[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5182-5186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01497]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2019-0105; FXMB12330900000//201//FF09M13200]
RIN 1018-BE20
Revision of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp
(Duck Stamp) Contest Regulations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose
revising regulations governing the annual Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp Contest (also known as the Federal Duck Stamp
[[Page 5183]]
Contest (Contest)). Our proposed amendments would specify a permanent
theme and the mandatory inclusion of an appropriate hunting element
beginning with the 2020 Contest, make a permanent change to the
qualifications of the judging panel, and remove references to the 2018
Contest.
DATES: We will accept comments that we receive on or before March 16,
2020. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(see ADDRESSES, 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:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-
MB-2019-0105.
U.S. Mail or Hand-Delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2019-0105; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275
Leesburg Pike, MS: JAO/1N; Falls Church, VA 22041.
We will not accept emailed or faxed comments. We will post all
comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. See the Public Comments Procedures and Public
Availability of Comments, below, for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Fellows at: Federal Duck Stamp
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior,
MS:MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; (703) 358-2145;
suzanne_fellows@fws.gov.
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.
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 1.5 million stamps are sold each year, and
as of 2018, Federal Duck Stamps have generated more than $1 billion for
the conservation of more than 6 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
conserved by Duck Stamp funds. Moreover, healthy 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 for the stamp. The first Federal Duck Stamp Contest
was opened in 1949 to any U.S. artist who wished to enter; 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.
Throughout the history of the Federal Duck Stamp, there has been an
effort to increase its messaging capabilities. For example, in 1959,
the theme of the Contest was ``Retrievers Save Game,'' and artists were
required to produce a design which illustrated this theme. The
resulting 1959-1960 stamp, the ``King Buck,'' featuring a black
Labrador Retriever and a mallard, is arguably among the most
identifiable Federal Duck Stamps. With the 1998-1999 stamp, the
pressure-sensitive adhesive dollar-bill sized carrier was introduced.
This gave stamp designers more area to work with to produce both visual
and verbal messages. Additional opportunities exist for messages on the
back of the carrier as well as on the appreciation certificates that
are available to customers interested in the Duck Stamp Program.
As the only ones required to purchase a Federal Duck Stamp,
waterfowl hunters have been the primary supporters of the Federal Duck
Stamp program and have enabled the purchase of wetland habitats that
support both hunted and nonhunted species, assist in flood control and
water purification, and provide communities with an economic stimulus.
To address Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and
Wildlife Conservation; 72 FR 46537, August 20, 2007) and Secretarial
Order 3356 (Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife
Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and
Territories; September 15, 2017), it was determined that the theme of
the 2019-2020 Federal Duck Stamp would be ``celebrating our waterfowl
hunting heritage.'' To accomplish this, the 2018 Contest regulations
required the mandatory inclusion of ``appropriate hunting-related
accessories and/or scenes.'' An image of a drake wood duck with an old
decoy was chosen as the winner of the 2018 Federal Duck Stamp Contest,
and that image appears on the 2019-2020 Federal Duck Stamp. Text and
special stamp products were developed to highlight the theme and to
provide visual and verbal recognition to the contributions waterfowl
hunters make to habitat conservation. By celebrating our waterfowl
hunting heritage and showing hunters in a positive light as active
wildlife conservationists on the 2019-2020 stamp, we celebrate their
contributions to providing public lands and robust wildlife
populations.
Proposed Changes to the Regulations at 50 CFR Part 91
The regulations governing the Contest are at 50 CFR part 91. On
March 21, 2018, we published a final rule (83 FR 12275) that revised
the regulations at 50 CFR part 91 governing the annual Federal Duck
Stamp Contest. Of specific interest to this proposal, we set forth the
2018 Contest regulations regarding the theme, the mandatory elements,
and an additional requirement for judges which we stated we would
remove at a later date. In this proposed rule, we propose to specify a
permanent ``celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage'' theme and the
mandatory inclusion of an appropriate hunting element beginning with
the 2020 Contest, make a permanent change to the qualifications of the
judging panel, and remove references to the 2018 Contest.
[[Page 5184]]
Removing Language Specific to 2018 Contest and Instituting a Permanent
Theme and Mandatory Hunting Element Requirement
Currently, 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. In the March 21, 2018, final rule, we added Sec.
91.14(b) with additional requirements specified for the 2018 Contest
only. In this proposed rule, we propose to make it a permanent
requirement that Contest entries must include one or more elements that
reflect the theme ``celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage.''
Section 91.21(b) outlines the qualification of the judging panel.
In the March 21, 2018, final rule, we added Sec. 91.21(b)(2) with
additional requirements specified for the 2018 Contest only. In this
proposed rule, we propose to revise Sec. 91.21(b) to remove reference
to the 2018 Contest and make it a permanent requirement that all
selected contest judges have an understanding and appreciation of the
waterfowl hunting heritage and be able to recognize waterfowl hunting
accessories.
Finally, Sec. 91.23 sets forth the scoring criteria for the
contest. In the March 21, 2018, final rule, we added Sec. 91.23(b)
with an additional scoring criterion specified for the 2018 Contest
only. In this proposed rule, we propose to revise Sec. 91.23 to remove
reference to the 2018 Contest and specify that entries will also be
judged on how well they illustrate the theme of ``celebrating our
waterfowl hunting heritage.''
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 above in DATES. We are
striving to ensure that any final rule resulting from this proposed
rule would be in effect with sufficient time for artists to prepare
submissions by the June opening of the 2020 Contest. The comments that
will be most useful 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 ADDRESSES. 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
website. Please note that comments submitted to this website are not
immediately 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-2019-0105, 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 above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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
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.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consideration
Of the species on our List of Eligible Species, only two species
are currently listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the
ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). No legal
complications arise from the dual listing, as the two lists are
developed under separate authorities and for different purposes.
Because this proposed rule is strictly administrative in nature, it has
no effect on endangered or threatened species. Thus, it does not
require consultation under section 7 of the ESA.
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
[[Page 5185]]
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. Currently, stamp
sales average approximately 1.5 million each year. Active waterfowl
hunters, the only people required to purchase an annual stamp, number
approximately 1.1 million each year. Stamps are also purchased by stamp
and wildlife art collectors, bird watchers, and other conservationists,
and a current stamp can be used for access at any of the national
wildlife refuges that have an entry fee. Many hunters also purchase
multiple stamps for different purposes. We are currently unable to
quantify numbers of stamps purchased by each user group; we do not
anticipate being able to attribute any increase or decrease in sales
due to the proposed changes. In recent years, we have received an
average of 200 entries per year to our annual contest. We received
approximately 190 Contest entries in 2019; in the 2018 Contest, we had
approximately 150 eligible entries under the temporary mandatory
hunting theme rule. We do not believe that the number of entries in
2020 or beyond will fall below 150 entries.
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.
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 ADDRESSES. 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.
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.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has
previously approved the information collection requirements associated
with the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck
Stamp) Contest and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0172. You may view
the information collection request(s) at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. An agency 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.
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.
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.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule does not have
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is
not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or
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.
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 Federal Duck Stamp
Contest.
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.
Executive Order 13771
This rule is not an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339,
February 3, 2017) regulatory action because this rule is not
significant under E.O. 12866.
[[Page 5186]]
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. Revise Sec. 91.14(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.14 Restrictions on subject matter for entry.
* * * * *
(b) Mandatory waterfowl hunting components. In addition to the
restrictions set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, designs will
also be required to include appropriate waterfowl hunting-related
accessories or elements celebrating the Federal Duck Stamp's long-
standing connection as part of our Nation's waterfowl hunting heritage
and the contributions to conservation made by waterfowl hunters.
Designs may include, but are not limited to, hunting dogs, hunting
scenes, hunting equipment, waterfowl decoys, managed waterfowl areas as
the background of habitat scenes, or other designs that represent our
waterfowl hunting heritage. The design chosen will clearly meet the
theme of ``celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage.''
0
3. Revise Sec. 91.21(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.21 Selection and qualification of contest judges.
* * * * *
(b) Qualifications. The panel of five judges will be made up of
individuals, all of whom have one or more of the following
prerequisites: Recognized art credentials, knowledge of the anatomical
makeup and the natural habitat of the eligible waterfowl species, an
understanding of the wildlife sporting world in which the Duck Stamp is
used, an awareness of philately and the role the Duck Stamp plays in
stamp collecting, demonstrated support for the conservation of
waterfowl and wetlands through active involvement in the conservation
community, an understanding and appreciation of waterfowl hunting
heritage, and the ability to recognize waterfowl hunting accessories.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec. 91.23 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.23 Scoring criteria for contest.
Entries will be judged on the basis of anatomical accuracy,
artistic composition, suitability for reduction in the production of a
stamp, and how well they illustrate the theme of ``celebrating our
waterfowl hunting heritage.''
Dated: January 6, 2020.
Rob Wallace,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2020-01497 Filed 1-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P