[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 116 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32758-32764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15337]
[[Page 32757]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VIII
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird
Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 32758]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AF24
Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game
Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we)
proposed in an earlier document to establish annual hunting regulations
for certain migratory game birds for the 1999-2000 hunting season. This
supplement to the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule;
announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway
Council meetings; and describes the proposed regulatory alternatives
for the 1999-2000 duck hunting seasons and other proposed changes from
the 1998-99 hunting regulations.
DATES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will consider
and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory bird
hunting on June 22 and 23, and for late-season migratory bird hunting
on August 3 and 4. All meetings will commence at approximately 8:30
a.m. To comment on the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1999-
2000 duck hunting seasons, you must submit your comments by July 2,
1999. To comment on the proposed migratory bird hunting-season
frameworks for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and
other early seasons, you must do so by July 27, 1999. To comment on the
proposed late-season frameworks, you must do so by September 7, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet
in room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square
Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Send your
comments on the proposals to the Chief, Office of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior,
ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. All comments
received, including names and addresses, will become part of the public
record. You may inspect comments during normal business hours in room
634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington,
Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Andrew, Chief, or Ron W.
Kokel, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, (703) 358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations Schedule for 1999
On May 3, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 23742)
a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal dealt with the
establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for migratory
game birds under Sec. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of
subpart K. This document is the second in a series of proposed,
supplemental, and final rules for migratory game bird hunting
regulations. We will publish early-season frameworks and final
regulatory alternatives for the 1999-2000 duck hunting seasons in mid-
July and late-season frameworks in mid-August. We will publish final
regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about August 20, 1999,
and those for late seasons on or about September 27, 1999.
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings
The June 22-23 meetings will review information on the current
status of migratory shore and upland game birds and develop 1999-2000
migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species plus
regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl seasons in designated
States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway; and extended
falconry seasons. In addition, we will review and discuss preliminary
information on the status of waterfowl as it relates to the development
and selection of the regulatory packages for the 1999-2000 regular
waterfowl seasons.
The August 3-4 meetings will review information on the current
status of waterfowl and develop 1999-2000 migratory game bird
regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl seasons and other
species and seasons not previously discussed at the early season
meetings.
In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to
public observation. You may submit written comments to the Director on
the matters discussed.
Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings
Service representatives will be present at the following meetings
of the Flyway Councils:
Atlantic Flyway, July 29-30, Key West, Florida, (Hilton Resort and
Marina)
Mississippi Flyway, July 27-29, Merrillville, Indiana (Radisson)
Central Flyway, July 29-30, Bartlesville, Oklahoma (hotel to be
announced)
Pacific Flyway, July 30, Reno, Nevada (Peppermill Hotel)
Although agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually
commence at 8:30 a.m. on the days indicated.
Review of Public Comments
This supplemental rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory
alternatives for the 1999-2000 duck hunting seasons. We have included
and addressed all comments and recommendations received through May 24,
1999, relating to the development of these alternatives.
This supplemental rulemaking also describes other recommended
changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the May 3,
1999, Federal Register. We have included only those recommendations
requiring either new proposals or substantial modification of the
preliminary proposals.
This supplement does not include recommendations or comments that
simply support or oppose preliminary proposals and provide no
recommended alternatives. We will consider these comments later in the
regulations-development process. We will publish responses to all
proposals and written comments when we develop final frameworks.
We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations
in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to
previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible,
they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items
in the May 3, 1999, Federal Register.
1. Ducks
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest
management are: (A) Harvest Strategy Considerations, (B) Framework
Dates, (C) Season Length, (D) Closed Seasons, (E) Bag Limits, (F) Zones
and Split Seasons, and (G) Special Seasons/Species Management. The
categories correspond to previous published issues/discussion and only
those containing substantial recommendations are discussed below.
A. Harvest Strategy Considerations
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
continued use of the 1998-99 duck hunting packages for the 1999-2000
season. They further recommended the
[[Page 32759]]
Service not allow framework date extensions in any States during the
1999-2000 season.
The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council recommended the Service use the 1997-98 regulations packages
for the 1999-2000 duck season, including frameworks dates from the
Saturday nearest October 1 to the Sunday nearest January 20.
The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council recommended the Service continue use of the 1998-99 regulatory
packages for the 1999-2000 season and further recommended deletion of
the ``very restrictive'' alternative and modification of the framework
opening and closing dates to the Saturday closest to September 23 to
January 31 for all alternatives with no offsets (see further discussion
in B. Framework Dates).
The Central Flyway Council recommended the Service continue use of
the 1998-99 regulatory packages for the 1999-2000 season with several
modifications. The Council recommended opening framework dates of the
Saturday closest to September 24 in the ``liberal'' and ``moderate''
regulatory alternatives with no offsets. The framework closing date
would remain the Sunday closest to January 20. Additionally, the
Council recommended that no additional changes be allowed to the
packages for a five-year period (see further discussion in B. Framework
Dates).
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended framework dates of the
Saturday closest to September 23 to January 31 without offsets in the
``liberal'' alternative and with offsets in the ``moderate''
alternative (as long as the offset does not exceed 7 days with a season
of not less that 79 days in the Pacific Flyway). For the
``restrictive'' and ``very restrictive'' alternatives, the Council
recommended maintaining current framework dates (see further discussion
in B. Framework Dates). The Council also recommended maintaining the
current mallard bag limits and preserving the traditional differences
in harvest opportunity both within and between Flyways.
Service Response: For the 1999-2000 regular duck hunting season, we
propose the four regulatory alternatives detailed in the accompanying
table. Alternatives are specified for each Flyway and are designated as
``VERY RES'' for the very restrictive, ``RES'' for the restrictive,
``MOD'' for the moderate, and ``LIB'' for the liberal alternative. We
will announce final regulatory alternatives and propose a specific
regulatory alternative at the conclusion of the early-season
regulations meetings in late June when survey data on waterfowl
population and habitat status are available. Public comments will be
accepted until July 2, 1999, and should be sent to the address under
the caption ADDRESSES.
B. Framework Dates
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
that the Service not allow framework date extensions in any States
during the 1999-2000 season.
The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council recommended no change in the framework dates from the 1997-98
regulatory alternatives.
The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council recommended modification of the framework opening and closing
dates to the Saturday closest to September 23 to January 31 for all
regulatory alternatives with no offsets.
The Central Flyway Council recommended an opening framework date of
the Saturday closest to September 24 in the ``liberal'' and
``moderate'' regulatory alternatives with no offsets. The framework
closing date would remain the Sunday closest to January 20.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended framework dates of the
Saturday closest to September 23 to January 31 without offsets in the
``liberal'' alternative and with offsets in the ``moderate''
alternative (as long as the offset does not exceed 7 days with a season
of not less that 79 days in the Pacific Flyway). For the
``restrictive'' and ``very restrictive'' alternatives, the Council
recommended maintaining current framework dates.
Service Response: After considerable public debate concerning
framework dates for the 1998-99 hunting season, in an August 5, 1998,
Federal Register (63 FR 41926), we chose not to extend the framework
closing date beyond January 20 in the Atlantic Flyway and the Sunday
nearest January 20 in the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways.
That decision reflected public concerns that framework-date extensions
could re-distribute hunting opportunities in unknown or undesirable
ways; that there could be adverse biological impacts; and that the four
Flyway Councils had not had sufficient opportunity to design an
approach that could be supported by a majority of States. In
recognition of these concerns, we expressed an interest in working with
the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the
National Flyway Council, and the four Flyway Councils to explore common
goals, potential conflicts, and possible solutions in the debate over
framework-date extensions. However, we also recognized the inherent
difficulty in finding a consensus solution, principally because the
issue involves highly subjective assessments of what constitutes the
fair and equitable distribution of hunting opportunity among States.
On September 29, 1998 (63 FR 51998), we published the final late-
season frameworks for migratory bird hunting regulations that States
used to select their hunting seasons. On October 19, 1998, Congress
directed us to offer a framework-date extension from the Sunday nearest
January 20 to January 31 in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee, provided the affected States
agreed to reduce season length to offset the predicted increase in duck
harvest. No public comment was accepted on this action because: (1) the
framework dates were revised based on a directive from Congress; (2)
public comment could not change the Congressional action; (3) there was
insufficient time before the onset of hunting seasons in southern
States; and (4) we had already received extensive public comment on the
issue. Ultimately, the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee
selected the framework-date extension, and the length of their hunting
seasons was reduced from 60 to 51 days.
In evaluating proposals for framework dates for the 1999-2000
hunting season, we will continue to focus on several key issues,
including: (1) the potential for biological impacts on the waterfowl
resource, particularly on those species currently at depressed levels;
(2) the technical difficulties associated with applying framework dates
at a State, rather than Flyway, level; (3) the need to maintain
framework dates as a viable tool, along with season length and bag
limit, for regulating duck harvests; and (4) the acceptability of
proposals to a broad range of stakeholders. In addition, we are
particularly concerned about any modification to framework dates that
would disrupt the functioning of Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM),
which is intended to reduce long-standing uncertainties about the
impacts of hunting regulations on waterfowl populations. An essential
feature of the AHM process is a set of regulatory alternatives
(including framework dates, season lengths, and bag limits) that is
sufficiently stable over time to permit a reliable investigation of the
relationships between regulations and harvest, and between harvest and
subsequent duck population size.
[[Page 32760]]
Proposals for framework extensions also will be evaluated based on
our most recent biological assessment, which was conducted in response
to a directive contained in the Senate Committee on Appropriations
Report 105-227. Our assessment confirmed that extensions of opening and
closing framework dates tend to increase the harvest of many duck
species. Therefore, large-scale extensions, which are not accompanied
by reductions in season length and/or bag limits, likely would increase
the frequency of restrictive hunting regulations and the frequency of
annual regulatory changes. Moreover, the assessment confirms that
additional uncertainty about harvest levels, arising from novel changes
to regulatory alternatives, will precipitate more conservative harvest
strategies, at least in the short term.
Last August, and again last November, we publicly endorsed the
National Flyway Council's (NFC) overall review of the framework-dates
issue. We commend the NFC for their continuing efforts to resolve this
contentious issue and seek consensus among the Flyways. However, in
reviewing the recent framework-date proposals from the four Flyway
Councils, it is readily apparent that a consistent approach among or,
in one case, within Flyways is still lacking. Apparently, there remains
a diversity of opinions: (1) about the desirability of framework-date
extensions at this time; (2) about the need for corresponding
reductions in season length; (3) about whether extensions should be
applied to opening dates, closing dates, or both; and (4) about the
inclusion of framework-date extensions in some or all of the regulatory
alternatives.
We hope the Flyway Councils will continue to seek agreement on
clear, definitive statements about harvest-management objectives, which
include not only the overall desired level of hunting opportunity, but
how that opportunity should be shared among States. Otherwise, we
believe that tacit disagreement over the objectives of modifying
framework dates will continue to undermine the biological and
administrative foundations of the regulatory process. Therefore, we
strongly believe that the debate over framework-date extensions could
benefit from a more structured dialogue, in which Flyway Councils
explore the sociological issues of fairness and equity underlying the
framework-date issue. We acknowledge the difficulties associated with
such a dialogue, but broad-based agreement on a regulatory approach to
framework dates is unlikely in its absence.
In the absence of consensus among the Flyways and with a
recognition of the need for stable regulatory alternatives for AHM, for
the 1999-2000 hunting season, we are proposing the continued use of the
1998-99 regulatory alternatives published in the August 5, 1998,
Federal Register, with one exception. For the States of Alabama,
Mississippi, and Tennessee, we propose a 51-day season with a January
31 framework closing date in the ``liberal'' alternative. Of the six
States that were offered the framework extension in the 1998-99 season,
only these three States availed themselves of this option. We believe
that a reduction in season length is needed to offset the expected
increase in duck harvest (about 18% for mallards), and that 9 days is a
commensurate offset for this region of the country. The framework-date
extension would be limited to the ``liberal'' regulatory alternative to
avoid the introduction of additional uncertainty about harvest impacts
at other regulatory levels, and to avoid the potential for late-season
physiological or behavioral impacts on ducks when population levels are
insufficient to support liberal seasons. Framework opening and closing
dates for all other States would remain unchanged from those published
in the August 5, 1998, Federal Register. Finally, we intend to maintain
these framework-date specifications through the 2002-03 hunting season.
This stability is necessary to assess the appropriateness of the 9-day
offset for the extended framework closing date in the southern
Mississippi Flyway, and to ensure that the AHM process can continue to
increase our understanding of the effects of hunting on waterfowl
populations. This understanding is essential to providing maximum
levels of biologically sustainable hunting opportunity.
F. Zones and Split Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the Service add ``3
zones with 2-way splits permitted in one or more zones'' as an
additional option beginning in 2001. Further, because of the public
input process many States undertake, the Committee recommended that
States have up to one year to choose this option and provide the
Service with its proposal (prior to the 2001 regular duck season
regulations process).
The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council recommended that the Service consider offering all States the
option of choosing 3 zones with a split season in each zone in the year
2001.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended the Service engage the
Flyway Councils in an evaluation of the guidelines for zoning and split
seasons, prior to the 2001 ``open season'' on regulation changes.
G. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. Scaup
We indicated our growing concern for the status and trends of North
American scaup in September of last year (63 FR 51998) and May of this
year (64 FR 23742). Additionally, scaup population status was a topic
of discussion at the January 27, 1999, Service Regulations Committee
meeting. We have also distributed a status report on scaup and provided
some initial guidelines concerning a scaup harvest strategy to the
Flyway Councils and others for consideration in the development of
recommendations for the 1999-2000 hunting season. In response to this
information, all four Flyways discussed the issue at their winter
meetings.
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
that the Service monitor and manage the harvest of greater and lesser
scaup populations separately. They recommended that differences in
harvest management, when required, be achieved through different daily
bag limits applied on a regional basis. In the Atlantic Flyway, they
recommended that in those regions harvesting primarily greater scaup,
1999-2000 scaup harvest regulations be based on the status of greater
scaup, while the remaining portions of the Flyway be based on the
status of lesser scaup. They further recommended that population
objectives and regulatory triggering levels be finalized at the summer
Flyway Council meetings.
The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the scaup daily bag limit
be reduced from 6 to 3 for 1999.
The Central Flyway Council believes that the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan's scaup population objective (6.3 million) is
too high and that a more appropriate objective is 5.4 million (1955-
1998 average). This new objective would consist of 4.9 million lesser
scaup and 462,000 greater scaup. The Council recommended a prescription
for scaup bag limits based on the status of lesser scaup as follows: < 2="" million,="" bag="" limit="" of="" 1;="" 2-4.2="" million,="" bag="" limit="" of="" 2;="" and=""> 4.2,
the bag limit for scaup should equal the regular
[[Page 32761]]
daily duck limit as determined by the AHM process.
Service Response: We remain concerned about the long-term status
and trends in North American scaup populations. Further, we appreciate
the efforts of all four Flyway Councils to constructively address the
issue of a harvest strategy for scaup and will continue to work with
the Councils to finalize a harvest strategy for scaup for the 1999-2000
season.
iv. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council requested that the Service clarify the
linkage between the Flyway-wide wood duck harvest strategy, September
teal seasons, and regional (reference area) September wood duck
seasons. They further recommended the continuation of the experimental
September teal/wood duck seasons in Kentucky and Tennessee in 1999 with
no changes from the 1998 season.
v. Youth Hunt
Council Recommendations: The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a special 2-day youth
waterfowl season.
The Central Flyway Council recommended expansion of the special
youth waterfowl hunt to 2 consecutive days.
4. Canada Geese
A. Special Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council made several
recommendations concerning September goose seasons. They recommended
the approval of operational status for a September 1 to 25 framework in
Crawford County, Pennsylvania, and a September 1 to 30 framework in New
Jersey beginning in 1999. They further recommended the expansion of the
September goose season framework closing date around Montezuma National
Wildlife Refuge, New York from September 15 to 20.
The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council recommended that Minnesota be allowed to have an experimental
extension of their September special season from September 16 to 22,
except in the Northwest Goose Zone, for the 1999, 2000, and 2001
hunting seasons.
The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council urged the Service to use caution in changing or expanding
special goose seasons.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended the addition of the Bridger
Valley hunt unit to the existing September RMP Canada goose seasons in
western Wyoming, with frameworks of September 1 to 7.
B. Regular Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the 1999 regular goose
season opening date be as early as September 18 in Michigan and
Wisconsin.
7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council requested that
the Service begin preparation of the NEPA documentation necessary for
regulation changes needed to stabilize the greater snow goose
population at 1.0 million by 2002. Their recommended changes include
extension of the shooting hours to one-half hour after sunset, the use
of electronic callers, unplugged shotguns, and conservation hunts. They
requested initiation of these changes by the 1999-2000 season.
9. Sandhill Cranes
Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended
removal of the ``float'' portion (10 percent of the total allowable
harvest) of the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) greater sandhill crane
annual harvest allocation for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 seasons. The
Council recommended removal of this harvest portion to allow a research
study.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended several changes in sandhill
crane seasons. For greater sandhill cranes, the Council recommended the
establishment of a new experimental crane hunt in Box Elder County,
Utah, between September 1 and September 30. For RMP cranes, the Council
recommended that the frameworks be modified to include Bear Lake and
Fremont Counties in Idaho, and that the current requirement for hunter
check stations in these counties be waived. The Council further
recommended that the annual check station requirement for the Arizona
RMP Greater Sandhill Crane hunt be modified to a required check station
every 3 years.
18. Alaska
Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council made several
recommendations concerning Alaska. For sea ducks, the Council
recommended reducing the separate sea duck bag and possession limits
from 15/30 to 10/20 king and common eiders, scoters, and mergansers in
the aggregate. Long-tailed ducks (oldsquaws) and harlequins would be
included in general duck limits and seasons would remain closed for
spectacled and Steller's eiders. For Canada geese, the Council
recommended removal of Canada goose bag limit restrictions within dark
goose bag limits (4/8) in Alaska Game Management Subunit 9E (Alaska
Peninsula) and Unit 18 (Y-K Delta). Further, for tundra swans, the
Council recommended that tundra swan permits issued for swan hunts in
Alaska allow the take of up to 3 swans per permit, with no change in
reporting requirements or other framework conditions.
Public Comment Invited
We intend that adopted final rules be as responsive as possible to
all concerned interests, and therefore desire to obtain the comments
and suggestions of the public, other concerned governmental agencies,
non-governmental organizations, and other private interests on these
proposals. However, special circumstances are involved in the
establishment of these regulations which limit the amount of time that
we can allow for public comment. Specifically, two considerations
compress the time in which the rulemaking process must operate: (1) the
need to establish final rules at a point early enough in the summer to
allow affected State agencies to appropriately adjust their licensing
and regulatory mechanisms; and (2) the unavailability, before mid-June,
of specific, reliable data on this year's status of some waterfowl and
migratory shore and upland game bird populations. Therefore, we believe
that to allow comment periods past the dates specified is contrary to
the public interest.
Comment Procedure
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 received.
Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to
final regulations that differ from these proposals. We invite
interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments to the
[[Page 32762]]
address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
You may inspect comments received on the proposed annual
regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office in
room 634, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. 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 received
during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date.
NEPA Consideration
NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document,
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988.
We published a 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). Copies are available from the address indicated
under the caption ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Prior to issuance of the 1999-2000 migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will consider 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 that the proposed action is consistent
with conservation programs for those species. Consultations under
Section 7 of this Act may cause us to change proposals in this and
future supplemental proposed rulemaking documents.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
While this individual supplemental rule was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the migratory bird hunting
regulations are economically significant and are annually reviewed by
OMB under E.O. 12866.
E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy
to understand. We invite comments on how to make this rule easier to
understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1)
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule
contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?
(3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the
rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter)
sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in the ``Supplementary
Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the
rule? What else could the Service do to make the rule easier to
understand?
Regulatory Flexibility Act
These 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 and a Small
Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) was issued by the Service in
1998. The Analysis documented the significant beneficial economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities. 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 Analysis was based on the 1996 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 between $429 and $1,084 million at small businesses in 1998.
Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Office of
Migratory Bird Management.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above,
this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan
to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C.
808 (1) .
Paperwork Reduction Act
We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. 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 the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and assigned
clearance number 1018-0015 (expires 09/30/2001). 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 Sandhill Crane Harvest Questionnaire and
assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires 09/30/2000). The
information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude, the
geographical and temporal distribution of harvest, and the portion its
constitutes of the total population. 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 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.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that these regulations meet the applicable standards found in Sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Takings Implication Assessment
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule,
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant
takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected
property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking
of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise
otherwise unavailable privileges; and, therefore, reduce restrictions
on the use of private and public property.
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 and employ guidelines to establish
special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands.
This process preserves the ability of the States and Tribes to
determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Tribe
may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The
frameworks are
[[Page 32763]]
developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway
Councils. This 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
12612, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and
do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 1999-2000
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: June 9, 1999.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 32764]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN99.013
[FR Doc. 99-15337 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
