Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7279 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan for the Mississippi 

portion of the Area, including the NOX

and VOC MVEBs for 2027, into the 

Mississippi SIP. The maintenance plan 

demonstrates that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and that the budgets 

meet all of the adequacy criteria 

contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 

(5). Third, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Mississippi portion 

of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area has 

met the criteria under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, as 

part of this action, EPA is describing the 

status of its adequacy determination for 

the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2027 in 

accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). 

Within 24 months from the effective 

date of EPA’s adequacy determination 

for the MVEBs or the publication date 

for the final rule for this action, 

whichever is earlier, the transportation 

partners will need to demonstrate 

conformity to the new NOX and VOC 

MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e). 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of the portion of 

DeSoto County that is within the 

Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area, as found at 

40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely propose to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and do not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For this reason, these 

proposed actions: 

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are 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 CAA; and 

• will not have disproportionate 

human health or environmental effects 

under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

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

Dated: January 28, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02725 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0161; 

FXMB12330900000//167//FF09M13200] 

RIN 1018–BB23 

Revision of Federal Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

(Duck Stamp) Contest Regulations 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), propose to revise the 

regulations governing the annual 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Contest (also 

known as the Federal Duck Stamp 

Contest (contest)). Our amendments 

would update our contact information; 

update common names and spelling of 

species on our list of contest design 

subjects; correct minor grammar errors; 

and specify the requirement to include 

a second, appropriate, migratory bird 

species in the artwork design beginning 

with the 2016 contest. 

DATES: We will accept comments that 

we receive on or before March 14, 2016. 

Please note that if you are using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline 

for submitting an electronic comment is 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0161, which 

is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel 

on the left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rules link to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

• By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–MB–2015– 

0161; Division of Policy, Performance, 

and Management Programs; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg 

Pike, MS: BPHC; Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7280 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

We will post all comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see Public Comment Procedures and 

Public Availability of Comments under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne Fellows, (703) 358–2145. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

History of the Federal Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck 

Stamp) Program 

On March 16, 1934, Congress passed, 

and President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

signed, the Migratory Bird Hunting 

Stamp Act. Popularly known as the 

Duck Stamp Act, it required all 

waterfowl hunters 16 years or older to 

buy a stamp annually. The revenue 

generated was originally earmarked for 

the Department of Agriculture, but 5 

years later was transferred to the 

Department of the Interior and the 

Service. We are legislatively mandated 

to use the revenue first to administer the 

Duck Stamp permit program and 

contest, and secondly for conservation, 

to buy or lease waterfowl sanctuaries. 

In the years since its enactment, the 

Federal Duck Stamp Program has 

become one of the most popular and 

successful conservation programs ever 

initiated. Today, some 1.8 million 

stamps are sold each year, and as of 

2012, Federal Duck Stamps have 

generated more than $800 million for 

the preservation of more than 6.5 

million acres of waterfowl habitat in the 

United States. Numerous other birds, 

mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians 

have similarly prospered because of 

habitat protection made possible by the 

program. An estimated one-third of the 

Nation’s endangered and threatened 

species find food or shelter in refuges 

preserved by Duck Stamp funds. 

Moreover, the protected wetlands help 

dissipate storms, purify water supplies, 

store flood water, and nourish fish 

hatchlings important for sport and 

commercial fishermen. 

History of the Duck Stamp Contest 

The first Federal Duck Stamp was 

designed at President Roosevelt’s 

request by Jay N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling, a 

nationally known political cartoonist for 

the Des Moines Register and a noted 

hunter and wildlife conservationist. In 

subsequent years, noted wildlife artists 

were asked to submit designs. The first 

Federal Duck Stamp Contest was 

opened in 1949 to any U.S. artist who 

wished to enter, and 65 artists 

submitted a total of 88 design entries. 

Since then, the contest has attracted 

large numbers of entrants, and it 

remains the only art competition of its 

kind sponsored by the U.S. Government. 

The Secretary of the Interior appoints a 

panel of noted art, waterfowl, and 

philatelic authorities to select each 

year’s winning design. Winners receive 

no compensation for the work, except a 

pane of their stamps, but winners may 

sell prints of their designs, which are 

sought by hunters, conservationists, and 

art collectors. 

Proposed Changes to the Regulations at 

50 CFR Part 91 

The regulations governing the contest 

are at 50 CFR part 91. Our proposed 

amendments would update our phone 

number and Web site information; 

update the common names and 

spellings of species on our list of 

potential contest design subjects; update 

the regulations to require the inclusion 

of a secondary non-waterfowl migratory 

bird species on entries beginning with 

the 2016 contest; and correct minor 

grammar errors. 

Service Contact Information 

We propose to correct the telephone 

number at § 91.11 and the Web site 

address at §§ 91.1(b) and 91.11 of the 

Duck Stamp Office. These changes 

would ensure that the public can 

contact us and locate information about 

our program and the contest. 

Updating Species’ Common Names or 

Spellings 

Section 91.4 contains our list of 

eligible waterfowl species. For each 

year’s contest, we choose five or fewer 

species from the list; one or more of 

those species (or a combination thereof; 

see § 91.14) are the only acceptable 

subjects for entries during that contest 

year. We announce each year’s eligible 

species in a Federal Register notice, as 

well as in other publicly available 

materials. Our list at § 91.4 contains 

scientific and common names accepted 

by the American Ornithologists’ Union 

(AOU) (http://www.aou.org/; see also 

the AOU Checklist at http://

checklist.aou.org/taxa/; this checklist is 

our standard reference on taxonomy, 

nomenclature, and capitalization). Since 

we last revised our regulations, the AOU 

has changed the listing order among 

species and updated several species 

names. Our proposed changes reflect 

changes in the order species are listed, 

revises the entry of ‘‘American Greenwinged Teal (Anas crecca carolinensis)’’ 

to read ‘‘Green-winged Teal (Anas 

crecca),’’ and corrects the scientific 

name of Black Scoter from Melanitta 

nigra to Melanitta americana. We 

propose to make these changes to our 

list at § 91.4 to reflect the most current 

scientific and common names. 

Including a Secondary Migratory Bird 

Species in 2016 Artwork Entries 

Current § 91.14 explains that a live 

portrayal of any bird(s) of the five or 

fewer identified eligible waterfowl 

species must be the dominant feature of 

the design, but that the design may 

depict other appropriate elements such 

as hunting dogs, as long as an eligible 

waterfowl species is in the foreground 

and clearly the focus of attention. We 

propose to add to this section the 

requirement that an appropriate nonwaterfowl migratory bird species must 

also appear in any entry submitted to 

beginning with the 2016 contest. We 

propose this change beginning with the 

2016 contest in recognition of the 2016 

Centennial anniversary of the Migratory 

Bird Treaty between the United States 

and Great Britain (on behalf of Canada) 

and to emphasize that habitat 

conservation benefits all wetlanddependent species. 

Public Comments Procedures 

To ensure that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

as accurate and as effective as possible, 

we request that you send relevant 

information for our consideration. We 

will accept public comments we receive 

on or before the date listed in the DATES

section. We are striving to ensure that 

any amendments to the regulations 

resulting from this proposed rule would 

be in effect in plenty of time for the June 

opening of the 2016 contest. The 

comments that will be most useful and 

likely to influence our decisions are 

those that you support by quantitative 

information or studies and those that 

include citations to, and analyses of, the 

applicable laws and regulations. Please 

make your comments as specific as 

possible and explain the basis for them. 

In addition, please include sufficient 

information with your comments to 

allow us to authenticate any scientific or 

commercial data you include. 

You must submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed above in 

the ADDRESSES section. We will not 

accept comments sent by email or fax or 

to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit a comment via http://

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment—including any personal 

identifying information, such as your 

address, telephone number, or email 

address—will be posted on the Web site. 

Please note that comments submitted to 

this Web site are not immediately 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7281 

viewable. When you submit a comment, 

the system receives it immediately. 

However, the comment will not be 

publically viewable until we post it, 

which might not occur until several 

days after submission. 

If you mail or hand-carry a hardcopy 

comment directly to us that includes 

personal information, you may request 

at the top of your document that we 

withhold this information from public 

review. However, we cannot guarantee 

that we will be able to do so. To ensure 

that the electronic docket for this 

rulemaking is complete and all 

comments we receive are publicly 

available, we will post all hardcopy 

comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

In addition, comments and materials 

we receive, as well as supporting 

documentation used in preparing this 

proposed rule, will be available for 

public inspection in two ways: 

(1) You can view them on http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0161, which 

is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel 

on the left side of the screen, select the 

type of documents you want to view 

under the Document Type heading. 

(2) You can make an appointment, 

during normal business hours, to view 

the comments and materials in person 

by contacting the person listed in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

Public Availability of Comments 

As stated above in more detail, before 

including your address, phone number, 

email address or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment, including your 

personal identifying information, may 

be made publically available at any 

time. While you can ask us in your 

comment to withhold your personal 

identifying information from public 

review, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 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 

proposed rule is not significant. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 

reaffirms the principles of E.O. 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. The 

executive order 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. E.O. 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 have developed 

this rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal 

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 entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). However, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required 

if the head of an agency certifies that the 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Thus, for a 

regulatory flexibility analysis to be 

required, impacts must exceed a 

threshold for ‘‘significant impact’’ and a 

threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of 

small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The changes we propose are intended 

primarily to clarify the requirements for 

the contest. These changes would affect 

individuals, not businesses or other 

small entities as defined in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

requirement to include an appropriate 

secondary non-waterfowl migratory bird 

species in artwork for the 2016 contest 

may increase the appeal of the stamp to 

other conservation supporters. Currently 

stamp sales average approximately 1.8 

million each year; with over 46 million 

self-identified bird watchers, 25 million 

wildlife photographers, and 45 million 

visitors to National Wildlife Refuges, it 

is hoped that an increase in Duck Stamp 

sales would occur from this change, but 

we are unable to quantify that possible 

increase. In recent years, we have 

received an average of 200 entries per 

year to our annual contest. It is assumed 

that, with the proposed regulatory 

changes, the quality and numbers of 

entries would reflect a broader artistic 

interest. 

We therefore certify that, if adopted, 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

defined under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is 

not required. Accordingly, a Small 

Entity Compliance Guide is not 

required. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

This rulemaking is not a major rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act. This proposed rule: 

a. Would not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

b. Would not cause a major increase 

in costs or prices for consumers; 

individual industries; Federal, State, or 

local government agencies; or 

geographic regions. 

c. Would not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

Federalism 

These proposed revisions to part 91 

do not contain significant Federalism 

implications. A federalism summary 

impact statement under Executive Order 

13132 is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule would not impose 

an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. The 

rulemaking does not have a significant 

or unique effect on State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. A 

statement containing the information 

required by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not 

required. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this 

proposed rule does not have significant 

takings implications. A takings 

implication assessment is not required. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that this proposed rule does not unduly 

burden the judicial system and that it 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7282 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any information collection requirements 

for which Office of Management and 

Budget approval is required under the 

PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may 

not conduct or sponsor and you are not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

This proposed rule is categorically 

excluded. It reflects an administrative 

modification of procedures and the 

impacts are limited to administrative 

effects (516 DM 8.5(a)(3)). A detailed 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is therefore not 

required. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

Under the President’s memorandum 

of April 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-toGovernment Relations with Native 

American Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR 

22951), and 512 DM 2, we have 

evaluated possible effects on federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and have 

determined that there are no effects. 

Individual tribal members must meet 

the same regulatory requirements as 

other individuals who enter the duck 

stamp contest. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. This proposed 

rule would revise the current 

regulations at 50 CFR part 91 that 

govern the Federal duck stamp contest. 

This rule would not significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is a not a 

significant energy action and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Clarity of This Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rulemaking, your comments should be 

as specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 91 

Hunting, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 91, subchapter G of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as follows: 

PART 91—MIGRATORY BIRD 

HUNTING AND CONSERVATION 

STAMP CONTEST 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 718j; 31 

U.S.C. 9701. 

■ 2. Amend § 91.1(b) by revising the 

third sentence to read as follows: 

§ 91.1 Purpose of regulations. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * These documents can also 

be downloaded from our Web site at: 

http://www.fws.gov/birds/get-involved/

duck-stamp.php. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 91.4 to read as follows: 

§ 91.4 Eligible species. 

Five or fewer of the species listed 

below will be identified as eligible each 

year; those eligible species will be 

provided to each contestant with the 

information provided in § 91.1. 

(a) Whistling-Ducks. (1) Black-bellied 

Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna 

autumnalis) 

(2) Fulvous Whistling-Duck 

(Dendrocygna bicolor) 

(b) Geese. (1) Greater White-fronted 

Goose (Anser albifrons) 

(2) Emperor Goose (Chen canagica) 

(3) Snow Goose (including ‘‘white’’ and 

‘‘blue’’ morphs) (Chen caerulescens) 

(4) Ross’s Goose (Chen rossii) 

(5) Brant (Branta bernicla) 

(6) Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) 

(7) Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii) 

(c) Swans. (1) Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus 

buccinator) 

(2) Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus) 

(d) Dabbling Ducks. (1) Wood Duck (Aix 

sponsa) 

(2) Gadwall (Anas strepera) 

(3) American Wigeon (Anas americana) 

(4) American Black Duck (Anas 

rubripes) 

(5) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 

(6) Mottled Duck (Anas fulvigula) 

(7) Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors) 

(8) Cinnamon Teal (Anas cyanoptera) 

(9) Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata) 

(10) Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) 

(11) Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) 

(e) Diving Ducks. (1) Canvasback 

(Aythya valisineria) 

(2) Redhead (Aythya americana) 

(3) Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris) 

(4) Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) 

(5) Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) 

(f) Sea-Ducks. (1) Steller’s Eider 

(Polysticta stelleri) 

(2) Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri) 

(3) King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) 

(4) Common Eider (Somateria 

mollissima) 

(5) Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus 

histrionicus) 

(6) Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) 

(7) White-winged Scoter (Melanitta 

fusca) 

(8) Black Scoter (Melanitta americana) 

(9) Long-tailed Duck (Clangula 

hyemalis) 

(10) Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) 

(11) Common Goldeneye (Bucephala 

clangula) 

(12) Barrow’s Goldeneye (Bucephala 

islandica) 

(g) Mergansers. (1) Hooded Merganser 

(Lophodytes cucullatus) 

(2) Common Merganser (Mergus 

merganser) 

(3) Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus 

serrator) 

(h) Stiff Tails. (1) Ruddy Duck (Oxyura 

jamaicensis) 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 4. Revise § 91.11 to read as follows: 

§ 91.11 Contest opening date and entry 

deadline. 

The contest officially opens on June 1 

of each year. Entries must be 

postmarked no later than midnight, 

August 15. For the latest information on 

contest time and place as well as all 

deadlines, please visit our Web site at 

http://www.fws.gov/birds/get-involved/

duck-stamp.php or call (703) 358–2145. 

■ 5. Revise § 91.14 to read as follows: 

§ 91.14 Restrictions on subject matter for 

entry. 

A live portrayal of any bird(s) of the 

five or fewer identified eligible 

waterfowl species must be the dominant 

feature of the design. Additionally, 

beginning with the 2016 contest, a live 

portrayal of an appropriate, identifiable 

non-waterfowl, migratory bird species is 

also required to be included in the 

design. An appropriate species includes 

any non-waterfowl species on the List of 

Migratory Birds at 50 CFR 10.13 that 

would naturally occur with the depicted 

eligible waterfowl species in the same 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7283 

season and habitat setting. Designs may 

also include, but are not limited to, 

hunting dogs, hunting scenes, use of 

waterfowl decoys, National Wildlife 

Refuges as the background of habitat 

scenes, noneligible species, or other 

designs that depict uses of the stamp for 

sporting, conservation, and collecting 

purposes. Judges’ overall mandate is to 

select the best design that will make an 

interesting, useful, and attractive duck 

stamp that will be accepted and prized 

by hunters, stamp collectors, 

conservationists, and others. The design 

must be the contestant’s original handdrawn creation. The entry design may 

not be copied or duplicated from 

previously published art, including 

photographs, or from images in any 

format published on the Internet. 

Photographs, computer-generated art, or 

art produced from a computer printer or 

other computer/mechanical output 

device (airbrush method excepted) are 

not eligible to be entered into the 

contest and will be disqualified. An 

entry submitted in a prior contest that 

was not selected for a Federal or State 

stamp design may be submitted in the 

current contest if the entry meets the 

above criteria. 

Date: January 28, 2016. 

Karen Hyun, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02665 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS