Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings

Part VIII

Department of the Interior

_______________________________________________________________________

Fish and Wildlife Service

_______________________________________________________________________

50 CFR Part 20

Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird

Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings; Proposed Rule

Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AF24

Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game

Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we)

proposed in an earlier document to establish annual hunting regulations

for certain migratory game birds for the 1999-2000 hunting season. This

supplement to the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule;

announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway

Council meetings; and describes the proposed regulatory alternatives

for the 1999-2000 duck hunting seasons and other proposed changes from

the 1998-99 hunting regulations.

DATES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will consider

and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory bird

hunting on June 22 and 23, and for late-season migratory bird hunting

on August 3 and 4. All meetings will commence at approximately 8:30

a.m. To comment on the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1999-

2000 duck hunting seasons, you must submit your comments by July 2,

1999. To comment on the proposed migratory bird hunting-season

frameworks for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and

other early seasons, you must do so by July 27, 1999. To comment on the

proposed late-season frameworks, you must do so by September 7, 1999.

t on the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1999-

2000 duck hunting seasons, you must submit your comments by July 2,

1999. To comment on the proposed migratory bird hunting-season

frameworks for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and

other early seasons, you must do so by July 27, 1999. To comment on the

proposed late-season frameworks, you must do so by September 7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet

in room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square

Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Send your

comments on the proposals to the Chief, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior,

ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. All comments

received, including names and addresses, will become part of the public

record. You may inspect comments during normal business hours in room

634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington,

Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Andrew, Chief, or Ron W.

Kokel, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 1999

On May 3, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 23742)

a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal dealt with the

establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for migratory

game birds under Sec. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of

subpart K. This document is the second in a series of proposed,

supplemental, and final rules for migratory game bird hunting

regulations. We will publish early-season frameworks and final

regulatory alternatives for the 1999-2000 duck hunting seasons in mid-

July and late-season frameworks in mid-August. We will publish final

regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about August 20, 1999,

and those for late seasons on or about September 27, 1999.

d,

supplemental, and final rules for migratory game bird hunting

regulations. We will publish early-season frameworks and final

regulatory alternatives for the 1999-2000 duck hunting seasons in mid-

July and late-season frameworks in mid-August. We will publish final

regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about August 20, 1999,

and those for late seasons on or about September 27, 1999.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

The June 22-23 meetings will review information on the current

status of migratory shore and upland game birds and develop 1999-2000

migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species plus

regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl seasons in designated

States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway; and extended

falconry seasons. In addition, we will review and discuss preliminary

information on the status of waterfowl as it relates to the development

and selection of the regulatory packages for the 1999-2000 regular

waterfowl seasons.

The August 3-4 meetings will review information on the current

status of waterfowl and develop 1999-2000 migratory game bird

regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl seasons and other

species and seasons not previously discussed at the early season

meetings.

In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to

public observation. You may submit written comments to the Director on

the matters discussed.

Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings

terfowl and develop 1999-2000 migratory game bird

regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl seasons and other

species and seasons not previously discussed at the early season

meetings.

In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to

public observation. You may submit written comments to the Director on

the matters discussed.

Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings

Service representatives will be present at the following meetings

of the Flyway Councils:

Atlantic Flyway, July 29-30, Key West, Florida, (Hilton Resort and

Marina)

Mississippi Flyway, July 27-29, Merrillville, Indiana (Radisson)

Central Flyway, July 29-30, Bartlesville, Oklahoma (hotel to be

announced)

Pacific Flyway, July 30, Reno, Nevada (Peppermill Hotel)

Although agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually

commence at 8:30 a.m. on the days indicated.

Review of Public Comments

This supplemental rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory

alternatives for the 1999-2000 duck hunting seasons. We have included

and addressed all comments and recommendations received through May 24,

1999, relating to the development of these alternatives.

This supplemental rulemaking also describes other recommended

changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the May 3,

1999, Federal Register. We have included only those recommendations

requiring either new proposals or substantial modification of the

preliminary proposals.

This supplement does not include recommendations or comments that

simply support or oppose preliminary proposals and provide no

recommended alternatives. We will consider these comments later in the

regulations-development process. We will publish responses to all

proposals and written comments when we develop final frameworks.

We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations

in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to

previously described proposals are discussed below

Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended the Service continue use of the 1998-99 regulatory

packages for the 1999-2000 season and further recommended deletion of

the ``very restrictive'' alternative and modification of the framework

opening and closing dates to the Saturday closest to September 23 to

January 31 for all alternatives with no offsets (see further discussion

in B. Framework Dates).

The Central Flyway Council recommended the Service continue use of

the 1998-99 regulatory packages for the 1999-2000 season with several

modifications. The Council recommended opening framework dates of the

Saturday closest to September 24 in the ``liberal'' and ``moderate''

regulatory alternatives with no offsets. The framework closing date

would remain the Sunday closest to January 20. Additionally, the

Council recommended that no additional changes be allowed to the

packages for a five-year period (see further discussion in B. Framework

Dates).

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended framework dates of the

Saturday closest to September 23 to January 31 without offsets in the

``liberal'' alternative and with offsets in the ``moderate''

alternative (as long as the offset does not exceed 7 days with a season

of not less that 79 days in the Pacific Flyway). For the

``restrictive'' and ``very restrictive'' alternatives, the Council

recommended maintaining current framework dates (see further discussion

in B. Framework Dates). The Council also recommended maintaining the

current mallard bag limits and preserving the traditional differences

in harvest opportunity both within and between Flyways.

Service Response: For the 1999-2000 regular duck hunting season, we

propose the four regulatory alternatives detailed in the accompanying

table. Alternatives are specified for each Flyway and are designated as

``VERY RES'' for the very restrictive, ``RES'' for the restrictive,

``MOD'' for the moderate, and ``LIB'' for the liberal alternative

arvest opportunity both within and between Flyways.

Service Response: For the 1999-2000 regular duck hunting season, we

propose the four regulatory alternatives detailed in the accompanying

table. Alternatives are specified for each Flyway and are designated as

``VERY RES'' for the very restrictive, ``RES'' for the restrictive,

``MOD'' for the moderate, and ``LIB'' for the liberal alternative. We

will announce final regulatory alternatives and propose a specific

regulatory alternative at the conclusion of the early-season

regulations meetings in late June when survey data on waterfowl

population and habitat status are available. Public comments will be

accepted until July 2, 1999, and should be sent to the address under

the caption ADDRESSES.

B. Framework Dates

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended

that the Service not allow framework date extensions in any States

during the 1999-2000 season.

The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended no change in the framework dates from the 1997-98

regulatory alternatives.

The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended modification of the framework opening and closing

dates to the Saturday closest to September 23 to January 31 for all

regulatory alternatives with no offsets.

The Central Flyway Council recommended an opening framework date of

the Saturday closest to September 24 in the ``liberal'' and

``moderate'' regulatory alternatives with no offsets. The framework

closing date would remain the Sunday closest to January 20.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended framework dates of the

Saturday closest to September 23 to January 31 without offsets in the

``liberal'' alternative and with offsets in the ``moderate''

alternative (as long as the offset does not exceed 7 days with a season

of not less that 79 days in the Pacific Flyway)

ffsets. The framework

closing date would remain the Sunday closest to January 20.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended framework dates of the

Saturday closest to September 23 to January 31 without offsets in the

``liberal'' alternative and with offsets in the ``moderate''

alternative (as long as the offset does not exceed 7 days with a season

of not less that 79 days in the Pacific Flyway). For the

``restrictive'' and ``very restrictive'' alternatives, the Council

recommended maintaining current framework dates.

Service Response: After considerable public debate concerning

framework dates for the 1998-99 hunting season, in an August 5, 1998,

Federal Register (63 FR 41926), we chose not to extend the framework

closing date beyond January 20 in the Atlantic Flyway and the Sunday

nearest January 20 in the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways.

That decision reflected public concerns that framework-date extensions

could re-distribute hunting opportunities in unknown or undesirable

ways; that there could be adverse biological impacts; and that the four

Flyway Councils had not had sufficient opportunity to design an

approach that could be supported by a majority of States. In

recognition of these concerns, we expressed an interest in working with

the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the

National Flyway Council, and the four Flyway Councils to explore common

goals, potential conflicts, and possible solutions in the debate over

framework-date extensions. However, we also recognized the inherent

difficulty in finding a consensus solution, principally because the

issue involves highly subjective assessments of what constitutes the

fair and equitable distribution of hunting opportunity among States.

On September 29, 1998 (63 FR 51998), we published the final late-

season frameworks for migratory bird hunting regulations that States

used to select their hunting seasons

ized the inherent

difficulty in finding a consensus solution, principally because the

issue involves highly subjective assessments of what constitutes the

fair and equitable distribution of hunting opportunity among States.

On September 29, 1998 (63 FR 51998), we published the final late-

season frameworks for migratory bird hunting regulations that States

used to select their hunting seasons. On October 19, 1998, Congress

directed us to offer a framework-date extension from the Sunday nearest

January 20 to January 31 in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee, provided the affected States

agreed to reduce season length to offset the predicted increase in duck

harvest. No public comment was accepted on this action because: (1) the

framework dates were revised based on a directive from Congress; (2)

public comment could not change the Congressional action; (3) there was

insufficient time before the onset of hunting seasons in southern

States; and (4) we had already received extensive public comment on the

issue. Ultimately, the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee

selected the framework-date extension, and the length of their hunting

seasons was reduced from 60 to 51 days.

In evaluating proposals for framework dates for the 1999-2000

hunting season, we will continue to focus on several key issues,

including: (1) the potential for biological impacts on the waterfowl

resource, particularly on those species currently at depressed levels;

, and Tennessee

selected the framework-date extension, and the length of their hunting

seasons was reduced from 60 to 51 days.

In evaluating proposals for framework dates for the 1999-2000

hunting season, we will continue to focus on several key issues,

including: (1) the potential for biological impacts on the waterfowl

resource, particularly on those species currently at depressed levels;

(2) the technical difficulties associated with applying framework dates

at a State, rather than Flyway, level; (3) the need to maintain

framework dates as a viable tool, along with season length and bag

limit, for regulating duck harvests; and (4) the acceptability of

proposals to a broad range of stakeholders. In addition, we are

particularly concerned about any modification to framework dates that

would disrupt the functioning of Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM),

which is intended to reduce long-standing uncertainties about the

impacts of hunting regulations on waterfowl populations. An essential

feature of the AHM process is a set of regulatory alternatives

(including framework dates, season lengths, and bag limits) that is

sufficiently stable over time to permit a reliable investigation of the

relationships between regulations and harvest, and between harvest and

subsequent duck population size.

Proposals for framework extensions also will be evaluated based on

our most recent biological assessment, which was conducted in response

to a directive contained in the Senate Committee on Appropriations

Report 105-227. Our assessment confirmed that extensions of opening and

closing framework dates tend to increase the harvest of many duck

species. Therefore, large-scale extensions, which are not accompanied

by reductions in season length and/or bag limits, likely would increase

the frequency of restrictive hunting regulations and the frequency of

annual regulatory changes

on Appropriations

Report 105-227. Our assessment confirmed that extensions of opening and

closing framework dates tend to increase the harvest of many duck

species. Therefore, large-scale extensions, which are not accompanied

by reductions in season length and/or bag limits, likely would increase

the frequency of restrictive hunting regulations and the frequency of

annual regulatory changes. Moreover, the assessment confirms that

additional uncertainty about harvest levels, arising from novel changes

to regulatory alternatives, will precipitate more conservative harvest

strategies, at least in the short term.

Last August, and again last November, we publicly endorsed the

National Flyway Council's (NFC) overall review of the framework-dates

issue. We commend the NFC for their continuing efforts to resolve this

contentious issue and seek consensus among the Flyways. However, in

reviewing the recent framework-date proposals from the four Flyway

Councils, it is readily apparent that a consistent approach among or,

in one case, within Flyways is still lacking. Apparently, there remains

a diversity of opinions: (1) about the desirability of framework-date

extensions at this time; (2) about the need for corresponding

reductions in season length; (3) about whether extensions should be

applied to opening dates, closing dates, or both; and (4) about the

inclusion of framework-date extensions in some or all of the regulatory

alternatives.

We hope the Flyway Councils will continue to seek agreement on

clear, definitive statements about harvest-management objectives, which

include not only the overall desired level of hunting opportunity, but

how that opportunity should be shared among States. Otherwise, we

believe that tacit disagreement over the objectives of modifying

framework dates will continue to undermine the biological and

administrative foundations of the regulatory process

nt on

clear, definitive statements about harvest-management objectives, which

include not only the overall desired level of hunting opportunity, but

how that opportunity should be shared among States. Otherwise, we

believe that tacit disagreement over the objectives of modifying

framework dates will continue to undermine the biological and

administrative foundations of the regulatory process. Therefore, we

strongly believe that the debate over framework-date extensions could

benefit from a more structured dialogue, in which Flyway Councils

explore the sociological issues of fairness and equity underlying the

framework-date issue. We acknowledge the difficulties associated with

such a dialogue, but broad-based agreement on a regulatory approach to

framework dates is unlikely in its absence.

In the absence of consensus among the Flyways and with a

recognition of the need for stable regulatory alternatives for AHM, for

the 1999-2000 hunting season, we are proposing the continued use of the

1998-99 regulatory alternatives published in the August 5, 1998,

Federal Register, with one exception. For the States of Alabama,

Mississippi, and Tennessee, we propose a 51-day season with a January

31 framework closing date in the ``liberal'' alternative. Of the six

States that were offered the framework extension in the 1998-99 season,

only these three States availed themselves of this option. We believe

that a reduction in season length is needed to offset the expected

increase in duck harvest (about 18% for mallards), and that 9 days is a

commensurate offset for this region of the country. The framework-date

extension would be limited to the ``liberal'' regulatory alternative to

avoid the introduction of additional uncertainty about harvest impacts

at other regulatory levels, and to avoid the potential for late-season

physiological or behavioral impacts on ducks when population levels are

insufficient to support liberal seasons

ommensurate offset for this region of the country. The framework-date

extension would be limited to the ``liberal'' regulatory alternative to

avoid the introduction of additional uncertainty about harvest impacts

at other regulatory levels, and to avoid the potential for late-season

physiological or behavioral impacts on ducks when population levels are

insufficient to support liberal seasons. Framework opening and closing

dates for all other States would remain unchanged from those published

in the August 5, 1998, Federal Register. Finally, we intend to maintain

these framework-date specifications through the 2002-03 hunting season.

This stability is necessary to assess the appropriateness of the 9-day

offset for the extended framework closing date in the southern

Mississippi Flyway, and to ensure that the AHM process can continue to

increase our understanding of the effects of hunting on waterfowl

populations. This understanding is essential to providing maximum

levels of biologically sustainable hunting opportunity.

F. Zones and Split Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the Service add ``3

zones with 2-way splits permitted in one or more zones'' as an

additional option beginning in 2001. Further, because of the public

input process many States undertake, the Committee recommended that

States have up to one year to choose this option and provide the

Service with its proposal (prior to the 2001 regular duck season

regulations process).

The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended that the Service consider offering all States the

option of choosing 3 zones with a split season in each zone in the year

2001.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended the Service engage the

Flyway Councils in an evaluation of the guidelines for zoning and split

seasons, prior to the 2001 ``open season'' on regulation changes.

G. Special Seasons/Species Management

i

Flyway

Council recommended that the Service consider offering all States the

option of choosing 3 zones with a split season in each zone in the year

2001.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended the Service engage the

Flyway Councils in an evaluation of the guidelines for zoning and split

seasons, prior to the 2001 ``open season'' on regulation changes.

G. Special Seasons/Species Management

i. Scaup

We indicated our growing concern for the status and trends of North

American scaup in September of last year (63 FR 51998) and May of this

year (64 FR 23742). Additionally, scaup population status was a topic

of discussion at the January 27, 1999, Service Regulations Committee

meeting. We have also distributed a status report on scaup and provided

some initial guidelines concerning a scaup harvest strategy to the

Flyway Councils and others for consideration in the development of

recommendations for the 1999-2000 hunting season. In response to this

information, all four Flyways discussed the issue at their winter

meetings.

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended

that the Service monitor and manage the harvest of greater and lesser

scaup populations separately. They recommended that differences in

harvest management, when required, be achieved through different daily

bag limits applied on a regional basis. In the Atlantic Flyway, they

recommended that in those regions harvesting primarily greater scaup,

1999-2000 scaup harvest regulations be based on the status of greater

scaup, while the remaining portions of the Flyway be based on the

status of lesser scaup. They further recommended that population

objectives and regulatory triggering levels be finalized at the summer

Flyway Council meetings.

The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the

Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the scaup daily bag limit

be reduced from 6 to 3 for 1999

reater

scaup, while the remaining portions of the Flyway be based on the

status of lesser scaup. They further recommended that population

objectives and regulatory triggering levels be finalized at the summer

Flyway Council meetings.

The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the

Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the scaup daily bag limit

be reduced from 6 to 3 for 1999.

The Central Flyway Council believes that the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan's scaup population objective (6.3 million) is

too high and that a more appropriate objective is 5.4 million (1955-

1998 average). This new objective would consist of 4.9 million lesser

scaup and 462,000 greater scaup. The Council recommended a prescription

for scaup bag limits based on the status of lesser scaup as follows: 4.2,

the bag limit for scaup should equal the regular

daily duck limit as determined by the AHM process.

Service Response: We remain concerned about the long-term status

and trends in North American scaup populations. Further, we appreciate

the efforts of all four Flyway Councils to constructively address the

issue of a harvest strategy for scaup and will continue to work with

the Councils to finalize a harvest strategy for scaup for the 1999-2000

season.

iv. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council requested that the Service clarify the

linkage between the Flyway-wide wood duck harvest strategy, September

teal seasons, and regional (reference area) September wood duck

seasons. They further recommended the continuation of the experimental

September teal/wood duck seasons in Kentucky and Tennessee in 1999 with

no changes from the 1998 season.

v. Youth Hunt

Council Recommendations: The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a special 2-day youth

waterfowl season

sons, and regional (reference area) September wood duck

seasons. They further recommended the continuation of the experimental

September teal/wood duck seasons in Kentucky and Tennessee in 1999 with

no changes from the 1998 season.

v. Youth Hunt

Council Recommendations: The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a special 2-day youth

waterfowl season.

The Central Flyway Council recommended expansion of the special

youth waterfowl hunt to 2 consecutive days.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council made several

recommendations concerning September goose seasons. They recommended

the approval of operational status for a September 1 to 25 framework in

Crawford County, Pennsylvania, and a September 1 to 30 framework in New

Jersey beginning in 1999. They further recommended the expansion of the

September goose season framework closing date around Montezuma National

Wildlife Refuge, New York from September 15 to 20.

The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended that Minnesota be allowed to have an experimental

extension of their September special season from September 16 to 22,

except in the Northwest Goose Zone, for the 1999, 2000, and 2001

hunting seasons.

The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council urged the Service to use caution in changing or expanding

special goose seasons.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended the addition of the Bridger

Valley hunt unit to the existing September RMP Canada goose seasons in

western Wyoming, with frameworks of September 1 to 7.

B. Regular Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the 1999 regular goose

season opening date be as early as September 18 in Michigan and

Wisconsin.

7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese

ger

Valley hunt unit to the existing September RMP Canada goose seasons in

western Wyoming, with frameworks of September 1 to 7.

B. Regular Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the 1999 regular goose

season opening date be as early as September 18 in Michigan and

Wisconsin.

7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council requested that

the Service begin preparation of the NEPA documentation necessary for

regulation changes needed to stabilize the greater snow goose

population at 1.0 million by 2002. Their recommended changes include

extension of the shooting hours to one-half hour after sunset, the use

of electronic callers, unplugged shotguns, and conservation hunts. They

requested initiation of these changes by the 1999-2000 season.

9. Sandhill Cranes

Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended

removal of the ``float'' portion (10 percent of the total allowable

harvest) of the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) greater sandhill crane

annual harvest allocation for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 seasons. The

Council recommended removal of this harvest portion to allow a research

study.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended several changes in sandhill

crane seasons. For greater sandhill cranes, the Council recommended the

establishment of a new experimental crane hunt in Box Elder County,

Utah, between September 1 and September 30. For RMP cranes, the Council

recommended that the frameworks be modified to include Bear Lake and

Fremont Counties in Idaho, and that the current requirement for hunter

check stations in these counties be waived. The Council further

recommended that the annual check station requirement for the Arizona

RMP Greater Sandhill Crane hunt be modified to a required check station

every 3 years.

18. Alaska

P cranes, the Council

recommended that the frameworks be modified to include Bear Lake and

Fremont Counties in Idaho, and that the current requirement for hunter

check stations in these counties be waived. The Council further

recommended that the annual check station requirement for the Arizona

RMP Greater Sandhill Crane hunt be modified to a required check station

every 3 years.

18. Alaska

Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council made several

recommendations concerning Alaska. For sea ducks, the Council

recommended reducing the separate sea duck bag and possession limits

from 15/30 to 10/20 king and common eiders, scoters, and mergansers in

the aggregate. Long-tailed ducks (oldsquaws) and harlequins would be

included in general duck limits and seasons would remain closed for

spectacled and Steller's eiders. For Canada geese, the Council

recommended removal of Canada goose bag limit restrictions within dark

goose bag limits (4/8) in Alaska Game Management Subunit 9E (Alaska

Peninsula) and Unit 18 (Y-K Delta). Further, for tundra swans, the

Council recommended that tundra swan permits issued for swan hunts in

Alaska allow the take of up to 3 swans per permit, with no change in

reporting requirements or other framework conditions.

Public Comment Invited

We intend that adopted final rules be as responsive as possible to

all concerned interests, and therefore desire to obtain the comments

and suggestions of the public, other concerned governmental agencies,

non-governmental organizations, and other private interests on these

proposals. However, special circumstances are involved in the

establishment of these regulations which limit the amount of time that

we can allow for public comment

onsive as possible to

all concerned interests, and therefore desire to obtain the comments

and suggestions of the public, other concerned governmental agencies,

non-governmental organizations, and other private interests on these

proposals. However, special circumstances are involved in the

establishment of these regulations which limit the amount of time that

we can allow for public comment. Specifically, two considerations

compress the time in which the rulemaking process must operate: (1) the

need to establish final rules at a point early enough in the summer to

allow affected State agencies to appropriately adjust their licensing

and regulatory mechanisms; and (2) the unavailability, before mid-June,

of specific, reliable data on this year's status of some waterfowl and

migratory shore and upland game bird populations. Therefore, we believe

that to allow comment periods past the dates specified is contrary to

the public interest.

Comment Procedure

The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable,

to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking

process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written

comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed

regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting

regulations, we will take into consideration all comments received.

Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to

final regulations that differ from these proposals. We invite

interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting

written comments to the

ommendations regarding the proposed

regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting

regulations, we will take into consideration all comments received.

Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to

final regulations that differ from these proposals. We invite

interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting

written comments to the

address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

You may inspect comments received on the proposed annual

regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office in

room 634, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. For each

series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment

periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to,

each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments received

during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date.

NEPA Consideration

NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document,

``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual

Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-

14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988.

We published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June

16, 1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August

18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). Copies are available from the address indicated

under the caption ADDRESSES.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-

14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988.

We published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June

16, 1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August

18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). Copies are available from the address indicated

under the caption ADDRESSES.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

Prior to issuance of the 1999-2000 migratory game bird hunting

regulations, we will consider provisions of the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act) to

ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence

of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or

destroy its critical habitat and that the proposed action is consistent

with conservation programs for those species. Consultations under

Section 7 of this Act may cause us to change proposals in this and

future supplemental proposed rulemaking documents.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

While this individual supplemental rule was not reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the migratory bird hunting

regulations are economically significant and are annually reviewed by

OMB under E.O. 12866.

E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy

to understand. We invite comments on how to make this rule easier to

understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1)

Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule

contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?

nd are annually reviewed by

OMB under E.O. 12866.

E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy

to understand. We invite comments on how to make this rule easier to

understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1)

Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule

contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?

(3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of

headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the

rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter)

sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in the ``Supplementary

Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the

rule? What else could the Service do to make the rule easier to

understand?

Regulatory Flexibility Act

These regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial

numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual

hunting regulations on small business entities in detail and a Small

Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) was issued by the Service in

1998. The Analysis documented the significant beneficial economic

effect on a substantial number of small entities. The primary source of

information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting

is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-

year intervals. The Analysis was based on the 1996 National Hunting and

Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business

Patterns from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would

spend between $429 and $1,084 million at small businesses in 1998.

Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Office of

Migratory Bird Management.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

s based on the 1996 National Hunting and

Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business

Patterns from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would

spend between $429 and $1,084 million at small businesses in 1998.

Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Office of

Migratory Bird Management.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above,

this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan

to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C.

808 (1) .

Paperwork Reduction Act

We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995. The various recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed

under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, Subpart K, are

utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations.

Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements

of the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and assigned

clearance number 1018-0015 (expires 09/30/2001). This information is

used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to

improve our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to

better manage these populations. OMB has also approved the information

collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane Harvest Questionnaire and

assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires 09/30/2000). The

information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude, the

geographical and temporal distribution of harvest, and the portion its

constitutes of the total population. A Federal agency may not conduct

or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

9/30/2000). The

information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude, the

geographical and temporal distribution of harvest, and the portion its

constitutes of the total population. A Federal agency may not conduct

or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements

of the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this

rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given

year on local or State government or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined

that these regulations meet the applicable standards found in Sections

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

Takings Implication Assessment

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule,

authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant

takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected

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

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

of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise

otherwise unavailable privileges; and, therefore, reduce restrictions

on the use of private and public property.

Federalism Effects

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the

Federal government has been given responsibility over these species by

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from

which the States make selections and employ guidelines to establish

special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands.

This process preserves the ability of the States and Tribes to

determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Tribe

may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The

frameworks are

. We annually prescribe frameworks from

which the States make selections and employ guidelines to establish

special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands.

This process preserves the ability of the States and Tribes to

determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Tribe

may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The

frameworks are

developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway

Councils. This allows States to participate in the development of

frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an

influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a

substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or

responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State

policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order

12612, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and

do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 1999-2000

hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,

and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

Dated: June 9, 1999.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JN99.013

[FR Doc. 99-15337 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C