```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7056-7066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2024-0127; FXMB1231099BPP0-245-FF09M32000]
RIN 1018-BH65

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2025-26 Migratory Game Bird 
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) proposes to 
establish hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 
2025-26 hunting season. Through an annual rulemaking process, we 
prescribe outside limits (which we refer to as frameworks) within which 
States may select hunting seasons. This proposed rule provides the 
regulatory schedule, describes the proposed regulatory alternatives for 
the 2025-26 general duck seasons, and provides preliminary proposals 
that vary from the 2024-25 hunting season regulations. 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 general duck season regulatory 
alternatives, the process for authorizing annual hunting seasons, and 
other preliminary proposals for the 2025-26 season until February 20, 
2025.

ADDRESSES: Comments: 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-2024-0127.
     U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-
2024-0127; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: PRB/3W; 5275 Leesburg 
Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    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 website. See Public Comments, below, for more 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerome Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Department of the Interior, (703) 358-2606; 
[email protected]. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, 
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. 
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services 
offered within their country to make international calls to the point 
of contact in the United States. For a summary of the proposed rule, 
please see the ``rule summary document'' in docket FWS-HQ-MB-2024-0127 
on https://www.regulations.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Process for Establishing Annual Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations

Background

    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 (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized to determine when ``hunting, taking, capture, killing,

[[Page 7057]]

possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or 
export of any such bird, or any part, nest, or egg'' of migratory game 
birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose (16 
U.S.C. 704(a)). 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'' (16 U.S.C. 704(a)) and are updated annually. 
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 bird management is a cooperative 
effort of Federal, State, and Tribal governments.
    The Service annually develops migratory game bird hunting 
regulations by establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for 
season dates, season lengths, shooting hours, bag and possession 
limits, and areas where migratory game bird hunting may occur. These 
frameworks are necessary to allow harvest at levels compatible with 
migratory game bird population status and habitat conditions. After the 
frameworks are established, States may select migratory game bird 
hunting seasons within the frameworks. States may always be more 
conservative in their selections than the frameworks, but never more 
liberal. The annual process of developing migratory game bird hunting 
regulations concludes when we establish the State season selections as 
Federal regulations under 50 CFR part 20, subpart K.
    Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the 
Service has administratively divided the United States 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 within the Flyway, as well as Provinces in Canada that share 
migratory bird populations with the Flyway. The Flyway Councils, 
established through the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, also 
assist in researching and providing migratory game bird management 
information for Federal, State, Tribal, and Provincial governments, as 
well as private conservation entities and the general public.

Overview of the Rulemaking Process

    The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, 
which are set forth at 50 CFR 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.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

    The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) conducted an 
open meeting on May 17, 2024, to discuss preliminary issues for the 
2025-26 regulations and will conduct another meeting in fall 2024 to 
review information on the current status of migratory game birds and 
develop recommendations for the 2025-26 hunting regulations for these 
species. In accordance with 50 CFR 20.153, these meetings are open to 
public observation, and observers may submit written comments to the 
Service on the matters discussed. These meetings are announced in the 
Federal Register or online on the Service's Migratory Bird Program 
website at https://www.fws.gov/event/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-migratory-bird-regulations-committee-meeting at least 2 weeks before 
the meeting date.

Rulemaking Process for the 2025-26 Season

    This document is the first in a series of proposed and final 
rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations. This 
document announces our intent to establish open hunting seasons for 
certain designated groups or species of migratory game birds for 2025-
26 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 50 CFR part 20, subpart K. For the 2025-26 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, and gallinules); and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe).
    The proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2025-26 duck hunting 
seasons are contained at the end of this document. We will publish 
additional proposals for public comment in the Federal Register as 
population, habitat, harvest, and other information become available. 
We annually publish definitions of flyways and management units and a 
description of the data used in and the factors affecting the 
regulatory process. This information will be included in proposed and 
final rules later in the regulations-development process (see 89 FR 
41522, May 13, 2024, for the latest definitions and descriptions). 
Major steps in the 2025-26 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. Our goal is to publish 
final regulatory alternatives for duck seasons and proposed season 
frameworks in winter 2024 and final season frameworks in spring 2025.

Subject Matter Organization

    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. Early Teal Seasons
    ii. Early Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
    iii. Black Ducks
    iv. Canvasbacks
    v. Pintails
    vi. Scaup
    vii. Mottled Ducks
    viii. Wood Ducks
    ix. Eastern Mallards
    x. Youth and Veterans-Active-Military-Personnel Hunting Days
    xi. Mallard Management Units
    xii. 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

[[Page 7058]]

7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese
8. Swans
9. Sandhill Cranes
10. Coots
11. 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

    This and subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items 
requiring attention at the time of publication. Because this and other 
documents will omit those items not requiring attention, the remaining 
numbered items may be discontinuous and the list may appear incomplete.

Potential New Process for Authorizing Annual Hunting Seasons

    For subsequent documents concerning the 2025-26 hunting regulations 
for certain migratory game birds, we may publish the remaining proposed 
and final rulemaking documents as we have done for many years (i.e., by 
following the current rulemaking process). However, to improve the 
regulations development process, we are considering a new approach that 
would be based on a change in our administrative process. In the Spring 
2024 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (see https://www.reginfo.gov), we announced that we are developing this new 
process, which would be published as a proposed rule under RIN 1018-
BI04.
    In brief, the new approach would involve codifying in regulations a 
new administrative process and our current provisions that change 
infrequently. By placing these provisions in regulations, we would no 
longer need to go through annual rulemaking to authorize annual 
migratory game bird hunting seasons. In the future, we would engage in 
rulemaking only when we have determined that changes to specific 
provisions in our regulations are appropriate and necessary.
    We expect this new direction for our administrative process to 
increase efficiency, better meet State, Tribal, and Federal rulemaking 
constraints, and reduce complexity and costs in the promulgation of 
annual migratory game bird hunting regulations. Our goal is to better 
serve State and Tribal partners and the hunting public while continuing 
to meet the legal requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 
U.S.C. 551-559) and the conservation purposes of the MBTA. By 
eliminating annual rulemaking, the Service would save about $80,000 per 
year in printing costs, reduce staff workload by about 1,700 hours, 
reduce managerial workload of reviewing and surnaming documents by 
about 200 hours, and allow Federal limits to be established in the 
spring versus in the late summer, thereby providing States and Tribes 
more time for developing their annual regulations.
    A National Hunting Regulations Working Group has been established 
that includes representatives from all four Flyway Councils to help 
develop and review this potential new process.

Tribal Regulations

    As part of our effort to improve the annual rulemaking process, we 
published a final rule for migratory game bird hunting regulations on 
certain Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands on September 1, 
2023 (88 FR 60375). Tribal migratory bird hunting regulations include 
guidelines for Tribes that want to establish migratory game bird 
hunting regulations on Federal Indian reservations (including off-
reservation trust lands) and ceded lands through their own rulemaking 
process. Tribes are not required to submit a proposal to the Service 
for our review and approval. We established these regulatory guidelines 
in response to Tribal requests for our recognition of their reserved 
hunting rights, recognition of their Tribal sovereignty, and, for some 
Tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both 
Tribal and nontribal members throughout their reservations. For 
inquiries on Tribal guidelines, Tribes should contact the address 
indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 this proposed rule. 
We seek information and comments on the proposed regulatory 
alternatives for the 2025-26 general duck hunting seasons, other 
recommended changes or specific preliminary proposals that vary from 
the 2024-25 regulations, and issues requiring early discussion, action, 
or the attention of the States.
    The Service believes that a 30-day comment period is warranted for 
this proposed rule, as subsequent Federal Register documents will allow 
the public to submit comments on the overall hunting frameworks (see 
Schedule of Biological Information Availability, Regulations Meetings, 
and Federal Register Publications for the 2025-26 Hunting Season at the 
end of this proposed rule for further information). For each subsequent 
proposed rule associated with this rulemaking action, we will establish 
a specific comment period. Before promulgation of final migratory game 
bird hunting regulations, we will take into consideration all comments 
we receive. We will summarize the comments received and publish 
responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop final 
frameworks for the 2025-26 season. Such comments, and any additional 
information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from 
the proposed rules.
    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 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.

Required Determinations

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

[[Page 7059]]

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 2024-
25,'' with its corresponding 2024 finding of no significant impact.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Before issuance of the 2025-26 migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we will comply with provisions of the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), to ensure that 
hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 
species designated as endangered or threatened or adversely modify or 
destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation 
programs for those species. Consultations under section 7 of the ESA 
may cause us to change proposals in future supplemental proposed 
rulemaking documents.

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 
14094

    Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 reaffirms and amends the principles of 
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. E.O. 13563 emphasizes that regulations must 
be based on the best available science. The rulemaking process must 
allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas; promote 
predictability and reduce uncertainty; identify and use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends; 
take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and 
qualitative; and ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, 
written in plain language, and easy to understand. E.O. 14094 states 
that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency efforts to develop 
regulations that serve the public interest and advance statutory 
objectives. As practicable and appropriate and to the extent permitted 
by law, regulatory analysis shall recognize distributive impacts and 
equity. To the extent practicable and consistent with applicable law, 
regulatory actions should be informed by input from interested or 
affected communities; State, local, territorial, and Tribal officials 
and agencies; interested or affected parties in the private sector and 
other regulated entities; those with expertise in relevant disciplines; 
and the public as a whole. We have developed this proposed rule in a 
manner consistent with these requirements.
    E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and reaffirmed and amended 
by E.O. 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review 
all significant rules. This action is a ``significant regulatory 
action,'' as defined under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), as amended by E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 
2023).
    An economic analysis was prepared for the 2025-26 migratory bird 
hunting season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 and the 
2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 
Recreation (National Survey), the most recent years for which data are 
available. See discussion under Required Determinations, Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, below. This analysis estimated consumer surplus for 
four alternatives for hunting regulations. As defined by OMB in 
Circular A-4, consumers' surplus is the difference between what a 
consumer pays for a unit of a good or service and the maximum amount 
the consumer would be willing to pay for that unit. The duck hunting 
regulatory alternatives are (1) not opening a hunting season, (2) 
issuing restrictive regulations that allow fewer days than the 2024-25 
season, (3) issuing moderate regulations that allow more days than in 
Alternative 2 but fewer days than the 2024-25 season, and (4) issuing 
liberal regulations that allow days similar to the 2024-25 season. The 
estimated consumer surplus associated with liberal regulations issued 
for the 2024-25 season across all flyways was $606 million to $797 
million (2023$). We also chose Alternative 4 (liberal regulations) for 
the 2009-10 through 2023-24 seasons. The 2025-26 analysis is part of 
the record for this rulemaking action and is available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2024-0127.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant 
economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities, such as 
restaurants, grocery stores, lodging, transportation, and sporting 
goods stores, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.). An initial regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared to 
analyze the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small 
business entities. This analysis is updated annually. The primary 
source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird 
hunting is the National Survey, which is generally conducted at 5-year 
intervals. The 2022 National Survey did not collect migratory bird 
expenditure data, so the 2025-26 migratory bird hunting season analysis 
is based on the 2011 and 2016 National Surveys and the U.S. Department 
of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it is estimated that 
migratory bird hunters will spend approximately $2.6 billion (2023$) at 
small businesses during the 2025-26 migratory bird hunting season. In 
summary, this proposed rule would have a significant beneficial 
economic impact on small entities. Without these annual regulations, 
States cannot establish migratory bird hunting seasons. A wide range of 
businesses and individuals benefit economically from the establishment 
of the annual migratory bird hunting regulations. The initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis can be found in the economic analysis 
of the migratory game bird hunting regulations for the 2025-26 season. 
Copies of the economic analysis are available upon request from the 
person listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from 
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2024-0127.

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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not contain any new collection of 
information that requires approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.). OMB has

[[Page 7060]]

previously approved the information collection requirements associated 
with migratory bird surveys and the procedures for establishing annual 
migratory bird hunting seasons under the following OMB control numbers:
     1018-0019, ``North American Woodcock Singing Ground 
Survey'' (expires 02/28/2027).
     1018-0023, ``Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20'' 
(expires 05/31/2026). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information 
Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and 
Parts Collection Survey.
     1018-0171, ``Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird 
Hunting Seasons, 50 CFR part 20'' (expires 10/30/2027).
    You may view the information collection request(s) at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. An 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. 1501 et seq., that this 
proposed rulemaking does not include any Federal mandate that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year and does not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined 
that this rulemaking 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--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by 
the MBTA, does not have significant takings implications and does not 
affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This proposed 
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 proposed rule would allow hunters to exercise 
otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduces 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 likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy and has not been designated by OIRA as a significant energy 
action. Therefore, 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 with 
respect to impacts to Tribes' treaty rights to hunt waterfowl. We have 
determined that there are de minimis effects on Indian Tribes for that 
aspect of their treaty rights. Through this process to establish annual 
hunting regulations, we regularly coordinate with Tribes that are 
affected by this proposed rulemaking action. Tribes have the 
opportunity to attend spring and fall flyway meetings, provide comments 
on Federal Register publications concerning migratory bird hunting, 
and, whenever needed, we hold informal consultations with Tribes 
regarding trust resources, trust assets, health, and safety. Also, 
while streamlining the migratory bird hunting regulation process, four 
informational webinars were held to present the new process to Tribes, 
giving Tribes the opportunity to provide input and to ask questions 
about the Tribal migratory bird hunting regulations. This proposed rule 
would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, 
on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
    This proposed rule is general in nature and does not directly 
affect any specific Tribal lands, treaty rights, or Tribal trust 
resources. In addition, this proposed rule does not interfere with the 
ability of Tribes to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate 
migratory bird activities on Tribal lands. Therefore, we preliminarily 
conclude that this proposed rule does not have ``Tribal implications'' 
under section 1(a) of E.O. 13175 with respect to waterfowl treaty 
rights. Thus, formal government-to-government consultation is not 
required by E.O. 13175 and related policies of the Department of the 
Interior. We will continue to collaborate with Tribes on concerns 
related to migratory bird hunting regulations.

Federalism Effects--Executive Order 13132

    Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the 
Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by 
the MBTA. 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 Tribe may be more restrictive in its regulations 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. This proposed rule would not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in 
accordance with E.O. 13132, these proposed regulations do not have 
federalism implications and do not warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement.

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 2025-26 
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712, and 742 a-j.

Shannon A. Estenoz,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

Proposed 2025-26 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. Issues requiring 
early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or Tribes are 
described below.

[[Page 7061]]

1. Ducks

    As mentioned earlier in this document, the 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 (A, B, C, and D) are 
discussed below.

A. General Harvest Strategy

    We will continue to use adaptive harvest management (AHM) to help 
determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2025-26 season. 
AHM is a tool that permits sound resource decisions in the face of 
uncertain regulatory impacts and provides a mechanism for reducing that 
uncertainty over time. We use an AHM protocol (decision framework) to 
evaluate four regulatory alternatives, each with a different expected 
harvest level, and choose the optimal regulation for duck hunting based 
on the status and demographics of mallards for the Mississippi, 
Central, and Pacific Flyways, and based on the status and demographics 
of a suite of four species (eastern waterfowl) in the Atlantic Flyway. 
We have specific AHM protocols that guide appropriate bag limits and 
season lengths for species of special concern, including black ducks, 
scaup, pintails, and mallards in the Atlantic Flyway (eastern 
mallards), within the general duck season. These protocols use the same 
outside season dates and lengths as those regulatory alternatives for 
the 2025-26 general duck seasons.
    For the 2025-26 hunting season, we will continue to use independent 
optimizations to determine the appropriate regulatory alternative for 
mallard stocks in the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways and for 
eastern waterfowl in the Atlantic Flyway. This means that we will 
develop regulations for mid-continent mallards, western mallards, and 
eastern waterfowl independently based on the breeding stock that 
contributes primarily to each Flyway. We detailed implementation of AHM 
protocols for mid-continent and western mallards in the July 24, 2008, 
Federal Register (73 FR 43290), and for eastern waterfowl in the 
September 21, 2018, Federal Register (83 FR 47868).

B. Regulatory Alternatives

    The basic structure of the current regulatory alternatives for AHM 
was adopted in 1997 (beginning with the 1997-98 general duck hunting 
season; 62 FR 31298, June 6, 1997). Beginning with the 2002-03 season, 
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 (67 FR 47224, July 17, 2002). These extended dates were made 
available with no associated penalty in season length or bag limits. 
Beginning with the 2019-20 season, we adopted a closing duck framework 
date of January 31 for the ``moderate'' and ``liberal'' alternatives in 
the Atlantic Flyway as part of the Atlantic Flyway's eastern waterfowl 
AHM protocol (83 FR 47868, September 21, 2018). We subsequently 
proposed to extend the framework closing date to January 31 across all 
four Flyways for the 2019-20 season (84 FR 16152, April 17, 2019).
    The John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation 
Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 116-9, Dingell Act) amended the MBTA to establish 
that the closing framework date for duck seasons will be January 31, 
unless a flyway chooses an earlier closing date. Thus, as directed by 
the Dingell Act, we adjusted the framework closing date under each 
regulatory alternative for all four Flyways to January 31 beginning 
with the 2019-20 season (84 FR 42996, August 19, 2019). Beginning with 
the 2021-22 season, we agreed to move the opening framework date to 1 
week earlier in the restrictive regulatory alternative for the 
Mississippi and Central Flyways based on their recommendations (85 FR 
51854, August 21, 2020).
    For the 2025-26 general duck season, we propose to use the same 
regulatory alternatives that are in effect for the 2024-25 season (see 
table at the end of this proposed rule 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. We plan to finalize AHM 
regulatory alternatives for the 2025-26 season in a proposed rule, 
which we plan to publish by winter 2024 (see Schedule of Biological 
Information Availability, Regulations Meetings, and Federal Register 
Publications for the 2025-26 Hunting Season at the end of this proposed 
rule for further information).

C. Zones and Split Seasons

    Zones and split seasons are special regulations designed to 
distribute hunting opportunities and harvests according to temporal, 
geographic, and demographic variability in waterfowl and other 
migratory game bird populations. The Service has allowed the use of 
zones to provide equitable distribution of duck hunting opportunities 
within a State or region. The intent is not to increase total annual 
waterfowl harvest in the zoned areas; harvest levels are to be adjusted 
downward if they exceeded traditional levels as a result of zoning. In 
1991, the Service developed guidelines to provide a framework for 
controlling the proliferation of zones and split seasons in duck 
hunting. Substantial concern remains about the unknown consequences of 
zones and split seasons on duck populations and harvest redistribution 
among States and flyways, potential reduced effectiveness of 
regulations (season length and bag limit) to reduce duck harvest if 
needed, and the administrative burden. The guidelines identified a 
limited number of zone and split-season configurations that could be 
used for duck hunting and restricted the frequency of changes in State 
selection among these configurations to the beginning of 5-year 
intervals.
    The next opportunity for States to select zones and split-season 
configurations for duck hunting is in 2025 for the fixed period of 
2026-2030 seasons. We are proposing to adopt the same zones and split-
season guidelines and configurations for duck hunting as we used for 
the 2021-25 seasons. We discussed and presented guidelines and 
configurations for duck zones and split seasons during 2021-25 seasons 
in our August 21, 2020, final rule (85 FR 51854 at 51857-51858). For 
those States wishing to change zone and split-season configurations in 
time for the 2026-2030 seasons, we would need to receive configuration 
selections and zone descriptions by August 31, 2025.
    We also note that when we adopted guidelines for duck zones and 
split seasons during 2021-25 seasons, we offered a new configuration 
(two zones with up to three season segments in each) at the request of 
the four Flyway Councils. We expressed our sensitivity to the States' 
desires for flexibility in addressing human dimensions concerns of the 
hunting public (i.e., foster hunter recruitment, retention, and 
satisfaction) despite our continued concerns about the proliferation of 
zones, impacts to harvest, regulation complexity, and administrative 
burden. Similarly, we revised the zones-splits guidelines for the 2011-
2015 period to allow two new options (four zones with a continuous 
season, and three zones with up to two

[[Page 7062]]

season segments in each) at the request of the four Flyway Councils (77 
FR 23094 at 23100-23101, April 17, 2012). Because the two zones and 
three season segments configuration are new, we stated in 2020 (85 FR 
51854 at 51857-51858, August 21, 2020) that States that select this 
configuration must conduct an evaluation of impacts to hunter dynamics 
(e.g., hunter numbers, satisfaction) and harvest during the fixed 5-
year period it is implemented (e.g., 2021-25 period). Five States 
selected the new configuration for the 2021-25 period in two Flyways: 
Atlantic (Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia) and 
Mississippi (Louisiana). These States will need to provide an 
evaluation through the 2025 season regardless of actual implementation.

D. Special Seasons/Species Management

v. Pintails
    Over the past 5 years, scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) and the Service, in consultation with the Flyway Councils, have 
collaborated on the development of a revised decision framework for 
pintail harvest management. The Flyway Councils and Service undertook 
the revision process due to several concerns about the current strategy 
(adopted in 2010; see 75 FR 44856 at 44860; July 29, 2010). Concerns 
included public desires for inclusion of a more liberal regulatory 
alternative (3-pintail daily bag limit), reliance on outdated modeling 
techniques and data, and communication challenges associated with the 
regulatory schedule. To address these concerns, the Service convened 
the national Pintail Working Group (PWG) composed of two 
representatives from each Flyway, the four Service Flyway 
Representatives, and technical experts from the Service and USGS.
    The PWG evaluated pintail population and harvest dynamics, built 
new models using updated data and modern estimation methods, and 
developed and evaluated many alternative harvest strategies. An 
important change is that the model of predicted harvest includes an 
estimate of fall population size. This has an important effect on the 
harvest strategy because the expected harvest decreases with decreasing 
fall pintail population size. The strategy recognizes that there is 
sustainable harvest under conditions that were not previously thought 
sustainable. (i.e., expected increase in frequency of regulatory 
alternatives with liberal pintail daily bag limits including the 
possibility for 3 pintails).
    In January 2024, after extensive consultation, the PWG proposed an 
interim harvest strategy to inform harvest management decisions for 
pintails and to learn about the effects of a 3-bird daily bag limit 
(new alternative) on management objectives. The interim strategy is 
intended to be implemented until three hunting seasons with a 3-bird 
daily bag limit have been realized (i.e., trial phase over three or 
more hunting seasons) with an additional allowance for 2 years for data 
collection and analysis, review of performance, and evaluation of 
updated alternative strategies. Evaluation results will be provided to 
the Flyway technical committees for consideration in the development of 
a proposed operational harvest strategy, which may or may not include 
an option for a 3-bird daily bag limit.
    We greatly appreciate the time and attention over the last 5 years 
that the PWG has devoted to review and consideration of the current 
pintail harvest strategy, technical updates, and the various 
alternatives for implementing a derived pintail harvest strategy. The 
revised interim strategy addresses stakeholder concerns with the 
current strategy and includes important technical updates with 
implications for our harvest management policy. In compliance with the 
Information Quality Act (section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554) and Service 
policy, a scientific peer review of the interim harvest strategy model 
was completed in early May 2023; during that review, no technical 
issues or concerns were identified, and reviewer comments have been 
addressed. Therefore, we propose to adopt the interim harvest strategy 
for pintail harvest management as described by the PWG in their report 
entitled, ``Proposed Interim Northern Pintail Harvest Strategy'' dated 
February 9, 2024, beginning with the 2025-26 hunting seasons. The 
proposed interim pintail harvest strategy is available at the address 
indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and at https://www.regulations.gov.
xii. Other
    Although not part of any current harvest management strategy, we 
propose to allow South Dakota and Nebraska an additional year to 
conduct a pilot study during the 2025-26 duck season of a two-tier 
regulatory system as described in our March 19, 2020, proposed rule (85 
FR 15870 at 15875-15876). The 2024-25 hunting season is the last year 
of the planned 4-year pilot study. A final report on the 4-year pilot 
study will be due to the Service after the 2024-25 hunting season in 
about May 2025, which is after proposals for 2025-26 hunting season are 
formulated (about October 2024) by the Service and Flyway Councils. The 
1-year extension will allow the Service and Flyway Councils to evaluate 
the results of the pilot study in meeting the primary goal of 
increasing or stabilizing the number of waterfowl hunters before the 
subsequent 2026-27 hunting regulations are developed. If the pilot 
study results indicate there is merit, the Service and Flyway Councils 
will consider developing a phase-two study that considers application 
of the pilot study concepts at the Flyway or national level, rather 
than at the State level, which is consistent with the Service's policy 
on the scale of migratory game bird management.
    The intent of the two-tier regulation study is to evaluate whether 
regulations that relax the requirement for hunters to identify duck 
species can improve waterfowl hunter recruitment and retention.\1\ 
Declines in waterfowl hunter numbers have been of concern to the 
Service and the Flyway Councils, prompting the development of 
recruitment, retention, and reactivation efforts in the conservation 
community. The study allows a person to obtain one of two license types 
during the duck season. The first license type (tier 1) allows a daily 
bag limit as specified in the current duck regulations (six ducks) with 
species- and sex-specific daily bag limit restrictions for species of 
special concern. The second license type (tier 2) allows a daily bag 
limit of 3 ducks with no species- or sex-specific restrictions in the 
daily bag limit. A memorandum of agreement between the Service and the 
two States specifies the purpose of the study and the roles and 
responsibilities of each party while conducting the pilot study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Service's primary goal is to ensure that waterfowl sport 
harvest management conforms to the MBTA and ensures the long-term 
conservation of bird populations. The various harvest strategies 
reflect this goal by ensuring that harvest does not exceed maximum 
sustainable yield (MSY). Secondarily to the MBTA, the Service has 
adopted policies to promote wildlife-based recreation, including 
migratory bird harvest. To the extent that management actions 
designed to promote hunter recruitment and retention do not result 
in harvest greater than the biological capacity of a population 
(i.e., does not exceed MSY), the Service deems these actions to be 
in accordance with the MBTA. Management actions that result in 
harvest equal to or less than MSY will result in stable or 
increasing populations and provide consumptive and nonconsumptive 
uses indefinitely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Doves

    Similar to duck hunting (see 1. Ducks, above), the Service has 
allowed the use

[[Page 7063]]

of zones to provide equitable distribution of dove hunting 
opportunities within a State or region. The intent is not to increase 
total annual dove harvest in the zoned areas; harvest levels are to be 
adjusted downward if they exceed traditional levels as a result of 
zoning. In 2006, the Service developed guidelines to provide a 
framework for controlling the proliferation of zones and split seasons 
in dove hunting (see 71 FR 51406 at 51408, August 29, 2006). 
Substantial concern remains about the unknown consequences of zones and 
split seasons on dove populations and harvest redistribution among 
States and flyways, potential reduced effectiveness of regulations 
(season length and bag limit) to reduce dove harvest if needed, and the 
administrative burden. The guidelines identified a limited number of 
zone and split-season configurations that could be used for dove 
hunting and restricted the frequency of changes in State selection 
among these configurations to the beginning of a 5-year interval.
    The next opportunity for States to select zones and split-season 
configurations for dove hunting is in 2025 for the fixed period of 
2026-2030 seasons. We are proposing to adopt the same zones and split-
season guidelines and configurations for dove hunting as we used for 
the 2021-25 seasons. We discussed and presented guidelines and 
configurations for dove zones and split seasons during 2021-25 seasons 
in the August 21, 2020, final rule (85 FR 51854 at 51865-51866). For 
those States wishing to change zone and split-season configurations in 
time for the 2026-2030 seasons, we would need to receive configuration 
selections and zone descriptions by August 31, 2025.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 7064]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JA25.227

[[Page 7065]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JA25.228

[[Page 7066]]

[FR Doc. 2025-01319 Filed 1-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
```