74050 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) negotiable securities of the United 

States having market value at the time 

of deposit of not less than the required 

dollar amount of the bond; 

(3) a surety bond provided by a third 

party that is certified by the Department 

of the Treasury and listed in Treasury 

Circular 570 as financial assurance for 

the obligations for specific operations, 

or providing blanket assurance for 

multiple defined operations conducted 

by the operator such as within a 

particular State or nation-wide, and/or; 

(4) an irrevocable letter of credit 

provided by an institution acceptable to 

the authorized officer. 

(b) In determining the amount of the 

required financial assurance, the 

authorized officer shall give 

consideration to the reclamation cost 

estimate which shall be submitted by 

the operator prior to the approval of the 

final plan of operations, and the 

estimated cost of stabilizing, 

rehabilitating, and reclaiming the area of 

operations. 

(c) In the event that an approved plan 

of operations is modified in accordance 

with § 228.4 (d) and (e), the authorized 

officer will review the financial 

assurance for adequacy and, if 

necessary, will adjust the financial 

assurance amount to conform to the 

operations plan as modified. 

(d) When reclamation has been 

completed in accordance with 

§ 228.8(g), the authorized officer will 

notify the operator that obligations 

covered by the financial assurance have 

been met: Provided, however, that when 

the Forest Service has accepted any 

portion of the reclamation as completed, 

the authorized officer shall notify the 

operator of such acceptance and 

proportionally reduce the required 

financial assurance amount thereafter to 

be required for the remaining 

obligations of the operator. 

(e) When an operator is required to 

continue to operate or maintain certain 

aspects of the operation after the mine 

has closed, the authorized officer may 

require the operator to establish a trust 

fund to ensure that adequate funds are 

available for long-term post-closure 

reclamation activities required by the 

regulations or the approved plan of 

operations following mine closure. The 

authorized officer shall determine 

which activities may be secured through 

a trust fund, and which activities may 

be secured through another form of 

financial assurance. Establishing a trust 

fund does not relieve the operator of the 

responsibility to provide long-term 

management, maintenance, and 

reclamation of the site. A trust fund for 

long-term post closure obligations shall 

be comprised of financial instruments 

limited to negotiable securities of the 

United States Government; State and 

Municipal securities or bonds; money 

market funds; certificates of deposits; 

investment-grade securities; and stock 

equity shares listed on a national 

exchange. 

Andrea Delgado Fink, 

Chief of Staff, Natural Resources and 

Environment. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23526 Filed 10–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 32 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2023–0038; 

FXRS12610900000–234–FF09R20000] 

RIN 1018–BG71 

National Wildlife Refuge System; 2023– 

2024 Station-Specific Hunting and 

Sport Fishing Regulations 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), expand 

hunting opportunities on three National 

Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). We also make 

changes to existing station-specific 

regulations in order to reduce the 

regulatory burden on the public, 

increase access for hunters and anglers 

on Service lands and waters, and 

comply with a Presidential mandate for 

plain language standards. Finally, the 

best available science, analyzed as part 

of this rulemaking, indicates that lead 

ammunition and tackle have negative 

impacts on both wildlife and human 

health. In this rule, Blackwater, 

Chincoteague, Eastern Neck, Erie, Great 

Thicket, Patuxent Research Refuge, 

Rachel Carson, and Wallops Island 

NWRs each adopt a non-lead 

requirement, which will take effect on 

September 1, 2026. While the Service 

continues to evaluate the future of lead 

use in hunting and fishing on Service 

lands and waters, this rulemaking does 

not include any opportunities 

increasing or authorizing the new use of 

lead beyond fall 2026. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 27, 

2023, except for the amendments to 50 

CFR 32.38 (amendatory instruction 5), 

32.39 (amendatory instruction 6), 32.57 

(amendatory instruction 11), and 32.65 

(amendatory instruction 15), which are 

effective September 1, 2026. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Harrigan, (703) 358–2440. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee), as amended 

(Administration Act), closes NWRs in 

all States except Alaska to all uses until 

opened. The Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) may open refuge areas to any 

use, including hunting and/or sport 

fishing, upon a determination that the 

use is compatible with the purposes of 

the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Refuge System) mission. The 

action also must be in accordance with 

provisions of all laws applicable to the 

areas, developed in coordination with 

the appropriate State fish and wildlife 

agency(ies), consistent with the 

principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management and administration, and 

otherwise in the public interest. These 

requirements ensure that we maintain 

the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge 

System for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans. 

We annually review hunting and 

sport fishing programs to determine 

whether to include additional stations 

or whether individual station 

regulations governing existing programs 

need modifications. Changing 

environmental conditions, State and 

Federal regulations, and other factors 

affecting fish and wildlife populations 

and habitat may warrant modifications 

to station-specific regulations to ensure 

the continued compatibility of hunting 

and sport fishing programs and to 

ensure that these programs will not 

materially interfere with or detract from 

the fulfillment of station purposes or the 

Service’s mission. 

Provisions governing hunting and 

sport fishing on refuges are in title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations at part 

32 (50 CFR part 32), and on hatcheries 

at part 71 (50 CFR part 71). We regulate 

hunting and sport fishing to: 

• Ensure compatibility with refuge 

and hatchery purpose(s); 

• Properly manage fish and wildlife 

resource(s); 

• Protect other values; 

• Ensure visitor safety; and 

• Provide opportunities for fish- and 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 74051 

On many stations where we decide to 

allow hunting and sport fishing, our 

general policy of adopting regulations 

identical to State hunting and sport 

fishing regulations is adequate to meet 

these objectives. On other stations, we 

must supplement State regulations with 

more-restrictive Federal regulations to 

ensure that we meet our management 

responsibilities, as outlined under 

Statutory Authority, below. We issue 

station-specific hunting and sport 

fishing regulations when we open 

wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries to 

migratory game bird hunting, upland 

game hunting, big game hunting, or 

sport fishing. These regulations may list 

the wildlife species that you may hunt 

or fish; seasons; bag or creel (container 

for carrying fish) limits; methods of 

hunting or sport fishing; descriptions of 

areas open to hunting or sport fishing; 

and other provisions as appropriate. 

Statutory Authority 

The Administration Act, as amended 

by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement 

Act; Pub. L. 105–57), governs the 

administration and public use of 

refuges, and the Refuge Recreation Act 

of 1962 (Recreation Act; 16 U.S.C. 460k– 

460k–4) governs the administration and 

public use of refuges and hatcheries. 

Amendments enacted by the 

Improvement Act were built upon the 

Administration Act in a manner that 

provides an ‘‘organic act’’ for the Refuge 

System, similar to organic acts that exist 

for other public Federal lands. The 

Improvement Act serves to ensure that 

we effectively manage the Refuge 

System as a national network of lands, 

waters, and interests for the protection 

and conservation of our Nation’s 

wildlife resources. The Administration 

Act states first and foremost that we 

focus our Refuge System mission on 

conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats. The 

Improvement Act requires the Secretary, 

before allowing a new use of a refuge, 

or before expanding, renewing, or 

extending an existing use of a refuge, to 

determine that the use is compatible 

with the purpose for which the refuge 

was established and the mission of the 

Refuge System. The Improvement Act 

established as the policy of the United 

States that wildlife-dependent 

recreation, when compatible, is a 

legitimate and appropriate public use of 

the Refuge System, through which the 

American public can develop an 

appreciation for fish and wildlife. The 

Improvement Act established six 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses as 

the priority general public uses of the 

Refuge System. These uses are hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. 

The Recreation Act authorizes the 

Secretary to administer areas within the 

Refuge System and Hatchery System for 

public recreation as an appropriate 

incidental or secondary use only to the 

extent that doing so is practicable and 

not inconsistent with the primary 

purpose(s) for which Congress and the 

Service established the areas. The 

Recreation Act requires that any 

recreational use of refuge or hatchery 

lands be compatible with the primary 

purpose(s) for which we established the 

refuge and not inconsistent with other 

previously authorized operations. 

The Administration Act and 

Recreation Act also authorize the 

Secretary to issue regulations to carry 

out the purposes of the Acts and 

regulate uses. 

We develop specific management 

plans for each refuge prior to opening it 

to hunting or sport fishing. In many 

cases, we develop station-specific 

regulations to ensure the compatibility 

of the programs with the purpose(s) for 

which we established the refuge or 

hatchery and the Refuge and Hatchery 

System mission. We ensure initial 

compliance with the Administration Act 

and the Recreation Act for hunting and 

sport fishing on newly acquired land 

through an interim determination of 

compatibility made at or near the time 

of acquisition. These regulations ensure 

that we make the determinations 

required by these acts prior to adding 

refuges to the lists of areas open to 

hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR 

parts 32 and 71. We ensure continued 

compliance by the development of 

comprehensive conservation plans and 

step-down management plans, and by 

annual review of hunting and sport 

fishing programs and regulations. 

Summary of Comments and Responses 

On June 23, 2023, we published in the 

Federal Register (88 FR 41058) a 

proposed rule to expand hunting and 

fishing opportunities at three refuges for 

the 2023–2024 season. We accepted 

public comments on the proposed rule 

for 60 days, ending August 22, 2023. By 

that date, we received more than 18,500 

comments on the proposed rule. More 

than 95 percent of these comments were 

identical or nonsubstantive comments 

that were outside the scope of the 

proposed rule. We received 326 unique 

comments, and 228 of those comments 

were substantive. We discuss the 

substantive comments we received 

below by topic. Beyond our responses 

below, additional station-specific 

information on how we responded to 

comments on particular hunting or 

fishing opportunities at a given refuge or 

hatchery can be found in that station’s 

final hunting and/or fishing package, 

each of which can be located in Docket 

No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2023–0038 on 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comment (1): We received several 

comments expressing general support 

for the proposed hunting expansions in 

the rule. These comments of general 

support either expressed appreciation 

for the increased hunting access in the 

proposed rule overall, expressed 

appreciation for increased access at 

particular refuges, or both. In addition 

to this general support, some 

commenters requested additional 

hunting and fishing opportunities.On 

the topic of additional opportunities, a 

few commenters also noted that the 

proposed rule had relatively fewer 

openings and expansions than other 

rules in recent years. 

Our Response: Hunting and fishing on 

Service lands is a tradition that dates 

back to the early 1900s. In passing the 

Improvement Act, Congress reaffirmed 

that the Refuge System was created to 

conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats, and would facilitate 

opportunities for Americans to 

participate in compatible wildlifedependent recreation, including hunting 

and fishing on Refuge System lands. We 

prioritize wildlife-dependent recreation, 

including hunting and fishing, when 

doing so is compatible with the purpose 

of the refuge and the mission of the 

Refuge System. 

We will continue to open and expand 

hunting and sport fishing opportunities 

across the Refuge System; however, as 

detailed further in our response to 

Comment (2), below, opening or 

expanding hunting or fishing 

opportunities on Service lands is not a 

quick or simple process. The annual 

regulatory cycle begins in June or July 

of each year for the following hunting 

and sport fishing season (the planning 

cycle for this 2023–2024 final rule began 

in June 2022). This annual timeline 

allows us time to collaborate closely 

with our State, Tribal, and Territorial 

partners, as well as other partners 

including nongovernmental 

organizations, on potential 

opportunities. It also provides us with 

time to complete environmental 

analyses and other requirements for 

opening or expanding new 

opportunities. Therefore, it would be 

impracticable for the Service to 

complete multiple regulatory cycles in 

one calendar year due to the logistics of 

coordinating with various partners. 

Once we determine that a hunting or 

sport fishing opportunity can be carried 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74052 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

out in a manner compatible with 

individual station purposes and 

objectives, we work expeditiously to 

open it. 

This also applies to commenter 

requests for changes in the season dates, 

days of the week, hours open, methods 

of take, or other logistical requirements 

that would align our hunting and 

fishing regulations more closely with 

State hunting and fishing regulations, 

such as requests to allow Sunday 

hunting where State governments have 

removed previous prohibitions. The 

Service is committed to aligning with 

State regulations as closely as possible, 

while keeping in mind our conservation 

mission and unique ecosystem 

preservation and biodiversity 

responsibility among public lands, and 

has revised hundreds of regulations in 

recent rulemakings in the interest of 

alignment with State regulations. 

Nevertheless, we must complete our 

own evaluation and decision-making 

processes prior to changing any 

standing policies and regulations where 

they differ from newly adopted State 

regulations. We have completed such 

evaluations in Virginia for Wallops 

Island National Wildlife Refuge, where 

Sunday hunting is now open, and for 

Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, 

where Sunday hunting is incompatible 

with other refuge uses. Additional 

refuges will be evaluated over time. 

This rule does contain relatively 

fewer opportunities than other recent 

annual rulemakings, but within the 

wider context of the full history of these 

annual rulemakings, it is near the 

median size. The size of our 

rulemakings always varies from year to 

year, and there are a few different 

contributing reasons for the size of this 

year’s rule relative to larger rules such 

as the 2021–2022 final rule (86 FR 

48822; August 31, 2021). First, we 

successfully streamlined our regulations 

and aligned with State regulations 

where possible at many stations in 

recent years, which means that during 

this streamlining effort there were many 

more stations proposing changes than 

there otherwise would have been in 

these annual rules. Some of these 

streamlining and alignment efforts even 

produced increased access and 

expanded opportunities, as season dates 

were extended or methods of take were 

added for certain NWRs. Second, due to 

the success of our efforts in recent years 

to create new hunting and fishing 

opportunities, there were fewer opening 

and expansions proposed this year. 

Many of these opportunities were 

identified and evaluated over the course 

of multiple years. This limits the size of 

our rules in subsequent years because 

we need time to identify and evaluate 

more potential openings and 

expansions. Third, there is ultimately a 

finite number of compatible hunting 

and fishing opportunities possible on 

the Refuge System at a given time; as we 

approach that limit, the opportunities 

contained in our annual rulemakings 

will necessarily decrease. Once we have 

maximized access throughout the 

Refuge System, we will only be able to 

increase access when we acquire new 

acres. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (2): Several commenters 

expressed general opposition to any 

hunting or fishing in the Refuge System. 

Some of these commenters stated that 

hunting was antithetical to the purposes 

of a ‘‘refuge,’’ which, in their opinion, 

should serve as an inviolate sanctuary 

for all wildlife. The remaining 

commenters generically opposed 

expanded hunting or fishing 

opportunities at specific stations. 

Our Response: The Service prioritizes 

facilitating wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities, including 

hunting and fishing, on Service land in 

compliance with applicable Service law 

and policy. For refuges, the 

Administration Act, as amended, 

stipulates that hunting (along with 

fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation), if found 

to be compatible, is a legitimate and 

priority general public use of a refuge 

and should be facilitated (16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(3)(D)). Thus, we only allow 

hunting of resident wildlife on Refuge 

System lands if such activity has been 

determined compatible with the 

established purpose(s) of the refuge and 

the mission of the Refuge System as 

required by the Administration Act. For 

the three stations expanding hunting in 

this rule, we determined that the 

proposed actions were compatible. 

Each station manager makes a 

decision regarding hunting and fishing 

opportunities only after rigorous 

examination of the available 

information, consultation and 

coordination with States and Tribes, 

and compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

as well as other applicable laws and 

regulations. The many steps taken 

before a station opens or expands a 

hunting or fishing opportunity on the 

refuge ensure that the Service does not 

allow any opportunity that would 

compromise the purpose of the station 

or the mission of the Refuge System. 

Hunting of resident wildlife on 

Service lands generally occurs 

consistent with State regulations, 

including seasons and bag limits. 

Station-specific hunting regulations can 

be more restrictive (but not more liberal) 

than State regulations and often are 

more restrictive in order to help meet 

specific refuge objectives. These 

objectives include resident wildlife 

population and habitat objectives, 

minimizing disturbance impacts to 

wildlife, maintaining high-quality 

opportunities for hunting and other 

wildlife-dependent recreation, 

minimizing conflicts with other public 

uses and/or refuge management 

activities, and protecting public safety. 

The word ‘‘refuge’’ includes the idea 

of providing a haven of safety as one of 

its definitions, and as such, hunting 

might seem an inconsistent use of the 

Refuge System. However, again, the 

Administration Act stipulates that 

hunting, if found compatible, is a 

legitimate and priority general public 

use of a wildlife refuge. Furthermore, 

we manage refuges to support healthy 

wildlife populations that in many cases 

produce harvestable surpluses that are a 

renewable resource. As practiced on 

refuges, hunting and fishing do not pose 

a threat to wildlife populations. It is 

important to note that taking certain 

individuals through hunting does not 

necessarily reduce a population overall, 

as hunting can simply replace other 

types of mortality. In some cases, 

however, we use hunting as a 

management tool with the explicit goal 

of reducing a population; this is often 

the case with exotic and/or invasive 

species that threaten ecosystem 

stability. Therefore, facilitating hunting 

opportunities is an important aspect of 

the Service’s roles and responsibilities 

as outlined in the legislation 

establishing the Refuge System, and the 

Service will continue to facilitate these 

opportunities where compatible with 

the purpose of the specific refuge and 

the mission of the Refuge System. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (3): We received comments 

from the Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies on the proposed rule. 

The Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies expressed general support for 

increased access for hunters and 

anglers, but expressed concern about the 

individual refuges proposing non-lead 

requirements that take effect in fall 

2026. The Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies also expressed 

appreciation for increased 

communication between the Service 

and State agencies on the use of lead 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 74053 

ammunition and tackle, and advocated 

for more collaboration. 

Our Response: The Service 

appreciates the support of, and is 

committed to working with, our State 

partners to identify additional 

opportunities for expansion of hunting 

and sport fishing on Service lands and 

waters. We welcome and value State 

partner input on all aspects of our 

hunting and fishing programs. 

In response to the Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies, we have not 

made any modifications to the rule. We 

appreciate the support for the hunting 

expansions in this rulemaking and value 

our shared commitment to compatible 

hunter and angler access on the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. On the 

topic of lead ammunition and tackle 

use, see our response to Comment (5), 

below, regarding our plan to require 

non-lead ammunition and/or tackle by 

fall 2026 at individual refuges. On the 

topic of collaboration with State 

agencies in determining the regulations 

and policies governing lead ammunition 

and tackle use on the Refuge System, we 

welcome such coordination and 

collaboration. We appreciate State 

agency efforts to educate the public 

about non-lead ammunition and tackle 

and to implement voluntary uptake 

programs encouraging hunters and 

anglers to voluntarily switch to non-lead 

ammunition and tackle, and we have 

long been engaged in similar efforts at 

our agency. We have also introduced 

non-lead ammunition and tackle 

requirements when and where 

necessary on individual refuges, after 

consultation with relevant State 

agencies. For example, all of the nonlead requirements in this rule involved 

discussions with State agencies 

throughout the process. Going forward, 

we will continue to invite input and 

involvement from our State partners as 

we continue to evaluate the future of 

lead use on Service lands and waters as 

part of an open and transparent process 

to find the best methods to address 

lead’s impact on human and ecological 

health. 

Comment (4): The majority of 

commenters expressed concern over the 

use of lead ammunition and/or lead 

fishing tackle on Service lands and 

waters. Nearly all of these commenters 

expressed support for the non-lead 

requirements in the proposed rule. 

Some of these commenters urged the 

Service to make these requirements 

effective before 2026. Most of these 

commenters urged the Service to 

eliminate, whether immediately or after 

a set transition period, the use of lead 

ammunition and tackle throughout the 

Refuge System. Many commenters 

expressed concerns about raptor 

species, including the bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and other 

species that scientific studies have 

shown to be especially susceptible to 

adverse health impacts from lead 

ammunition and tackle. 

Our Response: The Service 

appreciates the concerns from 

commenters about the issue of 

bioavailability of lead in the 

environment and is aware of the 

potential impacts of lead on fish and 

wildlife. See, for example, the recent 

study from the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) with Service collaboration, 

Vincent Slabe, et al. ‘‘Demographic 

implications of lead poisoning for eagles 

across North America,’’ which is 

available online at https://

www.usgs.gov/news/national-newsrelease/groundbreaking-study-findswidespread-lead-poisoning-bald-andgolden. Accordingly, the Service pays 

special attention to species susceptible 

to lead uptake and to sources of lead 

that could impact ecological and human 

health. 

Historically, the principal cause of 

lead poisoning in waterfowl was the 

high densities of lead shot in wetland 

sediments associated with migratory 

bird hunting activities (Kendall et al. 

1996). In 1991, as a result of high bird 

mortality, the Service instituted a 

nationwide ban on the use of lead shot 

for hunting waterfowl and coots (see 50 

CFR 32.2(k)). However, lead 

ammunition is still used for other types 

of hunting, and lead tackle is used for 

fishing on private and public lands and 

waters, including within the Refuge 

System. 

Due to the continued lead use outside 

of waterfowl hunting, there remains 

concern about the bioavailability of 

spent lead ammunition (bullets) and 

fishing tackle on the environment, the 

health of fish and wildlife, and human 

health. The Service is aware of fish and 

wildlife species, including endangered 

and threatened species, that are 

susceptible to the build-up of lead in 

their systems coming directly from their 

food sources or secondhand through the 

food ingested by their food sources. 

There is also evidence that some species 

are susceptible to direct ingestion of 

lead ammunition or tackle due to their 

foraging behaviors. For example, the 

Service recognizes that ingested lead 

fishing tackle has been found to be a 

leading cause of mortality in adult 

common loons (Grade, T. et al., 2017, 

Population-level effects of lead fishing 

tackle on common loons. The Journal of 

Wildlife Management 82(1): pp. 155– 

164). The impacts of lead on human 

health and safety have been a focus of 

several scientific studies. We are 

familiar with studies that have found 

the ingestion of animals harvested via 

the use of lead ammunition increased 

levels of lead in the human body (e.g., 

Buenz, E. (2016). Lead exposure through 

eating wild game. American Journal of 

Medicine, 128: p. 458). 

It is because of lead’s potential for 

ecological health impacts that, in this 

rulemaking, the Service has continued 

to take a ‘‘measured approach in not 

adding to the use of lead on refuge 

lands’’ (see 87 FR 35136, June 9, 2022). 

Accordingly, the opportunities in this 

final rule either do not involve the use 

of ammunition or tackle (i.e., waterfowl 

hunting or archery), already require the 

use of non-lead ammunition or tackle, 

or are being authorized at refuges that 

will require the use of non-lead 

ammunition or tackle by fall 2026. This 

measured approach is also part of the 

Service’s larger commitment to 

evaluating the use of lead in order to 

determine what is the best course for the 

future of lead use throughout the Refuge 

System and whether lead use is 

addressed going forward through nonlead requirements or different methods, 

including, but not limited to, national 

action, individual refuge actions, or 

some combination. 

In response to commenters’ position 

that 3 years is too long for non-lead use 

requirements at individual stations to 

take effect, the Service did not make any 

changes to the rule. Each individual 

station that will require non-lead 

ammunition and/or tackle starting in 

fall 2026 determined that this timing 

would best serve the refuge’s objectives, 

capacities, purposes, and mission. 

These determinations were made to the 

exclusion of both shorter and longer 

time frames for hunters and anglers to 

transition to the use of non-lead 

equipment. These determinations were 

made with consideration of all impacted 

parties (e.g., refuge wildlife, hunters and 

anglers, other visitors, refuge law 

enforcement) and balancing the 

Service’s interest in reducing the 

potential for adverse lead impacts 

against the Service’s interest in not 

placing an undue compliance burden on 

hunters and anglers. If, in the future, the 

Service sets any non-lead requirement 

timetables for one or more refuges, we 

will similarly consider the input of all 

relevant stakeholders and the impacts of 

our decision on all relevant stakeholders 

as we weigh the competing interests and 

reach the determination that best serves 

the public interest. 

In response to the commenters urging 

the Service to eliminate the use of lead 

ammunition and fishing tackle 

throughout the Refuge System, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74054 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Service is committed to doing what best 

serves the public interest and our 

conservation mission, including 

facilitating compatible wildlifedependent recreational hunting and 

fishing. As we committed to do in our 

2021–2022 rulemaking (see 86 FR 48822 

at 48830, August 31, 2021) and our 

2022–2023 rulemaking (see 87 FR 57108 

at 57122, September 16, 2022), the 

Service has been and continues to 

evaluate lead use in hunting and fishing 

on Service lands and waters. The reason 

this rule is crafted such that it is not 

expected to add to the use of lead on 

refuges beyond 2026 is so that the 

Service can continue to evaluate the 

future of lead use and to seek input from 

partners, as we conduct a transparent 

process to determine what actions and 

methods are appropriate for addressing 

lead’s potential for adverse 

environmental and ecological health 

impacts. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (5): A substantial number of 

commenters expressed opposition to the 

Service requiring the use of non-lead 

ammunition and/or fishing tackle on 

Service lands and waters. This included 

multiple campaigns of duplicate 

comments and 47 unique comments. 

Some of these commenters simply 

expressed a general opposition to the 

concept of non-lead requirements, but 

the rest put forward one or more points 

in arguing against non-lead ammunition 

and/or tackle requirements. The 

concerns collectively expressed by these 

more substantive comments are 

addressed in Comment (6) through 

Comment (14), below. 

Our Response: The Service has 

allowed, and with the promulgation of 

this rule continues to allow, the use of 

lead ammunition and/or tackle in 

hunting and sport fishing in most of the 

Refuge System. The vast majority of 

stations and the vast majority of 

individual hunting and fishing 

opportunities currently permit lead use, 

which follows our general alignment 

with State regulations, as the vast 

majority of States permit the use of lead 

ammunition and tackle. Lead 

ammunition and tackle are currently 

allowed where we have previously 

determined the activity is not likely to 

result in dangerous levels of lead 

exposure. However, the Service has 

made clear that we take the issue of lead 

use seriously, and as the stewards of the 

Refuge System, we are evaluating what 

is best for the resources belonging to the 

American public regarding the future 

use of lead ammunition and tackle on 

Service lands and waters. The best 

available science, analyzed as part of 

this rulemaking, demonstrates that lead 

ammunition and tackle have negative 

impacts on both human health and 

wildlife, and those impacts are more 

acute for some species. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (6): Many of the comments 

opposed to regulations concerning the 

use of lead ammunition and tackle 

questioned the sufficiency of scientific 

support for non-lead requirements. 

Some of the commenters also claimed 

there is specifically a lack of scientific 

evidence of ‘‘population-level’’ lead 

impacts and this means non-lead 

requirements are unwarranted, 

including one comment suggesting that 

‘‘population-level’’ impact requires ‘‘a 

species-specific population decline.’’ 

Other commenters raised concerns that 

the available scientific studies were not 

conducted at the physical site of the 

individual refuges implementing nonlead requirements. 

Our Response: We refer commenters 

concerned about scientific evidence in 

support of the rulemaking to the 

analyses of environmental impacts in 

the NEPA and ESA section 7 

documentation for each refuge in the 

rulemaking and the cumulative impacts 

report accompanying the rulemaking. 

For our NEPA and ESA section 7 

analyses, we considered peer-reviewed 

scientific studies evaluating the impacts 

of lead to humans, to wildlife generally, 

and to specific species—including 

endangered and threatened species and 

species especially susceptible to lead 

ammunition or tackle exposure. While 

this evidence is not determinative as to 

whether non-lead ammunition and 

tackle should be required in all cases, 

given the full range of factors to 

consider on the topic of lead use, it is 

inaccurate to claim that there is no 

scientific evidence of adverse impacts to 

human or ecological health from lead 

ammunition and tackle or that the 

Service has not presented such evidence 

as part of this rulemaking. Each refuge 

in this rule used the best available 

science and the expertise and sound 

professional judgment of refuge staff to 

determine that our management 

strategies, including promulgated nonlead requirements, are based on sound 

science and the specific circumstances 

of that individual refuge. 

Moreover, we also reject the related 

claim that scientific evidence of socalled ‘‘population-level’’ impacts to 

wildlife is both a prerequisite to Service 

action and lacking in the available 

science. Depending on the situation, we 

may manage wildlife at the ‘‘population 

level’’ or at the ‘‘individual level,’’ such 

as acting to protect individuals of an 

endangered or threatened species. 

Similarly, depending on the situation, 

we may adopt regulations, policies, or 

practices that respond to or prevent 

adverse impacts at the population level 

or to individual animals and plants. In 

fact, there are clear cases where we need 

to act preventatively or early to control 

invasive species, pests, or animal 

diseases, since they are much more 

difficult to eradicate when there is 

‘‘population-level’’ damage. 

‘‘Population-level’’ impacts are not 

necessary for regulation to the exclusion 

of any other factors, although in the past 

the Service and others have regulated 

lead use based, at least in part, on 

addressing impacts to whole 

populations, as demonstrated impacts to 

waterfowl populations and the 

population of California condors 

prompted the 1991 nationwide 

prohibition on waterfowl hunting with 

lead ammunition and the 2019 

prohibition on hunting with lead 

ammunition in California, respectively. 

In any case, the scientific literature 

demonstrates that lead use has 

‘‘population-level’’ impacts. 

There is evidence of population-level 

impacts and potential population-level 

impacts to waterfowl and upland game 

bird species from lead fishing tackle and 

lead ammunition through direct 

ingestion. Lead fishing tackle presents a 

risk of lead poisoning to many 

waterfowl species, including loons and 

swans (Pokras and Chafel 1992; Rattner 

et al. 2008; Strom et al. 2009). The 

primary concerns are discarded whole 

or fragmented lead sinkers, as well as 

other lead tackle and even lead 

ammunition released into the water, 

that rest on river and lake bottoms 

where diving birds ingest them 

alongside pebbles, as pebbles are 

necessary to break down food through 

grinding in their digestive systems. This 

results in lead poisoning because the 

grinding action breaks down the pieces 

of ingested lead into fine lead particles 

inside of the birds that can then enter 

their blood streams. Studies have 

consistently found impacts of ingested 

lead fishing tackle are a leading cause of 

mortality in adult common loons 

(Pokras and Chafel 1992; Scheuhammer 

and Norris 1995; Franson et al. 2003; 

Pokras et al. 2009; Grade et al. 2017; 

Grade et al. 2019). Strom, et al., assessed 

lead exposure in Wisconsin birds and 

found that approximately 25 percent of 

the trumpeter swan fatalities from 1991 

through 2007 were attributed to ingested 

lead (Strom et al. 2009). Also, lead 

ammunition discarded on land presents 

a similar risk of lead poisoning from 

upland game birds swallowing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 74055 

discarded ammunition alongside the 

pebbles they use for digestion. 

Another source of population-level 

impacts and potential population-level 

impacts from lead is indirect ingestion 

by birds of prey and other scavengers 

from consuming animals shot with lead 

ammunition. The primary concerns for 

birds of prey are lead fragments from 

lead ammunition that remains in the 

carcasses and gut piles of hunted 

animals that are scavenged by these 

birds. The fine fragments of lead, 

observable in x-rays of harvested game 

animals, are ingested because they are 

embedded in the meat and other animal 

tissues being scavenged and then enter 

the digestive systems and blood streams 

of the birds of prey. Many studies have 

looked at the impacts of this lead 

exposure to eagle health (see, e.g., 

Kramer and Redig 1997; O’Halloran et 

al. 1998; Kelly and Kelly 2005; Golden 

et al. 2016; Hoffman 1985a, 1985b; 

Pattee 1984; Stauber 2010). This 

includes the recent study, published in 

2022, from the USGS with Service 

collaboration, Vincent Slabe, et al. 

‘‘Demographic implications of lead 

poisoning for eagles across North 

America,’’ which is available online at 

https://www.usgs.gov/news/nationalnews-release/groundbreaking-studyfinds-widespread-lead-poisoning-baldand-golden. This study explicitly finds 

that lead poisoning is ‘‘causing 

population growth rates to slow for bald 

eagles by 3.8 percent and golden eagles 

by 0.8 percent annually.’’ These growthslowing impacts to populations are 

statistically significant and, in the case 

of bald eagles, are occurring for a 

species that was previously endangered 

and is still in the process of recovering 

to historical levels. Thus, it is inaccurate 

to claim there are not known 

‘‘population-level’’ impacts from lead 

use. 

A few commenters offer a definition 

that would leave out these effects to 

eagles in claiming that ‘‘populationlevel’’ impact requires ‘‘a speciesspecific population decline.’’ This 

definition, however, is flawed in 

specifying that a species must be in 

overall decline, because overall decline 

tells us nothing about the amount of 

impact lead is having on a species, and 

even the amount of impact must be 

considered in a larger context. First, the 

exact same size of adverse impact from 

lead use to a population can be present 

whether the species is in decline, stable, 

or growing overall because many other 

factors impact populations. To 

illustrate, a ¥3 percent impact to a 

species from lead could reduce growth 

if all other factors would otherwise 

produce 5 percent growth (5¥3 = 2); 

could prevent growth if all other factors 

would otherwise produce 3 percent 

growth (3¥3 = 0); and could increase 

decline if all other factors would 

otherwise produce a 1 percent decline 

(¥1¥3 = ¥4). Second, for similar 

reasons, in the case of impacts of 

different sizes there could be a larger 

impact to a species experiencing overall 

growth than to a species experiencing 

an overall decline. To illustrate, a large 

¥5 percent impact might not be part of 

an overall decline, such as when the 

species would otherwise be growing at 

7 percent (7¥5 = 2), while a smaller 

¥0.01 percent impact might be part of 

an overall decline, such as when the 

species would otherwise be declining at 

¥3 percent (¥3¥0.01 = ¥3.01). Thus, 

overall decline alone tells us nothing 

about the impact of lead use, or any 

other individual factor, on a species 

population. Furthermore, the Service 

would not rely even on the size of the 

impact to a population alone, as the 

same impact can be of greater or lesser 

concern, depending on the status of the 

species (e.g., abundant species, 

recovering species, endangered or 

threatened species), the source of the 

impact (i.e., sources inherent to hunting, 

such as gun noise and hunter foot 

traffic, or sources that can be eliminated 

from hunting activities, such as lead 

use, off-road vehicles, and litter), the 

trade-offs involved in addressing the 

impact (i.e., impediments to 

conservation are prioritized over costs 

to hunters and anglers, which are 

prioritized over costs to commercial 

users, with respect to avoiding tradeoffs), and other factors. These are the 

reasons why the Service does not let our 

decision making, when addressing 

impacts to wildlife health, rely solely on 

the concept of ‘‘population-level’’ 

impacts. 

Similarly, the Service also rejects the 

notion advanced by multiple 

commenters that the available scientific 

evidence must be site-specific, in the 

sense that a given study was conducted 

at the physical location of the refuge in 

question or is otherwise tied to the 

particular refuge and, by extension, the 

hunting and fishing activities and the 

wildlife occurring there. This idea that 

the Service must demonstrate that the 

‘‘units in question have experienced a 

particular problem with lead exposure’’ 

is inconsistent with effective 

conservation science and 

misunderstands the Service’s mission 

and statutory obligations. The 

commenters’ position is inconsistent 

with effective conservation science 

because it ignores fundamental 

scientific concepts of statistical 

sampling and extrapolation. While there 

can be important regional and local 

differences in many threats to wildlife, 

in science-based management of 

wildlife it is standard practice to use 

professional expertise to account for any 

such differences while applying studies 

where the underlying data represent a 

representative sample of the population 

or a population from a different region 

or locality. In addition to being sound, 

widely accepted approaches, the use of 

statistical sampling and extrapolation 

are critical to conservation science, as it 

would be impractical, if not impossible, 

for researchers to directly study widely 

distributed wildlife species in every 

location where they occur. Instead, 

studies are carefully designed to 

maximize extrapolation, and wildlife 

biologists account for local differences 

when applying study results. With 

respect to the non-lead requirements in 

this rulemaking, expert Service 

personnel ensured valid extrapolation, 

and some of the cited studies, including 

the USGS study of bald and golden 

eagles, took statistical samples 

nationwide to ensure nationwide 

applicability of the results. 

Additionally, site-specific scientific 

studies are not required for any other 

aspect of our wildlife management and 

to require them would operate opposite 

our established processes and statutory 

obligations. First, individual refuges 

routinely use scientific studies that 

utilize statistical sampling and/or are 

expertly extrapolated to inform all our 

refuge management practices. The 

Service employs this approach when 

analyzing highly localized actions, such 

as altering waterways and hydrology; 

controversial actions, such as pest 

management; and difficult-to-reverse 

actions, such as species reintroductions. 

There is nothing distinguishing the 

question of permitting or prohibiting 

lead use from other management action 

determinations that have impacts on 

wildlife or ecosystem health that 

necessitates departing from the Service’s 

typical approach to ensuring our 

management is guided by the best 

available science and sound 

professional judgment. Moreover, the 

Service is not willing to consider sitespecific science as a precondition for 

our management actions, as this would 

effectively grind management to a halt. 

The Service cannot feasibly conduct 

localized studies for every routine 

action, including allowing refuge 

visitation, controlling invasive species, 

and opening and expanding hunting 

and fishing opportunities. In fact, this is 

precisely why the applicable statutes 

and regulations specify use of the best 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74056 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

available science, which ensures that 

informed decisions are made with the 

best data at hand. We cannot operate 

under the requirement that site-specific 

scientific evidence must be obtained 

and used for management actions, 

especially in this case where the best 

available scientific evidence has a clear 

consensus. 

Second, the Service’s mission and 

statutory obligations require refuges to 

be closed to hunting and fishing by 

default, and this changes only when we 

have determined they are compatible 

with our conservation mission and have 

promulgated regulations to open 

designated areas to hunting and fishing. 

Hunting and fishing access and 

opportunities are thus constrained by 

the regulations to only those activities 

that are compatible. Thus, the Service 

has an obligation to demonstrate, using 

the best available science, that any given 

aspect of hunting or fishing on the 

Refuge System is compatible with our 

mission. The Service has also built into 

our compatibility process the need to 

reevaluate compatibility determinations 

after a set period, either 10 or 15 years, 

depending on the use, because new 

science or new conditions could compel 

the Service to change our compatibility 

determinations. In the case of the use of 

lead, our past determinations that lead 

ammunition and lead tackle were 

permissible to use on Refuge System 

lands does not change this fundamental 

structure of our processes. The use of 

lead ammunition and tackle, like any 

other visitor activity, can only be 

allowed on a refuge if, and only for as 

long as, the refuge applies the best 

available science and sound 

professional judgment to find it 

compatible. The commenters’ 

suggestion would require that the use of 

lead be assumed compatible if used 

historically is therefore counter to our 

mission and statutory obligations. The 

Service will continue to revisit our 

compatibility determinations, as 

required, while considering the best 

available science and applying sound 

professional judgment. Similarly, refuge 

managers have the well-established 

authority to temporarily and 

immediately close refuge activities, 

including hunting and fishing 

opportunities, in the interest of wildlife 

health or public safety. This emergency 

authority also recognizes that our 

mission requires us to prioritize wildlife 

conservation over human activities, 

even if they have been previously 

authorized, whenever new information 

or new conditions bring the two into 

conflict. The Service is weighing all 

relevant factors in determining the best 

approach to lead use, but requiring that 

refuges prove adverse site-specific 

impacts before closing to certain human 

activities is inconsistent with our 

compatibility process. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (7): Many commenters 

opposed to requirements to use nonlead ammunition and tackle claimed 

non-lead ammunition and non-lead 

tackle are more expensive than lead 

ammunition and tackle. Some of these 

commenters further expressed the 

concern that non-lead ammunition and 

tackle requirements ‘‘price people out’’ 

of participating in hunting and fishing. 

Our Response: We do not agree that 

non-lead ammunition and tackle are 

prohibitively expensive, especially in 

comparison to lead ammunition and 

tackle. However, we recognize that there 

could be some cost burden of 

compliance for hunting and fishing 

opportunities where non-lead 

ammunition or tackle is required. For 

example, non-lead ammunition is very 

close in price to premium lead 

ammunition but can be more expensive 

than some lead ammunition. Notably, 

the Maine Department of Inland 

Fisheries and Wildlife and others have 

recognized that this cost difference is 

less than $10 per box of ammunition, 

with boxes typically lasting multiple 

hunting seasons (see online at https://

www.maine.gov/ifw/hunting-trapping/ 

hunting/nonlead-ammunition.html). 

When we have restricted lead use, we 

have first ensured that the ecological 

health and conservation benefits 

outweigh any potential for cost burden 

on hunters and anglers. We are 

confident that non-lead ammunition 

and tackle are not cost-prohibitive, as 

hunting and angling continues on all 

Refuge System stations where we have 

restricted lead use. Moreover, we have 

not seen declines in hunting use 

attributable to non-lead ammunition 

requirements. In other words, huntinguse day declines at stations that require 

non-lead ammunition do not appear to 

deviate from general trends of declining 

hunting participation that affect all 

stations in the Refuge System. We 

similarly have not seen growth slowed 

at stations requiring non-lead tackle 

such that it is out of step with general 

growth trends in angler participation. 

Where we have seen meaningful 

declines is in the price of non-lead 

alternatives, as there has been a 

continuous trend for years of decreasing 

prices for non-lead ammunition and 

tackle alternatives, and the 1991 

nationwide ban on lead ammunition for 

waterfowl hunting shows that 

regulations can spur innovation and 

production, which brings the prices 

down for non-lead options. 

Finally, even though the cost burden 

of compliance with non-lead 

ammunition and tackle requirements on 

individual refuges is not onerous, the 

Service is considering various measures 

to incentivize hunters and anglers to 

transition from lead to non-lead 

ammunition and tackle and mitigate the 

costs of the transition. The Service 

would focus any such efforts toward 

low-income and subsistence hunters 

and anglers who stand to be most 

impacted by any additional costs in 

obtaining non-lead rather than lead 

ammunition and tackle. The Service 

takes this environmental justice concern 

seriously. We look forward to working 

closely with our State agency and 

hunting and fishing organization 

partners to potentially implement future 

initiatives and programs to mitigate the 

costs of and incentivize the transition 

for these groups as part of our 

transparent process of finding the best 

solution to lead use impacts. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (8): Many commenters 

opposed to non-lead ammunition and 

tackle requirements asserted that there 

is limited availability of non-lead 

ammunition and non-lead tackle 

compared to that of lead ammunition 

and tackle, such that requiring non-lead 

ammunition and tackle would prevent 

people from participating in hunting 

and fishing. Some of these commenters 

further noted that the availability of 

non-lead ammunition is more limited 

for older models of firearms than it is for 

newer models. A few commenters also, 

tangentially to the topic of availability, 

claimed that the Gun Control Act of 

1968 (GCA; 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq.) and 

associated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 

regulations concerning armor piercing 

ammunition hinder the production and 

thus availability of non-lead 

ammunition. 

Our Response: We do not agree that 

non-lead ammunition and tackle are 

insufficiently available to hunters and 

anglers in localities where we have 

restricted the use of lead ammunition or 

tackle, either in the past or through this 

rulemaking. However, we recognize that 

there could be some compliance burden 

in identifying and locating non-lead 

ammunition and tackle for hunting and 

fishing opportunities, where required. 

Where we have restricted lead use in the 

past or will restrict it through this 

rulemaking, we have ensured that the 

ecological health and conservation 

benefits outweigh any potential for 

compliance burden on hunters and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 74057 

anglers, including the ease of locating 

available non-lead ammunition and 

tackle. As with the costs of non-lead 

options, for opportunities where nonlead ammunition and tackle are 

required, the Service has not seen 

declines in hunting or fishing 

participation that can be attributed to 

non-lead ammunition and tackle being 

less widely available than lead 

ammunition and tackle. Also, as with 

costs, there are existing trends of 

increasing availability of non-lead 

alternatives, and the 1991 national ban 

on lead ammunition for waterfowl 

hunting demonstrates that regulations 

requiring the use of non-lead 

ammunition can promote increased 

availability. Finally, the same types of 

programs that the Service is considering 

employing to mitigate transition costs 

and incentivize transition to non-lead 

alternatives would also help to address 

concerns about availability. The Service 

would focus any such efforts toward 

low-income and subsistence hunters 

and anglers who stand to be most 

impacted by any lack of availability 

when seeking to obtaining non-lead 

ammunition and tackle. The Service 

takes this environmental justice concern 

seriously. We look forward to working 

closely with our State agency and 

hunting and fishing organization 

partners to potentially implement future 

initiatives and programs to mitigate 

non-lead ammunition and tackle 

availability concerns and incentivize the 

transition for these groups as part of our 

transparent process of finding the best 

solution to lead use impacts. 

Additionally, we recognize that nonlead ammunition may be less available 

than lead ammunition, in general, for 

some older models of firearms, as well 

as certain calibers. Where lead use is 

restricted, this could theoretically be an 

obstacle to participation in certain 

hunting opportunities, depending on 

method of take restrictions. However, 

non-lead options are already increasing 

and can be expected to continue to 

increase, including options for older 

firearm models and less commonly used 

calibers. In the case of the individual 

refuges in this rule that will require 

non-lead ammunition use by fall 2026, 

appropriate non-lead ammunition is 

available for each type of hunting (i.e., 

migratory bird, upland game, and big 

game) and each individual hunting 

opportunity such that hunters will still 

be able to participate in all of the 

opportunities at these refuges. In the 

future, the Service will remain 

cognizant of the need to be sure that 

there are appropriate non-lead options 

in the market for any given opportunity 

for which we decide to require non-lead 

ammunition. We will also ensure the 

same for fishing opportunities and any 

potential requirement for non-lead 

fishing tackle. 

Finally, the claim that the Gun 

Control Act of 1968 (GCA) and 

associated ATF regulations concerning 

armor piercing ammunition hinder the 

production and thus availability of nonlead ammunition is beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking. Moreover, the Service 

lacks any authority to change provisions 

of the GCA or associated ATF 

regulations. The Service does, however, 

believe that the ATF’s existing 

framework for exemptions to the 

definition of armor piercing 

ammunition for ammunition that is 

‘‘primarily intended to be used for 

sporting purposes,’’ as explicitly 

authorized by the GCA, should be 

sufficient to allow for the availability of 

non-lead ammunition for hunters (see 

the ATF Special Advisory available 

online at: https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/ 

armor-piercing-ammunition-exemptionframework). 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (9): Some commenters 

objecting to non-lead ammunition and 

tackle requirements claimed non-lead 

ammunition and non-lead tackle do not 

perform as effectively as lead 

ammunition and lead tackle. 

Our Response: We do not agree and 

find that non-lead ammunition and 

tackle performs at least as effectively as 

lead ammunition and tackle. Some 

hunters and anglers on the Refuge 

System currently use non-lead 

ammunition and tackle, both voluntarily 

and as required by regulation, without 

any documented difference in success 

rates. In fact, the Service has, by policy 

since 2016, used non-lead ammunition 

for wildlife management when lethal 

control is necessary and has not found 

the performance of non-lead 

ammunition to impede these 

management activities in any way. As 

part of our hunter education efforts, 

many refuges offer field demonstrations 

of the effectiveness of non-lead 

ammunition. Scientific studies of 

effectiveness have supported this 

informal empirical evidence and found 

that non-lead ammunition performs as 

effectively as lead ammunition (see 

‘‘Are lead-free hunting rifle bullets as 

effective at killing wildlife as 

conventional lead bullets? A 

comparison based on wound size and 

morphology,’’ Trinogga, et al., Science 

of The Total Environment. Volume 443, 

15 January 2013, pp. 226–232 (available 

online November 25, 2012) and 

‘‘Performance of Lead-Free versus LeadBased Hunting Ammunition in Ballistic 

Soap,’’ Gremse, et al., PLoS One. 2014; 

9(7): e102015 (published online July 16, 

2014)). There is no scientific evidence 

for the claimed differences in 

performance between non-lead and lead 

ammunition and tackle available on the 

market today. In fact, non-lead 

ammunition has a demonstrable 

performance advantage in that hunters 

kill only what they shoot because, 

unlike lead ammunition, non-lead 

ammunition will not poison non-target 

species. Where the Service restricts the 

use of lead on the Refuge System, there 

is no compliance burden on hunters and 

anglers in the form of reduced 

performance of ammunition or tackle. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (10): Some commenters 

opposed to non-lead ammunition and 

tackle requirements argued that any 

switching from lead ammunition and 

tackle to non-lead ammunition and 

tackle should be voluntary. Among 

these commenters advocating that the 

use of non-lead ammunition should 

remain voluntary were both those who 

felt there is a need for large-scale uptake 

of non-lead ammunition and tackle, and 

those who felt it should be simply a 

preference decision for each hunter and 

angler. A few commenters further 

expressed that voluntarily adopting 

non-lead ammunition and tackle should 

be encouraged through hunter education 

and/or incentives for hunters to 

transition to non-lead options. 

Our Response: The Service has 

encouraged and will continue to 

encourage voluntary use of non-lead 

ammunition and tackle but will also 

impose regulatory requirements when 

and where necessary. For many years, 

the Service has encouraged voluntary 

use of non-lead ammunition and tackle 

through our hunter and angler 

education programs, which have 

included providing scientific 

information about the harm lead can do 

and demonstrating the performance of 

non-lead ammunition. Voluntary 

adoption of non-lead ammunition and 

tackle is an excellent way for hunters 

and anglers to demonstrate commitment 

to the ideals of avoiding harm to nontarget species, fair chase, and serving as 

the original conservation stewards of 

our country’s natural resources. The 

Service appreciates each and every one 

of the hunters and anglers who have 

voluntarily made the switch to non-lead 

ammunition and tackle, whether for 

their own health, their family’s health, 

or the health of wildlife. Going forward, 

the Service will continue to urge 

voluntary use of non-lead ammunition 

and tackle. While the Service is in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74058 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

process of evaluating the future of lead 

use, even if our determination were 

ultimately that lead use on the Refuge 

System needs to end, the Service would 

still consider all viable methods for 

achieving that outcome, including 

encouraging voluntary transition to nonlead ammunition and tackle. At the 

same time, we note that years of efforts 

toward educating hunters and 

encouraging non-lead use by the Service 

and other organizations have not 

yielded a significant transition to nonlead ammunition and tackle, despite 

some localized success stories. 

The commenters’ suggestion of 

providing incentives could be a viable 

tool, although it will be important to 

construct a fair and targeted incentive 

structure for individual hunters and 

anglers. These types of programs are 

under consideration, not only within 

the context of non-lead regulatory 

requirements, but may also be used 

more broadly to encourage voluntary 

use of non-lead alternatives and other 

method(s) of addressing lead issues. 

The Refuge System, and all Service 

lands and waters, are different from 

private, State, and even other Federal 

public lands. We have legal obligations 

to prioritize wildlife health and 

biodiversity, to consider the 

compatibility of new and ongoing 

hunting and fishing activities, and to 

assess the potential impact of these 

activities on the natural resources under 

our jurisdiction. Although voluntary 

uptake may be part of a future with 

multiple methods of addressing lead use 

issues, the history of low compliance 

with voluntary adoption of non-lead 

ammunition and tackle prompts the 

Service to consider regulatory 

requirements to ensure compatibility. At 

this time, the Service is continuing to 

evaluate the future of lead use through 

an open and transparent process with 

input from a broad array of partners and 

stakeholders about how best to secure 

the appropriate future for the use of 

lead. We invite ideas and coordination 

from all the organizations that 

commented recommending voluntary 

uptake and/or are engaged in efforts to 

encourage volunteer uptake of non-lead 

ammunition and tackle. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (11): A few commenters 

pointed to sources of lead in the 

environment, other than hunting and 

fishing with lead ammunition and 

tackle (e.g., naturally occurring lead in 

the ground, lead paint, past use of 

leaded gasoline and pesticides, and 

discarded galvanized hardware). These 

commenters asserted that the Service 

should not have non-lead ammunition 

and tackle requirements because these 

other sources of lead cause negative 

health impacts for fish and wildlife. 

Our Response: While there are of 

course other potential sources of lead in 

the environment, including other 

sources that may be bioavailable to 

wildlife, the Service does not see this as 

diminishing the importance or 

conservation benefits of requiring the 

use of non-lead ammunition and tackle, 

when and where necessary. While these 

other sources of lead vary in the degree 

of risk that they could present to 

wildlife, the Service is duly concerned 

by the health risks from any potential 

source of lead exposure for wildlife and 

humans. There are likely benefits to be 

had from efforts to address each of these 

sources in turn, but that is generally 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

Moreover, these other potential 

sources of lead do not change the fact 

that the best available science has 

drawn a clear link between the use of 

lead ammunition and tackle and its 

ecological health impacts. In fact, the 

study from Slabe, et al., cited earlier in 

our response to Comment (6), provides 

strong evidence that not only is there an 

impact to eagles from lead ammunition 

specifically, but there is also strong 

evidence that it represents the most 

important source of lead exposure for 

the species studied (Slabe 2022). 

Essentially, the study demonstrated that 

the highest rates of acute lead poisoning 

in eagles, measured by liver lead 

concentrations, corresponded in terms 

of timing with the use of lead 

ammunition in the form of a nationwide 

spike in lead poisoning in winter 

months in the midst of hunting seasons. 

To the extent other sources of lead do 

bear on our decisions about lead 

ammunition and tackle use, these 

additional lead sources in fact weigh in 

favor of lead use restrictions, as lead can 

accumulate in wildlife from repeated 

exposure from one or multiple sources 

(see, e.g., Behmke 2015). This applies 

both to the sources mentioned by 

commenters and additional sources that 

were not mentioned, such as coal-fired 

power plants and certain heavy 

industry, including smelting (see 

Behmke 2015). Similarly, the Service is 

also not discouraged from requiring the 

use of non-lead ammunition and tackle, 

where appropriate, by the continued use 

of lead ammunition and tackle for 

hunting and fishing on nearby State and 

privately held lands and waters. The 

Service will act to address threats, 

including from visitor uses, as necessary 

within our authority, in the interest of 

our conservation mission even if, and 

often especially when, human activities 

outside of refuge borders present similar 

threats. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (12): One comment opposed 

to non-lead ammunition and tackle 

requirements maintained that lead 

ammunition and tackle are made of an 

inorganic form of lead that poses less 

risk of harm to humans or animals. 

Our Response: While inorganic lead 

presents a low risk of adverse health 

impacts while it retains its solid, 

molded form (i.e., anglers face relatively 

little risk from handling lead tackle), the 

basis for concern about lead 

ammunition and tackle is that there are 

multiple ways for such lead to become 

harmful to human and ecological health. 

Organic lead (i.e., the banned gasoline 

additive tetramethyl lead) is more 

dangerous than inorganic lead because 

it can be absorbed through the skin. Yet, 

inorganic lead can also have serious 

impacts in certain forms (e.g., fragments 

and particles) and once inside an 

animal. First, as briefly described in 

response to Comment (6), lead 

ammunition, including bonded lead 

ammunition, fragments when it hits an 

animal, and this distributes tiny pieces 

of lead within a wide radius in the soft 

tissues of the harvested animal (see 

‘‘Fragmentation of lead-free and leadbased hunting rifle bullets under real 

life hunting conditions in Germany,’’ 

Trinogga et al., Ambio. 2019 Sep; 48(9): 

1056–1064 (published online March 23, 

2019)). These tiny fragments of lead are 

then consumed by scavenger species 

eating carcasses or gut piles left behind 

or humans eating the game meat. In this 

tiny, fragmented form and acted on by 

digestive enzymes and acids, the lead 

derived from ammunition can then shed 

particles that enter the blood stream and 

affect systems throughout the body, 

presenting both chronic and acute 

health risks. Second, as briefly 

described in response to Comment (6), 

lead ammunition and tackle that is 

deposited along shores or at the bottom 

of bodies of water can be ingested by 

several species of birds that forage in 

these locations for pebbles, as pebbles 

are necessary to break down food 

through grinding in a special organ of 

their digestive systems called a gizzard. 

This grinding process, along with 

digestive acids and enzymes that 

accompany food into the gizzard, can 

easily break down lead ammunition and 

tackle into fragments and cause it to 

shed particles, just as the process breaks 

down the stones and shells the birds 

intended to ingest. These lead particles 

are then able to enter the bloodstream 

and affect systems throughout the body, 

presenting both chronic and acute 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 74059 

health risks. Third, lead ammunition 

and tackle that ends up discarded in 

bodies of water may begin to dissolve 

and thus introduce lead particles into 

the water that present both chronic and 

acute health risks to both aquatic 

animals living in the water and 

terrestrial animals drinking from the 

water. This process requires high acidity 

in the water that dissolves lead 

ammunition or tackle, and it is 

essentially the same concern as the 

problem of corrosion from acidic water 

in lead water pipes. These particles of 

lead dissolved into the water are easily 

taken up into the bloodstream as they 

pass through digestive systems. It is 

through these known processes that lead 

ammunition and tackle present a risk, 

and the best available scientific 

evidence indicates that these processes 

are occurring at rates that are causing 

negative impacts on the health of both 

certain wildlife species and humans, 

and those impacts are more acute for 

some species. Thus, we seriously 

consider the impact of inorganic forms 

of lead, such as lead ammunition and 

tackle, on wildlife and human health. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (13): Several commenters 

who object to the regulation of lead 

ammunition and tackle expressed 

nonsubstantive concerns centered on 

their views about the constitutionality 

and/or legality of the Service creating 

non-lead ammunition and tackle 

requirements through our regulations, or 

of any agency regulation. Several 

commenters, instead or in addition, 

offered nonsubstantive concerns about 

their personal general projections of 

impacts to the ammunition and tackle 

industry and the broader economy. 

Our Response: The Service 

thoroughly addressed these and similar 

concerns in our 2022–2023 final rule 

(see 87 FR 57108 at 57117–57119, 

September 16, 2022). Our position 

remains the same on these topics in this 

2023–2024 rulemaking. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (14): A few commenters 

expressed concerns about the 

availability of copper for use in 

ammunition, as copper is one of the 

alternatives to lead used for non-lead 

ammunition. The comments expressed 

concern that due to limited sources of 

copper and demand for copper for other 

uses, an increase in demand for copper 

for ammunition from non-lead 

ammunition requirements may not be 

possible or could drive up the cost of 

non-lead ammunition. 

Our Response: These concerns are 

outside the scope of this rulemaking and 

thus nonsubstantive. It is outside the 

expertise of the Service and the scope of 

this rule to speculate about the current 

or future availability of copper, or how 

it could affect prices for goods made 

using copper. There are, however, two 

things the Service can say on this topic. 

First, by requiring the use of non-lead 

ammunition at eight individual refuges 

beginning in fall 2026 in this rule, the 

Service is in no way specifically 

requiring the use of copper ammunition. 

Second, as noted above in our response 

to Comment (8), the non-lead 

ammunition regulations in this 

rulemaking impact a small portion of 

the market for ammunition. 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Comment (15): We also received 

several comments concerning 

regulations for the use of and training of 

hunting dogs at Silvio O. Conte National 

Fish and Wildlife Refuge (NFWR). Two 

of these comments urged us to expand 

the season for dog training to align it 

with regulations in the relevant States. 

The majority of these comments, 

however, objected to the Service 

removing the special use permit 

requirement for those training or using 

more than two dogs, with some 

expressing the sentiment that any use of 

hunting dogs is inappropriate on 

Service lands. 

Our Response: All uses proposed as 

part of this rulemaking or otherwise 

authorized as part of hunting and 

fishing programs in the Refuge System 

are thoroughly assessed for 

compatibility with other visitor uses, 

the legislated purposes for which the 

refuge was established, and the 

Service’s mission. Where authorized, 

the use of hunting dogs is carried out 

safely and without significant impacts 

to the environment or healthy wildlife 

populations. 

The Service has determined that 

allowing dog training for the full State 

seasons in the New Hampshire and 

Vermont sections of the refuge is not 

compatible with our conservation 

mission. The Service allows dog 

training in August and September at 

Conte NFWR, while each State also 

allows the activity to occur in June and 

July. We cannot allow the activity in 

June and July because migratory 

landbirds nest on the refuge during 

those months. Disturbance to these 

species during this vulnerable period 

may decrease nest and brooding success 

(Gutzwiller et al. 1998; Thompson, B. 

2015). Nesting success is critical to 

maintain the population of game and 

non-game species. Many non-game 

species of migratory birds are declining 

across their range. Canada warbler, rusty 

blackbird, wood thrush, and veery, for 

example, have been listed as species in 

greatest need of conservation in the 

Birds of Conservation Concern 2021 by 

the Service’s Migratory Bird Program. 

Canada warbler, rusty blackbird, and 

wood thrush are also high priority bird 

species of greatest conservation need as 

identified in Vermont’s 2005 and 2015 

Wildlife Action Plans (Vermont Fish 

and Wildlife Department (VFWD) State 

Wildlife Action Plan 2015) and New 

Hampshire’s Fish and Game 2015 

Wildlife Action Plan (New Hampshire 

Fish and Game Department (NHFGD) 

2015). These species breed within 

forested habitats of the portions of Conte 

NFWR in New Hampshire and Vermont. 

Veeries and Canada warblers nest on or 

near the ground and their eggs and 

hatchlings are vulnerable to 

disturbance, predation, and trampling. 

While hunting is a priority public use of 

the Refuge System under the 

Improvement Act, training of dogs is 

not. Hunting is the legal authorization to 

take or harvest a game species. There is 

no legal authorization to take any 

species for the purpose of dog training 

on the refuge. We recognize that dog 

training is a component of the hunting 

experience, and with stipulations to 

shorten the training season, it is 

currently found compatible. Migratory 

landbirds are a trust resource, and based 

on our professional opinion and 

available science, dog training as a 

compatible use during the breeding 

season is not supported by science. 

At this time, the Service will not 

require individuals to obtain a refugespecific permit for hunting with dogs or 

training dogs on the refuge. Hunting 

with and training of dogs is allowed on 

the refuge consistent with State 

regulations when found compatible 

with refuge purposes, as outlined in the 

hunt plan. The information collected 

from the previously required permit 

satisfied the refuge’s need to engage 

with the user group. The Service will 

continue to monitor population trends 

of endangered and threatened species, 

and migratory birds, at the refuge. If 

there is evidence that trust resource 

populations are negatively impacted by 

either the training of hunting dogs or the 

use of hunting dogs, then we may revisit 

impacts associated with the use of dogs 

and take action to limit impacts. As 

with any refuge-specific regulations, we 

reserve the right to revisit the issue in 

a future annual rulemaking should 

anything change with respect to 

conditions on the refuge, the findings of 

the best available science on this topic, 

or our empirical experience with dog 

use on the refuge. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74060 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

We did not make any changes to the 

rule as a result of these comments. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

As discussed above, under Summary 

of Comments and Responses, based on 

comments we received on the June 23, 

2023, proposed rule and NEPA 

documents for individual refuges, we 

made no changes in this final rule. 

Effective Date 

We are making this rule effective 

upon the date of its filing at the Office 

of the Federal Register (see DATES, 

above), with the exception of the 

requirements to use non-lead 

ammunition and fishing tackle on Great 

Thicket, Rachel Carson, Blackwater, 

Eastern Neck, Patuxent Research Refuge, 

Erie, Chincoteague, and Wallops Island 

NWRs at 50 CFR 32.38, 32.39, 32.57, 

and 32.65(b)(1)(vi), (b)(2)(i), (b)(3)(i), 

(b)(4)(vi), (n)(1)(vi), (n)(2)(i), and 

(n)(3)(i), respectively, which will take 

effect on September 1, 2026. We 

provided a 60-day public comment 

period for the June 23, 2023, proposed 

rule (88 FR 41058). We have determined 

that any further delay in implementing 

these station-specific hunting and sport 

fishing regulations would not be in the 

public interest, in that a delay would 

hinder the effective planning and 

administration of refuges’ hunting and 

sport fishing programs. This rule does 

not impact the public generally in terms 

of requiring lead time for compliance. 

Rather, it relieves restrictions in that it 

allows activities on refuges and 

hatcheries that we would otherwise 

prohibit. Therefore, we find good cause 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this 

rule effective upon the date of its filing 

at the Office of the Federal Register. 

Amendments to Existing Regulations 

Updates to Hunting and Fishing 

Opportunities on NWRs 

This document codifies in the Code of 

Federal Regulations all the Service’s 

hunting and/or sport fishing regulations 

that we are updating since the last time 

we published a rule amending these 

regulations (87 FR 57108; September 16, 

2022) and that are applicable at Refuge 

System units previously opened to 

hunting and/or sport fishing. We adopt 

these changes to better inform the 

general public of the regulations at each 

station, to increase understanding and 

compliance with these regulations, and 

to make enforcement of these 

regulations more efficient. In addition to 

finding these regulations in 50 CFR part 

32, visitors to our stations may find 

them reiterated in literature distributed 

by each station or posted on signs. 

TABLE 1—CHANGES FOR 2023–2024 HUNTING/SPORT FISHING SEASON

Station State Migratory 

bird hunting 

Upland game 

hunting 

Big game 

hunting Sport fishing 

Cahaba River NWR .................................................... Alabama ........... Closed .............. Already Open ... E .................. Already Open. 

Everglades Headwaters NWR ................................... Florida ............... E ....................... E ....................... E .................. Closed. 

Minnesota Valley NWR .............................................. Minnesota ......... E ....................... E ....................... E .................. Already Open. 

Key: 

E = Expansion (Station is already open to the activity: the rule will add new lands/waters, modify areas open to hunting or fishing, extend season dates, add a targeted hunt, modify season dates, modify hunting hours, etc.) 

The changes for the 2023–2024 

hunting/fishing season noted in the 

table above are each based on a 

complete administrative record which, 

among other detailed documentation, 

also includes a hunt plan, a 

compatibility determination (for 

refuges), and the appropriate NEPA 

analysis, all of which were the subject 

of a public review and comment 

process. These documents are available 

upon request. 

The Service remains concerned that 

lead is an important issue, and we will 

continue to appropriately evaluate and 

regulate the use of lead ammunition and 

tackle on Service lands and waters. The 

Service has initiated stakeholder 

engagement to implement a deliberate, 

open, and transparent process of 

evaluating the future of lead use on 

Service lands and waters, working with 

our State partners, and seeking input 

and recommendations from the Hunting 

and Wildlife Conservation Council, 

other stakeholders, and the public. The 

best available science, analyzed as part 

of this rulemaking, indicates that lead 

ammunition and tackle have negative 

impacts on both wildlife and human 

health. Based on the best available 

science and sound professional 

judgment, where appropriate, the 

Service may propose to require the use 

of non-lead ammunition and tackle on 

Service lands and waters, as we have 

done in certain cases already. While the 

Service continues to evaluate the future 

of lead use in hunting and fishing on 

Service lands and waters, we will 

continue to work with stakeholders and 

the public to evaluate lead use through 

the annual rulemaking process. In the 

interim, we will not allow for any 

increase in lead use on Service lands 

and waters. Therefore, this rule does not 

include any opportunities increasing or 

authorizing the new use of lead. 

Minnesota Valley NWR already requires 

non-lead ammunition for the migratory 

bird and upland game hunting 

opportunities being expanded, and the 

refuge’s expansion of the big game hunt 

involves only archery deer hunting, 

which does not involve lead 

ammunition, as part of a special hunt 

program. The Cahaba River NWR is 

expanding archery deer hunting, which 

does not involve lead ammunition. 

Everglades Headwaters NWR is 

expanding existing migratory game bird, 

upland game, and big game hunting to 

new acres that will require the use of 

non-lead ammunition immediately in 

the fall 2023 season; the rule will 

require non-lead ammunition only 

within the newly expanded acres for 

hunting on the refuge. This restriction 

on the use of lead ammunition was 

developed in coordination with the 

State of Florida’s Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. As we noted 

in our September 16, 2022, final rule (87 

FR 57108), in this rule, Blackwater, 

Chincoteague, Eastern Neck, Erie, Great 

Thicket, Patuxent Research Refuge, 

Rachel Carson, and Wallops Island 

NWRs will require non-lead equipment, 

effective on September 1, 2026. 

Specifically, all eight refuges will 

require the use of non-lead ammunition 

by fall 2026, and seven of the eight, 

excepting Chincoteague, will require the 

use of non-lead tackle by fall 2026 as 

well. 

Fish Advisory 

For health reasons, anglers should 

review and follow State-issued 

consumption advisories before enjoying 

recreational sport fishing opportunities 

on Service-managed waters. You can 

find information about current fishconsumption advisories on the internet 

at https://www.epa.gov/fish-tech. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

I 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 74061 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 

Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 

and states that regulatory analysis 

should facilitate agency efforts to 

develop regulations that serve the 

public interest, advance statutory 

objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 

12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential 

Memorandum of January 20, 2021 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 

appropriate, shall recognize distributive 

impacts and equity, to the extent 

permitted by law. E.O. 13563 

emphasizes further that regulations 

must be based on the best available 

science and that the rulemaking process 

must allow for public participation and 

an open exchange of ideas. We have 

developed this final rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563 and E.O. 14094, provides that the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) will 

review all significant rules. OIRA has 

determined that this rule is not 

significant. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

[SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

whenever a Federal agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis 

to be required, impacts must exceed a 

threshold for ‘‘significant impact’’ and a 

threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of 

small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This rule expands hunting on three 

NWRs. As a result, visitor use for 

wildlife-dependent recreation on these 

stations will change. If the stations 

establishing new programs were a pure 

addition to the current supply of those 

activities, it would mean an estimated 

maximum increase of 586 user days 

(one person per day participating in a 

recreational opportunity; see table 2, 

below). Because the participation trend 

is flat in these activities, this increase in 

supply will most likely be offset by 

other sites losing participants. 

Therefore, this is likely to be a 

substitute site for the activity and not 

necessarily an increase in participation 

rates for the activity. 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED MAXIMUM CHANGE IN RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES IN 2023–2024 

[2022 Dollars in thousands] 

Station Additional 

hunting days 

Additional 

fishing days 

Additional 

expenditures 

(in thousands) 

Cahaba River NWR ................................................................................................................. 120 ........................ $4 

Everglades Headwaters NWR ................................................................................................. 225 ........................ 9 

Minnesota Valley NWR ............................................................................................................ 241 ........................ 9 

Total .................................................................................................................................. 586 ........................ 22 

To the extent visitors spend time and 

money in the area of the station that 

they would not have spent there 

anyway, they contribute new income to 

the regional economy and benefit local 

businesses. Due to the unavailability of 

site-specific expenditure data, we use 

the national estimates from the 2016 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 

and Wildlife Associated Recreation to 

identify expenditures for food and 

lodging, transportation, and other 

incidental expenses. Using the average 

expenditures for these categories with 

the maximum expected additional 

participation of the Refuge System 

yields approximately $22,000 in 

recreation-related expenditures (see 

table 2, above). By having ripple effects 

throughout the economy, these direct 

expenditures are only part of the 

economic impact of these recreational 

activities. Using a national impact 

multiplier for hunting activities (2.51) 

derived from the report ‘‘Hunting in 

America: An Economic Force for 

Conservation’’ and for fishing activities 

(2.51) derived from the report 

‘‘Sportfishing in America’’ yields a total 

maximum economic impact of 

approximately $56,000 (2022 dollars) 

(Southwick Associates, Inc., 2018). 

Since we know that most of the 

fishing and hunting occurs within 100 

miles of a participant’s residence, then 

it is unlikely that most of this spending 

will be ‘‘new’’ money coming into a 

local economy; therefore, this spending 

will be offset with a decrease in some 

other sector of the local economy. The 

net gain to the local economies will be 

no more than $56,000 and likely less. 

Since 80 percent of the participants 

travel less than 100 miles to engage in 

hunting and fishing activities, their 

spending patterns will not add new 

money into the local economy and, 

therefore, the real impact will be on the 

order of about $22,000 annually. 

Small businesses within the retail 

trade industry (such as hotels, gas 

stations, taxidermy shops, bait-andtackle shops, and similar businesses) 

may be affected by some increased or 

decreased station visitation. A large 

percentage of these retail trade 

establishments in the local communities 

around NWRs qualify as small 

businesses (see table 3, below). We 

expect that the incremental recreational 

changes will be scattered, and so we do 

not expect that the rule will have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities in 

any region or nationally. As noted 

previously, we expect at most $22,000 

to be spent in total in the refuges’ local 

economies. The maximum increase will 

be less than one-tenth of 1 percent for 

local retail trade spending (see table 3, 

below). Table 3 does not include entries 

for those NWRs for which we project no 

changes in recreation opportunities in 

2023–2024; see table 2, above. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74062 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—COMPARATIVE EXPENDITURES FOR RETAIL TRADE ASSOCIATED WITH ADDITIONAL STATION VISITATION FOR

2023–2024 

[Thousands, 2022 dollars] 

Station/county(ies) Retail trade 

in 2017 1

Estimated 

maximum 

addition 

from new 

activities 

Addition 

as % of 

total 

Establishments 

in 2017 1

Establishments 

with fewer 

than 10 

employees 

in 2017 

Cahaba River: 

Bibb, AL .................................................................. $143,008 $5 <0.1 52 39 

Everglades Headwaters: 

Hardee, FL .............................................................. 223,259 3 <0.1 75 63 

Highlands, FL .......................................................... 1,505,788 3 <0.1 342 246 

Polk, FL ................................................................... 9,949,483 3 <0.1 1,814 1,276 

Minnesota Valley: 

Carver, MN ............................................................. 1,116,550 5 <0.1 220 142 

1 U.S. Census Bureau. 

With the small change in overall 

spending anticipated from this rule, it is 

unlikely that a substantial number of 

small entities will have more than a 

small impact from the spending change 

near the affected stations. Therefore, we 

certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

defined under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Accordingly, a small entity compliance 

guide is not required. 

Congressional Review Act 

The rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Congressional Review 

Act. We anticipate no significant 

employment or small business effects. 

This rule: 

a. Will not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

The minimal impact will be scattered 

across the country and will most likely 

not be significant in any local area. 

b. Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers; 

individual industries; Federal, State, or 

local government agencies; or 

geographic regions. This rule will have 

only a slight effect on the costs of 

hunting opportunities for Americans. If 

the substitute sites are farther from the 

participants’ residences, then an 

increase in travel costs will occur. The 

Service does not have information to 

quantify this change in travel cost but 

assumes that, since most people travel 

less than 100 miles to hunt, the 

increased travel cost will be small. We 

do not expect this rule to affect the 

supply or demand for hunting 

opportunities in the United States, and, 

therefore, it should not affect prices for 

hunting equipment and supplies, or the 

retailers that sell equipment. 

c. Will not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

This rule represents only a small 

proportion of recreational spending at 

NWRs. Therefore, this rule will have no 

measurable economic effect on the 

wildlife-dependent industry, which has 

annual sales of equipment and travel 

expenditures of $72 billion nationwide. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Since this rule will apply to public 

use of federally owned and managed 

refuges, it will not impose an unfunded 

mandate on State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector of 

more than $100 million per year. The 

rule will not have a significant or 

unique effect on State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector. A 

statement containing the information 

required by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not 

required. 

Takings (E.O. 12630) 

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this 

rule will not have significant takings 

implications. This rule will affect only 

visitors at NWRs and describes what 

they can do while they are on a Service 

station. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

As discussed under Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, above, this rule 

will not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a federalism summary impact 

statement under E.O. 13132. In 

preparing this rule, we worked with 

State governments. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the 

Department of the Interior has 

determined that this rule will not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

that it meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the order. 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 

13211) 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

E.O. 13211 on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, or use. E.O. 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare statements of energy 

effects when undertaking certain 

actions. Because this rule will expand 

hunting at three NWRs, it is not a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866, and we do not expect it to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Therefore, this 

action is not a significant energy action, 

and no statement of energy effects is 

required. 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175) 

In accordance with E.O. 13175, we 

have evaluated possible effects on 

federally recognized Indian Tribes and 

have determined that there are no 

effects. We coordinate recreational use 

on NWRs and National Fish Hatcheries 

with Tribal governments having 

adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction 

before we propose the regulations. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). OMB previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

associated with application and 

reporting requirements associated with 

hunting and sport fishing and assigned 

OMB Control Number 1018–0140 

(expires 09/30/2025). An agency may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 74063 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultation 

We comply with section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), when 

developing comprehensive conservation 

plans and step-down management 

plans—which includes hunting and/or 

fishing plans—for public use of refuges 

and hatcheries, and prior to 

implementing any new or revised public 

recreation program on a station as 

identified in 50 CFR 26.32. We 

complied with section 7 for each of the 

stations affected by this rulemaking. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We analyzed this rule in accordance 

with the criteria of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), 43 CFR part 

46, and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 

8. 

A categorical exclusion from NEPA 

documentation applies to publication of 

amendments to station-specific hunting 

and fishing regulations because they are 

technical and procedural in nature, and 

the environmental effects are too broad, 

speculative, or conjectural to lend 

themselves to meaningful analysis (43 

CFR 46.210 and 516 DM 8). Concerning 

the actions that are the subject of this 

rulemaking, we have complied with 

NEPA at the project level when 

developing each package. This is 

consistent with the Department of the 

Interior instructions for compliance 

with NEPA where actions are covered 

sufficiently by an earlier environmental 

document (43 CFR 46.120). 

Prior to the addition of a refuge or 

hatchery to the list of areas open to 

hunting and fishing in 50 CFR parts 32 

and 71, we develop hunting and fishing 

plans for the affected stations. We 

incorporate these station hunting and 

fishing activities in the station 

comprehensive conservation plan and/ 

or other step-down management plans, 

pursuant to our refuge planning 

guidance in 602 Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual (FW) 1, 3, and 4. We 

prepare these comprehensive 

conservation plans and step-down plans 

in compliance with section 102(2)(C) of 

NEPA, the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s regulations for implementing 

NEPA in 40 CFR parts 1500 through 

1508, and the Department of Interior’s 

NEPA regulations at 43 CFR part 46. We 

invite the affected public to participate 

in the review, development, and 

implementation of these plans. Copies 

of all plans and NEPA compliance are 

available from the stations at the 

addresses provided below. 

Available Information for Specific 

Stations 

Individual refuge and hatchery 

headquarters have information about 

public use programs and conditions that 

apply to their specific programs and 

maps of their respective areas. To find 

out how to contact a specific refuge or 

hatchery, contact the appropriate 

Service office for the States and 

Territories listed below: 

Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, and 

Washington. Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal 

Complex, Suite 1692, 911 NE 11th 

Avenue, Portland, OR 97232–4181; 

Telephone (503) 231–6203. 

Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and 

Texas. Regional Chief, National Wildlife 

Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, P.O. Box 1306, 500 Gold 

Avenue SW, Albuquerque, NM 87103; 

Telephone (505) 248–6635. 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin. Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 5600 American Blvd. 

West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 

55437–1458; Telephone (612) 713–5476. 

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 

Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge 

System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 

30345; Telephone (404) 679–7356. 

Connecticut, Delaware, District of 

Columbia, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center 

Drive, Hadley, MA 01035–9589; 

Telephone (413) 253–8307. 

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 

Wyoming. Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 134 Union Blvd., 

Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone (303) 

236–4377. 

Alaska. Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1011 E Tudor Rd., 

Anchorage, AK 99503; Telephone (907) 

786–3545. 

California and Nevada. Regional 

Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 

Cottage Way, Room W–2606, 

Sacramento, CA 95825; Telephone (916) 

767–9241. 

Primary Author 

Kate Harrigan, Division of Natural 

Resources and Conservation Planning, 

National Wildlife Refuge System, is the 

primary author of this rulemaking 

document. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 32 

Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife, 

Wildlife refuges. 

Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons described in the 

preamble, we amend title 50, chapter I, 

subchapter C of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 32—HUNTING AND FISHING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 32 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 

664, 668dd–668ee, and 715i; Pub. L. 115–20, 

131 Stat. 86. 

■ 2. Amend § 32.24 by revising 

paragraphs (s)(1)(iv) and (vi) to read as 

follows: 

§ 32.24 California. 

* * * * * 

(s) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv)We restrict hunters in the spaced 

zone area of the East Bear Creek Unit 

and West Bear Creek Unit to their 

assigned zone except when they are 

traveling to and from the parking area, 

retrieving downed birds, or pursuing 

crippled birds. 

* * * * * 

(vi) We require State-issued Type A 

area permits for accessing the Freitas 

Unit on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and 

Sundays. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 32.28 by revising 

paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 32.28 Florida. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) Upland game hunting. We allow 

upland game hunting and the incidental 

take of nonnative wildlife as defined by 

the State on designated areas of the 

refuge in accordance with State 

regulations and applicable State 

Wildlife Management Area regulations 

and the following condition: We require 

the use of non-lead ammunition when 

hunting upland game and the incidental 

take of nonnative wildlife on the 

Corrigan Ranch/Okeechobee Unit. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74064 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) Big game hunting. We allow big 

game hunting and the incidental take of 

nonnative wildlife as defined by the 

State on designated areas of the refuge 

in accordance with State regulations 

and applicable State Wildlife 

Management Area regulations and the 

following condition: We require the use 

of non-lead ammunition when hunting 

big game and the incidental take of 

nonnative wildlife on the Corrigan 

Ranch/Okeechobee Unit. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 32.35 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1)(v) to read as follows: 

§ 32.35 Kansas. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) We close the Neosho River and 

refuge lands north of the Neosho River 

to all hunting from November 1 through 

March 1. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Effective September 1, 2026, amend 

§ 32.38 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(v); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and 

(b)(3)(i); 

■ c. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(v); and 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i), 

(f)(3)(i), and (f)(4)(ii). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 32.38 Maine. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) You may only use or possess 

approved non-lead shot shells, 

ammunition, and tackle while in the 

field (see § 32.2(k)). 

(2) * * * 

(i) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v) 

of this section apply. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v) 

of this section apply. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) You may only use or possess 

approved non-lead shot shells, 

ammunition, and tackle while in the 

field (see § 32.2(k)). 

(2) * * * 

(i) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (iii), and (v) of this 

section apply. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) The conditions as set forth at 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (iv), and (v) of this 

section apply. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) The condition set forth at 

paragraph (f)(1)(v) of this section 

applies. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Effective September 1, 2026, amend 

§ 32.39 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iv); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(i); 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (a)(3)(vi), 

(a)(4)(iii), and (b)(2)(iv); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(i) 

introductory text; 

■ e. Adding paragraphs (b)(3)(iv), 

(b)(4)(iii), and (c)(1)(v); and 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3)(i), 

and (c)(4). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 32.39 Maryland. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) You may only use or possess 

approved non-lead shot shells, 

ammunition, and tackle while in the 

field (see § 32.2(k)). 

(2) * * * 

(i) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(3)(i) 

through (v) of this section apply. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(vi) The condition set forth at 

paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section 

applies. 

(4) * * * 

(iii) The condition set forth at 

paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section 

applies. 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) You may only use or possess 

approved non-lead shot shells, 

ammunition, and tackle while in the 

field (see § 32.2(k)). 

(3) * * * 

(i) The general hunt regulations for 

this paragraph (b)(3) are: 

* * * * * 

(iv) The condition set forth at 

paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section 

applies. 

(4) * * * 

(iii) The condition set forth at 

paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section 

applies. 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) You may only use or possess 

approved non-lead shot shells, 

ammunition, and tackle while in the 

field (see § 32.2(k)). 

(2) Upland game hunting. We allow 

hunting of gray squirrel, eastern 

cottontail rabbit, and woodchuck on 

designated areas of the refuge subject to 

the following condition: The conditions 

set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through 

(iii) and (v) of this section apply. 

(3) * * * 

(i) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), and (v) of this 

section apply. 

* * * * * 

(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport 

fishing on designated areas of the refuge 

subject to the following condition: The 

condition set forth at paragraph (c)(1)(v) 

of this section applies. 

■ 7. Amend § 32.40 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a)(4)(iii); and 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and 

(f)(4). 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 32.40 Massachusetts. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iii) We allow fishing from legal 

sunrise to legal sunset. 

(b) * * * 

(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport 

fishing on designated areas of the refuge 

from legal sunrise to legal sunset. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport 

fishing on designated areas of the refuge 

from legal sunrise to legal sunset. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 32.47 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and 

(iii); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) and 

(v); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 32.47 Nevada. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) We allow hunting on designated 

days. We prohibit any migratory game 

bird hunting after January 31. 

* * * * * 

(iii) From October 1 to February 1, 

you may only be in possession of or use 

25 or fewer shot shells per hunt day. 

(iv) We only allow hunters to use 

watercraft to travel to and from their 

hunting location for each day’s hunt. 

Watercraft must be completely 

immobilized while hunting, except to 

retrieve downed or crippled birds. 

(v) We prohibit shooting 150 feet (45 

meters) from the center line of roads 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 74065 

(including access roads and two tracks), 

parking areas, levees, or into or from 

safety zones. 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this 

section apply. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 32.48 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 32.48 New Hampshire. 

* * * * * 

(b) Silvio O. Conte National Fish and 

Wildlife Refuge—(1) Migratory game 

bird hunting. We allow hunting of duck, 

goose, coot, Wilson’s snipe, and 

American woodcock on designated 

areas of the refuge subject to the 

following condition: We allow the use 

of dogs consistent with State 

regulations, except dog training is only 

allowed from August 1 through the last 

Saturday in September during daylight 

hours. 

(2) Upland game hunting. We allow 

hunting of coyote, fox, raccoon, 

woodchuck, red squirrel, eastern gray 

squirrel, porcupine, skunk, crow, 

snowshoe hare, muskrat, opossum, 

fisher, mink, weasel, ring-necked 

pheasant, and ruffed grouse on 

designated areas of the refuge subject to 

the following condition: We allow the 

use of dogs consistent with State 

regulations, except dog training is only 

allowed from August 1 through the last 

Saturday in September during daylight 

hours. 

(3) Big game hunting. We allow 

hunting of white-tailed deer, moose, 

black bear, and wild turkey on 

designated areas of the refuge subject to 

the following conditions: 

(i) We allow the use of dogs consistent 

with State regulations, except dog 

training is only allowed from August 1 

through the last Saturday in September 

during daylight hours. 

(ii) We allow tree stands and blinds 

that are clearly marked with the owner’s 

State hunting license number. 

(iii) You must remove your tree 

stand(s) and blind(s) no later than 72 

hours after the close of the season (see 

§ 27.93 of this chapter). 

(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport 

fishing on designated areas of the 

refuge. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 32.56 by revising 

paragraph (l)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 32.56 Oregon. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(2) Upland game hunting. We allow 

hunting of upland game birds and 

turkey on designated areas of the refuge 

subject to the following condition: The 

condition set forth at paragraph (l)(1)(i) 

of this section applies. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Effective September 1, 2026, 

amend § 32.57 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(v); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and 

(b)(3)(ii); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(4)(vi). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 32.57 Pennsylvania. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) You may only use or possess 

approved non-lead shot shells, 

ammunition, and tackle while in the 

field (see § 32.2(k)). 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (v) of this 

section apply. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (v) of this 

section apply. 

(4) * * * 

(vi) The condition set forth at 

paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section 

applies. 

* * * * * 

§ 32.62 [Amended] 

■ 12. Amend § 32.62 by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (h)(3)(x); and 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(3)(xi) 

through (xiii) as paragraphs (h)(3)(x) 

through (xii), respectively. 

■ 13. Amend § 32.64 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a)(4)(v); and 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b). 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 32.64 Vermont. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(v) We allow fishing from legal 

sunrise to legal sunset. 

(b) Silvio O. Conte National Fish and 

Wildlife Refuge—(1) Migratory game 

bird hunting. We allow hunting of duck, 

goose, coot, crow, snipe, and American 

woodcock on designated areas of the 

refuge subject to the following 

conditions: 

(i) We allow disabled hunters to hunt 

from a vehicle that is at least 10 feet 

from the traveled portion of the refuge 

road if the hunter possesses a Stateissued disabled hunting license and a 

Special Use Permit (FWS Form 3–1383– 

G) issued by the refuge manager. 

(ii) We allow the use of dogs 

consistent with State regulations, except 

dog training is only allowed from 

August 1 through the last Saturday in 

September during daylight hours. We 

prohibit dog training on the Putney 

Mountain Unit. 

(iii) We prohibit shooting from, over, 

or within 25 feet of the traveled portion 

of any road that is accessible to motor 

vehicles. 

(2) Upland game hunting. We allow 

hunting of coyote, fox, raccoon, bobcat, 

woodchuck, red squirrel, eastern gray 

squirrel, porcupine, skunk, snowshoe 

hare, eastern cottontail, muskrat, 

opossum, weasel, pheasant, and ruffed 

grouse on designated areas of the refuge 

subject to the following conditions: 

(i) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this 

section apply. 

(ii) At the Putney Mountain Unit, we 

allow the use of dogs only for hunting 

ruffed grouse, fall turkey, squirrel, and 

woodcock. 

(iii) We require hunters hunting at 

night to possess a Special Use Permit 

(FWS Form 3–1383–G) issued by the 

refuge manager. 

(3) Big game hunting. We allow 

hunting of white-tailed deer, moose, 

black bear, and wild turkey on 

designated areas of the refuge subject to 

the following conditions: 

(i) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this 

section apply. 

(ii) You may use portable tree stands 

and/or blinds. You must clearly label 

your tree stand(s) and/or blind(s) with 

your hunting license number. You must 

remove your tree stand(s) and/or 

blind(s) no later than 72 hours after the 

close of the season (see § 27.93 of this 

chapter). 

(iii) You may retrieve moose at the 

Nulhegan Basin Division with the use of 

a commercial moose hauler, if the 

hauler possesses a Special Use Permit 

(FWS Form 3–1383–C) issued by the 

refuge manager. 

(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport 

fishing on designated areas of the refuge 

consistent with State regulations. 

■ 14. Amend § 32.65 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraphs (b)(2)(vii) and 

(viii) and (c)(2)(iii); and 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(i). 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 32.65 Virginia. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vii) Hunting is allowed only during 

the regular State deer season. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74066 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

(viii) We prohibit hunting on 

Sundays. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) We prohibit hunting on Sundays. 

(3) * * * 

(i) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), (iv), and (v) and 

(c)(2)(iii) of this section apply. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Effective September 1, 2026, 

further amend § 32.65 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(vi); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and 

(b)(3)(i); 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (b)(4)(vi) and 

(n)(1)(vi); and 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and 

(n)(3)(i). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 32.65 Virginia. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vi) You may only use or possess 

approved non-lead shot shells and 

ammunition while in the field (see 

§ 32.2(k)). 

(2) * * * 

(i) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (vi) of this 

section apply. All occupants of a vehicle 

or hunt party must possess a signed 

refuge hunt brochure and be actively 

engaged in hunting unless aiding a 

disabled person who possesses a valid 

State disabled hunting license. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and (b)(2)(i), (ii), 

and (v) through (viii) of this section 

apply. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(vi) The condition set forth at 

paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section 

applies. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vi) You may only use or possess 

approved non-lead shot shells, 

ammunition, and tackle while in the 

field (see § 32.2(k)). 

(2) * * * 

(i) The conditions set forth in 

paragraphs (n)(1)(i), (iii), and (vi) of this 

section apply. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) The conditions set forth at 

paragraphs (n)(1)(i), (ii), and (vi) and 

(n)(2)(iv) of this section apply. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Amend § 32.66 by revising 

paragraph (b)(4)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 32.66 Washington. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) On waters open to fishing, we 

allow fishing only from the start of the 

State season to September 30, except 

that we allow fishing year-round on 

Falcon, Heron, Goldeneye, Corral, 

Blythe, Chukar, and Scaup Lakes. 

* * * * * 

Shannon Estenoz, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23847 Filed 10–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 120404257–3325–02; RTID 

0648–XD427] 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2023 

Commercial Hook-and-Line Closure for 

Golden Tilefish in the South Atlantic 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS implements an 

accountability measure for the 

commercial hook-and-line component 

of golden tilefish in the South Atlantic 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS 

projects that commercial landings of 

golden tilefish harvested by hook-andline are projected to reach the 

commercial component quota in the 

2023 fishing year. Accordingly, NMFS 

closes the commercial hook-and-line 

component for golden tilefish in the 

South Atlantic EEZ for the remainder of 

the 2023 fishing year to protect the 

golden tilefish resource. 

DATES: This temporary rule is effective 

from 12:01 a.m. eastern time on October 

31, 2023, through December 31, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email: 

mary.vara@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

snapper-grouper fishery of the South 

Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic 

Region (FMP). The South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council and 

NMFS prepared the FMP, and the FMP 

is implemented by NMFS under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All 

weights in this temporary rule are given 

in gutted weight. 

The commercial sector for golden 

tilefish has two components, each with 

its own quota: The hook-and-line and 

longline components (50 CFR 

622.190(a)(2)). The commercial annual 

catch limit (ACL) for golden tilefish is 

allocated 25 percent to the hook-andline component and 75 percent to the 

longline component. The total 

commercial ACL (equivalent to the total 

commercial quota) for golden tilefish is 

331,740 lb (150,475 kg). The commercial 

ACL (equivalent to the commercial 

quota) for the hook-and-line component 

is 82,935 lb (37,619 kg). 

Under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(i), NMFS 

is required to close the commercial 

hook-and-line component for golden 

tilefish when its commercial ACL has 

been reached, or is projected to be 

reached, through a notification filed 

with the Office of the Federal Register. 

NMFS projects that commercial 

landings of South Atlantic golden 

tilefish by the hook-and-line component 

will reach the ACL by October 31, 2023. 

Accordingly, the commercial hook-andline component of South Atlantic 

golden tilefish is closed on October 31, 

2023. 

For the current fishing year, NMFS 

has also closed the commercial longline 

component on April 7, 2023, and the 

recreational sector on July 17, 2023, for 

golden tilefish through 2023 (88 FR 

20079, April 5, 2023; 88 FR 45369, July 

17, 2023). Therefore, because the 

commercial longline component and 

recreational sector are already closed, 

and NMFS is closing the commercial 

hook-and-line component through this 

temporary rule, all harvest and 

possession of South Atlantic golden 

tilefish in or from the EEZ is prohibited 

from the effective date of this temporary 

rule through the end of 2023. 

The operator of a vessel issued a valid 

Federal commercial vessel permit for 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper with 

golden tilefish on board harvested by 

hook-and-line must have landed and 

bartered, traded, or sold such golden 

tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m. eastern time 

on October 31, 2023. During the closure, 

the sale or purchase of golden tilefish 

harvested from the EEZ is prohibited. 

The prohibition on sale or purchase 

does not apply to the sale or purchase 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES