Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52297 

(b)* * * 

(14) Debarment and Suspension 

Program, DOI–11. 

(c)* * * 

(4) Debarment and Suspension 

Program, DOI–11. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–21306 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–RK–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 204 and 252 

RIN 0750–AG47 

[DFARS Case 2011–D039] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Safeguarding 

Unclassified DoD Information 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add 

a new subpart and associated contract 

clauses to address requirements for 

safeguarding unclassified DoD 

information. The comment period is 

being extended 93 days to provide 

additional time for interested parties to 

review the proposed DFARS changes. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted in writing to one of 

the addresses shown below on or before 

November 30, 2011, to be considered in 

the formation of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2011–D039, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Æ E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2011–D039 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 703–602–0350. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Julian 

Thrash, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 

Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

To confirm receipt of your comment, 

please check http://www.regulations.gov 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 93 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Julian Thrash, telephone 703–602–0310. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register on June 29, 2011 (76 

FR 38089), with a request for comments 

by August 29, 2011. DoD is extending 

the comment period for 93 days to 

provide additional time for interested 

parties to review the proposed DFARS 

changes. 

Mary Overstreet, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21337 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–IA–2011–0027; 96300– 

1671–0000–R4] 

RIN 1018–AW81 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; U.S. Captive-Bred InterSubspecific Crossed or Generic Tigers 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

amend the regulations that implement 

the Endangered Species Act (Act) by 

removing inter-subspecific crossed or 

generic tiger (Panthera tigris) (i.e., 

specimens not identified or identifiable 

as members of Bengal, Sumatran, 

Siberian, or Indochinese subspecies 

from the list of species that are exempt 

from registration under the Captive-bred 

Wildlife (CBW) regulations. The 

exemption currently allows those 

individuals or breeding operations who 

want to conduct otherwise prohibited 

activities, such as take, interstate 

commerce, and export, under the Act 

with U.S. captive-bred, live intersubspecific crossed or generic tigers to 

do so without becoming registered. We 

are proposing this change to the 

regulations to strengthen control over 

captive breeding of tigers in the United 

States to ensure that such breeding 

supports the conservation of the species 

in the wild consistent with the purposes 

of the Act. The inter-subspecific crossed 

or generic tigers remain listed as 

endangered under the Act, and a person 

would need to obtain authorization 

under the current statutory and 

regulatory requirements to conduct any 

otherwise prohibited activities with 

them. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

September 21, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the Enter 

Keyword or ID box, enter FWS–R9–IA– 

2011–0027, which is the docket number 

for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 

panel at the top of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, check the box 

next to Proposed Rules to locate this 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Send a Comment.’’ 

By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or 

hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–IA–2011– 

0027; 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 e-mails or faxes. 

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 

Public Comments section at the end of 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further 

information about submitting 

comments). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy J. Van Norman, Chief, Branch 

of Permits, Division of Management 

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

212, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 

703–358–21040; fax 703–358–2281. If 

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

To prevent the extinction of wildlife 

and plants, the Endangered Species Act 

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

seq.) (Act), and its implementing 

regulations, prohibit any person subject 

to the jurisdiction of the United States 

from conducting certain activities 

unless authorized by a permit. These 

activities include import, export, take, 

and interstate or foreign commerce. The 

Department of the Interior may permit 

these activities for endangered species 

for scientific research or enhancement 

of the propagation or survival of the 

species, provided the activities are 

consistent with the purposes of the Act. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52298 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

In addition, for threatened species, 

permits may be issued for the abovelisted activities, as well as zoological, 

horticultural, or botanical exhibition; 

education; and special purposes 

consistent with the Act. The Secretary 

of the Interior has delegated the 

authority to administer endangered and 

threatened species permit matters to the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. The Service’s Division of 

Management Authority administers the 

permit program for the import or export 

of listed species; the sale or offer for sale 

in interstate and foreign commerce for 

nonnative listed species; and the take of 

nonnative listed wildlife within the 

United States. 

Previous Federal Action 

In 1979, the Service published the 

Captive-bred Wildlife (CBW) regulations 

(44 FR 54002, September 17, 1979) to 

reduce Federal permitting requirements 

and facilitate captive breeding of 

endangered and threatened species 

under certain conditions. These 

conditions include: 

(1) A person may become registered 

with the Service to conduct otherwise 

prohibited activities when the activities 

can be shown to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species; 

(2) Interstate commerce is authorized 

only when both the buyer and seller are 

registered for the same species; 

(3) The registration is only for live, 

mainly non-native endangered or 

threatened wildlife that was born in 

captivity in the United States (although 

the Service may determine that a native 

species is eligible for the registration; to 

date, the only native species granted 

eligibility under the registration is the 

Laysan duck (Anas laysanensis)); 

(4) Registration does not authorize 

activities with non-living wildlife, a 

provision that is intended to discourage 

the propagation of endangered or 

threatened wildlife for consumptive 

markets; and 

(5) The registrants are required to 

maintain written records of authorized 

activities and report them annually to 

the Service. The CBW registration has 

provided zoological institutions and 

breeding operations the ability to 

quickly move animals between 

registered institutions for breeding 

purposes. 

In 1993, the Service amended the 

CBW regulations at 50 CFR 17.21(g) (58 

FR 68323, December 27, 1993) to 

eliminate public education through 

exhibition of living wildlife as the sole 

justification for the issuance of a CBW 

registration. ‘‘This decision was based 

on the Service’s belief that the scope of 

the CBW system should be revised to 

relate more closely to its original intent, 

i.e., the encouragement of responsible 

breeding that is specifically designed to 

help conserve the species involved’’ (63 

FR 48636). 

In 1998, the Service amended the 

CBW regulations (63 FR 48634, 

September 11, 1998) to delete the 

requirement to obtain a CBW 

registration for holders of intersubspecific crossed or generic tigers 

(Panthera tigris) (i.e., specimens not 

identified or identifiable as members of 

Bengal, Sumatran, Siberian, or 

Indochinese subspecies (Panthera tigris 

tigris, P. t. sumatrae, P. t. altaica, and 

P. t. corbetti, respectively)). Any 

otherwise prohibited activities with 

these specimens are authorized only 

when the activities can be shown to 

enhance the propagation or survival of 

the species, provided the principal 

purpose is to facilitate captive breeding. 

Although no written annual reports are 

required, holders of these specimens 

must maintain accurate written records 

of activities, including births, deaths, 

and transfers of specimens, and make 

the records accessible to Service agents 

for inspection at reasonable hours as 

provided in 50 CFR 13.46 and 13.47. 

The exemption for inter-subspecific 

crossed or generic tigers was based on 

the alleged lack of conservation value of 

these specimens due to their mixed or 

unknown genetic composition. The 

intention behind the exemption was for 

the Service to focus its oversight on 

populations of ‘‘purebred’’ animals of 

the various tiger subspecies to further 

their conservation in the wild. Despite 

this exemption, inter-subspecific 

crossed or generic tigers are still 

protected under the Act. 

Species Status 

The wild tiger was once abundant 

throughout Asia. By the end of the 19th 

Century, an estimated 100,000 tigers 

occurred in the wild (Nowak 1999, p. 

828), but by the late 1990s, the 

estimated population declined to 5,000– 

7,000 animals (Seidensticker et al. 1999, 

p. xvii). Today’s population is thought 

to be 3,000–5,000 individuals, according 

to the IUCN (International Union for 

Conservation of Nature) Red List 

estimate (Chundawat et al. 2010, 

unpaginated), with no more than 2,500 

mature breeding adults (Williamson and 

Henry 2008, pp. 7, 43). The onceabundant tiger now lives in small, 

fragmented groups, mostly in protected 

forest, refuges, and national parks (FWS 

2010a, p. 1). The species occupies only 

about 7 percent of its original range, and 

in the past decade, the species’ range 

has decreased by as much as 41 percent 

(Dinerstein et al. 2007, p. 508). 

For many years, the international 

community has expressed concern 

about the status of tigers in the wild and 

the risk that captive tigers may sustain 

the demand for tiger parts, which would 

ultimately have a detrimental effect on 

the survival of the species in the wild. 

In 2005, Werner (p. 24) estimated there 

were 4,692 tigers held in captivity in the 

United States. Approximately 264 tigers 

were held in institutions registered with 

the Association of Zoos and Aquariums 

(AZA), 1,179 in wildlife sanctuaries, 

2,120 in institutions registered by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

and 1,120 in private hands. In 2008, 

Williamson and Henry stated that as 

many as 5,000 tigers are in captivity in 

the United States, but cautioned that, 

given the current State and Federal legal 

framework that regulates U.S. captive 

tigers, the exact size of the population 

is unknown (Williamson and Henry 

2008). An estimated 5,000 captive tigers 

occur on China’s commercial tiger 

farms, where tigers are being bred 

intensively and produce more than 800 

animals each year (Williamson and 

Henry 2008, p. 40). Tiger body parts, 

such as organs, bones, and pelts, are in 

demand not only in China, but also on 

the global black market. Organs and 

bones are used in traditional Asian 

medicines, which are purchased by 

consumers who believe the parts convey 

strength, health, and virility. 

Conservation Status 

The tiger is a species of global 

concern, is classified as endangered in 

the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2010), and is 

protected by a number of U.S. laws and 

treaties. It is listed as endangered under 

the Act. Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The listing is at the species 

level and, thus, includes all subspecies 

of tiger (including those that are of 

unknown subspecies, referred to as 

‘‘generic’’ tigers) and inter-subspecific 

crosses. 

The species is also protected by the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora (CITES). Under this treaty, 175 

member countries (Parties) work 

together to ensure that international 

trade in protected species is not 

detrimental to the survival of wild 

populations. The United States and all 

the tiger range countries are Parties to 

CITES. The tiger is listed in Appendix 

I, which includes species threatened 

with extinction whose trade is 

permitted only under exceptional 

circumstances, and which generally 

precludes commercial trade. The United 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52299 

States has a long history of working 

within CITES to promote tiger 

conservation and has been a leader in 

supporting strong actions within CITES 

for tigers, including strict controls on 

captive-bred animals. In 2007 at the 

14th meeting of the Conference of the 

Parties to CITES (CoP14), we were 

closely involved in drafting Decision 

14.69, which calls on countries with 

intensive commercial breeding 

operations of tigers to implement 

measures to restrict the captive 

population to a level supportive only to 

conserving wild tigers, and for tigers not 

to be bred for trade in their parts and 

products. Although the decision was 

primarily directed at large commercial 

breeding operations such as those found 

in China, we are aware of the large 

number of captive tigers in the United 

States and the need to be vigilant in 

monitoring these tigers as well. 

The tiger is afforded additional 

protection under the Captive Wildlife 

Safety Act (CWSA) and the Rhinoceros 

and Tiger Conservation Act (RTCA). The 

CWSA amended the Lacey Act to 

address concerns about public safety 

and the growing number of big cats, 

including tigers, in private hands in the 

United States. The law and its 

regulations make it illegal to import, 

export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, 

or purchase in interstate or foreign 

commerce any live big cats except by 

certain exempt entities. Entities exempt 

from the CWSA include a person, 

facility, or other entity licensed by the 

USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service under the Animal 

Welfare Act to possess big cats 

(typically zoos, circuses, and 

researchers) or registered to transport 

big cats; State colleges, universities, and 

agencies; State-licensed wildlife 

rehabilitators and veterinarians; and 

wildlife sanctuaries that meet certain 

criteria. 

The RTCA is another powerful tool in 

combating the international trade in 

products containing tiger parts. It 

prohibits the sale, import, and export of 

products intended for human use and 

containing, or labeled or advertised as 

containing, any substance derived from 

tiger and provides for substantial 

criminal and civil penalties for 

violators. The RTCA also establishes a 

fund that allows the Service to grant 

money in support of on-the-ground tiger 

conservation efforts, such as antipoaching programs, habitat and 

ecosystem management, development of 

nature reserves, wildlife surveys and 

monitoring, management of humanwildlife conflict, and public awareness 

campaigns (FWS 2010b. p. 1). 

Concerns Raised and Recommendations 

The World Wildlife Fund, TRAFFIC 

North America, other nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs), and the public 

have expressed concerns about the 

potential role U.S. captive tigers may 

play in the trade in tiger parts. In July 

2008, TRAFFIC published a report 

entitled, Paper Tigers? The Role of the 

U.S. Captive Tiger Population in the 

Trade in Tiger Parts (Williamson and 

Henry 2008). The report found no 

indication that U.S. tigers currently are 

entering domestic or international trade 

as live animals or as parts and products. 

However, given the precarious status of 

tigers in the wild and the potential that 

U.S. captive tigers could enter trade and 

undermine conservation efforts, 

TRAFFIC made several 

recommendations to close potential 

loopholes in current Federal and State 

regulations to address the potential use 

of captive U.S. tigers in trade. One of 

those recommendations was for the 

Service to rescind the exemption under 

50 CFR 17.21(g)(6) for holders of intersubspecific crossed or generic tigers to 

register and submit annual reports 

under the CBW regulations. 

Proposed Removal of Inter-Subspecific 

Crossed or Generic Tigers From 50 CFR 

17.21(g)(6) 

Based on an analysis of current 

information on factors posing a threat to 

tigers and their status in the wild, we 

propose to amend the CBW regulations 

that implement the Act by removing 

inter-subspecific crossed or generic tiger 

(Panthera tigris) (i.e., specimens not 

identified or identifiable as members of 

Bengal, Sumatran, Siberian, or 

Indochinese subspecies (Panthera tigris 

tigris, P. t. sumatrae, P. t. altaica, and 

P. t. corbetti, respectively) from 

paragraph (g)(6) of 50 CFR 17.21. This 

action would eliminate the exemption 

from registering and reporting under the 

CBW regulations by persons who want 

to conduct otherwise-prohibited 

activities under the Act with live intersubspecific crossed or generic tigers 

born in the United States. Intersubspecific crossed or generic tigers 

remain listed as endangered under the 

Act, and a person would need to qualify 

for an exemption or obtain an 

authorization under the remaining 

statutory and regulatory requirements to 

conduct any prohibited activities. 

We are proposing this change to the 

regulations to ensure that we maintain 

strict control of captive tigers in the 

United States. We do not believe that 

breeding inter-subspecific crossed or 

generic tigers provides a conservation 

benefit for the long-term survival of the 

species. Inter-subspecific tiger crosses 

and animals of unknown subspecies 

cannot be used for maintaining genetic 

viability and distinctness of specific 

tiger subspecies. Generic tigers are of 

unknown genetic origin and are 

typically not maintained in a manner to 

ensure that inbreeding or other 

inappropriate matings of animals do not 

occur. By exempting inter-subspecific 

crossed or generic tigers from the CBW 

registration process in 1998, we may 

have inadvertently suggested that the 

breeding of these tigers qualifies as 

conservation. By removing the 

exemption, we can reinforce the value 

of conservation breeding of individual 

tiger subspecies and discourage the 

breeding of tigers of unknown or mixed 

lineage. 

Although we are unaware of any 

evidence that tiger parts are entering 

into trade from the captive U.S. 

population of tigers, we recognize that 

the use of tiger parts and products, 

including in traditional medicine, poses 

a significant threat to wild tiger 

populations. The United States has 

worked vigorously with other CITES 

countries to encourage not only the 

adoption of measures to protect wild 

tiger populations from poaching and 

illegal trade, but also the 

implementation of measures to ensure 

that breeding of tigers in captivity 

supports conservation goals and that 

tigers are not bred for trade in parts and 

products. Despite a lack of evidence that 

parts from captive-bred tigers in the 

United States are entering international 

trade, we are taking this action out of an 

abundance of caution given the 

precarious status of tigers in the wild. 

The CBW exemption also has created 

enforcement difficulties. Specifically, 

law enforcement cases have hinged on 

whether activities the Service has 

identified as illegal were actually 

exempted under the current regulations. 

By removing the exemption, persons 

engaged in otherwise-prohibited 

activities will need to obtain a permit or 

other authorization, giving the Service 

greater ability to make enforcement 

cases involving tigers. 

It should be noted, however, that 

removing the exemption for intersubspecific crossed or generic tigers will 

not result in control of ownership, 

intrastate commerce, or noncommercial 

movement of these tigers across State 

lines. These activities are not prohibited 

by the Act, and we have no authority to 

prohibit them. 

Finally, we are also proposing to 

reorganize paragraph (g)(6) to make the 

section clearer and more user-friendly. 

The proposed text reorganizes the list of 

species that are exempted from the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52300 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

registration process by grouping like 

species together. This reorganization 

consists primarily of redesignating 

subparagraphs. With the exception of 

removing inter-subspecific crossed or 

generic tigers, the text is the same as 

currently appears in 50 CFR 17.21(g)(6). 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Order 12866: The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

determined that this rule is not 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

(E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria. 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever a Federal agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). However, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required 

if the head of an agency certifies that the 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Thus, for a 

regulatory flexibility analysis to be 

required, impacts must exceed a 

threshold for ‘‘significant impact’’ and a 

threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of 

small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) defines a small 

business as one with annual revenue or 

employment that meets or is below an 

established size standard. We expect 

that the majority of the entities involved 

in taking, exporting, re-importing, and 

selling in interstate or foreign commerce 

of inter-subspecific crossed or generic 

tigers would be considered small as 

defined by the SBA. 

This proposed rule would require 

individuals conducting otherwise 

prohibited activities with the intersubspecific crossed or generic tiger to 

apply for authorization under the Act 

and pay an application fee of $100– 

$200. The regulatory change is not 

major in scope and would create only a 

modest financial or paperwork burden 

on the affected members of the general 

public. 

We, therefore, certify that this rule 

would not have a significant economic 

effect on a substantial number of small 

entities as defined under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not 

required. Accordingly, a Small Entity 

Compliance Guide is not required. 

Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act: This 

proposed rule is not a major rule under 

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

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This proposed rule: 

a. Would not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

This rule proposes to remove the intersubspecific crossed or generic tigers 

from the exemption to register under the 

CBW regulations. If finalized, 

individuals and captive-breeding 

operations would need to obtain 

endangered species permits or other 

authorization to engage in certain 

otherwise prohibited activities. This 

proposed rule would not have a 

negative effect on this part of the 

economy. It will affect all businesses, 

whether large or small, the same. There 

is not a disproportionate share of 

benefits for small or large businesses. 

b. Would not cause a major increase 

in costs or prices for consumers; 

individual industries; Federal, State, 

Tribal, or local government agencies; or 

geographic regions. This rule would 

result in a small increase in the number 

of applications for permits or other 

authorizations to conduct otherwiseprohibited activities with intersubspecific crossed or generic tigers. 

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. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: 

Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.): 

a. This proposed rule would not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. A Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. 

b. This proposed rule would not 

produce a Federal requirement of $100 

million or greater in any year and is not 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Takings: Under Executive Order 

12630, this rule would not have 

significant takings implications. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. This proposed rule is not 

considered to have takings implications 

because it allows individuals to obtain 

authorization for otherwise prohibited 

activities with the inter-subspecific 

crossed or generic tigers when issuance 

criteria are met. 

Federalism: This proposed revision to 

part 17 does not contain significant 

Federalism implications. A Federalism 

Assessment under Executive Order 

13132 is not required. 

Civil Justice Reform: Under Executive 

Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor 

has determined that this proposed rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and meets the requirements of 

subsections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the 

Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act: The Office 

of Management and Budget approved 

the information collection in part 17 

and assigned OMB Control Number 

1018–0093, which expires February 28, 

2014. This proposed rule does not 

contain any new information collections 

or recordkeeping requirements for 

which OMB approval is required under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not 

conduct or sponsor and a person is not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA): The Service has determined 

that this proposed action is a regulatory 

change that is administrative and 

procedural in nature. As such, the 

proposed amendment is categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review as 

provided by 43 CFR 46.210(i), of the 

Department of the Interior 

Implementation of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969; final 

rule (73 FR 6129269 (October 15, 2008)). 

No further documentation will be made. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship with Tribes: Under the 

President’s memorandum of April 29, 

1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512 

DM 2, we have evaluated possible 

effects on Federally recognized Indian 

Tribes and have determined that there 

are no effects. 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use: 

Executive Order 13211 pertains to 

regulations that significantly affect 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52301 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

This proposed rule would not 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, and use. Therefore, this 

action is a not a significant energy 

action and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Clarity of this Regulation: 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: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) 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 the ADDRESSES

section. 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. 

Public Comments 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this rule by one of 

the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We will not accept comments 

sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not 

listed in the ADDRESSES section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in your 

written comments, 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. 

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, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; Division of Management 

Authority; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

212; Arlington, VA 22203; telephone, 

(703) 358–2093. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons given in the preamble, 

we propose to amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. Amend § 17.21 by revising 

paragraph (g)(6) to read as set forth 

below: 

§ 17.21 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(6) Exemption from registration 

requirement. 

(i) If the conditions in paragraph 

(g)(6)(ii) of this section are met, then any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States seeking to engage in any 

of the activities authorized by paragraph 

(g)(1) of this section may do so without 

first registering with the Service with 

respect to the following species: 

(A) The bar-tailed pheasant 

(Syrmaticus humiae), Elliot’s pheasant 

(S. ellioti), Mikado pheasant (S. 

mikado), brown eared pheasant 

(Crossoptilon mantchuricum), white 

eared pheasant (C. crossoptilon), cheer 

pheasant (Catreus wallichii), Edward’s 

pheasant (Lophura edwardsi), 

Swinhoe’s pheasant (L. swinhoii), 

Chinese monal (Lophophorus lhuysii), 

and Palawan peacock pheasant 

(Polyplectron emphanum); 

(B) Parakeets of the species 

Neophema pulchella and N. splendida; 

(C) The Laysan duck (Anas 

laysanensis); and 

(D) The white-winged wood duck 

(Cairina scutulata). 

(ii) Conditions for exemption to 

register. The following conditions must 

exist for persons dealing with the 

species listed in paragraph (g)(6)(i) of 

this section to be eligible for exemption 

from the requirement to register with 

the Service: 

(A) The purpose of the activity is to 

enhance the propagation or survival of 

the affected exempted species. 

(B) Such activity does not involve 

interstate or foreign commerce, in the 

course of a commercial activity, with 

respect to nonliving wildlife. 

(C) Each specimen to be reimported is 

uniquely identified by a band, tattoo, or 

other means that was reported in 

writing to an official of the Service at a 

port of export prior to export of the 

specimen from the United States. 

(D) No specimens of the taxa in 

paragraph (g)(6) of this section that were 

taken from the wild may be imported for 

breeding purposes absent a definitive 

showing that the need for new 

bloodlines can be met only by wild 

specimens, that suitable foreign-bred, 

captive individuals are unavailable, and 

that wild populations can sustain 

limited taking. In addition, an import 

permit must be issued under § 17.22. 

(E) Any permanent exports of such 

specimens meet the requirements of 

paragraph (g)(4) of this section. 

(F) Each person claiming the benefit 

of the exception in paragraph (g)(1) of 

this section must maintain accurate 

written records of activities, including 

births, deaths, and transfers of 

specimens, and make those records 

accessible to Service agents for 

inspection at reasonable hours as set 

forth in §§ 13.46 and 13.47. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 4, 2011. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21303 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

RIN 0648–XA633 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf of 

Alaska Fishery Resources; Notice of 

Rockfish Program Public Workshops 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public workshops. 

SUMMARY: NMFS will present two public 

workshops on the Central Gulf of Alaska 

Rockfish Program (Rockfish Program) 

for potentially eligible participants and 

other interested parties. At each 

workshop, NMFS will provide an 

overview of the proposed Rockfish 

Program, discuss the key differences 

between the Rockfish Program and the 

Rockfish Pilot Program, provide 

information on the proposed rule 

comment process, and answer 

questions. NMFS is conducting these 

public workshops to assist fishery 

participants in understanding and 

reviewing the proposed rule that would 

implement this new Rockfish Program. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS