[Federal Register: June 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 111)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32872-32877]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10jn10-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0040]
[91200-1231-9BPP-L2]
RIN 1018-AX06
Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game
Bird Hunting Regulations for the 2010-11 Hunting Season; Notice of
Meetings
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), proposed in
an earlier document to establish annual hunting regulations for certain
migratory game birds for the 2010-11 hunting season. This supplement to
the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, announces the
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway Council
meetings, and provides Flyway Council recommendations resulting from
their March meetings.
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 documents, 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.
The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to
consider and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory
bird hunting on June 23 and 24, 2010, and for late-season migratory
bird hunting and the 2011 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence
seasons in Alaska on July 28 and 29, 2010. All meetings will commence
at approximately 8:30 a.m.
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 number FWS-
R9-MB-2010-0040.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-NB-2010-0040; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://
[[Page 32873]]
www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet in room
200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square Building,
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20240; (703) 358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations Schedule for 2010
On May 13, 2010, we published in the Federal Register (75 FR 27144)
a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a background
and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and
addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations
for hunting migratory game birds under Sec. Sec. 20.101 through
20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. This document is the second in
a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rules for migratory game
bird hunting regulations. We will publish proposed early-season
frameworks in early July and late-season frameworks in early August. We
will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about
August 16, 2010, and for late seasons on or about September 15, 2010.
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings
The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet June 23-
24, 2010, to review information on the current status of migratory
shore and upland game birds and develop 2010-11 migratory game bird
regulations recommendations for these species, plus regulations for
migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The Committee will also develop regulations recommendations for
September waterfowl seasons in designated States, special sea duck
seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. In
addition, the Committee will review and discuss preliminary information
on the status of waterfowl.
At the July 28-29, 2010, meetings, the Committee will review
information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2010-11
migratory game bird regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl
seasons and other species and seasons not previously discussed at the
early-season meetings. In addition, the Committee will develop
recommendations for the 2011 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence
season in Alaska.
In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to
public observation. You may submit written comments to the Service on
the matters discussed.
Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings
Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings
of the four Flyway Councils this July. Although agendas are not yet
available, these meetings usually commence at 8 a.m. on the days
indicated.
Atlantic Flyway Council: July 22-23, Hilton Wilmington, Riverside,
Wilmington, NC.
Mississippi Flyway Council: July 23-24, Radisson Admiral Semmes
Hotel, Mobile, AL.
Central Flyway Council: July 21-23, Embassy Suites, Norman, OK.
Pacific Flyway Council: July 23, John Ascuaga's Nugget, Reno, NV.
Review of Public Comments
This supplemental rulemaking describes Flyway Council recommended
changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the May 13,
2010, Federal Register. We have included only those recommendations
requiring either new proposals or substantial modification of the
preliminary proposals and do not include recommendations that simply
support or oppose preliminary proposals and provide no recommended
alternatives. Our responses to some Flyway Council recommendations, but
not others, are merely a clarification aid to the reader on the overall
regulatory process, not a definitive response to the issue. We will
publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop
final frameworks.
We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations
in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to
previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible,
they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items
identified in the May 13 proposed rule. Only those categories requiring
your attention or for which we received Flyway Council recommendations
are discussed below.
1. Ducks
Duck harvest management categories are: (A) General Harvest
Strategy; (B) Regulatory Alternatives, including specification of
framework dates, season length, and bag limits; (C) Zones and Split
Seasons; and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management.
A. General Harvest Strategy
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended
that regulations changes be restricted to one step per year, both when
restricting as well as liberalizing hunting regulations.
Service Response: As we stated in the May 13 Federal Register, the
final Adaptive Harvest Management protocol for the 2010-11 season will
be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published
in mid-July.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi and Central Flyway
Councils recommended that regulatory alternatives for duck hunting
seasons remain the same as those used in 2009.
Service Response: As we stated in the May 13 Federal Register, the
final regulatory alternatives for the 2010-11 season will be detailed
in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.
C. Zones and Split Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council and the Central and Pacific Flyway
Councils recommended that the Service allow 3 zones, with 2-way splits
in each zone, and 4 zones with no splits as additional zone/split-
season options for duck seasons during 2011-15. In addition, it is
recommended that States with existing grandfathered status be allowed
to retain that status.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. Special Teal Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the Service explore
options for providing production States an opportunity to harvest teal
outside the regular duck season frameworks as part of the teal season
assessment that is currently being conducted.
vi. Pintails
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
adoption of a derived Northern Pintail Harvest Strategy and provided
the following pintail harvest objectives for the Atlantic Flyway and
for individual Atlantic Flyway States: (1) The harvest objective for
northern pintails should be Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY); (2)
constrain closed seasons to breeding populations below 1.75 million
birds;
[[Page 32874]]
and (3) regulatory alternatives should include a closed season, a
liberal season with a 1-bird daily bag limit, and a liberal season with
a 2-bird daily bag limit. These objectives were captured in Scenario
39 in the Service's draft Northern Pintail Harvest Strategy
(Draft Strategy) (available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
NewsPublicationsReports.html).
The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended use of the Draft
Strategy's harvest management Scenarios 39, 29, or
39(b) to develop an optimal harvest policy. The Council
remains concerned regarding the following: (1) The Service does not
provide performance metrics for harvest management Scenarios
39 and 39(b) with no closed seasons until the pintail
BPOP falls to 1.0 million birds; (2) the method for integrating the
preferred alternatives from other Flyways into a single harvest policy
is not defined and reviewed; (3) additional weighting exercises that
address more fundamental harvest objectives, such as simplified
regulations, maintaining/expanding hunting opportunity for pintails,
and maximizing harvest, have not yet been conducted; and (4) there is
uncertainty about the consistency of the harvest strategy for pintails
with the fundamental objectives addressed through the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) revision.
The Central Flyway Council recommended continued discussions on the
potential structure and use of a derived harvest strategy for pintails.
They recommend a one-year implementation of Scenario 39 in the
Draft Strategy until a number of issues are resolved.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that harvest management for
pintails be based on a derived strategy that: (1) uses MSY as a harvest
objective; (2) constrains closed seasons to breeding populations below
1.75 million birds; and (3) eliminates partial seasons (shorter pintail
seasons within a longer general duck season). Specifically, the Council
recommended Scenario 39 as its preferred strategy for
regulations in 2010-11 and further review for the next year. The
Council supported a derived strategy that does not have an explicit
allocation of harvest among the flyways. The Council also recommended
that Alaska's exclusion from the pintail harvest management process be
continued.
The Council further recommended the use of historic proportions of
harvest to weight the inputs from the flyways should that input differ
in the future. They noted that we proposed to consider inputs from all
flyways equally, but the absolute and relative abundance of pintail is
highest in the Pacific Flyway, and regulatory alternatives have a
different effect there. They continued to support more work on
alternative underlying population models because they do not believe
that the model set in the strategy includes a model that addresses the
effect of harvest regulation changes on pintail survival rates in a
manner similar to ultra-structural models. The Council has recommended
in the past that we investigate the usefulness of sex-specific
regulations for pintails as a way to increase hunting opportunity on
male pintails.
Lastly, the Council recognized that all of the analyzed strategies
predict the perpetuation of the pintail breeding population between
2.78 and 3.57 million pintails, but that the differences among the
strategies center largely on effects on the hunting public. These
effects include the frequency of closed and partial seasons, larger
daily bag limits, and annual regulation changes. The Council has
limited information on hunter preferences about the trade-offs inherent
in the analyzed derived strategies.
Service Response: We greatly appreciate the time and attention that
all four Flyway Councils have devoted to review and consideration of
the various alternatives for implementing a derived pintail harvest
strategy. We note that all four flyways have recommended the same
alternative derived strategy be implemented this year. Therefore, we
propose adoption of alternative 39 as described and evaluated in the
Service's report ``Proposal for a Derived and Adaptive Harvest Strategy
for Northern Pintails (January 2010)'' and incorporated in a ``Proposed
Northern Pintail Harvest Strategy (May 2010)'' (both available at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html) for the
2010-11 hunting season. Numerous variations of the final proposed
harvest strategy were evaluated and deliberated by the Service and
Flyway Councils that differed in their expression of management
objectives and regulatory alternatives, but that shared a common
scientific underpinning. Alternative 39 was deemed to best balance
tradeoffs among fundamental objectives identified for pintail harvest
management. We note that additional technical work became available to
the Councils and their technical committees very late in the process.
Over the coming year, we will review this choice of alternative 39
based on one year of experience, as well as input received from the
Councils, public, and Service technical staff, to determine if a
different alternative will better insure the long-term conservation of
northern pintails and meet the interests of the hunting public.
Changes, if warranted, would be implemented for the 2011-12 regulations
cycle.
4. Canada Geese
A. Special Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended
that the closing date for the September Canada goose season in
Minnesota be September 22 Statewide.
The Central Flyway Council recommended that we increase the daily
bag limit framework from 5 to 8 for the Central Flyway States of South
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma during the Special Early Canada
Goose hunting season.
B. Regular Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended
that the framework opening date for all species of geese for the
regular goose seasons in Michigan and Wisconsin be September 16, 2010.
9. Sandhill Cranes
Council Recommendations: The Mississippi, Central, and Pacific
Flyway Councils recommended a sandhill crane hunting season for mid-
continent sandhill cranes in northwest Minnesota in 2010, following
guidelines outlined in the 2006 Cooperative Management Plan for mid-
continent sandhill cranes.
The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommend using the 2010
Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane harvest allocation of
1,979 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using the 2007-09 3-
year running average.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended initiating a limited hunt
for Lower Colorado River Valley (LCRV) Sandhill Cranes in Arizona with
a goal of a limited harvest of 9 cranes during the 2010-11 hunting
season. Arizona will issue permits to hunters and require mandatory
check-in of all harvested cranes. The Service previously approved the
hunt in 2007.
14. Woodcock
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway
Councils recommended adoption of the Interim American Woodcock Harvest
Strategy (available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
NewsPublicationsReports.html) for implementation in the 2011-12 hunting
season.
The Central Flyway Council recommended that the interim harvest
[[Page 32875]]
strategy outlined in the Draft American Woodcock Harvest Strategy be
implemented for a period of 5 years (2011-15).
16. Mourning Doves
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway
Councils recommended use of the ``moderate'' season framework for
States within the Eastern Management Unit population of mourning doves
resulting in a 70-day season and 15-bird daily bag limit. The daily bag
limit could be composed of mourning doves and white-winged doves,
singly or in combination.
The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommend the use of
the standard (or ``moderate'') season package of a 15-bird daily bag
limit and a 70-day season for the 2010-11 mourning dove season in the
States within the Central Management Unit.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the ``moderate''
season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU)
population of mourning doves, which represents no change from last
year's frameworks.
Public Comments
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever possible, to
afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking
process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed
regulations. Before promulgating final migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will consider all comments we receive. These comments,
and any additional information we receive, may lead to final
regulations that differ from these proposals.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered
comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not
postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.
We will post all comments in their entirety--including your
personal identifying information--on 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 the preambles of any final rules.
NEPA Consideration
NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988.
We published notice of availability in the Federal Register on June 16,
1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 18,
1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985 environmental
assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations
on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available from the
address indicated under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
In a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register
(70 FR 53376), we announced our intent to develop a new Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program.
Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as detailed in
a March 9, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 12216). We 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) Issue moderate
regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3)
Issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2007-08
season. For the 2008-09 season, we chose alternative 3, with an
estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $205-$270 million. At
this time, we are proposing no changes to the season frameworks for the
2010-11 season, and as such, we will again consider these three
alternatives. However, final frameworks will depend on population
status information available later this year. For these reasons, we
have not conducted a new economic analysis, but the 2008-09 analysis is
part of the record for this rule and is available at http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
[[Page 32876]]
NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/
SpecialTopics.htmlHuntingRegs 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 used in formulating migratory game bird hunting
regulations. OMB has approved the information collection requirements
of our Migratory Bird Surveys and assigned control number 1018-0023
(expires 2/28/2011). This information is used to provide a sampling
frame for voluntary national surveys to improve our harvest estimates
for all migratory game birds in order to better manage these
populations. OMB has also approved the information collection
requirements of the Alaska Subsistence Household Survey, an associated
voluntary annual household survey used to determine levels of
subsistence take in Alaska, and assigned control number 1018-0124
(expires 4/30/2013).
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this
rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given
year on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this
rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that this proposed rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and
that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988.
Takings Implication Assessment
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule,
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant
takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected
property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking
of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise
otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on
the use of private and public property.
Energy Effects--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this proposed
rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it
is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we
have evaluated possible effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes
and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust
resources. We solicited proposals for special migratory bird hunting
regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-
reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2010-11 migratory bird
hunting season in the May 13, Federal Register. The resulting proposals
will be contained in a separate proposed rule. By virtue of these
actions, we have consulted with Tribes affected by this rule.
Federalism Effects
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the
Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). We annually
prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding
the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish
special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands.
This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to
determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or
Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any
time. The frameworks are
[[Page 32877]]
developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway
Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development
of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an
influence on their own regulations.
These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal
capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State
governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore,
in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have
significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2010-11
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,
and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
Dated: May 28, 2010
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-13956 Filed 6-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE S