5112 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

The Regulatory Information Service 

Center publishes the Unified Agenda in 

April and October of each year. You 

may use the RIN contained in the 

heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda, available at http://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

eAgendaMain. 

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 530 

Freight, Maritime carriers, Report and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

Federal Maritime Commission is 

proposing to amend 46 CFR part 530 as 

follows: 

PART 530–SERVICE CONTRACTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 530 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553; 46 U.S.C. 305, 

40301–40306, 40501–40503, 41307. 

■ 2. Amend § 530.3 by revising 

paragraphs (c) and (i) to read as follows: 

§ 530.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Authorized person means a carrier 

or a duly appointed agent who is 

authorized to file service contracts on 

behalf of the carrier party to a service 

contract and is registered by the 

Commission to file under § 530.5(c) and 

appendix A to this part. 

* * * * * 

(i) Effective date means the date upon 

which a service contract or amendment 

is scheduled to go into effect by the 

parties to the contract. A service 

contract or amendment becomes 

effective at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard 

Time (Coordinated Universal Time 

(UTC)-05:00) on the effective date. The 

effective date may not be earlier than 

the date on which all parties have 

signed the service contract or 

amendment. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 530.8 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Adding a subject heading to 

paragraph (b); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (e). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 530.8 Service Contracts. 

(a) Filing. Authorized persons shall 

file with BTA, in the manner set forth 

in appendix A of this part, a true and 

complete copy of every service contract 

and every amendment to a service 

contract no later than thirty (30) days 

after the effective date. 

(b) Required terms. * * * 

* * * * * 

(e) Exception in case of malfunction 

of Commission filing system. In the 

event that the Commission’s filing 

systems are not functioning and cannot 

receive service contract filings for 

twenty-four (24) continuous hours or 

more, an original service contract or 

amendment that must be filed during 

that period in accordance with 

paragraph (a) of this section will be 

considered timely filed so long as the 

service contract or amendment is filed 

no later than twenty-four (24) hours 

after the Commission’s filing systems 

return to service. 

■ 4. Amend § 530.13 by adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 530.13 Exceptions and exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(e) Essential terms publication 

exemption. Ocean common carriers are 

exempt from the requirement in 46 

U.S.C. 40502(d) to publish and make 

available to the general public in tariff 

format a concise statement of certain 

essential terms when a service contract 

is filed with the Commission. 

■ 5. Amend § 530.14 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 530.14 Implementation. 

(a) Generally. Performance under an 

original service contract or amendment 

may not begin until the effective date. 

An original service contract or 

amendment may apply only to cargo 

received on or after the effective date by 

the ocean common carrier or its agent, 

including originating carriers in the case 

of through transportation. 

* * * * * 

By the Commission. 

Rachel E. Dickon, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–29173 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–IA–2021–0004; 

FF09A30000–212–FXIA16710900000] 

RIN 1018–BF60 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Regulations Pertaining to 

the American Alligator (Alligator 

mississippiensis) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS or Service), are 

proposing to amend regulations 

concerning American alligators 

(Alligator mississippiensis) by revising 

provisions pertaining to interstate and 

foreign commerce. We are proposing 

these changes to increase clarity and 

eliminate unnecessary regulation while 

at the same time maintaining what is 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of this and other 

endangered or threatened crocodilian 

species under section 4(d) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. 

DATES: You may comment on this 

proposed rule until March 22, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments by one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronically Using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–IA–2021–0004 (the docket 

number for this rulemaking). 

• U.S. Mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–IA–2020– 

XXXX; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Headquarters, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We will not accept email or faxes. 

Comments and materials we receive, as 

well as supporting documentation, will 

be available for public inspection on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela Hall Scruggs, Chief, Division of 

Management Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, 

MS: IA, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; 

telephone 703–358–2095 or email: 

managementauthority@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The American alligator (Alligator 

mississippiensis) is an iconic U.S. 

animal with a history of both drastic 

decline and complete recovery. As a 

result of State and Federal cooperation, 

its recovery is one of the most 

prominent successes of the Nation’s 

endangered species program. 

The American alligator is a large, 

semi-aquatic, armored reptile that is 

related to crocodiles. Alligators can be 

distinguished from crocodiles by head 

shape and color. Adult alligators, which 

are almost black in color, have a broad, 

large, long head with visible upper teeth 

along the edge of the jaws. Crocodiles, 

which are brownish in color, have a 

narrower snout and have lower jaw 

teeth that are visible even when its 

mouth is shut. The American alligator 

has a large, slightly rounded body, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 5113 

which ranges for adult alligators from 6 

to 14 feet long, as well as thick limbs 

and a very powerful tail that it uses to 

propel itself through water. The tail 

accounts for half the alligator’s length. 

Its front feet have five toes, while the 

rear feet have four toes that are webbed. 

In the wild, the American alligator often 

lives to 50 years of age and possibly 

over 70 years of age (Wilkinson et al. 

2016, p. 843). 

The breeding range of the American 

alligator is distributed in the 

southeastern United States in Arkansas, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 

Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Within this range, American alligators 

inhabit freshwater swamps, lakes, 

marshes, and streams (Elsey et al. 2019, 

p. 1). They also inhabit brackish water 

habitats and, although they have a low 

tolerance for salt water, will 

occasionally use marine environments 

for feeding (Rosenblatt and Heithaus 

2011, p. 786). 

In the late 1860s, the leather 

industry’s demand for exotic hides led 

to widespread commercial hunting of 

the American alligator. The demand in 

Europe and the United States for luxury 

leather products was so rapacious that, 

within a few years, large American 

alligators became extremely rare. This 

situation created a market for exported 

crocodile hides from Mexico and 

Central America. Tens of thousands of 

alligator and crocodile skins entered 

world markets, making their way from 

swamps to tanneries to exclusive 

department stores and boutiques. The 

precipitous decrease in size and 

numbers of American alligators taken 

for trade reflected a species in decline. 

Today, American alligator 

populations thrive, as a result of 

creative partnerships between Federal 

and State governments. The States led 

the way in providing legal protection. 

Alabama adopted protective legislation 

for its American alligator population in 

1941, followed by Florida (1961), 

Louisiana (1962), and Texas (1970). The 

wild American alligator population 

trend is increasing and is estimated to 

be 3–4 million non-hatchling 

individuals, of which approximately 

750,000–1,060,000 are mature 

individuals (Elsey et al. 2019, p. 3). 

Alligator farming and ranching played 

a role in the conservation success. 

American alligator ‘‘farming’’ involves 

captive breeding of American alligators. 

American alligator ‘‘ranching’’ involves 

gathering eggs from the wild, returning 

some juveniles to the wild, and raising 

the remainder to market size. For 

example, to ensure wild alligators are 

not depleted as a result of egg 

collections, and to ensure future 

recruitment of subadult alligators to the 

breeding population, the Louisiana 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

currently requires a quantity of juvenile 

alligators equal to 10 percent of the eggs 

hatched by the rancher be returned to 

the wild within 2 years of hatching 

(Louisiana’s Alligator Management 

Program 2017–2018 Annual Report, 

page 5). Alligator ranching has minimal 

adverse effects on the environment, and 

it has direct positive effects on alligator 

conservation. It may reduce demand for 

poached wild alligator skins and likely 

creates an incentive for ranchers to 

contribute to maintenance of wild 

populations and their habitats (Nickum 

et al. 2018, p. 87). Practiced primarily in 

Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, and Texas, 

American alligator farming and 

ranching is an aquaculture industry 

worth tens of millions of dollars 

(Nickum et al. 2018, p. 88). Particularly 

in Louisiana and Florida, farming and 

ranching are now being carried out on 

a large scale; stocks in over 100 

commercial farms and ranches 

throughout the country are high, with 

more than 923,000 American alligators 

on farms in Louisiana alone in 2016 

(Elsey et al. 2019, p. 3). 

The American alligator first received 

protection under Federal law in 1967 

when it was listed as endangered 

throughout its range under the 

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 

1966 (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967), a 

predecessor to the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq. (Act, ESA)). Its endangered 

classification was transferred to the Act 

effective December 28, 1973, (Pub. L. 

93–205, 1, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 884). 

Under the ESA, species may be listed 

either as ‘‘threatened’’ or as 

‘‘endangered’’ (16 U.S.C. 1532(6) 

(defining ‘‘endangered’’); 16 U.S.C. 

1532(20) (defining ‘‘threatened’’)). ESA 

regulations are set forth in title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations in parts 17 

and 424. Section 4(e) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(e); 50 CFR 17.50–17.51) 

gives the Secretary of the Interior 

authority to list a species, subspecies, or 

distinct population segment as 

endangered or threatened by reason of 

similarity of appearance if: (A) Such 

species so closely resembles in 

appearance, at the point in question, an 

ESA-listed endangered or threatened 

species that enforcement personnel 

would have substantial difficulty in 

attempting to differentiate between the 

listed and unlisted species; (B) the effect 

of this substantial difficulty is an 

additional threat to an endangered or 

threatened species; and (C) such 

treatment of an unlisted species will 

substantially facilitate the enforcement 

and further the policy of the Act. All 

applicable prohibitions and exceptions 

for species treated as threatened under 

section 4(e) of the Act due to similarity 

of appearance to a threatened or 

endangered species are provided in a 

rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1533(d)), as discussed further 

below. 

When a fish or wildlife species is 

listed as endangered under the ESA, 

certain actions are prohibited under 

section 9 (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)), as 

specified at 50 CFR 17.21. These 

include prohibitions on ‘‘take’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1532(19) (defining ‘‘take’’ to 

mean ‘‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct’’); 50 CFR 17.3 (defining 

‘‘harm’’ and ‘‘harass’’)) within the 

United States, within the territorial seas 

of the United States, or upon the high 

seas; possession, sale, delivery, carrying, 

transport, or shipment of unlawfully 

taken specimens; import; export; sale 

and offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce; and delivery, receipt, 

carrying, transport, or shipment in 

interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of a commercial activity. It is 

also unlawful to attempt to commit, 

solicit another to commit, or cause to be 

committed, any of these offenses (16 

U.S.C. 1538(g)). 

The ESA does not specify particular 

prohibitions and exceptions to those 

prohibitions for threatened species. 

Instead, under section 4(d) of the ESA 

(16 U.S.C. 1533(d)), the Secretary of the 

Interior is given the discretion to issue 

such regulations as deemed necessary 

and advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the species. The 

Secretary also has the discretion to 

prohibit by regulation, with respect to 

any threatened species, any act 

prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the 

ESA for endangered species of fish or 

wildlife. Accordingly, under section 

4(d) of the ESA, the Service may 

develop specific prohibitions and 

exceptions tailored to the particular 

conservation needs of a threatened 

species (50 CFR 17.31(c)). 

We have gained considerable 

experience in developing speciesspecific rules over the years. Where we 

have developed species-specific 4(d) 

rules, we have seen many benefits, 

including removing redundant 

permitting requirements, facilitating 

implementation of beneficial 

conservation actions, and making better 

use of our limited personnel and fiscal 

resources by focusing prohibitions on 

the stressors contributing to the 

threatened status of the species. This 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5114 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

proposed rule will allow us to capitalize 

on these benefits in tailoring the 

regulations to species conservation 

needs by eliminating unnecessary 

regulation while at the same time 

maintaining what is necessary and 

advisable for the conservation of this 

and other crocodilian species under 

section 4(d) of the ESA. 

Section 4(d) of the Act states that the 

Secretary shall issue such regulations as 

he deems necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of species 

listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme 

Court has noted that statutory language 

very similar to ‘‘necessary and 

advisable’’ demonstrates a large degree 

of deference to the agency (see Webster 

v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)). 

‘‘Conservation’’ is defined in the Act to 

mean the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary (16 U.S.C. 

1532(3)). Additionally, section 4(d) 

states that the Secretary may by 

regulation prohibit with respect to any 

threatened species any act prohibited 

under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish 

or wildlife, or 9(a)(2), in the case of 

plants. Thus, regulations promulgated 

under section 4(d) of the Act provide 

the Secretary with broad discretion to 

select appropriate provisions tailored to 

the specific conservation needs of the 

threatened species. The statute grants 

particularly broad discretion to the 

Service when adopting the prohibitions 

under section 9. The Service also has 

discretion to revise or promulgate 

species-specific rules at any time after 

the final listing or reclassification 

determination. 

The section 4(d) rule at 50 CFR 

17.42(a), which currently pertains to 

any specimen of the American alligator, 

first became effective in 1975 (40 FR 

44412, September 26, 1975). In 1975, 

American alligators in certain parts of 

Louisiana were reclassified from 

endangered to threatened because of 

recovery of these populations of the 

species and their similarity of 

appearance with endangered American 

alligators in Louisiana and elsewhere in 

the American alligator range (40 FR 

44412, September 26, 1975). The 

preamble to the 1975 rule explained that 

the primary threat to American 

alligators in certain areas was the 

absence of adequate regulatory and 

enforcement mechanisms ‘‘to prevent 

malicious and illicit commercially 

oriented killing’’ and ‘‘to control illegal 

commerce in products.’’ To address 

concerns that once a legal market was 

established it could provide a ‘‘screen’’ 

for American alligator products from 

endangered populations, the 1975 rule 

established a marking and tagging 

regime for American alligator hides and 

included permitting requirements for 

fabricators, buyers, and tanners to allow 

identification throughout the marketing 

and processing chain. The 1975 rule 

allowed take of American alligators 

from threatened populations and 

captive alligators provided the take was 

in accordance with State of Louisiana 

laws and regulations, including marking 

and tagging requirements, and allowed 

sale of hides only to persons holding a 

valid Federal license as buyers. Sale of 

meat and other parts was prohibited 

under the 1975 section 4(d) rule. In the 

years that followed, the species 

continued to improve. See the following 

rulemaking documents: 

• 42 FR 2071 (January 10, 1977) 

(reclassifying the American alligator 

from ‘‘endangered’’ to ‘‘threatened’’ in 

all of Florida and certain coastal areas 

of Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, 

and Texas); 

• 44 FR 37130 (June 25, 1979) 

(expanding ‘‘threatened due to 

similarity of appearance’’ classification 

from 3 to 12 Louisiana parishes); 

• 46 FR 40664 (Aug. 10, 1981) 

(expanding ‘‘threatened due to 

similarity of appearance’’ classification 

to all of Louisiana); 

• 48 FR 46332 (Oct. 12, 1983) (all of 

Texas); and 

• 50 FR 25672 (June 20, 1985) (all of 

Florida). 

The American alligator 4(d) rule was 

also amended several times during these 

years: 

• 42 FR 2071, January 10, 1977; 

• 44 FR 51980, September 6, 1979; 

• 44 FR 59080, October 12, 1979; 

• 45 FR 78153, November 25, 1980; 

• 46 FR 40664, August 10, 1981; 

• 48 FR 46332, October 12, 1983; 

• 50 FR 25672, June 20, 1985; 

• 50 FR 45407, October 31, 1985; 

• 52 FR 21059, June 4, 1987; 

• 72 FR 48402, August 23, 2007. 

For example, in 1979 (44 FR 51980, 

September 6, 1979), a final rule 

amending the 4(d) rule noted that the 

‘‘consistent intent’’ throughout these 

rulemakings has been to authorize 

controlled harvest of American 

alligators in specified areas, subject to 

State and Federal law. The final rule 

reclassified the American alligator 

populations in nine additional parishes 

in Louisiana from endangered to 

threatened due to similarity of 

appearance to endangered American 

alligators in the remainder of the 

species’ range and, among other things, 

authorized sale of meat and other parts, 

except hides, only within the State of 

Louisiana and subject to the laws and 

regulations of the State of Louisiana. 

Although some commenters had 

recommended also allowing sale of meat 

and parts in other States, the Service did 

not adopt that recommendation and 

explained that licensing and 

recordkeeping requirements imposed by 

the State of Louisiana had facilitated 

effective enforcement with respect to 

sale of meat and other parts in Louisiana 

but that no regulatory scheme existed to 

provide effective enforcement outside of 

Louisiana. On October 12, 1979 (44 FR 

59080), another rulemaking revised the 

section 4(d) rule to allow limited 

commercial export and import of 

lawfully taken American alligator hides 

and products manufactured from those 

hides in accordance with the 

requirements of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES), after the transfer of American 

alligator from CITES Appendix I to 

CITES Appendix II, effective June 28, 

1979, allowed for international trade in 

American alligator for commercial 

purposes. 

Revisions to the section 4(d) rule in 

1980 (45 FR 78153, November 25, 1980) 

removed the requirement for fabricators 

to obtain Federal permits, but to ensure 

that fabricators only received lawfully 

taken hides, maintained the requirement 

limiting sale of raw (untanned) hides to 

a person holding a valid Federal permit 

to buy hides. The 1980 revisions also 

allowed interstate commerce of fully 

tanned hides that had been tagged by 

the State where the taking occurred and 

allowed sale or transfer of meat and 

other parts except hides, provided these 

parts were sold or otherwise transferred 

only in accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the State in which the 

taking occurred and the State in which 

the sale or transfer occurred. The 1980 

section 4(d) rule also allowed interstate 

commerce in manufactured products. 

By 1987, the American alligator had 

recovered enough so that it did not 

qualify as endangered or threatened 

based on its own conservation status. 

However, it was reclassified under the 

Act as ‘‘threatened due to similarity of 

appearance’’ throughout its range (52 FR 

21063, June 4, 1987) based on its 

resemblance to the American crocodile 

and other threatened crocodilian 

species. As noted above, populations in 

Florida, Louisiana, and Texas and 

portions of other States had already 

been reclassified. This rule reclassified 

the remaining endangered populations 

in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina. The preamble to the final rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 5115 

explained that the rule ‘‘supports a need 

for continued Federal controls on taking 

and commerce to ensure against 

excessive taking and to continue 

necessary protections for the American 

crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in the 

U.S. and foreign countries, and other 

endangered crocodilians in foreign 

countries’’ (52 FR 21060, June 4, 1987). 

The classification of the American 

alligator as threatened due to similarity 

of appearance is intended to protect 

other listed species that bear a 

resemblance to the American alligator. 

Take of American alligators is regulated 

by States and Tribes and section 4(d) 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.42, Special 

rules—reptiles. Under 50 CFR 17.42(a), 

the Service regulates the harvest of 

American alligators, and subsequent 

interstate commerce and international 

trade in the legally harvested animals, 

their skins, and products made from 

them, as part of efforts to prevent the 

illegal take and trafficking of threatened 

and endangered reptiles that are similar 

in appearance to American alligators. 

Illegally harvested alligators cannot 

legally be entered into commerce or 

trade under the 4(d) rule. 

As noted above, currently, the 

American alligator is listed under the 

Act as threatened due to similarity of 

appearance to the American crocodile 

(Crocodylus acutus) in the United States 

and foreign countries, and other ESAlisted crocodilians (50 CFR 17.11). The 

Service recognizes that some 

populations of crocodilians that are 

managed as a sustainable resource can 

be utilized for commercial purposes 

without adversely affecting the survival 

of those populations, when 

scientifically based management plans 

are implemented. When certain positive 

conservation conditions have been met, 

the Service has allowed utilization and 

trade from managed populations of the 

American alligator, and other 

crocodilians. For example, we have 

allowed the importation of commercial 

shipments of Nile crocodile (Crocodylus 

niloticus) from several southern and 

eastern African countries, and allowed 

for similar shipments of saltwater 

crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) 

specimens from Australia (61 FR 32356, 

June 24, 1996). In each of these 

examples, the species or population is 

not an ESA-listed endangered species, 

and also is not included in CITES 

Appendix I. 

We are aware that there have been 

questions raised regarding proposed or 

recently enacted State laws that would 

prohibit commercial activities involving 

American alligator and concerns that 

such laws may result in a reduction in 

proceeds from lawful interstate 

commerce in alligators that is used to 

fund important conservation efforts for 

alligators and their habitat. See Section 

II below regarding Petition to Amend 

Endangered Species Act Section 4(d) 

Rule Actions Concerning the American 

Alligator. This proposed rule would 

amend the 4(d) rule to remove the 

requirement at 50 CFR 17.42(a)(2)(ii)(B) 

that ‘‘[a]ny American alligator specimen 

may be sold or otherwise transferred 

only in accordance with the laws and 

regulations of . . . the State or Tribe in 

which the sale or transfer occurs.’’ This 

amendment clarifies that any State law 

regulating commercial sale or transfer 

that effectively prohibits interstate 

commerce or foreign commerce 

authorized by the 4(d) rule would be 

preempted by section 6(f) of the ESA 

and would be void to the extent of the 

conflict (16 U.S.C. 1535(f)(2); the 

Supremacy Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution). We also explained the 

preemptive effect of 4(d) rules and 

section 6(f) in the most recent prior 

rulemaking amending the American 

alligator 4(d) rule. See 72 FR 48402, 

48406 (Aug. 23, 2007) (relying on Man 

Hing Ivory & Imports, Inc. v. 

Deukmejian, 702 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 

1983)). By amending the 4(d) rule to 

remove the provision relating to the 

State or Tribe in which a sale or transfer 

occurs, we intend to eliminate the 

potential tension between those State 

laws and the well-regulated American 

alligator management regime that has 

been established through decades of 

cooperation between the Service, States 

in the alligator’s range, and the alligator 

industry, and which is facilitated by the 

regulation of interstate commerce and 

international trade through the 4(d) rule. 

Although it can be difficult to identify 

the species in products manufactured 

from crocodilian species, and this 

situation can pose a problem for law 

enforcement, over the more than 30 

years that the provision in question has 

been in place, we have no reason to 

believe that this provision at 50 CFR 

17.42(a)(2)(ii)(B) has added to the 

conservation benefits provided by other 

provisions in the current American 

alligator 4(d) rule. Further, the first 

phrase in the sentence at 50 CFR 

17.42(a)(2)(ii)(B) pertaining to ‘‘the laws 

and regulations of the State or Tribe in 

which the taking occurs’’ is largely 

redundant, as it restates what is already 

stated earlier in 50 CFR 17.42(a)(2)(ii). 

The conditional language in 50 CFR 

17.42 (a)(2)(ii)(B) may be inhibiting 

interstate commerce that has developed 

since the American alligator was first 

reclassified under the Act and which 

provides funding to support crocodilian 

conservation and helps States and 

Tribes address threats to these 

populations. Confusion caused by this 

provision concerning the interaction 

between Federal, State, and Tribal rules 

and regulations could deter protection 

of American alligator habitat, upsetting 

regulatory protocols that have been in 

place for decades, and thereby 

undermining the conservation of this 

and other crocodilian species under 

section 4(d) of the Act. 

Quotas for controlled hunting of 

adults, and collection of eggs and 

hatchlings on both private and public 

lands are based on annual monitoring of 

nests and local population densities and 

occur in accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the State or Tribe in 

which the taking of American alligators 

occurs. Commercial production of skins 

and meat is highly regulated by State 

agencies through a system of permits, 

licenses, periodic stock inventories, 

ranch inspections, and tagging 

requirements, which occur in 

accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the State or Tribe in 

which the taking of American alligators 

occurs. Fees collected through State and 

Tribal regulatory systems (also in 

accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the State or Tribe in 

which the taking of American alligators 

occurs) provide funding for 

management, regulation, enforcement, 

and research programs for the American 

alligator. Conservation of American 

alligators has succeeded by sustainable 

regulated harvests, protecting important 

alligator habitat, and providing 

economic incentives for private 

landowners to maintain alligator habitat 

(Elsey et al. 2019, p. 5). For these 

reasons, we reaffirm the need to ensure 

that take of, and interstate commerce in, 

American alligators may only be in 

accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the State or Tribe of 

taking but propose to remove as 

unnecessary and confusing the 

provision that sale or transfer may only 

be in accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the State or Tribe where 

the sale or transfer occurs. 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES) 

Separate from its listing and 

conservation status under the ESA, the 

American alligator is protected under 

the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES), a treaty that regulates 

international trade in species included 

in one of three Appendices. In 1975, the 

American alligator was included in 

Appendix I of CITES. CITES Appendix 

I includes species threatened with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5116 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

extinction that are or may be affected by 

trade. 

In 1979, the American alligator was 

transferred from CITES Appendix I to 

Appendix II. Appendix II includes 

species that are not presently threatened 

with extinction, but may become so if 

their trade is not regulated. It also 

includes species that need to be 

regulated so that trade in certain other 

Appendix-I or -II species may be 

effectively controlled (due to similarity 

of appearance to other CITES species). 

Commercial international trade of 

Appendix-II species is allowed under 

CITES export permits issued by the 

Management Authority of the exporting 

country, provided specific 

determinations have been made, 

including that the Management 

Authority of the exporting country has 

determined that the specimens involved 

have been legally acquired and the 

Scientific Authority of the exporting 

country has determined that the trade 

will not be detrimental to the survival 

of the species. In the United States, the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. 1537a) designates the 

Secretary of the Interior as the CITES 

Management Authority and Scientific 

Authority and requires the functions of 

each shall be carried out by the Service. 

The Parties to CITES reviewed 

management activities prior to 

transferring the American alligator from 

CITES Appendix I to Appendix II 

(thereby allowing commercial trade), 

reviewed assessments of population 

status, reviewed determinations of 

sustainable harvest quotas (or approval 

of ranching programs), and reviewed the 

control of the illegal harvest. 

Management regulations imposed after 

harvest included the tagging of skins 

and issuance of permits to satisfy the 

requirements for CITES Appendix-II 

species. As a Party to CITES, in addition 

to ESA requirements, the United States 

implements CITES requirements for 

trade in American alligators. The United 

States implements CITES through the 

ESA (16 U.S.C. 1537a; 16 U.S.C. 

1538(c)(1)) and the Service’s CITES 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

23). CITES requirements for 

international trade specific to American 

alligator are found at 50 CFR 23.70. 

II. Petition To Amend Endangered 

Species Act Section 4(d) Rule Actions 

Concerning the American Alligator 

Petition 

The Secretary of the Interior received 

a petition in the form of a letter dated 

December 9, 2019, from the State of 

Louisiana, titled, Petition for 

Rulemaking to Correct the American 

Alligator Regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(a) 

Pertaining to the Sale of Hides. The 

petition requests ‘‘the repeal of those 

regulations which limit the sale or 

transfer of alligator hides to compliance 

with the State in which the sale or 

transfer occurs.’’ The petition asserts 

that the language in the regulation 

imposing this requirement may have 

been included or retained as the result 

of administrative error or confusion. 

The petition asserts that, as the result of 

a series of proposed rules and final rules 

issued between 1980 and 1987, the 

Service inadvertently added alligator 

hides to the list of products required to 

be sold or transferred in interstate 

commerce only in accordance with the 

law of the State in which the sale or 

transfer occurs. 

The petition requests a new 

rulemaking to amend 50 CFR 

17.42(a)(2)(ii)(B) to eliminate the change 

that included alligator hides in the 

group of parts and products that may 

only be sold or transferred in interstate 

commerce in accordance with the law of 

the State or Tribe in which the sale or 

transfer occurs. The petition requests 

that the Service amend the rule to revert 

back to the regime set out in the 1980 

alligator section 4(d) regulations, which 

allowed for take of American alligators 

wherever listed as threatened due to 

similarity of appearance, in accordance 

with the laws in the State of taking 

subject to certain conditions including 

that ‘‘any meat or other part except the 

hide is sold or otherwise transferred 

only in accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the State in which the 

taking occurs and the State in which the 

sale or transfer occurs;’’ (45 FR 78153, 

November 25, 1980). 

It is true that earlier versions of the 

section 4(d) rule did not, in the phrase 

in question, include hides in the group 

of parts and products that could only be 

sold in accordance with the laws of the 

State or Tribe in which the sale or 

transfer occurred. However, those 

earlier versions also strictly regulated 

the sale and transfer of hides, including 

by requiring that hides could only be 

sold or transferred to a person holding 

a valid buyer permit (issued under the 

section 4(d) rule) and that the hides 

must be tagged by the State where they 

were taken. Tanners and, for a time, 

fabricators also had to obtain permits 

under the section 4(d) rule, and buyer, 

tanner, and fabricator permittees were 

prohibited from violating any State, 

Federal, or foreign laws concerning 

hides and other parts and products. 

Tagging of alligator hides by the State or 

Tribe of taking is still required under 

the current section 4(d) rule and forms 

the basis of the traceability regime that 

allows us to ensure that hides in trade 

(including those to be exported) have 

been legally acquired under an 

approved State or Tribal program. The 

current section 4(d) rule for the 

American alligator does not require hide 

buyers, tanners, or fabricators to obtain 

permits. 

Service Response to the Petition 

The ESA section 4(d) rule concerning 

the American alligator became effective 

over 45 years ago. More than 33 years 

have passed since publication of the 

1987 revision to the rule that included 

the provision that the petition seeks to 

amend. In reviewing the conservation 

success story related to the alligator, we 

find that the requirement for interstate 

commerce in American alligator to 

adhere to laws of the States and Tribes 

where the sale or transfer occurs is not 

necessary. Under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), any person may 

petition for the issuance, amendment, or 

repeal of a rule (5 U.S.C. 553(e)). In 

considering the petition, we follow 

Department of the Interior regulations 

concerning petitions for APA 

rulemakings, found at 43 CFR part 14 

(43 CFR 14.2, Filing of petitions.). To 

that end, interested persons may obtain 

a copy of the petition on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov, in the 

docket supporting materials section 

provided above in ADDRESSES. This 

proposed rule addresses the petition. 

III. This Proposed Rule 

As a result of the petition received 

from the State of Louisiana, we 

conducted a review of our regulations at 

50 CFR 17.42(a) and have determined 

that this proposed rulemaking action is 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of this and other 

crocodilian species under section 4(d) of 

the Act. The Service has the 

responsibility to periodically update 

and clarify our implementing 

regulations when it is necessary to do 

so. With this proposed rule, we reflect 

the outcome of our review. 

We have evaluated the petition 

received from the State of Louisiana 

concerning the requested amendment to 

our regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(a). We 

have also conducted our own evaluation 

of our regulations at 50 CFR 17.42(a), 

and have concluded that there is 

sufficient reason for a new rulemaking 

that removes the requirement in the 4(d) 

rule’s authorization of interstate or 

foreign commerce that American 

alligators, including hides and other 

parts and products, may only be sold or 

transferred in accordance with the law 

of the State or Tribe in which the sale 

or transfer occurs. As noted above, the 

section 4(d) rule for the American 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 5117 

alligator has been revised a number of 

times since it was first promulgated in 

1975. Changes to the section 4(d) rule 

were adopted in response to changes in 

the conservation status of various 

populations of the species (and the 

reclassification of those populations) 

and to the related and evolving need for 

Federal control of taking and commerce 

in American alligators and American 

alligator parts and products, as well as 

for the effective protection and 

enforcement of requirements for other 

ESA-listed crocodilians. 

We believe the requirement at 50 CFR 

17.42(a)(2)(ii)(B) that any American 

alligator specimen may be sold or 

otherwise transferred only in 

accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the State or Tribe in 

which the sale or transfer occurs is 

unnecessary and can be removed as a 

condition of the 4(d) rule’s 

authorization of interstate and foreign 

commerce. Through this amendment, 

any State law regulating commercial 

sale or transfer that effectively prohibits 

interstate or foreign commerce 

authorized by the 4(d) rule would be 

preempted by section 6(f) of the ESA 

and would be void to the extent of the 

conflict (16 U.S.C. 1535(f)(2); the 

Supremacy Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution). Further, the first phrase 

in the sentence at 50 CFR 

17.42(a)(2)(ii)(B) is largely redundant, as 

it restates what is already stated in 50 

CFR 17.42(a)(2)(ii), and therefore can 

also be removed along with conforming 

amendments. We believe that this 

proposed amendment could reduce 

confusion concerning the interaction 

between Federal, State, and Tribal rules 

and regulations and clarify the activities 

that are authorized by Federal 

regulation. We believe that the 

requirement at 50 CFR 17.42(a)(2)(ii)(B) 

that any American alligator specimen 

may be sold or otherwise transferred 

only in accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the State or Tribe in 

which the sale or transfer occurs, is not 

necessary for the conservation of the 

American alligator and for other 

crocodilian species to which the 

American alligator bears similarity of 

appearance. 

IV. Public Comments Solicited 

We invite interested organizations 

and the public to comment on this 

proposed rule. We analyzed the 4(d) 

rule in response to the petition from 

Louisiana and have drafted this 

proposed amendment to 50 CFR 

17.42(a)(2)(ii)(B) following our review 

and analysis. We are seeking comments 

related to any proposed revisions to the 

ESA section 4(d) rule concerning the 

American alligator at 50 CFR 17.42(a). 

We will not consider comments 

regarding this proposed rule sent by 

email or fax or to an address not listed 

in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment 

via http://www.regulations.gov, your 

entire comment, including any personal 

identifying information, will be posted 

on the website. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, our final 

4(d) rule may differ from this proposal. 

Based on the new information we 

receive (and any comments on that new 

information), we may change the 

parameters of the prohibitions or the 

exceptions to those prohibitions if we 

conclude it is appropriate in light of 

comments and new information 

received. For example, we may expand 

the prohibitions to include prohibiting 

additional activities if we conclude that 

those additional activities are not 

compatible with conservation of the 

listed crocodilians that are similar in 

appearance to the American alligator. 

Conversely, we may establish additional 

exceptions to the prohibitions in the 

final rule if we conclude that the 

activities would facilitate or are 

compatible with the conservation and 

recovery of the listed crocodilians that 

are similar in appearance to the 

American alligator. 

V. Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Proposed Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We are required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to assess the impact 

of any Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment, health, and safety. This 

proposed rule is being analyzed under 

the criteria of NEPA, the Department of 

the Interior procedures for compliance 

with NEPA (Departmental Manual (DM) 

and 43 CFR part 46), and Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508). We 

are preparing a draft environmental 

assessment to determine whether this 

proposed rule will have a significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment under NEPA. We will 

announce the availability of the draft 

environmental assessment as soon as it 

is completed. When completed, the 

draft environmental assessment will be 

available on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov in the docket 

provided above in ADDRESSES. 

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

et seq.). 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 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). 

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.’’ 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) amended 

the RFA to require Federal agencies to 

provide a certification statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. According to the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), small 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5118 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

entities include small organizations 

such as independent nonprofit 

organizations; small governmental 

jurisdictions, including school boards 

and city and town governments that 

serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and 

small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). 

The SBA has developed size 

standards to carry out the purposes of 

the Small Business Act. These standards 

can be found in 13 CFR 121.201. For a 

specific industry identified by the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS), small entities are 

defined by the SBA as an individual, 

limited partnership, or small company 

considered at ‘‘arm’s length’’ from the 

control of any parent company, which 

meet certain size standards. The size 

standards are expressed either in 

number of employees or annual 

receipts. This proposed rule is most 

likely to affect entities nationwide that 

sell alligator products such as hides, 

eggs, and meat. The industries most 

likely to be directly affected are listed in 

the table below along with the relevant 

SBA size standards. 

TABLE 1—INDUSTRIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE

Industry NAICS code 

Size standards in 

millions of dollars 

or employees 

Full-Service Restaurants ......................................................................................................................... 722511 $8.0 

Limited-Service Restaurants .................................................................................................................... 722513 12.0 

Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores ........................................................... 445110 35.0 

Other Aquaculture .................................................................................................................................... 112519 1.0 

Leather and Hide Tanning and Finishing ................................................................................................ 316110 * 500 

* Employees. 

Based on these thresholds, the 

proposed rule may affect small entities. 

In addition to determining whether a 

substantial number of small entities are 

likely to be affected by this proposed 

rule, the Service must also determine 

whether the proposed rule is anticipated 

to have a significant economic impact 

on those small entities. This rule would 

not significantly impact interstate 

commerce, as the proposed changes 

would not change the fact that interstate 

commerce is allowed under the 

provisions of this 4(d) rule. Therefore, 

we do not expect any significant 

impacts to these businesses because 

interstate commerce would continue as 

provisioned by the Endangered Species 

Act and the 4(d) regulations, and any 

potential positive economic impact from 

the preemption of any conflicting State 

or Tribal law is too speculative to 

estimate. The rule would not have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities in 

any region or nationally. 

Therefore, based on the information 

available to us at this time, we certify 

that this proposed rule would not have 

a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

defined under the RFA. An initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. Accordingly, a small entity 

compliance guide is not required. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 801 et 

seq.) 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act. This rule: 

(a) Would not have an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more. 

(b) Would not cause a major increase 

in costs or prices for consumers; 

individual industries; Federal, State, or 

local government agencies; or 

geographic regions. 

(c) Would not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant 

rules. OIRA has determined that this 

rule is not significant. 

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of 

E.O. 12866 while calling for 

improvements in the nation’s regulatory 

system to promote predictability, to 

reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, 

most innovative, and least burdensome 

tools for achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

This proposed rule would provide 

clarity regarding interstate commerce in 

alligators, whether alive or dead, 

including any skin, part, product, egg, 

or offspring thereof held in captivity or 

from the wild. It would reaffirm current, 

longstanding provisions that allow 

interstate commerce in lawfully 

harvested American alligators but 

would remove text conditioning sale or 

transfer in accordance with the law of 

the State or Tribe in which sale or 

transfer occurs. Therefore, we do not 

anticipate significant economic impacts 

because interstate commerce would 

continue as provisioned by the 

Endangered Species Act and the section 

4(d) regulations and any potential 

economic impact from the preemption 

of any conflicting State or Tribal law is 

too speculative to estimate. 

Executive Order 13771 

This rule is not an Executive Order 

(E.O.) 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) (82 FR 

9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory 

action because this rule is not 

significant under E.O. 12866. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare statements of energy effects 

when undertaking certain actions. This 

rule is not a significant energy action 

under the definition in Executive Order 

13211. A statement of Energy Effects is 

not required. This proposed rule would 

revise the current regulations in 50 CFR 

part 17 that pertain to the harvest of 

American alligators and regulate legal 

trade in the animals, their skins, and 

products made from them, as part of 

efforts to prevent the illegal take and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 5119 

trafficking of endangered reptiles that 

are similar in appearance to American 

alligators. This proposed rule will not 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, and use. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(1) This proposed rule would not 

produce a Federal mandate. In general, 

a Federal mandate is a provision in 

legislation, statute, or regulation that 

would impose an enforceable duty upon 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or 

the private sector, and includes both 

Federal intergovernmental mandates 

and Federal private sector mandates. 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’ 

includes a regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments with two 

exceptions. It excludes a condition of 

Federal assistance. It also excludes a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program, unless the 

regulation relates to a then-existing 

Federal program under which 

$500,000,000 or more is provided 

annually to State, local, and Tribal 

governments under entitlement 

authority, if the provision would 

increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance or place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding, and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments lack authority to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

(2) This proposed rule will not 

impose an unfunded mandate on State, 

local, or Tribal governments or the 

private sector of more than $100 million 

per year. The rule will not have a 

significant or unique effect on State, 

local, or Tribal governments or the 

private sector. A statement containing 

the information required by the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of this 

proposed rule. 

This rule does not affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630. This proposed rule would 

update and clarify the regulations 

concerning the harvest of American 

alligators and regulate legal trade in the 

animals, their skins, and products made 

from them, as part of efforts to prevent 

the illegal take and trafficking of 

endangered reptiles that are similar in 

appearance to American alligators. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant federalism effects. 

A federalism summary impact statement 

is not required. These proposed 

revisions to 50 CFR part 17 do not 

contain significant federalism 

implications. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), this rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

Specifically, this proposed rule: 

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) 

requiring that all regulations be 

reviewed to eliminate errors and 

ambiguity and be written to minimize 

litigation; and 

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) 

requiring that all regulations be written 

in clear language and contain clear legal 

standards. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any new collections of information that 

require approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 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. 

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), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2 

(Department of the Interior Manual, 

Series 30, Part 512, Chapter 2: 

Departmental Responsibilities for 

Indian Trust Resources), we readily 

acknowledge our responsibility to 

communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have evaluated this proposed rule 

under the criteria in Executive Order 

13175 under the Department’s 

consultation policy and are not aware of 

any substantial effects to federally 

recognized Indian Tribes but will 

consider comments from Tribes on this 

proposed rule. We will consult and 

solicit comments from Tribes. 

Individual Tribal members must meet 

the same regulatory requirements as 

other individuals under our regulations 

at 50 CFR 17.42 (Special rules— 

reptiles). 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

in the docket provided above in 

ADDRESSES. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Therefore, for the reasons discussed 

in the preamble, we hereby propose to 

amend part 17 of title 50, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
5120 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

AUTHORITY: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Section 17.42 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.42 Special rules—reptiles. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Any person may take an American 

alligator in the wild, or one which was 

born in captivity or lawfully placed in 

captivity, and may deliver, receive, 

carry, transport, ship, sell, offer to sell, 

purchase, or offer to purchase such 

alligator in interstate or foreign 

commerce, by any means whatsoever 

and in the course of a commercial 

activity, if such activities are in 

accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the State or Tribe in 

which taking occurs, and subject to the 

following condition: Any skin of an 

American alligator may be sold or 

otherwise transferred only if the State or 

Tribe of taking requires skins to be 

tagged by State or Tribal officials or 

under State or Tribal supervision with 

a Service-approved tag in accordance 

with the requirements in part 23 of this 

subchapter. 

* * * * * 

Aurelia Skipwith, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–01012 Filed 1–15–21; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 29 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0017; 

FF09R50000–XXX–FVRS8451900000] 

RIN 1018–BD78 

Streamlining U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Permitting of Rights-of-Way 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), propose to 

revise and streamline FWS regulations 

for permitting of rights-of-way by 

aligning FWS processes more closely 

with those of other Department of the 

Interior bureaus, consistent with 

applicable law and to the extent 

practicable. The proposed rule would 

require a pre-application meeting and 

use of a standard application, the SF– 

299, Application for Transportation and 

Utility Systems and Facilities on 

Federal Lands; allow electronic 

submission of applications; and provide 

FWS with additional flexibility, as 

appropriate, to determine the fair 

market value or fair market rental value 

of rights-of-way across FWS-managed 

lands. This proposed rule would reduce 

the time and cost necessary to 

determine a right-of-way’s fair market 

value or fair market rental value, and 

also reduce an applicant’s time and cost 

to obtain a right-of-way permit. The 

proposed rule would also simplify the 

procedures that applicants must follow 

to reimburse the United States for costs 

that FWS incurs while processing rightof-way applications and monitoring 

permitted rights-of-way. 

DATES: We will accept comments on this 

proposed rule that are received or 

postmarked on or before March 22, 

2021. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0017, 

which is the docket number for this 

rulemaking. Then, click on the Search 

button. On the resulting page, in the 

Search panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, click on the Proposed Rule box 

to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–HQ– 

NWRS–2019–0017, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see Public 

Comments, below, for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

Fowler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: NWRS, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041; (703) 358–1876. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We request comments or information 

from other concerned government 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this proposed rule. You may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposed rule by one of 

the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We 

request that you send comments only by 

the methods described in ADDRESSES. 

All comments submitted 

electronically via http://

www.regulations.gov will be presented 

on the website in their entirety as 

submitted. For comments submitted via 

hard copy, we will post your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—on http://

www.regulations.gov. You may request 

at the top of your document that we 

withhold personal information such as 

your street address, phone number, or 

email address from public review; 

however, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov. 

Background 

FWS is the principal land manager 

and permitting authority for more than 

89 million terrestrial acres of public 

lands, including 76.8 million acres in 

Alaska, 12.2 million acres in the lower 

48 States, and 50,000 acres in Hawaii. 

The vast majority of the 89 million acres 

are part of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (Refuge System), whose mission 

is to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within 

the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of 

Americans (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2)). 

These acres include more than 20 

million acres of designated wilderness 

that the Service manages to preserve the 

wilderness character in accordance with 

the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 

1131 et seq.). Subject to existing private 

rights, and special provisions included 

in wilderness-designation statutes, the 

Wilderness Act prohibits commercial 

enterprises and permanent roads. The 

law also prohibits temporary roads; 

motor vehicles, motorized equipment, 

motorboats, landing of aircraft, and 

other forms of mechanical transport; 

structures; and installations, unless 

their use can be demonstrated to be 

necessary to meet minimum 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS