![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: June 14, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 115)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32297-32304]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jn01-29]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AH79
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 2001-02 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 2001-02 duck hunting seasons and other proposed changes from
the 2000-01 hunting regulations.
DATES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to
consider and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory
bird hunting on June 20 and 21, 2001, and for late-season migratory
bird hunting on August 1 and 2, 2001. All meetings will commence at
approximately 8:30 a.m. You must submit comments on the proposed
regulatory alternatives for the 2001-02 duck hunting seasons by July 6,
2001. You must submit comments on the proposed migratory bird hunting-
season frameworks for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
and other early seasons by July 30, 2001; and for proposed late-season
frameworks by September 7, 2001.
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, Division 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, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, (703) 358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations Schedule for 2000
On April 30, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR
21298) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a
background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations
process, and 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 proposed early-season
frameworks and final regulatory alternatives for the 2001-02 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, 2001, and those for late seasons on or about September
21, 2001.
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings
The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet June 20-
21, 2001, to review information on the current status of migratory
shore and upland game birds and develop 2001-02 migratory game bird
regulations recommendations for these species plus regulations for
migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The Committee will also develop regulations recommendations for special
September waterfowl seasons in designated States, special sea duck
seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. In
addition, the Committee will review and discuss preliminary information
on the status of waterfowl.
At the August 1-2, 2001, meetings, the Committee will review
information on the current status of waterfowl and
[[Page 32298]]
develop 2001-02 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 individual meetings
of the four Flyway Councils this July. Although agendas are not yet
available, these meetings usually commence at 8:00 a.m. on the days
indicated.
Atlantic Flyway Council: July 23-27, Loews Le Concorde Hotel, Quebec
City, Quebec, Canada.
Mississippi Flyway Council: July 22-27, Drawbridge Inn, Fort Mitchell,
Kentucky.
Central Flyway Council: July 23-27, Edmonton House Suite Hotel, 10205--
100 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Pacific Flyway Council: July 23-27, Westmark Baranof Hotel, 127 N.
Franklin St., Juneau, Alaska.
Review of Public Comments
This supplemental rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory
alternatives for the 2001-02 duck hunting seasons. We have included and
addressed all comments and recommendations received through May 18,
2001, relating to the development of these alternatives. This
supplemental rulemaking also describes other recommended changes based
on the preliminary proposals published in the April 30, 2001, Federal
Register (66 FR 21298). 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. Wherever possible,
they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items
in the April 30, 2001, proposed rule.
1. Ducks
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest
management are: (A) Harvest Strategy Considerations, (B) Regulatory
Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season
length, and bag limits, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special
Seasons/Species Management. Only those categories for which we received
public comment are discussed below.
A. Harvest Strategy Considerations
Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the
Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) Working Group and the Service
consider the following actions when AHM regulations packages are
reconsidered:
(1) Elimination of the ``very restrictive'' option.
(2) Replace open cells with the ``restrictive'' alternative to a
population level of 4.5 million. Below this level, year-
specific decisions on closed seasons would be based on both biological
and sociological considerations.
(3) Evaluation of the influence of year-to-year constraints on
regulations increments on AHM performance.
(4) Strong consideration of limiting increments of year-to-year
change to single regulations ``steps.''
(5) The role of hunter satisfaction be formally considered in the
revision of the harvest management objective or the regulation
packages.
Service Response: We recognize that periodic changes to the
protocols for adaptive harvest management (AHM) will be necessary to
accommodate changing biological, social, and administrative needs.
Revisions of the nature recommended by the Mississippi Flyway Council
potentially have profound implications, however, as they involve
specification of the set of regulatory alternatives, the harvest-
management objective(s), and associated regulatory constraints (e.g.,
minimizing year-to-year changes in regulations). The AHM Working Group,
which is comprised of both Service and Flyway Council representatives,
currently is exploring the implications of these recommendations. We
will consider the changes suggested by the Mississippi Flyway Council
once these investigations are complete, and the results communicated to
all interested parties.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
that the regulations packages for 2001 be the same as those in 2000,
except for an experimental framework opening date of the Saturday
nearest September 24 and a framework closing date of the last Sunday in
January with no offsets for the 2001-2003 duck seasons in the
``moderate'' and ``liberal'' alternatives. The Council further
recommended that the framework dates be applicable either Statewide or
in zones and that the Service use the evaluation of the framework-date
extensions for the next three years as a basis for establishing future
framework dates.
The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council recommended that the regulations alternatives from 2000 be used
in 2001. The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi
Flyway Council recommended that the regulations packages for 2001 be
the same as those in 2000, except that the framework opening and
closing dates would be the Saturday nearest September 24 through the
last Sunday in January, and there would be no offsets in season length
or bag limit.
The Central Flyway Council recommended 2001-02 duck regulations
packages and species/sex restrictions for the Central Flyway that are
the same as those used in 2000-01, except for a framework opening date
of the Saturday closest to September 24th in the ``liberal'' and
``moderate'' AHM regulations alternatives with no offset penalties
(reduced or restricted bag limits or reduction in season length). The
framework closing date in the Central Flyway would remain the Sunday
nearest January 20th.
The Pacific Flyway Council preferred that regulatory alternatives
remain as adopted in 1999 and 2000 but recommends that if season
extensions are allowed (without offsets), that they be classified as an
experiment for 3 years. At the end of the experimental period, the
distribution of mallard harvest during the experimental period shall be
compared to the harvest distribution during the period of stabilized
regulations (1979-1984). If the distribution of mallard harvest has
changed more than 5 percent between these two periods, AHM regulatory
packages should be re-configured to realign mallard harvest
distribution with the distribution that occurred in 1979-1984. The
Council also recommended a framework opening date of the Saturday
nearest September 24 and a framework closing date of the last Sunday in
January with no offsets for the 2001-2003 duck seasons in the
``moderate'' and ``liberal'' alternatives.
[[Page 32299]]
The Council further recommended that the framework dates be applicable
either Statewide or in zones. The Council requested that the Service
use the evaluation of the framework-date extensions for the next three
years as a basis for establishing future framework dates.
Service Response: On August 3, 2000, Regulations Consultants
representing the four Flyway Councils requested that the Service
conduct another assessment of the projected impacts of extended
framework dates for duck hunting. A full report of that assessment can
be found at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/reports.html, but the
principal findings are summarized here.
Based on a survey conducted by the Flyway Councils, only 13 of the
48 contiguous States would not take advantage of extended opening
dates, closing dates, or both in at least a portion of the State,
assuming that there were no penalties in season length or bag limit.
The predicted increase in annual harvest associated with extended
framework dates in these States in the ``moderate'' and ``liberal''
regulatory alternatives was approximately 15 percent and 5 percent for
midcontinent and eastern mallards, respectively. Assuming these
projected increases in harvest are accurate, we would expect a
significant reduction in the frequency of ``liberal'' regulations, with
a concurrent increase in the frequency of ``moderate'' regulations, in
the Pacific, Central, and Mississippi Flyways. There was no discernable
change in the expected frequency of ``liberal'' regulations for
mallards in the Atlantic Flyway. Despite repeated assessments of this
nature, however, we remain profoundly uncertain about the impacts of
widespread framework-date extensions on mallards and other species
because experience with extended framework dates is so limited.
We acknowledge that AHM has proven to be an effective tool for
coping with these type of management uncertainties, but only when there
is broad-based agreement on management objectives (i.e., how to value
harvests, and how those values should be shared). In this light, a
decision to use framework-date extensions continues to be problematic
not because of any shortcoming of AHM, but because of tacit
disagreement over desirable distributions of harvest or harvest
opportunity. In the absence of such agreement, however, it is still
possible to formulate an adaptive approach to the use of framework-date
extensions, provided that the Flyway Councils are prepared to accept
the changes in harvest distribution that might occur. The approach
would involve embracing two or more alternative hypotheses about the
change in mallard harvests that might be associated with widespread
application of extended framework dates. Over time, the AHM process
should identify which impact hypothesis is the most accurate among the
alternatives, while ensuring that uncertainty as to harvest impacts is
properly accounted for in each regulatory decision.
Essential to the successful application of this adaptive approach,
however, is a reliable monitoring program for estimating realized
harvest rates of mallards. Such a program does not exist at this time
because of uncertainty about the rate at which hunters report band
recoveries. This uncertainty resulted from the introduction in 1995 of
a toll-free phone number for reporting band recoveries, which is a key
feature of a campaign designed to increase band-reporting rates. We are
currently developing plans and seeking funding to estimate band-
reporting rates, but do not believe that the program can be implemented
in time to modify framework dates for this year. Additionally, we
reiterate that proposed changes to traditional framework dates must
consider the potential for adverse biological impacts to species other
than mallards, especially those currently at depressed population
levels.
Finally, there continues to be some disagreement among Flyway
Councils and States: (1) About the desirability of framework-date
extensions; (2) about whether extensions should be applied to opening
dates, closing dates, or both; and (3) about the inclusion of
framework-date extensions in some or all of the regulatory
alternatives. We will continue to cooperate with Flyway Councils and
States in reviewing Flyway- and region-specific changes to framework
dates, to address the biological and sociological implications of any
changes.
For the 2001-02 hunting season, we are proposing no modifications
to the four regulatory alternatives used last year (see accompanying
table for specifics of the proposed regulatory alternatives).
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 in early July following the
early-season regulations meetings in late June. Public comments will be
accepted until July 6, 2001, and should be sent to the address under
the caption ADDRESSES.
C. Zones and Split Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
that the State of Vermont be allowed to extend the New Hampshire
Interior Zone boundary to the Vermont side of the Connecticut River
without losing the ability to split their duck season.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
iii. September Teal Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
that Atlantic Flyway States that have participated in the recent
experimental September teal seasons and met the required criteria
(Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia) be offered an operational
September teal season, beginning in 2001. The recommended season would
run for nine consecutive days during September 1-30, with a bag limit
not to exceed four teal, whenever the breeding population of blue-
winged teal exceeds 3.3 million. Delaware, Georgia, and Virginia would
have shooting hours between one-half hour before sunrise to sunset,
while shooting hours for Maryland would be between sunrise and sunset.
The Atlantic Flyway Council further recommended that Florida be
offered an operational September teal season. The Council pointed out
that Florida has requested and would prefer continuation of its current
September wood duck and teal season, which the Council has supported
with previous recommendations. If the Service carries through with its
intent to discontinue the current September wood duck and teal seasons,
this recommendation would allow Florida's current season to be replaced
by an operational September teal season. Florida's teal season would
begin in 2001 and be structured similar to teal seasons offered in
other Atlantic Flyway states (9 consecutive days during September 1-30,
with a bag limit of no more than 4 teal), with shooting hours of one-
half hour before sunrise to sunset, whenever the breeding population of
blue-winged teal exceeds 3.3 million.
The Central Flyway Council recommended continuation of the 16-day
September teal season in 2001 contingent upon acceptable May breeding
population survey estimates of blue-winged teal (>4.7 million).
iv. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that Kentucky and
Tennessee's September duck seasons be continued on an experimental
basis for
[[Page 32300]]
3 years with increased monitoring. The Lower-Region Regulations
Committee of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that Kentucky
and Tennessee's September duck seasons be given operational status in
their current format under the early season regulation frameworks. As a
condition of operational status Kentucky and Tennessee would maintain
wood duck population monitoring and banding efforts at levels
consistent to that done during the period of the wood duck initiative
(1991-96).
v. Youth Hunt
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
that the Service allow States to hold a youth waterfowl hunt on two
consecutive hunting days.
4. Canada Geese
A. Special Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
that the framework closing date for September Canada goose hunting
seasons throughout upstate New York and Vermont be September 25,
beginning in 2001, and that the September resident goose season
framework dates in Rhode Island be extended from September 25 to
September 30. The Council further recommended that the daily bag limit
during September Canada goose seasons be increased to 8 with no
possession limit beginning with the 2001-02 hunting season.
The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council supported the development of comprehensive harvest management
strategies for Canada geese throughout the Flyway that includes caution
when expanding seasons impacting populations of concern as well as
removing constraints when not warranted. 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 that the experimental
portion (the period after September 15) of NW Oregon's September goose
season related to the Pacific Population of Western Canada Geese, be
made operational.
B. Regular Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the 2001
regular goose season opening date be as early as September 16
throughout Michigan and Wisconsin and as early as September 15 in
Missouri and Iowa.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that the flyway-wide
prohibition of take of Aleutian Canada geese be removed upon
publication of the Final Rule removing this goose from the list of
endangered and threatened species. Existing special management areas in
Alaska, Oregon and California will remain closed to take of Canada
geese until a population objective and harvest strategy are established
by the Council, as indicated in the Flyway Management Plan.
9. Sandhill Cranes
Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council made a number
of recommendations pertaining to sandhill cranes. The Council
recommended that the sandhill crane open hunting area boundary be
changed in Texas and North Dakota for 3 years beginning in the fall of
2001 and population status, harvest and distribution be evaluated using
existing population and harvest surveys. The new hunt area in Texas
would include the Gulf Coast, south of Corpus Christi Bay and north of
Lavaca Bay. In North Dakota, the hunt boundary would be extended
eastward from US Highway 281 to the Minnesota border. Season length in
these two new areas would be a maximum of 37 days and the daily bag
limit would be 2 birds.
The Central Flyway Council also recommended a 95-day hunting season
on Mid-Continent Population sandhill cranes and reinstatement of the
option to split the season into no more than two segments for Texas and
Oklahoma.
The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended a change to the
current New Mexico SW hunt boundary to include those portions of Grant
and Hidalgo Counties south of Interstate 25. The Councils further
recommended allowing New Mexico to conduct an experimental 3-year
sandhill crane season in the Estancia Valley located in portions of
Torrance, Santa Fe and Bernalillo Counties following the guidelines
outlined in the Pacific and Central Flyways Management Plan for the
Rocky Mountain Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes.
18. Alaska
Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended
that tundra swan frameworks in Alaska be modified to: (1) Replace
current swan harvest caps with maximum permit allowances (Unit 18--300,
Unit 22--200, Unit 23--200); (2) make the swan season in GMU 23
operational; and (3) establish a new experimental tundra swan season in
Alaska Game Management Unit 17 (North Bristol Bay region). The new hunt
would have a 61-day season from September 1-October 31; up to 200
registration permits could be issued; each permit to allow up to 3
swans per season; hunter activity and harvest reporting would be
required. The Council also recommended that frameworks for duck limits
in Alaska be modified to include harlequin and long-tailed ducks in the
special sea duck limit, with appropriate adjustment to retain current
species limits.
Public Comment Invited
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable,
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking
process. We intend that adopted final rules be as responsive as
possible to all concerned interests and, therefore, seek the comments
and suggestions of the public, other concerned governmental agencies,
non-governmental organizations, and other private interests on these
proposals. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed
regulations to the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Special circumstances involved in the establishment of these
regulations 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.
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.
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
[[Page 32301]]
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
Prior to issuance of the 2001-02 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 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 Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 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? (6) 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 million and $1.084 billion at small businesses in
1998. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the
Division 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 control
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 control number 1018-0023 (expires
07/31/2003). The information from this survey is used to estimate the
magnitude and the geographical and temporal distribution of harvest,
and the portion it 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 Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this
proposed 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.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.
13211) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions.
As this supplemental proposed rule is not expected to significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, this proposed action is
not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
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
[[Page 32302]]
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 process 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
13132, 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 2001-02
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,
and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j.
Dated: June 7, 2001.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[[Page 32303]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TP14JN01.022
[[Page 32304]]
[FR Doc. 01-15020 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P