Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings, 44856-44876 [2010-18256]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 145 (Thursday, July 29, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44856-44876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18256]



[[Page 44855]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 20



Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory 
Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 145 / Thursday, July 29, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 44856]]


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

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; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season 
Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) 
is proposing to establish the 2010-11 early-season hunting regulations 
for certain migratory game birds. We annually prescribe frameworks, or 
outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the 
maximum number of birds that may be taken and possessed in early 
seasons. Early seasons may open as early as September 1, and include 
seasons in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 
These frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of specific 
final seasons and limits and to allow recreational harvest at levels 
compatible with population status and habitat conditions. This proposed 
rule also provides the final regulatory alternatives for the 2010-11 
duck hunting seasons.

DATES: You must submit comments on the proposed early-season frameworks 
by August 9, 2010. The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee 
(SRC) will meet to consider and develop proposed regulations 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. Following later Federal 
Register documents, you will be given an opportunity to submit comments 
for proposed late-season frameworks and subsistence migratory bird 
seasons in Alaska by August 31, 2010.

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 No. FWS-R9-
MB-2010-0040.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R9-MB-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://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 SRC 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. Major steps in the 2010-11 
regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register 
notifications were also identified in the May 13 proposed rule. 
Further, we explained that all sections of subsequent documents 
outlining hunting frameworks and guidelines were organized under 
numbered headings. As an aid to the reader, we reiterate those headings 
here:

1. Ducks
    A. General Harvest Strategy
    B. Regulatory Alternatives
    C. Zones and Split Seasons
    D. Special Seasons/Species Management
    i. September Teal Seasons
    ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
    iii. Black Ducks
    iv. Canvasbacks
    v. Pintails
    vi. Scaup
    vii. Mottled Ducks
    viii. Wood Ducks
    ix. Youth Hunt
2. Sea Ducks
3. Mergansers
4. Canada Geese
    A. Special Seasons
    B. Regular Seasons
    C. Special Late Seasons
5. White-Fronted Geese
6. Brant
7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese
8. Swans
9. Sandhill Cranes
10. Coots
11. Moorhens and Gallinules
12. Rails
13. Snipe
14. Woodcock
15. Band-Tailed Pigeons
16. Mourning Doves
17. White-Winged and White-Tipped Doves
18. Alaska
19. Hawaii
20. Puerto Rico
21. Virgin Islands
22. Falconry
23. Other

    Subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring 
attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we will omit those 
items requiring no attention, and remaining numbered items will be 
discontinuous and appear incomplete.
    On June 10, 2010, we published in the Federal Register (75 FR 
32872) a second document providing supplemental proposals for early- 
and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations. The June 10 
supplement also provided detailed information on the 2010-11 regulatory 
schedule and announced the SRC and Flyway Council meetings.
    This document, the third in a series of proposed, supplemental, and 
final rulemaking documents for migratory bird hunting regulations, 
deals specifically with proposed frameworks for early-season 
regulations and the regulatory alternatives for the 2010-11 duck 
hunting seasons. It will lead to final frameworks from which States may 
select season dates, shooting hours, and daily bag and possession 
limits for the 2010-11 season.
    We have considered all pertinent comments received through June 30, 
2010, on the May 13 and June 10, 2010, rulemaking documents in 
developing this document. In addition, new proposals for certain early-
season regulations are provided for public comment. Comment periods are 
specified above under DATES. We will publish final regulatory 
frameworks for early seasons in the Federal Register on or about August 
16, 2010.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

    Participants at the June 23-24, 2010, meetings reviewed information 
on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and 
developed 2010-11 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for 
these species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, 
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl 
seasons in designated States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic 
Flyway; and extended falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and 
discussed preliminary information on the status of waterfowl.
    Participants at the previously announced July 28-29, 2010, meetings

[[Page 44857]]

will review information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 
recommendations for the 2010-11 regulations pertaining to regular 
waterfowl seasons and other species and seasons not previously 
discussed at the early-season meetings. In accordance with Department 
of the Interior policy, these meetings are open to public observation 
and you may submit comments on the matters discussed.

Population Status and Harvest

    The following paragraphs provide preliminary information on the 
status of waterfowl and information on the status and harvest of 
migratory shore and upland game birds excerpted from various reports. 
For more detailed information on methodologies and results, you may 
obtain complete copies of the various reports at the address indicated 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html.

Waterfowl Breeding and Habitat Survey

    Federal, provincial, and State agencies conduct surveys each spring 
to estimate the size of breeding populations and to evaluate the 
conditions of the habitats. These surveys are conducted using fixed-
wing aircraft, helicopters, and ground crews and encompass principal 
breeding areas of North America, covering an area over 2.0 million 
square miles. The traditional survey area comprises Alaska, Canada, and 
the northcentral United States, and includes approximately 1.3 million 
square miles. The eastern survey area includes parts of Ontario, 
Quebec, Labrador, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New 
Brunswick, New York, and Maine, an area of approximately 0.7 million 
square miles.
    Overall, habitat conditions during the 2010 Waterfowl Breeding 
Population and Habitat Survey were characterized by average to below-
average moisture and a mild winter and early spring across the entire 
traditional (including the northern locations) and eastern survey 
areas. The total pond estimate (Prairie Canada and U.S. combined) was 
6.7  0.2 million. This was similar to the 2009 estimate and 
34 percent above the long-term average of 5.0  0.03 million 
ponds.
Traditional Survey Area (U.S. and Canadian Prairies and Parklands)
    Conditions across the Canadian prairies were similar to 2009. 
Portions of southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba improved, but 
a large area along the Alberta and Saskatchewan border remained dry, 
and moisture levels in portions of Manitoba declined from last year. 
The 2010 estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada was 3.7  0.2 
million. This was similar to last year's estimate (3.6  0.1 
million) and to the 1955-2009 average (3.4  0.03 million). 
Residual water remains in the Parklands and these were classified as 
fair to good. Most of the Prairie-Parkland region of Canada received 
abundant to historically high levels of precipitation during and after 
the survey, which, while possibly flooding some nests, will produce 
excellent brood-rearing habitat for successful nesters and lessen the 
summer drawdown, leading to beneficial wetland conditions next spring.
    Wetland numbers and conditions remained fair to good in the eastern 
U.S. prairies, but habitat conditions declined through the western 
Dakotas and Montana. The 2010 pond estimate for the north-central 
United States was 2.9  0.1 million, which was similar to 
last year's estimate (2.9  0.1 million) and 87 percent 
above the long-term average (1.6  0.02 million). Fall and 
winter precipitation in the eastern Dakotas generally improved good 
habitat conditions already present. However, wetlands in the western 
Dakotas and Montana were not recharged, resulting in a deterioration of 
conditions from 2009 at the time the survey was conducted.
Bush (Alaska, Northern Manitoba, Northern Saskatchewan, Northwest 
Territories, Yukon Territory, Western Ontario)
    In the bush regions of the traditional survey area, spring breakup 
was early. Unlike in 2009, the majority of habitats were ice-free for 
arriving waterfowl. Habitat of most of the bush region, with the 
exception of Alaska and the Northwest Territories, was classified as 
fair due to below-average moisture, but the early spring should benefit 
waterfowl across the entire area.
Eastern Survey Area
    The boreal forest and Canadian Maritimes of the eastern survey area 
experienced an early spring as well. Much of southern Quebec and 
Ontario were classified as poor to fair due to dry conditions, with the 
exception of an area of adequate moisture in west-central Ontario. More 
northern boreal forest locations benefited from near-normal 
precipitation and early ice-free conditions. Although winter 
precipitation from southwestern Ontario along the St. Lawrence River 
Valley and into Maine was below average, waterfowl habitat was 
classified as good to excellent, as in 2009. The James and Hudson Bay 
Lowlands of Ontario (strata 57-59) were not surveyed in 2010, but 
reports indicated an early spring in these locations as well.

Status of Teal

    The estimate of blue-winged teal from the traditional survey area 
is 6.3 million. This represents a 14.0 percent decrease from 2009 and 
is 36 percent above the 1955-2009 average.

Sandhill Cranes

    Compared to increases recorded in the 1970s, annual indices to 
abundance of the Mid-Continent Population (MCP) of sandhill cranes have 
been relatively stable since the early 1980s. The spring 2010 index for 
sandhill cranes in the Central Platte River Valley, Nebraska, 
uncorrected for visibility bias, was 451,024 birds. The photo-
corrected, 3[dash]year average for 2007-09 was 498,420, which is above 
the established population-objective range of 349,000-472,000 cranes.
    All Central Flyway States, except Nebraska, allowed crane hunting 
in portions of their States during 2009-10. An estimated 7,394 hunters 
participated in these seasons, which was 23 percent lower than the 
number that participated in the previous season. Hunters harvested 
15,282 MCP cranes in the U.S. portion of the Central Flyway during the 
2009-10 seasons, which was 34 percent lower than the estimated harvest 
for the previous year but 6 percent higher than the long-term average. 
The retrieved harvest of MCP cranes in hunt areas outside of the 
Central Flyway (Arizona, Pacific Flyway portion of New Mexico, Alaska, 
Canada, and Mexico combined) was 7,304 during 2009-10. The preliminary 
estimate for the North American MCP sport harvest, including crippling 
losses, was 25,731 birds, which was a 39 percent decrease from the 
previous year's estimate. The long-term (1982-2008) trends for the MCP 
indicate that harvest has been increasing at a higher rate than 
population growth.
    The fall 2008 pre-migration survey for the Rocky Mountain 
Population (RMP) resulted in a count of 20,321 cranes. The 3-year 
average was 21,433 sandhill cranes, which is above the established 
population objective of 17,000-21,000 for the RMP. Hunting seasons 
during 2009-10 in portions of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, 
Utah, and Wyoming resulted in a record-high harvest of 1,392 RMP 
cranes, a 49 percent increase from the harvest of 936 in 2008-09.
    The Lower Colorado River Valley Population (LCRVP) survey results 
indicate a slight decrease from 2,401

[[Page 44858]]

birds in 2008 to 2,264 birds in 2009. The 3-year average of 2,847 LCRVP 
cranes is based on counts from 2007, 2009, and 2010 (survey was not 
complete in 2008) and is above the population objective of 2,500.

Woodcock

    Singing-ground and Wing-collection Surveys were conducted to assess 
the population status of the American woodcock (Scolopax minor). The 
Singing-ground Survey is intended to measure long-term changes in 
woodcock population levels. Singing-ground Survey data for 2010 
indicate that the number of singing male woodcock in the Eastern and 
Central Management Regions were unchanged from 2009. There was no 
significant 10-year trend in woodcock heard in the Eastern Management 
Region during 2000-10, which marks the seventh consecutive year that 
the 10-year trend estimate for the Eastern Region was stable. The 
10[dash]year trend in the Central Region indicated a statistically 
significant decline after being stable last year. There were long-term 
(1968-2010) declines of 1.0 percent per year in both management 
regions.
    Wing-collection Survey data indicate that the 2009 recruitment 
index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.5 immatures per 
adult female) was 9 percent lower than the 2008 index, and 12 percent 
lower than the long-term average. The recruitment index for the U.S. 
portion of the Central Region (1.2 immatures per adult female) was 20 
percent lower than the 2008 index and 26 percent below the long-term 
average.

Band-Tailed Pigeons

    Two subspecies of band-tailed pigeon occur north of Mexico and they 
are managed as two separate populations in the United States: The 
Interior Population and the Pacific Population. Information on the 
abundance and harvest of band-tailed pigeons is collected annually in 
the western United States and British Columbia. Abundance information 
comes from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and, for the Pacific 
Population, the BBS and the Pacific Coast Mineral Site Survey. Annual 
counts of Interior band-tailed pigeons seen and heard per route 
declined since implementation of the BBS in 1966. Over the past 10 
years indices have declined, but the evidence of a trend for this time 
period is weak. The 2009 harvest of Interior band-tailed pigeons was 
estimated to be 5,000 birds. BBS counts of Pacific Coast band-tailed 
pigeons seen and heard per route have also declined since 1966, as well 
as over the past 10 years; however, the credible interval for the more 
recent trend estimate includes zero. According to the Pacific Coast 
Mineral Site Survey, annual counts of Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons 
seen at mineral sites have decreased since the survey became 
operational in 2004, but credible intervals include zero. The 2009 
estimate of harvest for Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons was 22,600 
birds.

Mourning Doves

    For the first time, in 2010, Mourning Dove Call-count Survey (CCS) 
data is being analyzed within a Bayesian hierarchical modeling 
framework, consistent with analysis methods for other long-term point 
count surveys such as the American Woodcock Singing-ground Survey and 
the North American Breeding Bird Survey. According to the analysis of 
the CCS, counts of mourning doves heard over the most recent 10 years 
(2001-10) increased in the Eastern Management Unit. There was no trend 
in mourning doves heard for the Central or Western Management Units. 
Over the 45-year period, 1966-2010, the number of mourning doves heard 
per route decreased in all three dove management units. The number of 
doves seen per route was also collected during the CCS. For the past 10 
years, there was no trend in doves seen for the Central and Western 
Management Units; however, there is evidence of an increasing trend in 
the Eastern Management Unit. Over 45 years, there was no evidence of a 
trend in doves seen in the Central Management Unit; however, a positive 
trend is indicated for the Eastern Management Unit and a declining 
trend is indicated for the Western Management Unit. The preliminary 
2009 harvest estimate for the United States was 17,354,800 mourning 
doves.

White-Winged Doves

    Two States harbor substantial populations of white-winged dove 
population: Arizona and Texas. California and New Mexico have much 
smaller populations. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has monitored 
white-winged dove populations by means of a CCS to provide an annual 
index to population size. It runs concurrently with the Service's 
Mourning Dove CCS. The index of mean number of white-winged doves heard 
per route from this survey peaked at 52.3 in 1968, but then declined 
until about 2000. The index has stabilized at around 25 doves per route 
in the last few years; in 2010, the mean number of doves heard per 
route was 23.6. Arizona Game and Fish also historically monitored 
white-wing dove harvest. Harvest of white-winged doves in Arizona 
peaked in the late 1960s at approximately 740,000 birds and has since 
declined and stabilized at around 100,000 birds; the preliminary 2009 
Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program (HIP) estimate of harvest 
was 124,500 birds.
    In Texas, white-winged doves continue to expand their breeding 
range. Nesting by whitewings has been recorded in most counties, except 
for the northeastern part of the State. Nesting is essentially confined 
to urban areas, but appears to be expanding to exurban areas. 
Concomitant with this range expansion has been a continuing increase in 
white-wing dove abundance. A new distance-based sampling protocol was 
implemented for Central and South Texas in 2007, and has been expanded 
each year. In 2010, approximately 4,000 points were surveyed Statewide. 
Current year's survey data are being analyzed and abundance estimates 
will be available later this summer. The estimated harvest of white-
wings in Texas in the 2008-09 season was 1,259,300 birds. The Texas 
Parks and Wildlife Department continues to work to improve the 
scientific basis for management of white-winged doves.
    In California, available BBS data indicate an increasing trend in 
the population indices between 1968 and 2009. According to HIP surveys, 
the preliminary harvest estimate for 2009 was 66,100 white-winged doves 
in California. In New Mexico, available BBS data also indicate an 
increasing trend over the long term. In 2009, the estimated New Mexico 
harvest was 64,500 white-winged doves.

White-Tipped Doves

    White-tipped doves occur primarily south of the United States-
Mexico border; however, the species does occur in Texas. Monitoring 
information is presently limited. White-tipped doves are believed to be 
maintaining a relatively stable population in the Lower Rio Grande 
Valley of Texas. Distance-based sampling procedures implemented in 
Texas are also providing limited information on white-tipped dove 
abundance. Texas is working to improve the sampling frame to include 
the rural Rio Grande corridor in order to improve the utility of 
population indices. Annual estimates for white-tipped dove harvest in 
Texas average between 3,000 and 4,000 birds.

Review of Public Comments

    The preliminary proposed rulemaking (May 13 Federal Register) 
opened the public comment period for migratory game bird hunting 
regulations and

[[Page 44859]]

announced the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2010-11 duck 
hunting season. Comments concerning early-season issues and the 
proposed alternatives are summarized below and numbered in the order 
used in the May 13 Federal Register document. Only the numbered items 
pertaining to early-seasons issues and the proposed regulatory 
alternatives for which we received written comments are included. 
Consequently, the issues do not follow in consecutive numerical or 
alphabetical order.
    We received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils. Some 
recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks. Due 
to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks 
performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's 
frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were 
received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are 
summarized below. 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 in the May 13 Federal Register document.

1. Ducks

    Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest 
management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy; (B) Regulatory 
Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season 
lengths, and bag limits; (C) Zones and Split Seasons; and (D) Special 
Seasons/Species Management. The categories correspond to previously 
published issues/discussions, and only those containing substantial 
recommendations are discussed below.
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.
    Written Comments: The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
supported the continued use of the adaptive harvest management (AHM) 
process for establishing seasons based on mallard population and 
habitat data, but requested that we continue to closely monitor the 
impacts of our recent decision (see July 24, 2010, Federal Register, 73 
FR 432190) regarding the definition of the mid-continent mallard 
population on future regulatory alternatives.
    Service Response: As we stated in the May 13 Federal Register, we 
intend to continue use of AHM to help determine appropriate duck-
hunting regulations for the 2010-11 season. AHM is a tool that permits 
sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain regulatory impacts, 
as well as providing a mechanism for reducing that uncertainty over 
time. The current AHM protocol is used to evaluate four alternative 
regulatory levels based on the population status of mallards (special 
hunting restrictions are enacted for certain species, such as 
canvasbacks, scaup, and pintails).
    As we previously stated regarding incorporation of a one-step 
constraint into the AHM process (73 FR 50678, August 27, 2008), this 
proposal was addressed by the AHM Task Force of the Association of Fish 
and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) in its report and recommendations. As 
there is no consensus on behalf of the Flyway Councils on how to modify 
the regulatory alternatives, we believe that the new Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program 
(see NEPA Consideration section) is an appropriate venue for 
considering such changes in a more comprehensive manner that involves 
input from all Flyways.
    We will propose a specific regulatory alternative for each of the 
Flyways during the 2010-11 season after survey information becomes 
available later this summer. More information on AHM is located at 
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/AHM/AHM-intro.htm.
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: The regulatory alternatives proposed in the May 
13 Federal Register will be used for the 2010-11 hunting season (see 
accompanying table at the end of this proposed rule for specifics). In 
2005, the AHM regulatory alternatives were modified to consist only of 
the maximum season lengths, framework dates, and bag limits for total 
ducks and mallards. Restrictions for certain species within these 
frameworks that are not covered by existing harvest strategies will be 
addressed during the late-season regulations process. For those species 
with specific harvest strategies (canvasbacks, pintails, black ducks, 
and scaup), those strategies will again be used for the 2010-11 hunting 
season.
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.
    Service Response: Last year, we noted that an assessment of the 
cumulative effects of all teal harvest, including harvest during 
special September seasons, had never been conducted. As such, we 
committed to a thorough assessment of the harvest potential for both 
blue-winged and green-winged teal, as well as an assessment of the 
impacts of current special September seasons on these two species. We 
requested that the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils 
designate representatives to assist Service staff with the technical 
aspects of these assessments. Our goal is to complete this important 
assessment work within 3 years.
    The Mississippi Flyway Council's request to include an assessment 
of potential teal harvest opportunities for production States in the 
ongoing teal assessment, and the additional work associated with this 
request, would likely delay the completion of our original task. As we 
noted above, the original purpose of this assessment was to assess the 
harvest potential of the three teal species. The Council's request 
would entail not only an evaluation of the potential effects of 
production States' teal harvest on those species, but the possibility 
of impacts to non-target species as well. However, we understand the 
production States' concern about teal harvest opportunities. Therefore, 
we will compile information and analyses from historic reports that 
address teal seasons and, particularly, issues related to duck harvests 
from production and non-production States, and provide them to the 
Flyways for consideration during the upcoming summer flyway meetings. 
The intent of this review would be to summarize historical analyses and 
dialogue regarding the issue of early-season teal harvest opportunities 
in production States and provide a common understanding of the issues 
that would have to be reconsidered to fully address the Mississippi 
Flyway Council's recommendation. With this information, the Flyways 
could more fully assess how they may want to approach teal harvest 
opportunities for their States in the future, following

[[Page 44860]]

completion of the current teal assessment.
    Regarding the regulations for this year, utilizing the criteria 
developed for the teal season harvest strategy, this year's estimate of 
6.3 million blue-winged teal from the traditional survey area indicates 
that a 16-day September teal season in the Atlantic, Central, and 
Mississippi Flyways is appropriate for 2010.
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) closed 
seasons should be constrained to breeding populations (BPOP) below 1.75 
million birds; 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 
Alternative 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 Alternatives 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 Alternatives 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 Alternative 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 Alternative 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 tradeoffs 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 noted in the June 10 supplemental rule that all four 
flyways recommended the same alternative derived strategy be 
implemented this year. While we recognize that all four Flyway 
Council's requested additional work and analysis of the various 
constraints and components of the agreed upon derived strategy 
alternative, we proposed 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. The 
Service and Flyway Councils evaluated and deliberated on numerous 
variations of the final proposed harvest strategy, which differed in 
their expression of management objectives and regulatory alternatives, 
but which shared a common scientific underpinning.
    Based on the considerable amount of time and effort the Flyway 
Councils have devoted to reaching a consensus on the derived strategy 
for this year, and the fact that all four Flyway Councils deemed 
Alternative 39 as the best balance tradeoff among fundamental 
objectives identified for pintail harvest management, we concur with 
their recommendations and will adopt Alternative 39 for the 2010-11 
regulations year. Alternative 39 stipulates a closed pintail season if 
the pintail breeding population falls below 1.75 million and limits the 
daily bag limits to 0, 1, or 2 under the ``liberal'' AHM regulatory 
package.
    We also understand that a good deal of new information became 
available to the Flyways relatively late in this year's process. 
Therefore, we encourage each Flyway to review their choice of 
alternatives during the coming year and advise all of the other Flyways 
and the Service if their review suggests that a different alternative 
harvest strategy would better address the conservation needs of 
pintails and the desires of the hunting public. 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

[[Page 44861]]

Central Flyway States of South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma 
during the Special Early Canada Goose hunting season.
    Service Response: We agree with the Mississippi Flyway Council's 
recommendation to extend Minnesota's framework closing date for their 
September Canada goose season to September 22. In 2007, Minnesota began 
a 3-year experiment to assess the proportion of migrant geese harvested 
during September 16-22 in the Northwest Goose Zone. The remainder of 
Minnesota already has an operational September goose season that 
extends from September 1-22. Results from the 3-year experimental 
season evaluation showed that migrant geese comprised 7 percent of the 
Canada goose harvest in the Northwest Goose Zone during September 16-
22, below the 10 percent threshold level established by the Service for 
allowing special early Canada goose seasons. This result is consistent 
with the proportion of migrant geese harvested in other areas of 
Minnesota (< 5 percent) during September 16-22. Further, goose harvest 
(an average of 1,369 additional geese) in the Northwest Goose Zone 
during the experimental season extension (September 16-22) represents 
1.5 percent of the total Statewide September season goose harvest. We 
note that the Minnesota giant Canada goose population remains at high 
levels throughout the State with spring breeding population estimates 
averaging 313,425 over the past 5 years. Thus, we concur with the 
Council that the season extension in the Northwest Goose Zone meets our 
special September Canada goose season criteria; allows for uniform, 
Statewide season dates in Minnesota (September 1-22) in order to 
simplify current hunting regulations; and appears to have negligible 
impacts on migrant Canada geese.
    We also agree with the Central Flyway Council's request to increase 
the Canada goose daily bag limit in South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and 
Oklahoma. The Special Early Canada Goose hunting season is generally 
designed to reduce or control overabundant resident Canada geese 
populations. Increasing the daily bag limit from 5 to 10 may help these 
States reduce or control existing high populations of resident Canada 
geese.
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.
    Service Response: We concur. Michigan, beginning in 1998, and 
Wisconsin, beginning in 1989, has opened their regular Canada goose 
seasons prior to the Flyway-wide framework opening date to address 
resident goose management concerns in these States. As we have 
previously stated (73 FR 50678, August 27, 2008), we agree with the 
objective to increase harvest pressure on resident Canada geese in the 
Mississippi Flyway and will continue to consider the opening dates in 
both States as exceptions to the general Flyway opening date, to be 
reconsidered annually.

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 the 
Mid-Continent Population (MCP) of 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 Population (LCRVP) of 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.
    Service Response: In 2006, the Management Plan for MCP sandhill 
cranes was revised and endorsed by the Central, Mississippi, and 
Pacific Flyway Councils. Guidelines in the Plan recommended that the 
MCP continue to be managed as a single population and management at a 
smaller scale (i.e., breeding affiliation or sub-population level) was 
not warranted at that time. We note that the Plan clearly recognized 
sandhill cranes breeding and staging in NW Minnesota as part of the 
mid-continent population. Further, the current population index for MCP 
cranes was 498,400 in 2009, well within the current population 
objective range of 349,000-472,000 cranes. As the proposed new hunt in 
northwest Minnesota would conform to guidelines from the Management 
Plan and sandhill crane hunting frameworks to be established for MCP 
cranes in the Mississippi Flyway, we agree with the Councils' 
recommendations to establish this new season. Based on sandhill crane 
hunter numbers and harvest in other States in the Central Flyway, the 
small size of the hunting zone proposed in Minnesota, and the low 
hunter density in this region of Minnesota, we expect hunter numbers 
and crane harvest to be relatively low (< 500 of each).
    We also agree with the Councils' recommendations on the RMP 
sandhill crane harvest allocation of 1,939 birds for the 2010-11 
season, as outlined in the RMP sandhill crane management plan's harvest 
allocation formula. The objective for the RMP sandhill crane is to 
manage for a stable population index of 17,000-21,000 cranes determined 
by an average of the three most recent, reliable September (fall pre-
migration) surveys. While this year's survey counted 20,321 birds, a 
decrease from the previous year's count of 21,156 birds, the 3-year 
average for the RMP sandhill crane fall index is 21,433.
    Regarding the proposed limited hunt for LCRVP cranes in the Arizona 
hunt, in 2007, the Pacific Flyway Council recommended, and we approved, 
the establishment of a limited hunt for the LCRVP sandhill cranes in 
Arizona (72 FR 49622, August 28, 2007). However, the population 
inventory on which the LCRVP hunt plan is based was not completed that 
year. Thus, the Arizona Game and Fish Department chose to not conduct 
the hunt in 2007 and sought approval from the Service again in 2008 to 
begin conducting the hunt. We again approved the limited hunt (73 FR 
50678, August 27, 2008). However, due to complications encountered with 
the proposed onset of this new season falling within ongoing efforts to 
open new hunting seasons on federal National Wildlife Refuges, the 
experimental limited hunt season was not opened in 2008. As such, last 
year the State of Arizona requested that 2009-12 be designated as the 
new experimental season and designated an area under State control 
where the experimental hunt will be conducted. Given that the LCRVP 
survey results indicate an increase from 1,900 birds in 1998 to 2,264 
birds in 2009, and that the 3-year average of 2,847 LCRVP cranes is 
above the population objective of 2,500, we continue to support the 
establishment of the 3-year experimental framework for this hunt, 
conditional on successful monitoring being conducted as called for in 
the Flyway hunt plan for this population. Our final environmental 
assessment (FEA) on this new hunt can be obtained by writing Robert 
Trost, Pacific Flyway Representative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

[[Page 44862]]

Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 911 NE 11th Avenue, 
Portland, OR 97232-4181, or it may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov or via the Service's home page at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BirdManagement.html.

14. Woodcock

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway 
Councils recommended adoption of the Interim American Woodcock Harvest 
Strategy for implementation in the 2011-12 hunting season.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that the interim harvest 
strategy outlined in the Draft American Woodcock Harvest Strategy be 
implemented for a period of 5 years (2011-15).
    Written Comments: The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
supported the interim woodcock harvest strategy.
    Service Response: In 2008, we completed a review of available 
woodcock population databases to assess their utility for developing a 
woodcock harvest strategy. Concurrently, we requested that the 
Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils appoint members to a 
working group to cooperate with us on developing a woodcock harvest 
strategy. In February 2010, the working group completed a draft interim 
harvest strategy for consideration by the Flyway Councils at their 
March 2010 meetings.
    The working group's draft interim harvest strategy provides a 
transparent framework for making regulatory decisions for woodcock 
season length and bag limit while we work to improve monitoring and 
assessment protocols for this species. While the strategy's objective 
is to set woodcock harvest at a level commensurate with population, 
data limitations preclude accurately assessing harvest potential at 
this time. Thus, the strategy's thresholds for changing regulations are 
based on the premise that further population declines would result in 
decreased harvest, while population increases would allow for 
additional harvest. The working group recommended that the interim 
harvest strategy be implemented for the 2011-12 hunting season, that 
the Service and Flyway Councils evaluate the strategy after 5 years, 
and that we continue to assess the feasibility of developing a derived 
harvest strategy.
    In the May 13 Federal Register, we stated that following review and 
comment by the Flyway Councils, we would announce our intentions 
whether to propose the draft strategy. Given the unanimous Flyway 
Council approval of the working group's draft interim harvest strategy, 
we concur with the three Flyway Councils and propose adoption of the 
strategy beginning in the 2011-12 hunting season for a period of 5 
years (2011-15). Specifics of the interim harvest strategy can be found 
at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html.

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.
    Service Response: In 2008, we accepted and endorsed the interim 
harvest strategies for the Central, Eastern, and Western Management 
Units (73 FR 50678, August 27, 2008). As we stated then, the interim 
mourning dove harvest strategies are a step towards implementing the 
Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Plan (Plan) that was approved 
by all four Flyway Councils in 2003. The Plan represents a new, more 
informed means of decision-making for dove harvest management besides 
relying solely on traditional roadside counts of mourning doves as 
indicators of population trend. However, recognizing that a more 
comprehensive, national approach would take time to develop, we 
requested the development of interim harvest strategies, by management 
unit, until the elements of the Plan can be fully implemented. In 2004, 
each management unit submitted its respective strategy, but the 
strategies used different datasets and different approaches or methods. 
After initial submittal and review in 2006, we requested that the 
strategies be revised, using similar, existing datasets among the 
management units along with similar decision-making criteria. In 
January 2008, we recommended that, following approval by the respective 
Flyway Councils in March, they be submitted in 2008 for endorsement by 
the Service, with implementation for the 2009-10 hunting season. Last 
year, for the first time, the interim harvest strategies were 
successfully employed and implemented in all three Management Units (74 
FR 36870, July 24, 2009).
    This year, based on the interim harvest strategies and current 
population status, we agree with the recommended selection of the 
``moderate'' season frameworks for doves in the Eastern, Central, and 
Western Management Units.

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

[[Page 44863]]

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 a notice of availability in the Federal Register on June 
16, 1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 
18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985 environmental 
assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations 
on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available 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 (SEIS) 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 
released the draft SEIS on July 9, 2010 (75 FR 39577). The draft SEIS 
is available by either writing to the address indicated under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or by viewing on our Web site 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/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 Web site 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).

[[Page 44864]]

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 (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), 
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 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. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 
a-j.

    Dated: July 19, 2010.
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

Proposed Regulations Frameworks for 2010-11 Early Hunting Seasons on 
Certain Migratory Game Birds

    Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and delegated 
authorities, the Department of the Interior approved