[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13497-13500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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:
    <bullet> Persons participating in the conservation order;
    <bullet> Days people participated in the conservation order;
    <bullet> Light geese shot and retrieved under the conservation 
order; and
    <bullet> 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