27144 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[FWS–R9–MB–2010–0040] 

[91200–1231–9BPP–L2] 

RIN 1018–AX06 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 

2010–11 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 

Regulations (Preliminary) With 

Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals 

and Requests for 2011 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 2010–11 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 2010–11 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 2011 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 2010–11 duck hunting seasons by 

June 25, 2010. Following subsequent 

Federal Register notices, you will be 

given an opportunity to submit 

comments for proposed early-season 

frameworks by July 31, 2010, and for 

proposed late-season frameworks and 

subsistence migratory bird seasons in 

Alaska by August 31, 2010. Tribes must 

submit proposals and related comments 

by June 1, 2010. 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, 2010. 

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 

on Docket No. FW-R9-MB-2010-0040. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: 1018-AX06; 

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). 

Send your proposals for the 2011 

spring and summer migratory bird 

subsistence season in Alaska 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 email 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, 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 before 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27145 

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 2010–11 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 2010–11 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 2010– 

11 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 2010–11 

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 before 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 2010–11 regulatory 

cycle relating to open public meetings 

and Federal Register notifications are 

illustrated in the diagram at the end of 

this proposed rule. All publication dates 

of Federal Register documents are target 

dates. 

All sections of this and subsequent 

documents outlining hunting 

frameworks and guidelines are 

organized under numbered headings. 

These headings are: 

1. Ducks 

A. General Harvest Strategy 

B. Regulatory Alternatives 

C. Zones and Split Seasons 

D. Special Seasons/Species 

Management 

i. September Teal Seasons 

ii. September Teal/Wood Duck 

Seasons 

iii. Black Ducks 

iv. Canvasbacks 

v. Pintails 

vi. Scaup 

vii. Mottled Ducks 

viii. Wood Ducks 

ix. Youth Hunt 

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 2010–11 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 16, 

2010, and those for late seasons on or 

about September 15, 2010. 

Request for 2011 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, 2011, for the spring and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
27146 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

summer subsistence harvest of 

migratory birds in Alaska. Each year, 

seasons will open on or after March 11 

and close before 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, 2010, to be acted upon 

for the 2011 migratory bird subsistence 

harvest season. Proposals should be 

submitted to the Executive Director of 

the Co-management Council, listed 

above under the caption ADDRESSES. 

(b) Flyway Councils. 

(1) The Co-management Council will 

submit proposed 2011 regulations to all 

Flyway Councils for review and 

comment. The Council’s 

recommendations must be submitted 

before 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 preceding 

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 2011 spring and summer migratory 

bird subsistence harvest season must be 

submitted to the Flyway Councils and 

the Service by June 15, 2010, 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 2010–11 duck hunting seasons. This 

proposed rulemaking also describes 

other recommended changes or specific 

preliminary proposals that vary from the 

2009–10 final frameworks (see August 

25, 2009, Federal Register (74 FR 

43008) for early seasons and September 

24, 2009, Federal Register (74 FR 

48822) 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 2010–11 

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 

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 N.E. 

11th Avenue, Portland, OR 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, NM 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, MN 

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, GA 

30345; (404) 679–4000. 

Region 5 (Connecticut, Delaware, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, 

Virginia, and West Virginia)—Diane 

Pence, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 

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, CO 80225; (303) 236–8145. 

Region 7 (Alaska)—Russ Oates, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East 

Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27147 

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 2010–11 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 

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 2010–11 hunting 

season should submit their proposals as 

soon as possible, but no later than June 

1, 2010. 

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 we 

receive. Such comments, and any 

additional information we receive, may 

lead to final regulations that differ from 

these proposals. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 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 we receive 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
27148 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

31341). In addition, an August 1985 

environmental assessment entitled 

‘‘Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting 

Regulations on Federal Indian 

Reservations and Ceded Lands’’ is 

available from the address indicated 

under the caption FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

In a notice published in the 

September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 

FR 53376), we announced our intent to 

develop a new Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

migratory bird hunting program. Public 

scoping meetings were held in the 

spring of 2006, as detailed in a March 

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

We prepared a scoping report 

summarizing the scoping comments and 

scoping meetings. The report is 

available by either writing to the 

address indicated under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or by viewing on 

our website at http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds. 

Endangered Species Act Consideration 

Before issuance of the 2010–11 

migratory game bird hunting 

regulations, we will comply with 

provisions of the Endangered Species 

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

1531–1543; hereinafter the Act), to 

ensure that hunting is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any species designated as endangered or 

threatened or modify or destroy its 

critical habitat and is consistent with 

conservation programs for those species. 

Consultations under section 7 of the Act 

may cause us to change proposals in 

this and future supplemental proposed 

rulemaking documents. 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this rule is 

significant and has reviewed this rule 

under Executive Order 12866. OMB 

bases its determination of regulatory 

significance upon the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

An economic analysis was prepared 

for the 2008–09 season. This analysis 

was based on data from the 2006 

National Hunting and Fishing Survey, 

the most recent year for which data are 

available (see discussion in Regulatory 

Flexibility Act section below). This 

analysis estimated consumer surplus for 

three alternatives for duck hunting 

(estimates for other species are not 

quantified due to lack of data). The 

alternatives are (1) Issue restrictive 

regulations allowing fewer days than 

those issued during the 2007–08 season, 

(2) Issues moderate regulations allowing 

more days than those in alternative 1, 

and (3) Issue liberal regulations 

identical to the regulations in the 2007– 

08 season. For the 2008–09 season, we 

chose alternative 3, with an estimated 

consumer surplus across all flyways of 

$205–$270 million. At this time, we are 

proposing no changes to the season 

frameworks for the 2010–11 season, and 

as such, we will again consider these 

three alternatives. However, final 

frameworks will be dependent on 

population status information available 

later this year. For these reasons, we 

have not conducted a new economic 

analysis, but the 2008–09 analysis is 

part of the record for this rule and is 

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

migratorybirds/ 

NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/ 

SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The regulations have a significant 

economic impact on substantial 

numbers of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). We analyzed the economic 

impacts of the annual hunting 

regulations on small business entities in 

detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit 

analysis. This analysis was revised 

annually from 1990–95. In 1995, the 

Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility 

Analysis (Analysis), which was 

subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, 

2004, and 2008. The primary source of 

information about hunter expenditures 

for migratory game bird hunting is the 

National Hunting and Fishing Survey, 

which is conducted at 5–year intervals. 

The 2008 Analysis was based on the 

2006 National Hunting and Fishing 

Survey and the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s County Business Patterns, 

from which it was estimated that 

migratory bird hunters would spend 

approximately $1.2 billion at small 

businesses in 2008. Copies of the 

Analysis are available upon request 

from the Division of Migratory Bird 

Management (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) or from our 

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

migratorybirds/ 

NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/ 

SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is a major rule under 5 

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

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

For the reasons outlined above, this rule 

has an annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more. However, because 

this rule establishes hunting seasons, we 

do not plan to defer the effective date 

under the exemption contained in 5 

U.S.C. 808(1). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

We examined these regulations under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements imposed under regulations 

established in 50 CFR part 20, subpart 

K, are 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27149 

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 2010-11 

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 2010–11 hunting 

season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 

703–711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C. 

742 a–j. 

Dated: April 1, 2010 

Thomas L. Strickland 

Assistant Secretary for Fish Wildlife and 

Parks. 

Proposed 2010–11 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. At this time, we 

are proposing no changes from the final 

2009–10 frameworks established on 

August 25 and September 24, 2009 (74 

FR 43008 and 74 FR 48822). 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 using 

adaptive harvest management (AHM) to 

help determine appropriate duckhunting regulations for the 2010–11 

season. AHM permits sound resource 

decisions in the face of uncertain 

regulatory impacts and provides a 

mechanism for reducing that 

uncertainty over time. We use AHM to 

evaluate four alternative regulatory 

levels for duck hunting based on the 

population status of mallards. (We enact 

special hunting restrictions for species 

of special concern, such as canvasbacks, 

scaup, and pintails). 

1. Pacific, Central and Mississippi 

Flyways 

Until 2008, we based the prescribed 

regulatory alternative for the Pacific, 

Central, and Mississippi Flyways 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, we 

based hunting regulations upon the 

breeding stock that contributes 

primarily to each Flyway, as follows: 

(1) We set hunting regulations in the 

Pacific Flyway based on the status and 

dynamics of a newly defined stock of 

‘‘western’’ mallards. (Western mallards 

are those breeding in Alaska (as based 

on Federal surveys in strata 1–12), and 

in California and Oregon (as based on 

State-conducted surveys).) (2) We set 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
27150 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

hunting regulations for the Central and 

Mississippi Flyways based on the status 

and dynamics of mid-continent 

mallards. (Mid-continent mallards are 

those breeding in central North America 

not included in the Western mallard 

stock, as defined above.) 

For the 2010–11 season, we 

recommend continuing to use 

independent optimization to determine 

the optimum regulations. This means 

that we would develop regulations for 

mid-continent mallards and western 

mallards independently, based upon the 

breeding stock that contributes 

primarily to each Flyway. We detailed 

implementation of this new AHM 

decision framework in the July 24, 2008, 

Federal Register (73 FR 43290). 

2. Atlantic Flyway 

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 mid-Atlantic region). 

We recommend continuation of this 

protocol for the 2010–11 season. 

3. Final 2010-2011 AHM Protocol 

We will detail the final AHM protocol 

for the 2010–11 season in the earlyseason proposed rule, which we will 

publish 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 2010–11 season after survey 

information becomes available in late 

summer. More information on AHM is 

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

migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/ 

Management/AHM/AHM-intro.htm. 

B. Regulatory Alternatives 

The basic structure of the current 

regulatory alternatives for AHM was 

adopted in 1997. In 2002, based upon 

recommendations from the Flyway 

Councils, we extended framework dates 

in the ‘‘moderate’’ and ‘‘liberal’’ 

regulatory alternatives by: 

(1) Changing the opening date from 

the Saturday nearest October 1 to the 

Saturday nearest September 24; and 

(2) Changing the closing date from the 

Sunday nearest January 20 to the last 

Sunday in January. 

These extended dates were made 

available with no associated penalty in 

season length or bag limits. At that time 

we stated our desire to keep these 

changes in place for 3 years to allow for 

a reasonable opportunity to monitor the 

impacts of framework-date extensions 

on harvest distribution and rates of 

harvest before considering any 

subsequent use (67 FR 12501). 

For 2010–11, 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. We will accept 

public comments until June 25, 2010, 

and you should send your comments to 

an address listed under the caption 

ADDRESSES. 

C. Zones and Split Seasons 

In 1990, because of concerns about 

the proliferation of zones and split 

seasons for duck hunting, we conducted 

a cooperative review and evaluation of 

the historical use of zone/split options. 

This review did not show that the 

proliferation of these options had 

increased harvest pressure; however, the 

ability to detect the impact of zone/split 

configurations was poor because of 

unreliable response variables, the lack 

of statistical tests to differentiate 

between real and perceived changes, 

and the absence of adequate 

experimental controls. Consequently, 

we established guidelines to provide a 

framework for controlling the 

proliferation of changes in zone/split 

options. The guidelines identified a 

limited number of zone/split 

configurations that could be used for 

duck hunting and restricted the 

frequency of changes in these 

configurations to 5–year intervals. 

In 1996, we revised the guidelines to 

provide States greater flexibility in 

using their zone/split arrangements. In 

2005, in further response to 

recommendations from the Flyway 

Councils, we considered changes to the 

zone/split guidelines. After our review, 

however, we concluded that the current 

guidelines continue to achieve their 

intended objectives while allowing 

States sufficient flexibility to address 

differences in physiography, climate, 

and other factors and that the guidelines 

need not be changed. We further stated 

that the guidelines would be used for all 

future open seasons (70 FR 55667). 

Open seasons for changes occurred in 

1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006. The next 

open season for changes to zone/split 

configurations will be in 2011, for the 

2011–15 period. We are providing the 

guidelines here in order to allow 

sufficient time for States to solicit 

public input regarding their selections 

of zone/split configurations in 2011. 

The guidelines are as follows: 

Guidelines for Duck Zones and Split 

Seasons 

The following zone/split-season 

guidelines apply only for the regular 

duck season: 

a. A zone is a geographic area or 

portion of a State, with a contiguous 

boundary, for which independent dates 

may be selected for the regular duck 

season. 

b. Consideration of changes for 

management-unit boundaries is not 

subject to the guidelines and provisions 

governing the use of zones and split 

seasons for ducks. 

c. Only minor (less than a county in 

size) boundary changes will be allowed 

for any grandfathered arrangement, and 

changes are limited to the open season. 

d. Once a zone/split option is selected 

during an open season, it must remain 

in place for the following 5 years. 

Any State may continue the 

configuration used in the previous 5– 

year period. If changes are made, the 

zone/split-season configuration must 

conform to one of the following options: 

1. Three zones with no splits, 

2. Split seasons (no more than 3 

segments) with no zones, or 

3. Two zones with the option for 2- 

way (2-segment) split seasons in one or 

both zones. 

Grandfathered Zone/Split Arrangements 

When we first implemented the zone/ 

split guidelines in 1991, several States 

had completed experiments with zone/ 

split arrangements different from 

Options 1–3 above. We offered those 

States a one-time opportunity to 

continue (‘‘grandfather’’) those 

arrangements, with the stipulation that 

only minor changes could be made to 

zone boundaries;. If any of those States 

now wish to change their zone/split 

arrangement: 

1. The new arrangement must 

conform to one of the 3 options 

identified above; and 

2. The State cannot go back to the 

grandfathered arrangement that it 

previously had in place. 

D. Special Seasons/Species 

Management 

v. Pintails 

Since 1997, we have used a 

prescriptive strategy to determine 

pintail regulations. However, as we have 

continually stated over the past several 

years, we remain committed to 

developing a framework for pintail 

harvest management based on a formal, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27151 

derived strategy and clearly articulated 

management objectives. 

Over the past 2 years, scientists from 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and 

the Service, in consultation with the 

Flyway Councils, have collaborated in 

developing an adaptive, derived 

framework for pintail harvest 

management. This draft framework was 

offered for Flyway consideration via 

presentations made at the AHM 

Working Group meeting in November 

2007, the Service Regulations 

Committee (SRC) meeting in January 

2008, and Flyway Technical Committee 

meetings in March 2008. The draft 

framework was revised a number of 

times in response to comments by the 

Flyways. 

Last year, we again expressed a desire 

to re-engage with the Flyways to address 

unresolved issues with the goal of 

implementing a derived, adaptive 

strategy for pintail harvest management 

during the 2010–11 regulatory cycle. In 

the September 24, 2009, Federal 

Register (74 FR 48822), we stated that, 

for the implementation of the new 

derived strategy to be successful, the 

Service and Flyway Councils must 

reach agreement on several key issues. 

These issues included: (1) 

Determination of the harvest 

management objective, (2) identification 

of any constraints that would be 

included in the strategy (e.g., closure 

constraint), and (3) a decision regarding 

specific inclusion of a harvest allocation 

process. To that end, we made technical 

information regarding aspects of the 

derived strategy available at the 

December 2009 AHM Working Group 

Meeting. 

In January 2010, we distributed to the 

Flyways a report entitled ‘‘Proposal for 

a Derived and Adaptive Harvest 

Strategy for Northern Pintails’’ 

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

migratorybirds/ 

NewsPublicationsReports.html). The 

report was also presented and discussed 

at the February 3, 2010, SRC meeting in 

Denver. In this report, we have 

attempted to reframe the issue in a 

multiple-objective decision making 

context. We hope this will refocus the 

discussion on the fundamental 

objectives of pintail harvest 

management, allow acceptance of the 

inherent tradeoffs, and result in a 

harvest strategy that best balances the 

objectives of the Flyways, the Service, 

the States, and the public. We hope that 

the Flyways will discuss this proposal 

at upcoming 2010 Winter meetings and 

provide specific feedback on the draft 

process. 

If there is reasonable agreement 

between what the individual Flyways 

propose and the combined results from 

all four Flyways, the draft strategy could 

be reviewed at the June 2010 SRC 

meeting, and potentially published in 

the proposed early season regulations as 

a proposal for use during this regulatory 

cycle. Alternately, if this schedule is too 

compressed for adequate consultation, 

or if disagreements arise that require a 

longer period of discussion, 

implementation could wait until the 

2011–12 hunting season. 

14. Woodcock 

In 2008, we completed a review of 

available woodcock population 

databases to assess their utility for 

developing a woodcock harvest strategy. 

Concurrently, we requested that the 

Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central 

Flyway Councils appoint members to a 

working group to cooperate with us on 

developing a woodcock harvest strategy. 

In February 2010, the working group 

completed a draft interim harvest 

strategy for consideration by the Flyway 

Councils at their March meetings. 

The working group’s draft interim 

harvest strategy provides a transparent 

framework for making regulatory 

decisions for woodcock season length 

and bag limit while we work to improve 

monitoring and assessment protocols for 

this species. While the strategy’s 

objective is to set woodcock harvest at 

a level commensurate with population, 

data limitations preclude accurately 

assessing harvest potential at this time. 

Thus, the strategy’s thresholds for 

regulations changes are based on the 

premise that further population declines 

would result in decreased harvest, while 

population increases would allow for 

additional harvest. Specifics of the draft 

interim harvest strategy can be found at 

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

NewsPublicationsReports.html. 

The working group recommended that 

the interim harvest strategy be 

implemented for the 2011–12 hunting 

season and be in effect for 5 years 

(2011–15). They further recommended 

that the Service and Flyway Councils 

evaluate the strategy after 5 years and 

continue to assess the feasibility of 

developing a derived harvest strategy. 

Following review and comment by the 

Flyway Councils, we will announce our 

intentions whether to propose the 

strategy following the June 23-24, 2010, 

SRC meeting. 

16. Mourning Doves 

In 2006 (see July 28, 2006, Federal 

Register, 71 FR 43008), we approved 

guidelines for the use of zone/split 

seasons for doves with implementation 

beginning in the 2007–08 season. While 

the initial period was for 4 years (2007– 

10), we further stated that beginning in 

2011, zoning would conform to a 5–year 

period. 

The next open season for changes to 

dove zone/split configurations will be in 

2011, for the 2011–15 period. We are 

providing the guidelines here in order to 

allow sufficient time for States to solicit 

public input regarding their selections 

of zone/split configurations in 2011. 

The guidelines are as follows: 

Guidelines for Dove Zones and Split 

Seasons in the Eastern and Central 

Mourning Dove Management Units 

1. A zone is a geographic area or 

portion of a State, with a contiguous 

boundary, for which independent 

seasons may be selected for dove 

hunting. 

2. States may select a zone/split 

option during an open season. The 

option must remain in place for the 

following 5 years except that States may 

make a one-time change and revert to 

their previous zone/split configuration 

in any year of the 5–year period. Formal 

approval will not be required, but States 

must notify the Service before making 

the change. 

3. Zoning periods for dove hunting 

will conform to those years used for 

ducks, e.g., 2006–10. 

4. The zone/split configuration 

consists of two zones with the option for 

3-way (3-segment) split seasons in one 

or both zones. As a grandfathered 

arrangement, Texas will have three 

zones with the option for 2-way (2- 

segment) split seasons in one, two, or all 

three zones. 

5. States that do not wish to zone for 

dove hunting may split their seasons 

into no more than 3 segments. 

For the 2011–15 period, any State 

may continue the configuration used in 

2007–10. If changes are made, the zone/ 

split-season configuration must conform 

to one of the options listed above. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3
27152 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13MY10.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27153 

[FR Doc. 2010–11032 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP13MY10.001</GPH>