[Federal Register: June 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 110)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 31789-31794]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN: 1018-AV12

Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game 
Bird Hunting Regulations for the 2007-08 Hunting Season; Notice of 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.


SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), proposed in 
an earlier document to establish annual hunting regulations for certain 
migratory game birds for the 2007-08 hunting season. This supplement to 
the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, announces the 
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway Council 
meetings, provides Flyway Council recommendations resulting from their 
March meetings, and provides regulatory alternatives for the 2007-08 
duck hunting seasons.

DATES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to 
consider and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory 
bird hunting on June 20 and 21, 2007, and for late-season migratory 
bird hunting and the 2008 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence 
seasons in Alaska on August 1 and 2, 2007. All meetings will commence 
at approximately 8:30 a.m. Following later Federal Register documents, 
you will be given an opportunity to submit comments for proposed early-
season frameworks by July 31, 2007, and for proposed late-season 
frameworks and subsistence migratory bird seasons in Alaska by August 
31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet 
in room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square 
Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA. 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 in room 4107, 
Arlington Square Building, 4501 North Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20240; (703) 358-1714. For information on the 
migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska, contact Fred Armstrong, 
(907) 786-3887, or Donna Dewhurst, (907) 786-3499, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, MS-201, Anchorage, AK 99503.


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, and other 
regulations for hunting migratory game birds under Sec. Sec.  20.101 
through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. This document is the 
second in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rules for 
migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will publish proposed 
early-season frameworks in early July and late-season frameworks in 
early August. We will publish final regulatory frameworks for early 
seasons on or about August 17, 2007, and for late seasons on or about 
September 14, 2007.

[[Page 31790]]

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

    The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet June 20-
21, 2007, to review information on the current status of migratory 
shore and upland game birds and develop 2007-08 migratory game bird 
regulations recommendations for these species, plus regulations for 
migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 
The Committee will also develop regulations recommendations for 
September waterfowl seasons in designated States, special sea duck 
seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. In 
addition, the Committee will review and discuss preliminary information 
on the status of waterfowl.
    At the August 1-2, 2007, meetings, the Committee will review 
information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2007-08 
migratory game bird regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl 
seasons and other species and seasons not previously discussed at the 
early-season meetings. In addition, the Committee will develop 
recommendations for the 2008 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence 
season in Alaska. In accordance with Departmental policy, these 
meetings are open to public observation. You may submit written 
comments to the Service on the matters discussed.

Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings

    Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings 
of the four Flyway Councils this July. Although agendas are not yet 
available, these meetings usually commence at 8 a.m. on the days 
    Atlantic Flyway Council: July 26-27, Sheraton Harborside Hotel, 
Portsmouth, NH.
    Mississippi Flyway Council: July 28-29, Sawmill Creek Resort, 
Huron, OH.
    Central Flyway Council: July 26-27, Holiday Inn of the Northern 
Black Hills, Spearfish, SD.
    Pacific Flyway Council: July 27, Red Lion Hotel at the Park, 
Spokane, WA.

Review of Public Comments

    This supplemental rulemaking describes Flyway Council recommended 
changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the April 11, 
2007, Federal Register. We have included only those recommendations 
requiring either new proposals or substantial modification of the 
preliminary proposals and do not include recommendations that simply 
support or oppose preliminary proposals and provide no recommended 
alternatives. We will publish responses to all proposals and written 
comments when we develop final frameworks. In addition, this 
supplemental rulemaking contains the regulatory alternatives for the 
2007-08 duck hunting seasons. We have included all Flyway Council 
recommendations received relating to the development of these 
    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 
identified in the April 11 proposed rule. Only those categories 
requiring your attention or for which we received Flyway Council 
recommendations are discussed below.

1. Ducks

    Duck harvest management categories are: (A) General Harvest 
Strategy; (B) Regulatory Alternatives, including specification of 
framework dates, season length, and bag limits; (C) Zones and Split 
Seasons; and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management.
A. General Harvest Strategy
    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that 
regulations changes be restricted to one step per year, both when 
restricting as well as liberalizing hunting regulations.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that the proposal developed 
by the Service for a revised protocol for managing the harvest of 
mallards in Western North America be implemented in 2008. The Council 
stated that this delay is needed to fully understand and pick a 
management objective, to incorporate explicit consideration of mallards 
derived from those portions of Alberta that contribute mallards to the 
Pacific Flyway, to determine how this strategy relates to Alaska's 
early season regulations, and to investigate the addition of 
alternative models.
    Service Response: As we stated in the April 11 Federal Register, 
the final Adaptive Harvest Management protocol for the 2007-08 season 
will be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be 
published in July.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council and the Central Flyway 
Council recommended that regulatory alternatives for duck hunting 
seasons remain the same as those used in 2006.
    Public Comments: The Wisconsin Department of Natural resources 
recommended that regulatory alternatives for duck hunting seasons 
remain the same as those used in 2006.
    Service Response: Last year in the May 30, 2006, Federal Register 
(71 FR 30786), we discussed the March 11, 2005, Adaptive Harvest 
Management (AHM) Task Force draft final report (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mgmt/ahm/taskforce/taskforce.htm
) to the IAFWA Executive 

Committee concerning the future development and direction of AHM. The 
Task Force endeavored to develop a strategic approach that was 
comprehensive and integrative, that recognized the diverse perspectives 
and desires of stakeholders, that was consistent with resource 
monitoring and assessment capabilities, and that hopefully could be 
embraced by all four Flyways Councils. We stated then, and reiterate 
here, that we appreciate the extensive discussion the report has 
received and look forward to continuing dialogue concerning the future 
strategic course for AHM.
    One of the most widely debated issues continues to be the nature of 
the regulatory alternatives. The Task Force recommended a simpler and 
more conservative approach than is reflected in the regulatory 
alternatives used since 1997, which are essentially those we proposed 
for the 2007-08 hunting season (April 11 Federal Register). As yet, 
however, no consensus has emerged among the Flyway Councils concerning 
modifications to the regulatory alternatives, nor is such consensus 
expected in time to select a regulatory alternative for the 2007-08 
hunting season.
    Therefore, the regulatory alternatives proposed in the April 11 
Federal Register will be used for the 2007-08 hunting season. In 2005, 
the AHM regulatory alternatives were modified to consist only of the 
maximum season lengths, framework dates, and bag limits for total ducks 
and mallards. Restrictions for certain species within these frameworks 
that are not covered by existing harvest strategies will be addressed 
during the late-season regulations process. For those species with 
existing harvest strategies (canvasbacks and pintails), those 
strategies to be used for the 2007-08 hunting season.

[[Page 31791]]

D. Special Seasons/Species Management
iii. Black Ducks
    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council endorsed the draft 
International Harvest Strategy for Black Ducks developed by the Black 
Duck AHM Working Group until such time that a full AHM model is 
available and requested a dialogue with the Service on options for 
implementing harvest restrictions, assuming harvest restrictions are 
v. Pintails
    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended 
that the proposal developed by the Service for the addition of a 
compensatory model for Northern Pintail harvest management be 
incorporated in 2007 and that work continue on improving the harvest 
management decision-making process for pintail. Additionally, the 
Council urged the Service to complete its banding needs assessment and 
to work with the Flyways and the Canadian Wildlife Service to improve 
the basic biological data to more fully inform decision making.
vi. Scaup
    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended not 
implementing a scaup harvest strategy that uses an objective function 
based on Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY). They suggested that scaup 
regulatory alternatives for the Central Flyway in 2009 be based on the 
most recent 3-year running mean of the May Breeding Population 
estimates (BPOP) as follows:
    a. BPOP mean > 4.0 million, daily bag limit of 3.
    b. BPOP mean 3.25--4.0 million, daily bag limit of 2.
    c. BPOP mean 2.5--3.25 million, daily bag limit of 1.
    d. BPOP mean <  2.5 million, Hunter's Choice or 1-bird daily bag 
limit with a season-within-a-season.
    The Pacific Flyway Council was supportive of the proposed approach 
outlined in the recently proposed Service assessment and decision-
making framework to inform scaup harvest management, and endorsed a 
shoulder strategy of less than Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY). In 
developing regulation packages to implement the framework, the Council 
further requested recognition of flyway differences in scaup 
populations and harvest potential.
    Service Response: In 2006, we did not change scaup harvest 
regulations with the understanding that a draft harvest strategy would 
be available for Flyway Council review prior to the 2007 winter 
meetings (see September 22, 2007, Federal Register, 71 FR 55654) 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. The final 
assessment was presented during the Winter Flyway Technical Section 
meetings, made available to the public in the April 11 Federal 
Register, and has been subject to both extensive and rigorous peer 
review. That peer review has resulted in many improvements in the 
assessment, and we believe it now represents an objective, efficient, 
and comprehensive synthesis of data relevant to scaup harvest 
management. Also, we have now completed additional work that we believe 
can help frame a viable scaup harvest strategy. The most recent 
technical analysis focuses on predicting scaup harvest from various 
combinations of Flyway-specific season lengths and bag limits, and this 
analysis has been appended to the assessment report previously 
available (http://www.fws.gov/reports).

    We have received a number of comments from the Flyway Councils, 
States, and other interested publics on the assessment. As we indicated 
in the April 11 proposed rule, the final scaup harvest strategy will be 
detailed in the July early-season proposed rule (see Schedule of 
Regulations Meetings and Federal Register Publications in the April 11 
Federal Register for further information). Of immediate concern, 
however, is the Flyway Councils' review of our most recent assessment. 
We urge the Flyway Councils to evaluate our latest assessments.
vii. Mottled Ducks
    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended 
that the Service take no action with respect to further harvest 
reduction for West Gulf Coast mottled ducks until there is a better 
understanding of population dynamics and until implications of the 
Central Flyway's Hunter's Choice evaluation have been reviewed.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council made several 
recommendations dealing with early Canada goose seasons. First, the 
Council recommended that the Service allow the use of special 
regulations (electronic calls, unplugged guns, extended hunting hours) 
later than September 15 during existing September Canada goose hunting 
seasons in Atlantic Flyway States. Use of these special regulations 
would be limited to the geographic areas of States that were open to 
hunting and under existing September season ending dates as approved by 
the Service for the 2007 regulation cycle. Lastly, the Council 
recommended allowing the experimental seasons in portions of Florida, 
Georgia, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Vermont to 
become operational in 2007.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the closing dates for 
Canada goose hunting during the September goose season in the Northwest 
goose zone of Minnesota be extended through September 22 to coincide 
with the remainder of the state with a waiver of the experimental 
season requirements of collecting Canada goose parts.
B. Regular Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the 
framework opening date for all species of geese for the regular goose 
seasons in Michigan and Wisconsin be September 16, 2007.

9. Sandhill Cranes

    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended 
using the 2007 Rocky Mountain Population sandhill crane harvest 
allocation of 1,321 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using 
the 2004-06 3-year running average.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended initiating a limited hunt 
for Lower Colorado River sandhill cranes in Arizona, with the goal of 
the hunt being a limited harvest of 5 cranes in January. To limit 
harvest, Arizona would issue permit tags to hunters and require 
mandatory check of all harvested cranes. To limit disturbance of 
wintering cranes, Arizona would restrict the hunt to one 3-day period. 
Arizona would also coordinate with the National Wildlife Refuges where 
cranes occur.

14. Woodcock

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
allowing compensatory days for

[[Page 31792]]

woodcock hunting in States where Sunday hunting is prohibited by State 

16. Mourning Doves

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council and the Upper- 
and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 
Council recommended that, based on criteria set forth in the current 
version of the Mourning Dove Harvest Management Strategy for the 
Eastern Management Unit (EMU), no changes in bag limit and season 
length components of the mourning dove harvest framework are warranted. 
They both further recommended that EMU States should be offered the 
choice of either a 12-bird daily bag limit and 70-day season or a 15-
bird daily bag limit and 60-day season for the 2007-08 mourning dove 
hunting season, with a standardized 15-bird daily bag limit and 70-day 
season beginning with the 2008-09 mourning dove hunting season. The 
standardized bag limit and season length will then be used as the 
``moderate'' harvest option for revising the Initial Mourning Dove 
Harvest Management Strategy.

18. Alaska

    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended 
maintaining status quo in the Alaska early-season framework, except for 
increasing the dark goose daily bag limit in selected units to provide 
more harvest opportunity for white-fronted geese.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, 
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking 
process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written 
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed 
regulations. Before promulgation of 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. 
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other 
personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware 
that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.
    You may inspect comments received on the proposed annual 
regulations during normal business hours at the Service's Division of 
Migratory Bird Management office in room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax 
Drive, Arlington, VA, 22203. 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 after the closing date in any 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 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). In addition, an August 1985 environmental 
assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations 
on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available (see 
    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 detailed in 
a March 9, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 12216). A scoping report 
summarizing the scoping comments and scoping meetings is available by 
either writing to the address indicated under ADDRESSES or by viewing 
on our Web site at  http://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 
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 welfare 
benefit of the annual migratory bird hunting frameworks is on the order 
of $734 to $1,064 million, with a midpoint 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.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/SpecialTopics/EconomicAnalysis-Final-2004.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 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, or 
e-mail to 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

[[Page 31793]]

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 htttp://http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/SpecialTopics/EconomicAnalysis-Final-2004.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. 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 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. OMB has also 
approved the information collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane 
Harvest Survey and assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires 11/30/
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 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.

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 Indian tribe may be more restrictive 
than the Federal frameworks at any time. 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.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
    The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2007-08 
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 

    Dated: May 29, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[[Page 31794]]


[FR Doc. 07-2838 Filed 6-7-07; 8:45 am]