Revision of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Contest Regulations, 7279-7283 [2016-02665]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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: VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:10 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 • 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. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7279 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 Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: 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. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1 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 jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:10 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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, VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:10 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7281 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. E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1 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. 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 jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 14:10 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 91 Hunting, Wildlife. 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 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. 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) PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (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 entry. Restrictions on subject matter for 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 E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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, VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:10 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 238001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 7283 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 E:\FR\FM\11FEP1.SGM 11FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7279-7283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02665]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 7280]]

    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 Sec.  91.11 and the 
Web site address at Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Green-winged 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 Sec.  91.4 to reflect the 
most current scientific and common names.

Including a Secondary Migratory Bird Species in 2016 Artwork Entries

    Current Sec.  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 non-waterfowl 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 wetland-dependent 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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 7282]]

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-
to-Government 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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  91.1(b) by revising the third sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec.  91.4 to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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]
0
4. Revise Sec.  91.11 to read as follows:


Sec.  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.
0
5. Revise Sec.  91.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 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 hand-drawn 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