[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30786-30791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4896]



[[Page 30785]]

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

Part V





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 20



Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird 
Hunting Regulations for the 2006-07 Hunting Season; Notice of Meetings; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 30786]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AT76


Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game 
Bird Hunting Regulations for the 2006-07 Hunting Season; Notice of 
Meetings

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter, Service or 
we) proposed in an earlier document to establish annual hunting 
regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 2006-07 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 2006-07 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 21 and 22, 2006, and for late-season migratory 
bird hunting and the 2007 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence 
seasons in Alaska on July 26 and 27, 2006. All meetings will commence 
at approximately 8:30 a.m. Following later Federal Register notices, 
you will be given an opportunity to submit comments for proposed early-
season frameworks by July 30, 2006, and for proposed late-season 
frameworks and subsistence migratory bird seasons in Alaska by August 
30, 2006.

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 Drive, Arlington, Virginia. 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 
Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel, at: 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, (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 2006

    On April 11, 2006, we published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
18562) 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 18, 2006, and for late seasons on or about 
September 15, 2006.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

    The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet June 21-
22, 2006, to review information on the current status of migratory 
shore and upland game birds and develop 2006-07 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 special 
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 July 26-27, 2006, meetings, the Committee will review 
information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2006-07 
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 2007 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 
indicated.
    Atlantic Flyway Council: July 20-21, Embassy Suites, 337 Meeting 
Street, Charleston, South Carolina.
    Mississippi Flyway Council: July 22-23, Doubletree Inn, Westport, 
Missouri.
    Central Flyway Council: July 20-21, Holiday Inn, Estes Park, 
Colorado.
    Pacific Flyway Council: July 19, Doubletree Hotel, Spokane City 
Center, Spokane, Washington.

Review of Public Comments

    This supplemental rulemaking describes Flyway Council recommended 
changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the April 11, 
2006, Federal Register. We have included only those recommendations 
requiring either new proposals or substantial modification of the 
preliminary proposals. This supplement does not include recommendations 
that simply support or oppose preliminary proposals and provide no 
recommended alternatives. We will consider these recommendations later 
in the regulations-development process. 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 2006-07 duck hunting seasons. We have included all 
Flyway Council recommendations received relating to the development of 
these alternatives.
    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, 2006, proposed rule. Only those categories 
requiring your attention or for which we received Flyway Council 
recommendations are discussed below.

1. Ducks

    Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest 
management 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.

[[Page 30787]]

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.
    Service Response: As we stated last year in the June 24, 2005, 
Federal Register (70 FR 36794), our incorporation of a one-step 
constraint into the Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) process was 
addressed by the AHM Task Force of the International Association of 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) in its report and recommendations. 
This recommendation will be included in considerations of potential 
changes to the set of regulatory alternatives at a later time.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that 
regulatory alternatives for duck hunting seasons remain the same as 
those used in 2005.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that the Service adopt AHM 
duck regulations packages and additional species/sex restrictions for 
the Central Flyway in 2006-07 that are the same as those used in the 
2005-06 season, except for the following changes necessary for 
implementation of the Hunter's Choice evaluation proposal, provided 
that Federal frameworks permit open seasons for pintails and 
canvasbacks:
    (1) In Montana, Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, 
frameworks will establish 39-day season lengths, concurrent with the 
regular season zones and splits, and 1-bird daily bag limit for both 
pintails and canvasbacks; and
    (2) In North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Kansas, and Texas, 
Hunter's Choice bag limit regulations will be used as follows:

    Within the ``liberal'' and ``moderate'' regulatory alternatives, 
the daily bag limit will be 5 ducks, with species and sex 
restrictions as follows: Scaup, redhead, and wood duck--2; only 1 
duck from the following group: Hen mallard, mottled duck, pintail, 
canvasback. Within the ``restrictive'' regulatory alternative, the 
daily bag limit will be 3 ducks, with species and sex restrictions 
as follows: Scaup, redhead and wood duck--2; only 1 duck from the 
following group: Hen mallard, mottled duck, pintail, canvasback. The 
possession limit will be twice the daily bag limit under all 
regulatory alternatives.

    The Central Flyway Council further recommends that these frameworks 
remain in place for the duration of the Hunter's Choice evaluation.
    Service Response: On March 11, 2005, the AHM Task Force submitted a 
draft final report (http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/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 
appreciate the extensive discussion the report has received over the 
past year 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 proposed by 
the Service for the 2006-07 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 
2006-07 hunting season. Therefore, the regulatory alternatives proposed 
in the April 11 Federal Register will be used for the 2006-07 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 2006-07 
hunting season.
    In November 2005 and January 2006, the Service's Division of 
Migratory Bird Management conducted technical reviews of the Central 
Flyway's ``Hunter's-Choice'' bag-limit experiment. Based on these 
reviews, the Central Flyway submitted a revised proposal to the Service 
in March 2006. The Service is considering this revised proposal to 
implement the ``Hunter's-Choice'' bag-limit experiment in the Central 
Flyway. This proposal will be addressed during the late-season 
regulations process.
C. Zones and Split Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended a 
minor change to the High Plains Mallard Management Unit (HPMMU) 
boundary in South Dakota.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended two changes to zones in the 
Pacific Flyway for the duck season framework: (1) Modifying the 
boundary between the Northeast and Balance of the State Zone in the 
Shasta Valley of California; and (2) creating two zones in the Pacific 
Flyway portion of Wyoming.

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 2006 regulation cycle. This regulation would take 
effect as soon as the final rule on resident Canada goose management is 
effective. Second, the Council recommended increasing the Atlantic 
Flyway's September Canada goose hunting season daily bag limit to 15 
geese, with a possession limit of 30 geese, beginning with the 2006-07 
hunting season. Lastly, the Council recommended allowing Maryland to 
modify the boundary of their Early Resident Canada Goose Western Zone.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that evaluation requirements 
for September Canada goose hunting seasons from September 16 to 
September 30 be waived for all east-tier Central Flyway States south of 
North Dakota. The Council also recommended that the Oklahoma 
experimental September Canada goose season be allowed to continue until 
sufficient goose tail fan samples are obtained for the September 16-30 
time period to meet Service evaluation requirements and that Kansas be 
allowed to implement a three year (2006-08) experimental Canada goose 
season during the September 16-30 period.

[[Page 30788]]

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 be September 16 in 2006 and future years. If this 
recommendation is not approved, the Committees recommended that the 
framework opening date for all species of geese for the regular goose 
seasons in Michigan and Wisconsin be September 16, 2006.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that Canada goose 
regulations be moved to the early-season regulations schedule in the 
east-tier States of the Central Flyway. Further, the Council 
recommended a season framework of 107 days with a daily bag limit of 3 
Canada geese (or any other goose species except light geese and white-
fronted geese) in all east-tier States, except in the Big Stone Power 
Plant area of South Dakota where the daily bag limit would be 3 until 
November 30 and 2 thereafter. Framework dates would be September 16 to 
the Sunday nearest February 15 (February 18, 2007). States could split 
the season twice, and the possession limit would be twice the daily bag 
limit.

7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
raising the possession limit of geese to four times the daily bag 
limit, except where currently more liberal.

8. Swans

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
allowing the take of tundra swans during the special youth waterfowl 
hunt day(s) to those individuals holding a valid permit/tag.

9. Sandhill Cranes

    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended 
using the 2006 Rocky Mountain Population sandhill crane harvest 
allocation of 1,321 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using 
the 2003-2005 three-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 10 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.

11. Moorhens and Gallinules

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
changing the framework closing date for moorhens and gallinules from 
January 20 to January 31 to help standardize the framework ending dates 
for those webless species that are found in the same areas as 
waterfowl.

12. Rails

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
changing the framework closing date for rails from January 20 to 
January 31 to help standardize the framework ending dates for those 
webless species that are found in the same areas as waterfowl.

16. Mourning Doves

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central 
Flyway Councils supported the Service's recommended guidelines for dove 
zones and split seasons in the Eastern and Central Management Units. 
The recommended guidelines consisted of the following:
    (1) A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a 
contiguous boundary, for which independent dates may be selected for 
the dove season.
    (2) States in management units approved for zoning may select a 
zone/split option during an open season. It must remain in place for a 
5-year period.
    (3) Zoning periods for dove hunting will conform to those years 
used for ducks, e.g., 2006-2010.
    (4) The zone/split configuration consists of two zones with the 
option for 3-way (3-segment) split seasons in one or both zones. As a 
grandfathered arrangement, Texas will have three zones with the option 
for 2-way (2 segments) split seasons in one, two, or all three zones.
    (5) States that do not wish to zone for dove hunting may split 
their seasons into no more than three segments.
    The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils recommended allowing 
States in the Eastern Management Unit (EMU) to adopt hunting seasons 
and daily bag limits that include an aggregate daily bag limit composed 
of mourning doves and white-winged doves, singly or in combination. The 
Councils further recommended that States be allowed to begin mourning 
dove seasons as early as September 1, regardless of zones.

17. White-Winged and White-Tipped Doves

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway 
Councils recommended allowing States in the Eastern Management Unit 
(EMU) to adopt hunting seasons and daily bag limits that include an 
aggregate daily bag limit composed of mourning doves and white-winged 
doves, singly or in combination.

18. Alaska

    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended 
maintaining status quo in the Alaska early-season framework, except for 
the following changes: (1) Council supports an increase in the daily 
limit for white geese from 3 to 4, consistent with other Pacific Flyway 
States; and (2) Council recommends that brant season length be restored 
to 107 days.

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 the caption 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 appropriately 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 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.

[[Page 30789]]

    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. As in the past, we will summarize all comments received 
during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date.

NEPA Consideration

    NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document 
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual 
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. 
We published Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 16, 
1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 18, 
1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985 environmental 
assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations 
on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available from the 
address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
    In a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register 
(70 FR 53376), we announced our intent to develop a new Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program. 
Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, and were 
detailed in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216).

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Prior to issuance of the 2006-07 migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we will 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. 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 http://www.migratorybirds.gov.
    Executive Order 12866 also requires each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand. We invite comments on how to 
make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions 
such as the following:
    (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
interferes with its clarity?
    (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
    (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into 
more (but shorter) sections?
    (5) Is the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of the preamble helpful in understanding the rule?
    (6) What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
rule easier to understand to: Office of 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: [email protected].

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 http://www.migratorybirds.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons 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. 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

[[Page 30790]]

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 2006-07 
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 
742a-j.

    Dated: May 17, 2006.
Matt Hogan,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 30791]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30MY06.005

[FR Doc. 06-4896 Filed 5-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C