|US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations -- Permits, etc.||1980 WL 90340 (F.R.)||
This final decision establishes regulations to govern the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial tuna purse seine fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). The regulations provide for a general permit to be issued allowing the taking of a maximum of 20,500 porpoises, as apportioned into individual species and stock quotas, for each of the five years 1981- 1985.
|US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Authorization for Commercial Fisheri||RIN 0648-AH33||
NMFS issued a final rule to implement a new management regime for the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations, which was published in the Federal Register on August 30, 1995. The purpose of this document is to correct an unintended error in the definition of ``negligible impact,'' which provides a reference to a section number of the regulations that has been changed.
|US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Tuna Purse Seine Vessels in the East||FR Doc. 04-19869||
This Notice announces that on August 9, 2004, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order which set aside the final finding made on December 31, 2002, by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant Administrator). Under the terms of this Order, the labeling standard for ``dolphin-safe'' tuna shall be governed by the provisions of the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act. Under that provision, tuna are deemed dolphin safe if ``no tuna were caught on the trip in which such tuna were harvested using a purse seine net intentionally deployed on or to encircle dolphins, and no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the sets in which the tuna were caught.''
|US - Marine Mammals, Endangered - Establishment of Species of Concern List, Addition of Species to Species of Concern List, Desc||2004 WL 791908 (F.R.)||
NMFS establishes a species of concern list, places 45 species on this list, describes the factors it will consider when identifying species of concern, and revises the candidate species list. NMFS also solicits information and comments concerning the status of, research and stewardship opportunities for, and the factors for identifying species of concern.
|US - Meat Inspection - Labeling (Current)||The following Federal Meat Inspection Act regulations detail the law surrounding labeling, marking, and containing packaged food that went into effect in 2014. See the prior version.|
|US - Meat Inspection - Labeling (Historical)||These former Federal Meat Inspection Act regulations detail the law surrounding labeling, marking, and containing packaged food prior to 2014. Read an Animal Welfare Institute petition to amend section 317.4 of labeling regulations under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The new regulations went into effect in 2014.|
|US - Migratory Bird - Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Double-Crested Cormorant Management||2003 WL 22295159||
Increasing populations of the double-crested cormorant have caused biological and socioeconomic resource conflicts. In November 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on double-crested cormorant management. In March 2003, a proposed rule was published to establish regulations to implement the DEIS proposed action, Alternative D. In August 2003, the notice of availability for a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published, followed by a 30- day comment period. This final rule sets forth regulations for implementing the FEIS preferred alternative, Alternative D (establishment of a public resource depredation order and revision of the aquaculture depredation order). It also provides responses to comments we received during the 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule. The Record of Decision (ROD) is also published here.
|US - Migratory Birds - Draft List of Bird Species to Which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act||
This is a published draft list of the nonnative bird species that have been introduced by humans into the United States or its territories and to which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act MBTA does not apply. This action is required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA) of 2004. The MBTRA amends the MBTA by stating that it applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories, and that a native migratory bird is one that is present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. This notice identifies those species that are not protected by the MBTA, even though they belong to biological families referred to in treaties that the MBTA implements, as their presence in the United States and its territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions. It should be noted as with all changes to federal rules, public comment is sought.
|US - Migratory Birds - Final List of Bird Species to Which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Apply||
We are publishing a final list of the nonnative bird species that have been introduced by humans into the United States or its territories and to which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) does not apply. This action is required by the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA) of 2004. The MBTRA amends the MBTA by stating that it applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories, and that a native migratory bird is one that is present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. This notice identifies those species that are not protected by the MBTA, even though they belong to biological families referred to in treaties that the MBTA implements, as their presence in the United States and its territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions.
|US - Migratory Birds - Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Double-Crested Cormorant Management||
The purpose of this depredation order is to reduce the occurrence and/or minimize the risk of adverse impacts to public resources (fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats) caused by double-crested cormorants.
|US - Permits - Subpart A. Introduction. § 13.4 Emergency variation from requirements.||67 FR 12824||This regulation provides that the Director of the USFWS may approve variations from the permit requirements if an emergency exists and it does not hinder the administration of other regulations.|
|US - Permits - Subpart C. Permit Administration. § 13.21 Issuance of permits.||67 FR 12824||This regulation describes the conditions under which a permit is issued to possess wildlife that is subject to restricted terms of possession. It further outlines the disqualifying factors that will result in denial of a permit under this subchapter (i.e., conviction of a wildlife offense, failure to comply with reporting requirements, activities that threaten the particular plant or animal population, etc.).|
|US - Permits - Subpart C. Permit Administration. § 13.29 Review procedures.||54 FR 38149, Sept. 14, 1989||This regulation outlines the procedure to seek administrative review of the denial for a permit to possess or otherwise take wildlife or plants.|
|US - Permits - Subpart D. Conditions. § 13.42 Permits are specific.||67 FR 12824||This regulation provides that permits issued to collect or otherwise take wildlife or plants are strictly construed.|
|US - Petitions - AWI Consolidated Petitions||The following is a list of petitions submitted by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and other advocacy groups to United States agencies. These petitions seek changes to rule-making for various animal welfare issues and also seek designations under the federal Endangered Species Act. The provided links for each action give a summary and links to the actual filed petitions. The petitions are listed with the most recent one filed at the top of the page.|
|US - Pets and Housing - Pet Ownership for the Elderly and Persons With Disabilities||2008 WL 4690497 (F.R.)||
This final rule amends HUD's regulations governing the requirements for pet ownership in HUD-assisted public housing and multifamily housing projects for the elderly and persons with disabilities. Specifically, this final rule conforms these pet ownership requirements to the requirements for animals assisting persons with disabilities in HUD's public housing programs, other than housing projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities.
|US - Pets and Housing - Subpart C. Pet Ownership for the Elderly or Persons with Disabilities||
This subpart implements section 227 of the Housing and Urban Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 1701r-1) as it pertains to projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities under: (1) the housing programs administered by the Assistant Secretary for Housing - Federal Housing Commissioner; (2) projects assisted under the programs contained in chapter VIII of this title 24; and (3) the public housing program. The rule specifically states that it does not apply to assistance or service animals. The rule states that, except as otherwise provided, no project owner that manages a project for the elderly or disabled may restrict or discriminate against any person by reason of the person's ownership or presence of a common household pet in the person's dwelling unit. A "common household pet," is defined as "[a] domesticated animal, such as a dog, cat, bird, rodent (including a rabbit), fish, or turtle, that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes" (excluding reptiles with exception of turtles). Notice of the allowance must be provided to tenants and tenants must be given the ability to access to pet rules. The project owner must establish reasonable rules to govern the keeping of pets.
|US - Pets and housing - Subpart C. Pet Ownership for the Elderly or Persons with Disabilities.||This set of HUD regulations set forth the mandatory pet rules for housing programs. The procedure for the development of pet rules is outlined as well as pet rule violation procedures. One rule states that an applicant for tenancy in a project for the elderly or persons with disabilities may reject a unit offered by a project owner if the unit is in close proximity to a dwelling unit in which an existing tenant of the project owns or keeps a common household pet. The rules also contemplate protection of the pet by allowing project owners to contact state or local authorities to remove the pet if the health or safety of the pet is threatened by the death or incapacity of the pet owner.|
|US - Pets and Housing - Subpart G. Pet Ownership in Public Housing.||The purpose of this subpart is, in accordance with section 31 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437z-3), to permit pet ownership by residents of public housing, subject to compliance with reasonable requirements established by the public housing agency (PHA) for pet ownership.|
|US - Pets and housing - § 5.380 Public housing programs: Procedure for development of pet rules.||This rule states that Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) must consult with tenants of projects on rules for pets in projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities. PHAs shall send to the responsible HUD field office, copies of the final (or amended) pet rules, as well as summaries or copies of all tenant comments received in the course of the tenant consultation.|
|US - Poultry - Petition to issue regulations under the Poultry Products Inspection Act to regulate practices and actions that result in adulterated poultry products||The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been directed by Congress to promulgate regulations that will reduce poultry carcass adulteration. However, although USDA has repeatedly recognized that the inhumane treatment of poultry leads to adulteration, it has not promulgated any regulations to limit that adulteration. Thus, USDA is not fulfilling its mandate. Farm Sanctuary and the Animal Welfare Institute submit this petition for rulemaking, calling on USDA to begin the process of promulgating regulations to address bird handling and slaughter practices that result in adulteration as is its duty under the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), 21 U.S.C. § 451 et seq. Read 9 C.F.R. 381, 9 C.F.R. 416, and 9 C.F.R. 500 --all of which are discussed in the petition.|
|US - Poultry - Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter||
FSIS is reminding all poultry slaughter establishments that, under the PPIA and Agency regulations, live poultry must be handled in a manner that is consistent with good commercial practices, which means they should be treated humanely. Although there is no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry, under the PPIA, poultry products are more likely to be adulterated if they are produced from birds that have not been treated humanely, because such birds are more likely to be bruised or to die other than by slaughter.
|US - PPIA and FMIA Regulations - Rules of Practice||The following Poultry Products Inspection Act and Federal Meat Inspection act regulations detail the provisions for when the Food Safety and Inspection Service can take regulatory control.|
|US - PPIA Regulations - Operating, Ante and Post Mortem Inspection||The following Poultry Products Inspection Act regulations detail the provisions for operating a poultry slaughterhouse, and for ante and post mortem inspection.|
|US - PPIA Regulations- Sanitation||The following sanitation regulations are implemented under the Poultry Product Inspection Act. The general rule states: Each official establishment must be operated and maintained in a manner sufficient to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and to ensure that product is not adulterated.|
|US - Primate - Animal Welfare; Draft Policy on Environment Enhancement for Nonhuman Primates||
Under the Animal Welfare Act, our regulations require that dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities that maintain nonhuman primates develop and follow a plan for environment enhancement adequate to promote the psychological well-being of the nonhuman primates. We have developed a draft policy to clarify what we believe must be considered and included in the plan in order for dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities to adequately promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates.
|US - Service animals - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities||2008 WL 2413721 (F.R.)||
The Department of Justice (Department) is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in order to: Adopt enforceable accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) that are "consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board" (Access Board); and perform periodic reviews of any rule judged to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory assessment of the costs and benefits of any significant regulatory action as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
|US - Service Animals - Part 35. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local||The purpose of this part is to effectuate subtitle A of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The section defines "service animal" as any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition.|
|US - Service animals - Part 36. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability||This regulation defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. It also defines service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items.|
|US - Slaughter - Ante Mortem Inspection||Progulmated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FIMA), Part 309 of the FIMA regulations covering livestock inspection state that alll livestock offered for slaughter in an official establishment shall be examined and inspected on the day of, and before, slaughter. Such ante-mortem inspection shall be made in pens on the premises of the establishment at which the livestock are offered for slaughter. If an establishment fails to present animals for ante-mortem inspection in accordance with 9 CFR 309.1, inspection program personnel will be unable to determine that carcasses are not adulterated during postmortem inspection, and therefore cannot permit the carcasses to be marked as inspected and passed. Livestock may also be determined to be non-ambulatory disabled, US suspect, or US Condemened. Read a petition that requests the Food Safety and Inspection Service amend 9 C.F.R. § 309.3 by adding a provision: ―(f) Non-ambulatory disabled pigs that are offered for slaughter must be condemned and humanely euthanized in accordance with § 309.13.|
|US - Slaughter - Humane Slaughter of Livestock Regulations||These regulations outline the requirements for the humane treatment of livestock prior to and during slaughter. Included are the requirements for pens, holding, and transportation areas, and the special circumstances for transporting and holding "downed" (nonambulatory) livestock. The regulations emphasize the minimization of "excitement and discomfort" to the livestock prior to transportation or slaughter. Of special note are the requirements for humane methods of slaughter, including the use of carbon dioxide gas, captive bolt "stunners" and projectiles, gunshot, and electrical current.|
|US - Slaughter - Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food||2007 WL 2010444 (F.R.)||
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is affirming, with changes, the interim final rule "Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Cattle," which was published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2004. The Agency is also affirming the interim final rule "Prohibition of the Use of Certain Stunning Devices Used to Immobilize Cattle During Slaughter," also published on January 12, 2004. FSIS issued these interim final rules in response to the confirmation on December 23, 2003, of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in an imported dairy cow in Washington State. FSIS is taking this action to make permanent interim measures implemented by the Agency to minimize human exposure to cattle materials that could potentially contain the BSE agent.
|US - Whales - Notice of Availability of the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale||2004 WL 1924051 (F.R.)||
NMFS announces the availability for public review of the draft revised Recovery Plan (Plan) for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). NMFS is soliciting review and comment from the public and all interested parties on the Plan, and will consider all substantive comments received during the review period before submitting the Plan for final approval. (Note that the specific concern with right whales is collisions with ships.)
|US - Whales - Proposed Threatened Status for Southern Resident Killer Whales||
We, the NMFS, have completed an update on the status review of Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Based on the review of the best available scientific and commercial information, including new data, published papers, and workshop reports available since the review in 2002, we are proposing to list the Southern Resident killer whales as threatened because these killer whales constitute a distinct population segment (DPS) under the ESA and are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. We are not proposing to designate critical habitat at this time, but are requesting public comments on the issues pertaining to this proposed rule.
|US - Whales - Regulations Governing the Approach to North Atlantic Right Whales||2004 WL 2701022||
NMFS issues a correcting amendment to clarify the regulations that prohibit approaches within 500 yards (460 m) of North Atlantic right whales (right whales). The purpose of this action is to correct errors contained in the text of the regulation that inadvertently refers to regulations contained in the previous paragraph within 50 CFR part 224. These technical amendments will not change the regulations for approaching right whales found in Sec. 224.103.
|US - Whales - Whaling Provisions: Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Quotas||FR Doc. 04-3755||
NMFS announces the aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for bowhead whales, and other limitations deriving from regulations adopted at the 2002 Special Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). For 2004, the quota is 75 bowhead whales struck. This quota and other limitations will govern the harvest of bowhead whales by members of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC).
|US - Whales - Whaling Provisions; Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Quotas||FR Doc. 05-2001||
NMFS announces the aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for bowhead whales, and other limitations deriving from regulations adopted at the 2002 Special Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). For 2005, the quota is 75 bowhead whales struck. This quota and other limitations will govern the harvest of bowhead whales by members of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC).
|US - Wildlife - Disposal of Forfeited or Abandoned Property||
The Service proposes regulations to dispose of property forfeited or abandoned to the United States under the provisions of 50 CFR Part 12. This property, which includes wildlife, plants, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, cargo, guns, nets, traps, and other equipment, would be separated into two types for disposal. All property, except wildlife and plants, would be disposed of under existing Service procedures, which are based on current Federal Property Management Regulations and Interior Property Management Regulations. Wildlife and plants, however, would be disposed of at the discretion of the Director by one of the following means: return to the wild, use by the Service or transfer to another government agency for official use, donation or loan, sale, or destruction.
This action would enable the Service to insure that wildlife and plants are disposed of in accordance with the conservation aims of the statute under which they were obtained while establishing an orderly, cost efficient disposal procedure. This procedure is needed both to eliminate unnecessary expense and overcrowding at government storage facilities and to provide a uniform means of satisfying the variety of possible uses of wildlife and plants which are ready for disposal.
|US - Wildlife - Subpart D. Disposal of Forfeited or Abandoned Property. § 12.37 Sale.||This provision allows for sale of forfeited or abandoned property acquired by the federal government. It specifically excludes species of animals that fall under the BGEPA, the ESA, the MMPA, and other statutes.|
|US - Wildlife - § 12.36 Donation or loan.||67 FR 47660||This provision describes the applicable donation or loan procedures for forfeited or abandoned wildlife property. Of particular interest is the section that requires that donation of eagle parts to Native Americans for religious purpose must proceed according to the Indian religious permit procedures outlined in 50 C.F.R. 22.22.|
|US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Removing the Eastern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Gray Wo||
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces that we will hold one additional public hearing on the proposed rule to remove the Eastern Distinct Population Segment of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife established under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. In a notice made in the Federal Register on August 13, 2004 (69 FR 50147), we announced the locations for nine other public hearing previously scheduled.
|US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating||
Establishes the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the gray wolf and removes the DPS from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife.
|US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Nonessential Experimental Populations of the Western||FR Doc. 04-5248||
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) propose regulations for the nonessential experimental populations of the western distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). In addition, we propose regulations so that States with wolf management plans approved by the Service can apply for additional authorities to manage wolves consistent with those approved plans. These proposed regulations would only have effect in States that have an approved State management plan for gray wolves.
|US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of Protections for the Gray Wolf in the Western Great L||2009 WL 2947315 (F.R.)||
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are issuing this final rule to comply with a court order that has the effect of reinstating the regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes. This rule corrects the gray wolf listing in our regulations which will reinstate the listing of gray wolves in all of Wisconsin and Michigan, the eastern half of North Dakota and South Dakota, the northern half of Iowa, the northern portions of Illinois and Indiana, and the northwestern portion of Ohio as endangered, and reinstate the listing of wolves in Minnesota as threatened. This rule also reinstates the former designated critical habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota and Michigan and special regulations for gray wolves in Minnesota.
|US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Western Distinct Population Segment of Gray Wolf From th||2003 WL 1697399 (F.R.)||
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) announces our intention to conduct rulemaking under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to remove the Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the near future. Specifically, we intend to propose to delist the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains and western United States where it is presently listed. If this proposal is finalized, the gray wolf would be delisted in the Western Gray Wolf DPS, existing special regulations established under section 4(d) of the Act for the Western DPS would be abolished, the nonessential experimental designations for reintroduced gray wolves would be removed, and future management of this species would be conducted by the appropriate State and tribal wildlife agencies.
|US - Wolf - Final Rule Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and Remo||
Establishes a distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains and removes the DPS from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife.
|US - Wolf - Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To R||
The FWS identifies the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and removes this DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, except in Wyoming. The wolf population in this area is about 5 times higher than the minimum population recovery goal and 3 times higher than the minimum breeding pair recovery goal. The gray wolf is not removed from the list in Wyoming because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms
|US - Wolf - Final Rule To Identify the Western Great Lakes Populations of Gray Wolves as a Distinct||
Identifies the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the gray wolf and removes this Segment from the protection of the Endangered Species Act. In accordance with court order, provides an explanation as to how simultaneously identifying and delisting a DPS is consistent with the Act's text, structure, policy objectives, legislative history, and any relevant judicial interpretations.
|US - Wolf - Regulation for Nonessential Experimental Populations of the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf; Fi||2005 WL 20189 (F.R.)||
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) establish a rule for the nonessential experimental populations (NEPs) of the Western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), so that in States and on Tribal reservations with Service-approved wolf management plans, we can better address the concerns of affected landowners and the impacts of a biologically recovered wolf population. In addition, States and Tribes with Service accepted wolf management plans can petition the Service for lead management authority for experimental wolves consistent with this rule.
|US - Wolf - Reinstatement of Protections for the Gray Wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains||
Reinstates the listing of the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains gray wolf populations in accordance with court orders.