Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64553 

incremental NGCC generation identified 

under building block 2 (given that under 

the proposal, generation from building 

block 2 was assumed to reduce carbon 

intensity by replacing generation from 

2012 levels). The rationale for this 

approach would be that the BSER for all 

fossil generation includes replacing that 

generation with incremental RE and EE. 

Moreover, this approach acknowledges 

that, taken by itself, such incremental 

generation would not necessarily 

replace the highest-emitting generation, 

but would likely replace a mix of 

existing fossil generating technologies. 

b. Prioritize replacement of historical 

fossil steam generation. A second 

alternative approach would be similar to 

the one described above, but the 

adjustment would reflect incremental 

RE and EE first replacing fossil steam 

generation below 2012 levels rather than 

replacing all fossil generation on a pro 

rata basis. Subsequent to replacing fossil 

steam generation, if there were any 

remaining incremental RE or EE, it 

would replace gas turbine generation 

levels and the corresponding emissions. 

Therefore, the reduction in carbon 

intensity observed from this type of 

adjustment would be more than that 

estimated in the proposal’s goal-setting 

formula and more than the alternative 

approach above, in section III.C.1.a, 

because incremental and avoided 

generation would replace generation 

from higher-emitting fossil steam 

sources first. The rationale for this 

alternative approach would be based on 

the view that, as part of the BSER, 

because fossil steam generation has 

higher carbon intensity, it should be 

replaced before NGCC generation. 

By identifying the two alternative 

approaches above and providing more 

detailed data by which to assess them, 

the EPA is seeking additional 

engagement during the public comment 

process and supporting the ability of 

stakeholders to provide comment. The 

EPA is requesting comment on whether 

a formula change of this nature would 

better reflect the emission reduction 

potential from incremental RE and EE. 

In particular, the EPA is seeking 

comment on how the amount of 

incremental RE and EE in the June 2014 

proposal relate to potential future 

generation increases from existing fossil 

sources. The EPA is also soliciting 

comment on approaches where some 

portion of such incremental generation 

is calculated to replace future increases 

in existing fossil generation with the 

remainder assumed to replace historical 

existing fossil generation. The EPA is 

also requesting comment on how to treat 

a state in which the incremental RE and 

EE exceeds historical fossil steam 

generation levels. Together, the 

approach in the proposal and the 

alternative approach in this document 

reflect a range of possible emission rate 

impacts that could be expected through 

the application of the incremental RE 

and EE in the state goal calculation. The 

EPA is seeking comment on which 

approach better reflects the BSER. At 

the same time, we note that the 

alternative state goal formula 

approaches listed here may raise a 

number of additional considerations. 

These approaches, for example, would 

increase the collective stringency of the 

state goals, which would likely increase 

both the costs and benefits of the 

proposed rule. 

As noted above, at least some of these 

alternative applications of the targetsetting equation would result in many 

states having tighter rate-based goals. 

Therefore, in considering any of these 

changes, the EPA would also consider 

how they relate to other issues 

discussed in this document, as well as 

in the original proposal, particularly 

inclusion of new NGCC units in the 

state goal calculation and alternatives to 

the 2020–2029 glide path. While the 

goal-setting formula adjustments 

described here would tighten the state 

goals, the glide path adjustments 

discussed previously would have the 

offsetting effect of reducing the 

stringency of the goals. The EPA 

welcomes comment specifically on the 

potential changes identified in this 

document in terms both of the rationale 

for these changes and of their effects on 

the stringency of the state goals. 

2. Alternatives to the 2012 Data Year 

A number of stakeholders have raised 

concerns over the use of 2012 as the 

single data year for calculating interim 

and final goals. The EPA has identified 

several approaches that stakeholders 

may want to consider and upon which 

we are requesting comment. The EPA is 

seeking comment on whether we should 

use a different single data year or the 

average of a combination of years (such 

as 2010, 2011, and 2012) to calculate the 

state fossil fuel emission rates used in 

state goal calculations. The agency is 

also seeking comment on whether statespecific circumstances exist that could 

justify using different data years for 

individual states, as opposed to using 

the same data year, or combination of 

years, consistently across states. 

Stakeholders have also expressed 

interest in obtaining eGRID data for 

years prior to 2012 in order to foster 

comparison with results from the 2012 

dataset. The EPA is adding, to the 

docket for this action, data for the years 

2010 and 2011 that are based on the 

same information sources and presented 

in the same format as the 2012 dataset 

used for the June 2014 proposed rule. 

We are also making these data available 

at: http://www2.epa.gov/

cleanpowerplan/. 

Dated: October 27, 2014. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 

and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25845 Filed 10–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 23 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0052] 

RIN 1018–AZ53 

Notice of Intent To Include Four Native 

U.S. Freshwater Turtle Species in 

Appendix III of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule: Notice of intent 

to amend CITES Appendix III. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

include the common snapping turtle 

(Chelydra serpentina), Florida softshell 

turtle (Apalone ferox), smooth softshell 

turtle (Apalone mutica), and spiny 

softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera) in 

Appendix III of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES 

or Convention), including live and dead 

whole specimens, and all readily 

recognizable parts, products, and 

derivatives. Listing these four native 

U.S. freshwater turtle species (including 

their subspecies, except Apalone 

spinifera atra, which is already 

included in Appendix I of CITES) in 

Appendix III of CITES is necessary to 

allow us to adequately monitor 

international trade in these species; to 

determine whether exports are 

occurring legally, with respect to State 

and Federal law; and to determine 

whether further measures under CITES 

or other laws are required to conserve 

these species. 

DATES: To ensure that we are able to 

consider your comment on this 

proposed rulemaking action, you must 

send it by December 29, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64554 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2013– 

0052. 

• U.S. Mail or Hand-Delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0052; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: 

BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

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 below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Hoover, Chief, Wildlife Trade and 

Conservation Branch, Division of 

Management Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: IA; 

5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803; telephone 703–358–2095; 

facsimile 703–358–2298. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be 

based on accurate information and as 

effective as possible. Therefore, we 

request comments or suggestions on this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Biological, trade, or other relevant 

data concerning any threats (or lack 

thereof) to these species (including 

subspecies) and regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(2) Additional information concerning 

the range, distribution, and population 

size of these species (including 

subspecies). 

(3) Any information on the biological 

or ecological requirements of these 

species (including subspecies). 

(4) Any information regarding legal or 

illegal collection of or trade in these 

species (including subspecies). 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We will not consider 

comments sent by email or fax or to an 

address not listed in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit a comment via http://

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment, including any personal 

identifying information, will be posted 

on the Web site. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

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, between 8 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays, at: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Headquarters, Division 

of Management Authority, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803; telephone 703–358–2095. 

Background 

CITES, an international treaty, 

regulates the import, export, re-export, 

and introduction from the sea of certain 

animal and plant species. CITES was 

negotiated in 1973 in Washington, DC, 

at a conference attended by delegations 

from 80 countries. The United States 

ratified the Convention on September 

13, 1973, and it entered into force on 

July 1, 1975, after it had been ratified by 

the required 10 countries. Currently 180 

countries have ratified, accepted, 

approved, or acceded to CITES; these 

countries are known as Parties. 

The text of the Convention and the 

official list of all species included in its 

three Appendices are available from the 

CITES Secretariat’s Web site at http://

www.cites.org or upon request from the 

Division of Management Authority at 

the address provided in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT above. 

Section 8A of the Endangered Species 

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

et seq.), designates the Secretary of the 

Interior as the U.S. Management 

Authority and U.S. Scientific Authority 

for CITES. These authorities have been 

delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. The original U.S. regulations 

implementing CITES took effect on May 

23, 1977 (42 FR 10465, February 22, 

1977), after the first meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties (CoP) was 

held. The CoP meets every 2 to 3 years 

to vote on proposed resolutions and 

decisions that interpret and implement 

the text of the Convention and on 

amendments to the list of species in the 

CITES Appendices. The last major 

revision of U.S. CITES regulations was 

in 2014 (79 FR 30399, May 27, 2014) 

and incorporated provisions from 

applicable resolutions and decisions 

adopted at meetings of the Conference 

of the Parties up to and including the 

fifteenth meeting (CoP15), which took 

place in 2010. In 2008, through a direct 

final rule, we incorporated certain 

provisions adopted at CoP14 regarding 

international trade in sturgeon caviar 

(73 FR 40983, July 17, 2008). 

The Service’s International Wildlife 

Trade Program convened a freshwater 

turtle workshop in St. Louis in 

September 2010 to discuss the pressing 

management, regulatory, scientific, and 

enforcement needs associated with the 

harvest and trade of freshwater turtles in 

the United States. As a follow up to one 

of the recommendations put forth at the 

St Louis Workshop in 2010 the Service 

hosted a workshop in Baton Rouge, LA 

in November 2011 for all 16 States with 

turtle farms to develop best management 

practices for turtle farms operating in 

the United States. Information on these 

workshops can be found on our Web 

site at http://www.fws.gov/international/ 

animals/freshwater-turtles.html or from 

DMA (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

CITES Appendices 

Species covered by the Convention 

are listed in one of three Appendices. 

Appendix I includes species threatened 

with extinction that are or may be 

affected by international trade, and are 

generally prohibited from commercial 

trade. Appendix II includes species that, 

although not necessarily threatened 

with extinction now, may become so 

unless the trade is strictly controlled. It 

also lists species that must be regulated 

so that trade in other listed species may 

be brought under effective control (e.g., 

because of similarity of appearance to 

other listed species). Appendix III 

includes native species, identified by 

any Party, that are regulated to prevent 

or restrict exploitation, where the Party 

requests the help of other Parties to 

monitor and control the trade of the 

species. 

To include a species in or remove a 

species from Appendices I or II, a Party 

must propose an amendment to the 

Appendices for consideration at a 

meeting of the CoP. The adoption of 

such a proposal requires approval of at 

least two-thirds of the Parties present 

and voting. However, a Party may add 

a native species to Appendix III 

independently at any time, without the 

vote of other Parties, under Articles II 

and XVI of the Convention. Likewise, if 

the status of an Appendix-III species 

improves or new information shows that 

it no longer needs to be listed, the 

listing country can remove the species 

from Appendix III without consulting 

the other CITES Parties. 

Inclusion of native U.S. species in 

Appendix III provides the following 

benefits: 

(1) An Appendix-III listing ensures 

the assistance of the other CITES 

Parties, through the implementation of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64555 

CITES permitting requirements in 

controlling international trade in these 

species. 

(2) Listing these species in Appendix 

III enhances the enforcement of State 

and Federal conservation measures 

enacted for the species by regulating 

international trade in the species. 

Shipments containing CITES-listed 

species receive greater scrutiny from 

border officials in both the exporting 

and importing countries. When a 

shipment containing a non-listed 

species is exported from the United 

States, it is a lower inspection priority 

for the Service than a shipment 

containing a CITES-listed species. Many 

foreign countries have limited legal 

authority and resources to inspect 

shipments of non-CITES-listed wildlife. 

Appendix-III listings for U.S. species 

will give these importing countries the 

legal basis to inspect such shipments, 

and to deal with CITES and national 

violations when they detect them. 

(3) Another practical outcome of 

listing a species in Appendix III is that 

better records are kept and international 

trade in the species is better monitored. 

We will gain and share improved 

information on such trade with State 

fish and wildlife agencies, and others 

who have jurisdiction over resident 

populations of the Appendix-III species. 

They will then be able to better 

determine the impact of trade on the 

species and the effectiveness of existing 

State management activities, 

regulations, and cooperative efforts. 

International trade data and other 

relevant information gathered as a result 

of an Appendix-III listing will help 

policymakers determine whether we 

should propose the species for inclusion 

in Appendix II, or remove it from or 

retain it in Appendix III. 

(4) When any live CITES-listed 

species (including an Appendix-III 

species) is exported (or imported), it 

must be packed and shipped according 

to the International Air Transport 

Association (IATA) Live Animals 

Regulations to reduce the risk of injury 

and cruel treatment. This requirement 

helps to ensure the survival and health 

of the animals when they are shipped 

internationally. 

Criteria for Listing a Native U.S. Species 

in Appendix III 

Article II, paragraph 3, of CITES states 

that ‘‘Appendix III shall include all 

species which any Party identifies as 

being subject to regulation within its 

jurisdiction for the purpose of 

preventing or restricting exploitation, 

and as needing the cooperation of other 

parties in the control of trade.’’ Article 

XVI, paragraph 1, of the Convention 

states further that ‘‘any Party may at any 

time submit to the Secretariat a list of 

species which it identifies as being 

subject to regulation within its 

jurisdiction for the purpose mentioned 

in paragraph 3 of Article II. Appendix 

III shall include the names of the Parties 

submitting the species for inclusion 

therein, the scientific names of the 

species so submitted, and any parts or 

derivatives of the animals or plants 

concerned that are specified in relation 

to the species for the purposes of 

subparagraph (b) of Article I.’’ 

At the ninth meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties to CITES 

(CoP9), held in the United States in 

1994, the Parties adopted Resolution 

Conf. 9.25 (amended at the 10th, 14th, 

15th, and 16th meetings of the CoP), 

which provides further guidance to 

Parties for the listing of their native 

species in Appendix III. The Resolution, 

which is the basis for our criteria for 

listing species in Appendix III provided 

in our regulations at 50 CFR 23.90(c), 

recommends that a Party: 

(a) Ensure that (i) the species is native 

to its country; (ii) its national 

regulations are adequate to prevent or 

restrict exploitation and to control trade, 

for the conservation of the species, and 

include penalties for illegal taking, 

trade, or possession and provisions for 

confiscation; and (iii) its national 

enforcement measures are adequate to 

implement these regulations; 

(b) Determine that, notwithstanding 

these regulations and measures, 

circumstances indicate that the 

cooperation of the Parties is needed to 

control illegal trade; and 

(c) Inform the Management 

Authorities of other range States, the 

known major importing countries, the 

Secretariat, and the Animals Committee 

or the Plants Committee that it is 

considering the inclusion of the species 

in Appendix III and seek their opinion 

on the potential effects of such 

inclusion. 

Therefore, we apply the following 

criteria in deciding to list U.S. species 

in Appendix III as outlined in 50 CFR 

23.90(c): 

(1) The species must be native to the 

United States. 

(2) The species must be protected 

under State, Tribal, or Federal 

regulations to prevent or restrict 

exploitation and control trade, and the 

laws or regulations are being 

implemented. 

(3) The species is in international 

trade, and circumstances indicate that 

the cooperation of other Parties would 

help to control illegal trade. 

(4) We must inform the Management 

Authorities of other range countries, the 

known major importing countries, the 

Secretariat, and the Animals Committee 

or the Plants Committee that we are 

considering the listing and seek their 

opinions on the potential effects of the 

listing. 

CITES does not allow the exclusion of 

particular parts or derivatives for any 

species listed in Appendix I or the 

exclusion of parts or derivatives of 

animal species in Appendix II. 

However, Article XVI of the Convention 

allows for either all specimens of a 

species or only certain identifiable parts 

or derivatives of a specimen (in addition 

to whole specimens) to be listed in 

Appendix III. For example, the current 

listing in CITES Appendix III of Cedrela 

odorata (Spanish cedar) by Brazil, 

Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, and Peru 

includes only logs, sawn wood, and 

veneer sheets. Therefore, if the criteria 

listed above are met, we could designate 

specific parts or products (e.g., turtle 

meat) of a species for inclusion in 

Appendix III, rather than inclusion of 

all parts and derivatives, if we inform 

the CITES Secretariat of the limited 

listing. 

U.S. Procedure and Submission of 

Information to the CITES Secretariat 

For this listing proposal of four native 

U.S. freshwater turtle species, we will 

consult with and solicit comments from 

all States and Tribes where the species 

occurs and all other range countries 

pursuant to 50 CFR 23.90(e)(1). After 

reviewing the information submitted in 

response to this proposal, we will make 

a final decision on whether to include 

these four species in CITES Appendix 

III. We will publish our decision in the 

Federal Register. If we decide to list 

these four species in CITES Appendix 

III, we will notify the CITES Secretariat. 

The listings will take effect 90 days after 

the CITES Secretariat informs the CITES 

Parties of the listings. 

Change in Status of Appendix-III 

Species Based on New Information 

We monitor the trade of all species 

listed in Appendix III by the United 

States and periodically evaluate 

whether each species continues to meet 

the listing criteria contained in 50 CFR 

23.90(c). If the following occurs, we will 

consider removing the species from 

Appendix III: (1) We determine that 

international trade in the species is very 

limited (as a general guide, fewer than 

5 shipments per year or fewer than 100 

individual animals or plants); and (2) 

we determine that trade (legal and 

illegal) in the species is not a concern. 

If, after monitoring the trade of any 

species listed in Appendix III by the 

United States and evaluating its status, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64556 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

we determine that the species meets the 

CITES criteria for listing in Appendix I 

or II, based on the criteria contained in 

50 CFR 23.89, we will consider whether 

to propose the species for inclusion in 

Appendix I or II. 

Practical Effects of Listing a Native U.S. 

Species in Appendix III 

Permits and other requirements: The 

export of an Appendix-III species listed 

by the United States requires an export 

permit issued by the Service’s Division 

of Management Authority (DMA). DMA 

will issue a permit only if the applicant 

obtained the specimen(s) legally, in 

compliance with applicable U.S. laws, 

including relevant State and Tribal 

wildlife laws and regulations, and live 

specimens are packed and shipped in 

accordance with the IATA Live Animals 

Regulations to reduce the risk of injury, 

damage to health, or cruel treatment. 

DMA, in determining if an applicant 

legally obtained a specimen, may 

consult relevant State, Tribal, and 

Federal agencies. Since the conservation 

and management of these species is 

primarily under the jurisdiction of State 

and Tribal agencies, we may consult 

those agencies to ensure that specimens 

destined for export were obtained in 

compliance with State and Tribal laws 

and regulations. Unlike species listed in 

Appendices I and II, no scientific nondetriment finding is required from the 

Service’s Division of Scientific 

Authority (DSA) for export of an 

Appendix-III species. However, DSA 

will monitor and evaluate the trade, to 

decide if there is a conservation concern 

that would require any further action on 

our part. With a few exceptions, any 

shipment containing wildlife must be 

declared to a Service Wildlife Inspector 

upon import, export, or re-export, and 

must comply with all applicable 

regulations. 

Permits, Findings, and Fees: To apply 

for a CITES permit, an individual or 

business is required to submit a 

completed CITES export permit 

application to DMA (with check or 

money order to cover the application 

fee). You may obtain information about 

CITES permits from our Web site at 

http://www.fws.gov/international/ or 

from DMA (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). We will review 

the application to decide if the export 

meets the criteria in 50 CFR 23.60. 

In addition, live animals must be 

shipped to reduce the risk of injury, 

damage to health, or cruel treatment. We 

carry out this CITES requirement by 

stating clearly on all CITES permits that 

shipments must comply with the IATA 

Live Animals Regulations. The Service’s 

Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is 

authorized to inspect shipments of 

CITES-listed species at the time of 

export to ensure that they comply with 

these regulations. Additional 

information on permit requirements is 

available from DMA (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT); additional 

information on declaration of 

shipments, inspection, and clearance of 

shipments is available upon request 

from the OLE: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Office of Law Enforcement, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Headquarters, MS: OLE; 5275 Leesburg 

Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803; 

telephone 703–358–1949; facsimile 

703–358–2271. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

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

Previous Federal Actions 

In a notice published in the Federal 

Register in 1975, we proposed listing 

the Cuatro Cienegas spiny softshell 

turtle (Trionyx ater, also known as 

Apalone spinifera atra) as endangered 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 (40 FR 44329, September 26, 

1975), since this softshell turtle was 

already included in Appendix I of the 

Convention. In a subsequent notice 

published in the Federal Register (41 

FR 24062, June 14, 1976), we listed the 

Cuatro Cienegas spiny softshell turtle as 

endangered pursuant to the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. In a notice 

published in the Federal Register a few 

years later (47 FR 39219, September 7, 

1982), we invited comments on a 

proposal to delist the T. ater (also 

known as A. s. atra) from Appendix I. 

The basis of the proposal was that T. 

ater was becoming genetically swamped 

by T. spiniferus, currently known as A. 

spinifera. In a follow-up notice (47 FR 

57524, December 27, 1982), we decided 

it would be premature to propose 

removal of the Cuatro Cienegas spiny 

softshell turtle from Appendix I and it 

currently remains in that Appendix. 

In a 2002 Federal Register notice (67 

FR 19207, April 18, 2002), we stated our 

tentative positions on recommendations 

for species proposals for the United 

States to consider for submission for 

CoP12. Pending additional information 

and consultations, the United States was 

undecided on a proposal to include the 

Florida softshell turtle (Apalone ferox), 

the smooth softshell turtle (Apalone 

mutica), and the spiny softshell turtle 

(Apalone spinifera) in Appendix II. In a 

notice published in the Federal Register 

in 2009 (74 FR 33460, July 13, 2009), the 

United States was undecided, pending 

additional information and 

consultations, on submitting a proposal 

at CoP15 to include these three species 

of North American softshell turtles in 

Appendix II. Ultimately, we did not 

propose to include any of the softshell 

species in the CITES Appendices at 

CoP15. 

In a notice published in the Federal 

Register on April 11, 2012 (77 FR 

21798), we stated our tentative positions 

on recommendations for species 

proposals for the United States to 

consider submitting at CoP16. Pending 

receipt of additional significant 

information, we indicated that the 

United States was not likely to submit 

for consideration at CoP16 a proposal to 

include the Florida softshell turtle, the 

smooth softshell turtle, and the spiny 

softshell turtle in Appendix II. We also 

stated that we would not submit a 

proposal to include the common 

snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) in 

Appendix III because inclusion of a 

species in Appendix III is a unilateral 

decision and does not require a proposal 

to be brought forward to the CoP. 

Ultimately, we did not propose to 

include any of the softshell species in 

the CITES Appendices at CoP16. 

Summary of Threats 

Common Snapping Turtle 

Populations are known to be robust 

throughout much of the species’ range, 

and the common snapping turtle is 

among the most widely distributed 

turtle species in the United States. 

Threats to the common snapping turtle, 

besides habitat degradation and 

destruction, include (in no particular 

order) collecting, the impact on eggs and 

newly emerged hatchlings (primarily) of 

subsidized predators (i.e., predation 

magnified as a result of human activity, 

e.g., cats, dogs, raccoons), road 

mortality, and pollution (van Dijk, 2011, 

no pagination). The reproductive 

parameters of the species are such that 

populations are ‘‘severely constrain[ed]’’ 

in their ability to recover from long-term 

and persistent off-take (Congdon, 

Dunham, and Sels 1994, p. 397). In 

general the species is marked by a lifehistory strategy of slow recruitment, late 

maturity, long lifespan, and high adult 

survivorship. Any given population’s 

persistence is dependent on high adult 

survivorship, which makes the species 

vulnerable to directed anthropogenic 

activities, such as collecting (Congdon, 

Dunham, and Sels 1994, p. 397). 

Table 1 shows recent trends in 

exportations of live common snapping 

turtles and meat harvested from these 

turtles. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64557 

TABLE 1—U.S. EXPORTATIONS OF LIVE COMMON SNAPPING TURTLES AND COMMON SNAPPING TURTLE MEAT 2009– 

2011 

2009 2010 2011 

Live common snapping turtles exported from the United States ................................................ 655,549 709,869 811,717 

Common snapping turtle meat (in kg) exported from the United States .................................... 36.29 27.22 46.52 

Although a significant proportion of 

these live specimens and meat 

originated from turtle farms, the level of 

wild harvest necessary to maintain farm 

production is unknown. While export 

levels vary from year to year, since at 

least 1990, the trend has been a 

significant increase in common 

snapping turtle exports over an 

extended period of time (Hoover, C. 

1998 and USFWS, LEMIS database as 

cited in Weissgold, B., unpublished, 

2010). 

Florida Softshell Turtle 

Eggs are vulnerable to predation by a 

variety of terrestrial species, and 

hatchlings are equally vulnerable to 

predation by other turtles, birds, and 

fish. Adults are less vulnerable, but may 

be taken by alligators. The species is 

considered vulnerable to (in no 

particular order) overcollection for 

human consumption, the impact of 

subsidized predators (i.e., predation 

magnified as a result of human activity, 

e.g., cats, dogs, raccoons), habitat 

destruction, and road mortality, and as 

by-catch from freshwater fishing 

activities (Buhlmann, Tuberville, and 

Gibbons 2008; p. 119, and Bonin, 

Devaux, and Dupre 2006, p. 129; and 

Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 612). While 

in Florida the species does not appear 

to be in danger, it is the most 

intensively harvested freshwater turtle 

in Florida, and locally severe declines 

or extirpations from over-fishing might 

be possible (Meylan and Moler 2006, p. 

166). 

Table 2 shows recent trends in 

exportations of Florida softshell turtles 

and eggs harvested from these turtles. 

TABLE 2—U.S. EXPORTATIONS OF FLORIDA SOFTSHELL TURTLES AND FLORIDA SOFTSHELL TURTLE EGGS 2009–2011 

2009 2010 2011 

Live Florida softshell turtles exported from the United States .................................................... 214,787 209,453 367,629 

Florida softshell turtle eggs exported from the United States ..................................................... 67,200 66,100 130,624 

Although a portion of these specimens 

and eggs were shipped from turtle 

farms, the level of wild harvest 

necessary to maintain farm production 

is unknown. While export levels vary 

from year to year, since at least 1995, 

the trend suggests that the potential 

remains for significant exports in the 

future for human consumption and 

stocking of farms in East Asia, 

particularly China. The Service is not 

aware of any evidence indicating that 

this trend will reverse. 

Smooth Softshell Turtle 

Both eggs and juveniles are vulnerable 

to a wide assortment of predators, 

although adults are generally only 

vulnerable to human and alligator 

predation (Buhlmann, Tuberville, and 

Gibbons 2008, p. 144). In recent years, 

smooth softshell turtle populations have 

declined due to river channelization, 

siltation, and water pollution (retrieved 

September 2, 2014, from the Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources, Rare 

Species Guide at http://

www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile

.html?action=elementDetail

&selectedElement=ARAAG01020). 

U.S. export data show that 200 live 

smooth softshell turtles were exported 

in 2009 sourced from the wild, and 

none were exported in 2010 or 2011. 

While export levels vary from year to 

year, we believe that the potential 

remains for significant exports in the 

future based on overseas demand 

principally, but not limited to, China. 

Spiny Softshell Turtle 

Populations are in decline in many 

areas due to (in no particular order) 

pollution, habitat degradation, and 

collection as a food source (Buhlmann, 

Tuberville, and Gibbons 2008, p. 141; 

and Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 634). 

Table 3 shows the recent trend in 

exportations of spiny softshell turtles. 

While export levels vary from year to 

year, we believe that the potential 

remains for significant exports in the 

future. The Service is not aware of any 

evidence indicating that this trend will 

reverse. 

TABLE 3—U.S. EXPORTATIONS OF SPINY SOFTSHELL TURTLES 2009–2011 

2009 2010 2011 

Live spiny softshell turtles exported from the United States ....................................................... 46,117 56,056 55,713 

Species and Subspecies for Listing in 

Appendix III 

We propose to list these four native 

U.S. freshwater turtle species, including 

their subspecies, except A. s. atra: 

common snapping turtle, Florida 

softshell turtle, smooth softshell turtle, 

and the spiny softshell turtle in 

Appendix III of CITES, including live 

and dead whole specimens, and all 

readily recognizable parts and 

derivatives. The term ‘‘readily 

recognizable’’ is defined in our 

regulations at 50 CFR 23.5 and means 

any specimen that appears from a 

visual, physical, scientific, or forensic 

examination or test; an accompanying 

document, packaging, mark, or label; or 

any other circumstances to be a part, 

product, or derivative of any CITES 

wildlife or plant, unless such part, 

product, or derivative is specifically 

exempt from the provisions of CITES or 

50 CFR part 23. Listing these four native 

U.S. freshwater turtle species in 

Appendix III of CITES is necessary to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64558 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

allow us to adequately monitor 

international trade in these species; to 

determine whether exports are 

occurring legally, with respect to State, 

Tribal, and Federal law; and to 

determine whether further measures 

under CITES or other laws are required 

to conserve these species. 

Common Snapping Turtle 

The common snapping turtle 

(Chelydra serpentina, Linnaeus 1758) is 

the second-largest freshwater turtle 

species native to the United States. 

Currently two subspecies are widely 

recognized: C. s. osceola (Stejneger, 

1918), distributed in the Florida 

peninsula, and C. s. serpentina 

(Linnaeus, 1758), distributed throughout 

the remainder of the species range, 

which encompasses most of the eastern 

two-thirds of the United States and 

portions of southern Canada, including 

Nova Scotia. The species has been 

introduced into the wild outside its 

range both within and outside the 

United States, including into the wild in 

China and Taiwan, where it is also bred 

on turtle farms. The common snapping 

turtle is easily recognized by a roughly 

textured black to grey carapace (top 

shell), a long tail studded with large 

saw-toothed tubercles, large claws, and 

a large head with strong jaws and a 

sharp beak. 

The species is readily distinguished 

from the alligator snapping turtle 

(Macrochelys temmincki) because the 

latter has a larger head, hooked beak, a 

smooth tail, and three distinct keels on 

the carapace. There are other 

morphological differences as well. The 

common snapping turtle inhabits a wide 

variety of freshwater habitats, including 

rivers, ponds, lakes, swamps, and 

marshes, although it prefers slowmoving aquatic habitats with mud or 

sand bottoms, abundant vegetation, and 

submerged tree branches, trunks, and 

brush. Common snapping turtles feed 

on a wide variety of both plants and 

animals (Ernst and Lovich 2009, pp. 9, 

132–133). 

Irrespective of the taxonomic 

differentiation of the common snapping 

turtle, all currently recognized common 

snapping turtle subspecies would be 

included in the CITES Appendix-III 

listing. 

Florida Softshell Turtle 

The Florida softshell turtle (Apalone 

ferox, Schneider 1783) is one of three 

species of softshell turtle native to the 

United States. The Florida softshell, the 

largest North American softshell turtle, 

occurs from southern South Carolina, 

through southern Georgia and Florida, 

and west into the extreme southern 

portions of Alabama. No subspecies are 

currently recognized. Females may 

reach a Maximum Carapace Length 

(SCLmax) of 67.3 centimeters, over 

twice the size of males, which may 

reach 32.4 centimeters SCLmax. The 

leathery skin-covered carapace has 

rough, rounded tubercles (bumps) on its 

front edge; the limbs are grey to brown 

with lighter-colored mottling. The feet 

are webbed, and the species has an 

extended nose tip. In large specimens, 

the head can grow disproportionately 

large compared to the body. The Florida 

softshell inhabits calm waters, including 

rivers, swamps, marshes, lakes, and 

ponds. The species may spend extended 

periods of time submerged, buried in 

the silty or sandy bottom. The Florida 

softshell is largely carnivorous, eating a 

variety of aquatic and sometimes 

terrestrial animals, although vegetation 

may also be consumed (Ernst and 

Lovich 2009, p. 611). 

Smooth Softshell Turtle 

The smooth softshell turtle (Apalone 

mutica, Le Sueur 1827) is the smallest 

of the three softshell species native to 

the United States. The species is 

generally found in streams, rivers, and 

channels. It inhabits the Ohio River 

drainage (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois), 

the upper Mississippi River watershed 

(Minnesota and Wisconsin), the 

Missouri River in the Dakotas, south 

through the watershed and eventually 

spreading to the western Florida 

Panhandle, and west to Central Texas 

(including all States between these 

areas). The smooth softshell is 

considered extinct in Pennsylvania, 

where it previously inhabited the 

Allegheny River. An isolated population 

exists in New Mexico’s Canadian River 

drainage. Two subspecies are 

recognized: The smooth softshell turtle 

(A. m. mutica; Le Sueur 1827) and the 

Gulf Coast smooth softshell turtle (A. m. 

calvata; Webb 1959). Females may reach 

35.6 centimeters SCLmax and males 

may reach 26.6 centimeters SCLmax. 

The carapaces of males may have 

blotchy dark markings, and a yellow 

stripe is present on each side of the 

head; females have darkly mottled 

carapaces, and the yellow head stripe 

may be faint or nonexistent in older 

animals. The smooth softshell has 

webbed feet and an extended nose tip. 

The species is fully aquatic, only 

leaving the water to nest or bask. 

Smooth softshells consume insect 

larvae, other aquatic invertebrates, small 

fish, and plant material (Ernst and 

Lovich 2009, pp. 619–620). 

Irrespective of the taxonomic 

differentiation of the smooth softshell 

turtle, all currently recognized smooth 

softshell turtle subspecies would be 

included in the CITES Appendix-III 

listing. 

Spiny Softshell Turtle 

The spiny softshell turtle (Apalone 

spinifera, Le Sueur 1827) is a small 

softshell with webbed feet and large 

claws. It has a leathery shell colored 

from brown to sand to grey, with dark 

black ocelli or blotches and a pair of 

light stripes on the side of its head. 

Limbs are grey and may have dark 

streaks or spots. The population of the 

spiny softshell in the United States is 

divided into six subspecies: The spiny 

softshell turtle (A. s. spinifera, Le Sueur 

1827), Gulf Coast spiny softshell (A. s. 

aspera, Agassiz 1857), Texas spiny 

softshell (A. s. emoryi, Agassiz 1857), 

Guadalupe spiny softshell (A. s. 

guadalupensis, Webb 1962), western 

spiny softshell (A. s. hartwegi, Conant 

and Goin 1948), and pallid spiny 

softshell (A. s. pallida, Webb 1962). An 

additional subspecies, the Cuatro 

Cienegas spiny softshell (A. s. atra 

[=Apalone atra], Webb and Legler 1960), 

occurs in Mexico and is listed in 

Appendix I of CITES and as endangered 

under the U.S. Endangered Species Act 

(as Trionyx ater) (50 CFR 17.11(h)). 

The spiny softshell inhabits the 

largest range of the three softshell turtles 

of North America, occurring from New 

York, south to Florida, west through 

Texas to New Mexico, and over most of 

the midwestern United States, including 

to the States bordering the Great Lakes, 

and extreme southern portions of 

Canada, and naturally in northern 

portions of Mexico. It has also been 

introduced widely in other parts of 

Mexico. Disjunct populations also are 

found from New Mexico to California 

and in Montana and Wyoming. Isolated 

populations are found in a number of 

States. The spiny softshell inhabits 

creeks and rivers, but also occurs in 

other types of water bodies, including 

artificial bodies, so long as the bottom 

is sandy or muddy to support its 

burrowing behavior. The species is 

almost entirely aquatic and largely 

carnivorous; its reported list of food 

items is extensive and includes insects, 

molluscs, and other invertebrates, fish, 

amphibians, and small snakes. It will 

also consume plant material (Ernst and 

Lovich 2009, pp. 632–633). 

Conservation 

The common snapping turtle (since 

2012) and spiny softshell turtle (since 

2011) are considered to be of ‘‘Least 

Concern’’ by the International Union for 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with the 

population trend being stable. The 

Florida softshell turtle (since 2011) and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64559 

the smooth softshell (since 2011) turtle 

are also considered to be of ‘‘Least 

Concern’’ by the IUCN, but with the 

population trend being unknown. 

These four native U.S. freshwater 

turtle species are protected to varying 

degrees by State and Tribal laws within 

the United States, with significant 

differences in levels and types of 

protection. 

Common Snapping Turtle 

Personal collection and commercial 

harvest of the common snapping turtle 

(Chelydra serpentina) is permitted in 

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, 

Maryland, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, 

New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, 

Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

In Arizona, where the species has 

been introduced, an unlimited number 

may be collected. In Colorado, Indiana, 

Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Montana, 

New Hampshire, Oregon, and West 

Virginia, collection for personal use is 

permitted; however, commercial harvest 

and trade is not permitted. In 

Connecticut and Massachusetts, 

collection and trade is allowed, with a 

4 inch and 6 inch minimum shell length 

requirement for trade, respectively. 

Delaware requires limits on take to 

individuals with 8 inches or greater 

curved carapace length along with 

harvest equipment restrictions in place. 

North Dakota allows for harvest as 

specified on the appropriate permit. 

Personal harvest and commercial 

trade are prohibited in the District of 

Columbia, and Florida prohibits harvest 

from the wild (including eggs) or 

commercial trade in wild-caught 

specimens. In Illinois, commercial 

harvest is prohibited; however, 

aquaculture is allowed, and limited 

harvest for personal use is permitted in 

some areas. 

Florida Softshell Turtle 

Commercial harvest and trade of the 

Florida softshell turtle is permitted in 

Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. 

In Florida, one specimen per day per 

person may be taken from the wild, but 

commercial sale is not permitted. There 

are exceptions with specific 

requirements and limitations for 

commercial aquaculture. 

Smooth Softshell Turtle 

Personal collection and commercial 

harvest of the smooth softshell turtle are 

permitted in Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New 

Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming. 

Collection for personal use is 

permitted in Indiana, Kansas, 

Mississippi, and West Virginia; 

however, commercial harvest and trade 

are not permitted. 

In Florida, State regulations allow one 

specimen per day per person to be taken 

from the wild, but commercial sale is 

not permitted; there are exceptions with 

specific requirements and limitations 

for commercial aquaculture. In Illinois, 

commercial harvest is prohibited; 

however, aquaculture is allowed as well 

as limited harvest for personal use in 

some areas. 

Spiny Softshell Turtle 

Collection for personal use and 

commercial harvest of the spiny 

softshell turtle are permitted in 

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 

South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, 

Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

In Arizona, where the species has 

been introduced, an unlimited number 

may be collected. Collection for 

personal use is permitted in Colorado, 

Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, 

Mississippi, Montana, and West 

Virginia; however, commercial harvest 

and trade are not permitted. In Florida, 

one specimen per day per person may 

be taken from the wild, but commercial 

sale is not permitted. There are 

exceptions with specific requirements 

and limitations for commercial 

aquaculture. In Illinois, commercial 

harvest is prohibited; however, 

aquaculture is allowed, as well as 

limited harvest for personal use in some 

areas. 

Federal Status 

Under section 3372(a)(1) of the Lacey 

Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 

3371–3378), it is unlawful to import, 

export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, 

or purchase any wildlife taken, 

possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of any law, treaty, or 

regulation of the United States. This 

prohibition would apply in instances 

where these four native U.S. freshwater 

turtle species were unlawfully collected 

from Federal lands, such as those 

Federal lands within the range of these 

four native U.S. freshwater turtle 

species that are managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service, the National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

or other Federal agency. 

It is unlawful under section 

3372(a)(2)(A) of the Lacey Act to import, 

export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, 

or purchase in interstate or foreign 

commerce any wildlife taken, 

possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of any law or regulation of any 

State. Because many State laws and 

regulations regulate the take of these 

four native U.S. freshwater turtle 

species, certain acts with these four 

native U.S. freshwater turtle species 

acquired unlawfully under State law 

could result in a violation of the Lacey 

Act Amendments of 1981 and thus 

provide for Federal enforcement action 

due to a violation of State law. 

Decision To Propose To List Four 

Native U.S. Freshwater Turtle Species 

Based on the recommendations 

contained in Resolution Conf. 9.25 (Rev. 

CoP16) and the listing criteria provided 

in our regulations at 50 CFR 23.90, these 

four native U.S. freshwater turtle 

species, including all subspecies, 

qualify for listing in CITES Appendix 

III. Declines have been documented or 

locally severe declines may be possible 

in at least some portions of the range of 

these four native U.S. freshwater turtle 

species, although the Florida softshell 

seems to be resistant to high levels of 

commercial harvest. Its take in Florida 

is regulated and it is a species of special 

concern in South Carolina. Although 

snapping turtle populations are known 

to be vigorous throughout much of the 

species’ range, long-term persistent take 

makes the species vulnerable to decline. 

Existing laws have not been completely 

successful in preventing the 

unauthorized collection and trade of 

these four native U.S. freshwater turtle 

species. Listing these four native U.S. 

freshwater turtle species, including their 

subspecies, except the Cuatro Cienegas 

spiny softshell turtle which is already 

listed in Appendix I, in Appendix III is 

necessary to allow us to adequately 

monitor international trade in these 

taxa; to determine whether exports are 

occurring legally, with respect to State 

law; and to determine whether further 

measures under CITES or other laws are 

required to conserve these species and 

subspecies. An Appendix-III listing 

would lend additional support to State 

wildlife agencies in their efforts to 

regulate and manage these species, 

improve data gathering to increase our 

knowledge of trade in these species, and 

strengthen State and Federal wildlife 

enforcement activities to prevent 

poaching and illegal trade. Furthermore, 

listing these species in Appendix III 

would enlist the assistance of other 

Parties in our efforts to monitor and 

control trade in these species and 

subspecies. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64560 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

determined that this rule is not 

significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this rulemaking in a manner consistent 

with these requirements. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever 

an agency is required to publish a notice 

of rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

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

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Department of the Interior certifies 

that this action would not have a 

significant effect on a substantial 

number of small entities for the reasons 

discussed below. 

This proposed rule establishes the 

means to monitor the international trade 

in species native to the United States 

and does not impose any new or 

changed restriction on the trade of 

legally acquired specimens. Based on 

current exports of these four native U.S. 

freshwater turtle species, we estimate 

that the costs to implement this rule 

will be less than $100,000 annually due 

to the costs associated with obtaining 

permits. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. This proposed 

rule: 

(a) Would not have an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more. 

(b) Would not cause a major increase 

in costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. 

(c) Would not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

the Service makes the following 

findings: (a) This rulemaking would not 

produce a Federal mandate. In general, 

a Federal mandate is a provision in 

legislation, statute, or regulation that 

would impose an enforceable duty upon 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or 

the private sector, and includes both 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’ 

and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

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

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments,’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ This 

proposed rule would not impose a 

legally binding duty on non-Federal 

Government entities or private parties 

and would not impose an unfunded 

mandate of more than $100 million per 

year or have a significant or unique 

effect on State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector 

because we, as the lead agency for 

CITES implementation in the United 

States, are responsible for the 

authorization of shipments of live 

wildlife, or their parts and products, 

that are subject to the requirements of 

CITES. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any new collections of information that 

require approval by Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Information that we would collect under 

this proposed rule on FWS Form 3–200– 

27 is covered by an existing OMB 

approval and has been assigned OMB 

control number 1018–0093, which 

expires on May 31, 2017. 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64561 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

The Service has analyzed this 

proposed rule in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA). The Council on 

Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) 

regulations implementing NEPA, at 40 

CFR 1508.4, define a ‘‘categorical 

exclusion’’ as a category of actions 

which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment and which 

have been found to have no such effect 

on the human environment. CEQ’s 

regulations further require Federal 

agencies to adopt NEPA procedures, 

including the adoption of categorical 

exclusions for which neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required (40 CFR 1507.3). The Service 

has determined that this rulemaking is 

categorically excluded from further 

environmental analysis under NEPA in 

accordance with the Department’s 

NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.210(i), 

which categorically excludes 

‘‘[p]olicies, directives, regulations, and 

guidelines: That are of an 

administrative, financial, legal, 

technical, or procedural nature.’’ In 

addition, the Service has determined 

that none of the extraordinary 

circumstances listed under the 

Department’s regulations at 43 CFR 

46.215, in which a normally excluded 

action may have a significant 

environmental effect, applies to this 

proposed rule. 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12630 (‘‘Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights’’), we 

have determined that this proposed rule 

would not have significant takings 

implications since there are no changes 

in what may be exported. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule would 

not have significant Federalism effects. 

A Federalism assessment is not required 

because this proposed rule would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Although this 

proposed rule would generate 

information that would be beneficial to 

State wildlife agencies, we do not 

anticipate that any State monitoring or 

control programs would need to be 

developed to fulfill the purpose of this 

proposed rule. We have consulted the 

States, through the Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies, on this proposed 

action. The CITES Technical Work 

Group, comprising representatives from 

States in different regions of the United 

States, of the Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies has concluded that 

including these four native U.S. 

freshwater turtle species in CITES 

Appendix III is warranted in order to 

help ensure conservation of these 

species in the wild and to assist State 

agencies in regulating harvest and trade. 

Further, formal and informal 

consultation with various interested 

parties regarding this proposal has 

generally resulted in support for the 

proposal. These proposed changes will 

help us more effectively conserve these 

species and will help those affected by 

CITES to understand how to conduct 

lawful international trade in wildlife 

and wildlife products. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

The Department, in promulgating this 

rulemaking, has determined that it will 

not unduly burden the judicial system 

and that it meets the requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, 

and the Department of the Interior’s 

manual at 512 DM 2, we have a 

responsibility to communicate 

meaningfully with Federally recognized 

Indian Tribes on a government-togovernment basis. In accordance with 

Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 

(American Indian Tribal Rights, FederalTribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act), we readily 

acknowledge our responsibilities to 

work directly with Tribes in developing 

programs for healthy ecosystems, to 

acknowledge that Tribal lands are not 

subject to the same controls as Federal 

public lands, to remain sensitive to 

Indian culture, and to make information 

available to Tribes. We determined that 

this proposed action will not interfere 

with the Tribes’ ability to manage 

themselves or their funds or to regulate 

these turtle species on Tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(Executive Order 13211) 

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 

prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking actions that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. This proposed 

action is not expected to significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or 

use. Therefore, this action is not a 

significant energy action, and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988, and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(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 ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the proposed 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. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this proposed rule is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

or upon request from the Division of 

Management Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary author of this proposed 

rule is Clifton A. Horton, Division of 

Management Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64562 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed Amendment to CITES 

Appendix III 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 23.90 

require us to publish a proposed rule 

and, if appropriate, a final rule for a 

CITES Appendix-III listing, even though 

the final rule would not result in any 

changes to the Code of Federal 

Regulations. Accordingly, for the 

reasons provided in this document, we 

propose to ask the CITES Secretariat to 

amend Appendix III of CITES to include 

for the United States these four native 

U.S. freshwater turtle species, including 

their subspecies (except the Cuatro 

Cienegas spiny softshell turtle, which is 

in Appendix I): The common snapping 

turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Florida 

softshell turtle (Apalone ferox), smooth 

softshell turtle (Apalone mutica), and 

spiny softshell turtle (Apalone 

spinifera). 

After analysis of any comments 

received on the proposed rule, we will 

publish our final decision in the Federal 

Register. If we adopt a final rule, we 

will contact the CITES Secretariat prior 

to publishing the rule to clarify the 

exact time period required by the 

Secretariat to inform the Parties of the 

listing, so that the effective date of the 

final rule coincides with the effective 

date of the listing in Appendix III. The 

listing would take effect 90 days after 

the CITES Secretariat informs the 

Parties of the listing. 

Dated: October 7, 2014. 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25768 Filed 10–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS