Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Late-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations, 50613-50638 [07-4236]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 169 (Friday, August 31, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50613-50638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4236]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AV12


Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Late-Season 
Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) is 
proposing to establish the 2007-08 late-season hunting regulations for 
certain migratory game birds. We annually prescribe frameworks, or 
outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the number 
of birds that may be taken and possessed in late seasons. These 
frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of seasons and 
limits and to allow recreational harvest at levels compatible with 
population and habitat conditions.

DATES: You must submit comments on the proposed migratory bird hunting 
late-season frameworks by September 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the 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. All comments received, including names and 
addresses, will become part of the public record. You may inspect 
comments during normal business hours at the Service's office in room 
4107, Arlington Square Building, 4501 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, 
Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Blohm, Chief, or Ron W. Kokel, 
Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
(703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 2007

    On April 11, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR 
18328) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a 
background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations 
process, and dealt with the establishment of seasons, limits, proposed 
regulatory alternatives for the 2007-08 duck hunting season, and other 
regulations for hunting migratory game birds under Sec. Sec.  20.101 
through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 
2007-08 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal 
Register notifications were also identified in the April 11 proposed 
rule.
    On June 8, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR 31789) 
a second document providing supplemental proposals for early- and late-
season migratory bird hunting regulations and the regulatory 
alternatives for the 2007-08 duck hunting season. The June 8 supplement 
also provided detailed information on the 2007-08 regulatory schedule 
and announced the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) 
and Flyway Council meetings.
    On June 20 and 21, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council 
Consultants, at which the participants reviewed information on the 
current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and developed 
recommendations for the 2007-08 regulations for these species plus 
regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the 
Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl seasons in designated 
States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway; and extended 
falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and discussed preliminary 
information on the status of waterfowl as it relates to the development 
and selection of the regulatory packages for the 2007-08 regular 
waterfowl seasons. On July 23, 2007, we published in the Federal 
Register (72 FR 40194) a third document specifically dealing with the 
proposed frameworks for early-season regulations. In late August, we 
will publish a

[[Page 50614]]

rulemaking establishing final frameworks for early-season migratory 
bird hunting regulations for the 2007-08 season.
    On August 1-2, 2007, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council 
Consultants, at which the participants reviewed the status of waterfowl 
and developed recommendations for the 2007-08 regulations for these 
species. This document deals specifically with proposed frameworks for 
the late-season migratory bird hunting regulations. It will lead to 
final frameworks from which States may select season dates, shooting 
hours, areas, and limits.
    We have considered all pertinent comments received through August 
3, 2007, in developing this document. In addition, new proposals for 
certain late-season regulations are provided for public comment. The 
comment period is specified above under DATES. We will publish final 
regulatory frameworks for late-season migratory game bird hunting in 
the Federal Register on or around September 20, 2007.

Population Status and Harvest

    The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of information on 
the status and harvest of waterfowl excerpted from various reports. For 
more detailed information on methodologies and results, you may obtain 
complete copies of the various reports at the address indicated under 
ADDRESSES or from our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
reports/reports.html.

Status of Ducks

    Federal, provincial, and State agencies conduct surveys each spring 
to estimate the size of breeding populations and to evaluate the 
conditions of the habitats. These surveys are conducted using fixed-
wing aircraft and helicopters and encompass principal breeding areas of 
North America, and cover over 2.0 million square miles. The Traditional 
survey area comprises Alaska, Canada, and the north central United 
States, and includes approximately 1.3 million square miles. The 
Eastern survey area includes parts of Ontario, Quebec, Labrador, 
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, New 
York, and Maine, an area of approximately 0.7 million square miles.
Breeding Ground Conditions
    Overall, habitat conditions for breeding waterfowl in 2007 were 
similar or slightly improved relative to 2006. The total pond estimate 
(Prairie Canada and United States combined) was 7.0  0.3 
million ponds, 15 percent greater than last year's estimate of 6.1 
 0.2 million ponds and 44 percent higher than the long-term 
average of 4.9  0.03 million ponds. The 2007 estimate of 
ponds in Prairie Canada was 5.0  0.3 million. This was a 13 
percent increase from last year's estimate (4.4  0.2 
million), 49 percent above the 1955-2006 average (3.4  0.03 
million), and the fourth highest on record. The 2007 pond estimate for 
the northcentral United States (2.0  0.1 million) was 19 
percent greater than last year's estimate (1.6  0.09 
million) and 29 percent above the long-term average (1.5  
0.02 million).
    In the Eastern Survey Area (strata 51-72), the boreal forests were 
generally in good or excellent condition this spring, except for a few 
drier patches in Northern Quebec that were in fair condition.
Breeding Population Status
    In the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey traditional 
survey area (strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77), the total duck population 
estimate was 41.2  0.7 [SE] million birds. This was 14 
percent greater than last year's estimate of 36.2  0.6 
million birds and 24 percent above the 1955-2006 long-term average. 
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) abundance was 8.3  0.3 million 
birds, which was 14 percent above last year's estimate of 7.3  0.2 million birds and 11 percent above the long-term average. 
Blue-winged teal (A. discors) estimated abundance was 6.7  
0.4 million birds, the third highest since 1955, 14 percent greater 
than last year's estimate of 5.9  0.3 million birds, and 48 
percent above the long-term average. Estimated abundances of gadwall 
(A. strepera; 3.4  0.2 million) and Northern shovelers (A. 
clypeata; 4.6  0.2 million) were also higher than those of 
last year (+19 percent and +24 percent, respectively) and well above 
their long-term averages (+96 percent and +106 percent, respectively). 
Estimated abundance of American wigeon (A. americana; 2.8  
0.2 million) was 29 percent greater than last year but similar to the 
long-term average. Estimated abundances of green-winged teal (A. 
crecca; 2.9  0.2 million), redheads (Aythya americana; 1.0 
 0.08 million), and canvasbacks (A. valisineria; 0.9  0.09 million) were similar to last year's, but were each >50 
percent above their long-term averages. Abundances of Northern 
shovelers, redheads, and canvasbacks were the highest ever estimated in 
this survey area, and the abundance of green-winged teal was the second 
highest estimated for this region. Estimates for Northern pintails 
(Anas acuta; 3.3  0.2 million) and scaup (Aythya affinis 
and A. marila combined; 3.5  0.2 million) were unchanged 
from those of 2006, and remained below long-term averages (-19 percent 
and -33 percent, respectively).
    The eastern survey area was restratified in 2005, is now composed 
of strata 51-72, and efforts at integrating U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and Canadian Wildlife Service surveys are ongoing. Estimated 
abundance of mallards, scaup, scoters (black [Melanitta nigra], white-
winged [M. fusca], and surf [M. perspicillata]), green-winged teal, 
American wigeon, and buffleheads (B. albeola) were all similar to 2006 
estimates and to long-term averages. American black duck (A. rubripes, 
568,700 ducks) and ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris, 651,000 ducks) 
estimates were 14 percent and 19 percent higher than those of 2006, and 
22 percent and 27 percent above their 1990-2006 averages, respectively. 
The merganser (red-breasted [Mergus serrator], common [M. merganser], 
and hooded [Lophodytes cucullatus]) estimate of 400,100 was 27 percent 
higher than last year's, and the goldeneye (common [Bucephala clangula] 
and Barrow's [B. islandica]) count of 319,000 was 49 percent higher 
than that of 2006, but both these species were similar to their long-
term averages.
Fall Flight Estimate
    The mid-continent mallard population is composed of mallards from 
the traditional survey area, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and is 
9.1  0.3 million. This is similar to the 2006 estimate of 
7.9  0.2 million. The projected mallard fall flight index 
was 11.4  1.0 million, similar to the 2006 estimate of 9.9 
 0.9 million birds. These indices were based on revised 
mid-continent mallard population models, and therefore, differ from 
those previously published.
    See section 1.A. Harvest Strategy Considerations for further 
discussion of the implications of this information for this year's 
selection of the appropriate hunting regulations.

Status of Geese and Swans

    We provide information on the population status and productivity of 
North American Canada geese (Branta canadensis), brant (B. bernicla), 
snow geese (Chen caerulescens), Ross' geese (C. rossii), emperor geese 
(C. canagica), white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons), and tundra swans 
(Cygnus columbianus). In 2007, a large area of the eastern Canadian 
Arctic experienced a much colder than average spring. Delayed nesting 
activities and reduced production of waterfowl occurred

[[Page 50615]]

widely from Queen Maud Gulf to northern Quebec, and will impact goose 
and swan populations migrating through the Continent's three eastern 
Flyways. In contrast, waterfowl nesting in subarctic areas around 
Hudson and James Bays and Alaska's Yukon Delta experienced favorable 
nesting conditions. Primary abundance indices in 2007 increased from 
2006 levels for 17 goose populations and decreased for 5 goose 
populations. Primary abundance indices in 2007 for both populations of 
tundra swans increased from 2006 levels. The following populations 
displayed significant positive trends during the most recent 10-year 
period (p < 0.05): Mississippi Flyway Giant, Atlantic, and Aleutian 
Canada geese; Western Arctic/Wrangel Island snow geese; and Pacific 
white-fronted geese. Only the Eastern Population of tundra swans showed 
a significant negative 10-year trend. The forecast for the production 
of geese and swans in North America in 2007 is regionally variable, but 
production for many populations will be reduced from the excellent 
production experienced in 2006.

Waterfowl Harvest and Hunter Activity

    During the 2006-07 hunting season, U.S. hunters harvested 
13,808,100 ducks, compared to 12,510,800 in 2005-06, and they harvested 
3,579,100 geese, compared to 3,660,700 geese taken in 2005-06. The five 
most commonly harvested duck species were mallard (4,668,411), green-
winged teal (1,658,727), gadwall (1,544,792), wood duck (1,076,200), 
and blue-winged/cinnamon teal (940,965).

Review of Public Comments and Flyway Council Recommendations

    The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the April 
11, 2007, Federal Register, opened the public comment period for 
migratory game bird hunting regulations. The supplemental proposed 
rule, which appeared in the June 8, 2007, Federal Register, discussed 
the regulatory alternatives for the 2007-08 duck hunting season. Late-
season comments are summarized below and numbered in the order used in 
the April 11 and June 8 Federal Register documents. We have included 
only the numbered items pertaining to late-season issues for which we 
received written comments. Consequently, the issues do not follow in 
successive numerical or alphabetical order.
    We received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils. Some 
recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks. Due 
to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks 
performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's 
frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were 
received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are 
summarized below.
    We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations 
in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to 
previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, 
they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items 
in the April 11 and June 8, 2007, Federal Register documents.

1. Ducks

    Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest 
management are: (A) Harvest Strategy Considerations, (B) Regulatory 
Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. The categories correspond to previously published 
issues/discussion, and only those containing substantial 
recommendations are discussed below.

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Pacific Flyway Councils 
and the Upper- and Lower-Regulations Committees of the Mississippi 
Flyway Council recommended the adoption of the ``liberal'' regulatory 
alternative.
    The Central Flyway Council also recommended the ``liberal'' 
alternative. However, as part of their Hunter's Choice experiment, they 
recommended continuation of the following bag limits:

    In Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, the 
daily bag limit would be six ducks, with species and sex 
restrictions as follows: five mallards (no more than two of which 
may be females), two redheads, two scaup, two wood ducks, one 
pintail, one mottled duck, and one canvasback. For pintails and 
canvasbacks, the season length would be 39 days, which may be split 
according to applicable zones/split duck hunting configurations 
approved for each State.
    In Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, the 
daily bag limit would be five ducks, with species and sex 
restrictions as follows: two scaup, two redheads, and two wood 
ducks, and only one from the following group--hen mallards, mottled 
ducks, pintails, and canvasbacks.

    Service Response: We are continuing development of an Adaptive 
Harvest Management (AHM) protocol that would allow hunting regulations 
to vary among Flyways in a manner that recognizes each Flyway's unique 
breeding-ground derivation of mallards. For the 2007 hunting season, we 
believe that the prescribed regulatory choice for the Mississippi, 
Central, and Pacific Flyways should continue to depend on the status of 
midcontinent mallards. We also recommend that the regulatory choice for 
the Atlantic Flyway continue to depend on the status of eastern 
mallards. Investigations of the dynamics of western mallards (and their 
potential effect on regulations in the West) are continuing; therefore, 
we are not yet prepared to recommend an AHM protocol for this mallard 
stock.
    For the 2007 hunting season, we are continuing to consider the same 
regulatory alternatives as those used last year. The nature of the 
restrictive, moderate, and liberal alternatives has remained 
essentially unchanged since 1997, except that extended framework dates 
have been offered in the moderate and liberal regulatory alternatives 
since 2002. Also, we agreed in 2003 to place a constraint on closed 
seasons in the western three Flyways whenever the midcontinent mallard 
breeding-population size (traditional survey area plus Minnesota, 
Michigan, and Wisconsin) is [gteqt] 5.5 million.
    Optimal AHM strategies for the 2007 hunting season were calculated 
using: (1) Harvest-management objectives specific to each mallard 
stock; (2) the 2007 regulatory alternatives; and (3) current population 
models and associated weights for midcontinent and eastern mallards. 
Based on this year's survey results of 9.05 million midcontinent 
mallards (traditional survey area plus MN, WI, and MI), 5.04 million 
ponds in Prairie Canada, and 906,900 eastern mallards, we believe the 
appropriate regulatory choice for all four Flyways is the ``liberal'' 
alternative.
    Therefore, we concur with the recommendations of the Atlantic, 
Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils regarding selection 
of the ``liberal'' regulatory alternative and propose to adopt the 
``liberal'' regulatory alternative, as described in the June 8 Federal 
Register.
    Regarding Hunter's Choice, we support continuation of the Central 
Flyway Council's recommendation for a 3-year evaluation of the Central 
Flyway's Hunter's Choice duck bag limit. The Central Flyway's Hunter's 
Choice regulations are intended to limit harvest on pintails and 
canvasbacks in a manner similar to the season-within-a-season 
regulations. Hunter's Choice regulations should also reduce harvests of 
mottled ducks and hen mallards, while maintaining full hunting 
opportunity on abundant species such as drake mallards. For the species 
included in the aggregate bag limit, the harvest of one species is 
intended to

[[Page 50616]]

``buffer'' the harvest of the others, thus reducing the harvest of all 
species included in the one-bird category. The Central Flyway has 
accumulated 4 years of baseline information on harvests resulting from 
``season-within-a-season'' regulations in the Central Flyway; the 
season length for pintails and canvasbacks in season-within-a-season 
States under the ``liberal'' alternative will be 39 days.
    Five States (Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and 
Wyoming) were randomly assigned to Hunter's Choice regulations and the 
remaining five States (Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and 
Oklahoma) serve as controls (season-within-a-season regulations) as the 
evaluation proceeds. The overall duck daily bag limit is reduced from 
six to five for the Hunter's Choice States.
    While we continue to support the Central Flyway's Hunter's Choice 
experiment, we reiterate that we believe implementation of this 
experiment should not preclude any future changes in hunting 
regulations that may be deemed necessary on an annual basis for any 
other duck species in the Central Flyway, if such changes are deemed 
necessary.

D. Special Seasons/Species Management

iii. Black Ducks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council and the Upper- 
and Lower-Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council 
recommended that black duck harvest regulations remain unchanged for 
the 2007-08 season.
    Service Response: For the 2007-08 hunting season, we support the 
Flyway Councils' recommendations for no change in hunting regulations 
for black ducks. However, we are disappointed that progress towards 
development of an international harvest strategy stalled during recent 
discussions with the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways. It is our 
understanding that a number of key points were debated, but consensus 
could not be reached on two major issues: a suitable harvest rate 
objective and equitable allocation of the harvest between Canada and 
the United States. It remains our objective to reach final agreement on 
the international harvest strategy in time to inform decisions for the 
2008-09 regulatory cycle. To do so, we will provide a facilitated 
forum, involving representatives from the Service, the Canadian 
Wildlife Service, and the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, to reach 
consensus on the parity issue and any other remaining issues that 
currently stand in the way of completing and implementing this revised 
approach to black duck harvest management. Failure to reach agreement 
in time for next year's regulations development cycle will result in 
the Service using the best available information to recommend 
regulations necessary to bring harvests in line with the harvest 
potential of black ducks.
iv. Canvasbacks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Pacific Flyway Councils 
and the Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 
Council recommended a full season for canvasbacks consisting of a 2-
bird daily bag limit and a 60-day season in the Atlantic and 
Mississippi Flyways, and 107-day season in the Pacific Flyway.
    The Central Flyway Council, as part of their Hunter's Choice 
experiment, recommended a full season (74 days) for canvasbacks with a 
1-bird daily bag limit in Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, 
and Wyoming and a 39-day season with a 1-bird daily bag limit in 
Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
    Service Response: Since 1994, we have followed a canvasback harvest 
strategy that if canvasback population status and production are 
sufficient to permit a harvest of one canvasback per day nationwide for 
the entire length of the regular duck season, while still attaining a 
projected spring population objective of 500,000 birds, the season on 
canvasbacks should be opened. A partial season would be permitted if 
the estimated allowable harvest was within the projected harvest for a 
shortened season. If neither of these conditions can be met, the 
harvest strategy calls for a closed season on canvasbacks nationwide.
    This year's spring survey resulted in a record high estimate of 
865,000 canvasbacks. This was 25 percent above the 2006 estimate of 
691,000 canvasbacks and 53 percent above the 1955-2006 average. The 
estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada was 5.04 million, which was 13 
percent above last year and 49 percent above the long-term average. The 
size of the spring population, together with above-average expected 
production due to the good habitat conditions results in an allowable 
harvest in the United States is 467,900 birds for the 2007-08 season. 
The expected canvasback harvest with a 1-bird daily bag limit for the 
entire season is expected to be about 120,000 birds. Available data 
indicates that adding a second canvasback to the daily bag limit is 
expected to increase harvest about 25 percent, or to approximately 
150,000 birds in the United States. The current harvest strategy has no 
provisions for daily bag limits greater than one bird. However, with 
the record high breeding population recorded this spring and the 
expected good recruitment, the strategy would project population growth 
even with a 2-bird daily bag limit. Therefore, we are in support of the 
Atlantic, Mississippi, and Pacific Flyway Councils' recommendations to 
increase the daily bag limit for canvasbacks to two birds for the 2007-
08 season. We also support the Central Flyway Council's recommendation 
to leave canvasback limits unchanged in the Central Flyway to allow 
continuation of the hunter's choice experiment in that Flyway.
    We continue to support the canvasback harvest strategy and the 
model adopted in 1994. However, this strategy was developed primarily 
due to concerns about low population levels, and as such, did not 
address circumstances encountered this year of record high abundance 
and the potential for increased daily bag limits. We believe there is 
reasonable opportunity to allow a limited increase in the daily bag 
limit this year without compromising the population's ability to 
sustain a breeding population in excess of 500,000 canvasbacks next 
spring.
    We note, however, that departures from existing harvest strategies 
are not actions that we generally condone nor will we make an exception 
in the case of the canvasback strategy next year, even if similar 
circumstances exist without an explicit modification to the existing 
strategy allowing for daily bag limits greater than one bird. Over the 
next year, we are willing to discuss the possibility of revising the 
strategy with the Flyway Councils and other interested parties. Because 
the population model has performed relatively well to date, we believe 
that the most productive area for discussion involves examination of 
the harvest management objectives of this strategy, with an emphasis on 
allowing bag limits greater than one bird. We believe that such a 
revision should carefully consider the potential ramifications of such 
changes on the expected frequency of closed and partial seasons for 
this species in the future.
    Due to relative lateness of this development, the generally earlier 
opening of duck seasons in Alaska (September 1), and the anticipated 
level of harvest in Alaska, we propose to exclude Alaska from the 
proposed increase in the daily bag limit this year, as was recommended 
by the Pacific Flyway Council, with the State of

[[Page 50617]]

Alaska's concurrence. However, we believe that Alaska should fully 
engage in review of population objectives and remain a part of the 
overall harvest strategy for this species. Additionally, explicit 
provisions for Alaska should be considered in any proposed 
modifications to the strategy that might be forthcoming from the 
Flyways for the next regulatory cycle.
v. Pintails
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Pacific Flyway Councils 
and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a full season for pintails 
consisting of a 1-bird daily bag limit and a 60-day season in the 
Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, and a 107-day season in the Pacific 
Flyway.
    The Central Flyway Council, as part of their Hunter's Choice 
experiment, recommended a full season (74 days) for pintails with a 1-
bird daily bag limit in Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and 
Wyoming and a 39-day season with a 1-bird daily bag limit in Colorado, 
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
    Service Response: In the July 23 Federal Register, we approved the 
incorporation of a compensatory harvest mortality model into the 
decision-making framework used in the pintail harvest strategy. Within 
that framework, the compensatory model serves as an alternative 
hypothesis regarding the effect of harvest mortality on population 
growth. The two alternative models have been assigned weights based on 
their respective abilities to predict historic pintail breeding 
populations. These weights, representing the current strength of 
evidence favoring each model, determine the influence each model has on 
the annual regulatory choice for pintails. A document describing the 
current pintail harvest strategy with these technical improvements is 
posted on the Service's Web page (https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
reports/reports.html ).
    Based on this revised strategy, along with an observed spring 
breeding population of 3.34 million, an overflight-bias-corrected 
breeding population of 4.34 million and a projected fall flight of 5.29 
million pintails, the Pintail Harvest Strategy prescribes a full season 
and a 1-bird bag in all Flyways. Under the ``liberal'' season length, 
this regulation is expected to result in a harvest of 569,000 pintails 
and an observed breeding population estimate of 3.24 million in 2008, 
not considering any potential effect from continuation of the Hunter's 
Choice evaluation in the Central Flyway.
    Furthermore, we agree with the Central Flyway Council's 
recommendation to adopt a 39-day ``season-within-a-season'' for 
pintails in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. We 
understand that this departure from the pintail strategy is a necessary 
part of the experimental ``Hunter's Choice'' season.
vi. Scaup
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended no changes in scaup harvest 
regulations for 2007. All the Flyway Councils reiterated their support 
for the cooperative development of a comprehensive scaup harvest 
management strategy.
    Service Response: The continental scaup (greater Aythya marila and 
lesser Aythya affinis combined) population has experienced a long-term 
decline over the past 20 years. Over the past several years in 
particular, we have continued to express our growing concern about the 
status of scaup. The 2007 breeding population estimate for scaup is 
3.45 million, essentially unchanged from the 2006 estimate, and the 
third lowest estimate on record.
    Last year, we stated that we did not change scaup harvest 
regulations with the firm understanding that a draft harvest strategy 
would be available for Flyway Council review prior to the winter 
meetings (71 FR 55654, September 22, 2006) and be in place to guide 
development of scaup hunting regulations in 2007. As part of this 
effort, we developed an assessment framework that uses available data 
to help predict the effects of harvest and other uncontrollable 
environmental factors on the scaup population. After extensive review 
that we believe resulted in substantial improvements, the final 
technical assessment was presented during the Winter Flyway Technical 
Section meetings and made available for public review in the April 11 
Federal Register. We stated then, and continue to believe, that this 
technical assessment represents an objective and comprehensive 
synthesis of data relevant to scaup harvest management and can help 
frame a scientifically-sound scaup harvest strategy. We note that 
results of the assessment suggest that a reduction in scaup harvest is 
commensurate with the current population status of scaup. Based on this 
technical assessment, a proposed scaup harvest strategy was made 
available for public review in the June 8 Federal Register. The 
proposed harvest strategy included initial Service recommendations on a 
harvest management objective and proposed Flyway-specific harvest 
allocations, as well as an additional analysis that predicted scaup 
harvest from various combinations of Flyway-specific season lengths and 
bag limits (https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/reports.html). A 
number of concerns about the proposed strategy were raised by the 
Flyway Councils and States.
    In the July 23 Federal Register, we addressed these concerns and 
stated that while we continue to support the technical assessment of 
scaup harvest potential, we were sensitive to the concerns expressed by 
the Flyway Councils about the policy and social aspects of 
implementation of the proposed strategy at this time. More 
specifically, we agreed that more dialogue about the nature of harvest 
management objectives and regulatory alternatives was necessary for 
successful implementation of the strategy. Failure to agree on crucial 
policy aspects of the proposed strategy in a timely fashion increases 
the risk that more drastic regulatory measures may be necessary in the 
future, and having considered all of these concerns, we agreed that 
another year is needed to develop consensus on a harvest strategy for 
scaup. We believe that one year is sufficient time to resolve all 
outstanding issues and it is our intent to implement a strategy in 
2008. However, we further stated that our decision did not preclude the 
possibility that we would consider possible changes to scaup harvest 
regulations for the 2007-08 hunting season, based on population status.
    We remain disappointed that collectively we have not made the 
progress anticipated in the development of a viable strategy to manage 
harvest that acknowledges the uncertainty about what factors are really 
influencing scaup numbers, but at the same time provides guidance on 
what changes in regulations are still appropriate. Although we remain 
very concerned about the continued decline in scaup numbers and other 
evidence that this species is not doing well, we are proposing no 
change in scaup regulations for the 2007-08 hunting season. Our 
decision is made with the firm understanding that a harvest strategy 
will be available for 2008-09 and our understanding that outstanding 
policy issues will be resolved and incorporated into a final strategy 
in time for adoption in June 2008. We will work with the Flyway 
Councils to resolve

[[Page 50618]]

outstanding issues and to continue ongoing cooperative efforts to 
improve the monitoring programs and databases upon which scaup 
regulatory decisions are based. These include: evaluation of potential 
biases in population estimates, expansion and improvement of population 
surveys, and a feasibility assessment of a broad-scale scaup banding 
program. Additionally, we will continue retrospective analyses of 
existing databases to assist in the identification of causal factors 
which might explain the continued scaup decline.
    In preparation for that dialogue, we reiterate our longstanding 
objections to State-specific regulations and encourage the Flyway 
Councils to focus efforts on achieving consensus around Flyway-wide 
regulatory alternatives. Secondly, we recognize that additional effort 
is necessary over the coming year to communicate the rationale for a 
scaup strategy and possible regulatory changes to the Flyways and the 
public. We intend to review progress on policy issues at the winter 
2008 SRC meeting and anticipate significant progress by that time.
vii. Mottled Ducks
    While we do not recommend any changes in mottled duck hunting 
regulations at this time, we remain concerned about mottled duck 
status, especially those in the Western Gulf Coast region of Louisiana 
and Texas. However, we commend the progress made on the management of 
mottled ducks over the past year-and-a-half, including the 
identification of two management populations and work on range-wide 
breeding surveys in Florida and the Western Gulf Coast. We are 
committed to managing the Western Gulf Coast as a single stock of 
birds, and acknowledge the challenges that are associated with a 
population boundary that includes more than one Flyway. We request that 
both the Central and Mississippi Flyways work together to consider how 
a reduction in harvest, by as much as 30 percent if necessary, can be 
achieved with regulatory changes. We are confident that the Flyways 
will be able to adequately address harvest management of mottled ducks 
as a single Western Gulf Coast population unit and we look forward to 
considering a coordinated proposal during the 2008-09 regulatory cycle. 
During the coming year, we will continue to explore methods to assess 
mottled duck population status and refine our understanding of 
population and harvest dynamics.
    Further, we recognize that the mottled duck is an integral part of 
the Central Flyway's Hunter's Choice bag-limit experiment, and we 
support continued inclusion of the mottled duck among those species 
with bag-limit restriction in the experiment as requested by the 
Central Flyway Council. However, we reiterate that if it is determined 
that further reductions in harvest, or a different approach to harvest 
reduction, are warranted at any time over the course of the Hunter's 
Choice experiment, we will make those necessary changes. Thus, the 
continued implementation of this experiment will not preclude any 
future changes in hunting regulations that may be deemed necessary on 
an annual basis for mottled ducks.
viii. Youth Hunt
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
that tundra swans be added to the list of eligible species legal to 
hunt during special youth waterfowl hunts and that we allow the take of 
tundra swans during the special youth waterfowl hunt day(s) to those 
individuals holding a valid permit/tag. Further, the Council 
recommended that this proposed take occur regardless of whether the 
youth hunt day(s) are inside or outside the current tundra swan hunting 
framework.
    Service Response: Currently, tundra swans may be taken by 
individuals holding a valid permit/tag at any time during the open 
season without any additional provisions. Since tundra swan harvests 
are tightly controlled in each State where a limited number of permits 
are issued, we see no reason not to allow youth to harvest a tundra 
swan as they will still have to possess a valid tag that is issued by 
random draw prior to the hunting season. Further, we note that the 
revised (2007) Eastern Population Tundra Swan Management plan advocates 
the issuance of tundra swan hunt permits during youth waterfowl days, 
regardless of whether these youth waterfowl hunting days are inside or 
outside the current framework. Thus, we propose to approve the addition 
of tundra swans to the list of eligible species for youth swan hunts 
and to allow the take of tundra swans inside or outside the tundra swan 
hunting frameworks.

4. Canada Geese

B. Regular Seasons

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council forwarded a 
number of recommendations concerning Canada geese. First, the Council 
recommended the approval of a minor change in the delineation of High 
and Low North Atlantic Population (NAP) harvest zones in New York. They 
further recommended that Connecticut's NAP zones be adjusted to account 
for the current harvest distribution of NAP and resident Canada geese 
and to simplify zone boundaries. In Resident Population (RP) areas, the 
Council recommended the allowance of an 80-day Canada goose hunting 
season, with a 5-bird daily bag limit, and a 3-way split. In the RP 
harvest area of New York, they further recommend that the framework 
closing date be extended to March 10, beginning this fall. They 
recommended reclassifying a small portion of the Northeast Goose Hunt 
Zone in Northampton County, North Carolina, to a Southern James Bay 
Population (SJBP) Hunt Zone designation. Lastly, they recommended that 
the SJBP Canada goose harvest strategy be revised in the SJBP 
Management Plan before changes to the SJBP harvest areas or season 
liberalization are considered in both Flyways.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a number of changes in Canada 
goose zones, seasons lengths, and bag limits for several States in the 
Flyway. These changes are an outgrowth of the evolution of Canada goose 
harvest management philosophy in the Flyway. The change in philosophy 
in the Flyway is driven by the increasing numbers of giant Canada geese 
and the diminishing importance of interior Canada geese to goose 
harvest opportunities in the Flyway. The large numbers of giant Canada 
geese in most States appear to be buffering, to some extent, hunting 
pressure on interior Canada geese. These changes will allow States to 
evaluate the potential of this buffering effect as well as the impacts 
of stable regulations on interior Canada goose populations.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended several changes for dark 
goose regulations. In the West-Tier, they recommended an increase in 
season length (from 95 to 107 days) in Colorado and an increase in bag 
limit (from 3 to 4) in Colorado and Texas. In the East-Tier, they 
recommended removing the Big Stone Power Plant area restriction in 
South Dakota.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended the following area, bag, and 
season length changes described below:
    1. Increase the bag limit to 6 geese per day in the California 
Northeastern and Balance of State Zones;
    2. Increase the daily bag limit for small Canada geese in the 
California

[[Page 50619]]

Balance-of-State Zone to 6 geese per day;
    3. Eliminate the closed zone of Tillamook County, Oregon, include 
the county in the NW Oregon Permit Goose Zone, and establish a daily 
bag limit of dark geese of 3 including not more than 2 cackling or 
Aleutian geese; and
    4. Revise Idaho zone designations for 4 counties, to move all parts 
of Power County from Zone 3 to Zone 5 and move Blaine and Camas 
Counties and Cassia County within Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge 
from Zone 3 to Zone 4.
    Service Response: We concur with the Atlantic Flyway Council's 
recommendations to adjust delineation of High and Low NAP harvest zones 
in New York and Connecticut to account for the current harvest 
distribution of NAP. The Atlantic Flyway Management Plan for NAP Canada 
geese allows for a two-tiered approach to harvest management for this 
population. ``High Harvest'' zones are defined as those areas within 
each State containing 70% or more of all NAP leg band recoveries, 
whereas ``Low Harvest'' areas are all other areas of each State within 
existing NAP zones. Use of High and Low harvest zones allows States to 
increase and direct harvest opportunity towards RP geese in areas where 
relatively few NAP geese will be affected. Under this revised 
delineation, New York's High and Low harvest zones would contain 
approximately 83% and 17%, respectively, of all NAP band returns, still 
well within the management plan criteria. In Connecticut, only 11 
percent of all NAP recoveries have occurred in the NAP-L zone since 
delineation (2002) of these harvest zones, and no NAP recoveries have 
occurred in the proposed area of change. Both of these changes would 
not only allow for more harvest of RP geese, but would have minimal 
impact to NAP geese.
    We also concur with the Atlantic Flyway Council's recommendations 
regarding frameworks for RP harvest areas. Resident Canada geese are 
overabundant in many areas of the Atlantic Flyway and currently number 
approximately 1.2 million birds, or nearly double the goal in the 
Atlantic Flyway Resident Canada Goose Management Plan of 650,000 geese. 
Allowance of an 80-day season, combined with the 25-day special Canada 
goose season in September, and the 2-day Youth Waterfowl Hunting Days, 
would potentially allow 107 days of harvest opportunity for RP geese, 
the maximum allowed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Further, 
allowing 3-way splits within the regular season would provide States 
with greater flexibility for setting their seasons. All of these 
objectives are consistent with those identified in the Service's 2005 
Final Environmental Impact Statement on Resident Canada Goose 
Management (70 FR 69985, November 18, 2005). Since RP areas were first 
established in 2002 (with 70-day seasons and a 5-bird daily limit), 
available band recovery data from the first 3 seasons (2002-2004) 
indicate that harvest of migrant geese (AP, NAP and SJBP) has been 
negligible. Further, the March 10 closing date in New York will not 
adversely impact AP geese migrating north in early spring as data 
indicate that AP geese make only minimal use of the RP area in New 
York. Lastly, delays in opening framework dates will be maintained to 
avoid any harvest of migrant geese during peak fall movements (e.g., 
early to mid October in New York) to southern regions of the flyway.
    We also agree with the Atlantic Flyway Council's recommendation to 
reclassify a small portion of the Northeast Goose Hunt Zone in 
Northampton County, North Carolina, to an SJBP Hunt Zone designation. 
Northampton County currently includes portions of two Canada goose hunt 
zones--an AP zone designation and an SJBP zone designation. Over the 
last 15 years, the AP zone in North Carolina has decreased in size due 
to contemporary information regarding locations of migrant Canada goose 
flocks and population affiliation. While Northampton County does hold 
migrant geese from both the AP and SJBP, the Flyway's original intent 
in including this small portion of Northampton County in the AP zone 
occurred at a time when the AP population was reduced throughout the 
entire Flyway, and when the Service's and Flyway's goal was to provide 
maximum protection to AP geese in North Carolina. Since then, AP geese 
have rebounded from low numbers in the late 1990s, and the hunting of 
AP geese in North Carolina has been relaxed to some extent.
    We do not agree with the framework changes and season 
liberalizations proposed by the Mississippi Flyway Council to the SJBP 
harvest areas. SJBP Canada geese are managed through a management plan 
developed cooperatively by the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways. In 
recent years, the Mississippi Flyway has undergone major changes in 
their philosophical approach to Canada goose management. As a result, 
the Mississippi Flyway Council has instituted changes in their 
regulatory approach to MVP, SJBP, and RP Canada goose management. While 
the Mississippi Flyway Council believes that their 2007-08 proposals 
for SJBP regulations are consistent with the current management plan, 
the Atlantic Flyway Council believes that more dialogue is needed on 
these proposals before they can support them. Given the lack of 
consensus between the two Flyways, we do not support changes to SJBP 
regulations at this time. We encourage the two Flyways to revise the 
SJBP management plan to reflect evolving philosophies of Canada goose 
management in general.
    We concur with the Central Flyway's recommendation to increase the 
season length from 95 to 107 days for dark geese in Colorado and 
increase the daily bag limit in Colorado and Texas. The 2005-07 average 
(211,627) of mid-winter counts for the Hi-Line Population of Canada 
geese remains well above the established objective level (>85,000). 
Further, the 2005-07 average (200,821) of mid-winter counts for the 
Shortgrass Prairie Population of Canada geese also remains above the 
established population objective (150,000-200,000). Given the status of 
these populations and the established population objective levels, we 
agree that the proposed increase in season length in Colorado and the 
daily bag limit increases in Colorado and Texas are commensurate with 
the status of the populations.
    Regarding the Central Flyway Council's recommendation to remove the 
Big Stone Power Plant area restriction in South Dakota, we agree. The 
restriction was put in place in 1997 due to potential concerns related 
to the status of Eastern Prairie Population (EPP) Canada geese. These 
geese nest in the Hudson Bay Lowlands of Manitoba and concentrate 
primarily in Manitoba, Minnesota, and Missouri during winter. The 2007 
spring estimate of EPP geese was 217,500, 17 percent higher than the 
2006 estimate. Spring estimates have increased an average of 3 percent 
per year over the last 10 years. Furthermore, the estimated number of 
productive geese in 2007 increased from 2006 and reached a record-high 
level. We see no reason to continue this restriction.
    We also concur with all of the recommendations forwarded by the 
Pacific Flyway Council. We support the changes proposed and recognize 
that the changes in California and Oregon are intended to address 
increasing depredation problems associated with Aleutian Canada geese. 
Aleutian Canada geese continue to increase rapidly and currently are 
above the population objective levels identified in the Flyway 
management plan. We further note that Pacific Flyway white-fronted 
geese and Aleutian Canada geese are at the highest

[[Page 50620]]

population levels that have observed in the last 15 years. The proposed 
increased harvest opportunity will help address depredation concerns in 
northwest California and southwest Oregon associated with both of these 
populations. The other changes proposed for Canada geese in Washington, 
Utah, and Nevada, are relatively minor boundary changes in harvest 
zones or bag limit increases that will help address depredation 
concerns in these States and will not impact the harvest of other 
Canada goose populations of management concern in the Flyway. The 
proposed zone boundary change in Idaho is an administrative change and 
is not expected to have any measurable impact on the goose harvest from 
these areas.

C. Special Late Seasons

    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a 3-year 
experimental late Canada goose season for a 30-county area in Indiana 
during February 1-15. The 15-day season would be designed to increase 
harvests of local giant Canada geese.
    Service Response: We concur with the Council on the creation of an 
experimental late Canada goose season in Indiana. The 2007 population 
estimate for Mississippi Flyway Giant Population Canada geese (MFGP) 
breeding in Indiana is 125,000, and the established population goal is 
80,000. While Indiana has used special September Canada goose seasons 
to control locally-breeding MFGP, complaints regarding breeding MFGP in 
Indiana continue to increase. We agree that a special late goose season 
could help control Indiana's breeding Canada goose population. 
Available collar and harvest data indicate that the proposed 
experimental area is comprised of well above the 80 percent non-migrant 
geese, as required by the current criteria.

6. Brant

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommends a 
50-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit for Atlantic brant.
    Service Response: We concur with the Atlantic Flyway Council 
recommendation. The 2007 Mid-Winter Index (MWI) for Atlantic brant was 
150,559. While the Brant Management Plan prescribes a 50-day season 
with a 2-bird daily bag limit when the MWI estimate falls within 
125,000-150,000, and consideration of a 60-day season with a 3-bird 
daily bag limit when the MWI estimate is above 150,000, the outlook for 
productivity is below average due to highly variable conditions on the 
main breeding grounds. Thus, we agree with the Council that an increase 
of 20 days without the associated daily bag limit increase is a 
conservative approach to harvest management for the upcoming season.

Public Comment Invited

    The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, 
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking 
process. We intend that adopted final rules be as responsive as 
possible to all concerned interests and, therefore, seek the comments 
and suggestions of the public, other concerned governmental agencies, 
nongovernmental organizations, and other private interests on these 
proposals. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written 
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed 
regulations to the address indicated under ADDRESSES.
    Special circumstances involved in the establishment of these 
regulations 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 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 comment periods 
past the dates specified in DATES is contrary to the public interest.
    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. 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. 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. However, as in the past, we 
will summarize all comments received during the comment period and 
respond to them in the final rule.

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 a 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). Annual NEPA considerations are covered under a 
separate Environmental Assessment (EA), ``Duck Hunting Regulations for 
2007-08,'' and an August 24, 2007, Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI). Copies of the EA and FONSI are available upon request from the 
address indicated under 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, as we 
announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216). A 
scoping report summarizing the scoping comments and scoping meetings is 
available either at the address indicated under ADDRESSES or on our Web 
site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Prior to issuance of the 2007-08 migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we will comply with 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 this and 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 
1990-96, updated in 1998, and updated again in 2004. It is further 
discussed below under the heading Regulatory Flexibility Act.

[[Page 50621]]

Results from the 2004 analysis indicate that the expected welfare 
benefit of the annual migratory bird hunting frameworks is on the order 
of $734 million to $1.064 billion, 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 
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/SpecialTopics/
EconomicAnalysis-Final-2004.pdf.
    This year, due to limited data availability, we partially updated 
the 2004 analysis, but restricted our analysis to duck hunting. Results 
indicate that the total consumer surplus of the annual duck hunting 
frameworks is on the order of $222 to $360 million, with a mid-point 
estimate of $291 million. We plan to perform a full update of the 
analysis in 2008. Copies of the updated analysis are available upon 
request from the address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our Web site 
at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/SpecialTopics/
EconomicAnalysis-2007Update.pdf.
    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 Regulatory Affairs, Department 
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. 
You may also e-mail the 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 1990-95. 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 https://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/SpecialTopics/EconomicAnalysis-
Final-2004.pdf.
    This year, due to limited data availability, we partially updated 
the 2004 analysis, but restricted our analysis to duck hunting. Results 
indicate that the duck hunters would spend between $291 million and 
$473.5 million at small businesses in 2007. We plan to perform a full 
update of the analysis in 2008 when the full results from the 2006 
National Hunting and Fishing Survey is available. Copies of the updated 
analysis are available upon request from the address indicated under 
ADDRESSES or from our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
reports/SpecialTopics/EconomicAnalysis-2007Update.pdf.

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 outlined 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 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 (PRA). There are no new information collections in this proposed 
rule that would require OMB approval under the PRA. The existing 
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 surveys associated with the Migratory Bird Harvest Information 
Program and assigned clearance number 1018-0015 (expires 2/29/2008). 
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.
    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 proposed 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.

[[Page 50622]]

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, in the April 11 proposed rule we 
solicited proposals for special migratory bird hunting regulations for 
certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust 
lands, and ceded lands for the 2007-08 migratory bird hunting season. 
The resulting proposals will be contained in a separate proposed rule. 
By virtue of these actions, we have consulted with all the Tribes 
affected by this rule.

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 regulatio