Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program; Final Rule DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and State wildlife

agencies (States) are cooperatively establishing a national Migratory

Bird Harvest Information Program (Program) in which migratory game bird

hunters will be required to participate by supplying their names,

addresses, and other necessary information to the hunting licensing

authority of the State in which they hunt. Hunters will be required to

have evidence of current participation in the Program on their person

while hunting migratory game birds. The quality and extent of

information about harvests of migratory game birds must be improved in

order to better manage these populations. Hunters' names and addresses

will be used to provide a sampling frame for a voluntary survey which

will improve harvest estimates for migratory game birds.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule takes effect on October 21, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert L. Jessen, Migratory Bird

Harvest Information Program Coordinator, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (301) 497-5980, FAX (301)

497-5981.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this final rule is to

facilitate the collection of needed information about the harvest of

migratory game birds. A proposed rule was published on March 14, 1994

at 59 FR 11838. This final rule revises the migratory bird hunting

regulations to require hunters, as a condition for hunting migratory

game birds, to annually provide their names, addresses, and other

necessary information to the licensing authority of the State in which

they hunt. This information will provide a sampling frame for the

national Migratory Bird Harvest Survey that the Service will conduct

annually.

The Service and States are currently implementing this Program over

a 5-year period, starting with the 1994-95 hunting season. During this

implementation, the requirement to participate in the Program will not

apply on Federal Indian Reservations or to tribal members hunting on

ceded lands. The participating States will provide the names,

addresses, and other necessary information obtained from licensed

hunters. During the implementation phase the Service will work with the

States to investigate and develop alternative methods for obtaining

information about unlicensed hunters to facilitate their inclusion in

the sample frame upon full implementation. The Program will be

evaluated to determine the adequacy and timeliness of the sample and

the time burden, cost, and other impacts on hunters, State license

agents, States, and the Service.

The names, addresses, and other information for an adequate sample

of hunters are needed in time for hunting record forms to be

distributed to selected hunters before they forget the details of their

hunts. Because of this fundamental need, States have only a short time

to provide hunter names and addresses. The approaches used by different

States will be compared. Minimum survey standards will be developed

during the next 2 years to ensure the quality of survey data. As each

new State is phased into the Program, an agreement will be developed

with each State in order to identify and resolve specific reporting or

data-capture problems. This will ensure that each State will be

providing reliable survey data and that no material biases are

incorporated into the system.

A Program validation (e.g., ``Migratory Bird Harvest Information

Program Participant'') will be printed on the annual State hunting

license or supplementary permit for those hunters who participate in

the Program. The State may charge these hunters a small handling fee to

compensate agents and to cover the State's administrative costs

associated with implementing the Program.

To reduce survey costs and to identify hunters who hunt less

commonly hunted species, migratory bird hunters will be asked the

following questions:

1. Will you hunt migratory game birds during [season]? [This

screening question is needed only if a State asks all hunters to

provide their names, addresses, and other information needed by the

Program].

2. Please check the birds you hunted last season in the United

States. [This list need only include migratory birds that are hunted in

the State.]

______ Ducks

______ Geese

______ Cranes

______ Coots

______ Snipe

______ Mourning doves

______ White-winged doves

______ Band-tailed pigeons

______ Woodcock

______ Rails/Gallinules

3. How many of these birds did you bag last season?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

None 1-10 11-30 31+

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ducks............................... ....... ....... ....... .......

Geese............................... ....... ....... ....... .......

Doves............................... ....... ....... ....... .......

Woodcock............................ ....... ....... ....... .......

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question #3 will identify which success category (e.g., none, 1-10,

etc.) a hunter was in during the previous year and will allow

stratification of the sample. A stratified sample (multiplying the

number of hunters in each category by the average seasonal bag per

hunter in that category and then adding the results for each category)

will provide a better estimate of total harvest and will not require as

large a sample size as a standard sample (multiplying the total number

of hunters by the average seasonal bag per hunter).

To protect hunters' privacy, it is the policy of the Service to use

the names and addresses only for conducting hunter surveys and for no

other purpose. All records of hunters' names and addresses will be

deleted after the surveys, and no permanent record of names and

addresses will be maintained by the Service. State uses of these names

and addresses will be governed by State laws.

The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) provides for a minimum of 30

days for a rule to become effective unless an agency, for good cause,

has reason to make it sooner. The Service and the States are currently

implementing this Program over a five year period at the request of the

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. This rule will

add Maryland to the list of States already participating. Maryland has

implemented the requirements of this rule under State authority

effective September 1. Therefore, the Service finds good cause to make

this rule effective upon publication.

Review of Comments and the Service's Response

Comments on the proposed rule were received from 12 States. None of

the comments questioned the need for the Program or for improved

migratory bird harvest estimates; almost all expressed support for the

proposed changes to the Program. Two States requested delays in their

implementation date and four States requested advances in theirs. The

Program was supported by the States of Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia,

Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma,

Texas and Vermont.

1. Impact of Procedures on State Wildlife Agencies

Comments: Arkansas pointed out that, overall, the Program will add

burdens to their Agency, license vendors, and sportsmen. They

recommended reducing the hunter questions.

Service Response: Changes as described in the Proposed Rule will

reduce the number of questions. Enrolling hunters in the State of

hunting eliminates questions concerning species not found in that

State. For example, band-tailed pigeons are restricted to western

States and this question will appear only in those States. This and

some combining of species, such as duck/coot, will reduce the number of

questions to roughly half of the original list.

2. Service Financial Support for the Program

Comment: Louisiana stated that the amount of financial support the

Service will provide States during the Implementation Phase appears to

be declining. They requested firm and substantial funding support from

the Service.

Service Response: This Program has always been viewed in the

context of a partnership with Federal and State funds being used to

implement the effort. The Service's initial estimate of financial

support for the Program was contingent upon approval of two funding

sources. One was from Federal Aid Administrative Funds at $500,000

annually for each of the first three years of the implementation phase.

The second was from the Service's annual appropriation which, in turn,

was contingent upon Congressional approval of the President's FY 1994

budget request of $750,000. The Administrative Funds were approved in

full, while the Congressional appropriation was reduced to $500,000.

The present schedule of payment for names and addresses is 30 cents per

hunter the first 2 years in the Program and 10 cents per hunter

thereafter.

3. Implementation Phase--Schedule of State Participation

Comments: Six States requested changes in their scheduled entry

into the Program. Four requested to be advanced and two to be delayed.

Maine requested to be moved ahead from 1998 to 1996. With the financial

assistance provided by the Service, Maine will be able to adopt an

automated system of issuing licenses. Oklahoma requested to move ahead

from 1996 to 1995. A change in State licensing procedures will

complement this agenda change. Vermont would like to advance to 1996

from their scheduled entry in 1998. Oregon has implemented a basic

system of electronic license sale and is prepared to enter the program

in 1995. Texas requested to move back from 1994 to 1995. Texas is

working on several license-system changes and would like to implement

these changes and the Harvest Information Program at the same time.

Georgia also requested to move back from 1995 to 1996. Georgia is

working toward a State program to improve their hunting and fishing

license procedures and would like to include implementation of the

Harvest Information Program at the same time.

Service Response: The Service has consistently encouraged States to

advance in the implementation schedule, while discouraging any delays.

The Service is encouraged by the advances proposed by Maine, Oklahoma,

Oregon, and Vermont, and will accommodate these changes in the

schedule. The proposed delays by Texas and Georgia are viewed as

setbacks to the Program. Both proposals, however, are premised on

improved license procedures that will better accommodate the Harvest

Information Program. The Service has made it clear that no schedule

changes will be made that cause financial disadvantage to other States

entering the Program. Therefore, a one-year delay will be granted for

these States with the understanding that a portion of their original

``start-up'' monies will be used to assist those States that are now

advancing in the schedule. The long-term ramification of delays in

State Program entry are being reviewed with the International

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

4. Limiting the Program Requirements to Licensed Hunters

Comments: Seven States specifically regarded this as a positive

change that would aid them in the implementation. Three implied support

by their broad agreement to changes. Two States had reservations.

Missouri expressed concern that with each exemption the quality of the

harvest estimate is reduced. They urged rigorous survey standards for

exempt categories of hunters. Maryland strongly encouraged the Service

to require that all migratory bird hunters participate in the Program.

Their concern is that serious bias may be introduced and that Program

credibility may, as a consequence, be in question.

Service Response: In general the Service agrees that under a State

licensing (permitting) system, exempt hunters must be enrolled by an

alternate survey procedure. The Service acknowledges that the migratory

bird harvest from all hunters is desirable and that unlicensed hunter

harvest must be addressed. The Service proposes to do this with

individual States as they enter the Program. The Program changes that

have evolved since its original design have replaced a Federal Permit

with a State Permit. This change places many States in the incongruous

role of requiring an action that under State law is specifically exempt

from a license requirement (e.g., hunters under 16 years of age). This

conflict is better addressed with individual States. Some States have

the authority to require non-licensed hunters to acquire permits, but

many do not. In response to the request for information on unlicensed

hunters, only Maine responded. In Maine, only hunters who hunt

exclusively on their own land are exempt from licensing. They estimate

this to be 0.3 percent of the hunter population (600 individuals) and

that their hunting is largely for deer. Migratory bird hunter harvest

would be ``negligible''.

5. Hunters Will Now Acquire Permits for Each State in Which They Hunt

Comments: All State comments were supportive of this change. They

varied from ``support'' to ``a significant improvement''.

Service Response: Program changes that evolved into issuance of a

State permit negated the notion of a Federal permit that would be valid

in all States. This change will also simplify questions by restricting

them to the species available in the State of hunting and generally

will be more cost-effective for the States.

NEPA Consideration

The establishment of this Harvest Information Program and options

have been considered in the ``Environmental Assessment: Migratory Bird

Harvest Information Program.'' Copies of this document are available

from the Service at the address indicated under the caption FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, and the Paperwork

Reduction Act

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review

under Executive Order 12866. This rule will not have a significant

effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

This rule may eventually affect about 5 million migratory game bird

hunters when it is fully implemented. It will require migratory game

bird hunters to supply their names, addresses, and other necessary

information to the State licensing authority in the State hunted in

order that they can be sampled for a voluntary national harvest survey.

Hunters will be required to have evidence of current participation in

the Program on their person while hunting migratory game birds.

The States may require a small handling fee to compensate their

hunting-license vendors and to cover their administrative costs. Many

of the State hunting-license vendors are small entities, but this rule

should not economically impact those vendors. Only migratory game bird

hunters (individuals) would be required to provide this information, so

this rule should not adversely affect small entities.

The collection of information contained in this rule has been

approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq. and assigned clearance number 1018-0015. The information is

required from hunters to obtain the benefit of hunting migratory game

birds.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is

estimated to average 0.015 hours per response, including the time for

reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information. Comments regarding the burden estimate or

any other aspect of these reporting requirements should be directed to

the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, MS-224 ARLSQ,

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC 20240, or the Office of

Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 1018-0015,

Washington, DC 20503.

Executive Order (EO) 12612--Federalism

This regulation does not have significant federalism effects as

provided in EO 12612. 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 of 1918. State harvest surveys

presently cannot provide adequate national estimates of migratory game

bird harvests for the following reasons: Some States do not now conduct

annual harvest surveys or maintain accessible lists of hunter names and

addresses. Comparable information is not available from all States

because States have different licensing laws regulating who must buy a

hunting license and different survey procedures. The harvest of those

hunters who can legally hunt without an annual State license is

excluded from State estimates. Hunters might buy more than one type of

license in a single State and might buy licenses from more than one

State, introducing duplication problems. Currently, many State license

lists are not available in time to permit distribution of hunter

records early in the hunting season. Budget constraints often prevent

States from conducting harvest surveys during certain years or could

cause some States to eliminate them completely.

This rule does 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,

this regulation does not have significant federalism effects and do not

have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment. In fact, the Service would cooperate with States

in providing surveys to meet special management needs, and increased

cooperation between Federal and State Agencies would reduce duplication

of survey efforts.

Executive Order 12630--Taking of Individual Property Rights

Executive Order 12630 discussed guidelines for the taking of

individual property rights. This rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act, does not affect any constitutionally-protected property

rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of

property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking

of any property.

Authorship

The primary author of this proposed rule is Robert L. Jessen,

working under the direction of Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, Office of

Migratory Bird Management.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 20 is amended

as set forth below.

PART 20--MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING

1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as

amended, (16 U.S.C. 703-711); the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act

(November 8, 1978), as amended, (16 U.S.C. 712); and the Fish and

Wildlife Act of 1956 (August 8, 1956), as amended, (16 U.S.C. 742 a-

d and e-j).

2. Section 20.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and

adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 20.20 Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program.

* * * * *

(b) Each person hunting migratory game birds in California,

Maryland, Missouri, and South Dakota shall have identified himself or

herself as a migratory bird hunter and given his or her name, address,

and date of birth to the respective State hunting licensing authority

and shall have on his or her person evidence, provided by that State,

of compliance with this requirement.

(c) Tribal exemptions. Nothing in paragraph (b) of this section

shall apply to tribal members on Federal Indian Reservations or to

tribal members hunting on ceded lands.

(d) State exemptions. Nothing in paragraph (b) of this section

shall apply to those hunters who are exempt from State-licensing

requirements in the State in which they are hunting.

(e) Implementation schedule. The Service is implementing this

Program over a 5-year period, 1994-1998, which will incorporate

approximately one-half million additional migratory bird hunters each

year. States must participate on or before the following schedule:

1995--Louisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and

Texas

1996--Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi,

North Carolina, Tennessee, and Vermont

1997--Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, South

Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin

1998--Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah,

Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Dated: September 27, 1994.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 94-26044 Filed 10-20-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P