38400 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018–AG08

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

2000–01 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

2000–01 duck hunting seasons and

other proposed changes from the 1999–

2000 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 21 and 22, and for

late-season migratory bird hunting on

August 2 and 3. All meetings will

commence at approximately 8:30 a.m.

You must submit comments on the

proposed regulatory alternatives for the

2000–01 duck hunting seasons by July

7, 2000. You must submit comments on

the proposed migratory bird huntingseason frameworks for Alaska, Hawaii,

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and

other early seasons by July 28, 2000; and

for proposed late-season frameworks by

September 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The Service Migratory Bird

Regulations Committee will meet in

room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s Arlington Square Building,

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington,

Virginia.

Send your comments on the proposals

to the Chief, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Department of the Interior, ms

634–ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20240. All comments

received, including names and

addresses, will become part of the

public record. You may inspect

comments during normal business

hours in room 634, Arlington Square

Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,

Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonathan Andrew, Chief, or Ron W.

Kokel, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, (703) 358–1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 2000

On April 25, 2000, we published in

the Federal Register (65 FR 24260) 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 § 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

2000–01 duck hunting seasons in midJuly and late-season frameworks in midAugust. We will publish final regulatory

frameworks for early seasons on or

about August 18, 2000, and those for

late seasons on or about September 25,

2000.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations

Committee Meetings

The Service Migratory Bird

Regulations Committee will meet June

21–22 to review information on the

current status of migratory shore and

upland game birds and develop 2000–01

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 review and discuss

preliminary information on the status of

waterfowl.

At the August 2–3 meetings, the

Committee will review information on

the current status of waterfowl and

develop 2000–01 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 joint and individual

meetings of the four Flyway Councils,

July 27 and 28, at the Peabody Hotel in

Memphis, Tennessee. Although agendas

are not yet available, these meetings

usually commence at 8:00 a.m. on the

days indicated.

Review of Public Comments

This supplemental rulemaking

contains the proposed regulatory

alternatives for the 2000–01 duck

hunting seasons. We have included and

addressed all comments and

recommendations received through May

12, 2000, relating to the development of

these alternatives.

This supplemental rulemaking also

describes other recommended changes

based on the preliminary proposals

published in the April 25, 2000, Federal

Register. We have included only those

recommendations requiring either new

proposals or substantial modification of

the preliminary proposals. This

supplement does not include

recommendations or comments that

simply support or oppose preliminary

proposals and provide no recommended

alternatives. We will consider these

comments later in the regulationsdevelopment 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 25, 2000, 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

Atlantic Flyway Council recommended

that duck hunting regulations in the

Atlantic Flyway for the 2000–01 season

be based on the optimal harvest strategy

for eastern mallards.

Service Response: In the April 25,

2000, proposed rule (65 FR 24260), we

proposed to continue use of Adaptive

Harvest Management (AHM) to guide

the establishment of duck hunting

regulations. This year, we also propose

to modify the existing AHM protocol to

account for the status of mallards

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38401

breeding in eastern North America.

Modification of the AHM protocol

involves: (1) Augmentation of the

criteria for regulatory decisions to

include population and environmental

variables relevant to eastern mallards;

(2) development of a combined harvestmanagement objective for midcontinent

and eastern mallards; and (3)

modification of the decision rules to

allow a regulatory choice in the Atlantic

Flyway that may differ from the

remainder of the country. Recently, the

Service, in cooperation with the

Atlantic Flyway Council, completed a

technical assessment regarding

modification of AHM to account for

eastern mallards. The principal finding

of this assessment was that the status of

midcontinent mallards appears to have

little or no influence on the most

appropriate choice of regulatory

alternative in the Atlantic Flyway.

However, the status of eastern mallards

can influence the most appropriate

regulatory choice in the western three

Flyways, particularly when the status of

midcontinent and eastern mallards is

disparate. We note that this assessment

considers only the large-scale status of

mallard breeding populations, and not

the status of sub-populations that may

have affinities for certain wintering

areas. We also note that the assessment

did not explicitly consider the status of

species other than mallards in the

development of regulatory strategies.

The assessment report is available on

the Internet at

www.migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/

reports.html. We will consider the

implications for mallard harvest and

status discussed in this assessment

report, as well as potential impacts on

species other than mallards, in

proposing a regulatory alternative for

the Atlantic Flyway for the 2000–2001

hunting season. We will accept public

comment on this issue until September

8, 2000. Comments should be sent to the

address under the caption ADDRESSES.

B. Regulatory Alternatives

Council Recommendations: The

Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council

recommended that the regulations

alternatives from 1999 be used in 2000,

except that the framework opening and

closing dates in all alternatives should

be the Saturday nearest September 23 to

the Sunday nearest January 28, with

appropriate offsets (e.g., reduction in

season length) as determined by the

Service.

The Lower-Region Regulations

Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended that the

framework opening and closing dates in

all regulatory alternatives should be the

Saturday nearest September 23 to the

Sunday nearest January 28, with no

penalties in season length.

The Central Flyway Council

recommended the continued use of the

1999 regulatory alternatives for the

2000–2001 season, but with

modifications. The Council

recommended a framework opening

date of the Saturday closest to

September 24 in the ‘‘liberal’’ and

‘‘moderate’’ regulatory alternatives with

no offsets, and a framework closing date

of the Sunday closest to January 25.

Additionally, the Council recommended

that no additional changes be allowed to

the alternatives for a 5-year period.

The Pacific Flyway Council

recommended that the set of regulatory

alternatives for the 2000–2001 hunting

season remain unchanged from those

adopted in 1999.

Service Response: We believe that

tacit disagreement over the objectives of

modifying framework dates continues to

undermine the biological and

administrative foundations of the

regulatory process for setting duck

hunting seasons. Therefore, we believe

that the continuing debate over

framework-date extensions could

benefit from further dialogue, in which

Flyway Councils explore the

sociological issues of fairness and equity

underlying the framework-date issue.

We acknowledge the difficulties

associated with such a dialogue, but

broad-based agreement on a regulatory

approach to framework dates is unlikely

in its absence.

Due to the continuing absence of

agreement among States and Flyways

about how best to modify framework

dates, we are proposing no changes to

the set of regulatory alternatives from

those considered last year (i.e., the

1999–2000 hunting season) (64 FR

39460). We reiterate that our desire is to

maintain current framework-date

specifications through the 2002–03

hunting season, or until such time that

the Flyway Councils can develop an

approach that adequately addresses the

concerns of the Service and a majority

of States.

In evaluating proposals for

modification of framework dates, we

will continue to focus on several key

issues, including: (1) The potential for

biological impacts on the waterfowl

resource, particularly on those species

currently at depressed levels; (2) the

technical difficulties associated with

predicting harvest impacts; (3) our

desire to maintain framework dates as a

viable tool, along with season length

and bag limit, for regulating duck

harvests; and (4) the acceptability of

proposals to a broad range of

stakeholders. In addition, we are

particularly concerned about any

modification to framework dates that

would disrupt the functioning of AHM,

which is intended to reduce longstanding uncertainties about the impacts

of hunting regulations on waterfowl

populations. An essential feature of the

AHM process is a set of regulatory

alternatives (including framework dates,

season lengths, and bag limits) that is

sufficiently stable over time to permit a

reliable investigation of the

relationships between regulations and

harvest, and between harvest and

subsequent duck population size.

Therefore, we propose the four

regulatory alternatives described in the

accompanying table for consideration

during the 2000–2001 duck hunting

season. 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 7, 2000, and

should be sent to the address under the

caption ADDRESSES.

C. Zones and Split Seasons

Council Recommendations: The

Central Flyway Council recommended

that the guidelines for regular duck

season zone/split configurations be

modified to allow States to select up to

three zones with a two-way split season

in each zone.

D. Special Seasons/Species

Management

iii. September Teal Seasons

Council Recommendations: The

Central Flyway Council recommended

that Nebraska be allowed to have an

experimental 9-day teal season in the

non-production area of the State.

iv. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons

Council Recommendations: The

Lower-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council

requested that the Service and the

Council’s Wood Duck Technical

Committee move forward during the

current year (2000) to allow for

implementation of a wood duck Flyway

harvest management strategy by the year

2001 as scheduled. The Committee

further recommended that September

seasons remain an option for delineated

wood duck reference areas (population

units), provided that specified datacollection requirements are met.

38402 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

v. Youth Hunt

Council Recommendations: The

Lower-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council

recommended a special 2-day youth

waterfowl hunt for the 2000–01 season.

The Central Flyway Council

recommended expansion of the special

youth waterfowl hunt to 2 days.

The Pacific Flyway Council

recommended that the Service allow

States the opportunity to select up to 2

consecutive days for a youth waterfowl

hunt outside the general season and

frameworks in 2000.

3. Mergansers

Council Recommendations: The

Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council

recommended that, for those States that

include mergansers in their duck bag

limit, the merganser limit be the same

as the duck bag limit, except that the

hooded merganser limit would remain

at one.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons

Council Recommendations: The

Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council

recommended that the three counties

near Saginaw Bay in Michigan (Huron,

Saginaw, and Tuscola), which

previously have been closed in the

special early Canada goose season, be

allowed an experimental special early

season with a two-bird daily bag limit.

The Lower-Region Regulations

Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council urged the Service to use caution

in changing or expanding special goose

seasons.

The Central Flyway Council

recommended that the framework

closing date for operational September

Canada goose seasons in the Central

Flyway be extended to September 30

with no additional evaluation required.

The Pacific Flyway Council

recommended that Wyoming’s daily bag

and season limits be increased from 2

and 4, to 3 and 6 birds, respectively, and

that the bag and possession limits for

Washington’s September season

increase from 3 and 6, to 5 and 10,

respectively.

B. Regular Seasons

Council Recommendations: The

Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council

recommended that the 1999 regular

goose season opening date be as early as

September 16 in Michigan and

Wisconsin. The Committee further

recommended that the framework

opening date for regular goose seasons

in the Mississippi Flyway be September

16.

The Central Flyway Council

recommended that the framework

opening date for regular dark goose

seasons in the East and West Tiers be

fixed at September 1, rather than the

current opening date of the Saturday

nearest October 1.

5. White-fronted Geese

Council Recommendations: The

Central Flyway Council recommended

that the framework closing date for MidContinent white-fronted geese be

changed to the Sunday closest to

February 15. They further recommended

that the season length be 95 days, except

for the Eastern Goose Zone of Texas,

where it would be unchanged (86 days).

8. Swans

Council Recommendations: The

Central Flyway Council recommended

that States with Eastern Population

tundra swan hunting seasons (North

Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana) be

allowed to issue a second swan permit

to interested hunters from permits

remaining after the initial drawing.

9. Sandhill Cranes

Council Recommendations: The

Central Flyway Council recommended a

95-day season with the option for a twoway split season for the hunting of MidContinent sandhill cranes. This change

would result in a 37-day season length

increase in North Dakota, South Dakota,

Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming,

and Colorado and a 2-day season length

increase in Oklahoma, Texas, and New

Mexico.

The Council further recommended

that the open area for the hunting of

Mid-Continent sandhill cranes be

extended eastward to the Mississippi

Flyway. The Council recommends a

season length of 37 days with outside

framework dates of September 1 and

February 28, and a daily bag/possession

limit of 3 and 9, respectively, for this

expanded area.

The Pacific Flyway Council

recommended a boundary modification

in Box Elder County, Utah to exclude

that portion of the County known to be

used by greater sandhill cranes affiliated

with the Lower Colorado River

Population.

12. Rails

Council Recommendations: The

Pacific Flyway Council recommended

that those States divided between the

Central and Pacific Flyways be allowed

to select rail season frameworks, on a

statewide basis, that conform with the

Central Management Unit frameworks.

13. Snipe

Council Recommendations: The

Pacific Flyway Council recommended

that those States divided between the

Central and Pacific Flyways be allowed

to select snipe season frameworks, on a

statewide basis, that conform with the

Central Management Unit frameworks.

15. Band-tailed Pigeons

Council Recommendations: The

Pacific Flyway Council recommended a

change in frameworks for Pacific Coast

band-tailed pigeons from 1999 to

increase the possession limit from 2 to

4 birds.

16. Mourning Doves

Council Recommendations: The

Pacific Flyway Council recommended

that those States divided between the

Central and Pacific Flyways be allowed

to select dove season frameworks, on a

statewide basis, that conform with the

Central Management Unit frameworks.

18. Alaska

Council Recommendations: The

Pacific Flyway Council recommended a

reduction in sandhill crane bag limits

from three to two in that portion of the

State associated with the Pacific Flyway

Population of lesser sandhill cranes.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38403

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

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 2000–01

migratory game bird hunting

regulations, we will consider provisions

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543;

hereinafter the Act) to ensure that

hunting is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any species

designated as endangered or threatened

or modify or destroy its critical habitat

and that the proposed action is

consistent with conservation programs

for those species. Consultations under

Section 7 of this Act may cause us to

change proposals in this and future

supplemental proposed rulemaking

documents.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

While this individual supplemental

rule was not reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), the

migratory bird hunting regulations are

economically significant and are

annually reviewed by OMB under E.O.

12866.

E.O. 12866 requires each agency to

write regulations that are easy to

understand. We invite comments on

how to make this rule easier to

understand, including answers to

questions such as the following: (1) Are

the requirements in the rule clearly

stated? (2) Does the rule contain

technical language or jargon that

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the

format of the rule (grouping and order

of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to

understand if it were divided into more

(but shorter) sections? (5) Is the

description of the rule in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

the preamble helpful in understanding

the rule? What else could the Service do

to make the rule easier to understand?

Regulatory Flexibility Act

These regulations have a significant

economic impact on substantial

numbers of small entities under the

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

et seq.). We analyzed the economic

impacts of the annual hunting

regulations on small business entities in

detail, and a Small Entity Flexibility

Analysis (Analysis) was issued by the

Service in 1998. The Analysis

documented the significant beneficial

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities. The primary source of

information about hunter expenditures

for migratory game bird hunting is the

National Hunting and Fishing Survey,

which is conducted at 5-year intervals.

The Analysis was based on the 1996

National Hunting and Fishing Survey

and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s

County Business Patterns from which it

was estimated that migratory bird

hunters would spend between $429

million and $1,084 million at small

businesses in 1998. Copies of the

Analysis are available upon request

from the Office of Migratory Bird

Management.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

For the reasons outlined above, this rule

has an annual effect on the economy of

$100 million or more. However, because

this rule establishes hunting seasons, we

do not plan to defer the effective date

under the exemption contained in 5

U.S.C. 808(1).

Paperwork Reduction Act

We examined these regulations under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The various recordkeeping and

reporting requirements imposed under

regulations established in 50 CFR part

20, Subpart K, are utilized in the

formulation of migratory game bird

hunting regulations. Specifically, OMB

has approved the information collection

requirements of the Migratory Bird

Harvest Information Program and

assigned clearance number 1018–0015

(expires 09/30/2001). This information

is used to provide a sampling frame for

voluntary national surveys to improve

our harvest estimates for all migratory

game birds in order to better manage

these populations. OMB has also

approved the information collection

requirements of the Sandhill Crane

Harvest Questionnaire and assigned

clearance number 1018–0023 (expires

09/30/2000). The information from this

survey is used to estimate the

magnitude 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 rulemaking

will not impose a cost of $100 million

or more in any given year on local or

State government or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order

12988

The Department, in promulgating this

proposed rule, has determined that

these regulations meet the applicable

standards found in Sections 3(a) and

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

Takings Implication Assessment

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, this proposed rule, authorized by

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not

have significant takings implications

and does not affect any constitutionally

protected property rights. This rule will

not result in the physical occupancy of

property, the physical invasion of

property, or the regulatory taking of any

property. In fact, these rules allow

hunters to exercise otherwise

unavailable privileges and, therefore,

reduce restrictions on the use of private

and public property.

38404 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Federalism Effects

Due to the migratory nature of certain

species of birds, the Federal

Government has been given

responsibility over these species by the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually

prescribe frameworks from which the

States make selections and employ

guidelines to establish special

regulations on Federal Indian

reservations and ceded lands. This

process preserves the ability of the

States and Tribes to determine which

seasons meet their individual needs.

Any State or Tribe may be more

restrictive than the Federal frameworks

at any time. The frameworks are

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 2000–01 hunting

season are authorized under 16 U.S.C.

703–711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C.

742 a–j.

Dated: June 14, 2000.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38405

[FR Doc. 00–15454 Filed 6–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C