39962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

but solicits comment on whether and 

how specific events of various types 

should be considered to be ‘‘extreme.’’ 

With this document, the EPA is 

announcing the availability of revised 

draft guidance, along with examples of 

approved demonstrations on the EPA’s 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

analysis/exevents.htm. The EPA is 

providing the draft guidance to facilitate 

review of these materials by outside 

parties and to help ensure that the 

EPA’s final guidance provides an 

efficient and effective process to make 

determinations regarding air quality 

data affected by events. The EPA notes 

that these draft guidance documents and 

the exceptional events Web site present 

examples to illustrate specific points. 

The example analyses and level of rigor 

are not necessarily required for all 

demonstrations. 

After receiving timely submitted 

public comments on the draft guidance, 

the EPA plans to issue updated nonbinding guidance. In addition, the EPA 

will continue to work closely with state, 

local, and tribal agencies to address 

issues arising during the development 

and submittal of exceptional event 

demonstration packages. The EPA is 

deferring a decision on whether to 

revise the Exceptional Events Rule. 

The EPA invites public comment on 

all aspects of this draft guidance during 

the 60-day comment period. The draft 

guidance is not a regulation or any other 

kind of final action and does not 

establish binding requirements on the 

EPA or any state, local, or tribal agency 

or any emissions source. While the EPA 

has established a docket and is 

requesting public comment on the draft 

guidance, this procedure does not alter 

the nature or effect of the draft guidance 

and does not constitute a formal 

rulemaking process or require the EPA 

to respond to public comments in the 

updated guidance before the EPA or 

other agencies may use the guidance in 

reaching decisions making related 

exceptional event demonstration 

submittals. The EPA retains the 

discretion to revise its guidance, issue 

additional guidance, propose 

regulations as appropriate, and to use 

information submitted in public 

comments to inform future decisions. 

Because this draft guidance does not 

constitute a formal rulemaking action, 

the EPA is not required to respond to 

comments, but intends to consider 

significant comments in amending or 

updating the non-binding guidance. 

Following the 60-day comment period 

and review and incorporation of 

comments, the EPA expects to post the 

revised, final guidance documents at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/ 

exevents.htm. 

Please refer to the ADDRESSES section 

above in this document for specific 

instructions on submitting comments. 

III. Internet Web Site for Guidance 

Information 

Interested parties can find the draft 

guidance titled, Draft Guidance 

Documents on the Implementation of 

the Exceptional Events Rule, on the 

Exceptional Events Web site for this 

rulemaking at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

analysis/exevents.htm. The Web site 

includes examples of reviewed 

exceptional event submissions, best 

practices components, and links to 

publicly available support information 

and tools that the public may find 

useful. 

Dated: June 26, 2012. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16308 Filed 7–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0441; FRL–9352–9] 

Difenzoquat; Proposed Data Call-in 

Order for Pesticide Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed order. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

require the submission of various data 

to support the continuation of the 

tolerances for the pesticide difenzoquat. 

Pesticide tolerances are established 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0441; 

FRL–9352–9, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Miederhoff, Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 347–8028; email address: 

miederhoff.eric@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to, those involved with: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 39963 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. FFDCA Data Call-In Authority 

In this document, EPA proposes to 

issue an order requiring the submission 

of various data to support the 

continuation of the difenzoquat 

tolerances at 40 CFR 180.369. Under 

section 408(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(f), EPA is authorized to require, by 

order, submission of data ‘‘reasonably 

required to support the continuation of 

a tolerance’’ when such data cannot be 

obtained under the Data Call-In 

authority of section 3(c)(2)(B) of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 

136a(c)(2)(B), or section 4 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 

U.S.C. 2603. A section 408(f) Data CallIn order may only be issued following 

notice and a comment period of not less 

than 60 days. 

After the 60-day comment period 

closes, the Agency will respond to 

comments, if appropriate, and may issue 

a final order requiring the submission of 

various data for difenzoquat in the 

Federal Register. A section 408(f) Data 

Call-In order must contain the following 

elements: 

1. A requirement that one or more 

persons submit to EPA a notice 

identifying the person(s) who commit to 

submit the data required in the order; 

2. A description of the required data 

and the required reports connected to 

such data; 

3. An explanation of why the required 

data could not be obtained under 

section 3(c)(2)(B) of FIFRA or section 4 

of TSCA; and 

4. The required submission date for 

the notice identifying one or more 

interested persons who commit to 

submit the required data and the 

required submission dates for all the 

data and reports required in the order. 

(21 U.S.C. 346a(f)(1)(C)). 

If EPA issues such an order, persons 

who are interested in the continuation 

of the difenzoquat tolerances must 

notify the Agency by completing and 

submitting the required ‘‘§ 408(f) Order 

Response’’ form (available in the docket) 

within 90 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. 

The ‘‘§ 408(f) Order Response Form’’ 

requires the identification of persons 

who will submit the required data and 

lists the following options available to 

support the required data: 

a. Develop new data, 

b. Submit an existing study—submit 

existing data not submitted previously 

to the Agency by anyone, 

c. Upgrade a study—submit or cite 

data to upgrade a study classified by 

EPA as partially acceptable and 

upgradable, 

d. Cite an existing study—cite an 

existing study that EPA classified as 

acceptable or an existing study that has 

been submitted but not reviewed by the 

Agency. 

If EPA does issue a final order 

requiring the submission of data on 

difenzoquat and if the Agency does not 

receive a § 408(f) Order Response Form 

identifying a person who agrees to 

submit the required data within 90 days 

after publication of the final order, EPA 

will proceed to revoke the difenzoquat 

tolerances at 40 CFR 180.369. Such 

revocation order is subject to the 

objection and hearing procedure in 

FFDCA section 408(g)(2), but the only 

material issue in such a procedure is 

whether a submission required by the 

order was made in a timely fashion. 

Additional events that may be the 

basis for modification or revocation of 

difenzoquat tolerances if a final order 

requiring data is issued include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 

1. No person submits on the required 

schedule an acceptable proposal or final 

protocol when such is required to be 

submitted to the Agency for review. 

2. No person submits on the required 

schedule an adequate progress report on 

a study as required by the order. 

3. No person submits on the required 

schedule acceptable data as required by 

the final order. 

4. No person submits supportable 

certifications as to the conditions of 

submitted data, where required by order 

and where no other cited or submitted 

study meets the data requirements the 

study was intended to fulfill. 

III. Regulatory Background for 

Difenzoquat 

Difenzoquat is an herbicide. It is not 

currently registered under FIFRA. 

Difenzoquat’s last FIFRA registration 

was canceled in 2010. However, 25 

FFDCA tolerances remain for residues of 

difenzoquat on the following 

commodities: barley, cattle, goat, hog, 

horse, poultry, sheep, and wheat (40 

CFR 180.369). Since there are currently 

no domestic registrations for 

difenzoquat, these tolerances are 

referred to as ‘‘import tolerances.’’ 

The Agency completed a 

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) 

for difenzoquat in September 1994. The 

RED evaluated the potential human 

health and ecological risks associated 

with all registered uses of difenzoquat, 

and concluded that difenzoquat 

products, when labeled and used as 

specified in the RED, did not pose 

unreasonable risk or adverse effects to 

humans or the environment. 

Additionally, in connection with its 

obligation under the Food Quality 

Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), the 

Agency evaluated whether all 

difenzoquat tolerances in existence at 

the time of the passage of FQPA met the 

revised safety standard that the FQPA 

adopted for FFDCA section 408. A 

Report of the Food Quality Protection 

Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment 

Progress and Risk Management Decision 

(TRED) for Difenzoquat was completed 

in April 2002. The TRED concluded that 

the risks of difenzoquat met the revised 

safety standard in FFDCA section 408. 

In August 2011, in response to a 

registrant’s interest in supporting 

tolerances for import purposes, the 

Agency completed a screening-level 

evaluation for difenzoquat. As there are 

no domestic registrations for 

difenzoquat products, the evaluation 

was limited to the potential dietary risk 

from exposure to difenzoquat residues 

in imported food commodities. The 

evaluation concluded that additional 

data are needed to support a new 

dietary risk assessment on exposure 

from imported food commodities. The 

necessary data include: a neurotoxicity 

battery; residue data for wheat hay, 

wheat forage, and barley hay; and an 

immunotoxicity study. These data 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

requirements are discussed in detail in 

Unit IV. 

IV. Proposed Data Requirements 

A. Proposed Data and Reports 

Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f), 

EPA has determined that additional data 

are reasonably required to support the 

continuation of the import tolerances for 

difenzoquat, which are codified at 40 

CFR 180.369. These data cannot be 

obtained under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) 

because difenzoquat is not registered 

under FIFRA and the data call-in 

authority under that section only 

extends to registered pesticides. These 

data cannot be obtained under TSCA 

because pesticides are excluded from 

coverage under that statute. 15 U.S.C. 

2602(2)(B)(ii). 

Accordingly, EPA proposes to issue a 

final order requiring the submission of 

the following data: 

1. Neurotoxicity Screening Battery 

(870.6200). Rationale. EPA does not 

have a neurotoxicity screening battery 

(870.6200) for difenzoquat. This is a 

data requirement under 40 CFR part 158 

as a part of the data requirements for 

registration of a pesticide (food and nonfood uses) and establishment of FFDCA 

tolerances. 40 CFR 158.500. The 

Neurotoxicity Screening Battery 

(870.6200) is designed to evaluate the 

potential adverse effects on the nervous 

system from exposure to pesticide 

chemicals. The acute neurotoxicity 

study is required to detect possible 

effects resulting from a single exposure. 

The subchronic neurotoxicity study is 

intended to detect possible effects 

resulting from repeated or long-term 

exposure. 

2. Immunotoxicity Study (870.7800). 

A final report and protocol are required. 

Rationale. EPA does not have a 

functional immunotoxicity study 

(870.7800) for difenzoquat. This is a 

data requirement under 40 CFR Part 158 

as a part of the data requirements for 

registration of a pesticide (food and nonfood uses) and for establishment of a 

tolerance. 40 CFR 158.500. A functional 

immunotoxicity study under the 

Immunotoxicity Test Guideline 

(870.7800) is designed to evaluate the 

potential of a repeated chemical 

exposure to produce adverse effects (i.e., 

suppression) on the immune system. 

Immunosuppression is a deficit in the 

ability of the immune system to respond 

to a challenge of bacterial or viral 

infections such as tuberculosis (TB), 

Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome 

(SARS), or neoplasia. 

3. Crop Field Trials (860.1500)— 

(wheat hay, wheat forage, and barley 

hay) Rationale. EPA does not have crop 

field trials (860.1500) for difenzoquat for 

the commodities wheat hay, wheat 

forage, or barley hay. Field trials are 

required for each commodity/ 

commodity group under 40 CFR part 

158. These data are used to establish the 

legal maximum residue that may remain 

on food and to assess the risk posed by 

the pesticide residue. 

EPA guidelines recommend that crop 

field trials be designed to take into 

account where the crop is grown and 

how much of the crop is grown. Field 

trials are generally needed for each type 

of formulation because the formulation 

can have a significant effect on the 

magnitude of the pesticide residue left 

on the crop. Residue trials also need to 

represent the maximum application rate 

on the label and have a geographic 

distribution representative of the 

commodity/commodity group so that 

EPA can evaluate what level of residues 

may be present from use of the 

pesticide. On June 1, 2000 (65 FR 

35069) (FRL–6559–3), EPA published in 

the Federal Register a Notice which 

provided detailed guidance on applying 

current U.S. data requirements for the 

establishment or continuance of 

tolerances for pesticide residues in or on 

imported foods. A copy of that Notice is 

available in the docket of this proposed 

order. That Notice contains instructions 

for determining number and location of 

field trials. 

EPA is requesting comment on these 

proposed data requirements. 

B. Proposed Dates for Submission of 

Data/Reports 

The table below lists the time 

proposed for both the completion and 

submission of each study. The proposed 

submission date is calculated from the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of the final order. 

Guideline 

requirement No. Study title Timeframe for protocol submission 

Timeframe 

for data 

submission 

(months) 

870.6200 ........... Neurotoxicity Screening Battery ................................................................................... Not Required ............. 24 

870.7800 ........... Immunotoxicity Study ................................................................................................... 6 months ................... 12 

860.1500 ........... Crop Field Trials (wheat hay, wheat forage, and barley hay) ...................................... Not Required ............. 24 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

As required by statute, this document 

proposing to require submission of data 

in support of tolerances is in the form 

of a proposed order and not a rule. (21 

U.S.C. 346a(f)(1)(C)). Under the 

Administrative Procedures Act, orders 

are expressly excluded from the 

definition of a rule. (5 U.S.C. 551(4)). 

Accordingly, the regulatory assessment 

requirements imposed on rulemaking do 

not, therefore, apply to this action. 

This document proposes to require 

data from any party interested in 

supporting certain tolerances. Because 

this proposed order is not a significant 

regulatory action it is exempt from 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 

12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

and also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, entitled Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed order 

also does not require any special 

considerations under Executive Order 

12898, entitled Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). This proposed order does contain 

information collections that have been 

approved by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq. 

This document proposes to require 

data from any party interested in 

supporting certain tolerances and does 

not impose obligations on any person or 

entity including States or tribes; nor 

does this action alter the relationships 

or distribution of power and 

responsibilities established by Congress 

in the preemption provisions of section 

408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the 

Agency has determined that this action 

will not have a substantial direct effect 

on States or tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 39965 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this proposed final rule. In addition, 

this proposed order does not impose 

any enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, difenzoquat, 

Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 22, 2012. 

Michael Goodis, 

Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16295 Filed 7–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R9–ES–2012–0013; 4500030115] 

RIN 1018–AY38 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing the Hyacinth 

Macaw 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, propose to list as 

endangered the hyacinth macaw 

(Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus) under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We are taking this 

action in response to a petition to list 

this species as endangered or threatened 

under the Act. This document, which 

also serves as the completion of the 

status review and as the 12-month 

finding on the petition, announces our 

finding that listing is warranted for the 

hyacinth macaw. If we finalize this rule 

as proposed, it would extend the Act’s 

protections to this species. We seek 

information from the public on this 

proposed rule and status review for this 

species. 

DATES: Comments: We will consider 

comments and information received or 

postmarked on or before September 4, 

2012. 

Public hearing: We must receive 

requests for a public hearing by August 

20, 2012 addressed to the contact 

specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2012–0013. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9– 

ES–2012–0013, Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept comments by 

email or fax. We will post all comments 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Requested section 

below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 

Foreign Species, Endangered Species 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, 

Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– 

358–2171. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

We were petitioned to list the 

hyacinth macaw, and 13 other parrot 

species, under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (Act). During our status 

review, we found threats operating in 

aggregation and contributing to the risk 

of extinction of the species. Therefore, 

in this 12-month finding, we announce 

that listing the hyacinth macaw is 

warranted and are publishing a 

proposed rule to list this species as 

endangered under the Act. We are 

undertaking this action pursuant to a 

settlement agreement, and publication 

of this 12-month finding and proposed 

rule will fulfill our obligations under 

that agreement. 

This action is authorized by the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. It affects Part 17, subchapter 

B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. The Act and its 

implementing regulations set forth a 

series of general prohibitions and 

exceptions that apply to all endangered 

and threatened wildlife. These 

prohibitions make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to ‘‘take’’ (includes harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or to attempt any of these) 

within the United States or upon the 

high seas; import or export; deliver, 

receive, carry, transport, or ship in 

interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of commercial activity; or sell or 

offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce any endangered wildlife 

species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, or ship any 

such wildlife that has been taken in 

violation of the Act. Certain exceptions 

apply to agents of the Service and State 

conservation agencies. 

Permits may be issued to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered and threatened 

wildlife species under certain 

circumstances. With regard to 

endangered wildlife, a permit may be 

issued for the following purposes: for 

scientific purposes, to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species 

and for incidental take in connection 

with otherwise lawful activities. 

This regulatory action is not 

economically significant. 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(3)(B)) requires that, for any 

petition to revise the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

that listing the species may be 

warranted, we make a finding within 12 

months of the date of receipt of the 

petition (‘‘12-month finding’’). In this 

finding, we determine whether the 

petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

endangered or threatened, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add qualified species to or remove 

species from the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act 

requires that we treat a petition for 

which the requested action is found to 

be warranted but precluded as though 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS