[Federal Register: June 9, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 111)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 32417-32423]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[[Page 32417]]


Part II

Department of the Interior


Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird 
Hunting Regulations for the 2004-05 Hunting Season; Notice of Meetings; 
Proposed Rule

[[Page 32418]]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AT53

Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game 
Bird Hunting Regulations for the 2004-05 Hunting Season; Notice of 

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 2004-05 hunting 
season. This supplement to the proposed rule provides the regulatory 
schedule; announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee 
and Flyway Council meetings; provides Flyway Council recommendations 
resulting from their March meetings; and provides regulatory 
alternatives for the 2004-05 duck hunting seasons.

DATES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to 
consider and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory 
bird hunting on June 23 and 24, 2004, and for late-season migratory 
bird hunting and the 2005 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence 
seasons in Alaska on July 28 and 29, 2004. All meetings will commence 
at approximately 8:30 a.m. Following later Federal Register notices, 
you will be given an opportunity to submit comments for proposed early-
season frameworks by July 30, 2004, and for proposed late-season 
frameworks and subsistence migratory bird seasons in Alaska by August 
30, 2004.

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 MBSP-4107-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 4107, Arlington Square Building, 4501 North Fairfax 
Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department 
of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20240, (703) 358-1714.


Regulations Schedule for 2004

    On March 22, 2004, we published in the Federal Register (69 FR 
13440) 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 hunting migratory game birds under Sec. Sec.  20.101 
through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. This document is the 
second in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rules for 
migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will publish proposed 
early-season frameworks in early July and late-season frameworks in 
early August. We will publish final regulatory frameworks for early 
seasons on or about August 20, 2004, and for late seasons on or about 
September 15, 2004.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

    The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet June 23-
24, 2004, to review information on the current status of migratory 
shore and upland game birds and develop 2004-05 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 July 28-29, 2004, meetings, the Committee will review 
information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2004-05 
migratory game bird regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl 
seasons and other species and seasons not previously discussed at the 
early-season meetings. In addition, the Committee will develop 
recommendations for the 2005 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence 
season in Alaska.
    In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to 
public observation. You may submit written comments to the Service 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 a.m. on the days 
    Atlantic Flyway Council: July 22-23, Sheraton Dover Hotel, Dover, 
    Mississippi Flyway Council: July 24-25, Radisson Hotel, Duluth, 
    Central Flyway Council: July 22-23, Radisson Hotel and Suites, 
Austin, Texas.
    Pacific Flyway Council: July 23, Sun Valley Lodge, Sun Valley, 

Review of Public Comments

    This supplemental rulemaking describes Flyway Council recommended 
changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the March 22, 
2004, Federal Register. We have included only those recommendations 
requiring either new proposals or substantial modification of the 
preliminary proposals. This supplement does not include recommendations 
that simply support or oppose preliminary proposals and provide no 
recommended alternatives. We will consider these recommendations later 
in the regulations-development process. We will publish responses to 
all proposals and written comments when we develop final frameworks. In 
addition, this supplemental rulemaking contains the regulatory 
alternatives for the 2004-05 duck hunting seasons. We have included all 
Flyway Council recommendations received relating to the development of 
these alternatives.
    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 
identified in the March 22, 2004, proposed rule. Only those categories 
requiring your attention or for which we received Flyway Council 
recommendations are discussed below.

1. Ducks

    Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest 
management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory 
Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season 
length, and bag limits, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special 
Seasons/Species Management.

[[Page 32419]]

A. General Harvest Strategy
    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended limiting 
regulation changes to one step annually.
    Service Response: We appreciate the continuing desire of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council to limit changes in annual regulations to 
one step. This constraint is expected to significantly reduce temporal 
variability in hunting regulations, as well as lower the prospect of 
closed hunting seasons. These benefits are expected to accrue with 
little or no impact to the size of the mallard population or harvest. 
However, the Central and Pacific Flyway Councils are on record as 
opposing the ``one-step'' constraint, principally because it would 
reduce the expected frequency of ``liberal'' seasons. We believe a 
consensus among the Flyway Councils regarding implementation of a 
constraint that would affect all Flyways is desirable. Currently, a 
task force of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies (http://www.iafwa.org/Attachments/ IAFWA%20AHM% 

20TF%20Status%20Report% 209-12-03.pdf) is reviewing this and other 
strategic aspects of the adaptive-harvest management protocol and is 
expected to make its recommendations prior to the 2005 hunting season. 
We may be willing to reconsider our position on the one-step constraint 
in light of those recommendations and their acceptability to the Flyway 
B. Regulatory Alternatives
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Pacific Flyway Councils 
and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that regulatory alternatives for 
duck-hunting seasons remain the same as those used in 2003.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that if the status of 
pintails and canvasbacks results in prescriptions for seasons-within-
seasons or closed seasons for these species, the Service adopt 
regulatory alternatives that are the same as those used in 2003, 
accounting for other Central Flyway Council recommended modifications 
to the pintail and canvasback harvest strategies (see D. Special 
Seasons/Species Management sections on iv. Canvasbacks and v. 
Pintails). If season-long harvest of pintails and canvasbacks is 
permitted for the 2004-2005 duck season, the Council recommended the 
adoption of duck hunting frameworks for the Central Flyway that 
provides for a ``Hunters Choice Bag Limit'' with the following 
modifications to duck regulations packages for the Central Flyway:

Within the ``liberal'' and ``moderate'' regulatory alternatives, the 
daily bag limit would be 5 ducks, with species and sex restrictions 
as follows: scaup--3; redhead and wood duck--2; only 1 duck from the 
following group--hen mallard, mottled duck, pintail, canvasback. 
Within the ``restrictive'' regulatory alternative, the daily bag 
limit would be 3 ducks, with species and sex restrictions as 
follows: redhead and wood duck--2; only 1 duck from the following 
group--hen mallard, mottled duck, pintail, canvasback. The 
possession limit in all alternatives would be twice the daily bag 

    The Council also recommended the cooperative development, by March 
2005, of an evaluation plan to assess the effectiveness of this 
approach in reducing harvests of pintails, mottled ducks, and 
canvasbacks. This plan would be implemented as an experimental season 
for a period of 5 years, beginning with the 2005-2006 hunting season.
    Service Response: With regard to the ``Hunters Choice Bag Limit,'' 
we believe that it is a concept that warrants further exploration. In 
particular, we are interested in: (a) Seeing additional details 
concerning the predicted effects on duck harvests and how those effects 
would be evaluated; (b) hearing whether the other three Flyways believe 
that the concept is desirable and practicable; and (c) understanding 
how the concept fits within larger strategic considerations for 
multiple-species management. We intend to work with Flyway Councils and 
the task force of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies over the next year to address these issues.
    After considering all recommendations, we have concluded that it 
would be premature at this time to modify the regulatory alternatives 
for adaptive harvest management. Therefore, all aspects of the 2004 
regulatory alternatives will remain as proposed in the March 22 Federal 
    We will respond to specific aspects of the pintail and canvasback 
harvest strategies in supplemental Federal Register documents.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. September Teal Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended 
that the Service change the status of the Nebraska September teal 
season from experimental to operational beginning with the 2004-05 
hunting season. Criteria for Nebraska's September teal season would be 
the same as for other non-production Central Flyway states and confined 
to that area opened to teal hunting during the experimental phase. The 
Council believes that pre-sunrise shooting hours are justified given 
results from evaluation of non-target attempt rates.
iv. Canvasbacks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council and the Upper- 
and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 
Council recommended modifying the current Canvasback Harvest Strategy 
to allow partial seasons within the regular duck season. The harvest 
management strategy would include 3 levels: closed, restrictive season 
length, and full season.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended managing canvasbacks with 
the ``Hunters Choice Bag Limit'' (aggregate daily bag limit of 1 hen 
mallard, mottled duck, pintail, or canvasback). The Council further 
recommends that until the ``Hunter Choice Bag Limit'' becomes available 
the current strategy should be modified to include three levels of 
harvest opportunity: full, closed, and partial seasons. The partial 
season would consist of the restrictive season length (39 days in the 
Central Flyway).
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended modifying the current 
canvasback harvest management strategy to allow partial canvasback 
seasons within regular duck season frameworks. The harvest management 
strategy would include four levels for the Pacific Flyway: Liberal-107 
days, Moderate-86 days, Restrictive-60 days, and Closed seasons. The 
Council also recommended that the strategy include a statement 
specifying that Alaska's season will maintain a fixed restriction of 1 
canvasback daily in lieu of the annual prescriptions from the strategy.
v. Pintails
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
modifying the Interim Strategy for Northern Pintail Harvest Management 
to allow partial seasons within the regular duck season. The Council 
recommended using partial seasons to allow hunting opportunity for this 
species when (1) a full season is predicted to return a breeding 
population below 1.5 million (the threshold for season closure) and (2) 
when a partial season is expected to return a breeding population at or 
above 1.5 million.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the

[[Page 32420]]

Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the current interim pintail 
harvest management strategy be modified to allow partial seasons within 
the regular duck hunting season. The harvest management strategy would 
include 3 levels: closed, restrictive season length, and full season.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that the interim pintail 
harvest strategy be revised as follows:

    In the Central Flyway, pintails will be included in a ``Hunters 
Choice'' daily bag limit (hen mallard, or mottled duck, or pintail, 
or canvasback--daily bag of 1). When the interim pintail harvest 
strategy model projections allow for a daily bag of >=2, pintails 
will be removed from the 1-bird aggregate bag and the prescribed 
daily bag limit will be selected.

    If this recommendation is not approved, the Council recommended the 
following modification to the existing harvest strategy:

    When the May Breeding Population Survey in the traditional 
survey areas is below 1.5 million or the projected fall flight is 
predicted to be below 2 million (as calculated by the models in the 
interim strategy), adopt the Restrictive AHM package season length 
(39 days in the Central Flyway) with a daily bag limit of 1, if 
these regulations are projected to produce harvest at levels that 
would provide for the 6% annual growth identified as an objective in 
the strategy. If the Restrictive package regulations are expected to 
provide for < 6% population growth, the season on pintails will be 

    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended maintaining the Interim 
Northern Pintail Harvest Strategy as originally adopted by the Service.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
that Connecticut's September goose season framework dates of 1 
September to 25 September become operational.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that Michigan be granted 
operational status for the September 1-10 early Canada goose season 
with a 5-bird daily limit within Huron, Tuscola, and Saginaw Counties.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended allowing a 3-year 
experimental late September Canada goose season in eastern Nebraska. 
The Council also recommended that South Dakota's 2000-02 3-year 
Experimental Late-September Canada Goose Hunting Season (September 16-
30) become operational in 20 eastern South Dakota counties beginning 
with the September 2004 hunting season.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended expanding the September 
season in Wyoming to include the entire Pacific Flyway portion of 
Wyoming, reducing the daily bag limit from 3 to 2, and eliminating the 
quota on the number of geese harvested.
B. Regular Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the 
framework opening date for all species of geese for the regular goose 
seasons be September 16 in 2004 and future years. If this 
recommendation is not approved, the Council recommended that the 
framework opening date for all species of geese for the regular goose 
seasons in Michigan and Wisconsin be September 16, 2004.

9. Sandhill Cranes

    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended 
using the 2004 Rocky Mountain Population sandhill crane harvest 
allocation of 656 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using the 
2001-2003 three year running average.
    The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended that Colorado 
be allowed to establish a season on Rocky Mountain sandhill cranes in 
the San Luis Valley (Saguache, Rio Grande, Alamosa, Conejos, and 
Costilla Counties).

16. Mourning Doves

    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended 
that the daily bag limit in Utah be changed from 10 mourning doves to 
10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.

18. Alaska

    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommends that 
the tundra swan season in Unit 17 become operational.

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, 
nongovernmental 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 4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. For each 
series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment 
periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, 
each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments received 
during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date.

NEPA Consideration

    NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document 
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual 
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. 
We published 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.
    In a proposed rule published in the April 30, 2001, Federal 
Register (66 FR 21298), we expressed our intent to begin the process of 
developing a new Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the 
migratory bird hunting

[[Page 32421]]

program. We plan to begin the public scoping process in 2005.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Prior to issuance of the 2004-05 migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we will comply with 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 12866

    The migratory bird hunting regulations are economically significant 
and were reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
Executive Order 12866. As such, a cost/benefit analysis was initially 
prepared in 1981. This analysis was subsequently revised annually from 
1990-96, and then updated in 1998. We have updated again this year. It 
is further discussed below under the heading Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. Results from the 2004 analysis indicate that the expected welfare 
benefit of the annual migratory bird hunting frameworks is on the order 
of $734 million to $1.064 billion, with a mid-point estimate of $899 
million. Copies of the cost/benefit analysis are available upon request 
from the address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our Web site at 

    Executive Order 12866 also 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?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department 
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. 
You may also e-mail the comments to this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

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 as part of the 
1981 cost-benefit analysis discussed under Executive Order 12866. This 
analysis was revised annually from 1990-95. In 1995, the Service issued 
a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently 
updated in 1996, 1998, and 2004. 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 2004 Analysis was based on the 2001 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 $481 million and $1.2 billion at small businesses in 
2004. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the 
address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our Web site at http://www.migratorybirds.gov

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 (PRA). There are no new information collections in this proposed 
rule that would require OMB approval under the PRA. OMB has approved 
the information collection requirements of the surveys associated with 
the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and assigned clearance 
number 1018-0015 (expires 10/31/2004). 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 Survey and 
assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires 10/31/2004). The 
information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude and the 
geographical and 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. Therefore, this 
rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act.

Civil Justice Reform-Executive Order 12988

    The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined 
that this proposed rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and 
that it meets the requirements of 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.

Energy Effects--Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 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. While this proposed 
rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it 
is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or 
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant

[[Page 32422]]

energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

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 regarding the hunting of migratory 
birds, and we 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 Indian 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 2004-05 
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 

    Dated: May 28, 2004.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.


[[Page 32423]]


[FR Doc. 04-13040 Filed 6-8-04; 8:45 am]