Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 13497 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by May 15, 2015. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: January 23, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220, is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(423) (i)(B)(2) and 

(ii) and (c)(447)(i)(C) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(423) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(2) Rule 421, ‘‘Mandatory Episodic 

Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid 

Fuel Burning (except section 402),’’ 

amended on September 24, 2009. 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District. 

(1) Rule 421, ‘‘Mandatory Episodic 

Curtailment of Wood and Other Solid 

Fuel Burning,’’ Financial Hardship 

Exemption Decision Tree, dated 

December 12, 2007. 

* * * * * 

(447) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 1155, ‘‘Particulate Matter 

(PM) Control Devices,’’ amended on 

May 2, 2014. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–05807 Filed 3–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13498 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

Activity/requirement 

Annual 

number of 

respondents 

Total annual 

responses Completion time per response Total annual burden hours 

States—collect information, maintain records, 

prepare annual report.

39 39 45 hours ......................................................... 1,755 

Participants—provide information to States ... 21,538 21,538 8 minutes ........................................................ 2,872 

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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
13500 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 50 / Monday, March 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703–712. 

■ 2. Amend § 21.60 by revising 

paragraph (f)(8) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 140918791–4999–02] 

RIN 0648–XD823 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Trawl 

Catcher Vessels in the Western 

Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES