25512 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

Authority

The authority for this notice is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

Dated: May 1, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12284 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Proposed Policy on the Export of Live

American Alligators and

Announcement of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy.

SUMMARY: After review and analysis of

comments received and for the reasons

detailed in this notice, the Service

proposes to adopt a policy against the

issuance of permits for the export of live

American alligators for commercial

breeding or resale purposes. The

American alligator is protected under

the Endangered Species Act of 1973

(ESA) as threatened due to similarity of

appearance and under the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES) as Appendix II. The Service

may issue an export permit upon

finding that all applicable permit

issuance requirements have been met.

Exports of animals listed on Appendix

II of CITES may occur only if the

Scientific Authority has advised the

Management Authority that such

exports will not be detrimental to the

survival of the species and the

Management Authority is satisfied the

animals were not obtained in violation

of laws for their protection. Based on

documentation presented for

consideration by the CITES Parties in

1983, the Service has determined that

the American alligator is listed on

Appendix II for reasons of similarity in

appearance under Article II.2(b) of

CITES as well as the potential threat to

the species survival under CITES Article

II.2(a).

This notice announces a proposed

policy by the Service on the export of

live American alligators. Based on the

information received in response to the

June 24, 1997, notice, the Service is

unable to find that the export of live

American alligators either for

commercial breeding or resale purposes

is not detrimental as required under

CITES or that such exports comply with

Executive Order 11987—Exotic

Organisms. Applications for permits to

export live American alligators for

purposes such as scientific research or

zoological exhibition would be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

DATES: The Service will consider all

information and comments received by

June 8, 1998 in making its final decision

on this proposal. A public meeting will

be held at the Delta Resort Orlando,

5715 Major Boulevard, Orlando, Florida

32819–7988, on May 5, 1998, from 1:30

pm to 3:30 pm.

ADDRESSES: Please send comments or

other correspondence concerning this

document to the Office of Management

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, room

700, Arlington, VA 22203. Materials

received will be available for public

inspection by appointment from 8 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

Office of Management Authority.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Teiko Saito, Chief, Office of

Management Authority, telephone 703–

358–2095, fax 703–358–2298.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Fish

and Wildlife Service (Service) published

a notice on June 24, 1997 (62 FR 34074),

requesting submission to the Service of

any information available on the

impacts of exports of live American

alligators. Generally, in order to export

species of wildlife protected under the

ESA and/or CITES, an export permit

must be issued. The Service is the

agency responsible for reviewing

applications for export of wildlife. Each

permit application must be carefully

evaluated to ensure compliance with all

applicable regulations and executive

orders. The American alligator is

protected under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973 (ESA) as threatened due to

similarity of appearance and under the

Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora (CITES) as Appendix II. A permit

for export of American alligators can

only be issued if the Service can

determine:

1. That the export will not be

detrimental to the survival of the

species (50 CFR 23.15(d)(1));

2. That the animals to be exported

were not obtained in violation of laws

for their protection (50 CFR 23.15(d)(2));

3. That the authorization requested

does not potentially threaten a wildlife

population (50 CFR 13.21(b)(4)); and

4. That the requirements of Executive

Order 11987, Exotic Organisms, are met.

(This Executive Order, in part, requires

‘‘Executive agencies shall, to the extent

permitted by law, restrict the use of

Federal funds, programs, or authorities

used to export native species for the

purpose of introducing such species

into ecosystems outside the United

States where they do not naturally

occur.’’ In this instance, introduction is

defined to include ‘‘the release, escape,

or establishment of an exotic species

into a natural ecosystem.’’)

5. That live specimens are prepared

for shipping and shipped in compliance

with the International Air Transport

Association (IATA) Live Animal

Regulations (for air transport) or CITES

guidelines for transport (for other

transport).

The Service received requests from

the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish

Commission and the Louisiana

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

that we review the criteria for issuance

of permits for export of live American

alligators for commercial breeding or

resale purposes and to restrict issuance

of such permits until a review could be

completed. In response to these

concerns, the Service published the

June 24, 1997, Federal Register notice

requesting submission of any

information available to assist us in

evaluating such impacts.

In addition, the problems associated

with the introduction of exotic species

have become increasingly apparent

worldwide. The problems have been

discussed in a number of international

fora such as the meeting of the CITES

Conference of the Parties in 1997 in

Zimbabwe, the World Conservation

Congress in 1996, and the Conference

on Alien Species in Norway in 1996. In

the United States, approximately 122

species of exotic (non-indigenous)

species of fish and wildlife have already

established free-living populations and

are causing great harm. The import of

potentially harmful exotic species is

currently being reviewed by the Service

in the context of the Lacey Act

prohibitions on import of injurious

species. In relation to export of native

species, E.O. 11987 restricts the use of

Federal funds, programs, or authorities

(i.e., the issuance of CITES export

permits) to export native species outside

the United States. The American

alligator is one of the few native species

that requires a CITES export permit and

for which we have received applications

for export of large numbers of live

specimens. Given the documented

introduction of other crocodilians

outside their range, in evaluating an

application for export of live American

alligators the Service must take into

consideration the ecological damage

that could result from introduction of

alligators, either planned or unplanned,

into ecosystems outside their natural

range in the United States.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices 25513

Commercial enterprises for the

breeding or resale of American alligators

outside their natural range provide the

most serious conservation concerns

regarding the threat of planned or

accidental introductions of exotic

species. The introduction of Morelet’s

crocodile (Crocodylus moreletti) into

American crocodile (C. acutus) habitat

in western Mexico is attributed to

escapes from breeding facilities, and the

introduction of caiman (Caiman

crocodylus) into southern Florida is

attributed to caimans imported for the

pet trade that either were released or

escaped. Properly designed scientific

research projects and facilities designed

to exhibit specimens to the public

generally present a lower level of

concern in relation to accidental

introduction of species since there are

limited numbers of specimens involved

and plans for disposition of specimens

are generally a part of the overall design

of the project or facility.

Analysis of Comments

In response to the June 24, 1997,

Federal Register notice, 11 comments

were received. Comments were received

from the States of Louisiana and Florida

(the two States which contain the

majority of the habitat for wild

American alligators and which supply

hatchlings and eggs to alligator farmers

located throughout the Southeastern

United States), the IUCN Crocodile

Specialist Group, the Humane Society of

the United States, three individual

alligator farmers, and four associations

dealing with alligator farming. Ten of

the eleven commenters strongly

opposed the export of live American

alligators. One commenter supported

such exports.

Comment: Nine commenters voiced

strong concerns in the area of

enforcement. Areas of concern included:

Reduced regulatory control, past illegal

trade in crocodilians outside the United

States, the undermining of effective

legal management programs, lack of

assurances that other countries would

provide comparable control

mechanisms on farm inspections and

enforcement to prevent illegal trade,

inadequate re-export controls over

alligators (either as products or live), the

type of CITES tags that would be used

for alligators originating in the United

States yet harvested in another country,

and confusion or compromise of current

well regulated channels of international

control and trade regulation. One

commenter stated that there were a

number of examples where demand for

captive breeding stock has generated

demand for illegally acquired specimens

from the range countries. Four

commenters also pointed out that the

limited range of the American alligator

has been an important factor in the

effectiveness of enforcement efforts to

ensure that laws enacted to protect the

alligator are complied with.

Response: The Service recognizes the

concerns of the commenters in the area

of enforcement. The States have put a

great deal of time, effort, and planning

into their conservation management

programs to protect the American

alligator. At one time there was

extensive poaching and illegal trade in

American alligators which has

diminished drastically thanks to the

work of the States and the cooperation

of the industry. The States and the

Service have worked together closely to

develop guidelines for the export of

alligator skins to ensure that the skins

have been acquired legally. Each skin

must be tagged with a CITES export tag

in accordance with State regulations,

and that tag must be on the skin at the

time of export. The Service uses the data

provided by the States from their

conservation management programs to

make the no detriment and legal

acquisition findings required under

CITES for the export of American

alligator skins. Therefore, CITES export

permits for export of tagged alligator

skins continue to be issued. The CITES

Parties have long recognized the

importance of monitoring trade in

crocodilian skins worldwide and first

adopted a resolution concerning the

universal tagging of crocodilians in 1992

(Res. Conf. 8.14). This resolution was

revised in 1994 (Res. Conf. 9.22) and has

been very effective in enabling Parties to

closely monitor and control trade in

crocodilian skins. The U.S. alligator

tagging program complies with this

resolution. However, the focus of the

resolution is on trade in skins, which

constitutes the majority of the

international commercial trade in

crocodilians. At the time the resolution

was first adopted, there was very little

international commercial trade in live

crocodilians. The export of live animals

is not covered by the resolution and

raises different concerns and

responsibilities than the export of parts

and products.

Comment: Two commenters were

concerned over the types of CITES tags

that would be placed on American

alligators harvested outside the United

States. One commenter thought CITES

tags should be denied for animals

already out of the country. The other

thought CITES tags should not be issued

for species out of their natural ranges.

Response: The Service is also

concerned with the question of CITES

tags for American alligators that are not

harvested in the United States. Each

American alligator harvested in the

United States is tagged with a

permanently locking CITES export tag

bearing a legend showing the US–CITES

logo, State of origin, species, year of

take, and a unique serial number. Tags

must be placed on each skin in

accordance with State requirements.

Any tags that break prior to export must

be replaced prior to actual export.

Under CITES Resolution Conf. 9.22, all

crocodilian skins must be tagged, and

the tags must remain on the skin until

it has been processed and cut. CITES

tags for crocodilians should indicate the

country of origin of the specimen and

are placed on the skin at or near the

time of harvest. The country of origin is

considered to be ‘‘the country where the

animal was taken from the wild or the

country of natal origin of the animal’’

(50 CFR 10.11). Therefore, specimens

that originated in the United States,

exported to another country, and

harvested in that country would require

tags to show the country of origin as the

United States. The Service also has

concerns about CITES tags for U.S.-

origin alligators being issued by other

countries who may or may not monitor

the species as closely as the United

States. Within their range, crocodilians

that are harvested based on sustainable

use ranching programs have a high

conservation value. Crocodilians

commercially bred in countries outside

their range have, at best, a low

conservation value since their

production is not reliant on

conservation of habitat needed to

maintain wild populations. In the case

where a captive breeding facility for

American alligators is established

outside the United States, the CITES

tags for offspring of the founding stock

would show the species as American

alligator and the country of origin as the

country where the facility is located.

The one instance where we are aware of

this already happening is in Israel. We

have requested information from the

CITES Management Authority of Israel

regarding the CITES tags used for

American alligators originating from the

Hammat Gader facility which breeds

American alligators, but have not yet

received a reply.

Comment: One commenter pointed

out that the American alligator export

program is an example of successful

management which has been based on

a close working relationship between

the States and the Federal Government.

In addition, the effectiveness of

monitoring and enforcing the

management program is due to the

limited natural range of the American
25514 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

alligator. Exports of live specimens

could jeopardize the current

management programs which could, in

turn, impact wild populations.

Response: The Service agrees that the

American alligator represents a

conservation management success story.

The American alligator has gone from

being listed as endangered under the

ESA to being threatened due to its

similarity in appearance to endangered

crocodilians and a model for sustainable

use management. The cooperation and

coordination between the State and

Federal Governments have been vital,

particularly in the area of enforcement.

Live American alligators exported to

another country would no longer benefit

from the protection provided by this

close relationship. The advice issued by

the Office of Scientific Authority on

November 4, 1997, concerning the

export of live alligators from the United

States that ‘‘if alligator breeding

facilities in other countries become

competitively more successful (as might

occur if production costs are lower) than

alligator farms in the United States,

prime alligator habitats will be

vulnerable to other uses incompatible

with the survival of the species. The

fundamental premise of crocodilian

ranching programs is the built-in

incentive for habitat preservation by

industries whose success is dependent

upon perpetuation of natural habitats. It

is this fact that has made crocodilian

ranching around the world such a

successful conservation approach

within the CITES community of

nations.’’

Comment: One commenter was

concerned that ‘‘illegally-taken young

domestic alligators could be smuggled

and easily commingled with legallyobtained alligators or alligators

produced on foreign farms.’’ Regarding

this possibility, another commenter

stated that there are a number of

examples where evidence indicated that

‘‘demand for captive breeding stock has

generated demand for illegally acquired

specimens from the range states.’’ One

such report concerned the attempted

illegal import of New Guinea crocodiles

(Crocodylus noveaguineae) into

Thailand.

Response: This possibility is of

concern to the Service.

Comment: Four commenters

specifically raised concerns over the

loss of control if live American

alligators are exported. The concerns

included that the United States would

have no ability to monitor re-export of

specimens after initial export and that

re-export controls would be less

stringent than those of range countries

which would further reduce effective

international control over the

management and trade in American

alligators.

Response: The Service agrees. An

export permit is issued based on the

information provided by the applicant

as to the purpose and destination of the

shipment. Once the alligators are

exported, the Service has no control

over the re-export of the specimens to a

different destination. The issuance of a

re-export certificate is based only on

whether the specimens were legally

imported under CITES, not on whether

the re-export would be detrimental to

the survival of the species. Thus, even

if the Service were able to make the

determinations needed to issue an

export permit to ship live American

alligators to a country where

introduction of exotic crocodilians is

not considered a potential threat, it is

impossible to know whether the animals

will be subsequently shipped to a

country or area within a country where

introduction would be a real threat and

where the Service might not have been

able to find no detriment.

Comment: Eight of the commenters

expressed concerns relative to

accidental or deliberate introduction of

alligators into areas outside their natural

range. Even where there is no intention

to release the animals and with the most

secure facility, accidental release due to

human error or natural disasters such as

hurricanes remains a real possibility.

The American alligator is the most

temperate of the crocodilian species and

is able to cope with frequent freezing

temperatures. They are also generalists

and opportunists in their feeding habits

and able to adapt their diet to a wide

variety of prey species. Given their

reproductive potential, alligators are

capable of rapidly expanding their

populations. In areas already occupied

by crocodilian species, the introduction

of alligators could prove damaging, not

only due to competition, but also by the

introduction of exotic diseases. Such

introductions would also impact prey

species. Examples of documented

introductions of crocodilians outside

their natural range include: Spectacled

caiman populations in southern Florida;

Morelet’s crocodile into the range of the

American crocodile in western Mexico;

and the common caiman on the Isle of

Pines in Cuba which has had an impact

on recovery of the endangered Cuban

crocodile. One commenter stated that:

‘‘The few examples we do have indicate

that when introduced into a suitable

habitat crocodilians can rapidly achieve

dense populations which are virtually

impossible to eradicate.’’

Response: The Service agrees that this

is a serious concern. Substantial

information was provided to document

the effects of species, especially

crocodilian species, introduced into

areas outside their natural range. The

impacts are not only on other

crocodilian species and prey species,

but also on the ecosystem as a whole.

Comment: Six commenters had

concerns that allowing the export of live

American alligators would have a

detrimental impact on the success of

alligator management programs in the

United States. These programs serve as

an economic incentive to preserve the

wetland habitats required for alligator

conservation and that lack of economic

incentives would adversely impact

alligators as well as their habitat. The

conservation benefits of alligator

management programs are inextricably

tied to economics. The concern in

regard to conservation is where

economic impacts negatively affect

conservation programs. In this regard,

there is concern that the establishment

of breeding groups of alligators outside

their natural range will result in a

substantial loss of incentives for the

conservation of alligator habitat. One

commenter felt that range states have

the strongest incentives for managing

their own resources and that such

management had conservation benefits

and that use of natural resources by

non-range states has no conservation

benefit.

Response: The Service agrees that the

alligator management programs in the

United States have been very effective

and that economic incentives are a

factor in that success.

Comment: One commenter felt that

his applications for export of live

American alligators should not be

regulated as a commercial shipment

since the alligators were to be

transported to a foreign facility only for

their further care and maintenance. The

commenter noted that he would be

maintaining his full ownership rights in

the specimens. In addition he felt that

as long as State laws were complied

with and an FWS import/export license

was purchased each year, there should

be no further restrictions on exports.

Response: The Federal Government

has the jurisdiction, authority, and

responsibility to ensure that exports of

wildlife comply with Federal statutes,

regulations, and international

agreements as well as appropriate State

law, and may place conditions on the

export of such wildlife consistent with

Federal law. An import/export license is

required of all businesses importing

and/or exporting wildlife, regardless of

whether the proposed export involves a

commercial activity. In addition to the

license requirement, exporters planning
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices 25515

to export wildlife protected under the

ESA and/or CITES must obtain a

Federal export permit prior to export.

The issuance of such permits is a

Federal authority and responsibility.

Most trade in American alligators has

been in the skins, not in live animals.

Permits continue to be issued for

exports of properly tagged American

alligator skins, and live animals may be

sold within the United States in

accordance with State law. The State

has primary jurisdiction over the

management and use of wildlife as long

as it is within that State.

Comment: One commenter stated that

since export permits for live American

alligators had been issued in the past,

the Service should continue to issue

them.

Response: The Service is required to

use the best scientific information

available in making the required

determinations for issuing export

permits. When new or additional

information is brought to our attention,

the Service has an obligation to review

that information and use it, as

appropriate, in making future decisions

on permit issuance. Because several

entities contacted the Service

concerning the impacts of live American

alligator exports, it became our

responsibility to seek out and evaluate

all information available that would

assist us in making the determinations

required prior to permit issuance. If the

information indicates persuasively that

there are concerns that previously had

not been considered, those concerns

must be addressed.

Comment: One commenter felt that

export of live American alligators

should be allowed if the destination was

not within the habitat of other

crocodilians.

Response: The Service does not agree.

Although the initial destination may not

be within crocodilian habitat, as

outlined previously, there is no

assurance that the initial destination is

the final destination. Additionally,

although information was provided to

the Service stating that one facility

planning to receive American alligators

was not within the habitat of other

crocodilians, subsequent information

has indicated that the facility is within

the range of two endangered

crocodilians, one of which was

introduced into the area after escaping

from a crocodilian farm.

Comment: One commenter stated that

since a June 24, 1996, Federal Register

final rule allowed the import of live Nile

crocodiles into the United States, there

should be no restrictions on the export

of live American alligators.

Response: The Service disagrees.

Since publication of the final rule on

Nile crocodile imports, the Service has

received a great deal of information

concerning problems associated with

the introduction of exotic species into

this country as well as other countries.

Therefore, the question of allowing the

import of live, non-native crocodilians

into the United States is being reviewed

separately in the context of the Lacey

Act prohibitions on import of injurious

species. This is a related, but separate,

issue that is currently under review.

Comment: One commenter stated that

Florida farmed or ranched alligators are

no longer considered wildlife under

Florida rules and are ‘‘considered as

domestic livestock and personal

property for use.’’ As a result, there

should be no additional requirements

for commercial use of the alligators and

that any additional requirements are a

condemnation of a property right.

Response: Under Federal regulations,

wildlife is defined as ‘‘any wild animal,

whether alive or dead * * * whether or

not bred, hatched, or born in captivity,

and including any part, product, egg, or

offspring thereof.’’ (50 CFR 10.12)

Farmed or ranched alligators are still

considered wildlife and subject to all

applicable Federal laws and

requirements (including CITES export

permits). A ranching program such as

those developed by the States of Florida

and Louisiana relies on the availability

of natural habitat where wild alligators

can reproduce naturally. A certain

number of the eggs and/or hatchlings

are taken from the wild based on a

formula to ensure sustainability of the

harvest. The hatchlings are raised on a

‘‘farm’’ until the alligators are of a

suitable size to harvest for their skins.

The fact that these animals were raised

under controlled conditions does not

alter the fact that they are wildlife both

under Federal law and in accordance

with CITES. Alligator farmers may trade

their property (live alligators, skins, or

products) freely within the United

States in accordance with State laws.

International trade in such property is

subject to Federal requirements,

however , and such export restrictions

that are applied for the conservation of

domestic alligators and foreign

crocodilians do not in any way affect

the possession or use of such property

in the United States. The proposed

policy, if adopted, would not effect a

taking of property without due process

of law. Furthermore, the Service

continues to issue CITES permits for the

export of American alligator skins and

products based on our ability to make

the determinations required by CITES.

Comment: One commenter stated that

‘‘It is a documented fact that alligators

are notoriously poor breeders in

captivity’’ and that previous live

American alligator exports have not

resulted in commercial farming

operations in any other countries.

Response: The Service disagrees. A

permit to export 120 live American

alligators to Israel was issued in 1981.

It was issued with assurances from the

Israeli CITES Management Authority

that the alligators would not be

commercialized and would be for

exhibition only. In 1986, due to

successful breeding the Israeli facility

became overcrowded and 200 alligators

were shipped to Florida. In October

1987, the requirement that the alligators

not be commercialized was rescinded by

the U.S. Federal Wildlife Permit Office.

The Israeli facility stated in a letter to

the Service that they did not expect

their exports of skins to be more than

approximately 200 skins per year.

However, according to statistics

obtained from the World Conservation

Monitoring Centre, from 1989 to 1995 a

total of 4,963 American alligator skins

were exported from Israel (an average of

709 skins per year).

Comment: One commenter requested

a public meeting.

Response: A public meeting will be

held at the Delta Resort in Orlando,

Florida, on Tuesday, May 5, 1998, from

1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Required Determinations

This notice contains no information

collection requirements beyond those

already approved by the Office of

Management and Budget under 44

U.S.C. 3506 and assigned Clearance

Number 1018–0093 with an expiration

date of February 28, 2001. The Service

has determined that an environmental

assessment is not necessary for this

policy as it is a permit function

categorically excluded under Part 516 of

the Departmental Manual, Chapter 2.

The policy reflects the Service’s permit

decisions based on existing

requirements for no detriment findings

and introduction of exotic species.

Proposed Policy

Purpose: The Service has been

entrusted with certain responsibilities

under the ESA and CITES regarding

export of protected species and under

Executive Order 11987 in regard to

export of exotic species. The American

alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is

one of the few native species included

in CITES Appendix II for which we

have received applications for export of

live specimens for commercial breeding

or resale purposes. Prior to issuance of
25516 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

any CITES export permit, the Service

must be able to determine that the

specimens to be exported were legally

acquired, that the export would not be

detrimental to the species, and that live

specimens will be prepared and shipped

in a humane manner. To ensure that the

Service carries out these responsibilities

in a consistent manner, the Service will

consider the issuance of permits for the

export of live American alligators

(Alligator mississippiensis) in the

following context:

1. Applications for export permits for

scientific research should include:

a. Formal research protocol with

timetable;

b. Qualifications of the scientific

personnel conducting the proposed

research;

c. Description of the facilities where

the specimens will be housed and

precautions that will be taken to prevent

escape; and

d. Plans for disposition of the

alligators and any progeny upon

completion of the research project.

2. Applications for export permits for

zoological display should include:

a. A description of the receiving

facility including the housing planned

or in existence for the requested

alligators and measures to be taken to

prevent escape; and

b. Plans for disposition of the

alligators and any progeny should the

facility close or become overcrowded.

3. Applications for export permits for

captive breeding or resale will not be

accepted.

If adopted, this proposed policy

would remain in place until further

notice. If substantial new biological

information is received, the basis for

these findings would be reviewed.

Dated: May 1, 1998.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director.

[FR Doc. 98–12292 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community Alcoholic Beverage

Control Ordinance

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This Notice is published in

accordance with authority delegated by

the Secretary of the Interior to the

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by

209 DM 8, and in accordance with the

Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 586, 18

U.S.C. § 1161. I certify that amendment

of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community Alcoholic Beverage Control

Ordinance, Resolution No. SR–1797–98,

was duly adopted and certified by the

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community Council on February 18,

1998. This Ordinance amends an earlier

ordinance published in Volume 38 of

the Federal Register at page 3416. This

Ordinance provides for the regulation of

the sale, possession and consumption of

liquor within the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, under the

jurisdiction of the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community and is in

conformity with the laws of the State of

Arizona.

DATES: This Ordinance is effective May

8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bettie Rushing, Division of Tribal

Government Services, 1849 C Street

NW, MS 4603-MIB, Washington, D.C.

20240–4001; telephone (202) 208–3463.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Tribal

Liquor Ordinance for the Salt River

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community is to

read as follows:

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community Alcoholic Beverage Control

Ordinance

1. Preamble

(a) Title. This Ordinance shall be

known as the Salt River Pima-Maricopa

Indian Community Alcoholic Beverage

Control Ordinance.

(b) Authority. This Ordinance is

enacted pursuant to the Act of August

15, 1953. (Pub. L. 83–277, 67 Stat. 588,

18 U.S.C. § 1161) and Article VII of the

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian

Community Constitution.

(c) Purpose. The purpose of this

Ordinance is to regulate and control the

possession, consumption, and sale of

liquor on the Salt River Pima-Maricopa

Indian Community. The enactment of an

ordinance governing liquor possession

and sale on the reservation will increase

the ability of the Community

government to control reservation liquor

distribution and possession, and at the

same time will provide an important

source of revenue for the continued

operation and strengthening of the

Community government and the

delivery of Community government

services.

(d) Application of 18 U.S.C. § 1161.

All acts and transactions under this

Ordinance shall be in conformity with

this Ordinance and in conformity with

the laws of the State of Arizona as that

term is used in 18 U.S.C. § 1161.

(e) Effective Date. This Ordinance

shall be effective upon the date of its

publication in the Federal Register.

2. Definitions

In this ordinance unless the context

otherwise requires:

(a) Alcoholic Beverages means beer,

wine or other spirituous liquor.

(b) Community means the Salt River

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.

(c) License means a license issued

pursuant to the provisions of this

ordinance.

(d) Licensed Premises or Premises

means a place from which a licensee is

authorized to sell alcoholic beverages

under the provisions of this ordinance.

(e) Licensee means a person who has

been authorized to sell alcoholic

beverages for consumption at a

particular premise by the Salt River

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.

(f) Person means a natural person or

a corporation duly chartered by a

jurisdiction within the United States.

(g) Private Residence means a place

where an individual or a family

maintains a habitation.

(h) Public Place means any place not

a private residence and not licensed for

the possession of alcoholic beverages.

(i) Sell, Sold, Buy shall include

furnish, dispose of, give, receive or

acquire.

3. Unlawful Acts

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person

to deal with alcoholic beverages in any

manner not allowed by this Ordinance

or the regulations adopted under this

Ordinance.

(b) It shall be unlawful for a licensee

or other person to give, sell or cause to

be sold or otherwise distribute alcoholic

beverages to a person under the age of

21 years.

(c) It shall be unlawful to employ a

person under the age of 21 years in any

capacity connected with the handling of

alcoholic beverages.

(d) It shall be unlawful for a person

under the age of 21 years to buy,

possess, or consume alcoholic

beverages.

(e) It shall be unlawful for a licensee

or an employee of a licensee to consume

alcoholic beverages on or about the

licensed premises during such periods

such person is working at the licensed

premises.

(f) It shall be unlawful for a licensee

or any other person to sell alcoholic

beverages to an intoxicated or disorderly

person, or for a licensee or employee of

a licensee to allow or permit an

intoxicated or disorderly person to

remain on the premises.

(g) It shall be unlawful for a licensee

to sell alcoholic beverages in any