Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2018-19 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals; Notice of Meetings, 36308-36317 [2017-16353]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 148 (Thursday, August 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36308-36317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16353]



[[Page 36307]]

Vol. 82

Thursday,

No. 148

August 3, 2017

Part IV





 Department of the Interior





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





 Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 20





 Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2018-19 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 
Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals; 
Notice of Meetings; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 148 / Thursday, August 3, 2017 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 36308]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028; FF09M21200-178-FXMB1231099BPP0]
RIN 1018-BB73


Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2018-19 Migratory Game Bird 
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal 
Proposals; Notice of Meetings

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service or 
we) proposes to establish annual hunting regulations for certain 
migratory game birds for the 2018-19 hunting season. We annually 
prescribe outside limits (frameworks) within which States may select 
hunting seasons. This proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, 
announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) and 
Flyway Council meetings, describes the proposed regulatory alternatives 
for the 2018-19 duck hunting seasons, and requests proposals from 
Indian tribes that wish to establish special migratory game bird 
hunting regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. 
Migratory bird hunting seasons provide opportunities for recreation and 
sustenance; aid Federal, State, and tribal governments in the 
management of migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels 
compatible with migratory game bird population status and habitat 
conditions.

DATES: Comments: You may comment on the proposed regulatory 
alternatives for the 2018-19 season until September 5, 2017. You may 
comment on the draft environmental assessment to establish a framework 
for general swan hunting season in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and 
Central Flyways until October 15, 2017. Comments on the information 
collection requirements must be received by September 5, 2017. 
Following subsequent Federal Register documents, you will be given an 
opportunity to submit comments on the proposed frameworks by January 
15, 2018. Tribes must submit proposals and related comments on or 
before December 1, 2017.
    Meetings: The SRC will meet to consider and develop proposed 
regulations for the 2018-19 migratory game bird hunting seasons on 
October 17-18, 2017. Meetings on both days 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 No. FWS-HQ-
MB-2017-0028.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028; Division of Policy, Performance, and 
Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.
    We will not accept emailed or faxed comments. We will post all 
comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. See the Public Comments section, below, for 
more information.
    Send your comments and suggestions on the information collection 
requirements to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at 
OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov 
(email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service 
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 
(mail); or info_coll@fws.gov (email). Please reference OMB Control 
Number 1018-BB73 in the subject line of your comments.
    Meetings: The October 17-18, 2017, SRC meeting will be at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 American Boulevard, Bloomington, MN 
55437.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel at: Division of Migratory 
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the 
Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; (703) 
358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

New Process for the Annual Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations

    As part of DOI's retrospective regulatory review, 2 years ago we 
developed a schedule for migratory game bird hunting regulations that 
is more efficient and provides hunting season dates much earlier than 
was possible under the old process. The new process makes planning much 
easier for the States and all parties interested in migratory bird 
hunting. Beginning in the summer of 2015, with the development of the 
2016-17 hunting seasons, we started promulgating our annual migratory 
game bird hunting regulations using a new schedule that combines the 
previously used early- and late-season regulatory processes into a 
single process. We make decisions for harvest management based on 
predictions derived from long-term biological information and 
established harvest strategies and, therefore, can establish migratory 
bird hunting seasons much earlier than the system we used for many 
years. Under the new process, we develop proposed hunting season 
frameworks for a given year in the fall of the prior year. We then 
finalize those frameworks a few months later, thereby enabling the 
State agencies to select and publish their season dates in early 
summer. This proposed rule is the first in a series of proposed and 
final rulemaking documents for the establishment of the 2018-19 hunting 
seasons.

Background and Overview

    Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in 
conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for 
the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized to determine when ``hunting, taking, capture, killing, 
possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or 
export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest, or egg'' of migratory game 
birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These 
regulations are written after giving due regard to ``the zones of 
temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, 
breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such 
birds'' and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This 
responsibility has been delegated to the Service as the lead Federal 
agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United 
States. However, migratory game bird management is a cooperative effort 
of State, Tribal, and Federal governments.
    The Service develops migratory game bird hunting regulations by 
establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for season lengths, bag 
limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting. Acknowledging 
regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has 
administratively divided the Nation into four Flyways for the primary 
purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each Flyway (Atlantic, 
Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal 
organization generally composed of one member from each State and 
Province in that Flyway. The Flyway Councils, established through the

[[Page 36309]]

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, also assist in researching 
and providing migratory game bird management information for Federal, 
State, and Provincial governments, as well as private conservation 
entities and the general public.
    The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, 
located in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 
20, is constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative 
considerations dictate how long the rulemaking process will last. Most 
importantly, however, the biological cycle of migratory game birds 
controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on 
which these results are available for consideration and deliberation.
    For the regulatory cycle, Service biologists gather, analyze, and 
interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all 
those involved in the process through a series of published status 
reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested 
parties. Because the Service is required to take abundance of migratory 
game birds and other factors into consideration, the Service undertakes 
a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with Service 
Regional Offices, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and State and 
Provincial wildlife-management agencies. To determine the appropriate 
frameworks for each species, we consider factors such as population 
size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, 
condition of breeding and wintering habitat, number of hunters, and 
anticipated harvest. After frameworks are established for season 
lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, States 
may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for 
the hunting seasons. States may always be more conservative in their 
selections than the Federal frameworks, but never more liberal.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

    The SRC will conduct an open meeting on October 17-18, 2017, to 
review information on the current status of migratory game birds and 
develop 2018-19 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for 
these species. In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings 
are open to public observation. You may submit written comments to the 
Service on the matters discussed. See DATES and ADDRESSES for 
information about these meetings.

Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings

    Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings 
of the four Flyway Councils this August and September. Although agendas 
are not yet available, these meetings usually commence at 8 a.m. on the 
days indicated.
    Atlantic Flyway Council: August 31 and September 1, 2017; The 
Westin Annapolis, 100 Westgate Circle, Annapolis, MD.
    Mississippi Flyway Council: August 24-25, 2017; Park Place Hotel, 
300 East State St., Traverse City, MI 49684.
    Central Flyway Council: August 30-31, 2017; Hilton Garden Inn 
Manhattan and Manhattan Conference Center, 410 South 3rd Street, 
Manhattan, KS.
    Pacific Flyway Council: August 25, 2017; Hotel RL Spokane at the 
Park, 303 W. North River Drive, Spokane, WA.

Notice of Intent To Establish Open Seasons

    This document announces our intent to establish open hunting 
seasons and daily bag and possession limits for certain designated 
groups or species of migratory game birds for 2018-19 in the contiguous 
United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, 
under Sec. Sec.  20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K 
of 50 CFR part 20. For the 2018-19 migratory game bird hunting season, 
we will propose regulations for certain designated members of the avian 
families Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and 
pigeons); Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and 
gallinules); and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe). We describe these 
proposals under Proposed 2018-19 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 
Regulations (Preliminary) in this document. We annually publish 
definitions of flyways and management units, and a description of the 
data used in and the factors affecting the regulatory process (see May 
30, 2017, Federal Register (82 FR 24786) for the latest definitions and 
descriptions).

Regulatory Schedule for 2018-19

    This document is the first in a series of proposed, supplemental, 
and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting 
regulations. We will publish additional supplemental proposals for 
public comment in the Federal Register as population, habitat, harvest, 
and other information become available. Major steps in the 2018-19 
regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register 
notifications are illustrated in the diagram at the end of this 
proposed rule. All publication dates of Federal Register documents are 
target dates. All sections of this and subsequent documents outlining 
hunting frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered 
headings. These headings are:

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
    x. Mallard Management Units
    xi. Other
2. Sea Ducks
3. Mergansers
4. Canada Geese
    A. Special Early 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. Doves
17. Alaska
18. Hawaii
19. Puerto Rico
20. Virgin Islands
21. Falconry
22. Other

    Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to 
numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to 
note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, so remaining 
numbered items will be discontinuous, making the list appear 
incomplete.
    The proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2018-19 duck hunting 
seasons are contained at the end of this document. We plan to publish 
final regulatory alternatives in mid-August. We plan to publish 
proposed season frameworks in mid-December 2017. We plan to publish 
final season frameworks in late February 2018.

Review of Public Comments

    This proposed rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory 
alternatives for the 2018-19 duck hunting seasons. This proposed 
rulemaking also describes

[[Page 36310]]

other recommended changes or specific preliminary proposals that vary 
from the 2017-18 regulations and issues requiring early discussion, 
action, or the attention of the States or tribes. We will publish 
responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop final 
frameworks for the 2018-19 season. We seek additional information and 
comments on this proposed rule.

Consolidation of Rulemaking Documents

    For administrative purposes, this document consolidates the notice 
of our intent to establish open migratory game bird hunting seasons and 
the request for tribal proposals with the preliminary proposals for the 
annual hunting regulations-development process. We will publish the 
remaining proposed and final rulemaking documents separately. For 
inquiries on tribal guidelines and proposals, tribes should contact the 
following personnel:
    Region 1 (Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and the Pacific 
Islands)--Nanette Seto, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 11th 
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181; (503) 231-6164.
    Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)--Scott 
Carleton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., 
Albuquerque, NM 87102; (505) 248-6639.
    Region 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Ohio, and Wisconsin)--Tom Cooper, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600 
American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; (612) 713-
5101.
    Region 4 (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, South 
Carolina, and Tennessee)--Laurel Barnhill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, GA 30345; (404) 
679-4000.
    Region 5 (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia)--Pam Toschik, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589; 
(413) 253-8610.
    Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)--Casey Stemler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Building, Denver, CO 80225; 
(303) 236-8145.
    Region 7 (Alaska)--Pete Probasco, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 786-3423.
    Region 8 (California and Nevada)--Amedee Brickey, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846; (916) 
414-6480.

Requests for Tribal Proposals

Background

    Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed 
guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 
23467) to establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations on 
Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and 
ceded lands. We developed these guidelines in response to tribal 
requests for our recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for 
some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both 
tribal and nontribal members throughout their reservations. The 
guidelines include possibilities for:
    (1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members, 
with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place 
within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those selected 
by the surrounding State(s);
    (2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual 
Federal frameworks for season dates, season length, and daily bag and 
possession limits; and
    (3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, 
outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added 
flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
    In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines 
must be consistent with the annual March 11 to August 31 closed season 
mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and Great 
Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds 
(Convention). The guidelines are applicable to those tribes that have 
reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-
reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also may be applied to 
the establishment of migratory game bird hunting regulations for 
nontribal members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of 
reservations where tribes have full wildlife-management authority over 
such hunting, or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have 
reached agreement over hunting by nontribal members on non-Indian 
lands.
    Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory game bird 
hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our 
approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations 
that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the 
surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations 
governing migratory bird hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such 
cases, we encourage the tribes and States to reach agreement on 
regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When 
appropriate, we will consult with a tribe and State with the aim of 
facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and 
State officials in the affected States where tribes may wish to 
establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded 
lands. It is incumbent upon the tribe and/or the State to request 
consultation as a result of the proposal being published in the Federal 
Register. We will not presume to make a determination, without being 
advised by either a tribe or a State, that any issue is or is not 
worthy of formal consultation.
    One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of tribal 
members' harvest of migratory game birds on reservations where such 
harvest is a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest, 
provided it does not take place during the closed season required by 
the Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the 
status of the migratory game bird resource. Since the inception of 
these guidelines, we have reached annual agreement with tribes for 
migratory game bird hunting by tribal members on their lands or on 
lands where they have reserved hunting rights. We will continue to 
consult with tribes that wish to reach a mutual agreement on hunting 
regulations for on-reservation hunting by tribal members. Tribes should 
not view the guidelines as inflexible. We believe that they provide 
appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved hunting rights and 
management authority of Indian tribes while also ensuring that the 
migratory game bird resource receives necessary protection. The 
conservation of this important international resource is paramount. Use 
of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes to observe the 
hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which the 
reservation is located.

Details Needed in Tribal Proposals

    Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting 
regulations for the 2018-19 migratory game bird hunting season should 
submit a proposal that includes: (1) The requested migratory game bird 
hunting season dates and other details regarding the proposed 
regulations; (2) Harvest anticipated under the proposed regulations; 
and (3) Tribal capabilities to enforce migratory game bird hunting

[[Page 36311]]

regulations. For those situations where it could be shown that failure 
to limit Tribal harvest could seriously impact the migratory game bird 
resource, we also request information on the methods employed to 
monitor harvest and any potential steps taken to limit level of 
harvest.
    A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the migratory 
game bird season for nontribal members should specify this request in 
its proposal, rather than request a date that might not be within the 
final Federal frameworks. Similarly, unless a tribe wishes to set more 
restrictive regulations than Federal regulations will permit for 
nontribal members, the proposal should request the same daily bag and 
possession limits and season length for migratory game birds that 
Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the Flyway in 
which the reservation is located.

Tribal Proposal Procedures

    We will publish details of tribal proposals for public review in 
later Federal Register documents. Because of the time required for 
review by us and the public, Indian tribes that desire special 
migratory game bird hunting regulations for the 2018-19 hunting season 
should submit their proposals no later than December 1, 2017. Tribes 
should direct inquiries regarding the guidelines and proposals to the 
appropriate Service Regional Office listed above under the caption 
Consolidation of Rulemaking Documents. Tribes that request special 
migratory game bird hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded 
lands should send a courtesy copy of the proposal to officials in the 
affected State(s).

Public Comments

    The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, 
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking 
process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written 
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed 
regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we will take into consideration all comments we receive. 
Such 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 ADDRESSES. We will not accept 
comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. 
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 DATES. We will post all comments in their entirety--
including your personal identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. Before including your address, phone number, email 
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, 5275 Leesburg 
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.
    For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific 
comment periods. We will consider, but 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 
any final rules.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Consideration

    The programmatic document, ``Second Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations 
Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),'' filed 
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, 
addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual 
framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We 
published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on May 31, 
2013 (78 FR 32686), and our Record of Decision on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 
45376). We also address NEPA compliance for waterfowl hunting 
frameworks through the annual preparation of separate environmental 
assessments, the most recent being ``Duck Hunting Regulations for 2017-
18,'' with its corresponding April 7, 2017, finding of no significant 
impact. 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.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Before issuance of the 2018-19 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.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed 
this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it 
would have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.
    E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for 
improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.
    An economic analysis was prepared for the 2013-14 season. This 
analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing 
Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see 
discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). We will use 
this analysis again for the 2018-19 season. 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

[[Page 36312]]

days than those issued during the 2012-13 season, (2) issue moderate 
regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) 
issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2012-13 
season. For the 2013-14 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an 
estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $317.8-$416.8 million. 
We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10 through 2017-18 seasons. 
The 2013-14 analysis is part of the record for this rule and is 
available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-
0028.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The annual migratory bird hunting 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 through 1995. In 1995, the 
Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which 
was subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, 2004, 2008, and 2013. The 
primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory 
game bird hunting is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is 
generally conducted at 5-year intervals. The 2013 Analysis was based on 
the 2011 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 $1.5 billion at small 
businesses in 2013. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request 
from the Division of Migratory Bird Management (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT) or from https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 
FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028.

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by E.O. 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 ADDRESSES. 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 proposed 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 would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more. However, because this rule would establish 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

    This proposed rule contains existing and new information 
collections. All information collections require approval under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not 
conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection 
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
OMB has reviewed and approved the information collection requirements 
associated with migratory bird surveys and assigned the following OMB 
control numbers:
     1018-0019--North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey 
(expires 5/31/2018).
     1018-0023--Migratory Bird Surveys (expires 6/30/2017). 
Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird 
Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.
    The new reporting and recordkeeping requirements identified below 
must be approved by OMB:
    (1) Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special 
hunting regulations for the annual migratory game bird hunting season 
are required to submit a proposal that includes:
    (a) The requested migratory game bird hunting season dates and 
other details regarding the proposed regulations;
    (b) Harvest anticipated under the proposed regulations; and
    (c) Tribal capabilities to enforce migratory game bird hunting 
regulations.
    (2) State and U.S. territory governments that wish to establish 
annual migratory game bird hunting seasons are required to provide the 
requested dates and other details for hunting seasons in their 
respective States or Territories.
    Title: Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons, 50 
CFR part 20.
    OMB Control Number: 1018-XXXX.
    Service Form Number: None.
    Type of Request: Request for a new OMB Control Number.
    Description of Respondents: State and Tribal governments.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
    Frequency of Collection: Annually.
    Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 82 (52 State governments 
and Territories and 30 Tribal governments).
    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 82.
    Average Completion Time per Response: 4 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 328.
    Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: None.
    As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burdens, we invite the public and other federal agencies to comment on 
any aspect of this information collection, including:
    (1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, 
including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection 
of information;
    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents.
    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection 
by the date indicated in the DATES section to the Desk Officer for the 
Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or 
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov (email). Please provide a copy of your 
comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, 
VA 22041-3803 (mail); or info_coll@fws.gov (email). Please reference 
OMB Control Number 1018-BB73 in the subject line of your comments.

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 
proposed rulemaking would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in 
any given year on local or State government or private

[[Page 36313]]

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 E.O. 
12988.

Takings Implication Assessment

    In accordance with E.O. 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 would not result in the physical occupancy 
of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory 
taking of any property. In fact, this rule would allow hunters to 
exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce 
restrictions on the use of private and public property.

Energy Effects--Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this proposed rule is a 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 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), E.O. 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. 
However, in this proposed rule, we solicit proposals for special 
migratory bird hunting regulations for certain tribes on Federal Indian 
reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 
2018-19 migratory bird hunting season. 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. 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 E.O. 13132, these 
regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement.

Executive Order 13771--Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, 
February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to routine hunting 
and fishing activities.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

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

    Authority: The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 
2018-19 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 712, 
and 742 a-j.

    Dated: June 13, 2017.
Virginia H. Johnson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

Proposed 2018-19 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary)

    Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat 
conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway 
Councils, we may defer specific regulatory proposals. No changes from 
the 2017-18 frameworks are being proposed at this time. Other issues 
requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or 
tribes are contained below:

1. Ducks

    Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest 
management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory 
Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. Only those categories containing substantial 
recommendations are discussed below.

A. General Harvest Strategy

    We propose to continue using adaptive harvest management (AHM) to 
help determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2018-19 
season. AHM permits sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain 
regulatory impacts and provides a mechanism for reducing that 
uncertainty over time. We use AHM to evaluate four alternative 
regulatory levels for duck hunting based on the population status of 
mallards. We have specific hunting strategies for species of special 
concern, such as black ducks, scaup, and pintails.
Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways
    The prescribed regulatory alternative for the Atlantic, 
Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways is based on the status of 
mallard populations that contribute primarily to each Flyway. In the 
Atlantic Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the population 
status of mallards breeding in eastern North America (Federal survey 
strata 51-54 and 56, and State surveys in the Northeast and the mid-
Atlantic region). In the Central and Mississippi Flyways, we set 
hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of mid-continent 
mallards. Mid-continent mallards are those breeding in central North 
America (Federal survey strata 13-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State 
surveys in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the Pacific Flyway, 
we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of western 
mallards. Western mallards are those breeding in Alaska and the 
northern Yukon Territory (as based on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), 
and in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (as based 
on State- or Province-conducted surveys).
    For the 2018-19 season, we recommend continuing to use independent 
optimization to determine the optimal regulatory choice for each 
mallard stock. This means that we would develop regulations for eastern 
mallards, mid-continent mallards, and western mallards independently, 
based upon the breeding stock that contributes primarily to each 
Flyway. We detailed implementation of this AHM decision

[[Page 36314]]

framework for western and mid-continent mallards in the July 24, 2008, 
Federal Register (73 FR 43290) and for eastern mallards in the July 20, 
2012, Federal Register (77 FR 42920).
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) Changes to the AHM 
Process
    Since 1995, the Service and Flyway Councils have applied the 
principles of adaptive management to inform harvest management 
decisions in the face of uncertainty while trying to learn about system 
(bird populations) responses to harvest regulations and environmental 
changes. Prior to the timing and process changes necessary for 
implementation of SEIS 2013, the annual AHM process began with the 
observation of the system's status each spring followed by an updating 
of model weights and the derivation of an optimal harvest policy that 
was then used to inform a regulatory decision (i.e., breeding 
population estimates were used with a policy matrix to determine 
optimal regulatory decisions). The system then evolves over time in 
response to the decision and natural variation in population dynamics. 
The following spring, the monitoring programs observe the status of the 
system and the iterative decision-making process continues forward in 
time. However, with the changes in decision timing specified by the 
SEIS, the post-survey AHM process will not be possible because 
monitoring information describing the system will not be available at 
the time the decision must be made. As a result, the optimization 
framework used to derive the current harvest policy can no longer 
calculate current and future harvest values as a function of the 
current system and model weights. To address this issue, we adjusted 
the optimization procedures beginning with the 2016-17 seasons to 
calculate harvest values conditional on the last observation of the 
system and regulatory decision.
    Results and analysis of our work is contained in a technical report 
that provides a summary of revised methods and assessment results based 
on updated AHM protocols developed in response to the preferred 
alternative specified in the SEIS. The report describes necessary 
changes to optimization procedures and decision processes for the 
implementation of AHM for midcontinent, eastern, and western mallards, 
northern pintails, and scaup decision frameworks.
    Results indicate that the necessary adjustments to the optimization 
procedures and AHM protocols to account for changes in decision timing 
are not expected to result in major changes to expected management 
performance for mallard, pintail, and scaup AHM. In general, pre-survey 
(or pre-SEIS necessary changes) harvest policies were similar to 
harvest policies based on new post-survey (or post-SEIS necessary 
changes) AHM protocols. We found some subtle differences in the degree 
to which strategies prescribed regulatory changes in the pre-survey 
policies with a reduction in the number of cells indicating moderate 
regulations. In addition, pre-survey policies became more liberal when 
the previous regulatory decisions were more conservative. These 
patterns were consistent for each AHM decision-making framework. 
Overall, a comparison of simulation results of the pre- and post-survey 
protocols did not suggest substantive changes in the frequency of 
regulations or in the expected average population size. These results 
suggest that the additional form of uncertainty that the change in 
decision timing introduces is not expected to limit our expected 
harvest management performance with the adoption of the pre-survey AHM 
protocols.
    Since 2000, we have relied on an adaptive harvest management 
strategy for eastern mallards as the basis for setting the season 
lengths and total bag limits for duck hunting in the Atlantic Flyway. A 
drawback of this strategy is that the primary breeding range of eastern 
mallards is the northeastern United States, whereas eastern Canada is 
the origin of most other ducks (except wood ducks) that are harvested 
in the Atlantic Flyway. Due to the differences in their ranges, factors 
that affect the population status of eastern mallards do not 
necessarily have the same influence on those other duck species, 
potentially resulting in differing population trajectories. Poor 
performance by our eastern mallard population models is another 
drawback; they have consistently over-predicted the population size 
since 2009.
    Consequently, we are working with the Atlantic Flyway Council to 
develop a new decision framework for determining annual duck hunting 
regulations in the Atlantic Flyway that will be based on the collective 
status of five representative duck species: mallard, wood duck, green-
winged teal, ring-necked duck, and common goldeneye. These species 
represent the suite of waterfowl habitats that Atlantic Flyway agencies 
and partners are trying to conserve and protect, and together they 
comprise about 60 percent of the ducks harvested annually in the 
Atlantic Flyway. We plan to implement the new decision framework for 
the 2019-20 hunting season. If our current eastern mallard harvest 
strategy indicates that mallard harvest should be restricted before the 
new framework is adopted, we will implement appropriate restrictions 
(e.g., adjust the Atlantic Flyway's daily bag limit for mallards 
accordingly).
    A complete copy of the AHM report can be found on https://www.regulations.gov or at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/AHM/SEIS&AHMReportFinal.pdf.
Final 2018-19 AHM Protocol
    We will detail the final AHM protocol for the 2018-19 season in the 
supplemental proposed rule, which we will publish in late July (see 
Schedule of Biological Information Availability, Regulations Meetings 
and Federal Register Publications for the 2018-19 Seasons at the end of 
this proposed rule for further information). We will propose a specific 
regulatory alternative in December for each of the Flyways to use for 
their 2018-19 seasons after status information becomes available in 
late August 2017.

B. Regulatory Alternatives

    The basic structure of the current regulatory alternatives for AHM 
was adopted in 1997. In 2002, based upon recommendations from the 
Flyway Councils, we extended framework dates in the ``moderate'' and 
``liberal'' regulatory alternatives by changing the opening date from 
the Saturday nearest October 1 to the Saturday nearest September 24, 
and by changing the closing date from the Sunday nearest January 20 to 
the last Sunday in January. These extended dates were made available 
with no associated penalty in season length or bag limits. At that time 
we stated our desire to keep these changes in place for 3 years to 
allow for a reasonable opportunity to monitor the impacts of framework-
date extensions on harvest distribution and rates of harvest before 
considering any subsequent use (67 FR 12501; March 19, 2002).
    For 2018-19, we propose to utilize the same regulatory alternatives 
that are in effect for the 2017-18 season (see accompanying table for 
specifics of the regulatory alternatives). Alternatives are specified 
for each Flyway and are designated as ``RES'' for the restrictive, 
``MOD'' for the moderate, and ``LIB'' for the liberal alternative. 
Comments on the proposed alternatives will be accepted until July 15, 
2017. Following receipt of public input, we will finalize the 
regulatory alternatives for each of the

[[Page 36315]]

Flyways for the 2018-19 seasons in mid-August 2017.

D. Special Seasons/Species Management

iv. Canvasbacks
    From 1994-2015, we followed a canvasback harvest strategy whereby 
if canvasback population status and production are sufficient to permit 
a harvest of one canvasback per day nationwide for the entire length of 
the regular duck season, while still attaining an objective of 500,000 
birds the following spring, the season on canvasbacks should be opened. 
A partial season would be allowed if the estimated allowable harvest 
was below that associated with a 1-bird daily bag limit for the entire 
season. If neither of these conditions can be met, the harvest strategy 
calls for a closed season on canvasbacks nationwide. In 2008 (73 FR 
43290; July 24, 2008), we announced our decision to modify the 
canvasback harvest strategy to incorporate the option for a 2-bird 
daily bag limit for canvasbacks when the predicted breeding population 
the subsequent year exceeds 725,000 birds.
    Since the existing harvest strategy relies on information that will 
not yet be available at the time we need to establish proposed 
frameworks under the new regulatory process, the canvasback harvest 
management strategy is not usable for the 2018-19 season and beyond. At 
this time we do not have a new harvest strategy to propose for use in 
the future. Thus, as we did for the 2016-17 and the 2017-18 seasons, we 
will review the most recent information on canvasback populations, 
habitat conditions, and harvests with the goal of compiling the best 
information available for use in making a harvest management decision. 
We will share these results with the Flyways during their fall 
meetings, with the intention of adopting a decision-making approach in 
October for the 2018-19 seasons. Over the next year, we will continue 
to work with the Flyway technical committees and councils to develop a 
new biologically based process for informing harvest management 
decisions for use in subsequent years.
8. Swans
    Frameworks for swan hunting seasons in certain Atlantic and Central 
Flyway States (North Carolina, Virginia, Montana, North Dakota, and 
South Dakota) currently only allow the take of tundra swans. In recent 
years, some Interior Population (IP) trumpeter swans have been present 
during fall and winter in those States. This population has grown from 
43 birds in 1968 to more than 27,000 in 2015, an annual growth rate of 
14.4 percent. Given the rapid growth rate of the IP, it is likely that 
migrating and wintering trumpeter swan numbers will increase in the 
Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways. Tundra swans and trumpeter 
swans are very similar in appearance, particularly at a distance. At 
present, any hunter who mistakenly shoots a trumpeter swan during the 
tundra swan season is violating the law by taking a species for which 
no hunting season has been authorized. As their numbers continue to 
increase, more IP trumpeter swans will likely be present in tundra swan 
hunting areas during the hunting season; this situation would result in 
more hunters accidentally taking a trumpeter swan, making those hunters 
criminally liable for taking a protected species illegally. Thus, there 
is a need to address the potential for misidentification and accidental 
take of trumpeter swans that may arise with existing tundra swan 
hunting seasons.
    We have prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) to assess 
the impacts of establishing a framework for hunting regulations to 
govern the take of both trumpeter and tundra swans in the portions of 
the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways that currently have 
operational hunting seasons on Eastern Population tundra swans or may 
have in the future. The proposed action identified in this DEA would 
allow limited take of trumpeter swans, but only during hunting seasons 
established to provide opportunities to hunt tundra swans. New swan 
hunting seasons (i.e., seasons in areas that are currently closed to 
swan hunting) would not be approved unless the requesting State 
demonstrates that >90 percent of the swans in the proposed hunt area 
are tundra swans.
    The DEA is available for public review and may be found at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0028 or from the 
Division of Migratory Bird Management (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT). We prepared this DEA in carrying out our responsibility to 
conserve migratory bird populations and to fulfill our responsibilities 
under NEPA. Comments will be accepted until October 15, 2017. Following 
receipt of public input, we will prepare a final environment 
assessment, which will help inform future decisions regarding 
regulation of swan hunting.
16. Doves
    Last season (82 FR 24786; May 30, 2017), we approved an earlier 
opening date (fixed date of September 14) in Texas's South Dove Zone, 
which is about one week earlier (on average) than was previously 
allowed, and allowed split seasons in the Western Management Unit (WMU) 
so that the WMU could be consistent with the other dove management 
units regarding zoning and split seasons. We also considered, but did 
not approve, a recommendation for the Eastern Management Unit (EMU) to 
have a closing framework date of January 31, versus the current closing 
date of January 15. While we proposed and ultimately approved the Texas 
and WMU changes last season, we requested more information on the 
rationale and biological impacts for the EMU request. Both of the 
approved framework changes and the still-pending EMU recommendation 
require changes to the National Dove Harvest Management Strategy 
(Strategy). The previously approved changes are designed to provide 
more flexibility in opportunities to hunt doves, and would not 
significantly increase harvest and we propose to revise the Strategy as 
such. Additional information on the EMU issue was provided at the June 
21, 2017, SRC meeting. We are reviewing that information.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 36316]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU17.000


[[Page 36317]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AU17.001

[FR Doc. 2017-16353 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-C