[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43170-43175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17944]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2011-0093; FF09A30000 123 FXIA16710900000R4]
RIN 1018-AX96
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Publishing Notice
of Receipt of Captive-Bred Wildlife Registration Applications
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are amending
the regulations that implement the Endangered Species Act (Act) by
establishing public notice-and-comment procedures for applications to
conduct certain otherwise-prohibited activities under the Act that are
authorized under the Captive-Bred Wildlife (CBW) regulations. This
action adds procedural requirements to the processing of applications
for registration under the CBW regulations. Notices of receipt of each
application will be published in the Federal Register, and the Service
will accept public comments on each application for 30 days. If the
registration is granted, the Service will publish certain findings in
the Federal Register. In addition, for persons meeting the criteria for
registering under the CBW Program, each registration will now remain
effective for 5 years rather than 3 years.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on August 23, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain information about permits or other
authorizations to carry out otherwise-prohibited activities by
contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management
Authority, Branch of Permits, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 212,
Arlington, VA 22203; telephone: 703-358-2104 or (toll free) 800-358-
2104; facsimile: 703-358-2281; email: managementauthority@fws.gov; Web
site: http://www.fws.gov/international/index.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy J. Van Norman, Chief, Branch
of Permits, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 212, Arlington, VA 22203;
telephone 703-358-2104; fax 703-358-2281. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) (Act), and its implementing regulations prohibit any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from conducting
certain activities unless authorized by a permit. These activities
include take, import, export, and interstate or foreign commerce of
fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the
Act. In the case of endangered species, the Service may permit
otherwise-prohibited activities for scientific research or enhancement
of the propagation or survival of the species. In the case of
threatened species, regulations allow permits to be issued for the
above-mentioned purposes, as well as zoological, horticultural, or
botanical exhibition; education; and special purposes consistent with
the Act.
In 1979, the Service published the Captive-Bred Wildlife (CBW)
regulations at 50 CFR 17.21(g) (44 FR 54002, September 17, 1979) to
streamline Federal permitting requirements and facilitate captive
breeding of endangered and threatened species under certain prescribed
conditions. Specifically, under these regulations, the Service
promulgated a general regulatory permit to authorize persons to take;
export or reimport; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in
interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of a commercial activity;
or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce endangered
or threatened wildlife bred in captivity in the United States.
Qualifying persons and facilities seeking such authorization under the
regulations are required to register with the Service. By establishing
a more flexible management framework for regulating routine activities
related to captive propagation, these regulations have benefited wild
populations by, for example, increasing sources of genetic stock that
can be used to bolster or reestablish wild populations, decreasing the
need to take stock from the wild, and providing for research
opportunities.
The authorization granted under the CBW regulations is limited by
several conditions. These conditions include:
(1) The wildlife is of a species having a natural geographic
distribution not including any part of the United States, or the
wildlife is of a species that the Director has determined to be
eligible in accordance with 50 CFR 17.21(g)(5);
(2) The purpose of authorized activities is to enhance the
propagation or survival of the affected species;
(3) Activities do not involve interstate or foreign commerce, in
the course of commercial activity, with respect to nonliving wildlife;
(4) That each specimen of wildlife to be reimported is uniquely
identified by a band, tattoo, or other means that was reported in
writing to an official of the Service at a port of export prior to the
export from the United States; and
(5) Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who
engages in any of the authorized activities does so in accordance with
50 CFR 17.21(g) and with all other applicable regulations.
The regulations also specify application requirements for
registration that are designed to provide the Service with information
needed to determine whether the applicant has the means to enhance the
propagation or survival of the affected species. For example, the
application must include a description of the applicant's experience in
maintaining and propagating the types of wildlife sought to be covered
under the registration; documentation depicting the facilities in which
the
[[Page 43171]]
subject wildlife will be maintained must also be included.
With this final rule, the Service is amending the CBW regulations
to provide the public with notice of receipt of applications for CBW
registration and an opportunity to comment on an applicant's
eligibility to register under the regulations. If we determine that the
registration should be granted, we will notify the public by publishing
our findings in the Federal Register that each registration was applied
for in good faith, will not operate to the disadvantage of the affected
species, and is consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in
section 2 of the Act. These procedures will apply to both original and
renewal applications for registration, as well as applications for
amendment of the registration. In addition, we will make information we
receive as part of each application available to the public upon
request, including, but not limited to, information needed to assess
the eligibility of the applicant, such as the original application
materials, any intervening renewal applications documenting a change in
location or personnel, and the most recent annual report.
By incorporating these procedural amendments to the CBW
regulations, the Service will increase transparency and openness in the
CBW registration process, consistent with Executive Order 13576,
``Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,'' and
the Presidential Memorandum of January 21, 2009, which encourage
government agencies to establish a system of transparency, public
participation, and collaboration by disclosing information to the
public. In addition, with these amendments, we believe that increased
public participation in the CBW registration process will lead to
better decisions by assisting the Service in assessing whether the
applicants are capable of enhancing the propagation or survival of the
species. By incorporating these procedures to increase transparency and
openness in the registration process, interested persons' perceptions
of the fairness of the registration process will improve, as will their
acceptance of our ultimate determination as to whether the registration
should be granted.
This rule also announces that the Service will extend the validity
of CBW registrations from 3 years to 5 years. This discretionary action
is being implemented to reduce the paperwork burden on CBW holders, as
well as eliminate redundant reviews by the Service of CBW applications.
One condition of all CBW registrations is the requirement that CBW
holders provide the Service with an annual report of all activities
that have been conducted during the previous calendar year. These
reports are reviewed for consistency, including comparing reports from
different CBW holders that reported any exchanges. The Service has
found that, with the receipt of these reports, we have sufficient
oversight of activities to increase the period for which a CBW
registration is valid. With the combination of annual reports, renewal
applications being submitted every 5 years, and, if necessary, physical
inspection of CBW holder's facilities by the Service or other State and
Federal agencies, the Service can successfully evaluate the merits of a
registered facility. Therefore, we have concluded that requiring CBW
holders to re-apply every 3 years is unnecessary.
Summary of Comments and Our Responses
In our proposed rule (February 21, 2012; 77 FR 9884), we asked
interested parties to submit comments or suggestions regarding the
proposal to incorporate a public comment period into the regulations at
50 CFR 17.21(g). The comment period for the proposed rule lasted for 30
days, ending March 22, 2012. We received 14 individual comments during
the comment period. Comments were received from 4 nongovernmental
organizations, 3 businesses, and 7 individuals. Of the commenters, two
supported the proposal to publish the receipt of CBW applications in
the Federal Register and provide for a 30-day comment period, and 12
opposed the proposal. Comments pertained to several key issues. These
issues, and our responses, are discussed below.
Issue 1: The majority of commenters expressed concern that the
publication of names of CBW applicants and locations of facilities
would raise the risk of attacks on breeders or on the animals, putting
these individuals or organizations at risk of theft or harassment by
individuals opposed to the activities being conducted by the applicant.
Several commenters believed that activists would use the permit process
as a way to delay or block activities through legal challenges. One
commenter felt that it would be necessary to retain a lawyer when
applying for a CBW registration to fight against ``activist
organizations'' that would attempt to block or delay the approval of
their application.
Our Response: It is true that, with the publication of a notice
announcing the receipt of CBW applications, the names of applicants and
the city in which they reside will be published. The Federal Register,
however, does not publish addresses or other private information. While
individuals that are interested in reviewing the applicants can request
a copy, any private information, including street addresses of
individuals, will be redacted or removed. While it is possible that
individuals or organizations could harass CBW applicants, such actions
may be illegal and, if so, the individuals carrying out those actions
may be prosecuted under relevant laws (e.g., trespass). However, the
Service does not believe that this potential for illegal harassment is
sufficient grounds for failing to publish the receipt of CBW
applications. As previously stated, the purpose of publishing the
receipt of CBW applications is to allow the public the opportunity to
provide the Service with relevant information about the applying
facilities and their operations. In addition, for many CBW applicants,
information about their facilities, as well as addresses and contact
information, have been made readily available to the public by the
facilities themselves through other sources, including through
advertising on the Internet, in trade magazines, and in other
publications.
Issue 2: One commenter felt that politically driven groups would
submit biased information, or information that would only support their
particular agenda, thus giving the Service an inaccurate picture of a
facility's ability to meet the issuance criteria under the CBW
regulations.
Our Response: The Service has a long history of receiving comments
addressing ESA permit applications. We considered only substantive
information that assists us in making sound decisions. Where possible,
we attempt to obtain additional information to corroborate any
information that may appear biased or based on a particular
organization's or individual's views. While we welcome all comments,
the comments do not constitute a ``popularity contest'' in which the
majority of commenters dictate the Service's decisions on permit
issuance.
Issue 3: Several commenters expressed a concern that the change to
the regulation would make the CBW program more restrictive, causing
some current CBW holders, as well as future CBW applicants, to
discontinue activities with endangered species, thus reducing the
potential for conservation-based breeding. Several suggested that, with
this reduction in registrants, the conservation benefits provided by
CBW holders would be reduced. They were concerned that, with fewer
[[Page 43172]]
organizations registering, activities authorized under the CBW program
would be driven underground, resulting in an increase in inbreeding or
diminished conservation value of the breeding activity. One commenter
called for a ``broader, more inclusive'' system that reduces the
burdens on CBW applicants. Several commenters expressed a view that,
with additional regulatory requirements and financial burden on
applicants, few individuals and organizations would apply to register
under the CBW program.
Our Response: The Service encourages individuals or facilities that
wish to conduct conservation-based breeding programs with endangered
species to apply to be part of the CBW program. We do not believe,
however, that the publication of a Federal Register notice announcing
the receipt of a CBW application, or providing the public an
opportunity to comment on the merits of an application, will restrict
the CBW program or reduce the number of individuals or organizations
that submit applications. Further, we do not believe that this rule
will increase the regulatory or financial burden on current or
potential CBW holders. While there will be an increase in the
processing time by adding a 30-day comment period, we do not see that
this creates any significant economic or regulatory burden on CBW
holders or applicants. Further, we do not believe that this will result
in activities being driven underground. This regulatory change is only
to provide the public an opportunity to comment on CBW applications. No
new regulatory or paperwork burdens are imposed on applicants or
registrants. We do not believe that law-abiding breeding operations
will begin conducting illegal activities solely to avoid having the
Service notify the public that an application has been received.
Issue 4: One commenter stated that the Service already had a
sufficient level of regulation in place to adequately carry out the
purposes of the CBW program.
Our Response: These changes to the CBW regulations will not change
how the CBW program is managed or the requirements placed on CBW
holders. We do not believe that publishing the receipt of all CBW
applications will increase the regulatory burden on any applicant or
CBW holder. The intent of the revision to the CBW regulations is to
increase the transparency of the CBW program and to encourage the
public to provide us with the best available information about an
applicant or, possibly, about requirements for keeping the particular
species involved or some other information that would be relevant to
evaluating the application.
Issue 5: The two commenters who supported the proposed change to
the regulation expressed concerns that the CBW program was allowing for
activities that were not consistent with the Act. They called for
greater oversight of CBW holders and commercial activities to ensure
that CBW holders were carrying out conservation efforts and that they
were conducting their activities in a humane manner.
Our Response: This change to the regulation is intended to provide
the public an opportunity to comment on the merits of CBW applications
received by the Service. The rule does not address or alter any current
practices carried out by the Service on how CBW holders are regulated.
While this comment is outside the scope of the rule, the Service is
interested in ensuring that any operation that is registered under the
CBW program uses proper breeding methods and humane treatment of their
animals. To the extent possible, the Service does determine whether a
breeding operation is in compliance with all regulations and laws
addressing humane treatment of animals and that the activities being
carried out by the operation meet the purposes of the Act. Inhumane
treatment which falls within the definition of ``harass'' (50 CFR 17.3)
would be considered a ``take'' under the Act and thus a violation if
the activity had not specifically been authorized. Providing for a 30-
day comment period will allow the public to identify any concerns that
they may have and provide the Service with substantive information to
support any claims of inappropriate activities.
Issue 6: One commenter, while agreeing with the action, pointed out
that the Service does not need to propose a change to the CBW
regulations to increase the validity period of a CBW registration from
3 to 5 years. Another commenter objected to this change because it
would weaken the Service's ability to carry out appropriate oversight
of registered facilities. The commenter was concerned that this
increase would reduce the level of oversight that we have over CBW
holders, making it easier for them to carry out activities that would
be outside the purposes for which the registration was granted.
Our Response: The first commenter is correct that no changes need
to be made to the regulations to extend the validity period to 5 years,
nor did the Service propose such a change to actual regulations. The
proposed rule merely provided an opportunity for the Service to
announce that it would take this step, as part of its discretionary
permit-processing actions, to reduce the application burden on CBW
holders in a manner that will not lower the Service's ability to ensure
that CBW holders are complying with all aspects of their registration.
Extending the period of validity of a CBW registration will not have a
significant effect on the Service's ability to monitor registrants
because each CBW holder must submit an annual report outlining all
activities carried out during the previous year. The annual reports are
reviewed to ensure that the reported activities comply with the Act and
any permit conditions placed on the registered facility. If, when
reviewing reports, the Service discovers some concerns or issues with a
CBW holder, we have the ability to take action at that time. In
addition, if necessary, the Service or other State or Federal agencies
can conduct physical inspections of a CBW holder to investigate any
concerns. Further, many CBW holders apply for authorization to conduct
other activities that are outside the scope of their CBW registration.
In those instances, the Service has a second opportunity to evaluate
the merits of the new application and determine if any concerns
regarding their CBW registration exist. Extending the validity time of
a CBW registration means that the holder only needs to reapply every 5
years, reducing their workload to reapply. Extending the validity time
also reduces unnecessary workload currently faced by the Service in
processing CBW applicants every 3 years.
Issue 7: Several commenters did not believe that the Service
provided the public with any evidence that publishing a notice
announcing the receipt of a CBW application would improve the
effectiveness of the CBW program. Further, these commenters saw the
change to be unnecessary and not represent good policy. One commenter
expressed their belief that there was no need to notify the public of
the receipt of CBW applications and allow for a comment period because
the applications would be available through Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests submitted to the Service by interested parties.
Our Response: We disagree with the view that this change in the
regulation is unsupported and is bad policy. Allowing the public an
opportunity to comment on the merits of an application increases the
level of transparency that the Service can offer in this matter, and
therefore should strengthen the CBW
[[Page 43173]]
program. The comment regarding the availability of CBW applications
through the FOIA process is correct. However, FOIA requesters must
first be aware that specific files are available to request or must
make such broad and vague requests that our efforts to meet these
requests become very time-consuming. By publishing the receipt of CBW
applications, we are providing potential FOIA requesters the
opportunity to satisfy any potential interest in a file before a FOIA
request is necessary or to better define their FOIA request to minimize
the burden on the Service.
Issue 8: Two commenters felt this regulation fails to meet the
requirements of Executive Order 13576. One commenter claimed this
regulation accomplishes the opposite of the Executive Order, whereas
another stated that the Executive Order is irrelevant to permits.
Our Response: The Service disagrees with these statements. The
purpose of the Executive Order is to increase transparency across all
aspects of government, including the Service's permitting process.
While the Executive Order does focus on rulemaking, we believe that
providing the public with the opportunity to comment on applications
that the Service receives does improve our permit processing and can
provide a benefit to the conservation work that applicants and the
Service are carrying out through the CBW program.
Issue 9: One commenter stated that the Act is an archaic piece of
legislation and needs ``a total revamp.''
Our Response: Whether changes should be made to the legislation is
a matter for Congress to address and is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
Issue 10: Many commenters expressed a view that this change to the
CBW regulations would create unnecessary delays in the processing of
applications. One commenter stated that increasing processing time by
35-40 days is unrealistic. Several commenters felt that public notice
will also drastically increase processing time if comments that are
received result in the Service making additional inquiries to
investigate any claims made during the public comment period. Several
commenters expressed the opinion that CBW applications do not need to
be given the same level of scrutiny as applications for the import or
export of animals from the wild, because CBW applications only deal
with captive wildlife.
Our Response: Opening a 30-day comment period will certainly
increase the overall processing time for first-time CBW applications,
thus delaying the authorization of any activities under the Act until
the application process is complete. The comment period would typically
add the 35 to 40 days that one commenter identified. However, once a
CBW has been approved, providing for a comment period on a renewal
application will not result in a registered facility stopping all
activities previously approved under the CBW registration. The
Service's permitting regulations (50 CFR part 13) allow for an
applicant who is renewing or amending a registration to continue
carrying out previously approved activities while the Service is
considering their application request, provided that they submit their
renewal application at least 30 days before their current registration
expires. This means that a facility that is currently registered could
continue carrying out previously approved activities while the Service
considers their renewal request without a break in activities, such as
interstate commerce. This will not apply to new requests, including the
addition of new species to an existing CBW registration. Therefore,
providing a public comment period should not significantly affect
current CBW holders, and while increasing the processing time for new
CBW applicants, the increase is not significant and should result in an
improvement in the basis for issuing CBW registrations because we will
have provided the public with an opportunity to augment the information
used to evaluate CBW applications.
The commenters who were concerned that comments from the public
could affect their CBW applications are correct, if the public provides
thoughtful comments that provide substantive information that either
supports or questions the merits of an application. That is the very
purpose of a comment period. We would like to assure the commenters,
however, that the receipt of a comment on an application does not mean
that all processing is stopped or that we will not verify information
provided by a commenter, whether in support or opposition to an
application. The Service will evaluate the factual basis of each
comment and the scientific or commercial value of the information
provided. Comments that express only a personal opinion do not have the
same value as comments that provide clear scientific information
relating to the merits of an application.
Finally, the Act treats all listed species the same whether they
are captive-bred or removed from the wild. All applications for permits
or registrations are evaluated according to the issuance criteria
established in our regulations at Chapter I of Title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Issue 11: One commenter accused FWS of ``turning a blind eye'' to
the benefits to conservation that U.S.-based captive-breeding and
display programs provide to listed species.
Our Response: The Service recognizes that captive breeding can
provide a benefit to listed species by increasing the scientific
knowledge of a species' behavior or biology. Further, conservation-
based breeding programs can provide animals for reintroduction programs
and provide a level of assurance against catastrophic events that could
adversely affect wild populations. The Service is not turning a ``blind
eye'' to any conservation value a captive-breeding program can provide;
we are only working to ensure that any otherwise-prohibited activities
that are authorized provide conservation value. We believe that
providing an opportunity for the public to comment will improve our
application review process.
Issue 12: Several commenters stated that they had also commented on
another proposed rule published by the Service on August 22, 2011, that
would remove the ``generic'' tiger from a list of specimens that do not
require facilities that hold them to register with the Service under
the CBW program in order to carry out otherwise-prohibited activities.
These commenters expressed concern that the combination of the two
regulatory changes would adversely affect their activities.
Our Response: The Service is still evaluating the comments received
during the two comment periods provided for the ``generic'' tiger
proposed rule and will finalize our decision in the coming months.
While there are some similarities between the ``generic'' tiger rule
and this rule, they are separate actions being taken by the Service and
are being treated as such. Comments made during the comment period for
the ``generic'' tiger proposed rule cannot be considered part of the
comments received for this proposed rule.
We have, therefore, made no changes to the proposed rule as a
result of the comments received.
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. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
[[Page 43174]]
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 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 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). 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.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small
business as one with annual revenue or employment that meets or is
below an established size standard. We expect that the majority of the
entities involved in activities authorized under the CBW program would
be considered small as defined by the SBA.
This rule requires the Service to publish notices in the Federal
Register announcing the receipt of all CBW applications and provide the
public with a 30-day comment period to provide the Service with any
relevant information about the applicant or their operation. In
addition, the rule requires the Service to publish a notice in the
Federal Register of specified findings for approved registrations. The
regulatory change is not major in scope and will create no financial or
paperwork burden on the affected members of the public. In fact, the
extension of the effective period of a CBW registration from 3 to 5
years, taken as a discretionary action under the Service's permitting
procedures, will result in a reduction of the paperwork burden on the
public because of the reduced frequency of completing a renewal
application.
We, therefore, certify that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small
Entity Compliance Guide is not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act: This rule is
not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more. This rule codifies a public notice-and-comment process for the
receipt of CBW applications and requires the publication of certain
findings for registrations granted under the CBW regulations. The
Service will publish no more than two notices in the Federal Register,
and will require nothing from the applicant as far as additional cost
or paperwork. This rule will not have a negative effect on this part of
the economy. It will affect all businesses, whether large or small, the
same. There is not a disproportionate share of benefits for small or
large businesses.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, tribal, or local
government agencies; or geographic regions. This rule will not result
in an increase in the number of applications for registration to
conduct otherwise-prohibited activities with endangered and threatened
species.
c. Will not have any adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.):
a. This rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
b. This rule will not produce a Federal requirement of $100 million
or greater in any year and is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Takings: Under Executive Order 12630, this rule would not have
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is
not required. This rule is not considered to have takings implications
because it allows individuals to register under the CBW Registration
program when issuance criteria are met.
Federalism: This revision to part 17 does not contain significant
Federalism implications. A Federalism summary impact statement under
Executive Order 13132 is not required.
Civil Justice Reform: Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of subsections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act: The Office of Management and Budget
approved the information collection in part 17 and assigned OMB Control
Number 1018-0093, which expires February 28, 2014. This rule does not
contain any new information collections or recordkeeping requirements
for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The Service has
determined that this action is a regulatory change that is
administrative and procedural in nature. As such, the amendment is
categorically excluded from further NEPA review as provided by 43 CFR
46.210(i) of the Department of the Interior Implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. No further documentation
will be made.
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; May
4, 1994) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on federally
recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no effects.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use: Executive Order 13211 pertains
to regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution,
and use. This rule will not significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a
[[Page 43175]]
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Captive-bred wildlife, Exports,
Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons given in the preamble, we are amending part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.21 by revising paragraph (g)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.21 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) Upon receipt of a complete application for registration, or the
renewal or amendment of an existing registration, under this section,
the Service will publish notice of the application in the Federal
Register. Each notice will invite the submission from interested
parties, within 30 days after the date of the notice, of written data,
views, or arguments with respect to the application. All information
received as part of each application will be made available to the
public, upon request, as a matter of public record at every stage of
the proceeding, including, but not limited to, information needed to
assess the eligibility of the applicant, such as the original
application, materials, any intervening renewal applications
documenting a change in location or personnel, and the most recent
annual report.
(i) At the completion of this comment period, the Director will
decide whether to approve the registration. In making this decision,
the Director will consider, in addition to the general criteria in
Sec. 13.21(b) of this subchapter, whether the expertise, facilities,
or other resources available to the applicant appear adequate to
enhance the propagation or survival of the affected wildlife. Public
education activities may not be the sole basis to justify issuance of a
registration or to otherwise establish eligibility for the exception
granted in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(ii) If the Director approves the registration, the Service will
publish notice of the decision in the Federal Register that the
registration was applied for in good faith, that issuing the
registration will not operate to the disadvantage of the species for
which registration was sought, and that issuing the registration will
be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of
the Act.
(iii) Each person so registered must maintain accurate written
records of activities conducted under the registration and allow
reasonable access to Service agents for inspection purposes as set
forth in Sec. Sec. 13.46 and 13.47 of this chapter. Each person so
registered must also submit to the Director an individual written
annual report of activities, including all births, deaths, and
transfers of any type.
* * * * *
Dated: July 17, 2012.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-17944 Filed 7-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P