Migratory Bird Hunting; Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Certain Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands for the 2013-14 Early Season

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule prescribes special early-season migratory bird hunting regulations for certain tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands. This rule responds to tribal requests for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) recognition of tribal authority to regulate hunting under established guidelines. This rule allows the establishment of season bag limits and, thus, harvest, at levels compatible with populations and habitat conditions.

DATES:

This rule takes effect on September 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES:

You may inspect comments received on the special hunting regulations and tribal proposals during normal business hours in room 4107, Arlington Square Building, 4501 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2013-0057.

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:

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of July 3, 1918 (40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, having due regard for the zones of temperature and for the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of flight of migratory game birds, to determine when, to what extent, and by what means such birds or any part, nest, or egg thereof may be taken, hunted, captured, killed, possessed, sold, purchased, shipped, carried, exported, or transported.

In the August 2, 2013, Federal Register (78 FR 47136), we proposed special migratory bird hunting regulations for the 2013-14 hunting season for certain Indian tribes, under the guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 23467). The guidelines respond to tribal requests for Service recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both tribal members and nonmembers on their reservations. The guidelines include possibilities for:

(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal members and nonmembers, 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, the regulations established under the guidelines must be consistent with the March 10-September 1 closed season mandated by the 1916 Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada. We have successfully used the guidelines since the 1985-86 hunting season. We finalized the guidelines beginning with the 1988-89 hunting season (August 18, 1988, Federal Register [53 FR 31612]). In the April 9, 2013, Federal Register (78 FR 21200), we requested that tribes desiring special hunting regulations in the 2013-14 hunting season submit a proposal for our review.

No action is required if a tribe wishes to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which an Indian reservation is located. On August 2, 2013, we published a proposed rule that included special migratory bird hunting regulations for 30 Indian tribes, based on the input we received in response to the April 9, 2013, proposed rule. All the regulations contained in this final rule were either submitted by the tribes or approved by the tribes and follow our proposals in the August 2 proposed rule.

Although the August 2 proposed rule included generalized regulations for both early- and late-season hunting, this rulemaking addresses only the early-season proposals. Therefore, it includes information for only 24 tribes. The letter designations for the paragraphs pertaining to each tribe in this rule are discontinuous because they follow the letter designations for the 30 tribes discussed in the August 2 proposed rule, which set forth paragraphs (a) through (dd). Late-season hunting will be addressed in late September. As a general rule, early seasons begin during September each year and have a primary emphasis on such species as mourning and white-winged doves. Late seasons begin about October 1 or later each year and have a primary emphasis on waterfowl.

Population Status and Harvest

Information on the status of waterfowl and information on the status and harvest of migratory shore and upland game birds, including detailed information on methodologies and results, is available at the address indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html .

Comments and Issues Concerning Tribal Proposals

For the 2013-14 migratory bird hunting season, we proposed regulations for 30 tribes and/or Indian groups that followed the 1985 guidelines. Only 27 tribes were considered appropriate for final rulemaking because we did not receive proposals from 3 of the tribes for whom we had proposed regulations. Some of the tribal proposals had both early- and late-season elements. However, as noted earlier, only those with early-season proposals are included in this final rulemaking; 24 tribes have proposals with early seasons. The comment period for the proposed rule, published on August 2, 2013, closed on August 12, 2013. Because of the necessary brief comment period, we will respond to any comments on the proposed rule and/or these regulations postmarked by August 12, but not received prior to final action by us, in the September late-season final rule. At this time, we have received two comments.

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission's (GLIFWC) Proposal

We received comments on GLIFWC's initial proposal from the Mississippi Flyway Council and the State of Wisconsin.

The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended denial of GLIFWC's waterfowl hunting season requests regarding the use of electronic calls, a swan season in primary trumpeter swan breeding range, and extending shooting hours to 45 minutes before sunrise and after sunset. The Council supported the GLIFWC's expansion of non-toxic shot use and a bag limit of 2 for sandhill cranes.

The State of Wisconsin, Department of Natural Resources (WIDNR) noted the long history of working cooperatively with GLIFWC and individual tribes in the conservation of Wisconsin's waterfowl and wetland resources. However, WIDNR believed the most significant problem with the GLIFWC proposal was the request to allow tribal members to hunt with the use of electronic calls for ducks and geese within the ceded territory. WIDNR believes that, since the ceded territory covers one-third of the State of Wisconsin, one-half of the State of Michigan, significant areas of Minnesota, and significant areas of public hunting grounds and waters in those States, the use of electronic calls by tribal hunters would put any nontribal hunters in violation of the law when hunting in these areas. Thus, GLIFWC's proposal would, in effect, close public lands to hunting, increase conflicts among the hunting public, and create a safety concern and an unmanageable law enforcement environment. WIDNR also opposed the extension of shooting hours to 45 minutes before sunrise and 45 minutes past sunset because of safety and resource concerns. WIDNR also believes that a tribal tundra and trumpeter swan hunting season in the ceded territory should not be implemented in 2013, because additional biological evaluation and harvest planning should be conducted, especially in light of trumpeter swan issues. WIDNR asks that the same criteria of not implementing duck hunting seasons prior to September 15 because of impacts to breeding ducks in Wisconsin be applied to tribal seasons as well. WIDNR was supportive of the tribal sandhill crane daily bag limit increase from one to two and the use of nontoxic shot for all migratory bird hunting.

Service Response: The GLIFWC 2013 proposal has several significant changes from regulations approved last season. In the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas, the GLIFWC proposal would allow the use of electronic calls through September 20; would extend shooting hours by 45 minutes before sunrise and after sunset; would increase the daily bag limit from 1 to 2 sandhill cranes; would allow the first hunting season of swans; would open the season for several species (other than geese) to September 1; and would require nontoxic shot for all migratory bird hunting. In the 1836 Treaty Area, the GLIFWC's proposal would open the season for several species to September 1 to align with the goose season.

GLIFWC states that the regulatory changes are intended to provide tribal members a harvest opportunity within the scope of rights reserved in their various treaties and increase tribal subsistence harvest opportunities, while protecting migratory bird populations. Under the GLIFWC proposed regulations, GLIFWC expects total ceded territory harvest to be approximately 1,575 ducks, 300 geese, 50 sandhill cranes, and 50 tundra swans, which is roughly similar to anticipated levels in previous years for those species for which seasons were established. GLIWFC further anticipates that tribal harvest will remain low given the small number of tribal hunters and the limited opportunity to harvest more than a small number of birds on most hunting trips.

Recent GLIFWC harvest surveys (1996-98, 2001, 2004, and 2007-08, 2011, and 2012) indicate that tribal off-reservation waterfowl harvest has averaged fewer than 1,100 ducks and 250 geese annually. In the latest survey year for which we have specific results (2004), an estimated 53 hunters took an estimated 421 trips and harvested 645 ducks (1.5 ducks per trip) and 84 geese (0.2 geese per trip). Analysis of hunter survey data over 1996-2004 indicates a general downward trend in both harvest and hunter participation. GLIFWC is still completing a survey initiated after the 2012 season to determine if any increase in harvest occurred following several regulation changes.

While we acknowledge that tribal harvest and participation has declined in recent years, we do not believe that some of the GLIFWC's proposal for tribal waterfowl seasons on ceded lands in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota for the 2013-14 season is in the best interest of the conservation of migratory birds. More specific discussion follows below.

Allowing Electronic Calls

As we stated the last two years (76 FR 54676, September 1, 2011; 77 FR 54451, September 5, 2012), the issue of allowing electronic calls and other electronic devices for migratory game bird hunting has been highly debated and highly controversial over the last 40 years, similar to other prohibited hunting methods such as baiting. Electronic calls, i.e., the use or aid of recorded or electronic amplified bird calls or sounds, or recorded or electrically amplified imitations of bird calls or sounds to lure or attract migratory game birds to hunters, were Federally prohibited in 1957, because of their effectiveness in attracting and aiding the harvest of ducks and geese and are generally not considered a legitimate component of hunting. In 1999, after much debate, the migratory bird regulations were revised to allow the use of electronic calls for the take of light geese (lesser snow geese and Ross geese) during a light-goose-only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, were closed (64 FR 7507, February 16, 1999; 64 FR 71236, December 20, 1999; 73 FR 65926, November 5, 2008). The regulations were also changed in 2006, to allow the use of electronic calls for the take of resident Canada geese during Canada-goose-only September seasons when all other waterfowl and crane seasons, excluding falconry, were closed (71 FR 45964, August 10, 2006). In both instances, these changes were made in order to significantly increase the take of these species due to either serious population overabundance, depredation issues, or public health and safety issues, or a combination of these.

Available information from the use of additional hunting methods, such as electronic calls, during the special light-goose seasons indicate that total harvest increased approximately 50 to 69 percent. On specific days when light-goose special regulations were in effect, the mean light goose harvest increased 244 percent. One research study found that lesser snow goose flocks were 5.0 times more likely to fly within gun range (≤50 meters) in response to electronic calls than to traditional calls, and the mean number of snow geese killed per hour per hunter averaged 9.1 times greater for electronic calls than for traditional calls. While these results are only directly applicable to light geese, we believe these results are applicable to most waterfowl species, and indicative of some likely adverse harvest impacts on other geese and ducks.

Removal of the electronic call prohibition would be inconsistent with our long-standing conservation concerns. Given available evidence on the effectiveness of electronic calls, and the large biological uncertainty surrounding any widespread use of electronic calls, we believe the potential for overharvest could contribute to long-term population declines. Further, migratory patterns could be affected, and it is possible that hunter participation could increase beyond GLIFWC's estimates (50 percent) and could result in additional conservation impacts, particularly on locally breeding populations. Thus, we continue to not support allowing the use of electronic calls in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas.

Additionally, given the fact that tribal waterfowl hunting covered by this proposal would occur on ceded lands that are not in the ownership of the Tribes, we believe the use of electronic calls to take waterfowl would lead to confusion on the part of the public, wildlife-management agencies, and law enforcement officials in implementing the requirements of 50 CFR part 20. Further, similar to the impacts of baiting, uncertainties concerning the zone of influence attributed to the use of electronic calls could potentially increase harvest from nontribal hunters operating within areas electronic calls are being used during the dates of the general hunt, thereby posing risks to the migratory patterns and distribution of migratory waterfowl.

Lastly, we remind GLIFWC that electronic calls are permitted for the take of resident Canada geese during Canada-goose-only September seasons when all other waterfowl and crane seasons are closed. In the case of GLIFWC's proposed seasons, electronic calls could be used September 1-14 for resident Canada geese (as long as GLIFWC's duck and crane season begins no earlier than September 15; see further discussion below under Earlier Season Opening Date). This specific regulatory change was implemented in 2006, in order to significantly control resident Canada geese due to widespread population overabundance, depredation issues, and public health and safety issues.

Expanded Shooting Hours

Normally, shooting hours for migratory game birds are one-half hour before sunrise to sunset. A number of reasons and concerns have been cited for extending shooting hours past sunset. Potential impacts to some locally breeding populations (e.g., wood ducks), hunter safety, difficulty of identifying birds, retrieval of downed birds, and impacts on law enforcement are some of the normal concerns raised when discussing potential expansions of shooting hours. However, despite these concerns, in 2007, we supported the expansion of shooting hours by 15 minutes after sunset in the 1837, 1842, and 1836 Treaty Areas (72 FR 58452, October 15, 2007). We had previously supported this expansion in other tribal areas and have not been made aware of any wide-scale problems. Further, at that time, we believed that the continuation of a specific species restriction within the daily bag limit for mallards, and the implementation of a species restriction within the daily bag limit for wood ducks, would allay potential conservation concerns for these species. We supported the increase with the understanding that the Tribe and we would closely monitor tribal harvest.

Last year, in deference to tribal traditions and in the interest of cooperation, and despite our previously identified concerns regarding species identification, species conservation of locally breeding populations, retrieval of downed birds, hunter safety, and law enforcement impacts, we approved shooting 30 minutes after sunset (an extension of 15 minutes from the then-current 15 minutes after sunset) (77 FR 54451, September 5, 2012). This was consistent with other Tribes in the general area (Fond du Lac, Leech Lake, Oneida, Sault Ste Marie, and White Earth). Extending shooting hours on both the front end and the back end of the day to 45 minutes before sunrise and 45 minutes after sunset as GLIWFC has proposed would be contrary to public safety and only heightens our previously identified concerns. It is widely considered dark 45 minutes after sunset (and 45 minutes before sunrise), and we see no viable remedies to allay our concerns. Shooting this early or late would also significantly increase the potential take of non-game birds. Thus, we cannot support increasing the shooting hours by an additional 15 minutes in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas (to 45 minutes before sunrise and 45 minutes after sunset).

Earlier Season Opening Date

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act allows the hunting of migratory game birds beginning September 1. Generally, we have tried to guide Tribes to select an opening date for duck hunting of no earlier than September 15. This guidance is based on our concern that hunting prior to September 15 significantly increases the potential for taking ducks that have not yet fully fledged (normally the result of late-nesting or renesting hens) or species misidentification due to the fact that some species and/or sexes are not yet readily distinguishable. While these impacts primarily concern locally-breeding ducks, the potential does exist for the take of molt migrants, i.e., birds that have specifically migrated to an area to complete the molting process. Last year, we allowed GLIFWC to open the general duck season on September 4 in the 1836, 1837, and 1842 ceded areas. While we would prefer that GLIFWC not implement such a change at this time until we can see any impacts associated with the earlier September opening date, we see no significant conservation implications given the small date change and the relatively small numbers of tribal hunters and we are willing to allow GLIFWC to begin the duck season on September 1 in the 1836, 1837, and 1842 ceded areas. We are proposing this change in the interest of our long-term relationship with GLIWFC and the understanding that if significant conservation impacts are discovered, we would adjust the duck season opening date accordingly. However, we note that a September 1 opening date for ducks would preclude any use of electronic calls for Canada geese.

Sandhill Crane Daily Bag Limit

We have no objections to the proposed increase of the sandhill crane daily bag limit from one to two in the 1837 and 1842 Treaty Areas. We note that at least two other Tribes currently have a sandhill crane season (see “(c) Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians” in Minnesota and “(d) Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians” in Michigan elsewhere in this rule). All cranes in these current and proposed hunt areas are Eastern Population (EP) sandhill cranes. EP sandhill cranes rebounded from near extirpation in the late 1800s to over 30,000 cranes by 1996, and the 2012 EP sandhill crane fall survey index (87,796) increased by 21 percent from 2011. As a result of this rebound and their continued range expansion, the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils developed a cooperative management plan for this population, and criteria were developed describing when hunting seasons could be opened. The State of Kentucky held its first hunting season on this population in 2011-12 (harvesting 92 cranes last year), and the State of Tennessee is proposing a new experimental season this year with a maximum allowed harvest of 2,325 cranes (78 FR 45376, July 26, 2013). Further, allowance for Tribal harvest is specifically considered in the EP plan.

GLIFWC reported that only 2 cranes were harvested last year in their inaugural crane season and estimates that no more than 20 cranes will be harvested during the proposed season. We further note that two cranes were harvested in 2011, in the inaugural Fond du Lac sandhill crane season, and none last year. While we support the increase in the crane daily bag limit, given the need to closely monitor the harvest of this species, we suggest that GLIFWC closely track crane harvest, similar to that implemented by Fond du Lac and Grand Traverse, which could include a tag or permit type system as recommended in the EP management plan.

Swan Season

As we stated last year (77 FR 54451, September 5, 2012), we are not opposed to the establishment of a tundra swan season in Wisconsin. Further, we are not conceptually opposed to the establishment of a general swan season. However, the establishment of a new swan season in the ceded territory areas in question involves several significant concerns and special considerations. We believe these concerns need further study and consideration before any implementation of a new swan season in the ceded territories. Our position has not changed.

First, the proposed areas in question are home to significant numbers of trumpeter swans. While the GLIFWC's proposed season is for both tundra and trumpeter swans, there are important differences that require careful consideration. Many cooperators, including GLIFWC, worked together to reestablish a breeding trumpeter swan population in the Great Lakes. These efforts have been largely successful with the removal of this species from Wisconsin's endangered species list in 2009. After a 25-year recovery program, there are currently about 200 breeding pairs in Wisconsin. We have significant concerns at this time concerning the harvest of trumpeter swans by tribal hunters hunting during a swan season. Further, within Wisconsin, the northern ceded territory is an area of high trumpeter swan use containing over 80 percent of the breeding pairs. We believe such areas should be avoided either temporally or geographically to the extent possible. When a hunting season on swans (either tundra, trumpeters, or both) is ultimately implemented, we believe it would be best to focus hunting efforts on the primary tundra swan migration concentrations while avoiding areas of significant trumpeter swan numbers. Unfortunately, most such areas are located outside of the ceded territories of northern Wisconsin. GLIWFC's proposal to not open the season until November 1, when they state that migrant swans have typically arrived into the ceded areas in appreciable numbers, does not alleviate our previously identified concerns.

In addition to the concerns about potential impacts to trumpeter swans, we believe it is imperative that any tribal swan hunting proposal follow the Eastern Population of tundra swans management plan, including a quota permit system and harvest reporting. The EP tundra swan management plan was cooperatively developed by the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyway Councils in 2007, and guides the management and harvest of EP tundra swans.

For these reasons, we do not believe that a tribal swan hunting season in the ceded territory should be implemented this year. Given that all these concerns can be worked through, we do not believe that implementation of a swan season is unrealistic. We note that both the Service and the State wildlife agencies have considerable trumpeter swan information that would be helpful in conducting additional biological evaluation and harvest planning, and are available to work with GLIFWC on these issues.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32686), and our Record of Decision on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 45376). We also address NEPA compliance for waterfowl hunting frameworks through the annual preparation of separate environmental assessments, the most recent being “Duck Hunting Regulations for 2013-14,” with its corresponding August 19, 2013, finding of no significant impact. In addition, an August 1985 environmental assessment entitled “Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands” is available from the address indicated under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides that, “The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act” (and) shall “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat. . . .” Consequently, we conducted formal consultations to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Findings from these consultations are included in a biological opinion, which concluded that the regulations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Additionally, these findings may have caused modification of some regulatory measures previously proposed, and the final frameworks reflect any such modifications. Our biological opinions resulting from this section 7 consultation are public documents available for public inspection at the address indicated under ADDRESSES.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

An economic analysis was prepared for the 2013-14 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). 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 2012-13 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2012-13 season. For the 2013-14 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $317.8-$416.8 million. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10, the 2010-11, the 2012-13, and the 2012-13 seasons. The 2013-14 analysis is part of the record for this rule and is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2013-0057.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit analysis. This analysis was revised annually from 1990-95. In 1995, the Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, 2004, 2008, and 2013. The primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-year intervals. The 2013 Analysis was based on the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend approximately $1.5 billion at small businesses in 2013. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Division of Migratory Bird Management (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or from our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2013-0057.

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 will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we are not deferring the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not contain any new information collection that requires approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has reviewed and approved the information collection requirements associated with migratory bird surveys and assigned the following OMB control numbers:

• 1018-0010—Mourning Dove Call Count Survey (expires 4/30/2015).
• 1018-0019—North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey (expire 4/30/2015).
• 1018-0023—Migratory Bird Surveys (expires 4/30/2014). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.

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 rule, has determined that this 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 rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711), 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, this rule allows 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 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. However, in the April 9 Federal Register, 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 2013-14 migratory bird hunting season. The resulting proposals were contained in a separate August 2, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 47136). 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 summary impact statement.

Regulations Promulgation

The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, we intend that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we believed were the longest periods possible for public comment. In doing this, we recognized that when the comment period closed, time would be of the essence. That is, if there were a delay in the effective date of these regulations after this final rulemaking, States and Tribes would have insufficient time to select season dates and limits; to communicate those selections to us; and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement their decisions. We therefore find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and these seasons will, therefore, take effect less than 30 days after the date of publication.

Accordingly, with each participating Tribe having had an opportunity to participate in selecting the hunting seasons desired for its reservation or ceded territory on those species of migratory birds for which open seasons are now prescribed, and consideration having been given to all other relevant matters presented, certain sections of title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K, are hereby amended as set forth below.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

• Exports
• Hunting
• Imports
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
• Transportation
• Wildlife

Accordingly, part 20, subchapter B, chapter I of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 20—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a-j; Pub. L. 106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.

Note:

The following hunting regulations provided for by 50 CFR 20.110 will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations because of their seasonal nature.)

2. Section 20.110 is revised to read as follows: