`[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41926-41932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20900]



[[Page 41925]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 20



Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Regulatory Alternatives for the 1998-99 
Duck Hunting Season; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 41926]]



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 Secs. 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 early-season 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 41928]]

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 
warmer-than-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

[[Page 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 mid-
November 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

[[Page 41930]]

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

[[Page 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: E[email protected].

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

[[Page 41932]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AU98.009



[FR Doc. 98-20900 Filed 7-31-98; 3:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C`