21298 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 21

[DA 01–1072]

Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS);

Two-Way Transmissions

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Mass Media Bureau

(‘‘Bureau’’) seeks comment on a

proposal to extend the current five-year

build-out requirement imposed upon

Basic Trading Area (‘‘BTA’’)

authorization holders in the Multipoint

Distribution Service (‘‘MDS’’) by two

years. BTA authorization holders

currently have five years from the grant

date of the initial BTA authorization to

construct, develop and expand MDS

station operations in their respective

protected service areas. On August 16,

1996, the Commission granted 334 of

the 493 BTA authorizations to 54

different entities. By this proposed rule,

the Bureau seeks comment on its

proposal to extend the build-out

requirement by two years.

DATES: Comments due on or before May

9, 2001. Reply comments are due on or

before May 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad

Lerner (202) 418–7066, Video Services

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Mass Media Bureau’s

Public Notice entitled, In the Matter of

Extension of the Five-year Build-out

Period for BTA Authorization Holders in

the Multipoint Distribution Service, DA

01–1072, released April 25, 2001. The

full text of this Public Notice is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Room, Room CY–A257,

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC, and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services, Inc. (‘‘ITS’’), Portals II, 445

12th Street, SW. Room CY–B402,

Washington, DC 20554.

Synopsis of Public Notice

Traditionally, MDS spectrum has

been used to deliver multichannel video

programming services similar to cable

television. As noted above, the

Commission auctioned 493 BTAs for the

provision of these wireless cable

services. Since the 1996 auction, the

MDS industry has been rapidly

evolving. In October 1996, the

Commission allowed MDS operators to

use their spectrum for high-speed digital

data applications, including Internet

access. In March 1997, the Wireless

Cable Association International, Inc.,

along with over 100 participants,

petitioned the Commission to grant the

industry the right to use MDS and

Instructional Television Fixed Service

(‘‘ITFS’’) spectrum for two-way services.

Two-way authorization would

effectively enable voice, video, and data

over the spectrum. In 1998, the

Commission approved the use of twoway transmissions on MDS and ITFS

frequencies.

In the initial filing window for twoway service, which was held August

14–18, 2000, MDS and ITFS licensees

filed approximately 2,267 applications.

On April 6, 2001, the Bureau released

its first Public Notice announcing the

grant of 1,024 of these applications. The

Bureau will continue to grant additional

two-way applications and on April 16,

2001, the Bureau began the transition to

the rolling one-day filing window

procedure. Section 21.930(c)(1) of the

Commission’s rules provides that within

five years of the grant of a BTA

authorization, the authorization holder

must construct MDS stations to provide

signals pursuant to section 21.907, 47

CFR 21.907, that are capable of reaching

at least two-thirds of the population of

the applicable service area, excluding

the populations within protected service

areas of incumbent stations. The buildout benchmarks were originally

established in order to ensure that BTA

authorization holders would promptly

deliver their anticipated video

programming service to the public.

The Bureau proposes to extend the

five-year build-out requirement as set

forth in § 21.930(a)(1) of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

21.930(a)(1), by two years. In light of the

service rule changes, the timing of the

initial filing window, the recent twoway application grants allowing BTA

authorization holders to provide

broadband service, the forthcoming

grants of other pending two-way

applications, and the upcoming August

16, 2001 build-out deadline for many

BTAs, we tentatively conclude that

extension of the five-year build-out

requirement by two years for all BTAs

will promote the maximization of

efficient and effective use of this

service. The Bureau believes that it

would be inequitable to require

authorization holders to follow buildout criteria applicable to rules governing

wireless cable operations since many of

them are now providing high-speed

broadband services.

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–10768 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018–AH79

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed

2001–02 Migratory Game Bird Hunting

Regulations (Preliminary) With

Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (hereinafter Service or we)

proposes to establish annual hunting

regulations for certain migratory game

birds for the 2001–02 hunting season.

We annually prescribe outside limits

(frameworks) within which States may

select hunting seasons. We also request

proposals from Indian tribes that wish

to establish special migratory bird

hunting regulations on Federal Indian

reservations and ceded lands. Migratory

game bird hunting seasons provide

hunting opportunities for recreation and

sustenance; aid Federal, State, and tribal

governments in the management of

migratory game birds; and permit

harvests at levels compatible with

migratory bird population status and

habitat conditions.

DATES: You must submit comments for

proposed early-season frameworks by

July 30, 2001, and for proposed lateseason frameworks by September 7,

2001. Tribes should submit proposals

and related comments by June 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: 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 North Fairfax Drive,

Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

W. Kokel at: 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, (703) 358–1714.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21299

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Overview

Migratory game birds are those bird

species so designated in conventions

between the United States and several

foreign nations for the protection and

management of these birds. Under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.

703–712), the Secretary of the Interior is

authorized to determine when ‘‘hunting,

taking, capture, killing, possession, sale,

purchase, shipment, transportation,

carriage, or export of any * * * bird, or

any part, nest or egg’’ of migratory game

birds can take place and to adopt

regulations for this purpose. These

regulations must be written based on

‘‘the zones of temperature and the

distribution, abundance, economic

value, breeding habits, and times and

lines of migratory flight of such birds’’

and must be updated annually. This

responsibility has been delegated to the

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) of

the Department of the Interior as the

lead Federal agency for managing and

conserving migratory birds in the

United States.

The Service develops migratory bird

hunting regulations by establishing the

frameworks, or outside limits, for season

lengths, bag limits, and areas for

migratory game bird hunting.

Acknowledging regional differences in

hunting conditions, the Service has

administratively divided the nation into

four Flyways for the primary purpose of

managing waterfowl and obtaining

assistance in the formulation of these

regulations. Each Flyway (Atlantic,

Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a

Flyway Council, a formal organization

generally composed of one member

from each State and Province in that

Flyway. The Flyway Councils also assist

in researching and providing

management techniques for Federal,

State, and Provincial Governments, as

well as private conservation agencies

and the general public.

The migratory bird hunting

regulations, located at 50 CFR 20, are

constrained by three primary factors.

Legal and administrative considerations

dictate how long the rulemaking process

will last. Most importantly though, the

biological cycle of migratory birds

controls the timing of data-gathering

activities and thus the date on which

results are available for consideration.

The process includes two separate

regulations-development schedules,

based on early-and late-hunting season

regulations. Early seasons pertain to all

migratory game bird species in Alaska,

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands, migratory game birds other than

waterfowl (i.e., dove, woodcock, etc.)

and special early waterfowl seasons,

such as teal or resident Canada geese.

The early season generally begins prior

to October 1. Late seasons generally start

on or after October 1 and include most

waterfowl seasons not already

established.

There are basically no differences in

the processes for establishing either

early- or late-hunting seasons. For each

cycle, Service biologists gather, analyze,

and interpret survey data and provide

this information to all those involved in

the process through a series of

published status reports and

presentations to Flyway Councils and

other interested parties. Because the

Service is required to take abundance of

migratory birds and other factors into

consideration, the Service undertakes a

number of surveys throughout the year

in conjunction with Service Regional

Offices, the Canadian Wildlife Service,

and State and Provincial wildlifemanagement agencies. Factors such as

population size and trend, geographical

distribution, annual breeding effort, the

condition of breeding, wintering habitat,

the number of hunters, and the

anticipated harvest are considered to

determine the appropriate frameworks

for each species.

After frameworks, or outside limits,

are established for season lengths, bag

limits, and areas for migratory game bird

hunting, migratory game bird

management becomes a cooperative

effort of State and Federal governments.

The Service works together with the

States by allowing them certain

authority to regulate hunting of

migratory birds. After Service

establishment of final frameworks for

hunting seasons, the States may select

season dates, bag limits, and other

regulatory options for the hunting

seasons. States may be more

conservative in their selections than the

Federal frameworks but never more

liberal.

Consolidation of Notices

For administrative purposes, this

document consolidates the notice of

intent to establish open migratory bird

hunting seasons and the request for

tribal proposals with the preliminary

proposals for the annual hunting

regulations-development process. We

will publish the remaining proposed

and final rulemaking documents

separately. For inquiries on tribal

guidelines and proposals, tribes should

contact the following personnel:

Region 1—Brad Bortner, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue,

Portland, Oregon 97232–4181; (503) 231–

6164

Region 2—Jeff Haskins, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; (505)

248–7885

Region 3—Steve Wilds, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Federal Building, One

Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota

55111–4056; (612) 713–5432

Region 4—Frank Bowers, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard,

Room 324, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; (404)

679–4000

Region 5—George Haas, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center

Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035–9589;

(413) 253–8576

Region 6—John Cornely, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver

Federal Building, Denver, Colorado 80225;

(303) 236–8145

Region 7—Robert Leedy, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road,

Anchorage, Alaska 99503; (907) 786–3423

Notice of Intent To Establish Open

Seasons

This notice announces our intent to

establish open hunting seasons and

daily bag and possession limits for

certain designated groups or species of

migratory game birds for 2001–02 in the

contiguous United States, Alaska,

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands, under §§ 20.101 through 20.107,

20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50

CFR part 20.

For the 2001–02 migratory game bird

hunting season, we will propose

regulations for certain designated

members of the avian families Anatidae

(ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae

(doves and pigeons); Gruidae (cranes);

Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and

gallinules); and Scolopacidae

(woodcock and snipe). We describe

these proposals under Proposed 2001–

02 Migratory Game Bird Hunting

Regulations (Preliminary) in this

document. We published definitions of

waterfowl flyways and mourning dove

management units, as well as a

description of the data used in and the

factors affecting the regulatory process,

in the March 14, 1990, Federal Register

(55 FR 9618).

Regulatory Schedule for 2001–02

This document is the first in a series

of proposed, supplemental, and final

rulemaking documents for migratory

game bird hunting regulations. In

supplemental proposed rulemakings, we

will make proposals relating to the

harvest of migratory game birds initiated

after this publication is available for

public review. Also, we will publish

additional supplemental proposals for

public comment in the Federal Register

as population, habitat, harvest, and

other information become available.

21300 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Because of the late dates when certain

portions of these data become available,

we anticipate abbreviated comment

periods on some proposals. Special

circumstances limit the amount of time

we can allow for public comment on

these regulations. Specifically, two

considerations compress the time for the

rulemaking process: The need, on one

hand, to establish final rules early

enough in the summer to allow resource

agencies to select and publish season

dates and bag limits prior to the

beginning of hunting seasons and, on

the other hand, the lack of current status

data on most migratory game birds until

later in the summer. Because the

regulatory process is strongly influenced

by the times when information is

available for consideration, we divide

the regulatory process into two

segments: early seasons and late

seasons.

Major steps in the 2001–02 regulatory

cycle relating to open public meetings

and Federal Register notifications are

illustrated in the diagram at the end of

this proposed rule. All publication dates

of Federal Register documents are target

dates.

All sections of this and subsequent

documents outlining hunting

frameworks and guidelines are

organized under numbered headings.

These headings are:

1. Ducks

2. Sea Ducks

3. Mergansers

4. Canada Geese

5. White-fronted Geese

6. Brant

7. Snow and Ross’s (Light) Geese

8. Swans

9. Sandhill Cranes

10. Coots

11. Moorhens and Gallinules

12. Rails

13. Snipe

14. Woodcock

15. Band-tailed Pigeons

16. Mourning Doves

17. White-winged and White-tipped Doves

18. Alaska

19. Hawaii

20. Puerto Rico

21. Virgin Islands

22. Falconry

23. Other

Later sections of this and subsequent

documents will refer only to numbered

items requiring your attention.

Therefore, it is important to note that we

will omit those items requiring no

attention and remaining numbered

items will be discontinuous and appear

incomplete.

Requests for Tribal Proposals

Background

Beginning with the 1985–86 hunting

season, we have employed guidelines

described in the June 4, 1985, Federal

Register (50 FR 23467) to establish

special migratory bird hunting

regulations on Federal Indian

reservations (including off-reservation

trust lands) and ceded lands. We

developed these guidelines in response

to tribal requests for our recognition of

their reserved hunting rights, and for

some tribes, recognition of their

authority to regulate hunting by both

tribal and nontribal members

throughout their reservations. The

guidelines include possibilities for:

(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal

and nontribal members, with hunting by

nontribal members on some reservations to

take place within Federal frameworks, but on

dates different from those selected by the

surrounding State(s);

(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal

members only, outside of usual Federal

frameworks for season dates and length, and

for daily bag and possession limits; and

(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal

members on ceded lands, outside of usual

framework dates and season length, with

some added flexibility in daily bag and

possession limits.

In all cases, tribal regulations

established under the guidelines must

be consistent with the annual March 10

to September 1 closed season mandated

by the 1916 Convention Between the

United States and Great Britain (for

Canada) for the Protection of Migratory

Birds (Convention). The guidelines are

capable of application to those tribes

that have reserved hunting rights on

Federal Indian reservations (including

off-reservation trust lands) and ceded

lands. They also are capable of

application to the establishment of

migratory bird hunting regulations for

nontribal members on all lands within

the exterior boundaries of reservations

where tribes have full wildlife

management authority over such

hunting, or where the tribes and affected

States otherwise have reached

agreement over hunting by nontribal

members on non-Indian lands.

Tribes usually have the authority to

regulate migratory game bird hunting by

nonmembers on Indian-owned

reservation lands, subject to our

approval. The question of jurisdiction is

more complex on reservations that

include lands owned by non-Indians,

especially when the surrounding States

have established or intend to establish

regulations governing migratory bird

hunting by non-Indians on these lands.

In such cases, we encourage the tribes

and States to reach agreement on

regulations that would apply throughout

the reservations. When appropriate, we

will consult with a tribe and State with

the aim of facilitating an accord. We

also will consult jointly with tribal and

State officials in the affected States

where tribes may wish to establish

special hunting regulations for tribal

members on ceded lands. As explained

in previous rulemaking documents, it is

incumbent upon the tribe and/or the

State to request consultation as a result

of the proposal being published in the

Federal Register. We will not presume

to make a determination, without being

advised by either a tribe or a State, that

any issue is or is not worthy of formal

consultation.

One of the guidelines provides for the

continuation of tribal members’ harvest

of migratory game birds on reservations

where such harvest is a customary

practice. We do not oppose this harvest,

provided it does not take place during

the closed season required by the

Convention, and it is not so large as to

adversely affect the status of the

migratory bird resource. For several

years, we have reached annual

agreement with tribes for migratory bird

hunting by tribal members on their

lands or on lands where they have

reserved hunting rights. We will

continue to consult with tribes that wish

to reach a mutual agreement on hunting

regulations for on-reservation hunting

by tribal members.

Tribes should not view the guidelines

as inflexible. Nevertheless, we believe

that they provide appropriate

opportunity to accommodate the

reserved hunting rights and

management authority of Indian tribes

while ensuring that the migratory bird

resource receives necessary protection.

The conservation of this important

international resource is paramount.

Use of the guidelines is not required if

a tribe wishes to observe the hunting

regulations established by the State(s) in

which the reservation is located.

Details Needed in Tribal Proposals

Tribes that wish to use the guidelines

to establish special hunting regulations

for the 2001–02 hunting season should

submit a proposal that includes:

(1) The requested hunting season dates and

other details regarding regulations;

(2) Harvest anticipated under the requested

regulations;

(3) Methods that will be employed to

measure or monitor harvest (mailquestionnaire survey, bag checks, etc.);

(4) Steps that will be taken to limit level

of harvest, where it could be shown that

failure to limit such harvest would seriously

impact the migratory bird resource; and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21301

(5) Tribal capabilities to establish and

enforce migratory bird hunting regulations.

A tribe that desires the earliest

possible opening of the waterfowl

season should specify this request in

their proposal, rather than request a date

that might not be within the final

Federal frameworks. Similarly, unless a

tribe wishes to set more restrictive

regulations than Federal regulations will

permit, the proposal should request the

same daily bag and possession limits

and season length for ducks and geese

that Federal regulations are likely to

permit the States in the Flyway in

which the reservation is located.

Tribal Proposal Procedures

We will publish details of tribal

proposals for public review in later

Federal Register documents. Because of

the time required for our and public

review, Indian tribes that desire special

migratory bird hunting regulations for

the 2001–02 hunting season should

submit their proposals as soon as

possible, but no later than June 1, 2001.

Tribes should direct inquiries regarding

the guidelines and proposals to the

appropriate Service Regional Office

listed under the caption SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. Tribes that request special

migratory game bird hunting regulations

for tribal members on ceded lands

should send a courtesy copy of the

proposal to officials in the affected

State(s).

Public Comments Solicited

The Department of the Interior’s

policy is, whenever practicable, to

afford the public an opportunity to

participate in the rulemaking process.

Accordingly, we invite interested

persons to submit written comments,

suggestions, or recommendations

regarding the proposed regulations.

Before promulgation of final migratory

game bird hunting regulations, we will

take into consideration all comments

received. Such comments, and any

additional information received, may

lead to final regulations that differ from

these proposals. We invite interested

persons to participate in this rulemaking

by submitting written comments to the

address indicated under the caption

ADDRESSES.

You may inspect comments received

on the proposed annual regulations

during normal business hours at the

Service’s office in room 634, 4401 North

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. For

each series of proposed rulemakings, we

will establish specific comment periods.

We will consider, but possibly may not

respond in detail to, each comment. As

in the past, we will summarize all

comments received during the comment

period and respond to them after the

closing date in any final rules.

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 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). In addition, an August 1985

environmental assessment entitled

‘‘Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting

Regulations on Federal Indian

Reservations and Ceded Lands’’ is

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 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

This rule is economically significant

and was reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (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?

(6) What else could we 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 the Service issued a Small

Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) 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 utilized 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

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 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

07/30/2003). The information from this

survey is used to estimate the

magnitude and the geographical and

21302 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules

temporal distribution of the 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.

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 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: April 19, 2001.

Joseph E. Doddridge,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

Proposed 2001–02 Migratory Game

Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary)

Pending current information on

populations, harvest, and habitat

conditions, and receipt of

recommendations from the four Flyway

Councils, we may defer specific

framework proposals (including

opening and closing dates, season

lengths, and bag limits). Unless

otherwise specified, we are proposing

no change from the final 2000–01

frameworks of August 23 and September

27, 2000 (65 FR 51496 and 58152).

Specific preliminary proposals that vary

from the 2000–01 frameworks and

issues requiring early discussion, action,

or the attention of the States or tribes are

contained below:

1. Ducks

Categories used to discuss issues

related to duck harvest management are:

(A) General Harvest Strategy, (B)

Regulatory Alternatives, (C) Zones and

Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/

Species Management. The categories

correspond to previously published

issues/discussion, and only those

containing substantial recommendations

are discussed below.

A. General Harvest Strategy

All of our success in duck-harvest

management notwithstanding, we

continue to be faced with uncertainty

about the biological and sociological

impacts of hunting regulations. In 1995,

we embarked on a regulatory approach

known as adaptive harvest management

(AHM), which is intended to help

address that uncertainty. The AHM

approach recognizes that we cannot

predict the consequences of hunting

regulations with certainty, and provides

a means for making objective decisions

despite this uncertainty. In addition, a

tightly integrated cycle of monitoring,

assessment, and decision-making is

required under AHM to better

understand the relationships among

hunting regulations, harvests, and

waterfowl abundance. More detailed

information about AHM can be found

on the Internet at: http://www.fws.gov/

r9mbmo/homepg.html.

Since 1995, AHM regulatory strategies

have been based on the status of

midcontinent mallards, which are

defined as those breeding from South

Dakota to Alaska (Federal survey strata

1–18, 20–50, and 75–77), and in

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

An optimal regulatory alternative for

midcontinent mallards is based on

breeding population size and water

conditions in the Canadian prairies, and

on empirical weights assigned to four

competing models of population

dynamics. The same regulatory

alternative is applied in all four

Flyways, although season lengths and

bag limits are Flyway-specific.

The first application of the AHM

process involved midcontinent mallards

because of their ubiquitous distribution,

their importance in the harvest, and

because the data and understanding

associated with mallards surpassed that

of all other species. In the last few years,

however, we have begun to examine

other populations of mallards, as well as

other species, in a search for an

appropriate AHM approach to these

stocks.

A growing concern relates to how all

these stock-specific applications

ultimately will fit together in a coherent

approach to duck harvest management.

For example:

• How much biological variation among

duck stocks should we account for in the

design of regulatory strategies?

• Should the traditional Flyway-based

approach to duck harvest management be

modified to take advantage of new

information and capabilities?

• What monitoring and assessment

capabilities will be needed to support these

refinements?

• What are realistic expectations of our

ability to reduce uncertainty through the

experience of management?

• Even more fundamentally, should

sustainable harvest be the sole or even

principal currency by which we measure

success?

These questions and others suggest

that the time has arrived to contemplate

the basic goals and overall framework of

duck harvest management, and how we

might use the AHM process to help us

steer an appropriate course. Moreover,

the last Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement (SEIS) on migratory

bird hunting was issued in 1988, and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21303

our approach to duck harvest

management has evolved beyond the

preferred alternative identified at that

time. Therefore, it is our intent to begin

the process of preparing a new EIS that

will describe new alternatives brought

to light by our experience with AHM.

In beginning the dialogue, we suggest

the need to focus on three key themes:

(1) Goal setting—AHM can produce

optimal regulatory decisions in the face

of uncertainty, but, if and only if, there

is agreement about the goals and

objectives of harvest management.

Clearly, the goals of duck harvest

management extend well beyond simple

measures of hunter success and

population size, and many of the

difficulties in duck harvest management

today probably relate more to ambiguity

in objectives, rather than to uncertainty

about biological impacts. Tacit

disagreement over management

objectives poses a serious threat to the

long-term viability of AHM.

(2) Limits to system control—There

are both theoretical and practical limits

to our ability to predict, control, and

measure the size of waterfowl

populations and harvests and, as a

consequence, operational constraints on

short-term hunting opportunity and on

the learning needed to increase longterm performance. The waterfowl

management community needs to better

explore, understand, and acknowledge

these limits, and to develop regulatory

alternatives and strategies that avoid the

most undesirable consequences of those

limits, while meeting reasonable

demands for hunting opportunity.

(3) Management scale—The history of

duck harvest management has been

characterized by efforts to account for

increasingly more spatial, temporal, and

organizational variability in waterfowl

demographics. We have begun to

question the wisdom of this approach,

given the inevitable tradeoff between

harvest benefits and the direct and

indirect costs of managing at

progressively finer scales. It remains to

be seen what level of resolution

ultimately will be most appropriate in

the AHM process, but we are

increasingly concerned about what we

see as unrealistic expectations for

accommodating small-scale variation in

waterfowl population dynamics.

We look forward to exploring these

and other duck-harvest management

issues with the Flyway Councils and

other stakeholders in the coming year.

We hope these discussions will

culminate in the issuance of a new EIS

for migratory bird hunting sometime in

2004.

AHM for Eastern Mallards

For the purposes of harvest

regulation, eastern mallards are defined

as those breeding in southern Ontario

and Quebec (Federal survey strata 51–54

and 56), and in New Hampshire,

Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut,

Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania,

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and

Virginia. In 2000, with assistance from

the Atlantic Flyway Council, we

proposed mechanisms by which the

status of eastern mallards could be

considered in the development of a

regulatory strategy for the Atlantic

Flyway. However, the Service has not

made a final decision about whether the

Atlantic Flyway regulatory strategy also

should be solely based on the status of

eastern mallards. This decision was

deferred pending further analyses of the

implications of this decision for

midcontinent mallards and other

species. We also have concerns about

the timing of this decision in the face of

previous comments about the future of

duck harvest management. Therefore,

we consider the approach used last year

to consider only eastern mallard status

in the selection of Atlantic Flyway

regulations as provisional. It is our

recommendation, however, to continue

this approach for the 2001–02 hunting

season.

C. Zones and Split Seasons

In 1990, because of concerns about

the proliferation of zones and split

seasons for duck hunting, a cooperative

review and evaluation of the historical

use of zone/split options was

conducted. This review did not show

that the proliferation of these options

had increased harvest pressure;

however, the ability to detect the impact

of zone/split configurations was poor

because of unreliable response

variables, the lack of statistical tests to

differentiate between real and perceived

changes, and the absence of adequate

experimental controls. Consequently,

guidelines were established to provide a

framework for controlling the

proliferation of changes in zone/split

options. The guidelines identified a

limited number of zone/split

configurations that could be used for

duck hunting and restricted the

frequency of changes in these

configurations to 5-year intervals. In

1996, the guidelines were revised to

provide States greater flexibility in

using their zone/split arrangements.

Open seasons for changes occurred in

1991 for the 1991–1995 period and in

1996 for 1996–2000. The third open

season will occur this year when zone/

split configurations will be established

for the 2001–2005 period.

In response to recommendations from

the Flyway Councils, we considered

changes to the current zone/split

guidelines during last year’s late-season

regulations cycle. We believe that the

guidelines implemented in 1996 (61 FR

38000) have achieved their intended

objectives while allowing States

sufficient flexibility to address

differences in physiography, climate,

and other factors. Accordingly, as

announced in last year’s Federal

Register (65 FR 51176), we made no

changes in the 1996 guidelines. A copy

of the guidelines is included herein for

information and use in selecting zone/

split configuration for 2001–2005.

As indicated in the guidelines, States

that made changes during the last open

season should provide us a review of

pertinent data (e.g., estimates of harvest,

hunter numbers, hunter success, etc.) by

April 15, 2001. However, it would be in

the interest of each affected State to

complete this report as soon as possible

for internal consideration of any

changes they might wish to make for the

next 5-year period. We reiterate that this

review does not have to be the result of

a rigorous experimental design, but

nonetheless should assist us in

ascertaining whether major changes in

harvest or hunter activity occurred as a

result of zone/split regulations.

We also request that by April 15,

2001, States notify us whether or not

they plan to change their zone/split

configurations for the next 5-year period

(2001–2005). Those States wishing to

change their configuration should

submit a proposal for the change by this

date.

Guidelines for Duck Zones and Split

Seasons, 2001–2005

The following zone/split-season

guidelines apply only for the regular

duck season:

1. A zone is a geographic area or

portion of a State, with a contiguous

boundary, for which independent dates

may be selected for the regular duck

season.

2. Consideration of changes for

management-unit boundaries is not

subject to the guidelines and provisions

governing the use of zones and split

seasons for ducks.

3. Only minor (less than a county in

size) boundary changes will be allowed

for any grandfather arrangement, and

changes are limited to the open season.

4. Once a zone/split option is selected

during an open season, it must remain

in place for the following 5 years.

For the 2001–2005 period, any State

may continue the configuration used in

21304 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1996–2000. If changes are made, the

zone/split-season configuration must

conform to one of the following options:

1. Three zones with no splits,

2. Split seasons (no more than 3

segments) with no zones, or

3. Two zones with the option for 2-

way split seasons in one or both zones.

At the end of 5 years after any

changes in splits or zones, States will be

required to provide the Service with a

review of pertinent data (e.g., estimates

of harvest, hunter numbers, hunter

success, etc.). This review does not have

to be the result of a rigorous

experimental design, but nonetheless

should assist the Service in ascertaining

whether major undesirable changes in

harvest or hunter activity occurred as a

result of split and zone regulations. The

next open season for changes in zone/

split configurations will be in 2006.

Grandfathered Zone/Split Arrangements

When the zone/split guidelines were

first implemented in 1991, several

States had completed experiments with

zone/split arrangements different from

Options 1–3 above. Those States were

offered a one-time opportunity to

continue those arrangements, with the

stipulation that only minor changes

could be made to zone boundaries; and

if they ever wished to change their

zone/split arrangement, the new

arrangement would have to conform to

one of the 3 options identified above. If

a grandfathered State changed its zoning

arrangement, it could not go back to the

grandfathered arrangement it previously

had. Current grandfathered

arrangements are:

Atlantic Flyway:

Massachusetts, New Jersey—3 zones

with 2-segment splits in each zone

New York—5 zones with 2-segment

splits in each zone

Pennsylvania—4 zones with 2-

segment splits in each zone

Mississippi Flyway:

Michigan, Indiana, Ohio—3 zones

with 2-segment splits in each zone

Central Flyway:

Nebraska—5 zones with 2-segment

splits in each zone

South Dakota—4 zones with 2-

segment splits in each zone

Pacific Flyway:

Alaska—5 zones with 2-segment splits

in 1 zone

California—5 zones with 2-segment

splits in each zone

D. Special Seasons/Species

Management

iii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons

The Wood Duck Population

Monitoring Initiative showed that

current wood duck monitoring efforts

resulted in information that was capable

of being used to manage wood ducks at

no finer resolution than the Flyway

level. Current databases do not allow

proper evaluation of special September

wood duck seasons on a State-by-State

basis. In 1998, we stated that, after

September 2000, the special wood duck

seasons in Florida, Kentucky, and

Tennessee would be discontinued

(August 28, 1998; 63 FR 46126); the year

2000 was the last permitted for these

seasons. The Service, in cooperation

with the Atlantic and Mississippi

Flyway Councils, is in the process of

developing wood duck population

models that will guide regular-season

harvest management in the future.

These models, and the accompanying

evaluations of potential Flyway-wide

expansions in harvest opportunity, will

be developed prior to Spring 2001.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules 21305

21306 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 83 / Monday, April 30, 2001 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 01–10696 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 600

[I.D. 041801B]

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;

General Provisions for Domestic

Fisheries; Applications for Exempted

Fishing Permits (EFPs)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notification of a proposal for

EFPs to conduct experimental fishing;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS

(Regional Administrator), has received a

proposal to conduct experimental

fishing and has made a preliminary

determination that the subject EFP

application contains all the required

information and warrants further

consideration. A preliminary

determination has also been made that

the activities authorized under the EFP

will be consistent with the goals and

objectives of the Northeast Multispecies

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and

within the scope of earlier analyses of

impacts. However, further review and

consultation may be necessary before a

final determination is made to issue an

EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that

the Regional Administrator is

considering whether to issue an EFP

that would allow a single vessel to

conduct fishing operations otherwise

restricted by regulations governing the

fisheries of the Northeastern United

States. The University of Massachusetts

at Dartmouth and Manomet Center for

Conservation Sciences (Manomet) have

submitted an application for an EFP to

allow them to target multispecies in

order to investigate the selectivity of

various shapes and sizes of knotless

trawl mesh, and the selectivity of finfish

excluder grates with two different barspacings and configurations.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator,

NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One

Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

Mark on the outside of the envelope

‘‘Comments on Proposed Experimental

Fishery.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Warren, Fishery Management Specialist,

978–281–9347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

regulations that govern exempted

experimental fishing, at 50 CFR 600.745,

allow the Regional Administrator to

authorize for certain purposes the

targeting or incidental harvest of

managed species that would otherwise

be prohibited. An EFP to authorize such

activity may be issued, provided there is

adequate opportunity for the public to

comment on the EFP application, and

the conservation goals and objectives of

the FMP are not compromised.

The University of Massachusetts at

Dartmouth and Manomet, submitted to

NMFS on April 5, 2001, an application

for an EFP to conduct research in the

multispecies fishery on Georges Bank.

The research would target multispecies

in the Georges Bank Seasonal Closure

area, with the objective of investigating

the selectivity of various shapes and

sizes of knotless trawl mesh, and the

selectivity of finfish excluder grates

with two different bar-spacings and

configurations. Specifically, the

research would utilize a standard 6.0–

inch (15.3–cm) diamond mesh as

control, and compare its selectivity to

6.5–inch (16.5–cm) hexagon, 6.5-inch

(16.5-cm) square, and 6.0–inch (15.3-

cm) hexagon, knotless mesh. The two

configurations of finfish excluder grates

to be tested on separate tows would be

horizontal bars spaced at 3 inches (7.6–

cm) and vertical bars spaced at 4 inches

(10.2–cm). A double cod-end trawl

design will be utilized on both the mesh

and excluder grate trials. The goal of the

research is to develop trawl gear

designed to target flatfish that allows

greater escapement of gadoids (e.g., cod

and haddock), than the flatfish trawls

that are currently utilized by the

industry.

A single vessel would be issued an

EFP to allow a total of 42 tows. EFPs

would be required to exempt the vessel

from the Days-at-Sea, closed area, and

mesh restrictions of the FMP. The

proposed timing and location of the

research, and the applicant’s

justification for requesting an exemption

to the Georges Bank Seasonal Closure

Area is that the relatively high numbers

of flatfish and gadoids that are available

in that area would allow conclusive

results to be obtained in a cost-effective

manner. The applicant estimates that

the research will take 6 to 8 days to

complete.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: April 24, 2001.

Bruce C. Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10653 Filed 4–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S