Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62415

requirements. Executive Order 12866 

requires that regulations be reviewed to 

ensure that they are consistent with the 

priorities and principles set forth in the 

Executive Order. The Department has 

determined that this rule is consistent 

with these priorities and principles. 

This rule is considered a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the Executive 

Order and therefore has been reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 

that a covered agency prepare a 

budgetary impact statement before 

promulgating a rule that includes any 

Federal mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year. 

The Department has determined that 

this rule would not impose a mandate 

that will result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million in any one year. 

Congressional Review 

This regulation is not a major rule as 

defined in 5 U.S.C. chapter 8. 

Assessment of Federal Regulations and 

Policies on Families 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to 

determine whether a proposed policy or 

regulation may affect family well-being. 

If the agency’s determination is 

affirmative, then the agency must 

prepare an impact assessment 

addressing seven criteria specified in 

the law. These regulations will not have 

an impact on family well-being as 

defined in the legislation. 

Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 on federalism 

applies to policies that have federalism 

implications, defined as ‘‘regulations, 

legislative comments or proposed 

legislation, and other policy statements 

or actions that have substantial direct 

effects on the States, or on the 

distributions of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government’’. This rule does 

not have federalism implications for 

State or local governments as defined in 

the Executive Order.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 303

Child support, Grant programs/social 

programs.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Programs No. 93.563, Child Support 

Enforcement Program)

Dated: June 28, 2004. 

Wade F. Horn, 

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, 

Date Approved: August 6, 2004. 

Tommy G. Thompson, 

Secretary of Health and Human Services.

■ For the reasons discussed above, title 

45 CFR chapter III is amended as follows:

PART 303—STANDARDS FOR 

PROGRAM OPERATIONS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 303 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 660, 

663, 664, 666, 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 

1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p) and 1396(k).

■ 2. Amend § 303.72 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) introductory 

text, (d)(1), (d)(2), (f)(3), (g)(4), and (i)(1) 

to read as follows:

§ 303.72 Requests for collection of pastdue support by Federal tax refund offset.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) A State IV–D agency shall submit 

a notification (or notifications) of 

liability for past-due support to the 

Office according to the timeframes and 

in the manner specified by the Office in 

instructions. 

(2) To the extent specified by the 

Office in instructions, the notification of 

liability for past-due support shall 

contain with respect to each 

delinquency:

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) The State referring past-due 

support for offset must, in interstate 

situations, notify any other State 

involved in enforcing the support order 

when it submits an interstate case for 

offset and when it receives the offset 

amount from the Secretary of the U.S. 

Treasury. 

(2) The State IV–D agency shall, 

within timeframes established by the 

Office in instructions, notify the Deputy 

Director of any deletion of, or any 

change in, the arrears balance, if the 

change is significant according to the 

guidelines developed by the State. The 

notification shall contain the 

information specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(3) If the administrative review results 

in a deletion of, or change in, the arrears 

balance, the IV–D agency must notify 

OCSE within timeframes established by 

the Office and include the information 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(4) If the administrative review results 

in a deletion of, or change in, the arrears 

balance, the State with the order upon 

which the referral for offset is based 

must notify the submitting State within 

timeframes established by the Office 

and include the information specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. The 

submitting State must then notify the 

Office within timeframes established by 

the Office and include the information 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(1) A refund offset fee, in such 

amount as the Secretary of the U.S. 

Treasury and the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services have agreed to be 

sufficient to reimburse the U.S. 

Department of Treasury for the full cost 

of the offset procedure, shall be 

deducted from the offset amount and 

credited to the U.S. Department of 

Treasury appropriations which bore all 

or part of the costs involved in making 

the collection. The full amount of the 

offset must be credited against the 

obligor’s payment record. The fee which 

the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury may 

impose with respect to non-IV–A 

submittals shall not exceed $25 per 

submittal.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–23953 Filed 10–25–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AU02

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Interim Rule for the Beluga 

Sturgeon (Huso huso)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, will allow the trade in 

beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) and its byproducts, provided that specimens are 

accompanied by valid permits issued 

under the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES). This interim 

rule will be effective until the 

publication of a final rule under Section 

4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 

62416 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1973, as amended (Act), pertaining to 

trade in beluga sturgeon and its byproducts. This interim rule allows the 

take, import, export, re-export, and 

interstate and foreign commerce in 

beluga sturgeon, without the issuance of 

a threatened species permit under the 

Act for those specimens that are traded 

in accordance with the requirements of 

CITES. This rule will benefit entities 

which trade in these products and help 

further conservation of this threatened 

species.

DATES: This rule is effective 

immediately October 21, 2004. The 

reasons for this accelerated 

implementation for making this rule 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register are 

described below in the section titled, 

‘‘Need for Interim Rule.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of 

Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, at 4401 N. Fairfax 

Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 

22203 (phone: 703) 358–1708). For 

permitting information contact: Peter 

Thomas, Chief, Division of Management 

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 

700, Arlington, Virginia 22203 (phone: 

703–358–2104, or toll free, 1–800–358–

2104).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Upon petition from the public, the 

Service promulgated a rule (69 FR 

21425, April 21, 2004) to list beluga 

sturgeon (Huso huso) as threatened 

throughout its range under Section 4(d) 

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended (Act). That listing in 50 CFR 

17.11 prohibits all trade (foreign, 

international, and interstate) in beluga 

sturgeon, except as allowed by permit in 

50 CFR 17.32. We delayed the effective 

date of the listing until October 21, 

2004, in order to promulgate a special 

rule under Section 4(d) of the Act. The 

proposed 4(d) rule, published on June 

29, 2004 (69 FR 38863), included 

specific exemptions from the regulatory 

requirements of the Act for the trade in 

caviar and meat of threatened beluga 

sturgeon. Contingent upon whether 

Black and Caspian Sea countries meet 

the requirements set forth in the 

proposed 4(d) rule, it allows the 

continued trade in beluga sturgeon 

species while continuing to provide the 

protection under CITES. 

The proposed 4(d) rule links U.S. 

import requirements for beluga sturgeon 

trade under the Act to Resolutions and 

Decisions on sturgeon trade under the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES). However, given the 

specific criteria of the Act, the proposed 

4(d) rule would improve on the status 

quo of beluga sturgeon under CITES, 

since the proposed rule aims to improve 

transparency of range country actions 

and requires more specific information 

than the CITES process. The proposed 

4(d) rule sets quantitative goals for the 

species’ recovery, with specific targets 

for range countries to meet in order for 

U.S. entities to continue to import 

beluga sturgeon products into the 

United States without ESA permits.

Under the proposed 4(d) rule, range 

countries in the Caspian Sea and Black 

Sea basins would have 6 months from 

the proposed 4(d) rule’s effective date to 

submit their beluga sturgeon 

conservation and management plans to 

the Service for review. During this time, 

imports, exports, re-exports, and 

interstate and foreign commerce in 

certain beluga sturgeon products would 

not require threatened species permits, 

but must have legal documentation 

under CITES. The proposed 4(d) rule 

exempts the transfer of beluga caviar 

and meat into and out of the United 

States from additional threatened 

species regulatory requirements of the 

Act when the specimens are obtained 

from fish that are wild-caught or 

hatchery-reared from range countries 

that have complied with the rule. The 

proposed 4(d) rule also exempts 

interstate and foreign commerce in these 

products from the threatened species 

regulatory requirements of the Act, if 

that trade occurs in the United States or 

involves U.S. citizens. 

In the proposed 4(d) rule, 

aquacultured specimens (i.e., from 

commercial captive-breeding 

operations) from non-range countries, 

including the United States, and live 

specimens are not exempted from 

threatened species’ permits. The Service 

lacked information on how aquaculture 

in non-range countries would benefit 

the conservation of wild populations, 

and, instead had an indication that the 

expansion of aquaculture in non-range 

countries could actually diminish the 

importance of beluga sturgeon 

conservation by reducing incentives to 

protect the species in the wild. We were 

concerned that any additional 

aquaculture of foreign sturgeon species 

in the United States might pose a risk 

to domestic recovery efforts for several 

native sturgeon species listed under the 

Act or under interstate recovery plans. 

The Service believed that countries 

without native beluga populations, if 

exempted from the provisions of the Act 

under the proposed 4(d) rule, might use 

broodstock from countries with native 

wild populations to generate products 

for export to the U.S. marketplace, and 

would not afford any conservation 

benefit to the wild populations. The 

proposed 4(d) rule did not include an 

exemption for live specimens because of 

concerns about potential disease risks to 

native sturgeon and invasive species 

concerns associated with possible 

accidental introductions that may result 

with exotic sturgeons. 

The proposed 4(d) rule has not been 

completed and is under review in order 

to fully address the public comments 

received on the rule. Therefore, absent 

a 4(d) rule, the Service is issuing this 

interim rule to allow the continued 

trade in beluga sturgeon products, 

provided that shipments are 

accompanied by valid CITES permits or 

are subject to a CITES exemption. This 

interim rule will be effective until the 

publication of the final 4(d) rule. This 

interim special rule allows the take, 

import, export, re-export, and interstate 

and foreign commerce of beluga 

sturgeon and its by-products, without 

the issuance of additional threatened 

species permits. 

Need for Interim Rule 

This interim special rule is necessary 

to allow the CITES-consistent trade in 

beluga sturgeon and its by-products 

without a threatened species permit 

until a final 4(d) rule is completed and 

published. The Service’s intent was to 

publish the final 4(d) rule to coincide 

with the effective date of the beluga 

sturgeon threatened listing on October 

21, 2004. However, the process to 

finalize the 4(d) rule required more time 

than anticipated because the Service 

received comments on the proposed 

rule on a number of complex issues. We 

also received new information, which 

the Service lacked, related to: 

• The development of aquaculture for 

beluga sturgeon within the United 

States, 

• How aquaculture in non-range 

countries could benefit the conservation 

of wild populations, and 

• On the scope of aquaculture 

activities with this species in the United 

States, including information on 

cooperative activities between U.S. 

entities and range countries. 

The Service did not anticipate the 

extent of the public response from 

aquaculturists, scientists, and State 

offices related to this issue. It is the 

Service’s responsibility to carefully 

review all public comments on this 

issue and to consider whether some 

adjustments should be made, and if so, 

to determine what measures are 

necessary to regulate the trade in 

aquacultured beluga sturgeon from nonVerDate jul<14>2003 15:06 Oct 25, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM 26OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62417

range countries, including the United 

States. This interim rule will provide 

the Service additional time to carefully 

and appropriately respond to all the 

comments received, including those 

related to the role of aquaculture in the 

conservation of and trade in sturgeon 

species and their products without 

disrupting the trade and current 

conservation efforts for beluga sturgeon. 

The Service is actively working to 

complete the final special 4(d) rule and 

to publish it by the end of January. 

Without this interim rule, commercial 

activities involving beluga sturgeon and 

its by-products would be prohibited by 

the general threatened species 

regulations under the Act, thereby 

disrupting CITES-consistent, sustainable 

trade in beluga sturgeon.

Under these circumstances, the 

Service has determined that prior notice 

and opportunity for public comment are 

contrary to the public interest and there 

is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. If necessary, we will amend 

the Code of Federal Regulations to 

remove this rule when the final 4(d) rule 

is effective. 

Required Determinations 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) 

This interim rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under Executive 

Order 12866. Under the criteria in 

Executive Order 12866, this interim rule 

is not a significant regulatory action. 

a. This interim rule will not have an 

annual economic effect of $100 million 

or adversely affect an economic sector, 

productivity, jobs, the environment, or 

other units of government. A costbenefit and economic analysis is not 

required. 

b. This interim rule will not create 

inconsistencies with other agencies’

actions. We are the lead agency 

regulating international wildlife trade, 

domestic wildlife trade, the issuance of 

permits to conduct activities affecting 

wildlife and their habitats, and carrying 

out U.S. obligations under CITES. 

Therefore, this interim rule has no effect 

on other agencies’ responsibilities and 

will not create inconsistencies with 

other agencies’ actions. 

c. This interim rule will not 

materially affect entitlements, grants, 

user fees, loan programs, or the rights 

and obligations of their recipients. 

d. This interim rule will not raise 

novel legal or policy issues. This rule is 

basically a special 4(d) rule under the 

ESA. The Service has issued numerous 

4(d) rules in the past to ensure the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

We have determined that this 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.). An 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required, and a Small Entity 

Compliance Guide is not required. To 

assess the effects of the rule on small 

entities, the Service focused on the 

caviar import, export, and aquaculture 

industries in the United States because 

these are the entities most likely to be 

affected by the rule, particularly those 

engaged in beluga caviar importation, 

production, and distribution in the 

United States. In 2002, the most recent 

year for which we have import data, 15 

businesses accounted for all of the 

foreign-source sturgeon caviar legally 

imported into the United States. It is 

possible that some of these businesses 

did not trade in beluga sturgeon. In 

those 15, the 10 largest importers 

accounted for 94 percent of all imported 

caviar (by weight), whereas the top 6 

importers accounted for 85 percent of 

the U.S. trade (by weight). Illegal 

imports are not readily quantifiable, and 

were not addressed further in our 

analysis.

According to the information 

available to us, only two U.S. entities 

are involved in the commercial 

aquaculture of pure (i.e., nonhybridized) H. huso to obtain products 

such as caviar and meat, and neither is 

generating these products yet. At least 

one U.S. institution is conducting 

feasibility studies on the commercial 

aquaculture of hybrid ‘‘bester’’ sturgeon 

products. This type of aquaculture 

utilizes live beluga sturgeon and live 

sterlet (Acipenser ruthenus) to produce 

caviar in controlled, ex situ

environments. Neither the threatened 

listing for beluga sturgeon nor the 

special rule affects trade in bester 

sturgeon products directly. However, 

there may be certain amounts of live 

beluga sturgeon required by these 

entities from Black and Caspian Sea 

countries. Given the apparently limited 

aquaculture use of beluga sturgeon, this 

rule should have no significant 

economic impact on U.S. markets. 

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 will not have an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more; will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; and will not have 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of United States-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

This rule will have little or no 

economic effect on the import, export, 

interstate commerce, and foreign 

commerce. In foreign countries, this 

exemption will allow individuals and 

businesses subject to U.S. jurisdiction to 

engage in commerce involving beluga 

sturgeon products without the need for 

threatened species permits. We are not 

aware of such commerce currently, and 

therefore this exemption will create 

minimal benefits. 

This rule will not have significant 

economic effects in regard to scientific 

samples or personal effects moving in 

and out of the United States, given our 

recorded low volume of such 

transactions. However, this rule will 

provide significant benefits to beluga 

sturgeon traders commercially 

importing, exporting, and selling across 

State lines beluga sturgeon caviar and 

meat. Without the rule, Section 9 of the 

Act would prevent all current import, 

export, and interstate commerce, and 

traders would receive no income from 

lucrative U.S. markets for beluga 

sturgeon and its by-products. With the 

rule, this international trade and 

interstate commerce can continue 

without interruption, a beneficial effect 

of the rule. 

We are unable to quantify the U.S. 

economic impact of the exemption from 

permits granted for aquaculture 

facilities outside of the Caspian and 

Black countries (including U.S. 

operations). This is primarily because 

(1) U.S. aquaculture facilities are not yet 

producing beluga sturgeon caviar and 

meat; and (2) the global extent of 

aquacultured beluga sturgeon 

production is largely unquantified. 

Given the information available on the 

species’ long reproductive cycle and the 

high cost of starting beluga sturgeon 

aquaculture, we expect the economic 

impact to be relatively small. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), this 

interim rule will not ‘‘significantly or 

uniquely’’ affect small governments. 

a. This interim rule will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. A Small Government 

62418 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 26, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Agency Plan is not required. We are the 

lead agency regulating wildlife trade 

through the declaration process, the 

issuance of permits to conduct activities 

affecting wildlife and their habitats, and 

carrying out the United States 

obligations under CITES. No small 

government assistance or impact is 

expected as a result of this interim rule. 

b. This interim rule will not produce 

a Federal requirement that may result in 

the combined expenditure by State, 

local, or tribal governments of $100 

million or greater in any year, so it is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. This interim rule will not result in 

any combined expenditure by State, 

local, or tribal governments. 

Executive Order 12630 (Takings) 

Under Executive Order 12630, this 

interim rule does not have significant 

takings implications or affect any 

constitutionally protected property 

rights. This interim rule will not result 

in the physical occupancy of property, 

the physical invasion of property, or the 

regulatory taking of any property. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. Therefore, this interim rule 

does not have significant takings 

implications. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Under Executive Order 13132, this 

interim rule does not have significant 

Federalism effects. A Federalism 

assessment is not required. This interim 

rule will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Under Executive Order 12988, the 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that this interim rule does not overly 

burden the judicial system and meets 

the requirements of sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of the Order. Specifically, this 

interim rule has been reviewed to 

eliminate errors and ensure clarity, has 

been written to minimize lawsuits, 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected actions, and specifies in clear 

language the effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This interim rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require approval by the OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act 

This interim rule has been analyzed 

under the criteria of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 318 DM 

2.2 (g) and 6.3 (D). This interim rule 

does not amount to a major Federal 

action significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment. An 

environmental impact statement/

evaluation is not required. This interim 

rule is categorically excluded from 

further National Environmental Policy 

Act requirements, under part 516 of the 

Departmental Manual, Chapter 2, 

Appendix 1.10. 

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) and 512 DM 2 

(Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes) 

Under the President’s memorandum 

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

American Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR 

22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 

DM 2, we have evaluated possible 

effects on federally recognized Indian 

tribes and have determined that there 

are no adverse effects. Individual tribal 

members must meet the same regulatory 

requirements as other individuals who 

import, export, buy, sell, transport, 

receive or acquire beluga sturgeon 

products. 

Executive Order 13211

We have evaluated this rule in 

accordance with E.O. 13211 and have 

determined that this rule will have no 

effects on energy supply, distribution, or 

use. Therefore, this action is not a 

significant energy action, and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

■ For the reasons set out in the preamble, 

we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B 

of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

■ 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.

■ 2. Amend § 17.31 by adding a new 

paragraph (d) as set forth below:

§ 17.31 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(d) Except for specimens that are or 

have been imported into the United 

States in compliance with the 

requirements of CITES, the prohibitions 

of § 17.21 and this section and the 

permit requirements of § 17.32 apply to 

the take, import, export, re-export, and 

interstate and foreign commerce in 

beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) and its byproducts.

Dated: October 21, 2004. 

Craig Manson, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks.

[FR Doc. 04–23993 Filed 10–21–04; 5:07 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P