission
auctions is unknown. The number of
small businesses that have participated
in prior auctions has varied. In all of our
auctions held to date, 1,975 out of a
total of 3,545 qualified bidders either
have claimed eligibility for small
business bidding credits or have selfreported their status as small businesses
as that term has been defined under
rules adopted by the Commission for
specific services. In addition, we note
that, as a general matter, the number of
winning bidders that qualify as small
businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the
number of small businesses currently in
service. Also, the Commission does not
generally track subsequent business size
unless, in the context of assignments or
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are
implicated.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
37. None.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
35. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule or any part thereof
for small entities.
36. The initial FNPRM in that
proceeding tentatively concluded that it
should restrict the award of designated
entity benefits to an otherwise qualified
applicant where it has a material
relationship with a large in-region
incumbent wireless service provider.
The Commission sought comment on
how it should define the elements of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Jun 20, 2006
Jkt 208001
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
38. The Second FNPRM may contain
proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The
Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens,
invites the general public and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to
comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this
document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13. Public and agency comments are
due August 21, 2006. Comments should
address: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Commission, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
Commission’s burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35599
specific comment on how it might
further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
V. Ordering Clauses
39. It is ordered that pursuant to
sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 154(i),
303(r), and 309(j), this Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making is
hereby adopted.
40. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rule Making, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and
procedure, Auctions, Licensing,
Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–9593 Filed 6–20–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Parts 21 and 22
RINs 1018–AG11 and 1018–AT60
Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the
Regulations Governing Falconry and
Raptor Propagation; Draft
Environmental Assessment on Take of
Raptors From the Wild for Falconry
and Raptor Propagation
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of a Draft Environmental
Assessment (DEA) evaluating the take of
raptors from the wild for use in falconry
and in raptor propagation. We have
prepared this DEA as part of the process
we must follow to finalize two rules
under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
DATES: Send comments on the DEA by
September 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may pick up a copy of
the DEA or hand-deliver your comments
to the Division of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
35600
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail
Stop 4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203–
1610. The DEA also is available on the
Division of Migratory Bird Management
Web pages at https://www.fws.gov/
migratorybirds/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
George T. Allen, Division of Migratory
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, at 703–358–1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have
prepared this DEA as part of the process
we must follow under the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) as we move toward
finalizing two proposed rules on
falconry and raptor propagation. We
published proposed falconry regulations
on February 9, 2005 (70 FR 6978), in
which we proposed numerous changes
governing the practice of falconry. We
published proposed raptor propagation
regulations on October 14, 2005 (70 FR
60052). We proposed few significant
changes to the falconry regulations, but
for both proposed rules we changed to
simpler language for the regulations. We
now make available our DEA on the
effects of take from the wild for these
two activities.
In the DEA, we considered three
alternatives for take of raptors from the
wild for use in falconry and in raptor
propagation. The first, the No Action
Alternative, would leave take regulated
as it is now; take limits for falconry
would not be established. Neither the
dual Federal/State permitting system for
falconry nor the permitting system for
raptor propagation would be changed.
Under Alternative 2, we would
establish upper limits on take of raptor
species based on the published data for,
and biology of, each species. We would
not change falconry or captive
propagation permitting; neither the dual
Federal/State permitting system for
falconry nor the permitting system for
raptor propagation would be changed.
Under this alternative, we would base
allowed take on published data and
evaluations of the effects of take for
falconry and raptor propagation. Harvest
of juvenile raptors would be limited to
levels that would not harm wild
populations.
Our preferred choice is Alternative 3.
Under this alternative, we would
establish upper limits on take of raptor
species based on the published data for,
and biology of, each species. We would
eliminate Federal permitting for
falconry, but would not change the
captive propagation regulations in a
manner that would impact take of
raptors from the wild. We would base
allowed take on published data and
evaluations of the effects of take for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Jun 20, 2006
Jkt 208001
falconry and raptor propagation. Harvest
of juvenile raptors would be limited to
levels that would not harm wild
populations. The Federal/State
permitting system for falconry would be
changed, with the responsibility for
falconry permitting resting with the
States, subject to the requirements of
revised falconry regulations. The
current permitting for raptor
propagation would be maintained.
Based on our modeling of raptor
populations using the best available
survival data, we have concluded that
the impact of any of these alternatives
on raptor populations would be
imperceptible. Our analyses indicate
that most raptor populations can sustain
significantly more take for falconry and
raptor propagation than will occur
under any reasonable take scenario.
Public Comments
We welcome comments on the DEA.
When submitting written comments,
please include your name and return
address in your letter and identify it as
comments on the DEA. To facilitate our
compilation of the Administrative
Record for this action, you must submit
written comments on 81⁄2 inch by 11
inch paper. Or, you may submit
comments electronically via the
Migratory Bird Management Web page
at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/,
where a link for comments will be
available. Please submit comments by
only one method, do not send duplicate
submissions. All comments received,
including any personal information
provided, will be available for public
inspection at the address given above
for hand delivery of comments. We will
not consider anonymous comments.
Dated: June 12, 2006.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E6–9725 Filed 6–20–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 060606151–6151–01; I.D.
051906A]
RIN 0648–AU33
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies
Fishery; Framework Adjustment 43
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to
implement Framework Adjustment 43
(Framework 43) to the NE Multispecies
Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which
was developed by the New England
Fishery Management Council (Council).
Framework 43 proposes measures to
address the incidental catch of NE
multispecies by vessels fishing for
Atlantic herring. The proposed
measures would establish a Herring
Exempted Fishery. Vessels issued a
Category 1 Atlantic herring fishing
permit (Category 1 vessels) would be
authorized to possess incidentally
caught haddock until the catch of
haddock reached the level specified as
an incidental haddock catch cap; upon
attainment of the haddock catch cap, all
herring vessels would be limited to
2,000 lb (907 kg) of herring per trip, if
any of the herring on board was caught
within the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank
(GOM/GB) Herring Exemption Area
defined in Framework 43. Herring
Category 1 vessels would also be
authorized to possess up to 100 pounds
(45 kg) of other regulated multispecies
(cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail
flounder, pollock, winter flounder,
windowpane flounder, redfish, and
white hake), and would be required to
provide advance notification of their
intent to land for purposes of
enforcement. Atlantic herring
processors and dealers that sort herring
catches as part of their operations would
be required to cull and report all
haddock.
DATES: Comments must be received by
July 6, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting
documents, including the
Environmental Assessment, Regulatory
Impact Review, Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA), and
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment are
available from Paul J. Howard,
Executive Director, New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via
the Internet at https://www.nero.gov.
Written comments on the proposed
rule may be sent by any of the following
methods: • Mail to Patricia A. Kurkul,
Regional Administrator, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, One
Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Mark the outside of the envelope
‘‘Comments on Herring Framework 43’’;
• Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul , 978–
281–9135;
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 21, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35599-35600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-9725]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Parts 21 and 22
RINs 1018-AG11 and 1018-AT60
Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the Regulations Governing
Falconry and Raptor Propagation; Draft Environmental Assessment on Take
of Raptors From the Wild for Falconry and Raptor Propagation
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) evaluating the
take of raptors from the wild for use in falconry and in raptor
propagation. We have prepared this DEA as part of the process we must
follow to finalize two rules under the National Environmental Policy
Act.
DATES: Send comments on the DEA by September 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may pick up a copy of the DEA or hand-deliver your
comments to the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
[[Page 35600]]
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop 4107, Arlington, Virginia
22203-1610. The DEA also is available on the Division of Migratory Bird
Management Web pages at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George T. Allen, Division of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at 703-358-
1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have prepared this DEA as part of the
process we must follow under the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) as we move toward finalizing two proposed rules on
falconry and raptor propagation. We published proposed falconry
regulations on February 9, 2005 (70 FR 6978), in which we proposed
numerous changes governing the practice of falconry. We published
proposed raptor propagation regulations on October 14, 2005 (70 FR
60052). We proposed few significant changes to the falconry
regulations, but for both proposed rules we changed to simpler language
for the regulations. We now make available our DEA on the effects of
take from the wild for these two activities.
In the DEA, we considered three alternatives for take of raptors
from the wild for use in falconry and in raptor propagation. The first,
the No Action Alternative, would leave take regulated as it is now;
take limits for falconry would not be established. Neither the dual
Federal/State permitting system for falconry nor the permitting system
for raptor propagation would be changed.
Under Alternative 2, we would establish upper limits on take of
raptor species based on the published data for, and biology of, each
species. We would not change falconry or captive propagation
permitting; neither the dual Federal/State permitting system for
falconry nor the permitting system for raptor propagation would be
changed. Under this alternative, we would base allowed take on
published data and evaluations of the effects of take for falconry and
raptor propagation. Harvest of juvenile raptors would be limited to
levels that would not harm wild populations.
Our preferred choice is Alternative 3. Under this alternative, we
would establish upper limits on take of raptor species based on the
published data for, and biology of, each species. We would eliminate
Federal permitting for falconry, but would not change the captive
propagation regulations in a manner that would impact take of raptors
from the wild. We would base allowed take on published data and
evaluations of the effects of take for falconry and raptor propagation.
Harvest of juvenile raptors would be limited to levels that would not
harm wild populations. The Federal/State permitting system for falconry
would be changed, with the responsibility for falconry permitting
resting with the States, subject to the requirements of revised
falconry regulations. The current permitting for raptor propagation
would be maintained.
Based on our modeling of raptor populations using the best
available survival data, we have concluded that the impact of any of
these alternatives on raptor populations would be imperceptible. Our
analyses indicate that most raptor populations can sustain
significantly more take for falconry and raptor propagation than will
occur under any reasonable take scenario.
Public Comments
We welcome comments on the DEA. When submitting written comments,
please include your name and return address in your letter and identify
it as comments on the DEA. To facilitate our compilation of the
Administrative Record for this action, you must submit written comments
on 8\1/2\ inch by 11 inch paper. Or, you may submit comments
electronically via the Migratory Bird Management Web page at https://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/, where a link for comments will be
available. Please submit comments by only one method, do not send
duplicate submissions. All comments received, including any personal
information provided, will be available for public inspection at the
address given above for hand delivery of comments. We will not consider
anonymous comments.
Dated: June 12, 2006.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E6-9725 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
