Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16339 

instructions are given on the forms 

themselves. 

* * * * * 

3. Add § 801.12 to read as follows: 

§ 801.12 Rules and regulations for the BE– 

140, Benchmark Survey of Insurance 

Transactions by U.S. Insurance Companies 

with Foreign Persons. 

(a) The BE–140, Benchmark Survey of 

Insurance Transactions by U.S. 

Insurance Companies with Foreign 

Persons, will be conducted covering 

calendar year 2008 and every fifth year 

thereafter. All legal authorities, 

provisions, definitions, and 

requirements contained in § 801.1 

through § 801.9(a) are applicable to this 

survey. More detailed instructions and 

descriptions of the individual types of 

transactions covered are given on the 

report form itself. The BE–140 consists 

of three parts and two schedules. Part 1 

requests information on whom to 

consult concerning questions about the 

report and the certification section. Part 

2 requests information about the 

reporting insurance company. Part 3 

requests information needed to 

determine whether a report is required, 

the types of transactions that would be 

reported, and which schedules apply. 

Each of the two schedules covers the 

types of insurance services to be 

reported and the ownership relationship 

between the U.S. insurance company 

and foreign transactor and is to be 

completed only if the U.S. insurance 

company has transactions of the types 

covered by the particular schedule. 

(b) Who must report. 

(1) Mandatory reporting. A BE–140 

report is required from each U.S. 

insurance company with respect to the 

transactions listed below, if any of the 

eight items was greater than $2 million 

or less than negative $2 million for the 

calendar year covered by the survey on 

an accrual basis: 

(i) Premiums earned, and 

(ii) Losses, on reinsurance assumed; 

(iii) Premiums incurred, and 

(iv) Losses, on reinsurance ceded; 

(v) Premiums earned, and 

(vi) Losses, on primary insurance 

sold; 

(vii) Sales of, and 

(viii) Purchases of, auxiliary 

insurance services. U.S. insurance 

companies that file pursuant to this 

mandatory reporting requirement must 

complete parts 1 through 3 of Form BE– 

140 and all applicable schedules. The 

total amounts of transactions applicable 

to a particular schedule are to be 

entered in the appropriate column(s) 

and these amounts must be distributed 

among the countries involved in the 

transactions. 

(2) Voluntary reporting. If, during the 

calendar year covered, the U.S. 

insurance company’s transactions do 

not exceed the exemption level for any 

of the types of transactions covered by 

the survey, the U.S. person is requested 

to provide an estimate of the total for 

each type of transaction. Submission of 

this information is voluntary. The 

estimates may be judgmental, that is, 

based on recall, without conducting a 

detailed records search. 

(3) Any U.S. insurance company that 

receives the BE–140 survey form from 

BEA, but is not reporting data in either 

the mandatory or voluntary section of 

the form, must complete Parts 1 through 

3 of the survey. This requirement is 

necessary to ensure compliance with 

reporting requirements and efficient 

administration of the Act by eliminating 

unnecessary follow-up contact. 

(c) Covered types of insurance 

transactions. The BE–140 survey is 

intended to collect information on U.S. 

international insurance transactions. 

The types of insurance transactions 

covered are reinsurance assumed from 

or ceded to insurance companies 

resident abroad, primary insurance sold 

to foreign persons, and receipts and 

payments of auxiliary insurance 

services. 

[FR Doc. E9–8148 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[FWS–R9–MB–2009–0124; 91200–1231– 

9BPP–L2] 

RIN 1018–AW31 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 

2009–10 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 

Regulations (Preliminary) With 

Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals 

and Requests for 2010 Spring and 

Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence 

Harvest Proposals in Alaska 

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 2009–10 hunting season. 

We annually prescribe outside limits 

(frameworks) within which States may 

select hunting seasons. This proposed 

rule provides the regulatory schedule, 

describes the proposed regulatory 

alternatives for the 2009–10 duck 

hunting seasons, requests proposals 

from Indian Tribes that wish to establish 

special migratory game bird hunting 

regulations on Federal Indian 

reservations and ceded lands, and 

requests proposals for the 2010 spring 

and summer migratory bird subsistence 

season in Alaska. Migratory game 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: You must submit comments on 

the proposed regulatory alternatives for 

the 2009–10 duck hunting seasons by 

June 26, 2009. Following subsequent 

Federal Register notices, you will be 

given an opportunity to submit 

comments for proposed early-season 

frameworks by July 31, 2009, and for 

proposed late-season frameworks and 

subsistence migratory bird seasons in 

Alaska by August 31, 2009. Tribes must 

submit proposals and related comments 

by June 1, 2009. Proposals from the Comanagement Council for the 2010 spring 

and summer migratory bird subsistence 

harvest season must be submitted to the 

Flyway Councils and the Service by 

June 15, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposals by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. Mail or Hand-Delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: 1018– 

AW31; 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-mailed or faxed 

comments. We will post all comments 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments section below 

for more information). 

Proposals for the 2010 spring and 

summer migratory bird subsistence 

season in Alaska should be sent to the 

Executive Director of the Comanagement Council, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, 

Anchorage, AK 99503, or fax to (907) 

786–3306, or e-mail to ambcc@fws.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

W. Kokel, at: Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior, MS 

MBSP–4107–ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, 

16340 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

NW., Washington, DC 20240, (703) 358– 

1714. For information on the migratory 

bird subsistence season in Alaska, 

contact Fred Armstrong, (907) 786– 

3887, or Donna Dewhurst, (907) 786– 

3499, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1011 E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, 

Anchorage, AK 99503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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. 

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 

International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), also assist 

in researching and providing migratory 

game bird management information for 

Federal, State, and Provincial 

Governments, as well as private 

conservation agencies and the general 

public. 

The process for adopting migratory 

game bird hunting regulations, located 

at 50 CFR 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. 

The process includes two separate 

regulations-development schedules, 

based on early and late hunting season 

regulations. Early hunting seasons 

pertain to all migratory game bird 

species in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands; migratory game 

birds other than waterfowl (i.e., dove, 

woodcock, etc.); and special early 

waterfowl seasons, such as teal or 

resident Canada geese. Early hunting 

seasons generally begin prior to October 

1. Late hunting seasons generally start 

on or after October 1 and include most 

waterfowl seasons not already 

established. 

There are basically no differences in 

the processes for establishing either 

early or late hunting seasons. For each 

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, the condition of 

breeding and wintering habitat, the 

number of hunters, and the anticipated 

harvest. 

After frameworks, or outside limits, 

are established for season lengths, bag 

limits, and areas for migratory game bird 

hunting, migratory game bird 

management becomes a cooperative 

effort of State and Federal governments. 

After Service establishment of final 

frameworks for hunting seasons, the 

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. 

Notice of Intent To Establish Open 

Seasons 

This notice 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 2009–10 in the 

contiguous United States, Alaska, 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands, under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 

20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50 

CFR part 20. 

For the 2009–10 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 2009– 

10 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 

Regulations (Preliminary) in this 

document. We published definitions of 

waterfowl flyways and mourning dove 

management units, as well as a 

description of the data used in and the 

factors affecting the regulatory process, 

in the March 14, 1990, Federal Register 

(55 FR 9618). 

Regulatory Schedule for 2009–10 

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. Because of the late dates 

when certain portions of these data 

become available, we anticipate 

abbreviated comment periods on some 

proposals. Special circumstances limit 

the amount of time we can allow for 

public comment on these regulations. 

Specifically, two considerations 

compress the time for the rulemaking 

process: the need, on one hand, to 

establish final rules early enough in the 

summer to allow resource agencies to 

select and publish season dates and bag 

limits prior to the beginning of hunting 

seasons and, on the other hand, the lack 

of current status data on most migratory 

game birds until later in the summer. 

Because the regulatory process is 

strongly influenced by the times when 

information is available for 

consideration, we divide the regulatory 

process into two segments: early seasons 

and late seasons (further described and 

discussed above in the Background and 

Overview section). 

Major steps in the 2009–10 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: 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16341 

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. 

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, and remaining numbered 

items will be discontinuous and appear 

incomplete. 

We will publish final regulatory 

alternatives for the 2009–10 duck 

hunting seasons in mid-July. We will 

publish proposed early season 

frameworks in mid-July and late season 

frameworks in mid-August. We will 

publish final regulatory frameworks for 

early seasons on or about August 17, 

2009, and those for late seasons on or 

about September 14, 2009. 

Request for 2010 Spring and Summer 

Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest 

Proposals in Alaska 

Background 

The 1916 Convention for the 

Protection of Migratory Birds between 

the United States and Great Britain (for 

Canada) established a closed season for 

the taking of migratory birds between 

March 10 and September 1. Residents of 

northern Alaska and Canada 

traditionally harvested migratory birds 

for nutritional purposes during the 

spring and summer months. The 1916 

Convention and the subsequent 1936 

Mexico Convention for the Protection of 

Migratory Birds and Game Mammals 

provide for the legal subsistence harvest 

of migratory birds and their eggs in 

Alaska and Canada during the closed 

season by indigenous inhabitants. 

On August 16, 2002, we published in 

the Federal Register (67 FR 53511) a 

final rule that established procedures for 

incorporating subsistence management 

into the continental migratory bird 

management program. These 

regulations, developed under a new comanagement process involving the 

Service, the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, and Alaska Native 

representatives, established an annual 

procedure to develop harvest guidelines 

for implementation of a spring and 

summer migratory bird subsistence 

harvest. Eligibility and inclusion 

requirements necessary to participate in 

the spring and summer migratory bird 

subsistence season in Alaska are 

outlined in 50 CFR part 92. 

This proposed rule calls for proposals 

for regulations that will expire on 

August 31, 2010, for the spring and 

summer subsistence harvest of 

migratory birds in Alaska. Each year, 

seasons will open on or after March 11 

and close prior to September 1. 

Alaska Spring and Summer Subsistence 

Harvest Proposal Procedures 

We will publish details of the Alaska 

spring and summer subsistence harvest 

proposals in later Federal Register 

documents under 50 CFR part 92. The 

general relationship to the process for 

developing national hunting regulations 

for migratory game birds is as follows: 

(a) Alaska Migratory Bird CoManagement Council 

The public may submit proposals to 

the Co-management Council during the 

period of November 1–December 15, 

2009, to be acted upon for the 2010 

migratory bird subsistence harvest 

season. Proposals should be submitted 

to the Executive Director of the Comanagement Council, listed above 

under the caption ADDRESSES. 

(b) Flyway Councils 

(1) The Co-management Council will 

submit proposed 2010 regulations to all 

Flyway Councils for review and 

comment. The Council’s 

recommendations must be submitted 

prior to the Service Regulations 

Committee’s last regular meeting of the 

calendar year in order to be approved 

for spring and summer harvest 

beginning March 11 of the following 

calendar year. 

(2) Alaska Native representatives may 

be appointed by the Co-management 

Council to attend meetings of one or 

more of the four Flyway Councils to 

discuss recommended regulations or 

other proposed management actions. 

(c) Service Regulations Committee 

The Co-management Council will 

submit proposed annual regulations to 

the Service Regulations Committee 

(SRC) for their review and 

recommendation to the Service Director. 

Following the Service Director’s review 

and recommendation, the proposals will 

be forwarded to the Department of the 

Interior for approval. Proposed annual 

regulations will then be published in 

the Federal Register for public review 

and comment, similar to the annual 

migratory game bird hunting 

regulations. Final spring and summer 

regulations for Alaska will be published 

in the Federal Register in the 

preceeding winter after review and 

consideration of any public comments 

received. 

Because of the time required for 

review by us and the public, proposals 

from the Co-management Council for 

the 2010 spring and summer migratory 

bird subsistence harvest season must be 

submitted to the Flyway Councils and 

the Service by June 15, 2009, for 

Council comments and Service action at 

the late-season SRC meeting. 

Review of Public Comments 

This proposed rulemaking contains 

the proposed regulatory alternatives for 

the 2009–10 duck hunting seasons. This 

proposed rulemaking also describes 

other recommended changes or specific 

preliminary proposals that vary from the 

2008–09 final frameworks (see August 

27, 2008, Federal Register (73 FR 

50678) for early seasons and September 

25, 2008, Federal Register (73 FR 

55602) for late seasons) 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 2009–10 

season. We seek additional information 

and comments on this proposed rule. 

Consolidation of Notices 

For administrative purposes, this 

document consolidates the notice of 

intent to establish open migratory game 

bird hunting seasons, the request for 

Tribal proposals, and the request for 

Alaska migratory bird subsistence 

seasons with the preliminary proposals 

for the annual hunting regulationsdevelopment process. We will publish 

the remaining proposed and final 

rulemaking documents separately. For 

16342 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

inquiries on Tribal guidelines and 

proposals, Tribes should contact the 

following personnel: 

Regions 1 and 8 (California, Idaho, 

Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, 

and the Pacific Islands)—Brad Bortner, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 

11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232– 

4181; (503) 231–6164. 

Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Texas)—Jeff Haskins, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 

1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; 

(505) 248–7885. 

Region 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, 

and Wisconsin)—Jane West, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 

One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, 

Minnesota 55111–4056; (612) 713–5432. 

Region 4 (Alabama, Arkansas, 

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico 

and Virgin Islands, South Carolina, and 

Tennessee)—David Viker, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1875 Century 

Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, Georgia 

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)—Diane 

Pence, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, 

Massachusetts 01035–9589; (413) 253– 

8576. 

Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Utah, and Wyoming)—James Dubovsky, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 

25486, Denver Federal Building, 

Denver, Colorado 80225; (303) 236– 

8145. 

Region 7 (Alaska)—Russ Oates, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East 

Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; 

(907) 786–3423. 

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 and length, 

and for 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 10 

to September 1 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 offreservation 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 2009–10 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; 

(3) Methods employed to monitor 

harvest (mail-questionnaire survey, bag 

checks, etc.); 

(4) Steps that will be taken to limit 

level of harvest, where it could be 

shown that failure to limit such harvest 

would seriously impact the migratory 

game bird resource; and 

(5) Tribal capabilities to establish and 

enforce migratory game bird hunting 

regulations. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16343 

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 2009–10 hunting 

season should submit their proposals as 

soon as possible, but no later than June 

1, 2009. 

Tribes should direct inquiries 

regarding the guidelines and proposals 

to the appropriate Service Regional 

Office listed above under the caption 

Consolidation of Notices. 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 

received. Such comments, and any 

additional information received, may 

lead to final regulations that differ from 

these proposals. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not 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 http:// 

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 http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Room 4107, 4501 North 

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203. 

For each series of proposed 

rulemakings, we will establish specific 

comment periods. We will consider, but 

possibly may not respond in detail to, 

each comment. As in the past, we will 

summarize all comments received 

during the comment period and respond 

to them after the closing date in any 

final rules. 

NEPA Consideration 

NEPA considerations are covered by 

the programmatic document ‘‘Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement: Issuance of Annual 

Regulations Permitting the Sport 

Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88– 

14),’’ filed with the Environmental 

Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We 

published notice of availability in the 

Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 

FR 22582). We published our Record of 

Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 

31341). In addition, an August 1985 

environmental assessment entitled 

‘‘Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting 

Regulations on Federal Indian 

Reservations and Ceded Lands’’ is 

available from the address indicated 

under the caption FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

In a notice published in the 

September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 

FR 53376), we announced our intent to 

develop a new Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

migratory bird hunting program. Public 

scoping meetings were held in the 

spring of 2006, as detailed in a March 

9, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 12216). 

We have prepared a scoping report 

summarizing the scoping comments and 

scoping meetings. The report is 

available by either writing to the 

address indicated under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or by viewing on 

our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds. 

Endangered Species Act Consideration 

Prior to issuance of the 2009–10 

migratory game bird hunting 

regulations, we will comply with 

provisions of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

1531–1543; hereinafter the Act), to 

ensure that hunting is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any species designated as endangered or 

threatened or modify or destroy its 

critical habitat and is consistent with 

conservation programs for those species. 

Consultations under Section 7 of this 

Act may cause us to change proposals 

in this and future supplemental 

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. A 

regulatory cost-benefit analysis has been 

prepared and is available at http:// 

www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/ 

reports.html or at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 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. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The regulations have a significant 

economic impact on substantial 

16344 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 address indicated under 

ADDRESSES or from our Web site at 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ 

reports/reports.html or at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

For the reasons outlined above, this rule 

has an annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more. However, because 

this rule establishes hunting seasons, we 

do not plan to defer the effective date 

under the exemption contained in 5 

U.S.C. 808(1). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

We examined these regulations under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The various 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements imposed under regulations 

established in 50 CFR part 20, subpart 

K, are utilized in the formulation of 

migratory game bird hunting 

regulations. Specifically, OMB has 

approved the information collection 

requirements of our Migratory Bird 

Surveys and assigned control number 

1018–0023 (expires 2/28/2011). This 

information is used to provide a 

sampling frame for voluntary national 

surveys to improve our harvest 

estimates for all migratory game birds in 

order to better manage these 

populations. OMB has also approved 

the information collection requirements 

of the Alaska Subsistence Household 

Survey, an associated voluntary annual 

household survey used to determine 

levels of subsistence take in Alaska, and 

assigned control number 1018–0124 

(expires 1/31/2010). A Federal agency 

may not conduct or sponsor and a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

We have determined and certify, in 

compliance with the requirements of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 

U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking 

will not impose a cost of $100 million 

or more in any given year on local or 

State government or private entities. 

Therefore, this rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

The Department, in promulgating this 

proposed rule, has determined that this 

proposed rule will not unduly burden 

the judicial system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of Executive Order 12988. 

Takings Implication Assessment 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, this proposed rule, authorized by 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not 

have significant takings implications 

and does not affect any constitutionally 

protected property rights. This rule will 

not result in the physical occupancy of 

property, the physical invasion of 

property, or the regulatory taking of any 

property. In fact, these rules allow 

hunters to exercise otherwise 

unavailable privileges and, therefore, 

reduce restrictions on the use of private 

and public property. 

Energy Effects—Executive Order 13211 

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 Federallyrecognized 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 2009–10 

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 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. 

Authority: The rules that eventually will 

be promulgated for the 2009–10 hunting 

season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703– 

711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C. 742 a–j. 

Dated: March 5, 2009. 

Jane Lyder, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary. 

Proposed 2009–10 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16345 

regulatory proposals. At this time, we 

are proposing no changes from the final 

2008–09 frameworks established on 

August 27 and September 25, 2008 (73 

FR 50678 and 73 FR 55602). 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 

containing substantial recommendations 

are discussed below. 

A. General Harvest Strategy 

We propose to continue use of 

adaptive harvest management (AHM) to 

help determine appropriate duckhunting regulations for the 2009–10 

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 species of special concern, such as 

canvasbacks, scaup, and pintails). 

Until last year, the prescribed 

regulatory alternative for the Pacific, 

Central, and Mississippi Flyways was 

based on the status of mallards and 

breeding-habitat conditions in central 

North America (Federal survey strata 1– 

18, 20–50, and 75–77, and State surveys 

in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan). In 2008, however, we 

implemented the western mallard AHM 

protocol for the 2008–09 hunting 

season. This new protocol sets hunting 

regulations in the Pacific Flyway based 

on the status and dynamics of a newly 

defined stock of ‘‘western’’ mallards. 

Currently, western mallards are defined 

as those breeding in Alaska (as based on 

Federal surveys in strata 1–12), and in 

California and Oregon (as based on 

State-conducted surveys). As we 

detailed in the July 24, 2008, Federal 

Register (73 FR 43290), implementation 

of this new AHM decision framework 

for western mallards required several 

further considerations. First, the new 

protocol necessitated that we ‘‘rescale’’ 

the closed season constraint in the 

existing mid-continent mallard 

(identified above as those breeding in 

central North America) AHM strategy 

from 5.50 to 4.75 million mallards and 

the population objective from 8.8 to 8.5 

million mallards. These ‘‘rescalings’’ 

were necessary to adjust for removing 

mallards breeding in Alaska from the 

mid-continent population and assigning 

them to the western mallard population. 

Second, the optimal regulatory policies 

for western mallards (and mid-continent 

mallards) are based on independent 

optimization. That is, the optimum 

regulations for mid-continent mallards 

and western mallards are determined 

independently, and based upon the 

breeding stock that contributes 

primarily to each Flyway (western 

mallards for the Pacific Flyway and 

mid-continent mallards for the Central 

and Mississippi Flyways). Third, that 

the current regulatory alternatives 

remain in place for the Pacific Flyway, 

while we continue to work with the 

Pacific Flyway to develop regulatory 

options necessary to effect a substantive 

increase or decrease in the harvest rate 

of western mallards. And lastly, 

regulations in Alaska would continue to 

be addressed as an early season issue, 

and future consideration of Alaska 

regulatory changes would be based on 

the status of the western mallards rather 

than mid-continent mallards. We are 

recommending a continuation of this 

protocol for the 2009–10 season. 

Finally, since 2000, we have 

prescribed a regulatory alternative for 

the Atlantic Flyway based on the 

population status of mallards breeding 

in eastern North America (Federal 

survey strata 51–54 and 56, and State 

surveys in New England and the midAtlantic region). We are recommending 

a continuation of this protocol for the 

2009–10 season. 

The final AHM protocol for the 2009– 

10 season will be detailed in the earlyseason proposed rule, which will be 

published in mid-July (see Schedule of 

Regulations Meetings and Federal 

Register Publications at the end of this 

proposed rule for further information). 

We will propose a specific regulatory 

alternative for each of the Flyways 

during the 2009–10 season after survey 

information becomes available in late 

summer. More information on AHM is 

located at http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/mgmt/AHM/AHMintro.htm. 

B. Regulatory Alternatives 

The basic structure of the current 

regulatory alternatives for AHM was 

adopted in 1997. The alternatives 

remained largely unchanged until 2002, 

when we (based on recommendations 

from the Flyway Councils) 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 

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 prior to 

considering any subsequent use (67 FR 

12501). 

For 2009–10, we are proposing to 

maintain the same regulatory 

alternatives that were in effect last year 

(see accompanying table for specifics of 

the proposed 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. We 

will announce final regulatory 

alternatives in mid-July. Public 

comments will be accepted until June 

26, 2009, and should be sent to an 

address listed under the caption 

ADDRESSES. 

D. Special Seasons/Species 

Management 

v. Pintails 

As we have stated over the past 

several years, we remain committed to 

the development of a framework to 

inform pintail harvest management 

based on a formal, derived strategy and 

clearly articulated management 

objectives. In collaboration with 

scientists from the U.S. Geological 

Survey, we developed a fully adaptive 

harvest management protocol for 

pintails and forwarded the technical 

details to the Flyway Councils for their 

review in 2008. We are requesting the 

Flyways conclude their review and 

provide any modifications or 

adjustments they believe are warranted 

no later than November 2009. We will 

then modify the proposed derived 

strategy based on these comments. We 

anticipate making the revised strategy 

available for review by Flyway Councils 

and the public with the intent of 

implementing a revised harvest strategy 

for pintails during the 2010–11 

regulatory cycle. 

vi. Scaup 

The continental scaup (greater Aythya 

marila and lesser Aythya affinis 

combined) population has experienced 

a long-term decline over the past 20 

years. Over the past several years in 

particular, we have continued to express 

our growing concern about the status of 

scaup (see the May 28, 2008, Federal 

Register, 73 FR 30712, for a review of 

actions we have taken over the last few 

16346 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

years to synthesize data relevant to 

scaup harvest management and frame a 

scientifically sound scaup harvest 

strategy, or see http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/reports/reports.html for 

a complete list of reports). While the 

breeding population estimate for scaup 

was 3.74 million last spring, this 

estimate was not significantly different 

from 2007 and remained 27 percent 

below the long-term average. 

In the July 24, 2008, Federal Register 

(73 FR 43290), we adopted a scaup 

harvest strategy that resulted from five 

years of development and review in 

cooperation with the Flyway Councils. 

One of the outcomes of our 

communication efforts with the Flyways 

was an agreement to consider an 

alternative model that represents the 

belief that the scaup population will 

continue to decline to a new 

equilibrium level and that harvest has 

no effect on the decline. The results 

from the alternative model, along with 

the existing model, would then be 

compared and weighted through an 

adaptive process while forming a basis 

for the derivation of an optimal harvest 

strategy. 

We have begun preliminary scoping 

of the technical and policy issues 

associated with incorporating such an 

alternative. However, the harvest 

management implications of developing 

an adaptive decision process that 

accommodates ongoing system change 

are largely unexplored and will likely 

require a significant amount of effort to 

evaluate. Additional technical work is 

necessary and policy guidance will be 

required throughout model 

development. We will rely on technical 

feedback from the waterfowl 

management community to reach a 

consensus on the final model. At this 

time it is unclear when such a model 

will be available for use. 

During last year’s regulatory cycle we 

solicited proposals from the Flyways 

regarding the configuration of their 

restrictive, moderate and liberal 

regulatory packages for scaup. Such 

packages were to remain in place for 3 

years, at which time their performance 

was to be evaluated. All Flyway 

Councils eventually submitted 

proposals that met criteria we had 

established; however, some State 

agencies expressed dissatisfaction with 

the process. Consequently, we indicated 

our willingness to revisit the process for 

the 2009–10 regulatory cycle, and we 

have provided Flyway Councils with 

guidelines to be used in developing new 

packages (see http:// 

www.regulations.gov for guidelines 

provided to Flyway Councils), if they 

choose to do so. The suite of packages 

adopted during this current regulatory 

cycle will remain in place for the next 

3 years and will be evaluated at the end 

of that period. These restrictions will 

also apply to Flyways that choose not to 

reconfigure their regulatory packages. 

To facilitate our review of any new 

regulatory packages, we request that 

Flyway Councils provide us information 

on potential changes to scaup regulatory 

packages either in writing prior to, or at 

the early-season Service Regulations 

Committee meeting in June 2009. We 

look forward to continued cooperation 

with the Flyways in further 

development of the scaup harvest 

management strategy. 

vii. Mottled Ducks 

The Service and other agencies have 

been concerned about the status of 

mottled ducks since the late 1990s. This 

long-term concern stems from negative 

trends in population survey data, 

growth rate modeling based on banding 

and parts collection data, loss and 

degradation of habitat, interbreeding 

with captive-reared and feral mallards, 

and increased harvest rates as the result 

of longer hunting seasons since 1997. In 

the past, we have expressed our desire 

to work with the States to develop a 

harvest-management strategy for 

mottled ducks. Since 2005, several 

workshops have been convened with 

State agencies, the U.S. Geological 

Survey, and others to discuss the status 

of mottled ducks, population structure 

and delineation, and to evaluate current 

monitoring programs and plan for the 

development of new population 

surveys. A major conclusion from these 

workshops was that mottled ducks 

should be managed as two separate 

populations, a Florida Population and a 

Western Gulf Coast Population. 

Secondarily, the lack of a range-wide 

population survey for Western Gulf 

Coast mottled ducks is a significant 

impediment to management. 

Additionally, a report expanding on 

analyses first presented at the 2005 

Workshop has recently been released 

(available at http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/reports/reports.html) 

and distributed to the Central and 

Mississippi Flyways. This report 

included an assessment of available data 

and suggested that there has been a 

reduction in the harvest potential for 

this population. 

We are encouraged by the progress 

that has been made toward development 

of monitoring systems to improve 

assessment capabilities for mottled 

ducks. We provided the Flyway 

Councils with analyses of harvest data 

that examined potential harvest 

restrictions to reduce harvest rates 

(available at http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/reports/reports.html), 

should that be deemed necessary, and 

we appreciate the responses from the 

Flyways on this analysis. However, after 

consideration of long-term population 

trends for this population, recent 

harvest levels, and this year’s breeding 

habitat conditions (especially on the 

Texas Gulf Coast), we believe that a 

reduction in harvest levels for this 

population may be appropriate. Thus, 

we strongly encourage the Central and 

Mississippi Flyway Councils to examine 

the status of mottled ducks and assess 

the potential need for any regulatory 

actions for the 2009–10 season. 

viii. Wood Ducks 

As we stated last year, we look 

forward to continuing involvement by 

the Flyways in developing a wood duck 

harvest strategy, including (1) 

determining specific harvest 

management objectives; (2) determining 

regulatory alternatives; (3) designation 

of and support for appropriate 

population monitoring programs; and 

(4) designation of the appropriate test 

criteria for making management 

decisions. We would like the Flyways to 

develop this strategy for implementation 

during the 2010–11 hunting season. 

14. Woodcock 

In 2008, we completed a review of 

available woodcock population 

databases. Concurrently, we requested 

the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central 

Flyway Councils to appoint members to 

a task group to work with the Service on 

developing a woodcock harvest strategy. 

The task group is currently evaluating 

potential approaches as to how available 

databases could be utilized in a 

woodcock harvest strategy. It is 

anticipated that a draft harvest strategy 

would be available for consideration for 

the 2010–2011 hunting season. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 16347 


EP10AP09.188</GPH>
16348 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 68 / Friday, April 10, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. E9–7840 Filed 4–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP10AP09.189</GPH>