[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 55 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13459-13464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5199]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

RIN 1018-AV15


Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Managing Resident Canada 
Goose Populations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On August 10, 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service or ``we'') published a final rule on resident Canada goose 
management. This proposed rule clarifies and slightly modifies several 
program requirements regarding eligibility, definitions, methodologies, 
and dates.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by April 23, 
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1018-AV15, by any 
of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Fax: (703) 358-2217.
    Mail: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP 4107, 
Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.
    Hand Delivery: Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Room 4091, Arlington, 
Virginia 22203-1610.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include Regulatory 
Information Number (RIN) 1018-AV15 at the beginning. All comments 
received, including any personal information provided, will be 
available for public inspection at the address given above for hand 
delivery of comments. For detailed instructions on submitting comments 
and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.
    You may obtain copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(FEIS) on resident Canada goose management from the above address or 
from the Division of Migratory Bird Management Web site at http://fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/cangeese/finaleis.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Blohm, Chief, Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, or Ron Kokel (703) 358-1714 (see ADDRESSES).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority and Responsibility

    Migratory birds are protected under four bilateral migratory bird 
treaties the United States entered into with Great Britain (for Canada 
in 1916 as amended in 1999), the United Mexican States (1936 as amended 
in 1972 and 1999), Japan (1972 as amended in 1974), and the Soviet 
Union (1978). Regulations allowing the take of migratory birds are 
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711), and 
the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 712). The 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act), which implements the above-mentioned 
treaties, provides that, subject to and to carry out the purposes of 
the treaties, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed 
to determine when, to what extent, and by what means allowing hunting, 
killing, and other forms of taking of migratory birds, their nests, and 
eggs is compatible with the conventions. The Act requires the Secretary 
to implement a determination by adopting regulations permitting and 
governing those activities.
    Canada geese are Federally protected by the Act by reason of the 
fact that they are listed as migratory birds in all four treaties. 
Because Canada geese are covered by all four treaties, regulations must 
meet the requirements of the most restrictive of the four. For Canada 
geese, this is the treaty with Canada. All regulations concerning 
resident Canada geese are compatible with its terms, with particular 
reference to Articles VII, V, and II.
    Each treaty not only permits sport hunting, but permits the take of 
migratory birds for other reasons, including scientific, educational, 
propagative, or other specific purposes consistent with the 
conservation principles of the various Conventions. More specifically, 
Article VII, Article II (paragraph 3), and Article V of ``The Protocol 
Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of Canada Amending the 1916 Convention between the United 
Kingdom and the United States of America for the Protection of 
Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States'' provides specific 
limitations on allowing the take of migratory birds for reasons other 
than sport hunting. Article VII authorizes permitting the take, kill, 
etc., of migratory birds that, under extraordinary conditions, become 
seriously injurious to agricultural or other interests. Article V 
relates to the taking of nests and eggs, and Article II, paragraph 3, 
states that, in order to ensure the long-term conservation of migratory 
birds, migratory bird populations shall be managed in accord with 
listed conservation principles.
    The other treaties are less restrictive. The treaties with both 
Japan (Article III, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b)) and the Soviet Union 
(Article II, paragraph 1, subparagraph (d)) provide specific exceptions 
to migratory bird take prohibitions for the purpose of protecting 
persons and property. The treaty with Mexico requires, with regard to 
migratory game birds, only that there

[[Page 13460]]

be a ``closed season'' on hunting and that hunting be limited to 4 
months in each year.
    Regulations governing the issuance of permits to take, capture, 
kill, possess, and transport migratory birds are promulgated in title 
50, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 13 and 21, and issued by 
the Service. The Service annually promulgates regulations governing the 
take, possession, and transportation of migratory birds under sport 
hunting seasons in 50 CFR part 20.

Background

    On August 10, 2006, we published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
45964) a final rule establishing regulations in 50 CFR parts 20 and 21 
authorizing State wildlife agencies, private landowners, and airports 
to conduct (or allow) indirect and/or direct population control 
management activities, including the take of birds, on resident Canada 
goose populations. Since publication of the August 10 rule, several 
questions and issues have been raised by the public regarding various 
restrictions and requirements of the new regulations. This proposed 
rule clarifies and slightly modifies several program requirements 
regarding eligibility, definitions, methodologies, and dates.

Definition of Resident Canada Geese

    The current definition of resident Canada geese contained in Sec.  
20.11 and Sec.  21.3 states that ``Canada geese that nest within the 
lower 48 States in the months of March, April, May, or June, or reside 
within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months 
of April, May, June, July, or August'' are considered resident Canada 
geese. The proposed change would modify the first portion of this 
definition by inserting ``add the District of Columbia'' following the 
word ``States'' to clarify that those Canada geese that nest within the 
District of Columbia in the months of March, April, May, or June, are 
included. It was not our original intention to exclude them from the 
definition.

Expanded Hunting Methods During September Special Seasons

    One of the components in the resident Canada goose management 
program is to provide expanded hunting methods and opportunities to 
increase the sport harvest of resident Canada geese above that which 
results from existing September special Canada goose seasons. The 
regulatory changes in Sec.  20.21(b) and (g) codified in the August 10 
final rule provide State wildlife management agencies and Tribal 
entities the option of authorizing the use of electronic calls and 
unplugged shotguns during the first portion of existing, operational 
September Canada goose seasons (i.e., September 1-15). The August 10 
final rule also stated that utilization of these additional hunting 
methods during any new special seasons or other existing, operational 
special seasons (i.e., September 16-30) could be approved by the 
Service and would require demonstration of a minimal impact to migrant 
Canada goose populations. Further, these seasons would be authorized on 
a case-by-case basis through the normal migratory bird hunting 
regulatory process. All of these expanded hunting methods and 
opportunities must be conducted outside of any other open waterfowl 
season (i.e., when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons were 
closed).
    However, the regulatory changes codified in the August 10 final 
rule did not allow for utilization of these additional hunting methods 
outside of the September 1-15 period, although this was clearly our 
intent. We propose to modify Sec.  20.21(b) and (g) to allow State 
selection of these expanded hunting methods during the September 16-30 
period, when approved in the annual regulatory schedule in subpart K of 
part 20.

Clarification of Airports' Radius

    Since publication of the August 10 final rule we have received 
questions regarding interpretation of the 3-mile radius restriction on 
resident Canada goose activities at airports and military airfields. We 
propose a change to clarify this restriction by inserting the term 
``boundary'' at the end of the first sentence. Thus, resident Canada 
goose management activities at airports and military airfields would be 
restricted to a radius of 3 miles from the airports' boundaries.

Eligibility and Participation in the Nest and Egg Depredation Order

    Currently, Sec.  21.50 authorizes private landowners and managers 
of public lands to destroy resident Canada goose nests and eggs on 
property under their jurisdiction when necessary to resolve or prevent 
injury to people, property, agricultural crops, or other interests. We 
propose modifying this eligibility to include also homeowners' 
associations and village, town, municipal, and county governments 
(collectively termed local governments). Homeowners' associations and 
local governments would be allowed to register under the nest and egg 
depredation order and conduct nest and egg destruction anywhere within 
their jurisdiction, provided that they have landowner permission to 
conduct such activities.
    Our proposal is based on several factors. First, we currently issue 
individual depredation permits allowing resident Canada goose nest and 
egg destruction to these groups, particularly in the northeastern 
United States. We believe the extension of eligibility to these groups 
to operate under the nest and egg depredation order is not outside the 
intent of the depredation order, is formalization of an already 
established practice under our permit system, and is simply an 
administrative modification. Second, since the publication of the 
August 10 rule, we have received numerous public comments requesting 
this modification. Modification of this requirement would help ensure 
public satisfaction and satisfy our original objective of providing 
affected States and the public with flexibility sufficient to deal with 
the problems caused by resident Canada geese. Lastly, since local 
governments are in an obvious position of local authority and 
jurisdiction, we believe they are a logical extension of our existing 
landowner definition. The proposed changes would include referring to 
these persons and entities collectively as ``registrants.'' Necessary 
conforming changes in a number of subsections also would be made.

Nest and Egg Destruction Methodologies Under Section 21.50

    We propose to modify the approved methodologies for nest and egg 
destruction under the depredation order for resident Canada geese nests 
and eggs in Sec.  21.50(d)(3). Currently, the regulations state that 
eggs may be oiled or eggs and nest material may be removed and disposed 
of. All of the other depredation and control orders pertaining to 
resident Canada geese (Sec. Sec.  21.49, 21.51, and 21.52) allow egg 
oiling and egg and nest destruction. We believe the latter language is 
more comprehensive and includes such methodologies as egg addling (egg 
shaking), puncturing, and egg replacement. It was not our intent to be 
more restrictive regarding nest and egg destruction methodologies under 
the nest and egg depredation order than the other resident Canada goose 
depredation and control orders or what we currently allow on permits 
allowing nest and egg destruction. We believe this modification is 
minor in nature, satisfies numerous public requests for clarification 
and alignment, simplifies restrictions, and maintains the original 
intent of the regulation.

[[Page 13461]]

Web Address Under Section 21.50

    We have modified the Web address for registering and submitting 
annual reports of the take of nests and eggs under the depredation 
order for resident Canada geese nests and eggs in Sec.  21.50(d)(1) and 
(6).

Applicable Dates of Section 21.61 Population Control

    We have corrected Sec.  21.61(d)(2) to read ``August 31'' rather 
than ``August 30.'' This was strictly an oversight.

Public Participation

    You may submit written comments on this proposal to the location 
identified in the ADDRESSES section, or you may submit electronic 
comments to the Internet address listed in the ADDRESSES section. We 
must receive your comments before the date listed in the DATES section. 
Following review and consideration of comments, we will issue a final 
rule on the proposed regulation changes.
    When submitting electronic comments, please include your name and 
return address in your message, identify it as comments on the resident 
Canada goose management regulations change, and submit your comments as 
an ASCII file. Include RIN 1018-AV15 in the subject line of your 
message. Do not use special characters or any encryption.
    When submitting written comments, please include your name and 
return address in your letter and identify it as comments on the 
resident Canada goose management regulations change, RIN 1018-AV15. You 
must submit written comments on 8\1/2\-inch-by-11-inch paper.
    All comments on the proposed rule will be available for public 
inspection during normal business hours at Room 4091 at the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4501 North 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.
    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.

NEPA Considerations

    In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the 
Council on Environmental Quality's regulation for implementing NEPA (40 
CFR 1500-1508), we published the availability of a DEIS on March 7, 
2002 (67 FR 10431), followed by a 91-day comment period. We 
subsequently reopened the comment period for 60 additional days (68 FR 
50546, August 21, 2003). On November 18, 2005, both the Service and the 
Environmental Protection Agency published notices of availability for 
the FEIS in the Federal Register (70 FR 69966 and 70 FR 69985). On 
August 10, 2006, we published our Record of Decision (ROD) in the 
Federal Register (71 FR 45964). The FEIS is available to the public 
(see ADDRESSES). The proposed changes to the resident Canada goose 
regulations fall within the scope of the FEIS.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884) provides that ``Each Federal agency 
shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, 
insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species 
or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of [critical] habitat * * *.'' We completed a biological 
evaluation and informal consultation (both available upon request; see 
ADDRESSES) under Section 7 of the ESA for the action described in the 
August 10 final rule. In the letter of concurrence between the Division 
of Migratory Bird Management and the Division of Endangered Species, we 
concluded that the inclusion of specific conservation measures in the 
final rule satisfied concerns about certain species and that the action 
was not likely to adversely affect any threatened, endangered, or 
candidate species.
    Prior to issuance of any final rule on these proposed 
modifications, we will comply with provisions of the ESA, to ensure 
that these proposed modifications and clarifications are not likely to 
adversely affect any species designated as endangered or threatened or 
modify or destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with 
conservation programs for those species. As such, we have requested a 
letter of concurrence from the Division of Endangered Species on these 
proposed changes.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for actions that will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, which includes small businesses, organizations, or 
governmental jurisdictions. We discussed these impacts in the August 10 
final rule. For the reasons detailed in that rule, we have determined 
that a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12866

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this 
action is not a significant regulatory action subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review. This rule will not have an annual 
economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect any economic 
sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or other 
units of government. Therefore, a cost-benefit economic analysis is not 
required. This action will not create inconsistencies with other 
agencies' actions or otherwise interfere with an action taken or 
planned by another agency. The Federal agency most interested in this 
action is Wildlife Services. The action is consistent with the policies 
and guidelines of other Department of the Interior bureaus. This action 
will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan 
programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This 
action will not raise novel legal or policy issues because we have 
previously managed resident Canada geese under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not have an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; nor will it cause 
a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic 
regions. It will not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

    This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection 
or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). OMB has approved and assigned control number 
1018-0133, which expires on 08/31/2009, to the regulations concerning 
the control and management of resident Canada geese. We may not conduct 
or sponsor

[[Page 13462]]

and you are not required to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and 
tribal governments and the private sector. The purpose of the act is to 
strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State, 
local, and tribal governments and to end the imposition, in the absence 
of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on these 
governments without adequate Federal funding, in a manner that may 
displace other essential governmental priorities. We have determined, 
in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this action will not ``significantly 
or uniquely'' affect small governments, and will not produce a Federal 
mandate of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State 
government or private entities. Therefore, this action is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    We have determined that these regulations meet the applicable 
standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 
12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors 
and ambiguity, has been written to minimize litigation, provides a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct, and specifies in clear 
language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation. We do not 
anticipate that this rule will require any additional involvement of 
the justice system beyond enforcement of provisions of the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act of 1918 that have already been implemented through 
previous rulemakings.

Takings Implication Assessment

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this action, authorized 
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings 
implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected 
property rights. This action will not result in the physical occupancy 
of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory 
taking of any property. In fact, this action will help alleviate 
private and public property damage and concerns related to public 
health and safety and allow the exercise of otherwise unavailable 
privileges.

Federalism Effects

    Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the 
Federal Government has been given statutory responsibility over these 
species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. While legally this 
responsibility rests solely with the Federal Government, it is in the 
best interest of the migratory bird resource for us to work 
cooperatively with the Flyway Councils and States to develop and 
implement the various migratory bird management plans and strategies.
    The August 10 final rule and this proposed rule were developed 
following extensive input from the Flyway Councils, States, and 
Wildlife Services. Individual Flyway management plans were developed 
and approved by the four Flyway Councils, and States actively 
participated in the scoping process for the DEIS. This rule does 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. The rule allows States the latitude to 
develop and implement their own resident Canada goose management action 
plan within the frameworks of the selected alternative. Therefore, in 
accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have 
significant federalism effects and does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we 
have determined that this rule has no effects on Federally-recognized 
Indian tribes.

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. This rule is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and 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.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby propose to amend 
parts 20 and 21, of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 20--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 
703-712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a-j; Pub. L. 
106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.

    2. Amend Sec.  20.11 by revising paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  20.11  What terms do I need to understand?

* * * * *
    (n) Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the 
lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of March, 
April, May, or June, or reside within the lower 48 States and the 
District of Columbia in the months of April, May, June, July, or 
August.
    3. Revise paragraphs (b) and (g) of Sec.  20.21 to read as follows:


Sec.  20.21  What hunting methods are illegal?

* * * * *
    (b) With a shotgun of any description capable of holding more than 
three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler, incapable 
of removal without disassembling the gun, so its total capacity does 
not exceed three shells. However, this restriction does not apply 
during:
    (1) A light-goose-only season (greater and lesser snow geese and 
Ross' geese) when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, 
excluding falconry, are closed while hunting light geese in Central and 
Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
    (2) A Canada goose only season when all other waterfowl and crane 
hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed in the Atlantic, 
Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, 
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,

[[Page 13463]]

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, 
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, 
Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, as set forth below:
    (i) During the period of September 1 to September 15; and
    (ii) During the period of September 16 to September 30, when 
approved in the annual regulatory schedule in subpart K of this part.
* * * * *
    (g) By the use or aid of recorded or electrically amplified bird 
calls or sounds, or recorded or electrically amplified imitations of 
bird calls or sounds. However, this restriction does not apply during:
    (1) A light-goose-only season (greater and lesser snow geese and 
Ross' geese) when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, 
excluding falconry, are closed while hunting light geese in Central and 
Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
    (2) A Canada goose only season when all other waterfowl and crane 
hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed in the Atlantic, 
Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, 
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 
Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North 
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, 
Wisconsin, and Wyoming, as set forth below:
    (i) During the period of September 1 to September 15; and
    (ii) During the period of September 16 to September 30, when 
approved in the annual regulatory schedule in subpart K of this part.
* * * * *

PART 21--[AMENDED]

    4. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 
703); Pub. L. 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Pub. L. 106-
108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.

    5. In subpart A, amend Sec.  21.3 by revising the definition for 
``Resident Canada geese'' to read as follows:


Sec.  21.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the lower 
48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of March, April, 
May, or June, or reside within the lower 48 States and the District of 
Columbia in the months of April, May, June, July, or August.
* * * * *
    6. In subpart D, amend Sec.  21.49 by revising paragraph (d)(5) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  21.49  Control order for resident Canada geese at airports and 
military airfields.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) Resident Canada geese may be taken only within a 3-mile radius 
of the airport's or military airfield's boundary. Airports and military 
airfields or their agents must first obtain all necessary 
authorizations from landowners for all management activities conducted 
outside the airport or military airfield's boundaries and be in 
compliance with all State and local laws and regulations.
* * * * *
    7. In subpart D, amend Sec.  21.50 by revising paragraphs (b), (c), 
(d)(1) through (d)(7), the introductory text of (d)(8), and (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  21.50  Depredation order for resident Canada geese nests and 
eggs.

* * * * *
    (b) What is the depredation order for resident Canada geese nests 
and eggs, and what is its purpose? The nest and egg depredation order 
for resident Canada geese authorizes private landowners and managers of 
public lands (landowners); homeowners' associations; and village, town, 
municipality, and county governments (local governments); (and the 
employees or agents of any of these persons or entities) to destroy 
resident Canada goose nests and eggs on property under their 
jurisdiction when necessary to resolve or prevent injury to people, 
property, agricultural crops, or other interests.
    (c) Who may participate in the depredation order? Only landowners, 
homeowners' associations, and local governments (and their employees or 
their agents) in the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia are 
eligible to implement the resident Canada goose nest and egg 
depredation order.
    (d) * * *
    (1) Before any management actions can be taken, landowners, 
homeowners' associations, and local governments must register with the 
Service at https://epermits.fws.gov/eRCGR. Landowners, homeowners' 
associations, and local governments (collectively termed 
``registrants'') must also register each employee or agent working on 
their behalf. Once registered, registrants and agents will be 
authorized to act under the depredation order.
    (2) Registrants authorized to operate under the depredation order 
must use nonlethal goose management techniques to the extent they deem 
appropriate in an effort to minimize take.
    (3) Methods of nest and egg destruction or take are at the 
registrant's discretion from among the following:
    (i) Egg oiling, using 100 percent corn oil, a substance exempted 
from regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and
    (ii) Egg and nest destruction, including but not limited to the 
removal and disposal of eggs and nest material.
    (4) Registrants may conduct resident Canada goose nest and egg 
destruction activities between March 1 and June 30. Homeowners' 
associations and local governments or their agents must obtain 
landowner consent prior to destroying nests and eggs on private 
property within the homeowners' association or local government's 
jurisdiction and be in compliance with all State and local laws and 
regulations.
    (5) Registrants authorized to operate under the depredation order 
may possess, transport, and dispose of resident Canada goose nests and 
eggs taken under this section. Registrants authorized to operate under 
the program may not sell, offer for sale, barter, or ship for the 
purpose of sale or barter any resident Canada goose nest or egg taken 
under this section.
    (6) Registrants exercising the privileges granted by this section 
must submit an annual report summarizing activities, including the 
date, numbers, and location of nests and eggs taken by October 31 of 
each year at https://epermits.fws.gov/eRCGR before any subsequent 
registration for the following year.
    (7) Nothing in this section authorizes the destruction of resident 
Canada goose nests or the take of resident Canada goose eggs contrary 
to the laws or regulations of any State or Tribe, and none of the 
privileges of this section may be exercised unless the registrant is

[[Page 13464]]

authorized to operate under the program and possesses the appropriate 
State or Tribal permits, when required. Moreover, this section does not 
authorize the killing of any migratory bird species or destruction of 
their nest or eggs other than resident Canada geese.
    (8) Registrants may not undertake any actions under this section if 
the activities adversely affect species designated as endangered or 
threatened under the authority of the Endangered Species Act. Persons 
operating under this order must immediately report the take of any 
species protected under the Endangered Species Act to the Service. 
Further, to protect certain species from being adversely affected by 
management actions, registrants must:
* * * * *
    (e) Can the depredation order be suspended? We reserve the right to 
suspend or revoke this authorization for a particular landowner, 
homeowners' association, or local government if we find that the 
registrant has not adhered to the terms and conditions specified in the 
depredation order. Final decisions to revoke authority will be made by 
the appropriate Regional Director. The criteria and procedures for 
suspension, revocation, reconsideration, and appeal are outlined in 
Sec. Sec.  13.27 through 13.29 of this subchapter. For the purposes of 
this section, ``issuing officer'' means the Regional Director and 
``permit'' means the authority to act under this depredation order. For 
purposes of Sec.  13.29(e), appeals must be made to the Director. 
Additionally, at such time that we determine that resident Canada goose 
populations no longer need to be reduced in order to resolve or prevent 
injury to people, property, agricultural crops, or other interests, we 
may choose to terminate part or all of the depredation order by 
subsequent regulation. In all cases, we will annually review the 
necessity and effectiveness of the depredation order.
* * * * *
    8. In subpart E, amend Sec.  21.61 by revising paragraph (d)(2) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  21.61  Population control of resident Canada geese.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Control activities may be conducted under this section only 
between August 1 and August 31.
* * * * *

    Dated: March 6, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E7-5199 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P