Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations for the 2010-11 Hunting Season; Notice of Meetings, 32872-32877 [2010-13956]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
32872
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
mature’’ (50 CFR 17.3). We have refined
that definition in experimental wolf
reintroduction rules to mean ‘‘at least
two breeding pairs of gray wolves that
each successfully raise at least two
young’’ annually for 2 consecutive years
(59 FR 60252, 60266; November 22,
1994).
Under the Act, an experimental
population must be ‘‘wholly separate
geographically from nonexperimental
populations of the same species’’ (16
U.S.C. 1539(j)(1)). Opponents of wolf
reintroduction in Yellowstone National
Park have argued that releasing an
experimental population would violate
this separation requirement because
individual wolves sometimes disperse
to Yellowstone from natural populations
to the north. The Court of Appeals
rejected this argument: ‘‘by definition
lone dispersers do not constitute a
population or even part of a population,
since they are not ‘in common spatial
arrangement’ sufficient to interbreed
with other members of a population’’
(Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v.
Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224, 1234 (10th Cir.
2000)). This decision followed another
Court of Appeals holding that, despite
‘‘sporadic sightings of isolated
indigenous wolves in the release area,
lone wolves, or ‘dispersers,’ do not
constitute a population’’ under the Act
(U.S. v. McKittrick, 142 F.3d 1170, 1175
(9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S.
1072 (1999)). Thus, the courts have
upheld the Service’s interpretation that
pairs must breed in order to have a
‘‘population.’’
The petition provides an account of
individual wolves and wolf-like canids
dispersing into the petitioned DPS area,
as occurs in Yellowstone National Park.
However, the petition does not provide
information suggesting that dispersing
wolves may be interbreeding. Nor do we
have any information in our files
indicating that dispersing wolves may
be interbreeding. While the occurrence
of dispersing wolves raises the
theoretical possibility that a population
could exist, it does not constitute
substantial information that a
population may actually exist. That is,
it is not the amount of information that
would lead a reasonable person to
conclude that a population (i.e., at least
two breeding pairs of gray wolves that
each successfully raise at least two
young annually for 2 consecutive years)
may exist. Because we do not have
substantial information that any
‘‘population’’ of the gray wolf may exist
in the Northeast, we lack substantial
information that there may be a discrete
population in the Northeast. Because we
find that there is not substantial
information that a discrete gray wolf
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Jun 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
population may exist in the Northeast,
we do not evaluate whether such a
population could be significant, and
could be endangered or threatened.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and
supporting information provided with
the petition, as well as information in
our files. Based on this review, we find
that the petition and information in our
files do not present substantial
information indicating that listing a gray
wolf DPS in the States of Massachusetts,
New York, Vermont, New Hampshire,
and Maine as threatened or endangered
may be warranted. If you wish to
provide information regarding the
Northeast DPS of gray wolf, you may
submit your information or materials to
the Field Supervisor/Listing
Coordinator, New England Field Office
(see ADDRESSES), at any time.
As explained above in the Previous
Federal Actions section, any wolf found
in the Northeast is still classified as
endangered under the lower 48 United
States listing. Therefore, should one or
more wolves disperse into the Northeast
from Canada, the protections of the Act
would apply.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this document is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request, from the New
England Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this notice is
Michael Amaral, Supervisory Fish and
Wildlife Biologist, (see ADDRESSES).
Martin Miller, Chief, Division of
Threatened and Endangered Species,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300
Westgate Center Drive, Hadley,
Massachusetts 01035, also contributed
to this finding.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 12, 2010.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–13882 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0040]
[91200-1231-9BPP-L2]
RIN 1018-AX06
Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental
Proposals for Migratory Game Bird
Hunting Regulations for the 2010–11
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 2010–11
hunting season. This supplement to the
proposed rule provides the regulatory
schedule, announces the Service
Migratory Bird Regulations Committee
and Flyway Council meetings, and
provides Flyway Council
recommendations resulting from their
March meetings.
DATES: You must submit comments on
the proposed regulatory alternatives for
the 2010–11 duck hunting seasons by
June 25, 2010. Following subsequent
Federal Register documents, you will be
given an opportunity to submit
comments for proposed early-season
frameworks by July 31, 2010, and for
proposed late-season frameworks and
subsistence migratory bird seasons in
Alaska by August 31, 2010.
The Service Migratory Bird
Regulations Committee will meet to
consider and develop proposed
regulations for early-season migratory
bird hunting on June 23 and 24, 2010,
and for late-season migratory bird
hunting and the 2011 spring/summer
migratory bird subsistence seasons in
Alaska on July 28 and 29, 2010. 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: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on docket number FWS-R9-MB-20100040.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9NB-2010-0040; 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 https://
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 2010
On May 13, 2010, we published in the
Federal Register (75 FR 27144) a
proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The
proposal provided a background and
overview of the migratory bird hunting
regulations process, and addressed the
establishment of seasons, limits, and
other regulations for hunting migratory
game birds under §§ 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 16, 2010, and for late
seasons on or about September 15, 2010.
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Service Migratory Bird Regulations
Committee Meetings
The Service Migratory Bird
Regulations Committee will meet June
23–24, 2010, to review information on
the current status of migratory shore and
upland game birds and develop 2010–11
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 28-29, 2010, meetings, the
Committee will review information on
the current status of waterfowl and
develop 2010–11 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Jun 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
recommendations for the 2011 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 22–23,
Hilton Wilmington, Riverside,
Wilmington, NC.
Mississippi Flyway Council: July 23–
24, Radisson Admiral Semmes Hotel,
Mobile, AL.
Central Flyway Council: July 21–23,
Embassy Suites, Norman, OK.
Pacific Flyway Council: July 23, John
Ascuaga’s Nugget, Reno, NV.
Review of Public Comments
This supplemental rulemaking
describes Flyway Council recommended
changes based on the preliminary
proposals published in the May 13,
2010, 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. Our responses to some
Flyway Council recommendations, but
not others, are merely a clarification aid
to the reader on the overall regulatory
process, not a definitive response to the
issue. We will publish responses to all
proposals and written comments when
we develop final frameworks.
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 13 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32873
Split Seasons; and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management.
A. General Harvest Strategy
Council Recommendations: 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 in the
May 13 Federal Register, the final
Adaptive Harvest Management protocol
for the 2010–11 season will be detailed
in the early-season proposed rule,
which will be published in mid-July.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
Council Recommendations: The
Mississippi and Central Flyway
Councils recommended that regulatory
alternatives for duck hunting seasons
remain the same as those used in 2009.
Service Response: As we stated in the
May 13 Federal Register, the final
regulatory alternatives for the 2010–11
season will be detailed in the earlyseason proposed rule, which will be
published in mid-July.
C. Zones and Split Seasons
Council Recommendations: The
Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council and the
Central and Pacific Flyway Councils
recommended that the Service allow 3
zones, with 2-way splits in each zone,
and 4 zones with no splits as additional
zone/split-season options for duck
seasons during 2011–15. In addition, it
is recommended that States with
existing grandfathered status be allowed
to retain that status.
D. Special Seasons/Species
Management
i. Special Teal Seasons
Council Recommendations: The
Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council
recommended that the Service explore
options for providing production States
an opportunity to harvest teal outside
the regular duck season frameworks as
part of the teal season assessment that
is currently being conducted.
vi. Pintails
Council Recommendations: The
Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
adoption of a derived Northern Pintail
Harvest Strategy and provided the
following pintail harvest objectives for
the Atlantic Flyway and for individual
Atlantic Flyway States: (1) The harvest
objective for northern pintails should be
Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY); (2)
constrain closed seasons to breeding
populations below 1.75 million birds;
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
32874
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
and (3) regulatory alternatives should
include a closed season, a liberal season
with a 1-bird daily bag limit, and a
liberal season with a 2-bird daily bag
limit. These objectives were captured in
Scenario #39 in the Service’s draft
Northern Pintail Harvest Strategy (Draft
Strategy) (available at https://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
NewsPublicationsReports.html).
The Mississippi Flyway Council
recommended use of the Draft Strategy’s
harvest management Scenarios #39, #29,
or #39(b) to develop an optimal harvest
policy. The Council remains concerned
regarding the following: (1) The Service
does not provide performance metrics
for harvest management Scenarios #39
and #39(b) with no closed seasons until
the pintail BPOP falls to 1.0 million
birds; (2) the method for integrating the
preferred alternatives from other
Flyways into a single harvest policy is
not defined and reviewed; (3) additional
weighting exercises that address more
fundamental harvest objectives, such as
simplified regulations, maintaining/
expanding hunting opportunity for
pintails, and maximizing harvest, have
not yet been conducted; and (4) there is
uncertainty about the consistency of the
harvest strategy for pintails with the
fundamental objectives addressed
through the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan (NAWMP) revision.
The Central Flyway Council
recommended continued discussions on
the potential structure and use of a
derived harvest strategy for pintails.
They recommend a one-year
implementation of Scenario #39 in the
Draft Strategy until a number of issues
are resolved.
The Pacific Flyway Council
recommended that harvest management
for pintails be based on a derived
strategy that: (1) uses MSY as a harvest
objective; (2) constrains closed seasons
to breeding populations below 1.75
million birds; and (3) eliminates partial
seasons (shorter pintail seasons within a
longer general duck season).
Specifically, the Council recommended
Scenario #39 as its preferred strategy for
regulations in 2010–11 and further
review for the next year. The Council
supported a derived strategy that does
not have an explicit allocation of
harvest among the flyways. The Council
also recommended that Alaska’s
exclusion from the pintail harvest
management process be continued.
The Council further recommended the
use of historic proportions of harvest to
weight the inputs from the flyways
should that input differ in the future.
They noted that we proposed to
consider inputs from all flyways
equally, but the absolute and relative
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Jun 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
abundance of pintail is highest in the
Pacific Flyway, and regulatory
alternatives have a different effect there.
They continued to support more work
on alternative underlying population
models because they do not believe that
the model set in the strategy includes a
model that addresses the effect of
harvest regulation changes on pintail
survival rates in a manner similar to
ultra-structural models. The Council has
recommended in the past that we
investigate the usefulness of sex-specific
regulations for pintails as a way to
increase hunting opportunity on male
pintails.
Lastly, the Council recognized that all
of the analyzed strategies predict the
perpetuation of the pintail breeding
population between 2.78 and 3.57
million pintails, but that the differences
among the strategies center largely on
effects on the hunting public. These
effects include the frequency of closed
and partial seasons, larger daily bag
limits, and annual regulation changes.
The Council has limited information on
hunter preferences about the trade-offs
inherent in the analyzed derived
strategies.
Service Response: We greatly
appreciate the time and attention that
all four Flyway Councils have devoted
to review and consideration of the
various alternatives for implementing a
derived pintail harvest strategy. We note
that all four flyways have recommended
the same alternative derived strategy be
implemented this year. Therefore, we
propose adoption of alternative 39 as
described and evaluated in the Service’s
report ‘‘Proposal for a Derived and
Adaptive Harvest Strategy for Northern
Pintails (January 2010)’’ and
incorporated in a ‘‘Proposed Northern
Pintail Harvest Strategy (May 2010)’’
(both available at https://www.fws.gov/
migratorybirds/
NewsPublicationsReports.html) for the
2010–11 hunting season. Numerous
variations of the final proposed harvest
strategy were evaluated and deliberated
by the Service and Flyway Councils that
differed in their expression of
management objectives and regulatory
alternatives, but that shared a common
scientific underpinning. Alternative 39
was deemed to best balance tradeoffs
among fundamental objectives
identified for pintail harvest
management. We note that additional
technical work became available to the
Councils and their technical committees
very late in the process.
Over the coming year, we will review
this choice of alternative 39 based on
one year of experience, as well as input
received from the Councils, public, and
Service technical staff, to determine if a
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
different alternative will better insure
the long-term conservation of northern
pintails and meet the interests of the
hunting public. Changes, if warranted,
would be implemented for the 2011–12
regulations cycle.
4. Canada Geese
A. Special Seasons
Council Recommendations: The
Mississippi Flyway Council
recommended that the closing date for
the September Canada goose season in
Minnesota be September 22 Statewide.
The Central Flyway Council
recommended that we increase the daily
bag limit framework from 5 to 8 for the
Central Flyway States of South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma during
the Special Early Canada Goose hunting
season.
B. Regular Seasons
Council Recommendations: 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, 2010.
9. Sandhill Cranes
Council Recommendations: The
Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway
Councils recommended a sandhill crane
hunting season for mid-continent
sandhill cranes in northwest Minnesota
in 2010, following guidelines outlined
in the 2006 Cooperative Management
Plan for mid-continent sandhill cranes.
The Central and Pacific Flyway
Councils recommend using the 2010
Rocky Mountain Population (RMP)
sandhill crane harvest allocation of
1,979 birds as proposed in the allocation
formula using the 2007–09 3–year
running average.
The Pacific Flyway Council
recommended initiating a limited hunt
for Lower Colorado River Valley (LCRV)
Sandhill Cranes in Arizona with a goal
of a limited harvest of 9 cranes during
the 2010–11 hunting season. Arizona
will issue permits to hunters and
require mandatory check-in of all
harvested cranes. The Service
previously approved the hunt in 2007.
14. Woodcock
Council Recommendations: The
Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway
Councils recommended adoption of the
Interim American Woodcock Harvest
Strategy (available at https://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
NewsPublicationsReports.html) for
implementation in the 2011–12 hunting
season.
The Central Flyway Council
recommended that the interim harvest
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
strategy outlined in the Draft American
Woodcock Harvest Strategy be
implemented for a period of 5 years
(2011–15).
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
16. Mourning Doves
Council Recommendations: The
Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway
Councils recommended use of the
‘‘moderate’’ season framework for States
within the Eastern Management Unit
population of mourning doves resulting
in a 70–day season and 15-bird daily
bag limit. The daily bag limit could be
composed of mourning doves and
white-winged doves, singly or in
combination.
The Mississippi and Central Flyway
Councils recommend the use of the
standard (or ‘‘moderate’’) season package
of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 70–day
season for the 2010–11 mourning dove
season in the States within the Central
Management Unit.
The Pacific Flyway Council
recommended use of the ‘‘moderate’’
season framework for States in the
Western Management Unit (WMU)
population of mourning doves, which
represents no change from last year’s
frameworks.
Public Comments
The Department of the Interior’s
policy is, whenever possible, 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
promulgating final migratory game bird
hunting regulations, we will consider all
comments we receive. These comments,
and any additional information we
receive, 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 accept
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 all comments in their
entirety—including your personal
identifying information—on https://
www.regulations.gov. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Jun 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://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 we receive
during the comment period and respond
to them after the closing date in the
preambles of 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 8814),’’ 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 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 website at https://www.fws.gov/
migratorybirds.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Before issuance of the 2010–11
migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will comply with
provisions of the Endangered Species
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32875
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 the Act
may cause us to change proposals in
this and future supplemental proposed
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 of regulatory
significance 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.
An economic analysis was prepared
for the 2008–09 season. This analysis
was based on data from the 2006
National Hunting and Fishing Survey,
the most recent year for which data are
available (see discussion in Regulatory
Flexibility Act section below). This
analysis estimated consumer surplus for
three alternatives for duck hunting
(estimates for other species are not
quantified due to lack of data). The
alternatives are (1) Issue restrictive
regulations allowing fewer days than
those issued during the 2007–08 season,
(2) Issue moderate regulations allowing
more days than those in alternative 1,
and (3) Issue liberal regulations
identical to the regulations in the 2007–
08 season. For the 2008–09 season, we
chose alternative 3, with an estimated
consumer surplus across all flyways of
$205–$270 million. At this time, we are
proposing no changes to the season
frameworks for the 2010–11 season, and
as such, we will again consider these
three alternatives. However, final
frameworks will depend on population
status information available later this
year. For these reasons, we have not
conducted a new economic analysis, but
the 2008–09 analysis is part of the
record for this rule and is available at
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
32876
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/
SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at
https://www.regulations.gov.
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. 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. Copies of the
Analysis are available upon request
from the Division of Migratory Bird
Management (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) or from our
website at https://www.fws.gov/
migratorybirds/
NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/
SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at
https://www.regulations.gov.
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Jun 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
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).
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.
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 used in formulating migratory
game bird hunting regulations. 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 4/30/2013).
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.
Energy Effects—Executive Order 13211
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
evaluated possible effects on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have
determined that there are no effects on
Indian trust resources. We solicited
proposals for special migratory bird
hunting regulations for certain Tribes on
Federal Indian reservations, offreservation trust lands, and ceded lands
for the 2010–11 migratory bird hunting
season in the May 13, Federal Register.
The resulting proposals will be
contained in a separate proposed rule.
By virtue of these actions, we have
consulted with Tribes affected by this
rule.
Federalism Effects
Due to the migratory nature of certain
species of birds, the Federal
Government has been given
responsibility over these species by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.
703 et seq.). 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
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 2010–11 hunting
season are authorized under 16 U.S.C.
703–711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C.
742 a–j.
Dated: May 28, 2010
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010–13956 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 80
[Docket No. FWS–R9–WSR–2009–0088;
91400–5110–POLI–7B; 91400–9410–POLI–
7B]
RIN 1018–AW65
Financial Assistance: Wildlife
Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration,
Hunter Education and Safety
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, propose changes in the
regulations governing the Wildlife
Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration, and
Hunter Education and Safety (Enhanced
Hunter Education and Safety) financial
assistance programs. We conducted
rulemaking 2 years ago to amend these
regulations, and based on experience
gained since then, we propose to adopt
two recommendations that we received
in response to the prior proposed rule
and to modify three provisions from the
subsequent final rule. We also propose
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:38 Jun 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
to update the regulations to reflect
changes in law, regulation, policy,
technology, and practice during the past
25 years. In addition, this proposed rule
simplifies specific requirements of the
establishing authorities of the Wildlife
Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration
programs and clarifies terms in those
authorities as well as terms generally
used in grant administration. Finally,
this proposed rule organizes the
regulations to follow the life cycle of a
grant and rewords and reformats the
regulations following Federal plain
language policy and current rulemaking
guidance.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
August 9, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments to
Docket No. FWS–R9–WSR–2009–0088.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018–
AW65; 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 public comments on
https://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).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joyce Johnson, Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program, Division of Policy
and Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 703–358–2156.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The U.S. Department of the Interior’s
(DOI) Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) manages or co-manages 55
financial assistance programs, 19 of
which are managed, in whole or in part,
by the Service’s Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program. This proposed rule
would revise title 50, part 80, of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
which is ‘‘Administrative Requirements,
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish
Restoration Acts.’’ The primary users of
these regulations are the fish and
wildlife agencies of the 50 States, the
Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the
Northern Mariana Islands, the District of
Columbia, and the territories of Guam,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American
Samoa. We use ‘‘State’’ or ‘‘States’’ in this
document to refer to any or all of these
jurisdictions except the District of
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32877
Columbia for purposes of the PittmanRobertson Wildlife Restoration Act and
the two grant programs and one
subprogram under the Act because the
Act does not authorize funding for the
District. The term, ‘‘the 50 States,’’
applies only to the 50 States of the
United States. It does not include the
Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the
Northern Mariana Islands, the District of
Columbia, or the territories of Guam, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, and American
Samoa. These regulations tell States
how they may: (a) Use revenues from
hunting and fishing licenses; (b) receive
annual apportionments from the Federal
Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund and
the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating
Trust Fund; (c) receive financial
assistance from the Wildlife Restoration
program, the Basic Hunter Education
and Safety subprogram, and the
Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety
program; and (d) receive financial
assistance from the Sport Fish
Restoration program, the Recreational
Boating Access subprogram, the Aquatic
Resources Education subprogram, and
the Outreach and Communications
subprogram. These programs provide
financial assistance to State fish and
wildlife agencies to: (a) Restore or
manage wildlife and sport fish; (b)
provide hunter-education, hunterdevelopment, and hunter-safety
programs; (c) provide recreational
boating access; (d) enhance the public’s
understanding of water resources,
aquatic-life forms, and sport fishing; and
(e) develop responsible attitudes and
ethics toward the aquatic environment.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance at https://www.cfda.gov
describes these programs under 15.611,
15.605, and 15.626.
The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act, as amended (50 Stat.
917; 16 U.S.C. 669–669k), and the
Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration
Act, as amended (64 Stat. 430; 16 U.S.C.
777–777n, except 777e–1 and g–1),
established the programs affected by
this proposed rule in 1937 and 1950
respectively. We refer to these acts in
this document and in the proposed rule
as ‘‘the Acts.’’ They established a
hunting- and angling-based user-pay
and user-benefit system in which the
State fish and wildlife agencies of the 50
States, the Commonwealths, and the
territories receive formula-based
funding from a continuing
appropriation. The District of Columbia
also receives funding, but only under
the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish
Restoration Act. The Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act does not
authorize funding for the District of
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 111 (Thursday, June 10, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32872-32877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13956]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0040]
[91200-1231-9BPP-L2]
RIN 1018-AX06
Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game
Bird Hunting Regulations for the 2010-11 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 2010-11 hunting season. This supplement to
the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, announces the
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway Council
meetings, and provides Flyway Council recommendations resulting from
their March meetings.
DATES: You must submit comments on the proposed regulatory alternatives
for the 2010-11 duck hunting seasons by June 25, 2010. Following
subsequent Federal Register documents, you will be given an opportunity
to submit comments for proposed early-season frameworks by July 31,
2010, and for proposed late-season frameworks and subsistence migratory
bird seasons in Alaska by August 31, 2010.
The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to
consider and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory
bird hunting on June 23 and 24, 2010, and for late-season migratory
bird hunting and the 2011 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence
seasons in Alaska on July 28 and 29, 2010. 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: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on docket number FWS-
R9-MB-2010-0040.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-NB-2010-0040; 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
https://
[[Page 32873]]
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 2010
On May 13, 2010, we published in the Federal Register (75 FR 27144)
a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a background
and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and
addressed 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 16, 2010, and for late seasons on or about September 15, 2010.
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings
The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet June 23-
24, 2010, to review information on the current status of migratory
shore and upland game birds and develop 2010-11 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 28-29, 2010, meetings, the Committee will review
information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2010-11
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 2011 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 22-23, Hilton Wilmington, Riverside,
Wilmington, NC.
Mississippi Flyway Council: July 23-24, Radisson Admiral Semmes
Hotel, Mobile, AL.
Central Flyway Council: July 21-23, Embassy Suites, Norman, OK.
Pacific Flyway Council: July 23, John Ascuaga's Nugget, Reno, NV.
Review of Public Comments
This supplemental rulemaking describes Flyway Council recommended
changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the May 13,
2010, 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. Our responses to some Flyway Council recommendations, but
not others, are merely a clarification aid to the reader on the overall
regulatory process, not a definitive response to the issue. We will
publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop
final frameworks.
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 13 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 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 in the May 13 Federal Register, the
final Adaptive Harvest Management protocol for the 2010-11 season will
be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published
in mid-July.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi and Central Flyway
Councils recommended that regulatory alternatives for duck hunting
seasons remain the same as those used in 2009.
Service Response: As we stated in the May 13 Federal Register, the
final regulatory alternatives for the 2010-11 season will be detailed
in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.
C. Zones and Split Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council and the Central and Pacific Flyway
Councils recommended that the Service allow 3 zones, with 2-way splits
in each zone, and 4 zones with no splits as additional zone/split-
season options for duck seasons during 2011-15. In addition, it is
recommended that States with existing grandfathered status be allowed
to retain that status.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. Special Teal Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the Service explore
options for providing production States an opportunity to harvest teal
outside the regular duck season frameworks as part of the teal season
assessment that is currently being conducted.
vi. Pintails
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
adoption of a derived Northern Pintail Harvest Strategy and provided
the following pintail harvest objectives for the Atlantic Flyway and
for individual Atlantic Flyway States: (1) The harvest objective for
northern pintails should be Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY); (2)
constrain closed seasons to breeding populations below 1.75 million
birds;
[[Page 32874]]
and (3) regulatory alternatives should include a closed season, a
liberal season with a 1-bird daily bag limit, and a liberal season with
a 2-bird daily bag limit. These objectives were captured in Scenario
39 in the Service's draft Northern Pintail Harvest Strategy
(Draft Strategy) (available at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html).
The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended use of the Draft
Strategy's harvest management Scenarios 39, 29, or
39(b) to develop an optimal harvest policy. The Council
remains concerned regarding the following: (1) The Service does not
provide performance metrics for harvest management Scenarios
39 and 39(b) with no closed seasons until the pintail
BPOP falls to 1.0 million birds; (2) the method for integrating the
preferred alternatives from other Flyways into a single harvest policy
is not defined and reviewed; (3) additional weighting exercises that
address more fundamental harvest objectives, such as simplified
regulations, maintaining/expanding hunting opportunity for pintails,
and maximizing harvest, have not yet been conducted; and (4) there is
uncertainty about the consistency of the harvest strategy for pintails
with the fundamental objectives addressed through the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) revision.
The Central Flyway Council recommended continued discussions on the
potential structure and use of a derived harvest strategy for pintails.
They recommend a one-year implementation of Scenario 39 in the
Draft Strategy until a number of issues are resolved.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that harvest management for
pintails be based on a derived strategy that: (1) uses MSY as a harvest
objective; (2) constrains closed seasons to breeding populations below
1.75 million birds; and (3) eliminates partial seasons (shorter pintail
seasons within a longer general duck season). Specifically, the Council
recommended Scenario 39 as its preferred strategy for
regulations in 2010-11 and further review for the next year. The
Council supported a derived strategy that does not have an explicit
allocation of harvest among the flyways. The Council also recommended
that Alaska's exclusion from the pintail harvest management process be
continued.
The Council further recommended the use of historic proportions of
harvest to weight the inputs from the flyways should that input differ
in the future. They noted that we proposed to consider inputs from all
flyways equally, but the absolute and relative abundance of pintail is
highest in the Pacific Flyway, and regulatory alternatives have a
different effect there. They continued to support more work on
alternative underlying population models because they do not believe
that the model set in the strategy includes a model that addresses the
effect of harvest regulation changes on pintail survival rates in a
manner similar to ultra-structural models. The Council has recommended
in the past that we investigate the usefulness of sex-specific
regulations for pintails as a way to increase hunting opportunity on
male pintails.
Lastly, the Council recognized that all of the analyzed strategies
predict the perpetuation of the pintail breeding population between
2.78 and 3.57 million pintails, but that the differences among the
strategies center largely on effects on the hunting public. These
effects include the frequency of closed and partial seasons, larger
daily bag limits, and annual regulation changes. The Council has
limited information on hunter preferences about the trade-offs inherent
in the analyzed derived strategies.
Service Response: We greatly appreciate the time and attention that
all four Flyway Councils have devoted to review and consideration of
the various alternatives for implementing a derived pintail harvest
strategy. We note that all four flyways have recommended the same
alternative derived strategy be implemented this year. Therefore, we
propose adoption of alternative 39 as described and evaluated in the
Service's report ``Proposal for a Derived and Adaptive Harvest Strategy
for Northern Pintails (January 2010)'' and incorporated in a ``Proposed
Northern Pintail Harvest Strategy (May 2010)'' (both available at
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html) for the
2010-11 hunting season. Numerous variations of the final proposed
harvest strategy were evaluated and deliberated by the Service and
Flyway Councils that differed in their expression of management
objectives and regulatory alternatives, but that shared a common
scientific underpinning. Alternative 39 was deemed to best balance
tradeoffs among fundamental objectives identified for pintail harvest
management. We note that additional technical work became available to
the Councils and their technical committees very late in the process.
Over the coming year, we will review this choice of alternative 39
based on one year of experience, as well as input received from the
Councils, public, and Service technical staff, to determine if a
different alternative will better insure the long-term conservation of
northern pintails and meet the interests of the hunting public.
Changes, if warranted, would be implemented for the 2011-12 regulations
cycle.
4. Canada Geese
A. Special Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended
that the closing date for the September Canada goose season in
Minnesota be September 22 Statewide.
The Central Flyway Council recommended that we increase the daily
bag limit framework from 5 to 8 for the Central Flyway States of South
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma during the Special Early Canada
Goose hunting season.
B. Regular Seasons
Council Recommendations: 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, 2010.
9. Sandhill Cranes
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi, Central, and Pacific
Flyway Councils recommended a sandhill crane hunting season for mid-
continent sandhill cranes in northwest Minnesota in 2010, following
guidelines outlined in the 2006 Cooperative Management Plan for mid-
continent sandhill cranes.
The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommend using the 2010
Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane harvest allocation of
1,979 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using the 2007-09 3-
year running average.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended initiating a limited hunt
for Lower Colorado River Valley (LCRV) Sandhill Cranes in Arizona with
a goal of a limited harvest of 9 cranes during the 2010-11 hunting
season. Arizona will issue permits to hunters and require mandatory
check-in of all harvested cranes. The Service previously approved the
hunt in 2007.
14. Woodcock
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway
Councils recommended adoption of the Interim American Woodcock Harvest
Strategy (available at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html) for implementation in the 2011-12 hunting
season.
The Central Flyway Council recommended that the interim harvest
[[Page 32875]]
strategy outlined in the Draft American Woodcock Harvest Strategy be
implemented for a period of 5 years (2011-15).
16. Mourning Doves
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway
Councils recommended use of the ``moderate'' season framework for
States within the Eastern Management Unit population of mourning doves
resulting in a 70-day season and 15-bird daily bag limit. The daily bag
limit could be composed of mourning doves and white-winged doves,
singly or in combination.
The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommend the use of
the standard (or ``moderate'') season package of a 15-bird daily bag
limit and a 70-day season for the 2010-11 mourning dove season in the
States within the Central Management Unit.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the ``moderate''
season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU)
population of mourning doves, which represents no change from last
year's frameworks.
Public Comments
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever possible, 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 promulgating final migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will consider all comments we receive. These comments,
and any additional information we receive, 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
accept 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 all comments in their entirety--including your
personal identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. 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.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://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
we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the
closing date in the preambles of 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 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 website at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Before issuance of the 2010-11 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 the Act
may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental
proposed 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 of regulatory significance 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.
An economic analysis was prepared for the 2008-09 season. This
analysis was based on data from the 2006 National Hunting and Fishing
Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see
discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). This analysis
estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting
(estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data).
The alternatives are (1) Issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer
days than those issued during the 2007-08 season, (2) Issue moderate
regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3)
Issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2007-08
season. For the 2008-09 season, we chose alternative 3, with an
estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $205-$270 million. At
this time, we are proposing no changes to the season frameworks for the
2010-11 season, and as such, we will again consider these three
alternatives. However, final frameworks will depend on population
status information available later this year. For these reasons, we
have not conducted a new economic analysis, but the 2008-09 analysis is
part of the record for this rule and is available at https://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
[[Page 32876]]
NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/
SpecialTopics.htmlHuntingRegs or at https://www.regulations.gov.
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. 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. Copies of the Analysis are
available upon request from the Division of Migratory Bird Management
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or from our website at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at https://www.regulations.gov.
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.
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 used in formulating migratory game bird hunting
regulations. 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 4/30/2013).
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
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.
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 evaluated possible effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes
and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust
resources. We solicited proposals for special migratory bird hunting
regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-
reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2010-11 migratory bird
hunting season in the May 13, Federal Register. The resulting proposals
will be contained in a separate proposed rule. By virtue of these
actions, we have consulted with Tribes affected by this rule.
Federalism Effects
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the
Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). 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
[[Page 32877]]
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 2010-11
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,
and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
Dated: May 28, 2010
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-13956 Filed 6-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE S
