[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 18, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34692-34697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13737]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

[FWS-R9-MB-2008-0032;91200-1231-9BPP-L2]
RIN 1018-AV62


Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game 
Bird Hunting Regulations for the 2008-09 Hunting Season; Notice of 
Meetings

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 2008-09 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 2008-09 
duck hunting seasons.

DATES: You must submit comments on the proposed regulatory alternatives 
for the 2008-09 duck hunting seasons and the updated cost/benefit 
analysis by June 27, 2008. Following later Federal Register documents, 
you will be given an opportunity to submit comments for proposed early-
season frameworks by July 31, 2008, and for proposed late-season 
frameworks and subsistence migratory bird seasons in Alaska by August 
31, 2008. The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to 
consider and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory 
bird hunting on June 25 and 26, 2008, and for late-season migratory 
bird hunting and the 2009 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence 
seasons in Alaska on July 30 and 31, 2008. All meetings will commence 
at approximately 8:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the 
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: 1018-AV62; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, 
VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).
    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.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations Schedule for 2008

    On May 28, 2008, we published in the Federal Register (73 FR 30712) 
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, 2008, and for late seasons on or about September 14, 2008.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

    The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet June 25-
26, 2008, to review information on the current status of migratory 
shore and upland game birds and develop 2008-09 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 July 30-31, 2008, meetings, the Committee will review 
information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2008-09 
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 2009 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.

[[Page 34693]]

    Atlantic Flyway Council: July 24-25, Princeton Westin at Forrestal 
Village, Princeton, NJ.
    Mississippi Flyway Council: July 24-25, Crown Plaza Hotel, 
Knoxville, TN.
    Central Flyway Council: July 24-25, Holiday Inn, Overland Park, KS.
    Pacific Flyway Council: July 25, 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 May 28, 
2008, 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 
2008-09 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 May 28 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. Both 
Committees further recommended not implementing the western mallard 
Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) protocol.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended not implementing the western 
mallard AHM protocol.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended implementing the Service's 
proposal for a revised protocol for managing the harvest of mallards in 
Western North America. They further recommended inclusion of the 
following initial components:
    (1) Regulation packages that are currently in place in the Pacific 
Flyway and generally described as Liberal, Moderate, Restrictive, and 
Closed, with associated target harvest rates of 12, 8, 4, and 0 
percent, respectively;
    (2) A harvest objective that corresponds to no more than 95 percent 
of the Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) on the yield curve (they further 
note that current harvest estimates suggest that the current Pacific 
Flyway mallard harvest is at 80 percent of MSY);
    (3) Consider use of a weighting factor within the decision matrix 
that would soften the knife-edge effect of optimal policies when 
regulation changes are warranted;
    (4) No change in the duck regulation provisions for Alaska, except 
implementation through the western mallard AHM strategy;
    (5) An optimization based only on western mallards; and
    (6) Clarification of the impacts of removing Alaska from the mid-
continent mallard strategy.
    They also requested that the Service explore options of 
incorporating mallards and other waterfowl stocks derived from surveyed 
areas in Canada important to the Pacific Flyway (e.g. , Alberta, 
Northwest Territories) into the decision process in the future.
    Service Response: As we stated in the May 28 Federal Register , the 
final Adaptive Harvest Management protocol for the 2008-09 season will 
be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published 
in mid-July.

B. Regulatory Alternatives

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
that the current restriction of two hens in the 4-bird mallard daily 
bag limit be removed from the ``liberal'' package in the Atlantic 
Flyway to allow the harvest of 4 mallards of any sex.
    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 2007.
    Service Response: As we stated in the May 28 Federal Register , the 
final regulatory alternatives for the 2008-09 season will be detailed 
in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.

D. Special Seasons/Species Management

iii. Black Ducks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council endorsed the 
interim international harvest strategy for black ducks, with the 
following modifications: (1) the original criteria of a 25 percent 
change in the 5-year running average from the long-term (1998-2007) 
breeding population (BPOP) should be changed to a 15 percent change 
measured by a 3-year running average, and (2) the original criteria of 
a 5-year running average to measure parity should be changed to a 3-
year running average.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council endorsed the agreement in concept and the 
interim approach to the harvest management of black ducks as outlined 
by the Black Duck International Management Group.
    Service Response: For several years we have consulted with the 
Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils, the Canadian Wildlife 
Service, and provincial wildlife agencies in eastern Canada concerning 
the development of an international harvest strategy for black ducks. 
In 2008, U.S. and Canadian waterfowl managers developed a draft interim 
harvest strategy that was designed to be employed by both countries 
over the next three seasons (2008-09 to 2010-11), allowing time for the 
development of a formal strategy based on the principles of Adaptive 
Harvest Management. The interim harvest strategy is prescriptive, in 
that it would call for no substantive changes in hunting regulations 
unless the black duck breeding population, averaged over the most 
recent 3 years, exceeds or falls below the long-term average breeding 
population by 15 percent or more. It would allow additional harvest 
opportunity (commensurate with the population increase) if the 3-year 
average breeding population exceeds the long-term average by 15 percent 
or more, and would require reduction of harvest opportunity if the 3-
year average falls below the long-term average by 15 percent or more. 
The strategy is designed to share the black duck harvest equally 
between the two countries; however, recognizing incomplete control of 
harvest through regulations, it will allow realized harvest in either 
country to vary between 40 and 60 percent. We propose to adopt this

[[Page 34694]]

interim international black duck harvest strategy for the 2008-09, 
2009-10, and 2010-11 seasons. To expedite development of a formal 
Adaptive Harvest Management strategy, we seek input from the Atlantic 
and Mississippi Flyway Councils on an appropriate long-term harvest 
management objective.
iv. Canvasbacks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
that the canvasback harvest strategy be modified to include a provision 
to allow a daily bag limit of 2 canvasbacks when the predicted breeding 
population is greater than 750,000 birds.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended an alternative canvasback 
harvest management strategy that uses threshold levels based on 
breeding population size in order to determine bag limits. These 
threshold levels would allow 2 canvasbacks per day when the population 
is above 800,000, 1 canvasback per day when the population is between 
400,000 and 800,000, and close the season when the population drops 
below 400,000.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended maintaining the current 
canvasback harvest strategy and updating harvest predictions in the 
current model.
    The Pacific Flyway Council requested revision of the canvasback 
harvest strategy to include a harvest management prescription for a 
two-bird, full season option when the canvasback breeding population 
and predicted harvest will sustain the population at or above 600,000.
    Service Response: We support modification of the existing 
canvasback strategy to allow for a 2-bird daily bag limit when the 
projected breeding population in the next year exceeds an established 
threshold level. This support is contingent on receiving Flyway Council 
and public input regarding the exact threshold level to be employed for 
the bag limit increase. Based on our recent biological assessment this 
threshold should fall between 600,000 and 750,000 canvasbacks projected 
as the next year's breeding population. If the input received fails to 
indicate a reasonable consensus on the appropriate value, we propose to 
continue using the current canvasback harvest management strategy for 
the 2008-2009 hunting season.
v. Pintails
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
several modifications and considerations for the proposed pintail 
derived harvest strategy. They recommended we continue exploration of a 
derived strategy versus a prescribed strategy and consider a closure 
constraint. They also commented that Flyway-specific bag limits may not 
be needed to maintain the desired harvest distribution.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended continued use of the current 
prescribed northern pintail harvest management strategy until they can 
see further modeling results of emphasizing a management objective that 
minimizes the frequency of closed and partial seasons.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that the proposed derived 
pintail harvest strategy not be adopted and recommended continued use 
of the current prescribed strategy.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that the current prescribed 
harvest management protocol for pintail be continued in 2008.
    Service Response: Based on Flyway Council comments and 
recommendations, we propose to continue the use of the current pintail 
harvest strategy for the 2008-09 season. We will continue to work with 
the Flyway Councils to address their concerns on a derived strategy 
over the next year.
vi. Scaup
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
implementation of the proposed scaup harvest strategy in the 2008 
conditional upon several modifications:
    (1) A harvest management objective that achieves 95 percent of the 
long-term cumulative harvest when the breeding population is less than 
4.0 million birds;
    (2) Seasons remain open when the breeding population is at or above 
2 million scaup;
    (3) Agreement to use alternative methodology developed by the 
Atlantic Flyway Technical Section to predict scaup harvests in the 
Atlantic Flyway;
    (4) Allow a ``hybrid'' season option for the Atlantic Flyway that 
allows for at least 20 days of the general duck season to have a daily 
bag limit of at least 2 while the remaining days would have a daily bag 
limit of 1;
    (5) A ``restrictive'' harvest package in the Atlantic Flyway 
consisting of a 20-day season with a daily bag limit of 2, and a 40-day 
season with a daily bag limit of 1;
    (6) A ``moderate'' harvest package in the Atlantic Flyway 
consisting of a 60-day season with a daily bag limit of 2;
    (7) A ``liberal'' harvest package in the Atlantic Flyway consisting 
of a 60-day season with a daily bag limit of 3;
    (8) Designation of the proposed strategy as ``interim'' and subject 
to immediate reconsideration if alternative/competing scaup population 
models are available that will inform management decisions; and
    (9) Reconsideration of the model elements after 3 years.
    The Council also urged us to expedite the exploration of 
alternative/competing models describing scaup population dynamics that 
may be used to inform a harvest management strategy.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended we not adopt the proposed scaup 
harvest strategy and urged us to delay implementation until some 
alternative models can be developed.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that we delay implementation 
of the proposed scaup harvest strategy until alternative models are 
developed and evaluated.
    The Pacific Flyway Council supported the implementation of a scaup 
harvest strategy in 2008, with the following conditions:
    (1) A ``shoulder'' strategy objective that corresponds to 95 
percent of MSY;
    (2) Revision of harvest prediction models to provide a greater 
capacity to predict Pacific Flyway scaup harvest; and
    (3) Revision of flyway harvest allocations to recognize proportions 
of greater scaup in flyway harvests.
    They also urged us to continue to work on alternative models to 
incorporate into the decision framework as soon as possible.
    Service Response: We propose to adopt the scaup harvest strategy as 
originally proposed last year (June 8 and July 23, 2007, Federal 
Register, 72 FR 31789 and 72 FR 40194). We believe that an informed, 
scientifically-based decision process is far preferable to any other 
possible approach. Further, we have been patient in allowing additional 
time for review by the Flyway Councils and general public of the 
proposed strategy. We note that no substantive criticisms suggesting 
that the proposed approach is not valid have been offered. We 
acknowledge and support the comments received that suggest additional 
models based on changing

[[Page 34695]]

carrying capacity should be investigated and used if they can be 
reasonably developed and are supported by existing scaup population 
data. However, we note that we consider all strategies currently 
employed for species-specific harvest regulation to be subject to 
further analysis, review and improvement as new information becomes 
available, and we fully intend to pursue such improvements for the 
proposed scaup strategy as well as all of the other species-specific 
strategies employed by the Service. We also note that we have requested 
specific input from the Councils and the public regarding the specific 
harvest management objective that should be employed for the scaup 
harvest strategy. Based on input to date, we propose the harvest 
management objective be established as 95 percent of the expected MSY 
for scaup on an annual basis and we solicit further review and comment 
on this objective from the Flyway Councils and public.
viii. Wood Ducks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council provided the 
following comments on the proposed wood duck harvest strategy:
    (1) The Council endorses the use of the Potential Biological 
Removal method for calculating allowable harvest;
    (2) Adult males should be the cohort to monitor;
    (3) The management objective should be MSY, with the test criteria 
that the upper 95 percent confidence interval of the 3-year running 
average of both northern and region-wide adult male observed kill rates 
not exceed MSY based on their respective allowable kill rates;
    (4) Should monitoring show impact on northern males, the harvest 
strategy should revert to a 2-bird daily bag limit;
    (5) Bag limits should be allowed to differ between flyways; and
    (6) The strategy should be adopted in 2008.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council endorsed use of the Potential Biological 
Removal method to assess wood duck harvest potential and provided the 
following guidance on outstanding wood duck harvest management policy 
issues:
    (1) Monitor adult male kill rates from the Atlantic and Mississippi 
Flyways combined to determine whether actual kill rates exceed 
allowable kill rates;
    (2) Use the point of Maximum Sustained Yield (\1/2\ 
rmax), combined with a test criteria requirement that the 
upper 95 percent confidence interval of the observed kill rate be below 
the allowable kill rate, as the management objective;
    (3) Allow wood duck bag limits to differ between the Atlantic and 
Mississippi Flyways; and
    (4) Implement in the 2008-09 season.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that the Central Flyway be 
included in the development and implementation of the wood duck harvest 
strategy for the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways.
    Service Response: We support a wood duck harvest strategy based on 
the Potential Biological Removal method, with the management objective 
of 95 percent confidence that harvest will not exceed maximum sustained 
yield. Although we prefer a test criterion based on range-wide kill 
rates of adult males, we recognize the Atlantic Flyway Council's 
concerns about the potential impacts on northern wood ducks. We do not 
endorse implementing the proposed strategy until those concerns have 
been addressed to the satisfaction of the Atlantic, Mississippi, and 
Central Flyway Councils.
4. Canada Geese
A. Special Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
allowing a 10-day experimental extension of the September Resident 
Canada goose season in Delaware from September 16 to September 25 
consistent with September Canada goose seasons in Atlantic Population 
(AP) zones in the adjacent States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey and 
other States in the Atlantic Flyway. They requested that this 
experimental season be permitted for a 3-year period, at which time an 
analysis of direct band recoveries will be conducted to determine if 
the harvest of AP Canada geese exceeds 10 percent of the overall goose 
harvest during Delaware's 10-day extension of the early season. This 
extended season will not incorporate the ``expanded hunting methods'' 
and would be implemented in 2008.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended allowing Wyoming to modify 
its current framework that allows 4 geese per season to a 4-bird 
possession limit.
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, 2008.
9. Sandhill Cranes
    Council Recommendations: The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils 
recommended using the 2008 Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill 
crane harvest allocation of 1,633 birds as proposed in the allocation 
formula using the 3-year running average. They further recommended that 
a new RMP greater sandhill crane hunt area be established in Uinta 
County, Wyoming.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended modifying Wyoming's RMP hunt 
areas by: (1) expanding the hunt area in Lincoln County to include the 
Hams Fork drainage, and (2) expanding Area 6 in the Bighorn Basin to 
include all of Park, Bighorn, Hot Springs and Washakie Counties. The 
Council also recommended initiating a limited hunt for Lower Colorado 
River sandhill cranes in Arizona, with the goal of the hunt being a 
limited harvest of 6 cranes in January. To limit harvest, Arizona would 
issue permit tags to hunters and require mandatory checking 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.
16. Mourning Doves
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council and the Upper- 
and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 
Council recommended that States within the Eastern Management Unit 
should be offered a 70-day season and 15-bird daily bag limit for the 
2008-2009 mourning dove hunting season, and the dichotomous hunting 
season structure should be eliminated.
18. Alaska
    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended 
maintaining status quo in the Alaska early-season framework, except for 
increasing the daily bag limit for canvasbacks to 2 per day with 6 in 
possession, and increasing the daily bag limit for brant to 3 per day 
with 6 in possession.
20. Puerto Rico
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
that Puerto Rico be permitted to adopt a 20-bird bag limit for doves in 
the aggregate for the next three hunting seasons, 2008-2010. Legally 
hunted dove species in Puerto Rico are the Zenaida dove, the white-
winged dove, and the mourning dove. They also recommended that the 20-
bird aggregate bag limit should include no more than

[[Page 34696]]

10 Zenaida doves and no more than 3 mourning doves.

Public Comments

    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.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
consider comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered 
comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not 
postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information in your comment, you may request at 
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 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 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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). We have prepared a 
scoping report summarizing the scoping comments and scoping meetings.
     The report is available by either writing to the address indicated 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or by viewing on our Web site at 
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Prior to issuance of the 2008-09 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 Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule 
is significant and has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866. 
OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The 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, 2004, and 2008. 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 2008 Analysis was based on the 2006 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 approximately $1.2 billion at small businesses in 
2008. To make our cost/benefit analysis as complete as possible, we 
seek additional information and comments. You must submit comments on 
the analysis by June 27, 2008. Copies of the Analysis are available 
upon request from the address indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT or from our Web site at http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
reports/

[[Page 34697]]

reports.html or at http://www.regulations.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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 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 our Migratory Bird Surveys and assigned 
control number 1018-0023 (expires 2/28/2011). 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 Alaska Subsistence Household Survey, an 
associated voluntary annual household survey used to determine levels 
of subsistence take in Alaska, and assigned control number 1018-0124 
(expires 1/31/2010).
    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 2008-09 
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 
a-j.

    Dated: June 10, 2008.
Mitchell Butler,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
 [FR Doc. E8-13737 Filed 6-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P