41926 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018–AE93

Migratory Bird Hunting; Final

Regulatory Alternatives for the 1998–

99 Duck Hunting Season

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule

supplement establishes the Service’s

final regulatory alternatives for the

1998–99 duck hunting season for the

States of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

The effect of this supplement is to

facilitate the selection of the appropriate

regulatory alternative for the 1998–99

duck hunting season for these States.

The selection of the alternative for the

1998–99 season will be published in the

Federal Register in late-August.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

R. Schmidt, Chief, MBMO, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, (703) 358–1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 1998

On March 20, 1998, the Service

published in the Federal Register (63

FR 13748) a proposal to amend 50 CFR

part 20. The proposal dealt with the

establishment of seasons, limits, and

other regulations for migratory game

birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107,

20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. On

May 29, 1998, the Service published in

the Federal Register (63 FR 29518) a

second document providing

supplemental proposals for early- and

late-season migratory bird hunting

regulations frameworks and the

proposed regulatory alternatives for the

1998–99 duck hunting season. The May

29 supplement also provided detailed

information on the 1998–99 regulatory

schedule and announced the Service

Migratory Bird Regulations Committee

and Flyway Council meetings. On June

25, 1998, the Service held a public

hearing to announce the proposed earlyseason migratory bird hunting

regulations frameworks. On July 17,

1998, the Service published in the

Federal Register (63 FR 38700) a third

document specifically dealing with

proposed early-season frameworks for

the 1998–99 season. The July 17

supplement also established the final

regulatory alternatives for the 1998–99

duck hunting season for all States

except Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

This document is the fourth in a

series of proposed, supplemental, and

final rulemaking documents for

migratory bird hunting regulations and

deals specifically with the final

regulatory alternatives for the 1998–99

duck hunting season for the States of

Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

It will lead to the selection of the

proposed alternative and ultimately

final frameworks from which States may

select season dates, shooting hours, and

daily bag and possession limits for the

1998–99 season. The Service has

considered all pertinent comments

received through July 1, 1998, in

developing this document. The Service

will publish proposed regulatory

frameworks, including the selection of

the appropriate regulatory alternative

for the 1998–99 duck hunting season,

for late seasons in the Federal Register

on or about August 21, 1998.

Comments Received at June 25 Public

Hearing

Mr. Brad Bales, gamebird program

coordinator for the Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife, made two

statements on behalf of two separate

organizations. The first, on behalf of the

National Flyway Council, was an

announcement that the National Flyway

Council would establish a committee to

address the framework question from a

national perspective. At their next

meeting, the National Flyway Council

will determine the composition of the

group and establish a time frame for the

committee to complete their work and

make their recommendations back to the

National Flyway Council.

Mr. Bales’ second comment was on

behalf of the Pacific Flyway Council. He

indicated that the Pacific Flyway

Council urged the Service not to extend

the framework dates for duck hunting in

the lower Mississippi Flyway as

recently proposed in the Federal

Register. Further, he offered the support

of the Pacific Flyway Council for the

effort proposed by the National Flyway

Council.

Mr. Robert McDowell, representing

the Atlantic Flyway Council stressed the

Flyway’s proposal that framework dates

remain fixed where they currently are in

all Flyways and disapproved of attempts

occurring outside the formal regulatory

process to change them. He further

indicated that if the Service finalized

the proposed framework closing date

extensions, all States should have the

same opportunity. He supported the

National Flyway Council efforts to

resolve this problem that is divisive

among Flyways.

Mr. Charles Kelley, representing the

Alabama Department of Conservation

and Natural Resources, commented in

support of the proposed extension of the

framework closing date for duck

hunting, stating that the State had been

requesting an extension for a number of

years because a later hunting season

would allow them to take better

advantage of duck abundance in the

State.

Written Comments Received

The preliminary proposed

rulemaking, which appeared in the

March 20 Federal Register, opened the

public comment period for migratory

game bird hunting regulations. The

supplemental proposed rule, which

appeared in the May 29 Federal

Register, defined the public comment

period for the Service’s proposed

regulatory alternatives for the 1998–99

duck hunting season. The public

comment period for the proposed

regulatory alternatives closed July 1,

1998. Comments pertaining to the

proposed alternatives are summarized

below and numbered in the order used

in the March 20 Federal Register. All of

these comments were included in the

July 17 supplement, however,

comments related to the regulatory

alternatives for the States of Alabama,

Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Mississippi, and Tennessee were not

addressed in that document. They are

instead addressed here, and thus, have

been repeated as a convenience for the

reader. Only the numbered items

pertaining to the proposed regulatory

alternatives for which written comments

were received are included.

The Service received

recommendations from all four Flyway

Councils. Some recommendations

supported continuation of last year’s

frameworks. Due to the comprehensive

nature of the annual review of the

frameworks performed by the Councils,

support for continuation of last year’s

frameworks is assumed for items for

which no recommendations were

received. Council recommendations for

changes in the frameworks are

summarized below.

General

I. Ducks

The categories used to discuss issues

related to duck harvest management are

as follows: (A) General Harvest Strategy,

(B) Framework Dates, (C) Season

Length, (D) Closed Seasons, (E) Bag

Limits, (F) Zones and Split Seasons, and

(G) Special Seasons/Species

Management. Only those categories
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41927

containing substantial recommendations

are included below.

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

On May 29, 1998, the Service

published for public comment the

proposed regulatory alternatives for the

1998–99 duck hunting season (63 FR

29518). The proposed regulatory

alternatives were identical to the

alternatives utilized in 1997–98 except

for the proposal to offer an extension of

the framework closing date to no later

than January 31 in those States in the

Lower Region of the Mississippi Flyway

(Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee).

Further discussion of the framework

issue can be found in B. Framework

Dates.

Council Recommendations: All four

Flyway Councils generally endorsed

continuation of the 1997–98 regulatory

alternatives. Modifications

recommended by the Councils were

identified and discussed in the May 29,

1998, Federal Register. The

recommendations are reiterated below

and modified where necessary based on

subsequent comments received from the

Flyway Councils.

The Atlantic Flyway Council

recommended that the duck hunting

packages used for the 1997–98 season be

continued for the 1998–99 season.

The Upper-Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council

recommended that the 1997–98

regulations packages be maintained for

the 1998–99 duck season. These

consisted of 20-, 30-, 45-, and 60-day

seasons, with bag limits ranging from 3

to 6 ducks, including appropriate

species restrictions, and frameworks

dates from the Saturday nearest October

1 to the Sunday nearest January 20.

The Lower-Region Regulations

Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended that the

regulatory packages for the 1997–98

season be continued in 1998–99, with

the exception of framework dates (see

further discussion in B. Framework

Dates).

The Central Flyway Council

recommended that the duck hunting

packages used for the 1997–98 season be

continued for the 1998–99 season.

Service Response: In the July 17

proposed rule, the Service indicated

that for the 1998–99 regular duck

hunting season, the Service would

utilize the four regulatory alternatives

detailed in the accompanying table for

all States except Alabama, Arkansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and

Tennessee. The regulatory alternatives

for those six States were not finalized

pending a decision on the framework

closing date and associated season

length.

For the 1998–99 regular duck hunting

season, the Service will utilize the

previously identified regulatory

alternatives for all States. Details of the

four alternatives are identified in the

accompanying table. Alternatives are

specified for each Flyway and are

designated as ‘‘VERY RES’’ for the very

restrictive, ‘‘RES’’ for the restrictive,

‘‘MOD’’ for the moderate, and ‘‘LIB’’ for

the liberal alternative. The Service is

convinced that these alternatives will be

successful at providing maximum

hunting opportunity, while not

jeopardizing the ability of duck species

to attain population goals when habitat

conditions are adequate. The Service

will propose a specific regulatory

alternative when survey data on

waterfowl population and habitat status

are available.

B. Framework Dates

Council Recommendations: The

Atlantic Flyway Council recommended

no change to the current framework

dates, believing that extensions would

be premature without knowing the

potential harvest impacts, which could

reduce the frequency of liberal

regulations and would reduce the

likelihood that eastern mallards will be

fully incorporated into Adaptive

Harvest Management (AHM) this year.

In a subsequent letter, the Council

opposed the Service’s May 29, 1998,

framework extension proposal because

the proposal was developed outside the

normal Flyway meeting schedule which

prohibited Flyway Council review. The

Council voiced concerns regarding the

impact on the AHM process, adverse

impacts on hunting opportunities across

all Flyways to accommodate desires of

a small region which already enjoys

very high hunter success, negative

biological impacts on mallard pairing

and hen body condition, and impacts on

eastern mallard stocks, black ducks, and

wood ducks. They believe the proposal

calls into question the fair allocation of

a shared resource and mechanisms used

to achieve that allocation. The Council

warned that allowing extensions

without using existing Flyway Council

protocol would fracture the existing

Flyway system and politicize the

system. The Council recommended

delaying action on frameworks for at

least one year to allow appropriate State

and Flyway review.

The Lower-Region Regulations

Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended the Service allow

States to choose a framework closing

date as late as January 31 with a 10%

penalty in days.

The Upper-Region Regulations

Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended no change in

existing framework dates. The

Committee also recommended that if the

Service were to offer States the

opportunity to extend frameworks, the

extension should be coupled with a

commensurate reduction in season

length and/or bag limits in the

participating States to offset the

predicted increase in harvest.

The Central Flyway Council

recommended maintaining the current

opening and closing framework dates

adopted under AHM. However, at some

future date, when the packages are

reviewed for modification, the Council

recommended that the framework dates

issue should be cooperatively dealt with

by all Flyways in seeking an agreement

for equitable harvest opportunity. In a

subsequent letter, the Council opposed

the Service’s May 29, 1998, proposal

because it was developed outside the

normal Flyway Council/Service review

process. They believe the proposal’s

adoption will create animosity among

States and erode the cooperative

framework the Council system has

provided for the past fifty years, and

threaten the success of AHM. The

Council perceives the extension issue as

one of fair allocation of harvest

opportunity. The Council is concerned

that other States are not being offered

the extension and may be held to a more

stringent criteria for future changes. The

Council urged the Service to work with

Flyways to continue development of the

AHM program, which the Council

believes will promote enhanced hunting

opportunities in the future. The Council

stated that both early and late

framework issues should be addressed

when AHM packages are next revised

and that they look forward to working

with the other Flyways and the Service

towards an agreement on equitable

harvest opportunity.

The Pacific Flyway Council

recommended maintaining the current

opening and closing duck season

framework dates adopted under AHM

for the near future.

Written Comments: The Mississippi

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and

Parks commented in favor of extending

the framework closing date to January

31 and submitted an analysis of data

based on the most recent two years.

Although their analysis indicated an

appropriate reduction in season length

of 3 days, they proposed to reduce the

season length 8 days, based on a more

liberal estimate of harvest increases.

The Kentucky Department of Fish and

Wildlife Resources communicated their

interest in having the option of a
41928 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

January 31 framework closing date.

While the State had no specific data

related to an appropriate penalty for the

extension, they believed Mississippi’s

analysis was applicable for the Lower

Region at this time, unless more

appropriate analyses had been

conducted elsewhere. Kentucky urged

the Service to develop final framework

packages based on the information that

most accurately reflects the anticipated

impacts.

The Arkansas Game and Fish

Commission expressed concern that the

framework issue had been pursued

largely outside the Flyway Council

process and threatened the long-term

waterfowl management process, but

believed a component of its hunters was

interested in the extended opportunity.

Arkansas expressed concern over the

potential for the extensions to result in

more restrictive harvest regulations in

the future, and the inability to

accurately measure harvest rates and

assess impacts of the extensions.

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources

Agency stated that the recent warmerthan-normal conditions had renewed

sportsmen’s interest in framework

extensions. The State pledged the

assistance of its personnel to help

resolve the framework issue in a fair,

equitable, and non-divisive manner. An

Agency resolution called for the Service

and the Mississippi Flyway Council to

work towards extending season

frameworks in a fair and equitable

manner for the 1998–99 season and

beyond.

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife

and Fisheries supported a framework

extension to January 31 as long as the

State’s participation does not require a

reduction in hunting days or bag limits.

Louisiana was disappointed by the

proposed rule and hoped the Service

would develop a practical resolution to

this contentious issue. A 1997 opinion

survey of Louisiana hunters indicated a

large majority preferred a January 31

closing date and State waterfowl survey

data indicate that more ducks are in

Louisiana during December and

January. The State was unable to

develop, in the allotted period, an

estimate of the impact on harvest rates

that they would consider reliable.

The Alabama Department of

Conservation and Natural Resources

stated that they had supported

framework extensions in Alabama for

many years and support maximizing

hunting opportunities as long as the

resource is not negatively impacted. The

Department stated that Alabama hunter

success is near or below the Mississippi

Flyway average as shown by seasonal

duck harvest per hunter and that an

increased proportion of mallards

harvested in Alabama may help offset

the long-term decline in Canada goose

harvest opportunity in Alabama.

Alabama had no data regarding an offset

penalty and would rely on the analysis

from Mississippi.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission

opposed the extension proposal.

Pennsylvania stated the proposal was

developed without consultation with

the other Flyway Councils, it conflicted

with cooperatively developed AHM

packages, and would confound attempts

to assess impacts of season length on

harvest. Concern was expressed about

the potential for increased harvest of

eastern duck stocks and the potential for

more restrictive harvest opportunities

on a broad scale if frameworks were

extended in southern States.

Pennsylvania believed that, at the very

least, consideration of this proposal

should be delayed until Flyway

Councils and the AHM working group

had assessed its ramifications.

The South Carolina Department of

Natural Resources objected to the

proposal to limit the extension of the

framework closing date to the southern

portion of the Mississippi Flyway. They

stated that waterfowl hunters in South

Carolina have been dissatisfied with the

framework dates for a very long time,

and the proposal to restrict the

extension is arbitrary and capricious

and violates the tenet of ‘‘fairness’’ that

we have operated under for so many

years as relates to the nationwide

management of migratory birds through

the regulatory process administered by

the Service. They recommended that the

same option for extension of the

framework closing date be offered to

States in the southern portion of the

Atlantic Flyway.

The Georgia Department of Natural

Resources did not support the extension

proposal because it undermined the

primary goals of the AHM process

which had been adopted by all Flyways.

They believed adoption of the proposal

would serve as a catalyst for additional

regional campaigns leading to increased

regulatory inconsistency. Many of

Georgia’s hunters strongly desire a

framework extension to January 31;

however, until current packages are

tested over a longer period, it was not

in the long-term interest of waterfowl to

extend frameworks. If changes are to be

made now, extensions should be

available to all States. The Lower

Mississippi Flyway proposal has

triggered discussions regarding a

southern coalition within the Atlantic

Flyway, intended to pursue southern

issues and framework extensions in that

region.

The New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation requested

that the proposed framework extension

be deferred for one year to allow

adequate review by all Flyway Councils

and the AHM working group. New York

expressed concerns that the proposal

was developed without Flyway Council

review, was counter to AHM principles,

that efforts on framework extensions

would delay the incorporation of

eastern mallards into the decision

process, future harvest opportunity for

all Flyways could be adversely affected,

eastern duck stocks could be impacted,

and that adoption of the proposal would

spawn additional requests from special

interest groups. The Department stated

that when regulation packages were set

and agreed to by all Councils, it was

understood that they would be stable for

several years, New York recommended

that the Flyway Councils and the AHM

working group work this year to devise

a strategy for 1999.

The North Dakota Game and Fish

Department stressed that waterfowl

harvest management should be based on

sound scientific information and

objectives established through the

Flyway Council process. North Dakota

expressed great concern over the

unfairness of extending southern

frameworks when northern States have

benefitted little from special teal

seasons and recently lengthened

seasons. They believed if an extension

is offered to southern States similar

opportunity must be offered to all

States.

The South Dakota Department of

Game, Fish and Parks urged the Service

to not extend the framework closing

date in the southern part of the

Mississippi Flyway, since all other

Flyway Councils and the Upper-Region

Regulations Committee of the

Mississippi Flyway Council

recommended that framework dates not

be changed. Such action would be

totally unfair to all other States that are

willing to use the AHM process to fairly

and biologically determine the

framework issue.

The Kansas Department of Wildlife &

Parks strongly opposed the proposal to

offer extended duck hunting season

framework dates to States in the lower

region of the Mississippi Flyway, stating

that it is blatantly unfair to other States

that may be interested in such changes,

and that it will establish an undesirable

precedent regarding how we implement

harvest regulations.

The Delaware Department of Natural

Resources opposed a framework

extension for the southern Mississippi

Flyway because it conflicted with

recommendations from all Flyways
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41929

Councils (1997) to maintain consistency

in regulatory packages and it could

negatively affect other States through

redistribution of harvest. Delaware

urged all four Councils and the AHM

working group work to recommend a

specific strategy for 1999 to address all

concerns.

The Missouri Department of

Conservation opposed the framework

extension due to concerns regarding

biological impacts on the waterfowl

resource including changes in harvest

timing and composition (age, species,

and sex), the inequitable provision of

the extension opportunities, and

conflicts with the AHM process.

Missouri believes adopting this proposal

would set an unfortunate precedent and

have negative implications for the future

of cooperative waterfowl and wetland

management.

The Michigan Department of Natural

Resources strongly opposed the

extension proposal on the basis of its

conflict with previous recommendations

of the Upper-Region Regulations

Committee. Michigan believed if

extensions were implemented, both

early and late extensions should be

offered to all States.

The Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection opposed the

extension proposal and requested the

Service defer action until full review by

all Flyways is possible. Connecticut

voiced concern over reduced hunting

opportunity across the nation and

impacts to black ducks which are more

vulnerable in late winter.

The Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources continued to support

recommendations of the Upper-Region

Regulations Committee of the

Mississippi Flyway Council and the

other 3 Flyway Councils for no change

in framework dates. They believe the

extension proposal is extremely divisive

and threatens the future of the Flyway

Council system and AHM. They stated

that the potentially negative

physiological impacts on ducks of

extensions have not been addressed and

should be evaluated by States and the

Service prior to implementing

extensions. Minnesota believed

northern States have the strongest

argument for framework extensions

because of weather-related limitations to

long duck seasons. The extension

proposal was contrary to the cooperative

process of establishing migratory bird

regulations; however, if it is offered, it

should be offered to all States.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources supported no change in

framework dates. Wisconsin found the

extension proposal completely

unacceptable because it increases

inequity, citing the current higher

hunter success rates in southern States,

frequently truncated season length in

northern States due to freeze-up, and

differences in special-teal-season

availability. Wisconsin expressed

concern about the possible impacts of

late-winter hunting on mallard pair

formation and nutrient-reserve

accumulation. Wisconsin opposed

offering southern States an extension,

but believed if the extension was

granted to southern States, northern

States must be offered an extension on

season opening dates.

The Illinois Department of Natural

Resources stated the extension proposal

was patently unfair because it was not

available to all States in all Flyways.

The State remains concerned about

biological impacts on duck pair

formation and acquisition of body

reserves. Illinois believed this is an

issue of national consequence and

without time for a full public debate and

analysis before the 1998 season, the

Service should postpone

implementation of any framework

extensions until at least the 1999

season. However, if extensions are

implemented, the offset penalty should

be determined by the Service or third

party and Illinois should be allowed to

split the duck season in their three

zones.

The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife

Conservation was strongly opposed to

the extension proposal. Oklahoma

believed that the proposal seriously

undermines the long-standing

cooperative Flyway and Service process

for establishing waterfowl hunting

regulations and calls into question the

Service’s commitment to the AHM

process. Oklahoma further

recommended that the Service deny the

framework extension until such time as

the issue can be addressed through the

AHM process and all States’ interests

are fairly and objectively considered.

The Wyoming Game and Fish

Department opposed the framework

extension because they believe that

season recommendations should be

based on Flyway/Service review and

approval and not political

considerations, the proposed extension

threatens AHM, other States are not

offered a similar opportunity, and the

proposal creates animosity between

States and erodes the cooperative

framework of the Flyway Council

system. They further encourage the

Service to work with the Flyways to

continue to develop and enhance AHM

and believe that early and late

framework issues should be addressed

when the next round of AHM packages

are developed.

The New Jersey Division of Fish,

Game and Wildlife opposed

implementation of framework

extensions due to their commitment to

the AHM process, concern regarding

impacts on migrating wood ducks, and

the potential to divide the flyway

system.

The Wisconsin Conservation Congress

opposed the framework extension

proposal stating that it was in direct

conflict with the principles of the

Service to manage the resource for the

benefit of all people.

The Delta Waterfowl Foundation did

not support the framework extension

proposal. While supporting the

Service’s goal of ensuring that

nonparticipating States will not be

impacted, they believed that reductions

in bag limits and species restrictions

should also be considered. They further

stated that the Service should entertain

other framework date extensions, such

as opening dates.

The Alabama Waterfowl Association

requested a January 31 extension in

Alabama be experimental beginning in

the 1998 season. The Association would

accept a 10% penalty in hunting days.

They cite conflicts between farmers and

hunting-lease holders or hunters in midNovember when incomplete crop

harvest prevents flooding of agricultural

fields. The Association believed an

extended framework would allow

improved habitat management and

availability at the start of the season and

would have less impact on the resource

than the additional hen in the bag

recently offered.

Two individuals from Michigan, 45

from Wisconsin, 30 from Minnesota, 1

from Arkansas, 1 from Iowa, 1 from

Florida, and 3 from Tennessee

commented in opposition to the

proposed extension of the framework

closing date.

Three individuals from Alabama, 1

from Florida, 5 from Arkansas, 2 from

Georgia, 31 from Tennessee, and 110

from Mississippi commented in favor of

extending the framework closing date.

Service Response: Extensive

comments were received regarding the

May 29 proposal (63 FR 29518) to

extend the framework closing date to

January 31 in six States in the southern

portion of the Mississippi Flyway

(Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee).

In the proposal, those States would be

permitted a framework date extension,

provided it was accompanied by a

reduction in season length sufficient to

offset the expected increase in harvest.

The Service’s goal was to provide a later

hunting opportunity that had been

requested by southern Mississippi
41930 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Flyway States, without increasing

overall harvest in those States or

affecting hunting opportunities in other

States and Flyways.

The Service’s proposal has been

severely criticized by three Flyway

Councils and numerous States. Based on

a review of those comments, there

appear to be three primary reasons for

dissatisfaction with the proposal:

(1) the perception of inequity because

most States would be excluded

unilaterally from participation;

(2) a concern that the proposal was

developed largely outside the Flyway

Council consultation process, and that

the proposal would be finalized before

the Councils had an opportunity to meet

and discuss concerns or suggest

alternatives; and

(3) technical concerns about the

ability to predict the effects of a

framework-date extension on harvests or

duck populations, and apprehension

about whether the Service could

guarantee that the season-length

reduction would be sufficient to

completely offset the expected increase

in harvest.

For these reasons, the Service is

withdrawing its proposal to extend the

closing date of the duck-hunting season

in the southern Mississippi Flyway.

However, it is clear that the issue of

framework extensions and expanding

both early-and late-season hunting

opportunity is an issue of strong and

continuing interest among the States

and the public. The Service

acknowledges and shares this interest.

Therefore, the Service will work with

the Flyway Councils to consider these

issues on a broader basis. The Service

endorses the interest of the National

Flyway Council to provide a forum for

this discussion, especially because the

issue inherently involves perceptions

regarding the fair and equitable

distribution of hunting opportunity

among all States. The Service also

believes that the design of acceptable

regulatory alternatives, including the

specification of framework dates, will

require a structured process in which to

explore common goals, conflicts, and

possible solutions. In the interim the

Service will continue to use the set of

regulatory alternatives established in

1997 which includes framework dates of

approximately October 1 and January

20.

In considering its decision regarding

the framework date issue, the Service

recognized that there are existing

species-specific regulatory strategies,

most notably for blue-winged teal, that

must be considered within the context

of a comprehensive framework date

review. Particular reference is made to

the special September duck hunting

season currently offered to Iowa. Unlike

other Mississippi Flyway States, Iowa is

allowed to hold up to 5 days of its

regular duck hunting season in

September, with the second segment not

to begin prior to October 10. The Iowa

September season focuses on providing

additional hunting opportunity for

lightly harvested teal, and is a version

of special September teal seasons

offered to all other Mississippi Flyway

States south of Iowa. The Iowa season

is discontinued along with all other

September teal seasons when warranted

by poor teal status. Iowa’s harvest

during their early 5-day segment is

predominately teal (53% in 1997), and

thus the regulation has been successful

at targeting additional hunting

opportunity on an underutilized

resource.

Iowa first had the option of the

September season on an experimental

basis during 1979–84, and has

conducted the season on an operational

basis during 1985–87 and 1994-present.

The season was not offered during

1988–93 pending a comprehensive

review of teal season criteria, which was

precipitated by a declining teal

population. The Iowa season has been

examined on several occasions, and

reviewed and supported by Flyway

Councils, including both the Upper and

Lower Regulations Committees of the

Mississippi Flyway Council. Given the

upcoming evaluation of special

September teal seasons in 1998/99 and

the comprehensive review of the

framework dates by the Flyway

Councils over the next 2 years, all

special species-specific seasons,

including the Iowa season, will be

further reviewed during these processes.

NEPA Consideration

NEPA considerations are covered by

the programmatic document, ‘‘Final

Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement: Issuance of Annual

Regulations Permitting the Sport

Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88–

14),’’ filed with EPA on June 9, 1988.

The Service published a Notice of

Availability in the June 16, 1988,

Federal Register (53 FR 22582). The

Service published its Record of Decision

on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341).

Copies of these documents are available

from the Service at the address

indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

Endangered Species Act Considerations

As in the past, the Service designs

hunting regulations to remove or

alleviate chances of conflict between

migratory game bird hunting seasons

and the protection and conservation of

endangered and threatened species.

Consultations are currently being

conducted to ensure that actions

resulting from these regulatory

proposals will not likely jeopardize the

continued existence of endangered or

threatened species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of

their critical habitat. Findings from

these consultations will be included in

a biological opinion and may cause

modification of some regulatory

measures previously proposed. The

final frameworks will reflect any

modifications. The Service’s biological

opinions resulting from its Section 7

consultation are public documents and

will be available for public inspection in

the Service’s Division of Endangered

Species and MBMO, at the address

indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In the March 20, 1998, Federal

Register, the Service reported measures

it took to comply with requirements of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. One

measure was to prepare a Small Entity

Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) in 1996

documenting the significant beneficial

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities. The Analysis estimated

that migratory bird hunters would

spend between $254 and $592 million at

small businesses. Copies of the Analysis

are available upon request from the

Office of Migratory Bird Management.

The Service is currently updating the

1996 Analysis with information from

the 1996 National Hunting and Fishing

Survey.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

This rules establishing the

frameworks (early- and late-season) for

hunting seasons is economically

significant and will be reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under E.O. 12866. This rule

establishes the regulatory alternatives

for the 1998–99 duck hunting season.

E.O. 12866 also requires each agency

to write regulations that are easy to

understand. The Service invites

comments on how to make this rule

easier to understand, including answers

to questions such as the following: (1)

Are the requirements in the rule clearly

stated? (2) Does the rule contain

technical language or jargon that

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the

format of the rule (grouping and order

of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to

understand if it were divided into more

(but shorter) sections? (5) Is the

description of the rule in the

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41931

the preamble helpful in understanding

the proposed rule? What else could the

Service do to make the rule easier to

understand?

Send a copy of any comments that

concern how this rule could be made

easier to understand to: Office of

Regulatory Affairs, Department of the

Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.

Comments may also be e-mailed to:

Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Service examined these

regulations under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995. The various

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements imposed under regulations

established in 50 CFR Part 20, Subpart

K, are utilized in the formulation of

migratory game bird hunting

regulations. Specifically, the

information collection requirements of

the Migratory Bird Harvest Information

Program have been approved by OMB

and assigned clearance number 1018–

0015 (expires 08/31/1998). This

information is used to provide a

sampling frame for voluntary national

surveys to improve Service harvest

estimates for all migratory game birds in

order to better manage these

populations. The information collection

requirements of the Sandhill Crane

Harvest Questionnaire have been

approved by OMB and assigned

clearance number 1018–0023 (expires

09/30/2000). The information from this

survey is used to estimate the

magnitude, the geographical and

temporal distribution of harvest, and the

portion its constitutes of the total

population. The Service may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Service has determined and

certifies in compliance with the

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates

Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this

rulemaking will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on local or State government or private

entities.

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order

12988

The Department, in promulgating this

rule, has determined that these

regulations meet the applicable

standards provided in Sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Taking Implication Assessment

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, these rules, authorized by the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, do not have

significant takings implications and do

not affect any constitutionally protected

property rights. These rules will not

result in the physical occupancy of

property, the physical invasion of

property, or the regulatory taking of any

property. In fact, these rules allow

hunters to exercise privileges that

would be otherwise unavailable; and,

therefore, reduce restrictions on the use

of private and public property.

Federalism Effects

Due to the migratory nature of certain

species of birds, the Federal government

has been given responsibility over these

species by the Migratory Bird Treaty

Act. The Service annually prescribes

frameworks from which the States make

selections and employs guidelines to

establish special regulations on Federal

Indian reservations and ceded lands.

This process preserves the ability of the

States and Tribes to determine which

seasons meet their individual needs.

Any State or Tribe may be more

restrictive than the Federal frameworks

at any time. The frameworks are

developed in a cooperative process with

the States and the Flyway Councils.

This allows States to participate in the

development of frameworks from which

they will make selections, thereby

having an influence on their own

regulation. These rules do not have a

substantial direct effect on fiscal

capacity, change the roles or

responsibilities of Federal or State

governments, or intrude on State policy

or administration. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

these regulations do not have significant

federalism effects and do not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Government-to-Government

Relationship with Tribes

In accordance with the President’s

memorandum of April 29, 1994,

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations

with Native American tribal

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512

DM 2, we have evaluated possible

effects on Federally recognized Indian

tribes and have determined that there

are no effects.

Regulations Promulgation

The rulemaking process for migratory

game bird hunting must, by its nature,

operate under severe time constraints.

However, the Service intends that the

public be given the greatest possible

opportunity to comment on the

regulations. Thus, when the preliminary

proposed rulemaking was published,

the Service established what it believed

were the longest periods possible for

public comment. However, special

circumstances involved in the

establishment of these regulations limit

the amount of time the Service can

allow for public comment. Specifically,

two considerations compress the time in

which the rulemaking process must

operate: (1) the need to establish final

rules at a point early enough in the

summer to allow affected State agencies

to appropriately adjust their licensing

and regulatory mechanisms; and (2) the

unavailability, before mid-June, of

specific, reliable data on this year’s

status of some waterfowl and migratory

shore and upland game bird

populations. Therefore, the Service

believes allowing comment periods past

the dates specified is contrary to public

interest.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation, Wildlife.

The rules that eventually will be

promulgated for the 1998–99 hunting

season are authorized under 16 U.S.C.

703–712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a–j.

Dated: July 30, 1998.

Stephen C. Saunders,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
41932 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 98–20900 Filed 7–31–98; 3:58 pm]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C