[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13497-13500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05977]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2012-0098; FF09M21200-134-FXMB1231099BPP0]
RIN 1018-AZ19
Migratory Bird Hunting and Permits; Regulations for Managing
Harvest of Light Goose Populations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We reduce the information collection requirements for
participants in the light goose conservation order, which authorizes
methods of take to increase harvest of certain populations of light
geese in the Atlantic, Central, Mississippi, and Pacific Flyways, and
to reduce the burden on State and tribal wildlife agencies that are
required to submit annual light goose harvest reports to us. This
action will eliminate reporting requirements that we believe to be
unnecessary and will relieve requirements on individuals, States, and
tribes.
DATES: This regulation change will be effective on April 15, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Document Availability: You may obtain a copy of the final
environmental impact statement (EIS) on this management issue from our
Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/currentbirdissues/management/snowgse/tblcont.html, or by requesting one from the Division
of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Mail Stop MB, Falls Church, VA 22041-3830.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Kelley at 612-713-5409.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) has the primary Federal responsibility for
managing migratory birds. We implement the provisions of the MBTA
through regulations in parts 10, 13, 20, 21, and 22 of title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
In 1999, we established a conservation order at 50 CFR 21.60 to
increase harvest of light geese and authorize new methods of take (64
FR 7517, February 16, 1999). We took this action because several
populations of light geese were exceeding the carrying capacity of
their breeding or migration
[[Page 13498]]
habitats in the Central and Mississippi Flyways. A conservation order
is a special management action that is needed to control certain
wildlife populations when traditional management programs are
unsuccessful in preventing overabundance of the population. We prepared
an environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision to
revise the regulations for the conservation order to include the
Atlantic and Pacific Flyways (73 FR 65926, November 5, 2008).
The regulations include information collection and reporting
requirements. Individuals participating in the order must provide
information to State or Tribal wildlife agencies, and these agencies
are required to submit annual light goose harvest reports to the
Service. We have used this information to assess the effectiveness of
light goose population control methods and strategies and to determine
whether or not additional population control methods were needed.
However, we now believe that sufficient information has been collected
for these purposes since 2000, so on February 18, 2014, we published a
proposed rule to change the information collection requirements of the
conservation order (79 FR 9152-9156). We proposed to simplify but not
eliminate all of these requirements, thus reducing the burden on
individuals participating in the conservation order and on State and
Tribal wildlife agencies.
Comments on the Proposed Rule
We received 10 comments on the proposed rule. Some commenters
supported the proposed changes to the information collection
requirements; others stated that the Service should not reduce or
eliminate these requirements. Some commenters stated that sufficient
information has been collected since 2000 to allow evaluation of the
effectiveness of take methods for harvesting light geese and that the
reduction in reporting requirements will reduce paperwork and
respondent burdens. Some commenters provided comments outside the scope
of the proposed rule, which sought input only on the information
collection, and not on the control of light geese. Below we provide
excerpts from some of these comments and our responses.
Comment: ``I object to the government's attempts to waste our tax
dollars on the pointless, unnecessary, unjustified and brutal killing
of light goose populations. There is no study or scientific/biologic
data that supports this plan. All goose populations can be managed and
limited using humane and non-lethal methods. That is the only kind of
management plan I support.
Furthermore, your goal to eliminate information collection &
reporting requirements that you believe to be unnecessary is nothing
more than an attempt to absolve yourselves of responsibility and remove
all records of accountability so that you can continue to get away with
unchecked killing and misuse of taxpayer funds whenever and wherever
you want.''
Response: We documented the need for the control of light geese in
our 2007 EIS. The effort was endorsed by national wildlife conservation
organizations as a way to try to protect habitat for many migratory
bird species in the Arctic.
We are not spending taxpayer dollars on this control, except to
collect information about the harvest. Nor are we choosing the
``convenience'' of controlling light goose populations. As noted in our
2007 EIS, the burgeoning light goose population has seriously harmed
nesting habitats in the Arctic for other migratory bird species.
We are not eliminating information collection. As we explained in
the proposed rule, we are reducing the burden on States and tribes by
not requiring collection and reporting of information not needed to
assess the harvest of light geese.
Comment. ``Limiting information requirements and eliminating
information collection on the issue of killing our wildlife is deeply
undemocratic (for people) and cruel (for populations targeted.)''
Response. We are not eliminating information collection; we are
revising the collection so that we collect only needed information. It
is the Service's job to address population issues such as the huge
growth in the light goose population that continues to cause
destruction of habitat in the Arctic for many other migratory bird
species. We also try to minimize the information collection burden for
other partners (such as States and Tribes) in wildlife management and
for the public.
Comment. ``I am for the update in regulations for managing the
harvest of light goose. The information that was needed before to see
find [sic] out if the proposed methods of population control of light
geese is no longer needed. It has been proven that their [sic] has been
a 26.7% increase in the harvest of light geese after the regular season
using electronic calls and a 13.1% increase using unplugged shotguns in
the Mississippi and Central flyways between 2000 and 2011. For example,
``the number of light geese taken with the aid of an electronic call.''
This requirement for data entry is no longer necessary because it has
been proven that using electronic calls is a useful method of
conservation over a term of eleven years. Majority of the data that was
required to be recorded by the states that participated in the
conservation order is no longer needed because enough data has been
recorded to prove that using unplugged shotguns and electronic calls is
a useful method on conservation.''
Comment. ``I am against the proposed rule of Migratory Bird Hunting
and Permits: Regulations for Managing Harvest of Light Goose
Populations. The managing of the light goose population is necessary
because we need to know how many there are and how many are killed each
year. Letting hunters killing more of the light goose isn't a bad idea
since there are not in danger of going extinct. The numbers show that
they are fine . . . They still need to keep track of the numbers that
are harvested that year to get an idea of how much are being harvested.
Since the ``Various populations of light geese have undergone rapid
growth during the past 30 years, and have become seriously injurious to
their habitat, habitat important to other migratory birds, and
agricultural interests,'' it is better to get the numbers lower than
they are.''
Comment. ``The purpose of this rule is to eliminate information
that is no longer needed to be collected due to the amount that has
been received. The information they have now gives a [sic] accurate
data layout for future knowledge and so the unnecessary data gather
[sic] should be dropped to save time and money for state and tribal
agencies. I think this would be a [sic] efficient cutback since the
information is no longer needed to be collected. The data that would be
eliminated would not hinder the overall analysis of light goose [sic]
taken. Numbers of light goose populations will still be collected and
recorded with accurate read outs on their population. The information
that hunters would have to submit would be lessened and make it easier
on them. This rule would overall make a great cutback on taxes and time
spent filling out paperwork that is no longer needed.''
Comment. ``The Central Flyway Council . . . supports the proposal
to reduce the information collection requirements for participants in
the light goose conservation order, which authorizes methods of take to
increase harvest of certain populations of light geese in the Atlantic,
Central, and Mississippi Flyways, and to reduce the burden on State and
tribal wildlife agencies that are required to submit annual light goose
harvest reports to the
[[Page 13499]]
Service. There is sufficient information collected since 2000 to allow
evaluation [of] the effectiveness of these methods of take for
harvesting light geese. The reduction in reporting requirement[s] will
reduce paperwork and respondent burdens.''
Response to these comments. No response necessary.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has
determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order
12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system
to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible,
and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public
participation and an open exchange of ideas. We developed this rule in
a manner consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121)), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small businesses,
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide the statement of the factual basis for certifying
that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This regulation change will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, so a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This rule will reduce the information collection requirements for
participants in the light goose conservation order and reduce the
burden on State and tribal wildlife agencies that are required to
submit annual light goose harvest reports to us. It will have no impact
on economic activities already associated with the light goose
conservation order itself and, therefore, will not have an economic
effect on any small entities.
This is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
a. This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more.
b. This rule will not cause an increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, Tribal, or local
government agencies, or geographic regions.
c. This rule will not have effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we have determined the following:
a. This rule will not affect small governments. A small government
agency plan is not required.
b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. It is not a
significant regulatory action.
Takings
This rule does not contain a provision for taking of private
property. In accordance with Executive Order 12630, a takings
implication assessment is not required.
Federalism
This rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant
preparation of a federalism impact summary statement under Executive
Order 13132. It will not interfere with any State's ability to manage
itself or its funds. No economic impacts will result from the
regulations change.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule contains a collection of information that OMB has
approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). We 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.
OMB Control Number: 1018-0103.
Expiration Date: 3/31/2018.
Title: Conservation Order for Light Geese, 50 CFR 21.60.
Service Form Number(s): None.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents: State and tribal governments;
individuals who participate in the conservation order.
Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: Annually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number
Activity/requirement of Total annual Completion time per Total annual
respondents responses response burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States--collect information, maintain 39 39 45 hours................ 1,755
records, prepare annual report.
Participants--provide information to 21,538 21,538 8 minutes............... 2,872
States.
-------------------------------- ---------------
Total............................. 21,577 21,577 ........................ 4,627
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $78,000, primarily for State
and tribal overhead costs (materials, printing, postage, etc.).
We expect a maximum of 39 States and tribes to participate under
the authority of the conservation order each
[[Page 13500]]
year it is available. States and tribes must keep records of activities
carried out under the authority of the conservation order. We believe
that this recordkeeping requirement is necessary to ensure that those
individuals carrying out control activities are authorized to do so.
The States and tribes must submit an annual report summarizing the
activities conducted under the conservation order. Reported information
helps us to assess the effectiveness of light geese population control
methods and strategies, and assess whether or not additional population
control methods are needed. However, we believe that the number of
elements in the information collection requirement can be reduced while
maintaining a core of elements that allow us to monitor the number of
participants in the conservation order and resulting harvest of birds.
We have revised 50 CFR 21.60(f)(8) to require that information be
collected only on the number of:
Persons participating in the conservation order;
Days people participated in the conservation order;
Light geese shot and retrieved under the conservation
order; and
Light geese shot but not retrieved.
Each State and tribe determines how they collect data from
participants. Though there is no common form or method, the States and
tribes have shared their forms and there is commonality. Some States
require participants to obtain a permit to participate in the
conservation order; others do not. Post-harvest survey questions and
questionnaire delivery methods differ among States and tribes. States
measure harvest and hunter activity through the use of mail
questionnaires, phone surveys, hunter diaries, online data entry, and
so forth. Differences also exist within similar survey types, such as
the proportion of participants surveyed and the type and number of
followup contacts.
During the proposed rule stage, we solicited comments on the new
information collection requirements. We received several comments that
addressed information collection. Most conflated the information
collection and control of overabundant light geese. We did not change
our requirements based on these comments. Several of the comments only
noted that we proposed to change the information collection. We have
addressed all comments in the preamble above.
The public may comment at any time on the accuracy of the
information collection burden in this rule and may submit any comments
to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., (Mailstop
BPHC), Washington, DC 20240.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 432-437(f) and Part 516 of
the U.S. Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM). The regulations
change would simply remove unused regulations, and is administrative in
nature. The action is categorically excluded from further NEPA
consideration by 43 CFR 46.210(i).
Socioeconomic. The regulations change would have no discernible
socioeconomic impacts.
Migratory bird populations. The regulations change would not affect
native migratory bird populations.
Endangered and Threatened Species. The regulation change would not
affect endangered or threatened species or habitats important to them.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884) provides that ``Each Federal agency
shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary,
insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out . . . is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species
or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of [critical] habitat. . . .'' We previously completed
section 7 consultation under the ESA for the rule that authorized the
light goose regulations (73 FR 65926, November 5, 2008). This rule will
only affect information collection and reporting requirements, so a
section 7 consultation is not needed.
Energy Effects--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 13211, and will not
adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. This action is
not a significant energy action, so no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we
have determined that this rule has very little effect on federally
recognized Indian tribes because few participate in the order.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby amend part 21, of
subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 21--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712.
0
2. Amend Sec. 21.60 by revising paragraph (f)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 21.60 Conservation order for light geese.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(8) States and tribes must keep annual records of activities
carried out under the authority of the conservation order.
Specifically, information must be collected on:
(i) The number of persons participating in the conservation order;
(ii) The number of days people participated in the conservation
order;
(iii) The number of light geese shot and retrieved under the
conservation order; and
(iv) The number of light geese shot but not retrieved.
* * * * *
Dated: February 2, 2015.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2015-05977 Filed 3-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P