Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32297

Room TW–A325, Washington, DC

20554. In addition to filing comments

with the FCC, interested parties should

serve the petitioner, or its counsel or

consultant, as follows: Marcia Cranberg,

Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20004–1202

(Counsel for Duluth-Superior Area

Educational Television Corporation).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

01-116, adopted June 6, 2001, and

released June 7, 2001. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television, Digital television

broadcasting, Television, Television

broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

part 73 as follows:

PART 73—TELEVISION BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and

336.

§ 73.606 [Amended]

2. Section 73.606(b), the Table of

Television Allotments under Minnesota

is amended by removing Channel *18-

at Hibbing.

§ 73.622 [Amended]

3. Section 73.622(b), the Table of

Digital Television Allotments under

Minnesota, is amended by adding DTV

channel *31-at Hibbing.

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–14933 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

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 § 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

32298 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 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 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 yearto-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 harvestmanagement 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 tollfree phone number for reporting band

recoveries, which is a key feature of a

campaign designed to increase bandreporting 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

32300 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 longtailed 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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

32302 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules 32303

32304 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 01–15020 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224

[Docket No. 010522134–1134–01; I.D.

050201D]

RIN 0648–XA69

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; 90-Day Finding for a

Petition to list Bocaccio (Sebastes

paucispinis) as Threatened

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notification of 90-day petition

finding and request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a petition

to list the southern bocaccio (Sebastes

paucispinis) as a threatened species and

to designate critical habitat concurrent

with the listing. NMFS finds that the

petition presents substantial scientific

and commercial information indicating

that the request for listing may be

warranted. Therefore, NMFS is

conducting a status review to determine

whether the petitioned action is

warranted. To assure that the review is

comprehensive, NMFS is soliciting

information and data regarding this

species and its habitat from any

interested party. NMFS will use

information received during the

comment period and other information

in its review of the status of the

southern bocaccio.

DATES: Comments and information must

be received by August 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the

petition and comments regarding the

listing of bocaccio should be submitted

to Jim Lecky, Assistant Regional

Administrator for Protected Resources,

501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long

Beach, CA, 90802–4213. The petition

and supporting data are available for

public inspection by appointment,

Monday through Friday, at the same

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim

Lecky, NMFS Southwest Region, 562/

980–4000; or Marta Nammack, NMFS

Office of Protected Resources, 301/713–

1401, ext. 116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4 of the Endangered Species

Act (ESA) contains provisions allowing

interested persons to petition the

Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary

of Commerce (Secretary) to add a

species to or remove a species from the

List of Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife and to designate critical

habitat. On January 30, 2001, NMFS

received a petition from the Natural

Resources Defense Council, Center for

Biological Diversity, and Center for

Marine Conservation (Petitioners) to list

the central/southern distinct population

segment of bocaccio, or, in the

alternative, bocaccio throughout its

entire range as threatened under the

ESA and to designate critical habitat.

Petitioners contend that bocaccio

have suffered precipitous population

declines over the last several decades

and that these population declines

threaten bocaccio with extinction and

compromise its ability to recover. The

primary factor identified by Petitioners

is overutilization, specifically

overfishing by fisheries targeting

bocaccio and as bycatch in other

fisheries. Other factors identified by

Petitioners as contributing to the status

of bocaccio include inadequate

regulatory mechanisms, habitat

modification due to bottom trawl fishing

gear, pollution of nearshore habitat used

by juvenile bocaccio, and shifts in

oceanographic conditions.

NMFS has recognized two separate

West Coast bocaccio populations,

divided at approximately 36° N.

latitude. The southern population

(south of 36° N. latitude), which ranges

from Cape Mendocino to Baja

California, Mexico, is the stock for

which NMFS has received a petition

and is synonymous with what

Petitioners have called the central/

southern population of bocaccio. In the

1999 stock assessment report for

southern bocaccio, the spawning output

of the southern bocaccio stock was

estimated to be 2.1 percent of the

estimated spawning output at its

unfished level. This stock was

designated as overfished under the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act on

March 3, 1999.

Initial stock rebuilding measures were

implemented through the 2000 annual

specifications and management

measures for Pacific coast groundfish.

These measures included the setting of

a conservative allowable biological

catch level and optimum yield level.

These conservative levels precluded any

directed targeting of bocaccio and

reserved allowable catch to incidental

catch in other fisheries. On September

5, 2000, NMFS announced formal

approval of the rebuilding plan for

southern bocaccio (65 FR 53646).

On December 29, 2000, NMFS

published a final rule (65 FR 82947)

approving Amendment 12 to the Pacific

Coast Groundfish Fishery Management

Plan and disapproving three overfished

stock rebuilding plans, including the

plan previously approved for bocaccio.

Amendment 12 provides framework

procedures for developing overfished

species rebuilding plans, for setting

guidelines for rebuilding plan contents,

and procedures for submitting

rebuilding plans to NMFS for review

and approval/disapproval. The three

rebuilding plans that were disapproved

in that action were disapproved because

of inconsistencies with the new

procedure and guidelines established by

Amendment 12, not because the harvest

limits were inadequate to provide for

rebuilding of the stock. The Pacific

Fishery Management Council (PFMC)

will resubmit recommended rebuilding

plans for review by NMFS, consistent

with the requirements of Amendment

12, for the 2002 fishing year cycle.

In the presentation of their petition,

Petitioners rely on the information

produced by NMFS and the PFMC in

their evaluation of southern bocaccio

relative to overfishing criteria and a

review of published literature on the

status, distribution, and ecology of

bocaccio.

Finding

NMFS finds that Petitioners present

substantial scientific and commercial

information indicating that a listing may

be warranted, based on the criteria

specified in 50 CFR 424.14(b)(2).

Although a positive 90-day finding

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA is

not a decision to list a species, this

finding requires that a review of the

status of southern bocaccio be

completed within 12 months of

receiving the petition (by January 30,

2002) to determine whether the

petitioned action is warranted.

Listing Factors and Basis For

Determinations

Under section 4 (a) (1) of the ESA, a

species can be determined to be

endangered or threatened for any of the

following reasons: (1) The present or

threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)

overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4)

the inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms; or (5) other natural or

manmade factors affecting its continued