[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23094-23104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9125]
[[Page 23093]]
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 74
April 17, 2012
Part VI
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2012-13 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals and
Requests for 2014 Spring and Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest
Proposals in Alaska; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 23094]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0005; FF09M21200-123-FXMB1231099BPP0L2]
RIN 1018-AX97
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2012-13 Migratory Game Bird
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal
Proposals and Requests for 2014 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 2012-13 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 2012-13 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
2014 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 2012-13 duck hunting seasons on or before June 22, 2012.
Following subsequent Federal Register notices, you will be given an
opportunity to submit comments for proposed early-season frameworks by
July 27, 2012, and for proposed late-season frameworks and subsistence
migratory bird seasons in Alaska by August 31, 2012. Tribes must submit
proposals and related comments on or before June 1, 2012. Proposals
from the Co-management Council for the 2014 spring and summer migratory
bird subsistence harvest season must be submitted to the Flyway
Councils and the Service on or before June 15, 2012.
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. FWS-R9-
MB-2012-0005.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-MB-2012-0005; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept emailed 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 2014 spring and summer migratory bird
subsistence season in Alaska to the Executive Director of the Co-
management Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503; or fax to (907) 786-3306; or email to
[email protected].
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 part 20, is constrained by three primary factors.
Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the rulemaking
process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of
migratory game birds controls the timing of data-gathering activities
and thus the dates on which these results are available for
consideration and deliberation.
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
[[Page 23095]]
Service Regional Offices, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and State and
Provincial wildlife-management agencies. To determine the appropriate
frameworks for each species, we consider factors such as population
size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the
condition of breeding and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and
the anticipated harvest.
After frameworks, or outside limits, are established for season
lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting,
migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of State
and Federal governments. After Service establishment of final
frameworks for hunting seasons, the States may select season dates, bag
limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States
may always be more conservative in their selections than the Federal
frameworks but never more liberal.
Notice of Intent To Establish Open Seasons
This document 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 2012-13 in the contiguous
United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands,
under Sec. Sec. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K
of 50 CFR part 20.
For the 2012-13 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 2012-13 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 2012-13
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 2012-13 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
x. Mallard Management Units
xi. Other
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 2012-13 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, 2012, and those for late seasons on or about September 14,
2012.
Request for 2014 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 co-management 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, 2014, for the spring and summer subsistence
harvest of migratory birds in Alaska. Each year,
[[Page 23096]]
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 Co-Management Council. The public may
submit proposals to the Co-management Council during the period of
November 1-December 15, 2012, to be acted upon for the 2014 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 2014 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 April 2 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 2014 spring and summer
migratory bird subsistence harvest season must be submitted to the
Flyway Councils and the Service by June 15, 2013, 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 2012-13 duck hunting seasons. This proposed
rulemaking also describes other recommended changes or specific
preliminary proposals that vary from the 2011-12 final frameworks (see
August 30, 2011, Federal Register (76 FR 54052) for early seasons and
September 21, 2011, Federal Register (76 FR 58682) 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 2012-13
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 regulations-development 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:
Region 1 (Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands)--
Nanette Seto, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 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)--E.J. Williams, 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)--Chris Dwyer, 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)--Dave Olson, 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.
Region 8 (California and Nevada)--Marie Strassburger, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846; (916)
414-6727.
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 off-
reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also may be applied to
the
[[Page 23097]]
establishment of migratory game bird hunting regulations for nontribal
members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations
where tribes have full wildlife management authority over such hunting,
or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have reached
agreement over hunting by nontribal members on non-Indian lands.
Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory game bird
hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our
approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations
that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the
surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations
governing migratory bird hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such
cases, we encourage the tribes and States to reach agreement on
regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When
appropriate, we will consult with a tribe and State with the aim of
facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and
State officials in the affected States where tribes may wish to
establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded
lands. It is incumbent upon the tribe and/or the State to request
consultation as a result of the proposal being published in the Federal
Register. We will not presume to make a determination, without being
advised by either a tribe or a State, that any issue is or is not
worthy of formal consultation.
One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of tribal
members' harvest of migratory game birds on reservations where such
harvest is a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest,
provided it does not take place during the closed season required by
the Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the
status of the migratory game bird resource. Since the inception of
these guidelines, we have reached annual agreement with tribes for
migratory game bird hunting by tribal members on their lands or on
lands where they have reserved hunting rights. We will continue to
consult with tribes that wish to reach a mutual agreement on hunting
regulations for on-reservation hunting by tribal members.
Tribes should not view the guidelines as inflexible. We believe
that they provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved
hunting rights and management authority of Indian tribes while also
ensuring that the migratory game bird resource receives necessary
protection. The conservation of this important international resource
is paramount. Use of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes
to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which
the reservation is located.
Details Needed in Tribal Proposals
Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting
regulations for the 2012-13 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 2012-13 hunting season
should submit their proposals as soon as possible, but no later than
June 1, 2012.
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 email 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, email address, or other personal
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on 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
[[Page 23098]]
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 (SEIS) 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
released the draft SEIS on July 9, 2010 (75 FR 39577). The draft SEIS
is available either by writing to the address indicated under ADDRESSES
or by viewing our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Before issuance of the 2012-13 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
proposed 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. We
also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10, the 2010-11, and the 2011-12
seasons. At this time, we are proposing no changes to the season
frameworks for the 2012-13 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 at
Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0005.
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, 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 Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or
at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0005.
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 proposed 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 would have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. However, because this rule would establish 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 proposed 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
[[Page 23099]]
1018-0023 (expires 4/30/2014). 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
proposed rulemaking would 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 would not result in the physical occupancy
of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory
taking of any property. In fact, these rules would 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. 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 2012-13 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 2012-13
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,
and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
Dated: March 7, 2012.
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish Wildlife and Parks.
Proposed 2012-13 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. No changes from
the final 2011-12 frameworks established on August 30 and September 21,
2011 (76 FR 54052 and 76 FR 58682) are being proposed at this time.
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 duck-hunting regulations for the 2012-13
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).
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. In the
Pacific Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the status and
dynamics of a newly defined stock of ``western'' mallards. Western
mallards are those breeding in Alaska and the northern Yukon Territory
(as based on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), and in California
[[Page 23100]]
and Oregon (as based on State-conducted surveys). In the Central and
Mississippi Flyways, we set hunting regulations 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 2012-13 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).
Atlantic Flyway
Since 2000, we have prescribed a regulatory alternative for the
Atlantic Flyway annually using an eastern mallard AHM decision
framework that is 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 the AHM process for the 2012-13 season. However, we are
proposing several changes related to the population models used in the
eastern mallard AHM protocol.
The AHM process used to date to set harvest regulations for eastern
mallards is based on an objective of maximizing long-term cumulative
harvest and using predictions from six population models representing
different hypotheses about the recruitment process and sources of bias
in population predictions. The Atlantic Flyway Council and the Service
have evaluated the performance of the model set used to support eastern
mallard AHM and found that the current models used to predict survival
(as a function of harvest) and recruitment (as a function of breeding
population size) did not perform adequately, resulting in a consistent
over-prediction of mallard population size in 5 of the last 6 years.
Consequently, we believe that it is necessary to update those
population models with more contemporary survival and recruitment
information and revised hypotheses about the key factors affecting
eastern mallard population dynamics. Further, the Flyway is also re-
considering harvest management objectives and assessing the spatial
designation of the eastern mallard breeding population. Recognizing
that the development of a fully revised AHM protocol will likely take
several years to complete, we have developed a revised model set to
inform eastern mallard harvest decisions until all of the updates to
the eastern mallard AHM protocol are completed. We propose to use this
model set to inform eastern mallard harvest regulations until a fully
revised AHM protocol is finalized. Further details on the revised
models and results of simulations of this interim harvest policy are
available on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at
http://www.regulations.gov.
Final 2012-13 AHM Protocol
We will detail the final AHM protocol for the 2012-13 season in the
early-season 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
2012-13 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 changing the opening date from
the Saturday nearest October 1 to the Saturday nearest September 24;
and changing the closing date from the Sunday nearest January 20 to the
last Sunday in January. These extended dates were made available with
no associated penalty in season length or bag limits. At that time we
stated our desire to keep these changes in place for 3 years to allow
for a reasonable opportunity to monitor the impacts of framework-date
extensions on harvest distribution and rates of harvest before
considering any subsequent use (67 FR 12501, March 19, 2002).
For 2012-13, 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 24, 2012, and you
should send your comments to an address listed under the caption
ADDRESSES.
C. Zones and Split Seasons
We annually issue regulations permitting the sport hunting of
migratory birds. Zones and split seasons are ``special regulations''
designed to distribute hunting opportunities and harvests according to
temporal, geographic, and demographic variability in waterfowl and
other migratory game bird populations. For ducks, States have been
allowed the option of dividing their allotted hunting days into
segments to take advantage of species-specific peaks of abundance or to
satisfy hunters in different areas who want to hunt during the peak of
waterfowl abundance in their area. States are also allowed the
establishment of independent seasons in two or more zones within States
for the purpose of providing more equitable distribution of harvest
opportunity for hunters throughout the State.
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 with greater
flexibility in using their zone/split arrangements. Last year, we
stated that while we continued to support the use of guidelines for
providing a stable framework for controlling the number of changes to
zone/split options, we revised the guidelines in response to a
consensus position among all the Flyway Councils and the States'
desires for additional flexibility in addressing concerns of the
hunting public. We also expressed our support for the recommendations
from the 2008 Future of Waterfowl Management Workshop that called for a
greater emphasis on the effects of management actions on the
[[Page 23101]]
hunting public. Specific details of those revisions are contained and
discussed in the August 26, 2011, Federal Register (75 FR 53536).
When making these revisions, we noted that existing human
dimensions data on the relationship of harvest regulations, and
specifically zones and splits, to hunter recruitment, retention, and/or
satisfaction are equivocal or lacking. In the face of uncertainty over
the effects of management actions, the waterfowl management community
has broadly endorsed adaptive management and the principles of informed
decision-making as a means of accounting for and reducing that
uncertainty. The necessary elements of informed decision-making
include: clearly articulated objectives, explicit measurable attributes
for objectives, identification of a suite of potential management
actions, some means of predicting the consequences of management
actions with respect to stated objectives, and, finally, a monitoring
program to compare observations with predictions as a basis for
learning, policy adaptation, and more informed decision-making.
Currently, none of these elements are used to support decision-making
that involves human dimensions considerations. Accordingly, we saw
these revisions to the criteria as an opportunity to advance an
informed decision-making framework that explicitly considers human
dimensions issues.
To that end, we requested that the National Flyway Council (NFC)
marshal the expertise and resources of the Human Dimensions Working
Group to develop explicit human dimensions objectives related to
expanding zone and split options and a study plan to evaluate the
effect of the proposed action in achieving those objectives. The study
plan that the NFC agreed to implement includes hypotheses and specific
predictions about the effect of changing zone/split criteria on stated
human dimensions objectives, and monitoring and evaluation methods that
would be used to test those predictions. We believe that insights
gained through such an evaluation would be invaluable in furthering the
ongoing dialogue regarding fundamental objectives of waterfowl
management and an integrated and coherent decision framework for
advancing those objectives, and look forward to the NFC's report
detailing the results of the evaluation.
As we also stated last year, those States that were capable of
implementing these new guidelines immediately were allowed to do so.
However, for those States not able to implement changes last year, we
were committed to extending the current open season into 2012. Thus, we
asked that States provide us with any changes to their zone and split
season configuration by May 1, 2012, for use during the 2012-13 season.
After this open period, the next regularly scheduled open season for
changes to zone and split season configurations will be in 2016, for
use during the 2016-20 period. In order to allow sufficient time for
States to solicit public input regarding their selections of zone and
split season configurations in 2016, we will reaffirm the criteria
during the 2015 late-season regulations process. At that time we will
notify States that changes to zone and split season configurations
should be provided to the Service by May 1, 2016.
Guidelines for Duck Zones and Split Seasons
The following zone/split-season guidelines apply only for the
regular duck season:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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) No more than four zones with no splits,
(2) Split seasons (no more than 3 segments) with no zones, or
(3) No more than three zones with the option for 2-way (2-segment)
split seasons in one, two, or all 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 our original options. 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.
Management Units
We will continue to utilize the specific limitations previously
established regarding the use of zone and split seasons in special
management units, including the High Plains Mallard Management Unit. We
note that the original justification and objectives established for the
High Plains Mallard Management Unit provided for additional days of
hunting opportunity at the end of the regular duck season. In order to
maintain the integrity of the management unit, current guidelines
prohibit simultaneous zoning and/or 3-way split seasons within a
management unit and the remainder of the State. Removal of this
limitation would allow additional proliferation of zone/split
configurations and compromise the original objectives of the management
unit.
The EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on the revised
guidelines is available by either writing to the address indicated
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the preamble of this proposed
rule or by viewing on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at http://www.regulations.gov.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. September Teal Seasons
In 2009, we agreed to allow an additional 7 days during the special
September teal season in the Atlantic Flyway (74 FR 43009). In
addition, we requested that a new assessment of the cumulative effects
of all teal harvest, including harvest during special September seasons
be conducted. Furthermore, we indicated that we would not agree to any
further modifications of special September teal seasons or other
special September duck seasons until a thorough assessment of the
harvest potential had been completed for both blue-winged and green-
winged teal, as well as an assessment of the impacts of current special
September seasons on these two species. Cinnamon teal were subsequently
included in this assessment. We have been working in cooperation with
the four Flyway Councils to conduct this technical work. The original
goal was to have this work
[[Page 23102]]
completed within 3 years; however, considerable population modeling
work remains to be done. Thus, we expect this technical work to be
completed by late 2012 and a final assessment report to be completed in
early 2013.
xii. Other
Last year, the Central Flyway Council and the Upper-Region
Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended
that the daily and possession bag limits for redheads during the 2011-
12 duck hunting season be 3 and 6, respectively (76 FR 58682; September
21, 2011). While we recognized the desire to provide additional hunting
opportunity for redheads, we did not support the recommendations to
increase the daily bag limit of redheads from 2 to 3 birds. As we have
done with other species (such as canvasbacks, pintails, etc.), we
believed that changes to redhead daily bag limits should only be
considered with guidance from an agreed-upon harvest strategy that is
supported by all four Flyway Councils and the Service. Thus, we
suggested that the Flyways work collaboratively to develop a redhead
harvest strategy, which would include: (1) Clearly defined and agreed-
upon management objectives; (2) clearly defined regulatory
alternatives; and (3) a model that can be used to predict population
responses to harvest mortality. We further stated that if the
development of a harvest strategy for redheads was a priority for the
Flyways, a conceptual framework for a redhead harvest strategy could be
discussed at the Harvest Management Working Group meeting in November
2011. We also noted that if the Flyway Councils wish to implement a
redhead harvest strategy for the 2012-13 season, a draft strategy
needed to be available for review and discussion by the February 2012
SRC meeting, finalized by the Flyways Councils at their March 2012
meetings, and forwarded as a recommendation for SRC consideration at
the early season SRC meeting (June 2012).
We discussed the process and development of a draft redhead harvest
strategy at the February 1, 2012, SRC meeting (noticed in a January 11,
2012, Federal Register (77 FR 1718)). Subsequently, in a February 6,
2012 letter, the Central Flyway Council formally provided us with a
draft redhead harvest management strategy for our review and
consideration. As we discussed at the February 1 SRC meeting, in order
to be implemented this year, as with all harvest strategies for late
season species, the harvest strategy would need to be finalized and
approved by the SRC at the June 20-21 SRC meeting. At this time, we
have made no decision on whether to propose a redhead harvest strategy
for the 2012-13 season, but are providing the draft strategy to the
public for their review, consideration, and comment. The draft strategy
is available by either writing to the address indicated under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the preamble of this proposed rule or by
viewing on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at
http://www.regulations.gov. Any decision on whether to propose a
harvest management strategy for redheads for implementation in the
2012-13 season, and the specifics of any such strategy, would be
provided to the public in a separate supplemental proposed rule (see
the diagram at the end of this proposed rule for major steps in the
2012-13 regulatory cycle).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 23103]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AP12.047
[[Page 23104]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AP12.048
[FR Doc. 2012-9125 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C