Rules and Regulations. Final and temporary regulations
37,996 words·~173 min read·
/register/2006/08/17/06-7026A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-C DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 602 [TD 9281] RIN 1545-BF70 Determination of Interest Expense Deduction of Foreign Corporations AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Final and temporary regulations. SUMMARY: This document contains revised Income Tax Regulations relating to the determination of the interest expense deduction of foreign corporations and applies to foreign corporations engaged in a trade or business within the United States.
This action is necessary to conform the rules to subsequent U.S. Income Tax Treaty agreements and to adopt changes to facilitate improved administrability for taxpayers and the IRS. DATES: *Effective Date:* These regulations are effective starting the tax year end for which the original tax return due date (including extensions) is after August 17, 2006. *Applicability Date:* These regulations are applicable starting the tax year end for which the original tax return due date (including extensions) is after August 17, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Spring or Paul Epstein,
(202)622-3870 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act These temporary regulations are being issued without prior notice and public procedure pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). For this reason, the collection of information contained in these regulations has been reviewed and pending receipt and evaluation of public comments, approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-2030. Responses to this collection of information are mandatory. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number. For further information concerning these collections of information, and where to submit comments on the collection of information and the accuracy of the estimated burden, and suggestions for reducing this burden, please refer to the preamble of the cross-referencing notice of proposed rulemaking published in this issue of the **Federal Register** . Books and records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Background On December 30, 1980, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final regulations TD 7749 [46 FR 16100 (1981-1 CB 390) (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter)] under section 882(c) of the Internal Revenue Code
(Code)regarding the determination of a foreign corporation's interest expense allocable to income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States. On March 8, 1996, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final regulations TD 8658 [61 FR 15891 (1996-1 CB 161) (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter)], and new proposed amendments INTL-0054-95 [61 FR 28118 (1996-1 CB 844) (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter)]. The 1996 amendments implemented certain statutory changes enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514 (100 Stat. 2085), and took account of developments in international financial markets. Comments were received on both the final and proposed 1996 regulations. Since then, two new U.S. income tax treaties have entered into force that follow a different approach for determining the limit on profits attributable to a permanent establishment in a contracting state and for determining interest expense allowed in computing such profits. On July 14, 2005, the Treasury Department and the IRS published Notice 2005-53 (2005-32 IRB 32, see § 601.601(d)(2)), which described those new treaties and announced the intention to update the final § 1.882-5 regulations to take account of changes in the international banking sector and to promote both ease of administration and certainty of application. These temporary regulations in this document implement Notice 2005-53, make effective one part of the 1996 proposed regulations, make miscellaneous clarifications to the 1996 final regulations, and modify the branch profits tax liability reduction regulations under § 1.884-1(e)(3). Explanation of Provisions The following discussion is divided into several parts. Section 1 of the following discussion summarizes Notice 2005-53. Section 2 addresses the coordination of § 1.882-5 with U.S. tax treaties and discusses other modifications made by these temporary regulations to the three-step calculation of interest expense under § 1.882-5. Section 3 addresses changes made to the branch profits tax regulations under section 884. Section 4 then addresses miscellaneous technical modifications made by these temporary regulations that clarify application of the existing final regulations. Section 5 describes the effective date of these regulations. 1. Notice 2005-53 Notice 2005-53 provided guidance regarding the interaction of § 1.882-5 and U.S. income tax treaties and explained that since the recent treaties with the United Kingdom and Japan entered into force, § 1.882-5 no longer provides the exclusive rules for determining the interest expense attributable to the business profits of a U.S. permanent establishment. The Notice also provided guidance and requested comments regarding certain potential modifications to certain elements of the three-step calculation of interest expense under § 1.882-5. More specifically, the Notice requested information regarding a possible increase to the existing 93-percent fixed ratio in Step 2 of the calculation and announced the intention to allow the use of a safe-harbor interest rate for determining excess interest under the “adjusted U.S.-booked liabilities” method in Step 3. The Notice also requested comments regarding the effect of intangibles on the Step-1 determination of U.S. assets under the elective fair market value method and the Step-2 determination of U.S. liabilities using the fixed or actual ratio. 2. Modifications to Three-Step Calculation Under § 1.882-5 a. Introduction/Background Section 1.882-5 generally requires a foreign corporation to use a three-step calculation to determine the amount of interest expense that is allocable under section 882(c) to income effectively connected (or treated as effectively connected) with the foreign corporation's conduct of a trade or business within the United States. Step 1 determines the total value of a foreign corporation's U.S. assets, which generally are the assets that produce (or would produce) income effectively connected with the foreign corporation's conduct of its U.S. trade or business. The value of the U.S. assets for this purpose is their adjusted basis, or, if the taxpayer makes an election, their fair market value. Step 2 determines the “U.S.-connected liabilities” of a foreign corporation as the product of the foreign corporation's U.S. assets multiplied either by the actual ratio of the foreign corporation's worldwide liabilities to worldwide assets, or by a fixed ratio. In the case of a bank, the fixed ratio is 93 percent. If a taxpayer elects to value its assets at fair market value for purposes of Step 1, then the taxpayer must value worldwide assets at fair market value for purposes of Step 2, as well. Step 3 determines the allocable amount of interest expense under either the adjusted U.S.-booked liabilities (AUSBL) method or the separate currency pools method. Under the AUSBL method, a foreign bank's interest expense allocable to effectively connected income is determined by comparing “U.S.-booked liabilities” with U.S.-connected liabilities and making appropriate adjustments as necessary. For this purpose, U.S.-booked liabilities generally include liabilities that are both entered on books relating to an activity that produces effectively connected income before the close of the day on which the liability is incurred and are directly connected to that activity. In consequence, U.S.-booked liabilities are not limited to liabilities reflected on books within the United States. If a taxpayer's U.S.-booked liabilities exceed its U.S.-connected liabilities, then its U.S-booked interest expense is proportionately disallowed under a “scale down” ratio. If a taxpayer's U.S.-connected liabilities exceed its U.S.-booked liabilities, then interest expense in addition to the U.S.-booked interest expense is allocated in an amount equal to the product of the excess U.S.-connected liabilities multiplied by the borrowing rate on U.S.-dollar liabilities that are not U.S.-booked liabilities. Under the separate currency pools method, a foreign corporation's interest expense allocable to income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States is the sum of the separate interest deductions for each of the currencies in which the foreign corporation has U.S. assets. The separate interest deductions generally are determined using a three-step calculation that multiplies the worldwide borrowing rate by the U.S.-connected liabilities relevant to U.S. assets denominated in each foreign currency. Elections under § 1.882-5T, as under the 1996 final regulations, generally are binding for a minimum of five years unless specifically provided otherwise. For example, consistent with the binding nature of a domestic corporation's fair market value election under section 861, a fair market value election under § 1.882-5T may be changed only with consent of the Commissioner. b. Treaty Coordination—Modification of § 1.882-5 Exclusivity Rule The preamble to the 1996 final regulations states that § 1.882-5 was fully consistent with all of the United States' then-existing treaty obligations, including Business Profits articles, and the 1996 final regulations state that § 1.882-5 provides the exclusive rules for determining the interest expense attributable to the business profits of a U.S. permanent establishment under a U.S. income tax treaty. However, the Treasury Department Technical Explanation to Article 7 of the United States-United Kingdom income tax treaty which entered into force on March 31, 2003, and the Treasury Department Technical Explanation to Article 7 of the United States-Japan income tax treaty which entered into force on March 30, 2004, note that § 1.882-5 may produce an inappropriate result in some cases. As a result, the implementing documentation of these treaties provides that the 1995 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
(OECD)Transfer Pricing Guidelines will apply by analogy for the purpose of determining the business profits attributable to a permanent establishment. Thus, as noted in Notice 2005-53, the exclusivity provision in the 1996 final regulations is no longer accurate. These temporary regulations modify the exclusivity provision by recognizing that express provision may be made by or pursuant to an income tax treaty or accompanying documents (such as exchange of notes) that alternative principles will apply by analogy to determine the business profits attributable to a permanent establishment. Such treaty provisions may be used to determine the limit on the business profits attributable to a U.S. permanent establishment, but taxpayers remain eligible to use § 1.882-5, as explained in the Treasury Department Technical Explanations to Article 7(3) of the United States-United Kingdom and United States-Japan income tax treaties. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that these treaties and agreements provide that a taxpayer must apply either the domestic law or the alternative rules expressly provided in the treaty in their entirety, in accordance with the consistency principle articulated in Rev. Rul. 84-17 [(1984-1 CB 308) (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter)] and described in the Treasury Department Technical Explanation to Article 1(2) of the United States-United Kingdom and United States-Japan income tax treaties. The Treasury Department and the IRS are continuing to consider the specific application of this consistency principle including the application of § 1.882-5, the interaction of § 1.882-5 with other U.S. income tax treaties (particularly those being renegotiated in whole or in part), and the application of the branch profits tax under alternative rules for determining interest expense attributable to business profits. c. Modifications to Step One Consistency Requirement for Fair Market Value Election Under the 1996 final regulations, a taxpayer that uses the fair market value method for Step 1 must also use the fair market value method for Step 2. Notice 2005-53 clarified that this consistency rule applies only when the taxpayer has elected to use the actual ratio in Step 2, because assets are not valued when the fixed ratio is used. Accordingly, under the final regulations, electing the fair market value method under Step 1 does not obligate a taxpayer to elect the actual ratio under Step 2. Notice 2005-53 also stated that the prevalence and significance of intangibles in the banking industry warrants reevaluating the right to elect both the fair market value method in Step 1 and the fixed ratio in Step 2. The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that applying the fixed ratio to intangibles when a Step 1 fair market value election is in place would have the effect of treating existing intangibles as highly leveraged assets when in fact such items often are more properly reflected in the taxpayer's equity accounts under U.S. tax principles. Comments were requested. The single comment received in response to this request stated that distortions could result either by failing to take the value of intangibles into account when revising the fixed ratio for banks or by applying the fixed ratio to directly purchased intangibles that are valued at tax basis. As further discussed in this section in connection with modifications to Step 2, these temporary regulations adopt a fixed ratio that is believed to represent an approximation of current average banking-industry balance-sheet ratios estimated under U.S. tax principles. Following due consideration of the comment, these temporary regulations require that the fair market value method may be elected in Step 1 only if a taxpayer is eligible to elect and in fact uses the actual ratio in Step 2. The consistency rule continues to require that the fair market value method, once elected, must be used in both Step 1 and Step 2. This consistency rule applies to all foreign corporations that are subject to § 1.882-5. Conforming-Election Requirement A taxpayer that has both a valid fair market value method election for Step 1 and a valid fixed ratio method election for Step 2 in effect on the date these temporary regulations are effective must conform those elections to the new rules. Accordingly, such a taxpayer either may maintain the fixed ratio method for Step 2 and elect the adjusted basis method for Step 1, or may maintain the fair market value method for Step 1 and elect the actual ratio method for Step 2. Such conforming elections must be made for the first year these temporary regulations are effective, on either an original timely filed return (including extensions) or an amended return within 180 days after the extended due date. If a conforming election is not made by the extended due date for filing the amended return, the Director of Field Operations may make a binding conforming election on the taxpayer's behalf. Conforming elections are subject to the minimum five-year period applicable to the adjusted basis method, fixed ratio and actual ratio method elections. Elections with respect to Step 1 and Step 2, whether made by the taxpayer (either under the terms of the regulations or pursuant to the Commissioner's grant of consent within what would otherwise be a five-year minimum period) or imposed by the Commissioner, are separate. Thus, for example, the Commissioner may consent to a taxpayer's request to move from the fair market value method to the adjusted basis method for Step 1 without granting consent to move from the actual ratio method to the fixed ratio method for Step 2. Average Value of Securities Subject to Section 475 or Section 1256 The 1996 proposed regulations provide that financial instruments that are subject to mark-to-market valuation under section 475 or section 1256 must be valued for purposes of § 1.882-5 on each “determination date” (as defined) within the taxable year. Taxpayers generally assess funding needs throughout the year, and this rule is intended to reflect such assessments more accurately than a single year-end valuation would do. These temporary regulations adopt this rule from the 1996 proposed regulations. The rule applies solely to determine the average values of relevant assets for purposes of computing the average valuation of U.S. assets in Step 1 of the formula. The rule does not determine the actual tax basis of an asset for any other purpose. “Determination dates” for purposes of the rule are defined as the most frequent regular intervals for which data are reasonably available. These temporary regulations provide that a taxpayer that has elected the actual ratio in Step 2 must also take interim mark-to-market values into account using the most frequently available data but in no event less frequently than actual-ratio taxpayers are required to do. d. Modifications to Step Two New Fixed Ratio The 1996 final regulations revised the fixed ratio for banks downward to 93 percent. Since then, foreign bank taxpayers have commented that 93 percent is not representative of regulated banking industry capital structures. Foreign bank taxpayers also have commented that use of the actual ratio in Step 2 presents the potential for significant tax risk and uncertainty of results, particularly when adjusting their books to conform to U.S. tax principles. It appears that many foreign banks have adopted the 93-percent fixed ratio despite indications that many operate on a smaller equity capital structure. Notice 2005-53 indicated that the Treasury Department and the IRS were considering increasing the fixed ratio. In order to improve administration by aligning the fixed ratio more closely with an approximation of current average banking industry balance sheet ratios estimated under U.S. tax principles, these temporary regulations revise the fixed ratio for foreign banks upward to 95 percent. The new fixed ratio may be adopted by foreign banks for the first year in which the original tax return due date (including extensions) is after August 17, 2006, or for any subsequent year. The ratio may be adopted, for example, for the 2005 calendar year even if the original return was filed before these regulations were published. Taxpayers that want to try to support any further revision to the fixed ratio would have to submit detailed, specific, compelling evidence to that effect. Branch Profits Tax Consequences of Fixed-Ratio Election Use of the new 95-percent fixed ratio in Step 2 conceivably could give rise to branch profits tax consequences. For example, a taxpayer that elects the new fixed ratio and that had been using either the 93-percent fixed ratio or an actual ratio that is less than 95 percent could be viewed under the branch profits tax rules as having experienced a decrease in net equity, thus giving rise to a dividend equivalent amount. One comment received in response to Notice 2005-53 requested that regulations implementing the notice provide special immunity from branch profits tax consequences except to the extent that a taxpayer benefited from the 1996 reduction of the fixed ratio from 95 percent to 93 percent. Such consequences under the branch profits tax rules should arise only to the extent a taxpayer uses a 95-percent ratio that is substantially higher than the ratio used in the prior year, and the taxpayer's asset base has not increased sufficiently in the ordinary course of business to cause current and accumulated effectively connected earnings and profits to be treated as reinvested. The 1996 final regulations identify the actual ratio as the preferred method, and taxpayers have always been entitled to elect their actual ratio. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that granting the commenter's request is unnecessary and in some cases could produce an inappropriate windfall. In addition, considerable administrative difficulties would complicate efforts to identify and recapture prior tax benefits that may have resulted from the increase in net equity when the fixed ratio was reduced in the 1996 final regulations and to track the deferred component of the computation through the intervening years up to and including the effective date of the new fixed ratio. Further, a special rule of the type requested is inconsistent with the expectation of reduced effectively connected income through increased interest expense allocations that result from the higher ratio. Finally, any branch profits tax consequences of a new fixed-ratio election may be mitigated by applicable tax treaties and by the expanded availability of the liability-reduction election under section 884, as further discussed in Section 3. Accordingly, the comment is not adopted. Elections Taxpayers that currently have elected the fixed ratio for Step 2 may use the revised 95-percent ratio for the first tax year for which the original tax return due date (including extensions) is after August 17, 2006. Remaining on the fixed ratio does not constitute the election of a new five-year minimum period. For example, a taxpayer that used the 93-percent fixed ratio for three years preceding the publication of these regulations and used the 95-percent fixed ratio for three more years would be entitled to elect the actual ratio method in the following year. Foreign bank taxpayers that currently use the actual ratio for Step 2 may make a binding five-year election to use the new 95-percent fixed ratio for the first year this amendment is effective, on either an original return or on an amended return filed within 180 days of the extended due date. An amended return election may not be made for any year where the extended due date for a timely filing is after December 31, 2006. If a fixed-ratio election is not made for the first year these regulations are effective, a taxpayer using the actual ratio may make the fixed-ratio election in any subsequent year, but only on a timely filed return. Eligibility Under the 1996 final regulations, the 93-percent fixed ratio is available to foreign banks, which are defined for this purpose as banks within the meaning of section 585(a)(2)(B), without regard to the second sentence thereof. This definition excludes foreign banking corporations that are not engaged in a banking business within the United States. This has the effect of excluding a foreign corporation that is engaged in the banking business outside the United States but terminates its U.S. banking licenses and continues to engage in a nonregulated trade or business within the United States. The Treasury Department and the IRS intend that a taxpayer that meets the requirements of section 581 when considered on a worldwide basis should be eligible to elect the fixed ratio applicable to banks under § 1.882-5 without regard to whether it remains engaged in a banking business within the United States. Therefore, a taxpayer that is regulated as a bank in its home country, takes deposits, and makes loans as a substantial part of its business outside the United States will be eligible to elect the 95-percent fixed ratio. e. Modifications to Step Three Excess Interest A foreign bank that uses the AUSBL method to determine its allocable interest expense may be required to allocate interest expense in addition to its U.S.-booked interest expense if U.S.-connected liabilities exceed U.S.-booked liabilities. The 1996 final regulations provide that the interest rate required to be applied to excess U.S.-connected liabilities is generally the foreign bank's average U.S.-dollar borrowing rate outside the United States. This rule was a change from the 1981 regulations, which had allowed taxpayers to use published rates under certain conditions. Taxpayers have commented informally that using actual non-U.S. dollar borrowing costs in all circumstances imposes significant administrative burdens. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that the use of published data rather than the actual borrowing rate requirement would simplify administration of the excess-interest computation both for taxpayers and for the IRS. Notice 2005-53 announced the intention to permit the use of the published 30-day average London Interbank Offering Rate (LIBOR) for tax years beginning after the date the Notice was published. In response to Notice 2005-53, two comments were received. One comment stated that the proposal to use published 30-day LIBOR rates would make sense if it has been difficult for banks to calculate their actual rate of interest and that consideration might be given to making such a rule available for prior years. The other comment stated that a small sample of available information suggested that the 90-day LIBOR rate rather than the 30-day rate may be more representative of the sampled banks and suggested that the IRS review tax returns with excess interest. IRS experience in actual cases involving excess interest supports the adoption of a 30-day LIBOR rate rather than a 90-day LIBOR rate. In view of IRS experience and the absence of contrary data, these temporary regulations allow an annual binding election to use a published 30-day average LIBOR rate beginning with the first tax year in which an original tax return is due (including extensions) after August 17, 2006. Taxpayers may continue to use their actual U.S.-dollar borrowing rate in lieu of the 30-day LIBOR rate. Relevant Excess U.S.-connected Liabilities These temporary and proposed regulations provide that the determination of the actual U.S.-dollar borrowing rate applicable to excess U.S.-connected liabilities is made with regard only to U.S.-dollar liabilities that are booked outside the United States and that do not constitute U.S.-booked liabilities as defined. The rate applicable to excess U.S.-connected liabilities is intended to reflect the rate applicable to relevant borrowings and book interest expense that has not otherwise been allocated. Because interest with respect to U.S.-booked liabilities is allocable under Step 3 of the AUSBL method, including such interest expense in the determination of the rate applicable to excess U.S.-connected liabilities could distort the calculation. Elections The 30-day LIBOR election may be adopted on a year-to-year basis. For the first tax year in which the original tax-return due date (including extensions) is after August 17, 2006 and not later than December 31, 2006, taxpayers may make the 30-day LIBOR election on an original return, or on an amended return within 180 days of the original extended due date. For subsequent years, the election must be made on an original tax return timely filed (including extensions). The election is made by attaching a statement to the return identifying the three-steps of the AUSBL calculation and the published rate used. An election to use a 30-day LIBOR rate is binding for such taxable year and may not be changed on an amended return for any year. Accordingly, a taxpayer is bound by the published rate used on its original return. If a taxpayer does not timely file an income tax return, then the opportunity to make a timely 30-day LIBOR election will be forfeited for the tax year. Consistent with the general rules for untimely elections, in such circumstances, the Director of Field Operations may require a taxpayer to use the actual U.S.-dollar borrowing rate or apply a published 30-day LIBOR rate for the year. 3. Liability Reduction Election Under Branch Profits Tax In general, the branch profits tax is imposed under section 884(a) in addition to the corporate income tax under section 882 and applies only to amounts that are treated as repatriated from the branch. These amounts are determined by reference to a foreign corporation's effectively connected earnings and profits for a year and accumulated effectively connected earnings and profits, adjusted upward to reflect decreases in U.S. net equity and adjusted downward to reflect increases in U.S. net equity. Adjustments to net equity generally are made by comparing U.S. net equity at the end of a taxable year to U.S. net equity at the beginning of a taxable year. The branch profits tax rules impute equity capital to a branch according to a formula that treats a portion of reinvested amounts as having been funded by indebtedness. This generally reduces U.S. net equity and so gives rise to a dividend equivalent amount. Regulations provide that a taxpayer may elect to treat reinvested earnings as equity capital (rather than as debt-funded capital) by reducing U.S. liabilities as of the determination date. The amount of liabilities eligible for reduction under this election is limited to the excess of U.S. liabilities (which is generally based on U.S.-connected liabilities, as defined under § 1.882-5) over U.S.-booked liabilities (as defined under § 1.882-5) as of the determination date. An election to reduce liabilities under § 1.884-1 also reduces the interest deduction available under § 1.882-5. Taxpayers have expressed uncertainty regarding the policy served by setting U.S.-booked liabilities as a floor for liability reduction and have requested greater latitude to treat earnings as reinvested. For example, taxpayers have noted that the amount of U.S.-booked liabilities is not relevant to the § 1.882-5 allocation under the separate currency pools method. They have noted also that the amount of U.S.-booked liabilities taken into account under the AUSBL method is an average balance for the year that may differ significantly from a year-end balance. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that it is desirable to more nearly align the branch profits tax treatment of distributed earnings with the tax treatment of a subsidiary's distributed earnings while retaining integration with the interest allocation rules provided in § 1.882-5. In view of taxpayer comments, these temporary regulations permit a taxpayer to reduce U.S. liabilities to the extent necessary to prevent recognition of a dividend equivalent amount. However, this election may not reduce U.S. liabilities below zero. The other liability-reduction rules of § 1.884-1(e)(3) continue to apply in their entirety. An example in the final regulations is amended in the temporary regulations to reflect the new limitation rule. The new liability reduction election is effective for the first year for which the original tax return due date (including extensions) is after August 17, 2006. For tax years for which the first original tax return due date (including extensions) is not later than December 31, 2006, a liability reduction election may be made on an amended return within 180 days after the original extended due date for filing the original return. 4. Clarifications of 1996 Final Regulations Questions have arisen regarding the application of certain rules contained in the 1996 final regulations. These temporary regulations clarify the application of the 1996 final regulations with respect to certain direct interest allocations, certain requirements applicable to elections generally under § 1.882-5, the definition of *U.S.-booked liability* , and the treatment of certain currency gain and loss for purposes of § 1.882-5. a. Direct Interest Allocations The direct interest allocation rules under § 1.882-5 provide generally that a foreign taxpayer with both a U.S. asset and indebtedness that meet the requirements of both § 1.861-10T(b) and
(c)may treat the asset and the indebtedness as an integrated financial transaction and so may allocate interest expense with respect to the indebtedness directly to income from the asset. In general, § 1.861-10T(b) provides rules for certain nonrecourse indebtedness, and § 1.861-10T(c) provides rules for certain integrated financial transactions. Financial institutions may allocate interest directly only to the extent provided by the nonrecourse indebtedness rules. These temporary regulations clarify that a financial institution is not disqualified from direct allocation treatment by satisfying only the rules provided in § 1.861-10T(b) with respect to particular nonrecourse indebtedness transactions. These temporary regulations also clarify that direct allocation is mandatory for eligible taxpayers if the requirements of either § 1.861-10T(b) or
(c)are satisfied. b. General Election Requirements The 1996 final regulations specify the time, place, and manner for making elections under each step of the formula. These temporary regulations clarify that a taxpayer eligible to change an election as of right after the minimum five-year period may do so only on an original timely filed return. These temporary regulations also clarify that the election procedures prohibit relief under § 301.9100 for future elections as well as the elections in the first year a taxpayer is subject to the rules. These temporary regulations also clarify that after the minimum five-year period, a taxpayer may change an election on a timely filed return for any subsequent year. For example, leaving an election in place in the sixth year after the election was made does not constitute a new election subject to a new 5-year minimum period. The general election provision is updated to provide expressly that the elections to use the fair market value method election and the 30-day LIBOR rate election are subject to their own specific period requirements instead of the five-year minimum period. c. U.S.-Booked Liabilities The definition of *U.S.-booked liability* has changed over time. The 1981 final regulations defined U.S.-booked liabilities to include only liabilities shown on the books and records of the U.S. trade or business. This definition excluded assets that produced effectively connected income but were booked and maintained in a foreign branch. The 1996 final regulations modified the definition to include generally, for non banks, liabilities that are recorded reasonably contemporaneously with their acquisition on a set of books that has a direct relationship to an activity that gives rise to effectively connected income. For banks, liabilities generally must be recorded contemporaneously with their acquisition. These rules do not require tracing of specific borrowings to specific effectively connected uses. Whether there is a direct connection between the liability and an activity that produces effectively connected income is determined under all the facts and circumstances. These temporary regulations amend the definition of U.S.-booked liability and provide an example to clarify that in the case of a bank, the liability must be recorded on a set of books before the end of the day on which it is incurred, and the liability relates to an activity that produces effectively connected income. The reasonably contemporaneous booking rule is retained for non banks and the language clarified to reassert that the liability must relate to an activity that produces effectively connected income. d. Currency Gain and Loss A foreign bank's U.S. branch commonly books third-party liabilities denominated in non-dollar currencies and uses the proceeds to make interbranch loans. Because interbranch transactions generally are not recognized for U.S. tax purposes, the third-party liability is treated as unhedged. As noted in the preamble to the 1996 final regulations, foreign currency gain or loss from an unhedged liability remains subject to the rules of section 988. As a result, the U.S. branch may have currency gain or loss with respect to the third-party borrowing but may not be entitled to recognize currency gain or loss with respect to the offsetting interbranch transaction. In addition, any scaling down of interest expense that might otherwise be required under the AUSBL method does not apply to foreign currency gain or loss. Some taxpayers have suggested informally that, despite the absence of a general tracing principle in the interest allocation rules, currency gain and loss from such third-party liabilities should be traceable to currency gains and losses with respect to specific interbranch and noneffectively connected assets. The Treasury Department and the IRS solicit comments regarding the allocation, sourcing, and apportionment of currency gain or loss from unhedged third-party borrowings between effectively connected and non-effectively connected income. Comments are specifically requested regarding the viability of a tracing principle for this purpose and the extent to which current booking practices may provide an administrable basis for such rules in accordance with existing authority. 5. Effective Date The temporary regulations are applicable for the first tax year end for which the original tax return due date (including extensions) is after August 17, 2006. Accordingly, for calendar-year taxpayers, the applicability date is for the tax year ended December 31, 2005. The rules provide an additional 180 days to make certain one-time special elections on an amended return for tax years for which the original tax return due date is not later than December 31, 2006. Special Analyses It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) please refer to the cross reference notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** . Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Drafting Information The principal authors of these regulations are Paul S. Epstein and Gregory A. Spring of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). List of Subjects 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 26 CFR Part 602 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602 are amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *. Section 1.882-5 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 882, 26 U.S.C. 864(e), 26 U.S.C. 988(d), and 26 U.S.C. 7701(l). * * * Section 1.884-1 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 884. * * * **Par. 2.** Section 1.882-0 is amended by: 1. Revising the entries for § 1.882-5(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(ii)(A), (a)(1)(ii)(B), (a)(2), (a)(7), (a)(7)(i), (a)(7)(ii), (b)(2)(ii)(A), (b)(3), (c)(2)(iv), (c)(4), (d)(2)(iii)(A), and (d)(5)(ii). 2. Removing the entry for § 1.882-5(b)(2)(iv). 3. Adding entries for § 1.882-5T. The revisions and additions read as follows: § 1.882-0 Table of contents. § 1.882-5 Determination of interest deduction. (a)(1) through (a)(2) [Reserved]. (a)(7) through (a)(7)(ii) [Reserved]. (b)(2)(ii)(A) [Reserved]. (b)(3) [Reserved]. (c)(2)(iv) [Reserved]. (c)(4) [Reserved]. (d)(2)(iii)(A) [Reserved]. (d)(5)(ii) [Reserved]. § 1.882-5T Determination of interest deduction (temporary).
(a)[Reserved].
(1)Overview.
(i)In general.
(ii)Direct allocations.
(A)In general.
(B)Partnership interests
(2)Coordination with tax treaties.
(3)through
(6)[Reserved].
(7)Elections under § 1.882-5.
(i)In general.
(ii)Failure to make the proper election.
(iii)Step 2 special election for banks.
(8)through (b)(2)(ii) [Reserved].
(A)In general. (b)(2)(ii)(B) through (b)(2)(iii)(B) [Reserved].
(3)Computation of total value of U.S. assets.
(i)General rule.
(ii)Adjustment to basis of financial instruments.
(c)through (c)(2)(iii) [Reserved].
(iv)Determination of value of worldwide assets. (c)(2)(v) through (c)(3) [Reserved].
(4)Elective fixed ratio method of determining U.S. liabilities. (c)(5) through (d)(2)(iii) [Reserved].
(A)In general.
(B)through (d)(5)(i) [Reserved].
(ii)Interest rate on excess U.S.-connected liabilities.
(A)General rule.
(B)Annual published rate election.
(6)through (f)(2) [Reserved]. **Par. 3.** Section 1.882-5 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(2), (a)(7) through (a)(7)(ii), (b)(2)(ii)(A), (b)(3), (c)(2)(iv), (c)(4), (d)(2)(ii)(A)( *2* ), (d)(2)(ii)(A)( *3* ), (d)(2)(iii)(A), and (d)(5)(ii). 2. Removing paragraph (b)(2)(iv). 3. Adding paragraph (d)(6) *Example 5.* The revisions and additions read as follows: § 1.882-5 Determination of interest deduction. (a)(1) through (a)(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see entry in § 1.882-5T(a)(1) through (a)(2). (a)(7) through (a)(7)(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5T(a)(7) through (a)(7)(ii). (b)(2)(ii)(A) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5T(b)(2)(ii)(A). (b)(3) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5T(b)(3). (c)(2)(iv) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5T(c)(2)(iv). (c)(4) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5T(c)(4). (d)(2)(ii)(A)( *2* ) through ( *3* ) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5T(d)(2)(ii)(A)( *2* ) through ( *3* ). (d)(2)(iii)(A) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5T(d)(2)(iii)(A). (d)(5)(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5T(d)(5)(ii). (d)(6) *Example 5* [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5T(d)(6) *Example 5.* **Par. 4.** Section 1.882-5T is added to read as follows: § 1.882-5T Determination of interest deduction (temporary).
(a)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5(a).
(1)*Overview* —(i) *In general.* The amount of interest expense of a foreign corporation that is allocable under section 882(c) to income which is (or is treated as) effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States
(ECI)is the sum of the interest allocable by the foreign corporation under the three-step process set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d)of this section and the specially allocated interest expense determined under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. The provisions of this section provide the exclusive rules for allocating interest expense to the ECI of a foreign corporation under section 882(c). Under the three-step process, the total value of the U.S. assets of a foreign corporation is first determined under paragraph
(b)of this section (Step 1). Next, the amount of U.S.-connected liabilities is determined under paragraph
(c)of this section (Step 2). Finally, the amount of interest paid or accrued on U.S.-booked liabilities, as determined under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, is adjusted for interest expense attributable to the difference between U.S.-connected liabilities and U.S.-booked liabilities (Step 3). Alternatively, a foreign corporation may elect to determine its interest rate on U.S.-connected liabilities by reference to its U.S. assets, using the separate currency pools method described in paragraph
(e)of this section.
(ii)*Direct allocations* —(A) *In general.* A foreign corporation that has a U.S. asset and indebtedness that meet the requirements of § 1.861-10T(b) or (c), as limited by § 1.861-10T(d)(1), shall directly allocate interest expense from such indebtedness to income from such asset in the manner and to the extent provided in § 1.861-10T. For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) or (c)(2) of this section, a foreign corporation that allocates its interest expense under the direct allocation rule of this paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) shall reduce the basis of the asset that meets the requirements of § 1.861-10T
(b)or
(c)by the principal amount of the indebtedness that meets the requirements of § 1.861-10T(b) or (c). The foreign corporation shall also disregard any indebtedness that meets the requirements of § 1.861-10T(b) or
(c)in determining the amount of the foreign corporation's liabilities under paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(2) of this section and shall not take into account any interest expense paid or accrued with respect to such a liability for purposes of paragraph
(d)or
(e)of this section.
(B)*Partnership interest.* A foreign corporation that is a partner in a partnership that has a U.S. asset and indebtedness that meet the requirements of § 1.861-10T(b) or (c), as limited by § 1.861-10T(d)(1), shall directly allocate its distributive share of interest expense from that indebtedness to its distributive share of income from that asset in the manner and to the extent provided in § 1.861-10T. A foreign corporation that allocates its distributive share of interest expense under the direct allocation rule of this paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) shall disregard any partnership indebtedness that meets the requirements of § 1.861-10T(b) or
(c)in determining the amount of its distributive share of partnership liabilities for purposes of paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(2)(vi), and (d)(2)(vii) or (e)(1)(ii) of this section, and shall not take into account any partnership interest expense paid or accrued with respect to such a liability for purposes of paragraph
(d)or
(e)of this section. For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a foreign corporation that directly allocates its distributive share of interest expense under this paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) shall— ( *1* ) Reduce the partnership's basis in such asset by the amount of such indebtedness in allocating its basis in the partnership under § 1.884-1(d)(3)(ii); or ( *2* ) Reduce the partnership's income from such asset by the partnership's interest expense from such indebtedness under § 1.884-1(d)(3)(iii).
(2)*Coordination with tax treaties.* Except as expressly provided by or pursuant to a U.S. income tax treaty or accompanying documents (such as an exchange of notes), the provisions of this section provide the exclusive rules for determining the interest expense attributable to the business profits of a permanent establishment under a U.S. income tax treaty.
(3)through (a)(6) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5(a)(3) through (a)(6).
(7)*Elections under § 1.882* - *5* —(i) *In general.* A corporation must make each election provided in this section on the corporation's original timely filed Federal income tax return for the first taxable year it is subject to the rules of this section. An amended return does not qualify for this purpose, nor shall the provisions of § 301.9100-1 of this chapter and any guidance promulgated thereunder apply. Except as provided elsewhere in this section, each election under this section, whether an election for the first taxable year or a subsequent change of election, shall be made by the corporation calculating its interest expense deduction in accordance with the methods elected. An elected method (other than the fair market value method under § 1.882-5(b)(2)(ii), or the annual 30-day London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) election in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section) must be used for a minimum period of five years before the taxpayer may elect a different method. To change an election before the end of the requisite five-year period, a taxpayer must obtain the consent of the Commissioner or his delegate. The Commissioner or his delegate will generally consent to a taxpayer's request to change its election only in rare and unusual circumstances. After the five-year minimum period, an elected method may be changed for any subsequent year on the foreign corporation's original timely filed tax return for the first year to which the changed election applies.
(ii)*Failure to make the proper election.* If a taxpayer, for any reason, fails to make an election provided in this section in a timely fashion, the Director of Field Operations may make any or all of the elections provided in this section on behalf of the taxpayer, and such elections shall be binding as if made by the taxpayer.
(iii)*Step 2 special election for banks.* For the first tax year for which an original income tax return is due (including extensions) after August 17, 2006 and not later than December 31, 2006, in which a taxpayer that is a bank as described in § 1.882-5(c)(4) is subject to the requirements of this section, a taxpayer may make a new election to use the fixed ratio on either an original timely filed return, or on an amended return filed within 180 days after the original due date (including extensions). A new fixed ratio election may be made in any subsequent year subject to the timely filing and five-year minimum period requirements of paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section. A new fixed ratio election under this paragraph (a)(7)(iii) is subject to the adjusted basis or fair market value conforming election requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)( *2* ) of this section and may not be made if a taxpayer elects or maintains a fair market value election for purposes of § 1.882-5(b). Taxpayers that already use the fixed ratio method under an existing election may continue to use the new fixed ratio at the higher percentage without having to make a new five-year election in the first year that the higher percentage is effective.
(8)through (b)(2)(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5(a)(8) through (b)(2)(ii) .
(A)*In general* —( *1* ) *Fair market value conformity requirement.* A taxpayer may elect to value all of its U.S. assets on the basis of fair market value, subject to the requirements of § 1.861-9T(g)(1)(iii), and provided the taxpayer is eligible and uses the actual ratio method under § 1.882-5(c)(2) and the methodology prescribed in § 1.861-9T(h). Once elected, the fair market value must be used by the taxpayer for both Step 1 and Step 2 described in §§ 1.882-5(b) and (c), and must be used in all subsequent taxable years unless the Commissioner or his delegate consents to a change. ( *2* ) *Conforming election requirement.* Taxpayers that as of the effective date of this paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)( *2* ) have elected and currently use both the fair market value method for purposes of § 1.882-5(b) and a fixed ratio for purposes of paragraph (c)(4) of this section must conform either the adjusted basis or fair market value methods in Step 1 and Step 2 of the allocation formula by making an adjusted basis election for § 1.882-5(b) purposes while continuing the fixed ratio for Step 2, or by making an actual ratio election under § 1.882-5(c)(2) while remaining on the fair market value method under § 1.882-5(b). Taxpayers who elect to conform Step 1 and Step 2 of the formula to the adjusted basis method must remain on both methods for the minimum five-year period in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a)(7) of this section. Taxpayers that elect to conform Step 1 and Step 2 of the formula to the fair market value method must remain on the actual ratio method until the consent of the Commissioner or his delegate is obtained to switch to the adjusted basis method. If consent to use the adjusted basis method in Step 1 is granted in a later year, the taxpayer must remain on the actual ratio method for the minimum five-year period unless consent to use the fixed ratio is independently obtained under the requirements of paragraph (a)(7) of this section. For the first tax year for which an original income tax return is due (including extensions) after August 17, 2006 and not later than December 31, 2006, taxpayers that are required to make a conforming election under this paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A)( *2* ), may do so either on a timely filed original return or on an amended return within 180 days after the original due date (including extensions). If a conforming election is not made within the timeframe provided in this paragraph, the Director of Field Operations or his delegate may make the conforming elections in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section.
(B)through (b)(2)(iii)(B) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5(b)(2)(ii)(B) through (b)(2)(iii)(B).
(3)*Computation of total value of U.S. assets* —(i) *General rule.* The total value of U.S. assets for the taxable year is the average of the sums of the values (determined under paragraph (b)(2) of this section) of U.S. assets. For each U.S. asset, value shall be computed at the most frequent regular intervals for which data are reasonably available. In no event shall the value of any U.S. asset be computed less frequently than monthly (beginning of taxable year and monthly thereafter) by a large bank (as defined in section 585(c)(2)) or a dealer in securities (within the meaning of section 475) and semi-annually (beginning, middle and end of taxable year) by any other taxpayer.
(ii)*Adjustment to basis of financial instruments.* For purposes of determining the total average value of U.S. assets in this paragraph (b)(3), the value of a security or contract that is marked to market pursuant to section 475 or section 1256 will be determined as if each determination date is the most frequent regular interval for which data are reasonably available that reflects the taxpayer's consistent business practices for reflecting mark-to-market valuations on its books and records.
(c)through (c)(2)(iii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5(c) through (c)(2)(iii).
(iv)*Determination of value of worldwide assets.* The value of an asset must be determined consistently from year to year and must be substantially in accordance with U.S. tax principles. To be substantially in accordance with U.S. tax principles, the principles used to determine the value of an asset must not differ from U.S. tax principles to a degree that will materially affect the value of the taxpayer's worldwide assets or the taxpayer's actual ratio. The value of an asset is the adjusted basis of that asset for determining the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of that asset, adjusted in the same manner as the basis of U.S. assets are adjusted under paragraphs (b)(2)
(ii)through
(iv)of this section. The rules of § 1.882-5(b)(3)(ii) apply in determining the total value of applicable worldwide assets for the taxable year, except that the minimum number of determination dates are those stated in § 1.882-5(c)(2)(i). (c)(2)(v) through (c)(3) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5(c)(2)(v) through (c)(3).
(4)*Elective fixed ratio method of determining U.S. liabilities.* A taxpayer that is a bank as defined in section 585(a)(2)(B) (without regard to the second sentence thereof or whether any such activities are effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States) may elect to use a fixed ratio of 95 percent in lieu of the actual ratio. A taxpayer that is neither a bank nor an insurance company may elect to use a fixed ratio of 50 percent in lieu of the actual ratio.
(5)through (d)(2)(ii)(A)( *1* ) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5(c)(5) through (d)(2)(ii)(A)( *1* ). ( *2* ) The foreign corporation enters the liability on a set of books reasonably contemporaneous with the time at which the liability is incurred and the liability relates to an activity that produces ECI. ( *3* ) The foreign corporation maintains a set of books and records relating to an activity that produces ECI and the Director of Field Operations determines that there is a direct connection or relationship between the liability and that activity. Whether there is a direct connection between the liability and an activity that produces ECI depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. (d)(2)(ii)(B) through (d)(2)(iii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5(d)(2)(ii)(B) through (d)(2)(iii).
(A)*In general.* A liability, whether interest-bearing or non-interest-bearing, is properly reflected on the books of the U.S. trade or business of a foreign corporation that is a bank as described in section 585(a)(2)(B) (without regard to the second sentence thereof) if— ( *1* ) The bank enters the liability on a set of books before the close of the day on which the liability is incurred, and the liability relates to an activity that produces ECI; and ( *2* ) There is a direct connection or relationship between the liability and that activity. Whether there is a direct connection between the liability and an activity that produces ECI depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. For example, a liability that is used to fund an interbranch or other asset that produces non-ECI may have a direct connection to an ECI producing activity and may constitute a U.S.-booked liability if both the interbranch or non-ECI activity is the same type of activity in which ECI assets are also reflected on the set of books (for example, lending or money market interbank placements), and such ECI activities are not de minimis. Such U.S. booked liabilities may still be subject to § 1.882-5(d)(2)(v).
(B)through (d)(5)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5(d)(2)(iii)(B) through (d)(5)(i).
(ii)*Interest rate on excess U.S.-connected liabilities* —(A) *General rule.* The applicable interest rate on excess U.S.-connected liabilities is determined by dividing the total interest expense paid or accrued for the taxable year on U.S.-dollar liabilities that are not U.S.-booked liabilities (as defined in § 1.882-5(d)(2)) and that are shown on the books of the offices or branches of the foreign corporation outside the United States by the average U.S.-dollar denominated liabilities (whether interest-bearing or not) that are not U.S.-booked liabilities and that are shown on the books of the offices or branches of the foreign corporation outside the United States for the taxable year.
(B)*Annual published rate election.* For each taxable year beginning with the first year end for which the original tax return due date (including extensions) is after August 17, 2006, in which a taxpayer is a bank within the meaning of section 585(a)(2)(B) (without regard to the second sentence thereof or whether any such activities are effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States), such taxpayer may elect to compute its excess interest by reference to a published average 30-day London Interbank Offering Rate (LIBOR) for the year. The election may be made for any eligible year by attaching a statement to a timely filed tax return (including extensions) that shows the 3-step components of the taxpayer's interest expense allocation under the adjusted U.S.-booked liabilities method and identifies the provider (for example, International Monetary Fund statistics) of the 30-day LIBOR rate selected. Once selected, the provider and the rate may not be changed by the taxpayer. If a taxpayer that is eligible to make the 30-day LIBOR election either does not file a timely return or files a calculation that allocates interest expense under the scaling ratio in § 1.882-5(d)(4) and it is determined by the Director of Field Operations that the taxpayer's U.S.-connected liabilities exceed its U.S.-booked liabilities, then the Director of Field Operations, and not the taxpayer, may choose whether to determine the taxpayer's excess interest rate under paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(A) or
(B)of this section and may select the published 30-day LIBOR rate. For the first taxable year for which an original tax return due date (including extensions) is after August 17, 2006 and not later than December 31, 2006, an eligible taxpayer may make the 30-day LIBOR election one time for the taxable year on an amended return within 180 days after the original due date (including extensions). (d)(6) through (d)(6) *Example 4* [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5(d)(6) through (d)(6) *Example 4.* *Example 5. U.S. booked liabilities—direct relationship.*
(i)*Facts.* Bank A, a resident of Country X, maintains a banking office in the U.S. that records transactions on three sets of books for State A, an International Banking Facility
(IBF)for its bank regulatory approved international transactions, and a shell branch licensed operation in Country C. Bank A records substantial ECI assets from its bank lending and placement activities and a mix of interbranch and non-ECI producing assets from the same or similar activities on the books of State A branch and on its IBF. Bank A's Country C branch borrows substantially from third parties, as well as from its home office, and lends all of its funding to its State A branch and IBF to fund the mix of ECI, interbranch and non-ECI activities on those two books. The consolidated books of State A branch and IBF indicate that a substantial amount of the total book assets constitute U.S. assets under § 1.882-5(b). Some of the third-party borrowings on the books of the State A branch are used to lend directly to Bank A's home office in Country X. These borrowings reflect the average borrowing rate of the State A branch, IBF and Country C branches as a whole. All third-party borrowings reflected on the books of State A branch, the IBF and Country C branch were recorded on such books before the close of business on the day the liabilities were acquired by Bank A.
(ii)*U.S. booked liabilities.* The facts demonstrate that the separate State A branch, IBF and Country C branch books taken together, constitute a set of books within the meaning of (d)(2)(iii)(A)( *1* ) of this section. Such set of books as a whole has a direct relationship to an ECI activity under (d)(2)(iii)(A)( *2* ) of this section even though the Country C branch books standing alone would not. The third-party liabilities recorded on the books of Country C constitute U.S. booked liabilities because they were timely recorded and the overall set of books on which they were reflected has a direct relationship to a bank lending and interbank placement ECI producing activity. The third-party liabilities that were recorded on the books of State A branch that were used to lend funds to Bank A's home office also constitute U.S. booked liabilities because the interbranch activity the funds were used for is a lending activity of a type that also gives rise to a substantial amount of ECI that is properly reflected on the same set of books as the interbranch loans. Accordingly, the liabilities are not traced to their specific interbranch use but to the overall activity of bank lending and interbank placements which gives rise to substantial ECI. The facts show that the liabilities were not acquired to increase artificially the interest expense of Bank A's U.S. booked liabilities as a whole under § 1.882-5(d)(2)(v). The third-party liabilities also constitute U.S. booked liabilities for purposes of determining Bank A's branch interest under § 1.884-4(b)(1)(i)(A) regardless of whether Bank A uses the Adjusted U.S. booked liability method, or the Separate Currency Pool method to allocate its interest expense under § 1.882-5(e).
(e)through (f)(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.882-5(e) through (f)(2).
(g)*Effective date.*
(1)*This section is applicable for the first tax year in which an original tax return due date (including extensions) is after* August 17, 2006.
(2)The applicability of this section expires on or before August 15, 2009. **Par. 5.** Section 1.884-1 is amended by revising the entries for paragraphs (e)(3)(ii), (e)(3)(iv) and (e)(5) *Example 2.* § 1.884-1 Branch profits tax. (e)(3)(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see entry in § 1.884-1T(e)(3)(ii). (e)(3)(iv) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see entry in § 1.884-1T(e)(3)(iv). (e)(5) *Example 2* [Reserved]. For further guidance, see entry in § 1.884-1T(e)(5) Example 2. **Par. 6.** Section 1.884-1T is added to read as follows: § 1.884-1T Branch profits tax (temporary).
(a)through (e)(3)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.884-1(a) through (e)(3)(i).
(ii)*Limitation.* For any taxable year, a foreign corporation may elect to reduce the amount of its liabilities determined under paragraph § 1.884-1(e)(1) of this section by an amount that does not exceed the lesser of the amount of U.S. liabilities as of the determination date, or the amount of U.S. liability reduction needed to reduce a dividend equivalent amount as of the determination date to zero.
(iii)[Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.884-1(e)(3)(iii).
(iv)*Method of election.* A foreign corporation that elects the benefits of this paragraph (e)(3) for a taxable year shall state on its return for the taxable year (or on a statement attached to the return) that it has elected to reduce its liabilities for the taxable year under this paragraph (e)(3) and that it has reduced the amount of its U.S.-connected liabilities as provided in § 1.884-1(e)(3)(iii), and shall indicate the amount of such reductions on the return or attachment. An election under this paragraph (e)(3) must be made before the due date (including extensions) for the foreign corporation's income tax return for the taxable year, except that for the first tax year for which the original tax return due date (including extensions) is after August 17, 2006 and not later than December 31, 2006, an election under this paragraph (e)(3) may be made on an amended return within 180 days after the original due date (including extensions).
(v)through (e)(5) *Example 1* [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.884-1(e)(3)(v) through (e)(5) *Example 1* . Example 2. Election made to reduce liabilities.
(i)As of the close of 2007, foreign corporation A, a real estate company, owns U.S. assets with an E&P basis of $1000. A has $800 of liabilities under paragraph (e)(1) of this section. A has accumulated ECEP of $500 and in 2008, A has $60 of ECEP that it intends to retain for future expansion of its U.S. trade or business. A elects under paragraph (e)(3) of this section to reduce its liabilities by $60 from $800 to $740. As a result of the election, assuming A's U.S. assets and U.S. liabilities would otherwise have remained constant, A's U.S. net equity as of the close of 1994 will increase by the amount of the decrease in liabilities ($60) from $200 to $260 and its ECEP will be reduced to zero. Under § 1.884-1(e)(3)(iii), A's interest expense for the taxable year is reduced by the amount of interest attributable to $60 of liabilities and A's excess interest is reduced by the same amount. A's taxable income and ECEP are increased by the amount of the reduction in interest expense attributable to the liabilities, and A may make an election under paragraph (e)(3) of this section to further reduce its liabilities, thus increasing its U.S. net equity and reducing the amount of additional ECEP created for the election.
(ii)In 2009, assuming A again has $60 of ECEP, A may again make the election under paragraph (e)(3) to reduce its liabilities. However, assuming A's U.S. assets and liabilities under paragraph (e)(1) of this section remain constant, A will need to make an election to reduce its liabilities by $120 to reduce to zero its ECEP in 2009 and to continue to retain for expansion (without the payment of the branch profits tax) the $60 of ECEP earned in 2008. Without an election to reduce liabilities, A's dividend equivalent amount for 2009 would be $120 ($60 of ECEP plus the $60 reduction in U.S. net equity from $260 to $200). If A makes the election to reduce liabilities by $120 (from $800 to $680), A's U.S. net equity will increase by $60 (from $260 at the end of the previous year to $320), the amount necessary to reduce its ECEP to $0. However, the reduction of liabilities will itself create additional ECEP subject to section 884 because of the reduction in interest expense attributable to the $120 of liabilities. A can make the election to reduce liabilities by $120 without exceeding the limitation on the election provided in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section because the $120 reduction does not exceed the amount needed to treat the 2009 and 2008 ECEP as reinvested in the net equity of the trade or business within the United States.
(iii)If A terminates its U.S. trade or business in 2009 in accordance with the rules in § 1.884-2T(a), A would not be subject to the branch profits tax on the $60 of ECEP earned in that year. Under paragraph § 1.884-1(e)(3)(v) of this section, however, it would be subject to the branch profits tax on the portion of the $60 of ECEP that it earned in 2008 that became accumulated ECEP because of an election to reduce liabilities.
(f)through (j)(2)(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.884-1(f) through (j)(2)(ii). PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBER UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT **Par. 7.** The authority citation for part 602 continues to read as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. **Par. 8.** In § 602.101, paragraph
(b)is amended by adding an entry for “§ 1.882-5T” to the table to read follows: § 601.101 OMB Control numbers.
(b)* * * CFR part or section where identified and described Current OMB control No. * * * * * 1.882-5T 1545-2030 * * * * * Approved: August 2, 2006. Mark E. Mathews, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Eric Solomon, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy). [FR Doc. E6-13402 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD13-06-027] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone Regulations, New Tacoma Narrows Bridge Construction Project, Construction Barge “MARMACK 12”, Tacoma Narrows, Gig Harbor, WA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around the Barge “MARMACK 12”, Official Number 1024657, while it is being used for the New Tacoma Narrows Bridge Construction Project. The zone will extend 500 feet in all directions from the barge, and will be in effect at all times during the duration of this rule. This zone is only in effect while the barge is on the navigable waters of the United States, in the Tacoma Narrows. The Coast Guard is taking this action to safeguard the public from possible collision with the barge and the deck sections it is carrying, and from hazards associated with navigating in the vicinity of the barge during construction operations. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representatives. DATES: This rule is effective from 12 a.m.
(PST)June 19, 2006 to 12 a.m.
(PST)November 16, 2006, unless sooner cancelled or extended by the Captain of the Port. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD13-06-027 and are available for inspection or copying at the Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Erica Govednik, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, at
(206)217-6138. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and persons that transit in the vicinity of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. If normal notice and comment procedures were followed, this rule would not become effective until after construction activities were already taking place. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Tacoma Narrows, Washington, for the New Tacoma Narrows Bridge construction project. The Coast Guard has determined it is necessary to restrict access to the certain waters under the West Span in order to safeguard people and property from hazards associated with the presence of construction vessels and equipment in that area. These safety hazards include, but are not limited to, hazards to navigation, collisions with mooring cables, and collisions with work vessels and barges. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is adopting a temporary safety zone regulation on the waters of Tacoma Narrows, Washington, for the New Tacoma Narrows Bridge construction project. The Coast Guard has determined it is necessary to restrict access to the waters within 500 feet of the construction barge “MARMACK”, in order to safeguard people and property from hazards associated with navigating in the vicinity of moving construction equipment. These safety hazards include, but are not limited to, hazards to navigation, collisions with the barge or its cargo, and disturbance of the load on the barge, which could fall or shift, injuring anyone in the vicinity. The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to promote the safety of personnel, vessels, and facilities in the area. Entry into this zone will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his representative. This safety zone will be enforced by Coast Guard personnel. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this temporary rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated area established by this regulation would encompass a small area that should not impact commercial or recreational traffic. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic impact. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this portion of the Tacoma Narrows during the time this regulation is in effect. The zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to its small area. Because the impacts of this rule are expected to be so minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the ( FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) section. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This temporary rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this temporary rule under that Order and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This temporary rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This temporary rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribal governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. From 12 a.m.
(PST)June 19, 2006 to 12 a.m.
(PST)November 16, 2006, add temporary § 165.T13-026 to read as follows: § 165.T13-026 Safety Zone: New Tacoma Narrows Bridge Construction Project, Construction Barge “MARMACK 12” Tacoma Narrows, Gig Harbor, WA.
(a)*Location.* The following is a safety zone: All waters of the Tacoma Narrows, Washington State, from surface to bottom, within 500 feet of the construction barge “MARMACK 12”, official number 1024657.
(b)*Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in Section 165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the zone except for those persons involved in the construction of the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, supporting personnel, or other vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives. Vessels and persons granted authorization to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
(c)*Effective period.* This section is effective from 12 a.m.
(PST)June 19, 2006 to 12 a.m.
(PST)November 16, 2006, unless sooner cancelled or extended by the Captain of the Port. Dated: June 15, 2006. Stephen P. Metruck, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound. [FR Doc. E6-13563 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD13-06-026] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; New Tacoma Narrows Bridge Construction Project, Bridge Deck Lifting Beams, Tacoma Narrows, Gig Harbor, WA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around the lifting beams of the cranes being used to lift deck sections into place on the New Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The zone will encompass all waters within 500 feet of the area directly below the lifting beams for the duration of the lowering, hookup, raising, and securing evolutions, and will only apply to the beams on the cranes that are in use. The beams being used for the day's evolutions will be clearly marked on each end with a white flashing light. The Coast Guard is taking this action to safeguard the public from the hazards associated with navigating in the vicinity of moving construction equipment and heavy loads. These hazards may include risk of collision with the lifting beams and risks associated with falling loads, should there be an equipment failure. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representatives. DATES: This rule is effective from 12 a.m.
(PST)June 19, 2006 to 12 a.m.
(PST)November 16, 2006, unless sooner cancelled or extended by the Captain of the Port. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD13-06-014 and are available for inspection or copying at the Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA, 98134, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Erica Govednik, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, at
(206)217-6138. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and persons that transit in the vicinity of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. If normal notice and comment procedures were followed, this rule would not become effective until after construction activities were already taking place. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Tacoma Narrows, Washington, for the New Tacoma Narrows Bridge construction project. The Coast Guard has determined it is necessary to restrict access to the certain waters under the West Span in order to safeguard people and property from hazards associated with the presence of construction vessels and equipment in that area. These safety hazards include, but are not limited to, hazards to navigation, collisions with mooring cables, and collisions with work vessels and barges. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard is adopting a temporary safety zone regulation on the waters of Tacoma Narrows, Washington, for the New Tacoma Narrows Bridge construction project. The Coast Guard has determined it is necessary to restrict access to the waters within 500 feet of the lifting beams being used to raise deck sections into place, in order to safeguard people and property from hazards associated with navigating in the vicinity of moving construction equipment. These safety hazards include, but are not limited to, hazards to navigation, collisions with the beams, and equipment failures resulting in falling loads. The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to promote the safety of personnel and vessels in the area. Entry into this zone will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his representative. This safety zone will be enforced by Coast Guard personnel. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other Federal, state, or local agencies. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this temporary rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated area established by this regulation would encompass a small area that should not impact commercial or recreational traffic. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic impact. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this portion of the Tacoma Narrows during the time this regulation is in effect. The zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to its small area. Because the impacts of this rule are expected to be so minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the ( FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) section. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This temporary rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it a has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this temporary rule under that Order and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This temporary rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This temporary rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribal governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping Requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. From 12 a.m.
(PST)June 19, 2006 to 12 a.m.
(PST)November 16, 2006, add temporary § 165.T13-025 to read as follows: § 165.T13-025 Safety Zone: New Tacoma Narrows Bridge Construction Project, Bridge Deck Lifting Beams, Tacoma Narrows, Gig Harbor, WA.
(a)*Location.* The following is a safety zone: All waters of the Tacoma Narrows, Washington State, from surface to bottom, within 500 feet of the area directly below the bridge deck lifting beams attached to the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, when they are in use. The bridge deck lifting beams being used will be clearly marked on each end with a white flashing light.
(b)*Regulations.* In accordance with the general regulations in Section 165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the zone except for those persons involved in the construction of the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, supporting personnel, or other vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives. Vessels and persons granted authorization to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
(c)*Effective period.* This section is effective from 12 a.m.
(PST)June 19, 2006 to 12 a.m.
(PST)November 16, 2006, unless sooner cancelled or extended by the Captain of the Port. Dated: June 15, 2006. Stephen P. Metruck, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound. [FR Doc. E6-13564 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD13-06-025] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; New Tacoma Narrows Bridge Construction Project, Construction Vessels and Equipment Under and in Immediate Vicinity of West Span, Tacoma Narrows, Gig Harbor, WA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Temporary final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around construction vessels and mooring lines under the West Span of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge during the deck erection phase of construction. The zone will encompass all waters within a box created by the points: 47-16.44′ N, 122-33.35′ W; 47-16.34′ N, 122-33.04′ W; 47-16.1′ N, 122-33.33′ W; 47-16.21′ N, 122-33.63′ W. This safety zone will be in effect regardless of whether construction vessels are present or not. This zone approximately encompasses all waters from the Gig Harbor shoreline to just east of the west bridge caissons, extending 1500 feet north and south. The Coast Guard is taking this action to safeguard the public from possible collision with the vessels or their mooring lines, chains, or cables. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representatives. DATES: This rule is effective from 12 a.m.
(PST)June 19, 2006 to 12 a.m.
(PST)November 16, 2006. ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD13-06-025 and are available for inspection or copying at the Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA, 98134, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Erica Govednik, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, at
(206)217-6138. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and persons that transit in the vicinity of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. If normal notice and comment procedures were followed, this rule would not become effective until after construction activities were already taking place. For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Tacoma Narrows, Washington, for the New Tacoma Narrows Bridge construction project. The Coast Guard has determined it is necessary to restrict access to the certain waters under the West Span in order to safeguard people and property from hazards associated with the presence of construction vessels and equipment in that area. These safety hazards include, but are not limited to, hazards to navigation, collisions with mooring cables, and collisions with work vessels and barges. Discussion of Rule The Coast Guard has determined it is necessary to restrict access to the waters under the West Span, in a box bounded by the points: 47-16.44′ N, 122-33.35′ W; 47-16.34′ N, 122-33.04′ W; 47-16.1′ N, 122-33.33′ W; 47-16.21′ N, 122-33.63′ W, in order to safeguard people and property from hazards associated with the presence of construction vessels and equipment in that area. These safety hazards include, but are not limited to, hazards to navigation, collisions with mooring cables, and collisions with work vessels and barges. The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to promote the safety of personnel, vessels, and facilities in the area. Entry into this zone will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his representative. This safety zone will be enforced by Coast Guard personnel. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other Federal, state, or local agencies. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this temporary rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated area established by this regulation would encompass a small area that should not impact commercial or recreational traffic. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic impact. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this portion of the Tacoma Narrows during the time this regulation is in effect. The zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to its small area. Because the impacts of this rule are expected to be so minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the ( FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) section. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This temporary rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it a has substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this temporary rule under that Order and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This temporary rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This temporary rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian tribal governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping Requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. From 12 a.m.
(PST)June 19, 2006 to 12 a.m.
(PST)November 16, 2006, add temporary § 165.T13-024 to read as follows: § 165.T13-024 Safety Zone: New Tacoma Narrows Bridge Construction Project, Construction Vessels and Equipment Under and in Immediate Vicinity of West Span, Tacoma Narrows, Gig Harbor, WA.
(a)*Location.* The following is a safety zone: All waters of the Tacoma Narrows, Washington State, from surface to bottom, within a box bounded by the points: 47-16.44′ N, 122-33.35′ W; 47-16.34′ N, 122-33.04′ W; 47-16.1′ N, 122-33.33′ W; and 47-16.21′ N, 122-33.63′ W [Datum: NAD 1983]. This safety zone will be in effect whether vessels are present or not. This safety zone approximately encompasses all waters from the Gig Harbor shoreline to just east of the west bridge caissons, extending 1500 feet north and south.
(b)*Regulations* . In accordance with the general regulations in Section 165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the zone except for those persons involved in the construction of the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, supporting personnel, or other vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representatives. Vessels and persons granted authorization to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
(c)*Effective period.* This section is effective from 12 a.m.
(PST)June 19, 2006 to 12 a.m.
(PST)November 16, 2006. Dated: June 15, 2006. Stephen P. Metruck, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound. [FR Doc. E6-13569 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P 71 159 Thursday, August 17, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-120509-06] RIN 1545-BF71 Determination of Interest Expense Deduction of Foreign Corporations AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations. SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations under sections 882 and 884 relating to the determination of the interest expense deduction of foreign corporations engaged in a trade or business within the United States. These regulations update the 1996 final interest expense allocation rules for foreign corporations and take into account changes in the foreign banking industry. The rule changes are necessary to conform the final regulations more closely to current operating conditions in the foreign banking industry, and to harmonize the deemed earnings repatriation from a foreign corporation's trade or business within the United States, with the manner in which dividends are repatriated from U.S. resident companies to their foreign shareholders. These regulations are expected to simplify compliance burdens for many foreign corporations that allocate interest expense to effectively connected income and provide greater latitude to taxpayers in determining when their effectively connected earnings are treated as remitted. The text of these regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by November 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-120509-06), Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be sent electronically, via the IRS Internet site at *www.irs.gov/regs* or via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-120509-06). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Gregory Spring or Paul Epstein,
(202)622-3870, concerning submissions of comments, Richard A. Hurst, *Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov,* or
(202)622-7180 (not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, SE:W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by October 16, 2006. Comments are requested specifically concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the information will have practical utility; The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information (see below); How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced; How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application or automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information. The collections of information in these proposed regulations are in §§ 1.882-5T(d)(5)(ii)(B) and 1.884-1T(e)(3)(iv). This collection of information is required to facilitate administrability of reporting of allocable expense from without the United States. Section 1.882-5T(d)(5)(ii)(B) provides a simplified procedure for taxpayers to calculate an allocable amount of U.S. dollar denominated interest expense booked by foreign banks in foreign locations. The collection of information provides certainty of application and immediate verification in the advance review and resolution of such treatment on examination. Section 1.884-1T(e)(3)(iv) provides the identical collection of information that was promulgated in final regulations in TD 8432 (1992-2 CB 157). The rule provides an election to reduce liabilities for purposes of treating effectively connected earnings and profits as reinvested. It also requires that U.S. connected liabilities be reduced for purposes of determining the allocation of interest expense to effectively connected income. The collection of information facilitates identification and verification of the coordinated treatment of the sections 882 and 884 provisions in accordance with the time, place and manner restrictions for making the election. The collections of information are mandatory. The likely respondents are foreign banks. *Estimated total annual reporting burden:* 37.5. *Estimated average annual burden hours per respondent:* 1/2 hour. *Estimated number of respondents:* 75. *Estimated annual frequency of responses:* annually. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. Books and records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Background In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the **Federal Register** , the IRS is issuing temporary regulations under sections 882 and 884 relating to the determination of the interest expense deduction of foreign corporations engaged in a trade or business within the United States. The text of those regulations published in this issue of the **Federal Register** also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to those temporary regulations explains the temporary regulations and these proposed regulations. Special Analyses It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. Comments and Requests for Public Hearing Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight
(8)copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and the Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested by any person who timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time and place for the hearing will be published in the **Federal Register** . Drafting Information The principal authors of these regulations are Paul S. Epstein and Gregory A. Spring of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES **Paragraph 1.** The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *. **Par. 2.** Section 1.882-5 is amended to read as follows: 1. Paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(2), (a)(7), (a)(7)(i) through (a)(7)(ii), (b)(2)(ii)(A), (b)(3), (c)(2)(iv), (c)(4), (d)(2)(ii)(A)( *2* ), (d)(2)(ii)(A)( *3* ), (d)(2)(iii)(A), and (d)(5)(ii) are revised. 2. Paragraph (d)(6) Example 5 is added. The revisions and addition read as follows: § 1.882-5 Determination of interest deduction.
(a)* * * (a)(1) through (a)(2) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.882-5T(a)(1) through (a)(2) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (a)(7) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.882-5T(a)(7) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (b)(2)(ii)(A) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.882-5T(b)(2)(ii)(A) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (b)(2)(iv) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.882-5T(b)(2)(iv) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (b)(3) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.882-5T(b)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (c)(2)(iv) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.882-5T(c)(2)(iv) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (c)(4) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.882-5T(c)(4) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (d)(2)(ii)(A)( *2* ) through ( *3* ) [The text of these proposed amendments are the same as the text of § 1.882-5T(d)(2)(ii)(A)( *2* ) through ( *3* ) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (d)(2)(iii)(A) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.882-5T(d)(2)(iii)(A) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (d)(5)(ii) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.882-5T(d)(5)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (d)(6) *Example 5* [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.882-5T(d)(6) Example 5 published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. **Par. 3.** Section 1.884-1 is amended by revising the entries for paragraphs § 1.884-1(e)(3)(ii), (e)(3)(iv) and (e)(5) *Example 2* to read as follows: § 1.884-1 Determination of interest deduction (e)(3)(ii) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.884-1T(e)(3)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (e)(3)(iv) [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.884-1T(e)(3)(iv) published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. (e)(5) *Example 2* [The text of this proposed amendment is the same as the text of § 1.884-1T(e)(5) *Example 2* published elsewhere in this issue of the **Federal Register** ]. Mark E. Matthews, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-13409 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 31 [REG-146893-02; REG-115037-00; REG-138603-03] RIN 1545-BB31, 1545-AY38, 1545-BC52 Treatment of Services Under Section 482 Allocation of Income and Deductions From Intangibles Stewardship Expense AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document contains a notice of public hearing on proposed regulations relating to the treatment of controlled services transactions under section 482. DATES: The public hearing is being held on October 27, 2006, at 10 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the hearing by October 6, 2006. Written or electronic comments must be received by October 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being held in the auditorium of the New Carrollton Federal Building, 5000 Ellin Road, Lanham, MD 20706. Submissions may be sent to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-146893-02; REG-115037-00; REG-138603-03), Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Alternatively, submissions may be sent electronically, via the IRS Internet site at *http://www.irs.gov/regs* or via Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* (IRS REG-146983-02, REG-115037-00, and REG-138603-03). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning submission of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access to attend the hearing, Kelly Banks at
(202)622-0392 (not a toll-free number) or by e-mail at *Kelly.d.banks@irscounsel.treas.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-146893-02; REG-115037-00; REG-138603-03) that was published in the **Federal Register** on August 4, 2006 (71 FR 44247). The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. The IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing. Because of access restriction, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Guy R. Traynor, Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E6-13530 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 20 RIN 1018-AU42 Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2006-07 Season AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter, Service or we) proposes special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2006-07 migratory bird hunting season. DATES: We will accept all comments on the proposed regulations that are postmarked or received in our office by August 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send your comments on these proposals to the Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, or fax comments to
(703)358-2272. All comments received will become part of the public record. You may inspect comments during normal business hours in room 4107, 4501 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
(703)358-1714. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the April 11, 2006, **Federal Register** (71 FR 18562), we requested proposals from Indian Tribes wishing to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations for the 2006-07 hunting season, under the guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, **Federal Register** (50 FR 23467). In this supplemental proposed rule, we propose special migratory bird hunting regulations for 28 Indian Tribes, based on the input we received in response to the April 11, 2006, proposed rule. As described in that document/proposed rule, the promulgation of annual migratory bird hunting regulations involves a series of rulemaking actions each year. This proposed rule is part of that series. We developed the guidelines for establishing special migratory bird hunting regulations for Indian Tribes in response to tribal requests for recognition of their reserved hunting rights and, for some Tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both tribal and nontribal hunters on their reservations. The guidelines include possibilities for:
(1)On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal hunters, with hunting by nontribal hunters on some reservations to take place within Federal frameworks but on dates different from those selected by the surrounding State(s);
(2)On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of the usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and possession limits; and
(3)Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added flexibility in daily bag and possession limits. In all cases, the regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the March 10 to September 1 closed season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds (Treaty). The guidelines apply to those Tribes having recognized reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and on ceded lands. They also apply to establishing migratory bird hunting regulations for nontribal hunters on all lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations where Tribes have full wildlife management authority over such hunting or where the Tribes and affected States otherwise have reached agreement over hunting by nontribal hunters on lands owned by non-Indians within the reservation. Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory bird hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to Service approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations governing hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such cases, we encourage the Tribes and States to reach agreement on regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When appropriate, we will consult with a Tribe and State with the aim of facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and State officials in the affected States where Tribes wish to establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded lands. Because of past questions regarding interpretation of what events trigger the consultation process, as well as who initiates it, we provide the following clarification. We routinely provide copies of **Federal Register** publications pertaining to migratory bird management to all State Directors, Tribes, and other interested parties. It is the responsibility of the States, Tribes, and others to notify us of any concern regarding any feature(s) of any regulations. When we receive such notification, we will initiate consultation. Our guidelines provide for the continued harvest of waterfowl and other migratory game birds by tribal members on reservations where such harvest has been a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest, provided it does not take place during the closed season defined by the Treaty, and does not adversely affect the status of the migratory bird resource. Before developing the guidelines, we reviewed available information on the current status of migratory bird populations; reviewed the current status of migratory bird hunting on Federal Indian reservations; and evaluated the potential impact of such guidelines on migratory birds. We concluded that the impact of migratory bird harvest by tribal members hunting on their reservations is minimal. One area of interest in Indian migratory bird hunting regulations relates to hunting seasons for nontribal hunters on dates that are within Federal frameworks, but which are different from those established by the State(s) where the reservation is located. A large influx of nontribal hunters onto a reservation at a time when the season is closed in the surrounding State(s) could result in adverse population impacts on one or more migratory bird species. The guidelines make this unlikely, however, because tribal proposals must include:
(a)Harvest anticipated under the requested regulations;
(b)methods that will be employed to measure or monitor harvest (such as bag checks, mail questionnaires, etc.);
(c)steps that will be taken to limit level of harvest, where it could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would adversely impact the migratory bird resource; and
(d)tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory bird hunting regulations. We may modify regulations or establish experimental special hunts, after evaluation and confirmation of harvest information obtained by the Tribes. We believe the guidelines provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved hunting rights and management authority of Indian Tribes while ensuring that the migratory bird resource receives necessary protection. The conservation of this important international resource is paramount. The guidelines should not be viewed as inflexible. In this regard, we note that they have been employed successfully since 1985. We believe they have been tested adequately and, therefore, we made them final beginning with the 1988-89 hunting season. We should stress here, however, that use of the guidelines is not mandatory and no action is required if a Tribe wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which the reservation is located. Population Status and Harvest The following paragraphs provide preliminary information on the status of waterfowl and information on the status and harvest of migratory shore and upland game birds. May Breeding Waterfowl and Habitat Survey Despite a very warm winter, the quality of habitat for breeding waterfowl in the U.S. and Canada is slightly better this year than last year. Improvements in Canadian and U.S. prairie habitats were primarily due to average to above-average precipitation, warm spring temperatures, and carry-over effects from the good summer conditions of 2005. Improved habitat conditions were reflected in the higher number of ponds counted in Prairie Canada this year compared to last year. The 2006 estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada was 4.4 ± 0.2 million ponds, a 13% increase from last year's estimate of 3.9 ± 0.2 million ponds and 32% above the 1955-2005 average. The parkland and northern grassland regions of southern Manitoba and Saskatchewan received abundant rain in March and April, which created good to excellent habitat conditions. Higher water tables prevented farm activities in wetland basins and excellent residual nesting cover remained around the potholes. Many of the wetlands flooded beyond their normal basins and into the surrounding uplands. Deeper water in permanent and semi-permanent wetlands, coupled with increased amounts of flooded emergent vegetation and woodland, likely benefited diving ducks and overwater- and cavity-nesting species. However, spring precipitation in the grasslands of southern Saskatchewan and southwestern Manitoba was insufficient to fill seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands or create temporary wetlands for waterfowl, leaving these regions in fair or poor condition. Above-average precipitation in the fall and spring in parts of southern Alberta improved conditions in this historically important pintail breeding region. This region has been dry since 1998, with the exception of 2003. However, central Alberta remained dry. Habitat conditions in the U.S. prairies were more variable than those in the Canadian prairies. The 2006 pond estimate for the north-central U.S. (1.6 ± 0.1 million) was similar to last year's estimate and the long-term average. The total pond estimate (Prairie Canada and U.S. combined) was 6.1 ± 0.2 million ponds. This was 13 percent greater than last year's estimate of 5.4 ± 0.2 million and 26 percent higher than the long-term average of 4.8 ± 0.1 million ponds. Habitat quality improved minimally in the easternmost regions of North and South Dakota relative to 2005. Small areas of the Eastern Dakotas were in good-to-excellent condition, helped by warm April temperatures and spring rains that advanced vegetation growth by about 2 weeks. However, most of the Drift Prairie, the Missouri Coteau, and the Coteau Slope remained in fair to poor condition due to lack of temporary and seasonal water and the deteriorated condition of semi-permanent basins. Permanent wetlands and dugouts were typically in various stages of recession. The Western Dakotas were generally in fair condition. Most wetland and upland habitats in Montana benefited modestly from average to above-average fall and winter precipitation and improvements in nesting habitat last year. Spring precipitation in Montana during March and April also helped to mitigate several years of drought. A large portion of central Montana was in good condition due to ample late winter and early spring precipitation. Biologists also noted improvements in upland vegetation over previous years. In this central region, most pond basins were full and stream systems were flowing. However, nesting habitat was largely fair to poor for most of the northern portion of Montana. Habitat conditions in most northern regions of Canada were improved over last year due to an early ice break-up, warm spring temperatures, and good precipitation levels. In northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, and western Ontario, winter snowfall was sufficient to recharge most beaver ponds and small lakes. Larger lakes and rivers tended to have higher water levels than in recent years. Conditions in the smaller wetlands were ideal. However, in northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan, some lakes associated with major rivers were flooded, with some flooded well into the surrounding upland vegetation. The potential for habitat loss due to flooding caused biologists to classify this region as good. In Alberta, water levels improved to the north, except for the Athabasca Delta only, where wetlands, especially seasonal wetlands, generally had low water levels. Most of the Northwest Territories had good water levels. The exceptions were the southern part of the Territory where recent heavy rains in May have caused some flooding of nesting habitat, and a dry swath across the central part of the province. In contrast to most of the survey region and to the past few years, spring did not arrive early in Alaska this year. Overall, a more normal spring phenology occurred throughout most of Alaska and the Yukon Territory, with ice lingering in the following regions: The outer coast of the Yukon Delta, the northern Seward Peninsula, and on the Old Crow Flats. Some flooding occurred on a few major rivers. Overall, good waterfowl production is anticipated this year from the northwestern continental area if temperatures remain seasonable. Spring-like conditions also arrived early in the East, with an early ice break-up and relatively mild temperatures. Biologists reported that habitat conditions were generally good across most of the survey area. Most regions had a warm, dry winter and a dry start to spring. Extreme southern Ontario was relatively dry during the survey period and habitats were in fair to poor condition. However, precipitation after survey completion improved habitat conditions in this region. Abundant rain in May improved water levels in Maine, the Maritimes, southern Ontario, and Quebec, but caused some flooding in southern Ontario and Quebec and along the coast of Maine, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. In Quebec, a very early spring assured good habitat availability. Despite the early spring and the abundance of spring precipitation, a dry winter still left most of the marshes and rivers drier than in past years. Many bogs were noticeably drier than past years or dry entirely in a few cases. Winter precipitation increased to the west and north, resulting in generally good levels in central and northern Ontario. Conditions were good to excellent in central and northern Ontario due to the early spring phenology, generally good water levels, and warm spring temperatures. Status of Teal The estimate of blue-winged teal numbers from the Traditional Survey Area is 5.9 million. This represents a 28 percent increase from 2005 and is 30 percent above the 1955-2005 average. By the criteria developed for the teal season harvest strategy, this population size estimate indicates that a 16-day September teal season is appropriate in 2006. Sandhill Cranes The Mid-Continent Population of Sandhill Cranes has generally stabilized at comparatively high levels, following increases in the 1970s. The Central Platte River Valley, Nebraska spring index for 2006, uncorrected for visibility bias, was 183,000. The photo-corrected 3-year average for 2003-05 was 422,133, which is within the established population-objective range of 349,000-472,000 cranes. All Central Flyway States, except Nebraska, allowed crane hunting in portions of their respective States during 2005-06. About 9,950 hunters participated in these seasons, which was 8 percent higher than the number that participated in the 2004-2005 season. Hunters harvested 18,575 cranes in the U.S. portion of the Central Flyway during the 2005-06 seasons, which was 28 percent higher than the estimated harvest for the previous year. The retrieved harvest of cranes in hunt areas for the Rocky Mountain Population of Sandhill Cranes Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, Canada, and Mexico combined was estimated at 13,587 during 2005-06. The preliminary estimate for the North American sport harvest, including crippling losses, was 36,674, which is 11 percent higher than the previous year's estimate of 33,182. The long-term (1982-2004) trends indicate that harvests have been increasing at a higher rate than population growth. The fall 2005 pre-migration survey estimate for the Rocky Mountain Population of Greater sandhill Cranes was 20,865, which was 13 percent higher than the previous year's estimate of 18,510. The 3-year average for 2003-05 is 19,633, which is within established population objectives of 17,000-21,000. Hunting seasons during 2005-06 in portions of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming resulted in a harvest of 702 cranes, an 18 percent increase from the harvest of 594 the year before. Woodcock Singing-ground and Wing-collection Surveys were conducted to assess the population status of the American woodcock ( *Scolopax minor* ). Singing-ground Survey data for 2006 indicate that the number of displaying woodcock in the Eastern Region in 2006 was unchanged from 2005; however, the Central Region experienced an 8 percent decline. There was no significant trend in woodcock heard in either the Eastern or Central Regions during 1996-2006. This represents the third consecutive year since 1992 that the 10-year trend estimate for either region did not indicate a significant decline. There were long-term (1968-2006) declines of 1.9 percent per year in the Eastern Region and 1.8 percent per year in the Central Region. Wing-collection survey data indicate that the 2005 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.6 immatures per adult female) was 17 percent lower than the 2004 index, and 1 percent lower than the long-term average. The recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.5 immatures per adult female) was 9 percent higher than the 2004 index, but was 9 percent below the long-term average. Band-Tailed Pigeons and Doves Analyses of Breeding Bird Survey
(BBS)data over the most recent 10 years and from 1968-2005 showed no significant long-term trend in either time period for the Pacific Coast population of band-tailed pigeons. A rangewide mineral site survey conducted in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California showed an increase in pigeons between 2001 and 2005 of over 10 percent per year. The preliminary 2005 harvest estimate from the Harvest Information Program
(HIP)was 13,500. For the Interior band-tailed pigeon population, BBS analyses indicated no trend over either time period. The preliminary 2005 harvest estimate was 2,700. Analyses of Mourning Dove Call-count Survey data over the most recent 10 years indicated no significant trend for doves heard in either the Eastern or Western Management Units while the Central Unit showed a significant decline. Over the 41-year period, 1966- 2006, all 3 units exhibited significant declines. In contrast, for doves seen over the 10-year period, a significant increase was found in the Eastern Unit, while no trends were found in the Central and Western Units. Over 41 years, no trend was found for doves seen in the Eastern and Central Units while a significant decline was indicated for the Western Unit. The preliminary 2005 harvest estimate for the United States was 22,149,900 doves. A banding project is under-way to obtain current information in order to develop mourning dove population models for each unit to provide guidance for improving our decision-making process with respect to harvest management. The two key States with a white-winged dove population are Arizona and Texas. California and New Mexico have much smaller populations. In Arizona, the white-winged dove population showed a significant decline between 1962 and 2005. However, the number of whitewings has been fairly stable since the 1970s, but then showed an apparent decline since 2000. To adjust harvest with population size, the bag limits, season length, and shooting hours have been reduced over the years, most recently in 1988. In recent years, the decline is thought to be largely due to drought conditions in the State, along with declining production of cereal grains. Arizona is currently experiencing the greatest drought in recorded history. In 2006, the Call-count index was 24.7. According to HIP surveys, the 2005 harvest estimate was 110,100. In Texas, white-winged doves are now found throughout most of the State. A comprehensive dataset for 2006 was not available at this time. However, in 2005, the whitewing population in Texas was estimated to be 2.8 million. The preliminary 2005 HIP harvest estimate was 1,095,100. In California, BBS data indicates that there has been a significant increase in the population between 1968 and 2005, while no trend was indicated over the most recent 10 years. According to HIP surveys, the preliminary harvest estimate for 2005 was 63,600. The long-term trend for whitewings in New Mexico also shows an increase, while there was no trend indicated over 10 years. In 2005, the estimated harvest was 52,100. White-tipped doves are maintaining a relatively stable population in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. They are most abundant in cities and, for the most part, are not available to hunting. New surveys were initiated in 2001. No 2006 data were available at the time of this report. However, data from 1987-2005 indicate an apparent slight increase over that time period. The count in 2005 averaged 0.95 birds per stop compared to 0.91 in 2004. The estimated harvest in 2005 from State surveys during the special 4-day whitewing season was about 1,300. Hunting Season Proposals From Indian Tribes and Organizations For the 2006-07 hunting season, we received requests from 26 Tribes and Indian organizations and communications from an additional 2 Tribes from whom we expect to receive proposals. We actively solicit regulatory proposals from other tribal groups that are interested in working cooperatively for the benefit of waterfowl and other migratory game birds. We encourage Tribes to work with us to develop agreements for management of migratory bird resources on tribal lands. It should be noted that this proposed rule includes generalized regulations for both early- and late-season hunting. A final rule will be published in a mid-August 2006 **Federal Register** that will include tribal regulations for the early-hunting season. The early season generally begins on September 1 each year and most commonly includes such species as American woodcock, sandhill cranes, mourning doves, and white-winged doves. A final rule will also be published in the **Federal Register** in September 2006 that will include regulations for late-season hunting. The late season begins on or around September 24 and most commonly includes waterfowl species. In this current rulemaking, because of the compressed timeframe for establishing regulations for Indian Tribes and because final frameworks dates and other specific information are not available, the regulations for many tribal hunting seasons are described in relation to the season dates, season length, and limits that will be permitted when final Federal frameworks are announced for early- and late-season regulations. For example, daily bag and possession limits for ducks on some areas are shown as the same as permitted in Pacific Flyway States under final Federal frameworks, and limits for geese will be shown as the same permitted by the State(s) in which the tribal hunting area is located. The proposed frameworks for early-season regulations were published in the **Federal Register** on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 43008); early-season final frameworks will be published in mid-August. Proposed late-season frameworks for waterfowl and coots will be published in mid-August, and the final frameworks for the late seasons will be published in mid-September. We will notify affected Tribes of season dates, bag limits, etc., as soon as final frameworks are established. As previously discussed, no action is required by Tribes wishing to observe migratory bird hunting regulations established by the State(s) where they are located. The proposed regulations for the 26 Tribes that have submitted proposals that meet the established criteria and an additional 2 Tribes from whom we expect to receive proposals are shown below.
(a)Colorado River Indian Tribes, Colorado River Indian Reservation, Parker, Arizona (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters) The Colorado River Indian Reservation is located in Arizona and California. The Tribes own almost all lands on the reservation, and have full wildlife management authority. In their 2006-07 proposal, the Colorado River Indian Tribes requested split dove seasons. They propose their early season begin September 1 and end September 15, 2006. Daily bag limits would be 10 mourning or white-winged doves in the aggregate. The late season for doves is proposed to open November 11, 2006, and close December 25, 2006. The daily bag limit would be 10 mourning doves. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to noon in the early season and until sunset in the late season. Other special tribally set regulations would apply. The Tribes also propose duck hunting seasons. The season would open October 14, 2006, and run until January 28, 2007. The Tribes propose the same season dates for mergansers, coots, and common moorhens. The daily bag limit for ducks, including mergansers, would be seven, except that the daily bag limits could contain no more than two hen mallards, two redheads, two Mexican ducks, two goldeneye, three scaup, and two cinnamon teal. The seasons on canvasback and pintail are closed. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit after the first day of the season. The daily bag and possession limit for coots and common moorhens would be 25, singly or in the aggregate. For geese, the Colorado River Indian Tribes propose a season of October 21, 2006, through January 28, 2007. The daily bag limit for geese would be three light geese and three dark geese. The possession limit would be six light geese and six dark geese after opening day. In 1996, the Tribe conducted a detailed assessment of dove hunting. Results showed approximately 16,100 mourning doves and 13,600 white-winged doves were harvested by approximately 2,660 hunters who averaged 1.45 hunter-days. Field observations and permit sales indicate that fewer than 200 hunters participate in waterfowl seasons. Under the proposed regulations described here and, based upon past seasons, we and the Tribes estimate harvest will be similar. Hunters must have a valid Colorado River Indian Reservation hunting permit in their possession while hunting. Other special tribally set regulations would apply. As in the past, the regulations would apply both to tribal and non-tribal hunters, and nontoxic shot is required for waterfowl hunting. We propose to approve the Colorado River Indian Tribes regulations for the 2006-07 hunting season.
(b)Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Flathead Indian Reservation, Pablo, Montana (Tribal and Nontribal Hunters) For the past several years, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the State of Montana have entered into cooperative agreements for the regulation of hunting on the Flathead Indian Reservation. The State and the Tribes are currently operating under a cooperative agreement signed in 1990 that addresses fishing and hunting management and regulation issues of mutual concern. This agreement enables all hunters to utilize waterfowl hunting opportunities on the reservation. As in the past, tribal regulations for nontribal hunters would be at least as restrictive as those established for the Pacific Flyway portion of Montana. Goose season dates would also be at least as restrictive as those established for the Pacific Flyway portion of Montana. Shooting hours for waterfowl hunting on the Flathead Reservation are sunrise to sunset. Steel shot or other federally approved nontoxic shots are the only legal shotgun loads on the reservation for waterfowl or other game birds. For tribal members the Tribe proposes outside frameworks for ducks and geese of September 1, 2006, through March 9, 2007. Daily bag and possession limits were not proposed for tribal members. The requested season dates and bag limits are similar to past regulations. Harvest levels are not expected to change significantly. Standardized check station data from the 1993-94 and 1994-95 hunting seasons indicated no significant changes in harvest levels and that the large majority of the harvest is by non-tribal hunters. We propose to approve the Tribes' request for special migratory bird regulations for the 2006-07 hunting season.
(c)Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Crow Creek Indian Reservation, Fort Thompson, South Dakota (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters) The Crow Creek Indian Reservation has a checkerboard pattern of land ownership, with much of the land owned by non-Indians. Since the 1993-94 season, the Tribe has selected special waterfowl hunting regulations independent of the State of South Dakota. The Tribe observes migratory bird hunting regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20. We have not yet received the Tribe's 2006 proposal. We assume the Tribe will request a duck and merganser season of October 1 to December 12, 2006, with a daily bag limit of six ducks, including no more than five mallards (only two of which may be hens), two redheads, two wood ducks, and three scaup. The merganser daily bag limit would be five and include no more than one hooded merganser. The daily bag limit for coots would be 15. We assume the pintail and canvasback season would run from October 1 to November 9, 2006, with a daily bag limit of one pintail and one canvasback. For Canada geese, we assume the Tribe will propose an October 15, 2006, to January 17, 2007, season with a three-bird daily bag limit. For white-fronted geese, we assume the Tribe will propose a September 24 to December 18, 2006, season with a daily bag limit of two. For snow geese, we assume the Tribe will propose a September 24, 2006, to December 29, 2006, season with a daily bag limit of 20. Similar to the last several years, we assume the Tribe will also request a sandhill crane season from September 10 to October 16, 2006, with a daily bag limit of three. We assume the Tribe will propose a mourning dove season from September 1 to October 30, 2006, with a daily bag limit of 15. In all cases, except snow geese, the possession limits would be twice the daily bag limit. There would be no possession limit for snow geese. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. We assume the season and bag limits would be essentially the same as last year and as such, the Tribe would expect similar harvest. In 1994-95, duck harvest was 48 birds, down from 67 in 1993-94. Goose harvest during recent past seasons has been less than 100 geese. Total harvest on the reservation in 2000 was estimated to be 179 ducks and 868 geese. The Service proposes to approve the request for special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe upon receipt of their special migratory bird hunting proposal. We also remind the Tribe that all sandhill crane hunters are required to obtain a Federal sandhill crane permit. As such, the Tribe should contact us for further information on obtaining the needed permits. In addition, as with all other groups, we request the Tribe continue to survey and report harvest.
(d)Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Cloquet, Minnesota (Tribal Members Only) Since 1996, the Service and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians have cooperated to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members. The Fond du Lac's May 29, 2006, proposal covers land set apart for the band under the Treaties of 1837 and 1854 in northeast and east-central Minnesota. The band's proposal for 2006-07 is essentially the same as that approved last year. Specifically, the Fond du Lac Band proposes a September 15 to December 3, 2006, season on ducks, mergansers, coots, and moorhens, and a September 1 to December 3, 2006, season for geese. For sora and Virginia rails, snipe, and woodcock, the Fond du Lac Band proposes a September 1 to December 3, 2006, season. The band proposes a September 1 to October 30, 2006, season for mourning doves. Proposed daily bag limits would consist of the following: *Ducks:* 18 ducks, including no more than 12 mallards (only 6 of which may be hens), 3 black ducks, 6 scaup, 4 wood ducks, 6 redheads, 3 pintails, and 3 canvasbacks. *Mergansers:* 15 mergansers, including no more than 3 hooded mergansers. *Geese:* 12 geese. *Coots and Common Moorhens (Common Gallinules):* 20 coots and common moorhens, singly or in the aggregate. *Sora and Virginia Rails:* 25 sora and Virginia rails, singly or in the aggregate. *Common Snipe:* Eight common snipe. *Woodcock:* Three woodcock. *Mourning dove:* 30 mourning dove. The following general conditions apply: 1. While hunting waterfowl, a tribal member must carry on his/her person a valid Ceded Territory License. 2. Shooting hours for migratory birds are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. 3. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Model Off-Reservation Code. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel Federal requirements in 50 CFR part 20 as to hunting methods, transportation, sale, exportation, and other conditions generally applicable to migratory bird hunting. 4. Band members in each zone will comply with State regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. 5. There are no possession limits on any species, unless otherwise noted above. For purposes of enforcing bag limits, all migratory birds in the possession or custody of band members on ceded lands will be considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as having been taken on-reservation. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands will not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit. The band anticipates harvest will be fewer than 500 ducks and geese. We propose to approve the request for special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewas.
(e)Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Suttons Bay, Michigan (Tribal Members Only) In the 1995-96 migratory bird seasons, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and the Service first cooperated to establish special regulations for waterfowl. The Grand Traverse Band is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located on the west arm of Grand Traverse Bay in Leelanau County, Michigan. The Grand Traverse Band is a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations for tribal members of the 1836 treaty's signatory Tribes on ceded lands in Michigan since the 1986-87 hunting season. For the 2006-07 season, the Tribe requests that the tribal member duck season run from September 22, 2006, through January 21, 2007. A daily bag limit of 12 would include no more than 2 pintail, 2 canvasback, 1 hooded merganser, 3 black ducks, 3 wood ducks, 3 redheads, and 6 mallards (only 3 of which may be hens). For Canada and snow geese, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 30, 2006, and a January 1 through February 8, 2007, season. For white-fronted geese and brant, the Tribe proposes a September 20 through November 30, 2006, season. The daily bag limit for all geese (including brant) would be five birds. Based on our information, it is unlikely that any Canada geese from the Southern James Bay Population will be harvested by the Tribe. For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2006, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed five birds. For mourning doves, snipe and rails, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 14, 2006, season. The daily bag limit would be 10 per species. All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply. The Tribe proposes to monitor harvest closely through game bag checks, patrols, and mail surveys. Harvest surveys from the 2005-06 hunting season indicated that approximately 15 tribal hunters harvested an estimated 80 ducks and 35 Canada geese. We propose to approve the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians requested 2006-07 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
(f)Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Odanah, Wisconsin (Tribal Members Only) Since 1985, various bands of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians have exercised judicially recognized off-reservation hunting rights for migratory birds in Wisconsin. The specific regulations were established by the Service in consultation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC, which represents the various bands). Beginning in 1986, a tribal season on ceded lands in the western portion of the State's Upper Peninsula was developed in coordination with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and we have approved special regulations for tribal members in both Michigan and Wisconsin since the 1986-87 hunting season. In 1987, the GLIFWC requested, and we approved, special regulations to permit tribal members to hunt on ceded lands in Minnesota, as well as in Michigan and Wisconsin. The States of Michigan and Wisconsin originally concurred with the regulations, although Wisconsin has raised concerns in the past and Michigan now annually raises objections. Minnesota did not concur with the original regulations, stressing that the State would not recognize Chippewa Indian hunting rights in Minnesota's treaty area until a court with jurisdiction over the State acknowledges and defines the extent of these rights. We acknowledge all of the States' concerns, but point out that the U.S. Government has recognized the Indian hunting rights decided in the *Lac Courte Oreilles* v. *State of Wisconsin (Voigt)* case, and that acceptable hunting regulations have been negotiated successfully in both Michigan and Wisconsin even though the Voigt decision did not specifically address ceded land outside Wisconsin. We believe this is appropriate because the treaties in question cover ceded lands in Michigan (and Minnesota), as well as in Wisconsin. Consequently, in view of the above, we have approved special regulations since the 1987-88 hunting season on ceded lands in all three States. In fact, this recognition of the principle of reserved treaty rights for band members to hunt and fish was pivotal in our decision to approve a special 1991-92 season for the 1836 ceded area in Michigan. For 2006, the GLIFWC proposed off-reservation special migratory bird hunting regulations on behalf of the member Tribes of the Voigt Intertribal Task Force of the GLIFWC (for the 1837 and 1842 Treaty areas) and the Bay Mills Indian Community (for the 1836 Treaty area). Member Tribes of the Task Force are: The Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, the Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake Band), all in Wisconsin; the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians in Minnesota; and the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Chippewa Indians and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community in Michigan. The GLIFWC 2006 proposal is generally similar to last year's regulations, except that it includes significantly increased bag limits for most species in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas, and it proposes to remove the restriction on waterfowl baiting. More specifically, the proposal includes increasing the daily bag limit for ducks, geese, and mergansers in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas to 40, 20, and 10 birds, respectively (from 20, 10, and 5 birds in 2005, respectively), and increasing the daily bag limit for coots and common moorhens to 40 (from 20 in 2005) in the same areas. The proposal also calls for increasing the daily bag limit for snipe, woodcock, and mourning doves to 16, 10, and 30 birds, respectively (from 8, 5, and 15 birds in 2005, respectively), in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. Lastly, the proposal does reduce the daily bag limit for rails from 25 to 20 birds. Regarding baiting, in an effort to increase hunter participation, the GLIFWC proposal would remove the restrictions on the baiting of waterfowl in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. Under the GLIFWC proposed regulations, GLIFWC expects harvest to increase with their proposed more liberal bag limits and removal of the restrictions on baiting in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. The GLIFWC states that although it is expected these proposed changes will increase harvest, it is difficult to anticipate to what degree that may occur, as harvest will continue to be limited by the number of hunters, their opportunity to hunt, their personal interest in baiting, the strength of the fall flight, weather conditions, and other factors. Given these factors, the Tribe expects harvest would likely remain below 5,000 ducks and 1,000 geese. The issue of baiting for migratory game bird hunting is highly controversial, highly debated, and complex regulations govern and define what is and what is not allowed when hunting migratory game birds. Baiting, the luring or attracting of migratory game birds to hunters by placing or scattering salt, grain, or other feed was Federally prohibited in 1935 because of its effectiveness in aiding the harvest of migratory birds and is not considered a legitimate component of hunting. Since their establishment, baiting regulations have been a focal point of many regulatory, ethical, and conservation-oriented discussions. Amendments to baiting regulations have occurred relatively infrequently since the 1940s. However, in 1999, the migratory bird baiting regulations were revised to clarify the current regulations and to provide a framework for sound migratory bird habitat management, normal agricultural activities, and other management practices as they relate to lawful migratory game bird hunting ( **Federal Register** 64 FR 29799). Given the fact that tribal waterfowl hunting covered by this proposal would occur on ceded lands that are not in the ownership of the Tribes, we believe the use of bait to take waterfowl would lead to confusion and frustration on the part of the public, hunters, wildlife-management agencies, and law enforcement officials due to the inherent difficulties of different sets of baiting regulations for different areas and groups of hunters. Currently, the baiting regulations differentiate between waterfowl species and other migratory game birds, such as doves and pigeons. Some agricultural management practices that are allowed in connection with dove hunting are not allowed when hunting waterfowl. To create an additional division between tribal members on ceded lands and the rest of the general hunting public would only further complicate the regulations and confuse the public. Moreover, the allowance of baiting for tribal hunting on ceded lands would make those lands and other adjacent areas off-limits to waterfowl hunting. Recent GLIFWC harvest surveys (1996-98, 2001, and 2004) indicate that tribal off-reservation waterfowl harvest has averaged less than 1,000 ducks and 120 geese annually. In the latest survey year (2004), an estimated 53 hunters took an estimated 421 trips and harvested 645 ducks (1.5 ducks per trip) and 84 geese (0.2 geese per trip). Further, in the last five years of harvest surveys, only one hunter reported harvesting 20 ducks in a single day. Analysis of hunter survey data over the period in question (1996-2004) indicates a general downward trend in both harvest and hunter participation. Given the above information, we believe that the regulations advanced by the GLIFWC for the 2006-07 hunting season are not in the best interests of the Service, the GLIFWC, the general public, or the migratory bird resource. While we acknowledge that tribal harvest and participation has declined in recent years, we are not of the opinion that allowing baiting is the best way to increase Tribal hunter participation. As we stated above, removing the present restrictions on waterfowl baiting would only lead to confusion and frustration on the part of the public, hunters, wildlife-management agencies, and law enforcement officials due to the inherent difficulties of different sets of baiting regulations for different areas and groups of hunters, especially on ceded lands that are not in the ownership of the Tribes. Furthermore, we do not support the GLIFWC's proposal for significantly increased daily bag limits for most species in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. Based on the GLIFWC's own harvest data, present daily bag limits do not appear to be a hindrance or limiting factor for Tribal harvest. Until we are presented information otherwise, we cannot support increasing daily bag limits for waterfowl, coots and common moorhens, and mourning doves to the extent GLIFWC has proposed. We do, however, support the proposals for increasing the daily bag limits for mergansers, snipe, and woodcock in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas to bring them more in line with current GLIFWC daily bag limits for ducks and geese. In addition, the Service is willing to meet with the GLIFWC to explore possible ways to increase tribal participation in migratory bird hunting opportunities. Finally, we continue to request that the GLIFWC closely monitor the member bands' harvest and take any actions necessary to reduce harvest if locally nesting populations are being significantly impacted. The Commission and the Service are parties to a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA)designed to facilitate the ongoing enforcement of Service-approved tribal migratory bird regulations. Its intent is to provide long-term cooperative application. Also, as in recent seasons, the proposal contains references to Chapter 10 of the Migratory Bird Harvesting Regulations of the Model Off-Reservation Conservation Code. Chapter 10 regulations parallel State and Federal regulations and, in effect, are not changed by this proposal. The proposed 2006-07 waterfowl hunting season regulations for GLIFWC are as follows: Ducks *A. Wisconsin and Minnesota 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas:* *Season Dates:* Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2006. *Daily Bag Limit:* 20 ducks, including no more than 10 mallards (only 5 of which may be hens), 4 black ducks, 4 redheads, 4 pintails, and 2 canvasbacks. *B. Michigan 1836 Treaty Area:* *Season Dates:* Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2006. *Daily Bag Limit:* 10 ducks, including no more than 5 mallards (only 2 of which may be hens), 2 black ducks, 2 redheads, 2 pintails, and 1 canvasback. Mergansers *A. Wisconsin and Minnesota 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas:* *Season Dates:* Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2006. *Daily Bag Limit:* 10 mergansers. *B. Michigan 1836 Treaty Area:* *Season Dates:* Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2006. *Daily Bag Limit:* Five mergansers. *Geese:* All Ceded Areas: *Season Dates:* Begin September 1 and end December 1, 2006. In addition, any portion of the ceded territory that is open to State-licensed hunters for goose hunting after December 1 will also be open concurrently for tribal members. *Daily Bag Limit:* 10 geese in aggregate. Other Migratory Birds *A. Coots and Common Moorhens (Common Gallinules):* *Season Dates:* Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2006. *Daily Bag Limit:* 20 coots and common moorhens (common gallinules), singly or in the aggregate. *B. Sora and Virginia Rails:* *Season Dates:* Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2006. *Daily Bag Limit:* 20 sora and Virginia rails, singly or in the aggregate. *Possession Limit:* 25. *C. Common Snipe:* *Season Dates:* Begin September 15 and end December 1, 2006. *Daily Bag Limit:* 16 common snipe in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas; and 8, in the 1836 Treaty Area. *D. Woodcock:* *Season Dates:* Begin September 5 and end December 1, 2006. *Daily Bag Limit:* 10 woodcock in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas; and 5, in the 1836 Treaty Area. *E. Mourning Dove:* 1837 and 1842 Ceded Territories. *Season Dates:* Begin September 1 and end October 30, 2006. *Daily Bag Limit:* 15. General Conditions A. All tribal members will be required to obtain a valid tribal waterfowl hunting permit. B. Except as otherwise noted, tribal members will be required to comply with tribal codes that will be no less restrictive than the model ceded territory conservation codes approved by Federal courts in the *Lac Courte Oreilles* v. *State of Wisconsin (Voigt)* and *Mille Lacs Band* v. *State of Minnesota* cases. Chapter 10 in each of these model codes regulates ceded territory migratory bird hunting. Both versions of Chapter 10 parallel Federal requirements as to hunting methods, transportation, sale, exportation and other conditions generally applicable to migratory bird hunting. They also automatically incorporate by reference the Federal migratory bird regulations adopted in response to this proposal. C. Particular regulations of note include: 1. Nontoxic shot will be required for all off-reservation waterfowl hunting by tribal members. 2. Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations. 3. Possession limits for each species are double the daily bag limit, except on the opening day of the season, when the possession limit equals the daily bag limit, unless otherwise noted above. Possession limits are applicable only to transportation and do not include birds that are cleaned, dressed, and at a member's primary residence. For purposes of enforcing bag and possession limits, all migratory birds in the possession and custody of tribal members on ceded lands will be considered to have been taken on those lands unless tagged by a tribal or State conservation warden as taken on reservation lands. All migratory birds that fall on reservation lands will not count as part of any off-reservation bag or possession limit. 4. The baiting restrictions included in the respective sections 10.05(2)(h) of the model ceded territory conservation codes will be amended to include language which parallels that in place for non-tribal members as published in 64 FR 29799, June 3, 1999. 5. The shell limit restrictions included in the respective sections 10.05 (2)(b) of the model ceded territory conservation codes will be removed. D. Michigan—Duck Blinds and Decoys. Tribal members hunting in Michigan will comply with tribal codes that contain provisions parallel to Michigan law regarding duck blinds and decoys.
(g)Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Indian Reservation, Dulce, New Mexico (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters) The Jicarilla Apache Tribe has had special migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members and nonmembers since the 1986-87 hunting season. The Tribe owns all lands on the reservation and has recognized full wildlife management authority. In general, the proposed seasons would be more conservative than allowed by the Federal frameworks of last season and by States in the Pacific Flyway. The Tribe proposed a 2006-07 waterfowl and Canada goose season beginning with the earliest possible opening date in the Pacific Flyway States, October 7, 2006, and a closing date of November 30, 2006. Daily bag and possession limits for waterfowl would be the same as Pacific Flyway States. The Tribe proposes a daily bay limit for Canada geese of two. Other regulations specific to the Pacific Flyway guidelines for New Mexico would be in effect. During the Jicarilla Game and Fish Department's 2005-06 season, estimated duck harvest was 606, which is within the historical harvest range. The species composition in the past has included mainly mallards, gadwall, wigeon, and teal. Northern pintail comprised 1 percent of the total harvest in 2004. The estimated harvest of geese was 12 birds. The proposed regulations are essentially the same as were established last year. The Tribe anticipates the maximum 2006-07 waterfowl harvest would be around 500-750 ducks and 10-25 geese. We propose to approve the Tribe's requested 2006-07 hunting seasons.
(h)Kalispel Tribe, Kalispel Reservation, Usk, Washington (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters) The Kalispel Reservation was established by Executive Order in 1914, and currently comprises approximately 4,600 acres. The Tribe owns all Reservation land and has full management authority. The Kalispel Tribe has a fully developed wildlife program with hunting and fishing codes. The Tribe enjoys excellent wildlife management relations with the State. The Tribe and the State have an operational Memorandum of Understanding with emphasis on fisheries but also for wildlife. The nontribal member seasons described below pertain to a 176-acre waterfowl management unit and 800 acres of reservation land with a guide for waterfowl hunting. The Tribe is utilizing this opportunity to rehabilitate an area that needs protection because of past land use practices, as well as to provide additional waterfowl hunting in the area. Beginning in 1996, the requested regulations also included a proposal for Kalispel-member-only migratory bird hunting on Kalispel-ceded lands within Washington, Montana, and Idaho. For the 2006-07 migratory bird hunting seasons, the Kalispel Tribe proposed tribal and nontribal member waterfowl seasons. The Tribe requests that both duck and goose seasons open at the earliest possible date and close on the latest date under Federal frameworks. For nontribal hunters, the Tribe requests that the season for ducks begin September 23, 2006, and end January 31, 2007. In that period, nontribal hunters would be allowed to hunt approximately 101 days. Hunters should obtain further information on specific hunt days from the Kalispel Tribe. The Tribe also requests the season for geese run from September 1 to September 17, 2006, and from October 1, 2006, to January 31, 2007. Total number of days would not exceed 107. Nontribal hunters should obtain further information on specific hunt days from the Tribe. Daily bag and possession limits would be the same as those for the State of Washington. The Tribe reports a 2005-06 nontribal harvest of 80 ducks and 0 geese. Under the proposal, the Tribe expects harvest to be similar to last year and less than 100 geese and 200 ducks. All other State and Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20, such as use of nontoxic shot and possession of a signed migratory bird hunting stamp, would be required. For tribal members on Kalispel-ceded lands, the Kalispel propose outside frameworks for ducks and geese of September 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. The Tribe requests that both duck and goose seasons open at the earliest possible date and close on the latest date under Federal frameworks. However, during that period, the Tribe proposes that the season run continuously. Daily bag and possession limits would be concurrent with the Federal rule. The Tribe reports that there was no 2004-05 tribal harvest. Under the proposal, the Tribe expects harvest to be less than 500 birds for the season with less than 200 geese. Tribal members would be required to possess a signed Federal migratory bird stamp and a tribal ceded lands permit. We propose to approve the regulations requested by the Kalispel Tribe, provided that the nontribal seasons conform to Treaty limitations and final Federal frameworks for the Pacific Flyway. All seasons for nontribal hunters must conform with the 107-day maximum season length established by the Treaty.
(i)Klamath Tribe, Chiloquin, Oregon (Tribal Members Only) The Klamath Tribe currently has no reservation, per se. However, the Klamath Tribe has reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights within its former reservation boundary. This area of former reservation, granted to the Klamaths by the Treaty of 1864, is over 1 million acres. Tribal natural resource management authority is derived from the Treaty of 1864, and carried out cooperatively under the judicially enforced Consent Decree of 1981. The parties to this Consent Decree are the Federal Government, the State of Oregon, and the Klamaths. The Klamath Indian Game Commission sets the seasons. The tribal biological staff and tribal Regulatory Enforcement Officers monitor tribal harvest by frequent bag checks and hunter interviews. For the 2006-07 season, the Tribe requests proposed season dates of October 1, 2006, through January 28, 2007. Daily bag limits would be nine for ducks and six for geese, with possession limits twice the daily bag limit. The daily bag and possession limit for coots would be 25. Shooting hours would be one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Steel shot is required. Based on the number of birds produced in the Klamath Basin, this year's harvest would be similar to last year's. Information on tribal harvest suggests that more than 70 percent of the annual goose harvest is local birds produced in the Klamath Basin. We propose to approve the Klamath Tribe's requested 2006-07 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
(j)Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Cass Lake, Minnesota (Tribal Members Only) The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe is a federally recognized Tribe located in Cass Lake, Minnesota. The reservation employs conservation officers to enforce conservation regulations. The Service and the Tribe have cooperatively established migratory bird hunting regulations since 2000. For the 2006-07 season, the Tribe requests a duck season starting on September 23 and ending December 31, 2006, and a goose season to run from September 1 through December 31, 2006. Daily bag limits for both ducks and geese would be 20. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limit. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. The annual harvest by tribal members on the Leech Lake Reservation is estimated at 500-1,000 birds. We propose to approve the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe's special migratory bird hunting season.
(k)Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Manistee, Michigan (Tribal Members Only) The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located in Manistee, Michigan, and a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations for tribal members of the 1836 treaty's signatory Tribes on ceded lands in Michigan since the 1986-87 hunting season. Ceded lands are located in Lake, Mason, Manistee, and Wexford Counties. For the 2006-07 season, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians proposes a duck and merganser season from September 15, 2006, through January 20, 2007. A daily bag limit of 12 ducks would include no more than 2 pintail, 2 canvasback, 3 black duck, 3 wood ducks, 3 redheads, 6 mallards (only 3 of which may be a hen), and 1 hooded merganser. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limit. For white-fronted geese, snow geese, and brant, the Tribe proposes a September 20 through November 30, 2006, season. Daily bag limits would be five geese. For Canada geese only, the Tribe proposes a September 1, 2006, through February 8, 2007, season with a daily bag limit of five Canada geese. The possession limit would be twice the daily bag limit. For snipe, woodcock, rails, and mourning doves, the Tribe proposes a September 1 to November 14, 2006, season. The daily bag limit would be 10 common snipe, 5 woodcock, 10 rails, and 10 mourning doves. Possession limits for all species would be twice the daily bag limit. The Tribe monitored harvest through mail surveys. General Conditions were as follows: A. All tribal members will be required to obtain a valid tribal resource card and 2006-07 hunting license. B. Except as modified by the Service rules adopted in response to this proposal, these amended regulations parallel all Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20. C. Particular regulations of note include:
(1)Nontoxic shot will be required for all waterfowl hunting by tribal members.
(2)Tribal members in each zone will comply with tribal regulations providing for closed and restricted waterfowl hunting areas. These regulations generally incorporate the same restrictions contained in parallel State regulations. D. Tribal members hunting in Michigan will comply with tribal codes that contain provisions parallel to Michigan law regarding duck blinds and decoys. We propose to approve Little River Band of Ottawa Indians special migratory bird hunting seasons.
(l)The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Petoskey, Michigan (Tribal Members Only) The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians is a self-governing, federally recognized Tribe located in Petoskey, Michigan, and a signatory Tribe of the Treaty of 1836. We have approved special regulations for tribal members of the 1836 treaty's signatory Tribes on ceded lands in Michigan since the 1986-87 hunting season. For the 2006-07 season, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians propose regulations similar to those of other Tribes in the 1836 treaty area. The tribal member duck, merganser, coot, and gallinule season would run from September 15, 2006, through January 20, 2007. A daily bag limit of 12 would include no more than 2 pintail, 2 canvasback, 1 hooded merganser, 3 black ducks, 3 wood ducks, 3 redheads, and 6 mallards (only 3 of which may be hens). For Canada geese, the Tribe proposes a September 1, 2006, through February 8, 2007, season. For white-fronted geese, brant, and snow geese, the Tribe proposes a September 1 through November 30, 2006, season. The daily bag limit for Canada geese would be 5 birds, and for snow geese, brant, and white-fronted geese, 10 birds. Based on our information, it is unlikely that any Canada geese from the Southern James Bay Population would be harvested by the Tribe. Possession limits are twice the daily bag limit. For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a September 1, 2006, to November 14, 2006, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed five birds. For snipe, mourning doves, and sora rail, the Tribe proposes a September 1 to November 14, 2006, season. The daily bag limit will not exceed 10 birds per species. The possession limit will not exceed two days bag limit for all birds. All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply. The Tribe proposes to monitor harvest closely through game bag checks, patrols, and mail surveys. In particular, the Tribe proposes monitoring the harvest of Southern James Bay Canada geese to assess any impacts of tribal hunting on the population. We propose to approve the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians' requested 2006-07 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
(m)Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Reservation, Lower Brule, South Dakota (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters) The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe first established tribal migratory bird hunting regulations for the Lower Brule Reservation in 1994. The Lower Brule Reservation is about 214,000 acres in size and is located on and adjacent to the Missouri River, south of Pierre. Land ownership on the reservation is mixed, and until recently, the Lower Brule Tribe had full management authority over fish and wildlife via an MOA with the State of South Dakota. The MOA provided the Tribe jurisdiction over fish and wildlife on reservation lands, including deeded and Corps of Engineers-taken lands. For the 2006-07 season, the two parties have come to an agreement that provides the public a clear understanding of the Lower Brule Sioux Wildlife Department license requirements and hunting season regulations. The Lower Brule Reservation waterfowl season is open to tribal and non-tribal hunters. For the 2006-07 migratory bird hunting season, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe proposes a nontribal member duck, merganser, and coot season length of 97 days, the same number of days tentatively allowed under the liberal regulatory alternative in the High Plains Management Unit for this season. The Tribe proposes a season from October 14, 2006, through January 19, 2007. For pintail only, the tribe proposes a season from October 21, 2006, through November 28, 2006. The daily bag limit would be six birds, including no more than five mallards (only one of which may be a hen), one pintail (only when the season is open), two redheads, two wood ducks, three scaup, and one mottled duck. The canvasback season for nontribal hunters is closed. The daily bag limit for mergansers would be five, only one of which could be a hooded merganser. The daily bag limit for coots would be 15. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limits. The Tribe also proposes a youth waterfowl hunt on September 23-24, 2006, with the daily bag and possession limits the same as above. The Tribe's proposed nontribal member Canada goose season would run from October 28, 2006, through January 31, 2007 (95 day season length), with a daily bag limit of three Canada geese. The Tribe's proposed nontribal member white-fronted goose season would run from October 7, 2006, through December 31, 2006, with a daily bag limit of two white-fronted geese. The Tribe's proposed nontribal member light goose season would run from October 14, 2006, through January 16, 2007, and February 25 through March 10, 2007. The light goose daily bag limit would be 20. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limits. For tribal members, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe proposes a duck, merganser, and coot season from September 30, 2006, through March 10, 2007. The daily bag limit would be six birds, including no more than five mallards (only one of which may be a hen), one pintail, two redheads, one canvasback, two wood ducks, three scaup, and one mottled duck. The daily bag limit for mergansers would be five, only one of which could be a hooded merganser. The daily bag limit for coots would be 15. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limits. The Tribe also proposes a youth waterfowl hunt on September 23-24, 2006, with the daily bag and possession limits the same as above. The Tribe's proposed Canada goose season for tribal members would run from October 14, 2006, through March 10, 2007, with a daily bag limit of three Canada geese. The Tribe's proposed white-fronted goose tribal season would run from October 7, 2006, through March 10, 2007, with a daily bag limit of two white-fronted geese. The Tribe's proposed light goose tribal season would run from October 14, 2006, through March 10, 2007. The light goose daily bag limit would be 20. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limits. In the 2005-06 season, hunters harvested an estimated 760 geese and 96 ducks. In the 2005-06 season, duck harvest species composition was primarily mallard (82 percent), green-winged teal (9 percent), gadwall (2 percent), blue-winged teal (7 percent), and wood duck (1 percent). Goose harvest species composition in 2005-06 at Mni Sho Sho was approximately 83 percent Canada geese, 15 percent snow geese, and 2 percent white-fronted geese. Harvest of geese harvested by other hunters was approximately 96 percent Canada geese and 4 percent snow geese. The Tribe anticipates a duck harvest similar to those of the previous three years and a goose harvest below the target harvest level of 3,000 to 4,000 geese. All basic Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20, including the use of steel shot, Migratory Waterfowl Hunting and Conservation Stamp, etc., would be observed by the Tribe's proposed regulations. In addition, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe has an official Conservation Code that was established by Tribal Council Resolution in June 1982 and updated in 1996. We propose to approve the Tribe's requested regulations for the Lower Brule Reservation.
(n)Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, Washington (Tribal Members Only) Since 1996, the Service and the Point No Point Treaty Tribes, of which Lower Elwha was one, have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Tribes are now acting independently and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe would like to establish migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members for the 2005-2006 season. The Tribe has a reservation on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State and is a successor to the signatories of the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855. For the 2006-07 season, we have not yet heard from the Tribe. We assume the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe will request a duck and coot season from September 15, 2006, to December 30, 2006. The daily bag limit will be seven ducks including no more than two hen mallards, one pintail, one canvasback, and two redheads. The daily bag and possession limit on harlequin duck will be one per season. The coot daily bag limit will be 25. The possession limit will be twice the daily bag limit, except as noted above. For geese, we assume the Tribe will request a season from September 15, 2006, to December 30, 2006. The daily bag limit will be four, including no more than three light geese. The season on Aleutian Canada geese will be closed. For Brant, we assume the Tribe will propose a season from November 1, 2006, to February 15, 2007, with a daily bag limit of two. The possession limit will be twice the daily bag limit. For mourning doves, band-tailed pigeon, and snipe, we assume the Tribe will request a season from September 15, 2006, to December 30, 2006, with a daily bag limit of 10, 2, and 8, respectively. The possession limit will be twice the daily bag limit. All Tribal hunters authorized to hunt migratory birds are required to obtain a tribal hunting permit from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. Only steel, tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer, tungsten-matrix, and tin shot are allowed for hunting waterfowl. It is unlawful to use or possess lead shot while hunting waterfowl. The Tribe typically anticipates harvest to be fewer than 100 birds. Tribal reservation police and Tribal Fisheries enforcement officers have the authority to enforce these migratory bird hunting regulations. The Service proposes to approve the request for special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe's upon receipt of their special migratory bird hunting proposal.
(o)Makah Indian Tribe, Neah Bay, Washington (Tribal Members Only) The Makah Indian Tribe and the Service have been cooperating to establish special regulations for migratory game birds on the Makah Reservation and traditional hunting land off the Makah Reservation since the 2001-02 hunting season. Lands off the Makah Reservation are those contained within the boundaries of the State of Washington Game Management Units 601-603 and 607. The Makah Indian Tribe proposes a duck and coot hunting season from September 23, 2006, to January 21, 2007. The daily bag limit is seven ducks, including no more than one canvasback, one pintail, and one redhead. The daily bag limit for coots is 25. The Tribe has a year-round closure on wood ducks and harlequin ducks. For geese, the Tribe proposes the season open on September 23, 2006, and close January 21, 2007. The daily bag limit for geese is four and one brant. The Tribe notes that there is a year-round closure on Aleutian and Dusky Canada geese. For band-tailed pigeons, the Tribe proposes the season open September 1, 2006, and close October 31, 2006. The daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeons is two. Shooting hours for all species of waterfowl are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. The Tribe anticipates that harvest under this regulation will be relatively low since fewer than 20 hunters are likely to participate during the proposed season. The Tribe expects fewer than 50 total waterfowl to be harvested during the 2006-07 migratory bird hunting season. All other Federal regulations contained in 50 CFR part 20 would apply. The following restrictions are also proposed by the Tribe:
(1)As per Makah Ordinance 44, only shotguns may be used to hunt any species of waterfowl. Additionally, shotguns must not be discharged within 0.25 miles of an occupied area;
(2)Hunters must be eligible, enrolled Makah tribal members and must carry their Indian Treaty Fishing and Hunting Identification Card while hunting. No tags or permits are required to hunt waterfowl;
(3)The Cape Flattery area is open to waterfowl hunting, except in designated wilderness areas, or within one mile of Cape Flattery Trail, or in any area that is closed to hunting by another ordinance or regulation;
(4)The use of live decoys and/or baiting to pursue any species of waterfowl is prohibited;
(5)Steel or bismuth shot only for waterfowl is allowed; the use of lead shot is prohibited;
(6)The use of dogs is permitted to hunt waterfowl. We propose to approve the Makah Indian Tribe's requested 2006-07 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
(p)Navajo Nation, Navajo Indian Reservation, Window Rock, Arizona (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters) Since 1985, we have established uniform migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members and nonmembers on the Navajo Indian Reservation (in parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah). The Navajo Nation owns almost all lands on the reservation and has full wildlife management authority. For the 2006-07 season, the Navajo Nation requests special migratory bird hunting regulations on the reservation for both tribal and nontribal hunters for the 2006-07 hunting season for ducks (including mergansers), Canada geese, coots, band-tailed pigeons, and mourning doves. For ducks, mergansers, Canada geese, and coots, the Tribe requests the earliest opening dates and longest seasons, and the same daily bag and possession limits allowed to Pacific Flyway States under final Federal frameworks. For both mourning dove and band-tailed pigeons, the Navajo Nation proposes seasons of September 1 through September 30, 2006, with daily bag limits of 10 and 5, respectively. Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limits. The Nation requires tribal members and nonmembers to comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 pertaining to shooting hours and manner of taking. In addition, each waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or over must carry on his/her person a valid Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp), which must be signed in ink across the face. Special regulations established by the Navajo Nation also apply on the reservation. The Tribe usually anticipates a total harvest of fewer than 500 mourning doves; 20 band-tailed pigeons; 1,000 ducks, coots, and mergansers; and 1,000 Canada geese for the 2006-07 season. Harvest will be measured by mail survey forms. Through the established Tribal Nation Code, Title 17 and 18 U.S.C. 1165, the Tribe will take action to close the season, reduce bag limits, or take other appropriate actions if the harvest is detrimental to the migratory bird resource. We propose to approve the Navajo Nation's special migratory bird season.
(q)Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida, Wisconsin (Tribal Members Only) Since 1991-92, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin and the Service have cooperated to establish uniform regulations for migratory bird hunting by tribal and non-tribal hunters within the original Oneida Reservation boundaries. Since 1985, the Oneida Tribe's Conservation Department has enforced the Tribe's hunting regulations within those original reservation limits. The Oneida Tribe also has a good working relationship with the State of Wisconsin and the majority of the seasons and limits are the same for the Tribe and Wisconsin. In a May 31, 2006, letter, the Tribe proposed special migratory bird hunting regulations. For ducks, the Tribe described the general outside dates as being September 23 through December 3, 2006, with a closed segment of November 18 to 26, 2006. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of six birds, which could include no more than six mallards (three hen mallards), six wood duck, one redhead, two pintail, and one hooded merganser. For geese, the Tribe requests a season between September 1 and December 31, 2006, with a daily bag limit of three Canada geese. Hunters will be issued three tribal tags for geese in order to monitor goose harvest. An additional three tags will be issued each time birds are registered. The Tribe will close the season November 18 to 26, 2006. If a quota of 300 geese is attained before the season concludes, the Tribe will recommend closing the season early. For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a season between September 1 and November 17, 2006, with a daily bag and possession limit of 5 and 10, respectively. For mourning dove, the Tribe proposes a season between September 1 and November 12, 2006, with a daily bag and possession limit of 10 and 20, respectively. The Tribe proposes shooting hours be one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Nontribal hunters hunting on the Reservation or on lands under the jurisdiction of the Tribe must comply with all State of Wisconsin regulations, including shooting hours of one-half hour before sunrise to sunset, season dates, and daily bag limits. Tribal members and nontribal hunters hunting on the Reservation or on lands under the jurisdiction of the Tribe must observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, with the following exceptions: Oneida members would be exempt from the purchase of the Migratory Waterfowl Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp); and shotgun capacity is not limited to three shells. Tribal member shooting hours will be from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. The Service proposes to approve the request for special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.
(r)Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Fort Hall, Idaho (Nontribal Hunters) Almost all of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is tribally owned. The Tribes claim full wildlife management authority throughout the reservation, but the Idaho Fish and Game Department has disputed tribal jurisdiction, especially for hunting by non-tribal members on reservation lands owned by non-Indians. As a compromise, since 1985, we have established the same waterfowl hunting regulations on the reservation and in a surrounding off-reservation State zone. The regulations were requested by the Tribes and provided for different season dates than in the remainder of the State. We agreed to the season dates because they seemed to provide additional protection to mallards and pintails. The State of Idaho concurred with the zoning arrangement. We have no objection to the State's use of this zone again in the 2006-07 hunting season, provided the duck and goose hunting season dates are the same as on the reservation. In a proposal for the 2006-07 hunting season, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes requested a continuous duck (including mergansers) season, with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted for Pacific Flyway States under final Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose that, if the same number of hunting days are permitted as last year, the season would have an opening date of October 7, 2006, and a closing date of January 19, 2007. Coot and snipe season dates would be the same as for ducks, with the same daily bag and possession limits permitted for Pacific Flyway States. The Tribes anticipate harvest will be between 2,000 and 5,000 ducks. The Tribes also requested a continuous goose season with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted in Idaho under Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose that, if the same number of hunting days is permitted as in previous years, the season would have an opening date of October 7, 2006, and a closing date of January 19, 2007. The Tribes anticipate harvest will be between 4,000 and 6,000 geese. The Tribe requests a common snipe season with the maximum number of days and the same daily bag and possession limits permitted in Idaho under Federal frameworks. The Tribes propose that, if the same number of hunting days are permitted as in previous years, the season would have an opening date of October 7, 2006, and a closing date of January 19, 2007. Nontribal hunters must comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 pertaining to shooting hours, use of steel shot, and manner of taking. Special regulations established by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes also apply on the reservation. We note that the requested regulations are nearly identical to those of last year and propose they be approved for the 2006-07 hunting season.
(s)Skokomish Tribe, Shelton, Washington (Tribal Members Only) Since 1996, the Service and the Point No Point Treaty Tribes, of which Lower Elwha was one, have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Tribes are now acting independently, and the Skokomish Tribe would like to establish migratory bird hunting regulations for tribal members for the 2005-2006 season. The Tribe has a reservation on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State and is a successor to the signatories of the Treaty of Point No Point of 1855. The Skokomish Tribe requests a duck and coot season from September 16, 2006, to December 31, 2006. The daily bag limit is seven ducks, including no more than two hen mallards, one pintail, one canvasback, and two redheads. The daily bag and possession limit on harlequin duck is one per season. The coot daily bag limit is 25. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit except as noted above. For geese, the Tribe requests a season from September 16, 2006, to December 31, 2006. The daily bag limit is four, including no more than three light geese. The season on Aleutian Canada geese is closed. For Brant, the Tribe proposes a season from November 1, 2006, to February 15, 2007, with a daily bag limit of two. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit. For mourning doves, band-tailed pigeon, and snipe, the Tribe requests a season from September 16, 2006, to December 31, 2006, with a daily bag limit of 10, 2, and 8, respectively. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit. All Tribal hunters authorized to hunt migratory birds are required to obtain a tribal hunting permit from the Skokomish Tribe pursuant to tribal law. Hunting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. Only steel, tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer, tungsten-matrix, and tin shot are allowed for hunting waterfowl. It is unlawful to use or possess lead shot while hunting waterfowl. The Tribe anticipates harvest to be fewer than 150 birds. The Skokomish Public Safety Office enforcement officers have the authority to enforce these migratory bird hunting regulations. We propose to approve the Skokomish Tribe's requested migratory bird hunting season.
(t)Squaxin Island Tribe, Squaxin Island Reservation, Shelton, Washington (Tribal Members Only) The Squaxin Island Tribe of Washington and the Service have cooperated since 1995 to establish special tribal migratory bird hunting regulations. These special regulations apply to tribal members on the Squaxin Island Reservation, located in western Washington near Olympia, and all lands within the traditional hunting grounds of the Squaxin Island Tribe. For the 2006-07 season, the Tribe requests to establish duck and coot seasons that would run from September 1, 2006, through January 15, 2007. The daily bag limit for ducks is five per day and could include only one canvasback. The season on harlequin ducks is closed. For coots the daily bag limit is 25. For snipe, the Tribe proposes the season start on September 15, 2006, and end on January 15, 2007. The daily bag limit for snipe is eight. For band-tailed pigeon, the Tribe proposes the season start on September 1, 2006, and end on December 31, 2006. The daily bag limit is five. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit. The Tribe proposes a season on geese starting September 15, 2006, and ending on January 15, 2007. The daily bag limit for geese is four, including no more than two snow geese. The season on Aleutian and Cackling Canada geese is closed. For Brant, the Tribe proposes the season start on September 1, 2006, and end on December 31, 2006. The daily bag limit for brant is two. The possession limit is twice the daily bag limit. We propose to approve the Squaxin Island Tribe's requested 2006-07 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
(u)Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Arlington, Washington (Tribal Members Only) The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and the Service have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory game birds since 2001. The Tribe is proposing regulations to hunt all open and unclaimed lands under the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855, including their main hunting grounds around Camano Island, Skagit Flats, and Port Susan to the border of the Tulalip Tribes Reservation. Ceded lands are located in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, and Kings Counties, and a portion of Pierce County, Washington. The Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians is a federally recognized Tribe and reserves the Treaty Right to hunt ( *U.S.* v. *Washington* ). The Tribe proposes that duck (including mergansers) and goose seasons run from October 1, 2006, to February 15, 2007. The daily bag limit on ducks (including sea ducks and mergansers) is 10 and must include no more than 7 mallards (only 3 of which can be hens), 3 pintail, 3 redhead, 3 scaup, and 3 canvasback. For geese, the daily bag limit is six. Possession limits are totals of two daily bag limits. The Tribe proposes that coot, brant, and snipe seasons run from October 1, 2006, to January 31, 2007. The daily bag limit for coot is 25. The daily bag limit on brant is three. The daily bag limit for snipe is ten. Possession limits are totals of two daily bag limits. Harvest is regulated by a punch card system. Tribal members hunting on lands under this proposal will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20, which will be enforced by the Stillaguamish Tribal Law Enforcement. Tribal members are required to use steel shot or a nontoxic shot as required by Federal regulations. The Tribe anticipates a total harvest of 200 ducks, 100 geese, 50 mergansers, 50 brant, 100 coots, and 100 snipe. Anticipated harvest needs include subsistence and ceremonial needs. Certain species may be closed to hunting for conservation purposes, and consideration for the needs of certain species will be addressed. The Service proposes to approve the request for special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians.
(v)Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, LaConner, Washington (Tribal Members Only) In 1996, the Service and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community began cooperating to establish special regulations for migratory bird hunting. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is a federally recognized Indian Tribe consisting of the Suiattle, Skagit, and Kikialos. The Swinomish Reservation was established by the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855, and lies in the Puget Sound area north of Seattle, Washington. For the 2006-07 season, the Tribe requests to establish a migratory bird hunting season on all areas that are open and unclaimed and consistent with the meaning of the treaty. The Tribe requests to establish duck, merganser, Canada goose, brant, and coot seasons opening on the earliest possible date allowed by the final Federal frameworks for the Pacific Flyway and closing 30 days after the State of Washington closes its season. The Swinomish Tribe requests an additional three birds of each species over that allowed by the State for daily bag and possession limits. The Community normally anticipates that the regulations will result in the harvest of approximately 300 ducks, 50 Canada geese, 75 mergansers, 100 brant, and 50 coot. The Swinomish utilize a report card and permit system to monitor harvest and will implement steps to limit harvest where conservation is needed. All tribal regulations will be enforced by tribal fish and game officers. On reservation, the Tribal Community proposes a hunting season for the above-mentioned species beginning on the earliest possible opening date and closing March 9, 2007. The Swinomish manage harvest by a report card permit system, and we anticipate harvest will be similar to that expected off reservation. We believe the estimated harvest by the Swinomish will be minimal and will not adversely affect migratory bird populations. We propose to approve the Tribe's requested 2006-07 special migratory bird hunting regulations.
(w)The Tulalip Tribes of Washington, Tulalip Indian Reservation, Marysville, Washington (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters) The Tulalip Tribes are the successors in interest to the Tribes and bands signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliott of January 22, 1855. The Tulalip Tribes' government is located on the Tulalip Indian Reservation just north of the City of Everett in Snohomish County, Washington. The Tribes or individual tribal members own all of the land on the reservation, and they have full wildlife management authority. All lands within the boundaries of the Tulalip Tribes Reservation are closed to nonmember hunting unless opened by Tulalip Tribal regulations. For the 2006-07 season, the Tribe proposes tribal and nontribal hunting regulations for the 2006-07 season. Migratory waterfowl hunting by Tulalip Tribal members is authorized by Tulalip Tribal Ordinance No. 67. For ducks, mergansers, coot, and snipe, the proposed season for tribal members would be from September 15, 2006, through February 28, 2007. In the case of nontribal hunters hunting on the reservation, the season would be the latest closing date and the longest period of time allowed under final Pacific Flyway Federal frameworks. Daily bag and possession limits for Tulalip Tribal members would be 7 and 14 ducks, respectively, except that for blue-winged teal, canvasback, harlequin, pintail, and wood duck, the bag and possession limits would be the same as those established in accordance with final Federal frameworks. For nontribal hunters, bag and possession limits would be the same as those permitted under final Federal frameworks. For coot, daily bag and possession limits are 25 and 25, respectively, and for snipe 8 and 18, respectively. Nontribal hunters should check with the Tulalip tribal authorities regarding additional conservation measures which may apply to specific species managed within the region. Ceremonial hunting may be authorized by the Department of Natural Resources at any time upon application of a qualified tribal member. Such a hunt must have a bag limit designed to limit harvest only to those birds necessary to provide for the ceremony. For geese, tribal members propose a season from September 15, 2006, through February 28, 2007. Non-tribal hunters would be allowed the longest season and the latest closing date permitted for Pacific Flyway Federal frameworks. For tribal hunters, the goose daily bag and possession limits would be 7 and 14, respectively, except that the bag limits for brant, cackling Canada geese, and dusky Canada geese would be those established in accordance with final Federal frameworks. For nontribal hunters hunting on reservation lands, the daily bag and possession limits would be those established in accordance with final Federal frameworks for the Pacific Flyway. The Tulalip Tribes also set a maximum annual bag limit for those tribal members who engage in subsistence hunting of 365 ducks and 365 geese. All hunters on Tulalip Tribal lands are required to adhere to shooting hour regulations set at one-half hour before sunrise to sunset, special tribal permit requirements, and a number of other tribal regulations enforced by the Tribe. Each nontribal hunter 16 years of age and older hunting pursuant to Tulalip Tribes' Ordinance No. 67 must possess a valid Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp and a valid State of Washington Migratory Waterfowl Stamp. Each hunter must validate stamps by signing across the face. Although the season length requested by the Tulalip Tribes appears to be quite liberal, harvest information indicates a total take by tribal and nontribal hunters under 1,000 ducks and 500 geese annually. We propose approval of the Tulalip Tribe's request to have a special season. We request that harvest be monitored closely and regulations be reevaluated for future years if harvest becomes too great in relation to population numbers.
(x)Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Sedro Woolley, Washington (Tribal Members Only) The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe and the Service have cooperated to establish special regulations for migratory game birds since 2001. The Tribe has jurisdiction over lands within Skagit, Island, and Whatcom Counties, Washington. Tribal hunters are issued a harvest report card that will be shared with the State of Washington. For the 2006-07 season, the Tribe requests a duck season starting November 1, 2006, and ending February 8, 2007. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of 15 with a possession limit of 20. The coot daily bag limit is 20 with a possession limit of 30. The Tribe proposes a goose season from November 1, 2006, to February 8, 2007, with a daily bag limit of seven geese and five brant. The possession limit for geese and brant are seven and five, respectively. The Tribe proposes a mourning dove season between September 1 to December 31, 2006, with a daily bag limit of 12 and possession limit of 15. The anticipated migratory bird harvest under this proposal would be 100 ducks, 5 geese, 2 brant, and 10 coots. Tribal members must have the tribal identification and harvest report card on their person to hunt. Tribal members hunting on the Reservation will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR 20, except shooting hours would be fifteen minutes before official sunrise to fifteen minutes after official sunset. The Service proposes to approve the request for special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe. We request that the Tribe closely monitor harvest of this special migratory bird hunting season.
(y)Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, Aquinnah, Massachusetts (Tribal Members Only) The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head is a federally recognized Tribe located on the island of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. The Tribe has approximately 560 acres of land, which it manages for wildlife through its natural resources department. The Tribe also enforces its own wildlife laws and regulations through the natural resources department. For the 2006-07 season the Tribe proposes a duck season of November 1, 2006, through February 28, 2007. The Tribe proposes a daily bag limit of six birds, which could include no more than two hen mallards, six drake mallards, two black ducks, two mottled ducks, one fulvous whistling duck, four mergansers, three scaup, one hooded merganser, two wood ducks, one canvasback, two redheads, one pintail, and four of all other species not listed. The season for harlequins would be closed. The Tribe proposes a teal (green-winged and blue) season of October 16, 2006, through January 29, 2007. A daily bag limit of six teal would be in addition to the daily bag limit for ducks. For sea ducks, The Tribe proposes a season between October 16, 2006, and March 1, 2007, with a daily bag limit of seven, which could include no more than one hen eider and four of any one species unless otherwise noted above. For geese, the Tribe requests a season between September 11 to September 25, 2006, and November 1, 2006, through February 28, 2007, with a daily bag limit of 5 Canada geese during the first period, 3 Canada geese during the second period, and a daily bag limit of 15 snow geese. For woodcock, the Tribe proposes a season between October 16 and December 1, 2006, with a daily bag limit of three. The Tribe currently has 22 registered tribal hunters and estimates harvest to be no more than 15 geese, 25 mallards, 25 teal, 50 black ducks, and 50 of all other species combined. Tribal members hunting on the Reservation will observe all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations found in 50 CFR part 20. Hunters will be required to register with the Harvest Information Program. The Service proposes to approve the request for special migratory bird hunting regulations for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head.
(z)White Earth Band of Ojibwe, White Earth, Minnesota (Tribal Members Only) The White Earth Band of Ojibwe is a federally recognized tribe located in northwest Minnesota and encompasses all of Mahnomen County and parts of Becker and Clearwater Counties. The reservation employs conservation officers to enforce migratory bird regulations. The Tribe and the Service first cooperated to establish special tribal regulations in 1999. For the 2006-07 migratory bird hunting season, the White Earth Band of Ojibwe requests a duck and merganser season to start September 16 and end December 17, 2006. For ducks, they request a daily bag limit of 10, including no more than 2 mallards and 1 canvasback. The merganser daily bag limit would be five with no more than two hooded mergansers. For geese, the Tribe proposes an early season from September 1 through September 29, 2006, and a late season from September 30, 2006, through December 17, 2006. The early season daily bag limit is eight geese and the late season daily bag limit is five geese. For coots, dove, rail, woodcock, and snipe, the Tribe proposes a September 2 through November 30, 2006, season with daily bag limits of 20 coots, 25 doves, 25 rails, 10 woodcock, and 10 snipe. Shooting hours are one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. Nontoxic shot is required. Based on past harvest surveys, the Tribe anticipates harvest of 1,000 to 2,000 Canada geese and 1,000 to 1,500 ducks. The White Earth Reservation Tribal Council employs four full-time Conservation Officers to enforce migratory bird regulations. We propose to approve the White Earth Band of Ojibwe's request to have a special season.
(aa)White Mountain Apache Tribe, Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Whiteriver, Arizona (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters) The White Mountain Apache Tribe owns all reservation lands, and the Tribe has recognized full wildlife management authority. The White Mountain Apache Tribe has requested regulations that are essentially unchanged from those agreed to since the 1997-98 hunting year. The hunting zone for waterfowl is restricted and is described as: the length of the Black River west of the Bonito Creek and Black River confluence and the entire length of the Salt River forming the southern boundary of the reservation; the White River, extending from the Canyon Day Stockman Station to the Salt River; and all stock ponds located within Wildlife Management Units 4, 5, 6, and 7. Tanks located below the Mogollon Rim, within Wildlife Management Units 2 and 3, will be open to waterfowl hunting during the 2006-07 season. The length of the Black River east of the Black River/Bonito Creek confluence is closed to waterfowl hunting. All other waters of the reservation would be closed to waterfowl hunting for the 2006-07 season. For nontribal and tribal hunters, the Tribe proposes a continuous duck, coot, merganser, gallinule, and moorhen hunting season, with an opening date of October 14, 2006, and a closing date of January 28, 2007. The Tribe proposes a separate canvasback season, with an opening date of October 14, 2006, and a closing date of December 10, 2006. The Tribe proposes a daily duck (including mergansers) bag limit of seven, which may include no more than two redheads, one pintail, one canvasback (when open), and seven mallards (including no more than two hen mallard). The daily bag limit for coots, gallinules, and moorhens would be 25, singly or in the aggregate. For geese, the Tribe is proposing a season from October 14, 2006, through January 28, 2007. Hunting would be limited to Canada geese, and the daily bag limit would be three. Season dates for band-tailed pigeons and mourning doves would run concurrently from September 1 through September 15, 2006, in Wildlife Management Unit 10 and all areas south of Y-70 in Wildlife Management Unit 7, only. Proposed daily bag limits for band-tailed pigeons and mourning doves would be 3 and 10, respectively. Possession limits for the above species are twice the daily bag limits. Shooting hours would be from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. There would be no open season for sandhill cranes, rails, and snipe on the White Mountain Apache lands under this proposal. A number of special regulations apply to tribal and nontribal hunters, which may be obtained from the White Mountain Apache Tribe Game and Fish Department. We propose to approve the regulations requested by the Tribe for the 2006-07 season.
(bb)Yankton Sioux Tribe, Marty, South Dakota (Tribal Members and Nontribal Hunters) On May 17, 2006, the Yankton Sioux Tribe submitted a waterfowl hunting proposal for the 2006-07 season. The Yankton Sioux tribal waterfowl hunting season would be open to both tribal members and nontribal hunters. The waterfowl hunting regulations would apply to tribal and trust lands within the external boundaries of the reservation. For ducks (including mergansers) and coots, the Yankton Sioux Tribe proposes a season starting October 9, 2006, and running for the maximum amount of days allowed under the final Federal frameworks. The Tribe indicated that if the Service decided to close the canvasback season, the Tribe would close theirs; otherwise, the canvasback season would start October 9, 2006, and run for the maximum amount of days allowed under the final Federal frameworks. Daily bag and possession limits would be 6 ducks, which may include no more than 5 mallards (no more than 2 hens), 1 canvasback (when open), 2 redheads, 3 scaup, 1 pintail, or 2 wood ducks. The bag limit for mergansers is 5, which would include no more than 1 hooded merganser. The coot daily bag limit is 15. For geese, the Tribe has requested a dark goose (Canada geese, brant, white-fronts) season starting October 29, 2006, and closing January 31, 2007. The daily bag limit would be three geese (including no more than one white-fronted goose or brant). Possession limits would be twice the daily bag limit. For white geese, the proposed hunting season would start October 29, 2006, and run for the maximum amount of days allowed under the final Federal frameworks for the State of South Dakota. Daily bag and possession limits would equal the maximum allowed under Federal frameworks. All hunters would have to be in possession of a valid tribal license while hunting on Yankton Sioux trust lands. Tribal and nontribal hunters must comply with all basic Federal migratory bird hunting regulations in 50 CFR part 20 pertaining to shooting hours and the manner of taking. Special regulations established by the Yankton Sioux Tribe also apply on the reservation. During the 2005-06 hunting season, the Tribe reported that 90 nontribal hunters took 400 Canada geese, 75 light geese, and 90 ducks. Forty-five tribal members harvested less than 50 geese and 50 ducks. We concur with the Yankton Sioux proposal for the 2006-07 hunting season. Public Comment Invited We intend that adopted final rules be as responsive as possible to all concerned interests and, therefore, we desire to obtain the comments and suggestions of the public, other governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and other private interests on these proposals. However, special circumstances are involved in the establishment of these regulations, which limit the amount of time that we can allow for public comment. Specifically, two considerations compress the time in which the rulemaking process must operate:
(1)The need to establish final rules at a point early enough in the summer to allow affected State agencies to adjust appropriately their licensing and regulatory mechanisms; and
(2)the unavailability, before mid-June, of specific, reliable data on this year's status of some waterfowl and migratory shore and upland game bird populations. Therefore, we believe that to allow the comment period past the date specified in DATES is contrary to the public interest. The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will take into consideration all comments received. Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals. We invite interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments to the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES . You may inspect comments received on the proposed annual regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office in room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments received during the comment period and respond to them in the final rules. NEPA Consideration NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-14),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We published Notice of Availability in the **Federal Register** on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985 environmental assessment entitled “Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands” is available from the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES . In a notice published in the September 8, 2005, **Federal Register** (70 FR 53376), we announced our intent to develop a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program. Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, and were detailed in a March 9, 2006, **Federal Register** notice (71 FR 12216). Endangered Species Act Consideration Prior to issuance of the 2006-07 migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will consider provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act) to ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation programs for those species. Consultations under Section 7 of this Act may cause us to change proposals in future supplemental proposed rulemaking documents. Executive Order 12866 The migratory bird hunting regulations are economically significant and were reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. As such, a cost-benefit analysis was initially prepared in 1981. This analysis was subsequently revised annually from 1990 through 1996, updated in 1998, and updated again in 2004. It is further discussed below under the heading Regulatory Flexibility Act. Results from the 2004 analysis indicate that the expected economic benefit of the annual migratory bird hunting frameworks is on the order of $734 to $1,064 million, with a mid-point estimate of $899 million. Copies of the cost-benefit analysis are available upon request from the address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our Web site at *http://www.migratorybirds.gov.* Executive Order 12866 also requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. We invite comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
(1)Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
(2)Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?
(3)Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
(4)Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
(5)Is the description of the rule in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in understanding the rule?
(6)What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to: Office of the Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail comments to this address: *Exsec@ios.doi.gov.* Regulatory Flexibility Act These regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit analysis discussed under Executive Order 12866. This analysis was revised annually from 1990 through 1995. In 1995, the Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, and 2004. The primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-year intervals. The 2004 Analysis was based on the 2001 National Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend between $481 million and $1.2 billion at small businesses in 2004. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our Web site at *http://www.migratorybirds.gov.* Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons above, this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date required by 5 U.S.C. 801 under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1). Paperwork Reduction Act We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The various recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, Subpart K, are utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations. Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements of the Migratory Bird Harvest Surveys and assigned clearance number 1018-0015 (expires February 29, 2008). This information is used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to improve our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to better manage these populations. OMB has also approved the information collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane Harvest Questionnaire and assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires November 30, 2007). The information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude and the geographical and temporal distribution of the harvest, and the portion it constitutes of the total population. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 *et seq.* , that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Civil Justice Reform Executive Order 12988 The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. Takings Implication Assessment In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property. Energy Effects—Executive Order 13211 On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Federalism Effects Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Thus, 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 evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. However, by virtue of the tribal proposals contained in this proposed rule, we have consulted with all the tribes affected by this rule. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20 Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife. Based on the results of migratory game bird studies, and having due consideration for any data or views submitted by interested parties, this proposed rulemaking may result in the adoption of special hunting regulations for migratory birds beginning as early as September 1, 2006, on certain Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands. Taking into account both reserved hunting rights and the degree to which tribes have full wildlife management authority, the regulations only for tribal members or for both tribal and nontribal hunters may differ from those established by States in which the reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands are located. The regulations will specify open seasons, shooting hours, and bag and possession limits for rails, coot, gallinules, woodcock, common snipe, band-tailed pigeons, mourning doves, white-winged doves, ducks, mergansers, and geese. The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2006-07 hunting season are authorized under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA)of July 3, 1918 (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703 *et seq.* ), as amended. The MBTA authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior, having due regard for the zones of temperature and for the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of flight of migratory game birds, to determine when, to what extent, and by what means such birds or any part, nest, or egg thereof may be taken, hunted, captured, killed, possessed, sold, purchased, shipped, carried, exported, or transported. Dated: August 15, 2006. David M. Verhey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 06-7026 Filed 8-15-06; 2:43 pm]
Connectionstraces to 29
Traces to 29 documents
U.S. Code
- Rule making§ 553
- Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information§ 6103
- Rules and regulations§ 7805
- Tax on income of foreign corporations connected with United States business§ 882
- Definitions and special rules§ 864
- Treatment of certain foreign currency transactions§ 988
- Definitions§ 7701
- Branch profits tax§ 884
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Transferred§ 1226
- Transferred§ 191
- Public information collection activities; submission to Director; approval and delegation§ 3507
- Hunting, trapping, or fishing on Indian land§ 1165
- Definitions§ 601
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- SHORT TITLE.§ 801
- Effective date of certain rules§ 808
- Definitions§ 1502
- Taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds unlawful§ 703
register
public-private-law
statutes-at-large
18 references not yet in our index
- T.D. 9281
- T.D. 7749
- T.D. 8658
- Pub. L. 99-514
- 100 Stat. 2085
- Rev. Rul. 84-17
- 26 CFR 1
- 26 CFR 602
- 33 CFR 165
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- Pub. L. 107-295
- T.D. 8432
- 50 CFR 20
- 16 USC 1531-1543
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Final and temporary regulations
Treas. Dec.T.D. 9281
Treas. Dec.T.D. 7749
Treas. Dec.T.D. 8658
Cites 47 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources