[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49232-49235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23925]


      

[[Page 49231]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 20



Establishment of a Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day for the 1996-97 
Migratory Game Bird Hunting Season; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 18, 1996 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 49232]]



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AD69


Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Rule on the Establishment of a 
Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day for the 1996-97 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 
Season

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service) 
proposed in an earlier document (August 15, 1996, Federal Register 61 
FR 42500) the establishment of a special youth waterfowl hunting day 
for the 1996-97 duck-hunting season. This final rule contains final 
frameworks for the special youth waterfowl hunting day from which 
States may select season dates, limits, and other options for the 1996-
97 duck-hunting seasons. The effect of this final rule is to facilitate 
the selection of a youth hunting day by the States to further the 
annual establishment of the migratory bird hunting regulations. State 
selections will be published in the Federal Register as amendments to 
Sec. 20.105 of title 50 CFR part 20.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule takes effect on September 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: States should send their season selections to: 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. The public may inspect comments during normal 
business hours in room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, Office of 
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-
1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 1996

    On March 22, 1996, the Service published in the Federal Register 
(61 FR 11992) 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 June 13, 1996, the Service published in the 
Federal Register (61 FR 30114) a second document providing supplemental 
proposals for early- and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations 
frameworks, detailing information on the 1996-97 regulatory schedule, 
and announcing the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and 
Flyway Council meetings. On June 14, 1996, the Service published in the 
Federal Register (61 FR 30490) a third document describing the 
Service's proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1996-97 duck hunting 
season and the Service's consideration of a proposed youth waterfowl 
hunting day. On August 15, 1996, the Service published in the Federal 
Register (61 FR 42500) a proposal for the establishment of a special 
youth waterfowl hunting day.
    This rulemaking prescribes the final framework for establishing a 
youth waterfowl hunting day for the 1996-97 migratory bird hunting 
season. The Service considered all comments received to date.

Written Comments Received

    The Service's June 14 Federal Register contained a notice of 
consideration and preliminary guidelines for establishing a special 
youth waterfowl hunting day and opened a public comment period. The 
Service received 145 comments specifically addressing the establishment 
of a youth waterfowl hunting day. Comments, responses to comments, and 
modifications to the preliminary guidelines were announced in the 
August 15 Federal Register proposed rulemaking. The public comment 
period on the proposed rule closed on August 26, 1996. As of August 30, 
1996, the Service had received an additional 15 comments on the 
proposed youth waterfowl hunting day. Comments and modifications to the 
proposed guidelines announced in the August 15 Federal Register are 
discussed below. The headings correspond to the numbered items in the 
March 22 Federal Register.

1. Ducks

G. Special Seasons/Species Management

    Written Comments: The Ohio Division of Wildlife commended the 
Service for its proposal to provide a special day of hunting for young 
hunters.
    The Pennsylvania Game Commission (Pennsylvania) fully supported the 
concept of a youth waterfowl hunting day. They believed a day devoted 
for youth to experience and learn about waterfowl hunting would serve 
to foster involvement and support for waterfowl conservation. They 
further believed that youth should be encouraged to participate in 
these activities and that the continued conservation of all migratory 
birds depends on the future attitudes and actions of youth. While they 
supported the Service's proposed guidelines, Pennsylvania requested 
that licensing requirements for the accompanying adult be left to the 
discretion of the individual State. They also requested the Service 
thoroughly evaluate harvest and hunter activity resulting from the 
special youth hunt.
    The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (Arkansas) was pleased that 
the Service had proceeded with the youth hunting day initiative for the 
1996-97 season and expected that the experiences shared by the 
participants would increase the appreciation for natural resources. 
However, Arkansas requested that the guidelines for selecting a youth 
hunting day include primary and secondary school vacation days as well 
as weekends and holidays.
    The Georgia Wildlife Resources Division (Georgia) and the South 
Carolina Department of Natural Resources (South Carolina) also 
supported the special youth hunt concept, but were concerned about the 
Service's proposed age limitation. While both States understood the age 
requirements imposed by the Federal migratory waterfowl hunting stamp, 
Georgia believed that the Service's proposed youth participation age of 
15 or younger would serve to complicate an already complex issue. Both 
States recommended final frameworks that allow States to select the 
most appropriate participation age.
    An individual from Wisconsin supported the proposal for a special 
youth waterfowl hunting day, citing the educational opportunities for 
young people to experience safe, high-quality waterfowl hunting.
    An individual from Minnesota expressed concern about youth hunters 
scaring birds, which would then not be available for the opening day of 
the regular duck season. Further, he supported allowing the 
accompanying adult to carry a gun to facilitate the pursuit of crippled 
birds.
    Another individual from Minnesota opposed establishing a special 
youth hunt because of the special status granted youth, the disruption 
of the regular season opening, and the potential abuses of the special 
hunt by accompanying adults.
    The Animal Care and Welfare (ACW), two individuals from Virginia, 
one person from New York, one individual from Wisconsin, and one person 
from California opposed the establishment of a special youth hunting 
day. Collectively, they believed the Service should represent the views 
of both hunters and nonhunters. The ACW and two of the commenters 
believed the

[[Page 49233]]

Service was acting as a public relations recruiting firm for hunters. 
They believed the Service should encourage youths to participate in 
nonconsumptive wildlife recreation, such as wildlife photography, 
rather than hunting. Several commenters also noted that the mallard 
population slightly decreased last year and as such, believed it 
biologically reckless of the Service to increase hunting pressure.
    The Fund for Animals, Inc. (FFA) opposed the establishment of a 
youth waterfowl hunting day and protested the public and regulatory 
process under which the Service was considering the proposal. FFA 
objected to the short public comment period and believed the Service 
had already decided to implement the proposal and was merely going 
through the motions of public comment to satisfy legal requirements. 
Further, FFA believed the Service lumped comments together and did not 
adequately discuss or respond to comments of opposition in the August 
15 proposed rule. Such action, FFA argued, suggests the Service does 
not consider ethical and moral concerns deserving of serious 
consideration. The FFA also questioned States actions of setting season 
dates and bag limits based on the Service's proposed frameworks and 
urged the Service to issue regulations prohibiting States from 
anticipating Service actions. The FFA stated that this practice 
reflected adversely on the integrity and credibility of the Service's 
rulemaking process. The FFA urged the Service to extend the comment 
period and to hold public hearings specifically on this initiative.
    The FFA also objected to the Service's proposed youth hunt for 
social, moral, and ethical reasons. FFA believed the promotion of youth 
hunting was not an appropriate endeavor for the Federal government. FFA 
argued the Service should not encourage violence and killing, but 
should teach children to be kind to animals. As an alternative, the FFA 
proposed the Service sponsor a youth waterfowl photography day, arguing 
that such a day would have broader public support. Further, FFA 
commented that inexperienced youth hunters would result in a higher 
bird wounding rate and that the Service should establish a minimum 
participation age of 14 or 15. Lastly, FFA noted that since the 
recovery of the duck population was still questionable, there should be 
no increase in harvest.
    Service Response: The Service appreciates the comments and 
suggestions of the various States, organizations, and individuals 
regarding the establishment of a youth waterfowl hunting day. While the 
Service recognizes there are organizations and individuals opposed to 
this proposal on the basis of general opposition to hunting, the 
Service believes recreational sport hunting is a wise and compatible 
use of our nation's renewable natural resources. As the Service 
previously stated, we recognize the valuable contributions of both 
hunters and non-hunters to natural resource conservation. However, the 
Service is mandated by various legislation to provide for the long-term 
conservation of migratory birds and, to regulate the hunting of 
migratory birds, including waterfowl. The Service encourages youth 
participation in all wildlife-oriented recreational activity, non-
consumptive as well as consumptive.
    Traditionally, the Service has viewed its role as including the 
permitting of recreational harvest opportunities consistent with long-
term resource conservation for all Americans. To meet this objective, 
the Service believes a well-educated and properly trained hunting 
constituency is in the best interest of long-term resource 
conservation. Thus, the Service views the establishment of a youth 
hunting day as a unique educational opportunity which will help ensure 
safe, high-quality hunting for future generations of Americans. The 
Service's intent is not to recruit youth hunters, but to provide the 
best and safest learning environment for our youth who are interested 
in hunting.
    Further, the Service believes establishing such a day is consistent 
with our responsibility to provide general education and training in 
the wise use of our nation's valuable wildlife resources. The Service 
believes the long-term conservation of North America's migratory bird 
resources depends on the future attitudes and actions of today's youth 
and that the special youth day will assist in the formation and 
development of a conservation ethic in future generations. The 
Service's intent in establishing this special day is to introduce youth 
to the concepts of ethical utilization and stewardship of waterfowl and 
other natural resources, encourage youngsters and adults to experience 
the outdoors together, and contribute to the long-term conservation of 
the migratory bird resource.
    While the Service understands the various comments from the States 
regarding the age requirements of the participating youth and FFA's 
request to establish a minimum participating age, we continue to 
believe that any age criteria should be consistent with previous 
definitions of youth hunters established in other Federal legislation. 
Under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1934, a youth is defined 
as a person less than 16 years of age. To maintain consistency and to 
avoid confusion in this initial trial year, the Service believes that 
this definition should be employed for the youth hunting day. However, 
the Service is committed to working with the States and the Flyway 
Councils on this criterion prior to any proposed youth hunt next year.
    Regarding Arkansas' request that guidelines for selecting a youth 
day include school vacation days, the inclusion of primary and 
secondary school vacation days seems logical and meets the Service's 
original intent of affording the maximum opportunity for participation 
by youth hunters. Thus, the Service has revised the final guidelines 
accordingly to reflect this modification.
    Regarding FFA's comment on the abbreviated comment period and their 
request for an extension, the Service reminds them that the rulemaking 
process for migratory game bird hunting operates under severe time 
constraints. However, the Service has repeatedly stated that it intends 
that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment. 
Thus, when the Service announced its intent to consider establishing a 
youth waterfowl hunting day in the June 14 Federal Register and its 
proposal for a youth day in the August 15 Federal Register, the Service 
established what it believed were the longest periods possible for 
public comment and input. In light of the fact that the Service sought 
and received significant public comment in the development and 
establishment of this special youth hunt, we believe that allowing a 
comment period past the already established closing date is contrary to 
the public interest. Further, extending the comment period would not 
allow the States sufficient time to select season dates, to communicate 
those selections to the Service, and to establish and publicize the 
regulations and procedures necessary to implement their decisions. The 
Service has given every consideration to the comments and has decided 
to finalize the proposal for the reasons stated. Because it has 
provided the two comment periods referred to above, the Service 
believes it has provided adequate opportunity for public comment and 
has decided not to extend the comment period or hold public hearings. 
To do so would delay this beneficial resource-oriented educational 
opportunity.
    Regarding FFA's belief that the Service lumped comments together 
and

[[Page 49234]]

did not provide adequate discussion or response, the Service indicates 
for the record that it considered all comments received on both the 
notice of consideration and the proposed rule. Time, space, and costs 
prevent us from providing an individual response to each commenter on 
duplicative issues.
    With regard to FFA's comment on State adoption of its own 
regulations based on anticipated Federal final action, we note that 
States take those actions on their own with the risk that they may have 
to amend their regulations if the Federal final action differs from the 
proposal. The Service is in no way bound by or constrained by such 
State action.
    Several commenters incorrectly noted that duck populations slightly 
decreased from last year, and as such, the Service should not increase 
hunting pressure. The Service notes that the 1996 estimate of total 
ducks in the traditional survey area was 37.5 million, an increase of 5 
percent from that in 1995 and 16 percent higher than the long-term 
average. Further, the total duck fall flight forecast is approximately 
89.5 million birds, compared to 77 million last year. This estimate is 
the highest recorded since calculations were initiated in 1970 and 16 
percent higher than last year. Because the special 1-day hunt would be 
limited to youths, the Service believes that waterfowl populations can 
support the additional harvest.
    The Service will continue to evaluate this opportunity annually, 
including an assessment of possible expansion and the need for 
additional criteria. The Service believes this opportunity should be 
offered during the 1996-97 hunting season and that further dialogue and 
refinements can be incorporated in future years.
    Therefore, the Service is establishing the following guidelines for 
the 1996-97 season:

    1. States may select 1 day per duck-hunting zone, designated as 
``Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day'', in addition to their regular duck 
seasons.
    2. The day must be held outside any regular duck season on 
either a weekend, holiday, or other non-school day when youth 
hunters would have the maximum opportunity to participate.
    3. The day could be held up to 10 days before or after any 
regular duck-season frameworks or within any split of a regular duck 
season.
    4. The daily bag limit may include ducks, mergansers, coots, 
moorhens, and gallinules and would be the same as that allowed in 
the regular season. Flyway species restrictions would remain in 
effect.
    5. Youth hunters must be 15 years of age or younger.
    6. An adult at least 18 years of age must accompany the youth 
hunter into the field. This adult could not duck hunt but may 
participate in other seasons that are open on the special youth day.
    7. The special youth hunt day will be considered a trial for the 
1996-97 season and will be evaluated by the Service.

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 Consideration

    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 have been conducted to ensure that 
actions resulting from these regulations 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 are included in a biological opinion 
and may have caused modification of some regulatory measures previously 
proposed. The final frameworks reflect any modifications. The Service's 
biological opinions resulting from its Section 7 consultation are 
public documents 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; Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the 
Paperwork Reduction Act

    In the March 22, 1996, Federal Register, the Service reported 
measures it took to comply with requirements of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and E.O. 12866. One measure was to prepare a Small 
Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) 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 in 1996. Copies of the 
Analysis are available upon request from the Office of Migratory Bird 
Management. This rule was not subject to review by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.
    The Service examined these proposed regulations under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 and found no information collection requirements.

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 proposed rulemaking was 
published, the Service established what it believed were the longest 
periods possible for public comment. In doing this, the Service 
recognized that when the comment period closed, time would be of the 
essence. That is, if there were a delay in the effective date of these 
regulations after this final rulemaking, the States would have 
insufficient time to select season dates; to communicate those 
selections to the Service; and to establish and publicize the necessary 
regulations and procedures to implement their decisions.
    Therefore, the Service, under authority of the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended, (16 U.S.C. 703-711), prescribes 
final frameworks setting forth the species to be hunted, the daily bag 
and possession limits, the shooting hours, the season lengths, the 
earliest opening and latest closing season dates, and hunting areas, 
from which State conservation agency officials may select hunting 
season dates and other options. Upon receipt of season and option 
selections from these officials, the Service will publish in the 
Federal Register a final rulemaking amending 50 CFR part 20 to reflect 
seasons, limits, and shooting hours for the conterminous United States 
for the 1996-97 season.
    The Service therefore finds that ``good cause'' exists, within the 
terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and 
these frameworks will, therefore, take effect immediately upon 
publication.

Unfunded Mandates

    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.

[[Page 49235]]

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined 
that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in 
Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

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 1996-97 
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712, and 16 U.S.C. 
742 a--j.
    Dated: September 11, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-23925 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-F