[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28769-28773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012; FF09M21200-178-FXMB1232099BPP0L2]
RIN 1018-BC72


Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Managing Resident Canada 
Goose Populations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or 
``we'') published a final environmental impact statement on management 
of resident Canada geese (Branta canadensis) that documented resident 
Canada goose population levels ``that are increasingly coming into 
conflict with people and causing personal and public property damage.'' 
Subsequently, the Service implemented several actions intended to 
reduce, manage, and control resident Canada goose populations in the 
continental United States and to reduce related damages; those actions 
included depredation and control orders that allow destruction of 
Canada goose nests and eggs by authorized personnel between March 1 and 
June 30. However, some resident Canada geese currently initiate nests 
in February, particularly in the southern United States, and it seems 
likely that in the future nest initiation dates will begin earlier and 
hatching of eggs will perhaps end later than dates currently 
experienced. This final rule amends the depredation and control orders 
to allow destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs at any 
time of year.

DATES: This rule is effective July 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments we received on the proposed rule, as well as the 
proposed rule itself, the related environmental assessment, and this 
final rule, are available at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 
FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul I. Padding, Atlantic Flyway 
Representative, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 11510 American Holly Drive, Laurel, MD 20708; (301) 
497-5851; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority and Responsibility

    Migratory birds are protected under four bilateral migratory bird 
treaties the United States entered into with Great Britain (for Canada 
in 1916, as amended in 1999), the United Mexican States (1936, as 
amended in 1972 and 1999), Japan (1972, as amended in 1974), and the 
Soviet Union (1978). Regulations allowing the take of migratory birds 
are authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act; 16 U.S.C. 703-
712), which implements the above-mentioned treaties. The Act provides 
that, subject to and to carry out the purposes of the treaties, the 
Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to determine when, 
to what extent, and by what means allowing hunting, killing, and other 
forms of taking of migratory birds, their nests, and eggs is compatible 
with the conventions. The Act requires the Secretary to implement a 
determination by adopting regulations permitting and governing those 
activities.

[[Page 28770]]

    Canada geese are federally protected by the Act because they are 
listed as migratory birds in all four treaties. Because Canada geese 
are covered by all four treaties, regulations must meet the 
requirements of the most restrictive of the four. For Canada geese, 
this is the treaty with Canada. All regulations concerning resident 
Canada geese are compatible with its terms, with particular reference 
to Articles II, V, and VII.
    Each treaty not only permits sport hunting, but permits the take of 
migratory birds for other reasons, including scientific, educational, 
propagative, or other specific purposes consistent with the 
conservation principles of the various Conventions. More specifically, 
Article VII, Article II (paragraph 3), and Article V of ``The Protocol 
Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of Canada Amending the 1916 Convention between the United 
Kingdom and the United States of America for the Protection of 
Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States'' provides specific 
limitations on allowing the take of migratory birds for reasons other 
than sport hunting. Article VII authorizes permitting the take, kill, 
etc., of migratory birds that, under extraordinary conditions, become 
seriously injurious to agricultural or other interests. Article V 
relates to the taking of nests and eggs, and Article II, paragraph 3, 
states that, in order to ensure the long-term conservation of migratory 
birds, migratory bird populations shall be managed in accord with 
listed conservation principles.
    The other treaties are less restrictive. The treaties with both 
Japan (Article III, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b)) and the Soviet Union 
(Article II, paragraph 1, subparagraph (d)) provide specific exceptions 
to migratory bird take prohibitions for the purpose of protecting 
persons and property. The treaty with Mexico requires, with regard to 
migratory game birds, only that there be a ``closed season'' on hunting 
and that hunting be limited to 4 months in each year. Regulations 
governing the issuance of permits to take, capture, kill, possess, and 
transport migratory birds are promulgated at title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 13, 21 and 22, and are issued by the 
Service. The Service annually promulgates regulations governing the 
take, possession, and transportation of migratory game birds under 
sport hunting seasons at 50 CFR part 20. Regulations regarding all 
other take of migratory birds (except for eagles) are published at 50 
CFR part 21, and typically are not changed annually.

Background

    In November 2005, the Service published a final environmental 
impact statement (FEIS) on management of resident Canada geese that 
documented resident Canada goose population levels ``that are 
increasingly coming into conflict with people and causing personal and 
public property damage'' (see the FEIS' notice of availability at 70 FR 
69985; November 18, 2005).
    On August 10, 2006, we published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
45964) a final rule establishing regulations at 50 CFR parts 20 and 21 
authorizing State wildlife agencies, private landowners, and airports 
to conduct (or allow) indirect and/or direct population control 
management activities to reduce, manage, and control resident Canada 
goose populations in the continental United States and to reduce 
related damages. Those activities include depredation and control 
orders that allow destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs 
by authorized personnel between March 1 and June 30, because that 
timeframe encompassed the period when resident Canada geese typically 
nested. However, in recent years, some resident Canada geese have 
initiated nests in February, particularly in the southern United 
States, and it seems likely that in the future nest initiation dates 
will begin earlier and hatching of eggs will perhaps end later than 
dates currently experienced.
    On April 25, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (83 FR 
17987) a proposed rule to amend the special permit and depredation and 
control orders to allow destruction of resident Canada goose nests and 
eggs at any time of year, thereby affording State agencies, private 
landowners, and airports greater flexibility to use these methods of 
controlling local abundances of resident Canada geese. This final rule 
adopts the changes set forth in that proposed rule.

Definition of Resident Canada Geese

    The current definition of resident Canada geese set forth at 50 CFR 
20.11 and 21.3 states that ``Canada geese that nest within the lower 48 
States and the District of Columbia in the months of March, April, May, 
or June, or reside within the lower 48 States and the District of 
Columbia in the months of April, May, June, July, or August'' are 
considered resident Canada geese. We are amending this definition by 
deleting the phrase, ``in the months of March, April, May, or June,'' 
following the first appearance of the word ``Columbia,'' to clarify 
that any Canada geese that nest within lower 48 States and the District 
of Columbia are resident Canada geese.

Removal of Date Restrictions on Nest and Egg Destruction

    In title 50 of the CFR, destruction of resident Canada goose nests 
and eggs is currently authorized under special Canada goose permits 
(Sec.  21.26), a control order for airports and military airfields 
(Sec.  21.49), a depredation order specific to nests and eggs (Sec.  
21.50), a depredation order for agricultural facilities (Sec.  21.51), 
and a public health control order (Sec.  21.52). Each of these 
regulations prescribes the dates during which nests and eggs of 
resident Canada goose may be destroyed. This rule removes those date 
restrictions and allows destruction of Canada goose nests and eggs, as 
otherwise authorized under these regulations, at any time of year.
    This adjustment is based on several factors. First, nest and egg 
destruction has been an effective tool in reducing local conflicts and 
damages caused by resident Canada geese. Second, resident Canada geese 
are identified as such based on where, not when, they nest. Lastly, 
some Canada geese are already nesting in February in southern States, 
and it seems likely that nest initiation dates will also advance into 
February in mid-latitude and perhaps northern States in the future and 
hatching of nests may occur later than June 30.

Eliminating Date Restrictions for Lethal Control Activities in 
California, Oregon, and Washington

    On June 17, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 
32766) a final rule establishing 50 CFR 21.26, the special Canada goose 
permit. Special Canada goose permits may be issued to State wildlife 
agencies authorizing them to conduct certain resident Canada goose 
management and control activities that are normally prohibited. At that 
time, we indicated that States may conduct those control activities 
between March 11 and August 31, but that they should make a concerted 
effort to limit the take of adult birds to June, July, and August in 
order to minimize the potential impact on migrant populations. We 
imposed a date restriction of May 1 through August 31 in some areas in 
California, Oregon, and Washington inhabited by the threatened Aleutian 
Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) pursuant to the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The 
Aleutian Canada goose was listed as endangered in 1967 (32 FR 4001; 
March 11, 1967) and reclassified to threatened status in 1990 (55 FR 
51106; December

[[Page 28771]]

12, 1990). Aleutian geese occur in a small numbers within these States, 
primarily San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento River Delta areas in 
central California, Humboldt Bay and Crescent City areas on the 
northern California coast, and Langlois and Pacific City areas on the 
Oregon coast. We indicated that if this subspecies is delisted, we 
would review this provision.
    On March 20, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR 
15643) a final rule to remove the Aleutian Canada goose from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, due to recovery. 
Abundance of this population increased from 790 birds in 1975, to an 
estimated 156,030 in the winter of 2016. The Pacific Flyway Council's 
objective for this population is 60,000 geese. Currently, there is no 
special habitat or other threat that may reduce this population back to 
levels that may need protection under the ESA. Considering the current 
status of the Aleutian Canada goose, we are removing the May 1 
restriction so that management and control activities may be conducted 
during the same period (March 11 through August 31) throughout all 
States.

Environmental Assessment

    We prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzed two 
alternative courses of action to address these earlier nesting and 
later hatching dates and decrease local abundances of Canada geese that 
nest in the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia:
    (1) Maintain the current date restrictions specified in regulations 
at 50 CFR 21.26, 21.49, 21.50, 21.51, and 21.52 on destruction of 
resident Canada goose nests and eggs, and make no change to the 
definition of resident Canada geese at 50 CFR 20.11 and 21.3 (No 
action); and
    (2) Revise the definition of resident Canada geese at 50 CFR 20.11 
and 21.3, and allow destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs 
at any time of year under 50 CFR 21.26, 21.49, 21.50, 21.51, and 21.52 
(Proposed action).
    The full EA can be found on our website at http://www.fws.gov/birds 
or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012. We 
note that the amendment to Sec.  21.26 in regard to accounting for the 
current status of the Aleutian Canada goose was not addressed in the 
EA, but is a categorically excluded action (43 CFR 46.210) addressed in 
an environmental action statement (EAS). The EAS can be found on our 
website at http://www.fws.gov/birds or at http://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012.

Review of Public Comments

    We accepted comments on our April 25, 2018, proposed rule (83 FR 
17987) for 30 days, ending May 25, 2018. During the public comment 
period on the proposed rule, we received public comments from seven 
private individuals (two of which were not relevant to this rule) and 
one organization.

Summary of Relevant Comments

    The National Wildlife Control Operators Association supported the 
proposed changes, but each of the private individuals opposed some 
aspect(s) of the rule. One individual stated that we should allow 
larger bag limits and more access to hunting locations instead of 
conducting direct control operations, while another commenter expressed 
opposition to capturing resident Canada geese on National Wildlife 
Refuges and then euthanizing them, because this reduces hunting 
opportunity. One commenter objected to the lethal control of a native 
species and urged the Service to expend its resources on invasive 
species and recovering endangered species instead, and two individuals 
expressed opposition to the killing of any animals.

Service Response to Relevant Comments

    Hunting harvest alone has not reduced resident Canada goose numbers 
enough to alleviate conflicts in some areas, despite long hunting 
seasons and large bag limits; also, the hunting season does not 
coincide with the time when many conflicts with geese, such as crop 
depredation, need to be addressed. Furthermore, many locales frequented 
by Canada geese are either closed to hunting for safety purposes (e.g., 
airports, urban areas) or are privately owned, where access to hunters 
can only be granted by the property owner. Direct control measures such 
as nest and egg destruction and lethal removal are usually employed to 
alleviate local conflicts; thus, whether to conduct such measures is a 
local decision. The Service has a responsibility to reduce risks to 
public safety (e.g., at airports) and prevent serious injuries to 
agricultural crops that are caused by resident Canada geese. We favor 
nonlethal control methods, but if those fail to resolve an identified 
conflict, we do allow lethal take. Therefore, this final rule does not 
make any changes in response to these comments to the actions we 
proposed on April 25, 2018 (83 FR 17987).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined 
that this rule is not significant.
    Executive Order 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 developed this rule in a manner consistent with 
these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121)), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small businesses, 
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that a rule will 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).
    The economic impacts of this rule will primarily affect State and 
local governments and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife 
Services because

[[Page 28772]]

of the structure of wildlife damage management. Data are not available 
to estimate the exact number of local governments that will be 
affected, but it is unlikely to be a substantial number nationally. 
Therefore, we certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or 
prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local 
government agencies; or geographic regions. Finally, this rule will not 
have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or the abilities of U.S.-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Executive Order 13771--Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs

    This final rule is an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, 
February 3, 2017) deregulatory action because it relieves a restriction 
in 50 CFR parts 20 and 21.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we have determined the following:
    a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
government activities. A small government agency plan is not required.
    b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate on local or State 
government or private entities. Therefore, this action is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

Takings

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not contain a 
provision for taking of private property, and will not have significant 
takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Federalism

    This rule does not interfere with the States' abilities to manage 
themselves or their funds.
    We do not expect any economic impacts to result from this 
regulations change. This rule will not have sufficient Federalism 
effects to warrant preparation of a federalism summary impact statement 
under E.O. 13132.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 
determined that the rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and 
meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain 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 
approved the information collection requirements associated with the 
control and management of resident Canada geese at 50 CFR part 20 and 
50 CFR part 21, and assigned assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0133 
(expires May 31, 2019, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, an agency 
may continue to conduct or sponsor this collection of information while 
the submission is pending at OMB). 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.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and U.S. 
Department of the Interior regulations at 43 CFR part 46. We have 
completed an environmental assessment of the amendment of the 
depredation and control orders that allows destruction of resident 
Canada goose nests and eggs at any time of year; that environmental 
assessment is included in the docket for this rule (available at http://www.regulations.gov; Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012). We conclude that 
our action will have the impacts listed below under ``Environmental 
Consequences of the Action.'' The amendment to Sec.  21.26 in regard to 
accounting for the current status of the Aleutian Canada goose was not 
addressed in the EA, but is a NEPA categorically excluded action (43 
CFR 46.210) addressed in an environmental action statement (EAS), which 
is also included in the docket for this rule (available at http://www.regulations.gov; Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0012).
Environmental Consequences of the Action
    Migrant Canada geese do not nest in the lower 48 States or the 
District of Columbia; thus, this action (amendments related only to 
depredation and control orders) is not expected to have any significant 
impacts on migrant Canada geese. All resident Canada goose population 
abundances are well above population objectives. Assuming that the 
number of resident Canada geese that initiate nests in January or 
February does not exceed the current number that initiate nests in 
March, we expect that this action will result in destruction of a 
maximum of 2,749 additional nests in January and February. We expect it 
is more likely that the action will shift some portion of the current 
resident Canada goose nest and egg destruction activities occurring in 
March to either January or February. All populations of resident Canada 
geese are expected to remain at or above population objective levels.
    Socioeconomic. This action is expected to have positive impacts on 
the socioeconomic environment in localized urban and suburban areas 
where resident Canada geese are subjected to continued (annual) nest 
and egg destruction actions that gradually reduce goose numbers and 
resulting conflicts. It is also expected to reduce crop depredation at 
some localized agricultural sites where nest destruction can encourage 
geese to leave the site.
    Endangered and threatened species. The rule will not affect 
endangered or threatened species or critical habitats.

Compliance With Endangered Species Act Requirements

    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that ``The Secretary [of the 
Interior] shall review other programs administered by him and utilize 
such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act'' (16 U.S.C. 
1536(a)(1)). It further states that ``[e]ach Federal agency shall, in 
consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that 
any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency * * * is 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of [critical] habitat'' (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). This rule 
will not affect endangered or threatened species or critical habitats.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), E.O.

[[Page 28773]]

13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally 
recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no 
potential effects. This rule will not interfere with the tribes' 
abilities to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory 
bird activities on tribal lands.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

    E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy 
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not a 
significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, and will not 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 
this action is not a significant energy action. No Statement of Energy 
Effects is required.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby amend parts 20 
and 21, of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 20--MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING

0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j.


0
2. Amend Sec.  20.11 by revising paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  20.11  What terms do I need to understand?

* * * * *
    (n) Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the 
lower 48 States and the District of Columbia or that reside within the 
lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of April, 
May, June, July, or August.

PART 21--MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS

0
3. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712.


0
4. Amend Sec.  21.3 by revising the definition for ``Resident Canada 
geese'' to read as follows:


Sec.  21.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the lower 
48 States and the District of Columbia or that reside within the lower 
48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of April, May, 
June, July, or August.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  21.26 by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  21.26  Special Canada goose permit.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) When may a State conduct management and control activities? 
States and their employees and agents may conduct egg and nest 
manipulation activities at any time of year. Other management and 
control activities, including the take of resident Canada geese, under 
this section may only be conducted between March 11 and August 31.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  21.49 by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  21.49  Control order for resident Canada geese at airports and 
military airfields.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Airports and military airfields may conduct management and 
control activities, involving the take of resident Canada geese, under 
this section between April 1 and September 15. The destruction of 
resident Canada goose nests and eggs may take place at any time of 
year.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  21.50 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  21.50  Depredation order for resident Canada geese nests and 
eggs.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Registrants may conduct resident Canada goose nest and egg 
destruction activities at any time of year. Homeowners' associations 
and local governments or their agents must obtain landowner consent 
prior to destroying nests and eggs on private property within the 
homeowners' association or local government's jurisdiction and be in 
compliance with all State and local laws and regulations.
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  21.51 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  21.51  Depredation order for resident Canada geese at 
agricultural facilities.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Authorized agricultural producers and their employees and 
agents may conduct management and control activities, involving the 
take of resident Canada geese, under this section between May 1 and 
August 31. The destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs may 
take place at any time of year.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  21.52 by revising paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  21.52  Public health control order for resident Canada geese.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) Authorized State and Tribal wildlife agencies and their 
employees and agents may conduct management and control activities, 
involving the take of resident Canada geese, under this section between 
April 1 and August 31. The destruction of resident Canada goose nests 
and eggs may take place at any time of year.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 13, 2019.
Karen Budd-Falen,
Deputy Solicitor for Parks and Wildlife, Exercising the Authority of 
the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2019-13097 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P