[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29799-29805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14039]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AD74


Migratory Bird Hunting: Regulations Regarding Baiting and Baited 
Areas

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, amend the baiting 
regulations that apply to any person taking migratory game birds in the 
United States and/or preparing areas where migratory game birds are 
hunted. We include new definitions for ``baiting,'' ``baited areas,'' 
``normal agricultural planting, harvesting, and post-harvest 
manipulation'', ``normal agricultural operation,'' ``normal soil 
stabilization practice,'' ``natural vegetation'' and ``manipulation,'' 
and use these terms to identify allowable hunting methods.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective July 6, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect public written comments by appointment 
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30

[[Page 29800]]

p.m., Monday through Friday, in Room 500, Arlington Square Building, 
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203-3247; telephone (703) 
358-1949.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions may be directed to either:

Refuges and Wildlife: Paul Schmidt, 703-358-1769.
Office of Law Enforcement: Kevin Adams, 703-358-1949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statutory Authority for Rulemaking

    We have statutory authority and responsibility for enforcing the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 
742a-j. The MBTA regulates activities involving migratory birds, such 
as take, possession, transport, sale, and barter. Additionally, the 
MBTA authorizes us to make determinations about the conditions under 
which migratory game birds may be hunted. In general, these 
determinations include prohibitions on certain activities, such as 
baiting, and provisions that allow hunting in certain areas, such as 
agricultural areas and areas of natural vegetation. Regulations 
covering migratory game bird hunting are contained in 50 CFR Part 20.

Purpose of Rulemaking

    This rule clarifies the current migratory bird hunting regulations. 
It provides a framework for sound habitat management, normal 
agricultural activities, and other practices as they relate to lawful 
migratory game bird hunting.

Related Federal Register Documents

    The review process that produced this rule began in 1991. The 
review process consisted of numerous, related Federal Register 
documents, as follows: (1) November 14, 1991 (56 FR 57872), notice of 
intent to review multiple wildlife regulations (50 CFR Parts 12, 13, 
14, 20, 21, 22); (2) December 1, 1993 (58 FR 53488), notice of intent 
to review the migratory bird regulations (50 CFR Parts 20 and 21); (3) 
March 22, 1996 (61 FR 11805), notice of intent to review the migratory 
game bird baiting regulations for moist soil management aspects (50 CFR 
Part 20); (4) March 25, 1998 (63 FR 11415), proposed rule to clarify 
and simplify the migratory game bird baiting regulations for migratory 
game bird hunting (50 CFR Part 20); (5) May 22, 1998 (63 FR 28343), 
notice to extend the comment period on No. 4 (above) to October 1, 1998 
(50 CFR Part 20); and (6) October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53635), notice to 
extend the comment period on No. 4 (above) to October 22, 1998 (50 CFR 
Part 20).

Summary of Comments on the Notice of Intent and Proposed Rule

    In the March 22, 1996, notice of intent, we specified four issues 
of concern regarding moist-soil management: potential impacts on 
available habitat, waterfowl populations, law enforcement and existing 
case law. In the March 25, 1998, proposed rule, we then invited 
comments on proposed changes to the migratory game bird baiting 
regulations. We received 509 comments in response. We have carefully 
reviewed and considered all comments received, including those from 
hunters, land managers, natural resource professionals, and law 
enforcement officers during preparation of this rule.
    Comments received in response to the proposed rule primarily 
addressed the following issues: (1) Application of the strict liability 
standard to migratory game bird baiting regulations, (2) alternate 
penalties, (3) agricultural terms and definitions, (4) hunting over 
top-sown seeds, (5) manipulating natural vegetation, (6) millet as 
natural vegetation, (7) accidental scattering of seeds or grains 
incidental to hunting activities, (8) concealing blinds with natural 
vegetation, and (9) concerns about potential impacts on migratory bird 
habitat and populations.

(1) Application of the Strict Liability Standard

    The proposed rule was published before passage of a new Public Law 
that affects the application of strict liability to migratory game bird 
baiting offenses. On October 30, 1998, Public Law 105-312 replaced the 
strict liability standard with a new standard. This law now prohibits 
the taking of migratory game birds by the aid of baiting, or on or over 
any baited area, if the person knows or reasonably should know that the 
area is a baited area. In addition, it is now a separate offense to 
place or direct the placement of bait on or adjacent to an area for the 
purpose of causing, inducing, or allowing any person to take or attempt 
to take any migratory game bird by the aid of baiting or on or over the 
baited area. The final rule reflects these changes to the underlying 
statute.

(2) Alternate Penalties

    Because violations of the MBTA are criminal offenses, the proposed 
rule invited the public to identify alternatives to the existing 
penalty provisions for baiting. We received 19 comments about this 
issue, but due to recent legislation do not include any changes from 
the comments in this rule. In addition to removing strict liability for 
baiting offenses, Public Law 105-312 changes the penalty provisions by 
increasing the penalty for any person who takes migratory game birds 
with the aid of bait or over a baited area, and adds a penalty for any 
person found responsible for the placement of bait. This rule 
incorporates the statutory revisions concerning baiting.

(3) Agricultural Terms and Definitions

    The proposed rule addressed two current exemptions allowing 
migratory game bird hunting over agricultural lands. The current 
exemptions are separated into those practices allowed for hunting 
waterfowl, and those allowed for the hunting of other migratory game 
birds, such as doves. We proposed to consolidate the allowed practices 
into one term, normal agricultural and soil stabilization practice, 
that would apply to the hunting of all migratory game birds in 
agricultural areas. We received 43 comments about this issue. Although 
we intended to simplify the rules using one term, the comments 
reflected concern that this change could potentially restrict hunting 
methods currently allowed in agricultural areas. Other comments 
reflected concern that the new term could potentially liberalize the 
regulations for migratory game bird hunting in agricultural areas, 
especially for waterfowl.
    After careful consideration of the comments, we decided to maintain 
the current distinction between those agricultural practices allowed 
for the hunting of waterfowl, cranes, and coots, and those agricultural 
practices allowed for the hunting of other migratory game birds, such 
as doves and pigeons, by the addition of three new agricultural terms 
and definitions: (1) Normal agricultural planting, harvesting, and 
post-harvest manipulation, (2) normal agricultural operation, and (3) 
normal soil stabilization practice. The hunting of any migratory game 
bird, including waterfowl, coots, and cranes, is allowed over lands 
where either a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, and post-
harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice has 
occurred, as defined in this rule. The term normal soil stabilization 
practice includes plantings made solely for agricultural soil erosion 
control or post-mining land reclamation. Finally, the hunting of 
migratory game birds, except waterfowl, coots, and cranes, is allowed 
over a normal agricultural operation, also defined in this rule. In 
order to meet the definitions in this rule, all of these practices must 
be conducted in accordance with official recommendations of State 
Extension

[[Page 29801]]

Specialists of the Cooperative Extension Service of the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture.

(4) Hunting Over Top-Sown Seeds

    The current regulations require a hunter to determine before 
hunting whether a hunting area has been subjected to a normal 
agricultural planting or harvesting, a bona fide agricultural 
operation, a wildlife management practice, or whether the area had been 
baited with seeds or grains to illegally lure migratory game birds. The 
proposed rule included a change to prohibit the hunting of all 
migratory game birds over any lands planted by means of top sowing or 
aerial seeding where seeds remained on the ground as a result. The 
prohibition was intended to apply regardless of the purpose of the 
seeding, and top sowing was explicitly excluded from the proposed term, 
normal agricultural and soil stabilization practice.
    We received 221 comments about this issue. The majority of comments 
opposing this change reflected concern that the change could restrict a 
valid agricultural practice affecting large areas of land, and 
discourage both habitat management and migratory game bird hunting in 
those areas. Other comments reflected concern that this change would 
adversely affect a time-honored, traditional form of hunting, 
especially for doves, over prepared agricultural fields. Comments that 
supported the change indicated that farmers would continue to plant 
using this method regardless of the hunting prohibition because they 
could still hunt migratory game birds, specifically doves, using other 
allowable hunting methods. Other comments supported the change as the 
only way to resolve the difficulty in determining whether a top-sown 
field had been planted for agricultural purposes.
    After careful consideration, we will not prohibit the hunting of 
migratory game birds over lands planted by means of top sowing or 
aerial seeding. Instead, we will allow the hunting of any migratory 
game bird, including doves, over lands planted by means of top sowing 
or aerial seeding if seeds are present solely as the result of a normal 
agricultural planting, or a normal soil stabilization practice.
    We have included post-mining land reclamations that are consistent 
with plantings for agricultural soil erosion control in the definition 
of a normal soil stabilization practice. These lands were included to 
provide hunting opportunities on land reclamations in non-agricultural 
areas.
    Whether agricultural plantings, harvestings, post-harvest 
manipulations, operations, or soil stabilization practices are 
``normal'' must be gauged against an objective standard. Therefore, 
this rule incorporates our policy to rely upon State Extension 
Specialists of the Cooperative Extension Service of the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) as the best source of factual and objective 
information on recommended planting, cultivation, harvest, and 
utilization of agricultural crops. These State Extension Specialists 
make recommendations about agricultural practices that may vary from 
state-to-state or region-to-region within a state. The recommendations 
may be site-specific, and may or may not be published. However, the 
Service will continue to make final determinations about whether the 
official recommendations were followed.

(5) Manipulating Natural Vegetation

    We recognize the value derived from the manipulation of soil, 
water, and vegetation to enhance migratory bird and other wildlife 
habitat. Such manipulation, or moist-soil management, often involves 
the artificial maintenance and restoration of natural vegetation. In 
response to concerns about various moist-soil management techniques 
that could result in potential baiting situations, the proposed rule 
attempted to provide hunters, landowners, land managers, and law 
enforcement officers with guidance about what constitutes baiting in 
areas of natural vegetation. We invited the public to comment on the 
proposed rule to ensure that it could be readily understood and 
enforced, and was flexible enough to allow habitat managers to perform 
needed wildlife management practices. The proposed rule would have 
allowed the hunting of migratory waterfowl and cranes over any natural 
vegetation that had been manipulated at least 10 days before the 
opening of any waterfowl season and not during any open waterfowl 
season. The 10-day limitation was not intended to apply to the hunting 
of other migratory game birds, such as doves.
    We received 215 comments about this issue. Comments supporting 
unrestricted manipulation of natural vegetation reflected concern that 
this change, if adopted with the 10-day, open-season requirement, could 
potentially further restrict current moist-soil management activities 
rather than provide the needed flexibility for habitat managers. 
Comments opposing manipulation of natural vegetation reflected concern 
that this change could potentially liberalize the current regulations, 
and create situations where a determination about the timing and 
presence of seeds would be difficult and onerous for all affected 
parties. The current regulations were never intended to prevent the 
manipulation of naturally-vegetated areas, or discourage moist-soil 
management practices that benefit migratory birds. After due 
consideration of all concerns, we decided to allow the hunting of any 
migratory game bird over manipulated natural vegetation without any 
restrictions.

(6) Millet as Natural Vegetation

    Millet can be utilized both as an agricultural crop and as a 
species of natural vegetation for moist-soil management. Because millet 
can be readily naturalized and serve as an important food source for 
migrating and wintering waterfowl, the proposed rule invited comments 
on whether to include millet as a form of natural vegetation and allow 
its manipulation prior to subsequent hunting. We received 136 comments 
about this issue. Comments supporting the inclusion of millet expressed 
concerns that the restrictions on its manipulation were too 
restrictive, burdensome, and not as effective for moist-soil management 
as possible. Comments opposing the inclusion of millet reflected 
concerns that the manipulation of millet before subsequent hunting 
could potentially conflict with the current regulations that prohibit 
hunting over manipulated agricultural crops.
    After consideration of these comments, we concluded that inclusion 
of millet as natural vegetation and its manipulation could conflict 
with current regulations. Therefore, this rule explicitly excludes 
planted millet from the new term, natural vegetation. However, planted 
millet that grows on its own in subsequent years (naturalized) is 
considered natural vegetation that can be manipulated at any time 
without restriction.

(7) Accidental Scattering

    The proposed rule included a provision to allow hunting where 
grains or seeds from agricultural crops or natural vegetation had been 
scattered as a result of hunters entering or exiting areas, placing 
decoys, or retrieving downed birds. This provision was included to 
provide clarity to hunters about concerns that seeds or grains 
accidentally scattered during lawful hunting activities could create 
potential baiting situations.
    We received 37 comments about this issue. Comments that supported 
this provision reflected concerns about

[[Page 29802]]

application of the strict liability standard to hunting over such seeds 
or grains. Comments that opposed this provision reflected concerns that 
it could potentially encourage hunters to bait an area and then claim 
that accidental scattering had occurred, and result in considerable 
difficulty for enforcement officers and the courts.
    To alleviate the concerns of hunters, we will allow hunting over 
grains that are inadvertently scattered from standing or flooded 
standing crops solely as the result of a hunter entering or exiting a 
hunting area, placing decoys, or retrieving downed birds. Because this 
final rule also allows hunting over manipulated natural vegetation, no 
provision is needed for the inadvertent scattering of seeds from 
standing natural vegetation.

(8) Concealing Blinds With Natural Vegetation

    To effectively hunt in areas of natural vegetation, hunters use 
natural vegetation to conceal themselves. The use of natural vegetation 
on blinds or places of concealment may result in the scattering of 
seeds and may create a potential baiting situation. The proposed rule 
included a provision to allow the hunting of any migratory game birds 
from a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with natural 
vegetation. We received 18 comments about this issue. Although this 
rule does not restrict the manipulation of natural vegetation, we 
provide clarity to hunters by including a provision that allows the 
take of migratory game birds from a blind or other place of concealment 
camouflaged with natural vegetation. In addition, we include a 
provision that allows the hunting of migratory game birds from a blind 
or other place of concealment camouflaged with vegetation from 
agricultural crops as long as the use of such camouflage does not 
result in the exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of 
grain or other feed.

(9) Concerns About Potential Impacts on Migratory Bird Habitat and 
Populations

    As we indicated in the March 25, 1998, proposed rule, we believe 
that one of the most important factors affecting waterfowl and other 
migratory bird populations is the amount and availability of quality 
habitat. For waterfowl, we believe the loss and degradation of habitat 
is the most serious threat facing North America's populations. North 
America has lost many of its original wetlands. Overall, the lower 48 
States have lost about 53% of their original wetlands. In many of the 
remaining wetlands, large-scale land-use changes have often altered the 
natural water regime to the point that they are no longer ecologically 
functional.
    One of the primary ways we have attempted to address this loss of 
wetland habitat is through implementation of the North American 
Waterfowl Management Plan (Plan). Established in 1986, the Plan 
identifies key waterfowl habitat areas and through habitat joint 
ventures implements habitat conservation projects. Habitat joint 
ventures are regional public/private partnerships composed of 
individuals, corporations, conservation organizations, and local, 
state, and federal agencies that work together to protect and restore 
habitat.
    For example, the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture is comprised 
of California's San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys. This vitally 
important migratory bird area provides wintering habitat for 60 percent 
of the waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway and includes the primary 
wintering area for cackling Canada geese, the threatened Aleutian 
Canada goose, and a number of other endangered species. Almost 4 
million acres (95 percent) of wetlands in the Central Valley have been 
lost to drainage and conversion to agricultural land. Only about 
300,000 acres remain to support and maintain waterfowl. Central Valley 
Habitat Joint Venture efforts focus on protecting and enhancing 
remaining wetlands, restoring or creating additional wetlands, 
enhancing private agricultural lands, and securing dependable water 
supplies for wetland areas.
    To mitigate for the extensive loss and alteration of wetlands, it 
is critical that wildlife managers intensively manage many of the 
remaining wetland areas to maximize their value to wildlife, especially 
migratory birds, through moist-soil management. Moist-soil management, 
or the management of man-made, seasonally flooded impoundments, is a 
technique that uses manipulation of soil, water, and vegetation to 
enhance habitat for migratory birds. Modern moist-soil management 
includes water level manipulation, planting, mowing, burning, and other 
practices to: (1) Encourage production of moist soil plants for use by 
wildlife, especially migratory birds; (2) promote the production of 
invertebrate and vertebrate food sources; (3) control undesirable 
plants; and (4) increase biological diversity. Moist-soil plants 
provide essential nutritional requirements, consistently produce more 
pounds and diversity of food per acre than agricultural crops, provide 
seeds that are more nutritionally complete and resistant to decay when 
flooded (providing longer and more constant use by waterfowl), and are 
more economical and efficient to manage than agricultural crops.
    To help stem wetland habitat loss, the migratory bird management 
community realized that it would take the concerted effort of many 
parties working together toward a common goal. Principal among this 
concerted effort is the involvement of private landowners, since the 
vast majority of wetland and other migratory bird habitat will always 
remain in private ownership. Thus, to actively invite and encourage 
participation from private landowners in migratory bird habitat 
conservation efforts, we believe new and innovative approaches to our 
traditional habitat protection and management programs are required.
    We believe that our programs should not discourage private 
landowners and others in their efforts to conserve, restore, and manage 
wetland areas for the benefit of migratory birds and other wildlife. 
Thus, practices such as moist-soil management should not be 
discouraged, but openly encouraged. However, modern moist-soil 
management presented us with several issues and potential conflicts 
regarding moist-soil management practices and baiting. Several 
commenters throughout this process have pointed out that some of these 
moist-soil management practices could technically result in the 
creation of potential baiting situations when seeds from moist-soil 
management plants become available as a result of a manipulation. In 
the proposed rule, we acknowledged that the current baiting regulations 
were not intended to prevent the manipulation of natural vegetation 
such as that found in moist-soil management areas or to discourage 
moist-soil management practices benefitting migratory birds.
    To address the moist-soil management issues, we made several 
specific regulatory changes to ensure that this valuable wildlife 
management practice continues to be encouraged while also clarifying to 
land managers and hunters what constitutes baiting. By allowing the 
manipulation of natural vegetation at any time, this rule enables 
wildlife habitat managers to conduct valuable moist-soil management in 
wetland areas and promote increased benefits to migratory birds and 
other wildlife. By encouraging moist-soil management techniques such as 
manipulation of natural vegetation, waterfowl populations will benefit 
from additional feeding, roosting, and resting habitat in important 
migration and wintering areas.

[[Page 29803]]

Summary of Changes

1. New Definitions for Section 20.11, Meaning of Terms

    We define Normal agricultural planting, harvesting, or post-harvest 
manipulation and use the term in Section 20.21(i) to allow the hunting 
of any migratory game birds in agricultural areas over seeds and grains 
that are present solely as the result of a normal agricultural 
planting, harvesting, or post-harvest manipulation.
    We define Normal agricultural operation and use the term in Section 
20.21(i) to allow a hunter to take migratory game birds, except 
waterfowl, cranes, and coots, in agricultural areas over seeds or 
grains that are present solely as the result of a normal agricultural 
operation.
    We define Normal soil stabilization practice and use the term in 
Section 20.21(i) to allow the hunting of any migratory game bird in 
agricultural or post-mining land reclamation areas over seeds that are 
present solely as the result of a normal soil stabilization practice.
    We define Manipulation and use the term in 20.21(i) to explain 
which hunting activities are permitted over manipulated lands. 
Migratory game birds, except waterfowl, coots, and cranes, may be 
hunted over a manipulated agricultural crop. Any migratory game bird, 
including waterfowl, coots, and cranes, may be hunted over manipulated 
natural vegetation.
    We define Natural vegetation and use the term in 20.21(i) to allow 
the hunting of migratory game birds over manipulated natural 
vegetation.
    We define Baited area and use the term in 20.21(i) to prohibit the 
hunting on or over any baited area where a person knows or reasonably 
should know that the area is or has been baited.
    We define Baiting and use the term in section 20.21(i) to prohibit 
the hunting by the aid of baiting where a person knows or reasonably 
should know that the area is or has been baited.

2. New Methods of Take, Section 20.21(i)

    We revised the current prohibition in the introductory text to this 
paragraph to incorporate the new standard created by Public Law 105-
312.
    The introductory text for paragraph 20.21(i) of this rule does not 
prohibit the following:
    The taking of any migratory game bird, including waterfowl, coots, 
and cranes, on or over the following lands or areas that are not 
otherwise baited areas--
    Paragraph 20.21(i)1(i) of this rule allows the hunting of any 
migratory game birds over lands planted by means of top sowing or 
aerial seeding if seeds are present solely as the result of a normal 
agricultural planting or a normal soil stabilization practice. This 
rule also allows the take of any migratory game birds over areas where 
natural vegetation has been manipulated by such activities as mowing or 
burning, and treats all natural vegetation in the same manner.
    Paragraph 20.21(i)1(ii) includes a provision to allow the take of 
migratory game birds from a blind or other place of concealment 
camouflaged with natural vegetation.
    Paragraph 20.21(i)1(iii) includes language to allow the take of 
migratory game birds from a blind or other place of concealment 
camouflaged with vegetation from agricultural crops if it does not 
result in the exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of 
grain or other feed that would constitute a potential baiting 
situation.
    Paragraph 20.21(i)1(iv) of this rule allows the hunting of any 
migratory game bird over an area of standing or flooded standing 
agricultural crops where the hunter has inadvertently scattered grains. 
This provision does not address the scattering of seeds from natural 
vegetation because this rule allows the manipulation of natural 
vegetation at the site where grown.
    Paragraph 20.21(i)2 of this rule changes the current regulation 
that allowed the hunting of migratory game birds, except waterfowl, 
over a bona fide agricultural operation, and replaces it with the term 
normal agricultural operation.

Required Determinations

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule contains no information collection requirements under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requiring Office of Management and 
Budget review.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.)

    This rule will not result in a significant annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 
publishes a directory of State Extension Specialists who provide 
factual and objective information on recommended plantings, 
cultivation, harvest, and utilization of agricultural crops. This rule 
has no foreseen significant adverse effects on the economy. Therefore, 
we have determined and certified pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform 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 State, local or 
tribal governments or private entities.

Federalism

    As discussed above, this rule does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment 
under Executive Order 12612.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget in accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866.

Endangered Species Act Considerations

    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1972, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1538 et seq.) provides that Federal agencies shall insure 
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of (critical) habitat. We found that no Section 7 consultation under 
the ESA was required for this rule.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    As discussed below, this rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 
804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This 
rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more and will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumer, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions. Also, this rule will not have 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.--based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Determination (5 U.S.C. 601)

    This rulemaking will have no significant effect on small entities. 
This rule is an update to the current regulations governing baiting and 
migratory game bird hunting. Hunters and other affected parties are not 
likely to suffer dislocation or other local effects. The changes 
clarify and modify the ways that migratory game birds may be hunted, 
and add new definitions for terms used in Part 20. This rule adds our 
policy to rely upon State Extension Specialists of the Cooperative 
Extension Service of the U.S. Department of

[[Page 29804]]

Agriculture as the best source of factual and objective information on 
recommended planting, cultivation, harvest, and utilization of 
agricultural crops. The changes may encourage some landowners to open 
their land for migratory game bird hunting. This additional land would 
improve the hunting experience for 2.4 million people who hunt 
migratory game birds on private land. The estimated value of this 
benefit is $3.8 to $14.6 million per year. Farmers who lease their land 
may capture $2.4 million of this benefit. Many of the parties affected 
are small entities and we believe they will receive minor economic 
benefits if any.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is 
not required because migratory birds are a federally managed resource 
under laws implementing international treaties and are not personal 
property.

Environmental Effects (National Environmental Policy Act--42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that National Environmental Policy Act 
documentation is not required because this rule qualified as a 
categorical exclusion under the Department of the Interior's NEPA 
procedures in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10. Results of this finding are 
available to the public by contacting us at the number listed under 
ADDRESSES. This final rule provides added benefits to the migratory 
bird resource by promoting available habitat through moist-soil 
management and by changing and clarifying current methods for hunting 
migratory game birds in agriculture areas, areas of natural vegetation, 
and over post-mining land reclamation areas.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and Recordkeeping 
Requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend Title 50, Chapter 
I, subchapter B of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 20--MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712, 16 U.S.C. 742a-j.

    2. Revise the title of Sec. 20.11 and add new paragraphs (g), (h), 
(i), (j), (k), (l) and (m) to read as follows:


Sec. 20.11  What terms do I need to understand?

* * * * *
    (g) Normal agricultural planting, harvesting, or post-harvest 
manipulation means a planting or harvesting undertaken for the purpose 
of producing and gathering a crop, or manipulation after such harvest 
and removal of grain, that is conducted in accordance with official 
recommendations of State Extension Specialists of the Cooperative 
Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    (h) Normal agricultural operation means a normal agricultural 
planting, harvesting, post-harvest manipulation, or agricultural 
practice, that is conducted in accordance with official recommendations 
of State Extension Specialists of the Cooperative Extension Service of 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    (i) Normal soil stabilization practice means a planting for 
agricultural soil erosion control or post-mining land reclamation 
conducted in accordance with official recommendations of State 
Extension Specialists of the Cooperative Extension Service of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture for agricultural soil erosion control.
    (j) Baited area means any area on which salt, grain, or other feed 
has been placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered, if that 
salt, grain, or other feed could serve as a lure or attraction for 
migratory game birds to, on, or over areas where hunters are attempting 
to take them. Any such area will remain a baited area for ten days 
following the complete removal of all such salt, grain, or other feed.
    (k) Baiting means the direct or indirect placing, exposing, 
depositing, distributing, or scattering of salt, grain, or other feed 
that could serve as a lure or attraction for migratory game birds to, 
on, or over any areas where hunters are attempting to take them.
    (l) Manipulation means the alteration of natural vegetation or 
agricultural crops by activities that include but are not limited to 
mowing, shredding, discing, rolling, chopping, trampling, flattening, 
burning, or herbicide treatments. The term manipulation does not 
include the distributing or scattering of grain, seed, or other feed 
after removal from or storage on the field where grown.
    (m) Natural vegetation means any non-agricultural, native, or 
naturalized plant species that grows at a site in response to planting 
or from existing seeds or other propagules. The term natural vegetation 
does not include planted millet. However, planted millet that grows on 
its own in subsequent years after the year of planting is considered 
natural vegetation.
    3. Amend Sec. 20.21 by revising the section title and paragraph (i) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 20.21  What hunting methods are illegal?

* * * * *
    (i) By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area, where a 
person knows or reasonably should know that the area is or has been 
baited. However, nothing in this paragraph prohibits:
    (1) the taking of any migratory game bird, including waterfowl, 
coots, and cranes, on or over the following lands or areas that are not 
otherwise baited areas--
    (i) Standing crops or flooded standing crops (including aquatics); 
standing, flooded, or manipulated natural vegetation; flooded harvested 
croplands; or lands or areas where seeds or grains have been scattered 
solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, 
post-harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice;
    (ii) From a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with 
natural vegetation;
    (iii) From a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with 
vegetation from agricultural crops, as long as such camouflaging does 
not result in the exposing, depositing, distributing or scattering of 
grain or other feed; or
    (iv) Standing or flooded standing agricultural crops where grain is 
inadvertently scattered solely as a result of a hunter entering or 
exiting a hunting area, placing decoys, or retrieving downed birds.
    (2) The taking of any migratory game bird, except waterfowl, coots 
and cranes, on or over lands or areas that are not otherwise baited 
areas, and where grain or other feed has been distributed or scattered 
solely as the result of manipulation of an agricultural crop or other 
feed on the land where grown, or solely as the result of a normal 
agricultural operation.
* * * * *

[[Page 29805]]

    Dated: March 22, 1999.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-14039 Filed 6-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P