[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 769-775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34837]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 23
RIN 1018-AF23
Export of River Otters Taken in Missouri in the 1998-1999 and
Subsequent Seasons
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces final findings by the CITES Scientific
and Management Authorities of the United States that approve the
addition of Missouri to the list of States and Indian Nations approved
for the export of river otter skins. This approval is on a multi-year
basis. The Service intends to apply these findings to river otters
taken in Missouri during the 1998-1999 season and subsequent seasons,
subject to the same conditions applying to other States previously
approved.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 6, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scientific Authority finding: Dr.
Susan Lieberman, Chief, Office of Scientific Authority; phone: 703-358-
1708; fax: 703-358-2276; E-mail: r9osa@mail.fws.gov. Management
Authority finding: Ms. Teiko Saito, Chief, Office of Management
Authority; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Mail Stop ARLSQ 700; 1849 C
Street, NW; Washington, DC 20240; phone: 703-358-2095; fax: 703-358-
2280.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a treaty that
regulates international trade in certain species of animals and plants.
Exports of specimens (live, dead, or parts and products thereof) of
animals and plants listed in Appendix II of CITES require an export
permit from the country of origin. Export permits for specimens of
species listed in CITES Appendix II are issued by a country's CITES
Management Authority after two conditions are met: first, the country's
CITES Scientific Authority must determine that the exports will not be
detrimental to the survival of the species. This is known as a ``non-
detriment finding''. Second, the CITES Management Authority must
determine that the specimens were not obtained in violation of laws for
their protection. Live animals or plants require additional findings.
For exports from the United States, the U.S. Fish and
[[Page 770]]
Wildlife Service's Office of Management Authority and Office of
Scientific Authority make these findings.
On January 5, 1984 (49 FR 590), we published a rule granting
approval for the export of pelts of North American river otters (Lontra
canadensis) and certain other CITES-listed Appendix-II species of
furbearing mammals from specified States and Indian Nations, Tribes,
and Reservations (hereafter referred to as Indian Nations). That rule
covered the 1983-1984 season as well as subsequent seasons. In
succeeding years, we have approved the export of pelts of one or more
species of furbearing mammals listed in CITES Appendix II from other
States and Indian Nations, through the administrative or rule-making
processes. These approvals were and continue to be subject to certain
population monitoring and export requirements. The purposes of this
final rule are to: (1) Announce final findings by the Scientific and
Management Authorities of the United States for the export of river
otter pelts (Lontra canadensis) taken in the State of Missouri; and (2)
to add Missouri to the list of States and Indian Nations approved for
the export of river otter skins. We adopt these findings for the export
of the pelts of river otters taken in the State of Missouri during the
1998-1999 and subsequent seasons, subject to the conditions applying to
other approved States and Indian Nations.
CITES regulates the import, export, re-export, and introduction
from the sea of animal and plant species listed in the three CITES
Appendices for the purpose of controlling trade in those species.
According to CITES (and the Endangered Species Act, which implements
CITES in the United States):
(1) Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction that are
or may be affected by trade.
(2) Appendix II includes species that, although not necessarily
threatened with extinction now, may become so unless their trade is
strictly controlled. Appendix II also includes species that must be
subject to regulation in order that trade in other currently or
potentially threatened species (those in Appendix I or II) may be
brought under effective control (e.g., because of difficulty in
distinguishing specimens of threatened species from those of other non-
threatened species).
(3) Appendix III includes species that any Party country identifies
as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for purposes of
preventing or restricting exploitation, and for which it needs the
cooperation of other Party countries to control trade.
CITES Appendix II includes the American river otter pursuant to
CITES Article II, paragraph 2(b). You may obtain a copy of the CITES
Treaty from the Office of Scientific Authority at the above address or
from the Service's web page at http://www.fws.gov. CITES Article II,
paragraph 2 states: ``Appendix II shall include: (a) all species which
although not necessarily now threatened with extinction may become so
unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to strict
regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their
survival; and (b) other species which must be subject to regulation in
order that trade in specimens of certain species referred to in sub-
paragraph (a) of this paragraph may be brought under effective
control.'' In the January 5, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 590), we
announced the results of a review at the fourth meeting of the CITES
Conference of the Parties (COP4, held in 1983 in Botswana) regarding
U.S. species of furbearing mammals, including the river otter.
Specifically, it was determined that the river otter is included in
Appendix II of CITES because of the similarity in appearance of its
pelts (and of products manufactured from those pelts) to other species
listed in Appendix I or II. The Service determined at that time that
the American river otter did not qualify for CITES Appendix II based on
its own conservation status, but rather due to its similarity to other
listed species. The January 5, 1985, Notice in the Federal Register
described how our Office of Scientific Authority planned to monitor, on
an annual basis, the population and trade status of the native
furbearer species listed pursuant to CITES Article II.2(b). We stated
then that we could institute restrictive export controls for a given
species, for one or more States or Indian Nations, if export levels
appeared to be contributing to long-term population declines. In that
document we also described how our Office of Management Authority would
require States and Indian Nations to assure the legal acquisition of
specimens entering international trade, as evidenced by marking with
approved, serially unique tags.
This is the second Federal Register document published in 1998
concerning the Service's findings on export of river otters, Lontra
(formerly Lutra) canadensis, taken in Missouri. The first document (63
FR 52226; September 30, 1998) announced the proposed findings on the
export of river otters taken in Missouri in the 1998-99 season and
subsequent seasons and solicited public comments.
The purpose of this rule is to add Missouri to the list of States
and Indian Nations for which the export of river otter is approved (50
CFR 23.53). The Service will apply these findings to harvests in
Missouri during the 1998-99 and subsequent seasons, subject to the same
conditions applying to other approved entities.
Comments and Information Received
Twenty-two comments were received in response to the September 30,
1998, Federal Register (63 FR 52226) proposed rule on the export of
river otters taken in the State of Missouri. Comments were received
from State wildlife agencies, animal welfare and animal protection
organizations, scientists and other private citizens. About the same
number of comments reflected support for the proposed rule as those
comments that opposed approval of the export of Missouri otters.
All State wildlife agencies that submitted comments (Montana,
Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) supported the proposed
rule. Several of these States, as well as the National Trappers
Association, claimed that Missouri's population estimates used sound
biological methods and indicated that the otter population could
sustain a regular harvest. Those States that used the population model
as well as the pelt tagging system adopted by Missouri said that the
model and system had served them well.
All of the animal welfare organizations that submitted comments, as
well as several private individuals, opposed the proposed rule. Several
groups, including the Animal Protection Institute and The Humane
Society of the United States, claimed that the current population
estimates of Missouri otters were inadequate. The Animal Legal Defense
Fund and the Rocky Mountain River Otter Protection Coalition are among
those that conclude that there are no reliable census methods for
otters. We acknowledge that the census methods for otters and other
furbearers are not free of imperfections; however, several of the
standard methods were used and the growth trend of the Missouri otter
population is clear.
Richard Ostfeld, a mammalogist at the Institute of Ecosystem
Studies whose work was also cited in other letters, commented that the
computer simulation built by the Missouri Department of Conservation
was overly simplistic in at least two ways: there was no density
dependence and no consideration of population subdivision. While these
could be important factors at a later time, in a
[[Page 771]]
recently reintroduced and expanding population it is our opinion that
these are not critical omissions in the population model, though we
concur that these parameters could improve the model if and when the
population stabilizes. Several respondents pointed out the discrepancy
between the projected otter population and the revised number based on
the actual harvest in the years that trapping has been conducted. Both
private individuals and groups including The Fund for Animals and the
International Otter Survival Fund contend that the survival rates used
to project otter populations are inaccurate, and that environmental
factors such as river pollution and deforestation could further
decrease otter survival.
The survival rates given are based on methods supported in the
scientific literature. While environmental factors may have a greater
effect on otter survival at some time in the future, the empirical
evidence suggests that both habitat and prey base have been adequate to
support the rapid increase of the reintroduced population. We agree
that there are other factors influencing otter mortality, but do not
find evidence that they presently pose a threat that could deplete the
otter population to the point that export would be detrimental. Many of
those that opposed the otter export by Missouri noted that there was no
limit to the number of individuals that could be taken but only a limit
on the length of the trapping season. The State has argued convincingly
that if they were to limit the number of individuals trapped rather the
number of trapping days, otters that are taken in traps set for other
furbearers would be given to other trappers or not reported.
Several individuals and groups stated that the trapping of otters
solely for their pelts is inhumane, and the practice is opposed by the
majority of Missouri residents. Given that the river otter is listed as
an Appendix II.2.(b) species, it is the role of the Service to assess
whether the proposed plan poses a threat to otter species worldwide or
river otter populations in North America, but not the fate of
individual animals. The types of traps that are used, while also an
important issue, is not germane to the decision that the Service is
required to make. Some of the comments reflected the primary concern of
an Appendix II.2.(b) status of species: That the trade in Missouri
river otters would be detrimental to the same species in other States
where they were protected, or other otter species that were listed as
CITES Appendix I. We feel that the tagging system developed for otters
and other exported CITES-listed furbearer species limits this risk (See
Scientific Authority Findings), and there are also forensic methods for
determining the species-identity of otter pelts.
The Office of Scientific Authority also sought the independent
assessments of two expert scientists with Department of Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey Biological Resources Division (BRD). These scientists
noted that the population modeling approach used by the Missouri
Department of Conservation (MDC) was a standard one when the population
is treated as a single interbreeding group. In this regard they pointed
out that all of the Missouri otters have been reintroduced from founder
stocks that originated in Louisiana and other localities outside of
Missouri. They concurred that the high reproductive rate based on
corpora lutea found upon necropsy is supported in the scientific
literature, and other measures used were standard for carnivore
population biology. Both scientists concluded that the population
estimation methods were sound. The population model did not consider
density dependence or the development of local populations. The
evaluators indicated that these assumptions were allowable in a
recently introduced, rapidly growing otter population. One scientist
noted that the model has already undergone modification, and the other
suggested that such factors might be added to the model if the Missouri
population reached equilibrium in the future. While acknowledging that
all populations models and estimates have limitations, both biologists
indicated that the Missouri Department of Conservation made a thorough
analysis of the effects of otter trapping. We concur with these BRD
scientists that both the census and modeling efforts show that river
otters in Missouri represent an expanding population that can sustain
harvesting without a serious risk of rapid decline.
Scientific Authority Findings
Article IV (paragraph 2) of CITES requires that, before the
Management Authority issues a permit to export a specimen of a species
included in Appendix II, the Scientific Authority must advise ``that
such export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species.''
Our Office of Scientific Authority must develop such advice (known as a
``non-detriment finding'') for the export of Appendix-II animals, in
accordance with section 8A(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended. For native U.S. species such as the river otter, the Act
requires the Secretary of the Interior to base export determinations
and advice ``upon the best available biological information derived
from professionally accepted wildlife management practices; but is not
required to make, or require any State to make, estimates of population
size in making such determinations or giving such advice.''
The wildlife agencies of individual States and Indian Nations
manage the river otter. We identified in the January 5, 1984, Federal
Register, and listed in 50 CFR 23.53 States and Indian Nations approved
for the export of river otters. We granted administrative approval to
the State of Tennessee for the 1994-1995 season and multi-year approval
through a rule-making for 1995-1996 and subsequent seasons (61 FR 2454,
January 26, 1996). We granted administrative approval to the State of
Missouri for the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 seasons. Each State or Indian
Nation approved by the Service for the export of river otters has a
program to regulate the trapping and take of the species.
The Service's Office of Scientific Authority therefore has two
primary obligations regarding exports of river otters taken in the
United States. We must find that any U.S. exports of river otter pelts
are not detrimental to the population status in the wild of any other
similar furbearer species listed in Appendix I or II. We also must
determine that the status of river otters in the United States (based
on information provided by the States and based on our own monitoring
of trade) does not decline to the point where the species itself could
qualify for inclusion in CITES Appendix II in its own right, pursuant
to Article II.2(a). The CITES Parties adopted new, improved criteria
for inclusion of species in Appendix II, pursuant to Article II.2(a),
at the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, held in the
United States in November 1994 (Resolution Conf. 9.24).
Since listing of the river otter in Appendix II was due to its
similarity of appearance to other listed species in need of trade
controls, an important component of our non-detriment finding is
consideration of the impact of river otter trade on the status of these
other species. The Office of Scientific Authority has determined that
the CITES requirement of issuing export permits naming the species
being traded, coupled with the marking of pelts with tags bearing the
name of the species, State of origin, year of take, and a unique serial
number, is sufficient to eliminate potential problems of confusion
with, and therefore risk to, other listed species. The requirement to
[[Page 772]]
tag all river otter pelts with unique, tamper-proof tags is a U.S.
requirement that goes beyond any CITES requirement (see Management
Authority Findings, below, for tag specifications).
In addition to considering the effect of trade on species or
populations other than those being exported from the United States, we
will regularly examine information on river otters in the State of
Missouri to determine if there is a population decline that might
warrant more restrictive export controls. The Service will continue to
work closely with the State of Missouri, which has primary management
responsibility for its river otters. The monitoring and assessment for
Missouri will follow the same approach used for other States and Indian
Nations. As part of this monitoring, we annually request that the
States and Indian Nations already approved for export of river otters
certify to the Service that the best available biological information
derived from professionally accepted wildlife management practices
indicates that take of river otters during the forthcoming season will
not be detrimental to the survival of the species. The Service plans to
work with Missouri and other States and Indian Nations to develop
consistent methods of assessing river otter populations.
Whenever available information from the States or other sources
indicates a possible problem in a particular State, the Scientific
Authority will conduct a comprehensive review of accumulated
information to determine whether conclusions about the treatment of
these species as listed for similarity of appearance (Article II.2.b)
continue to be true for the particular State.
Though at one time found commonly in the State of Missouri, river
otters were nearly extirpated from the State between 1860 and 1910. An
estimated 70 animals survived in the southeastern part of the State by
the mid-1930s. Because most significant habitat changes occurred more
recently, this early population decline is believed to be a consequence
of unregulated trapping and other killing of the species. Legal
protection for the species occurred in 1936, but the species did not
begin to recover until the State initiated a restoration and
reintroduction program. The MDC initiated a river otter reintroduction
program in 1982, whereby it released 845 river otters at 43 locations
in the State. The MDC considers that restoration program to have been
completed in 1992; during those 10 years it studied the status and
distribution of river otters in the State. Based on information
provided by the State of Missouri and other States, the Service
believes that the status of river otters in the Midwest of the United
States has improved, and populations in virtually all States where the
species is native are either stable or increasing. We published a
discussion of this release program and our previous findings on river
otters in Missouri in the Federal Register on April 2, 1996 (61 FR
14543), and October 7, 1996 (61 FR 52403).
According to the MDC, Missouri has in place several different
methods to monitor and assess the status of river otters in the State:
(1) A three-year study began in 1996, in cooperation with the
University of Missouri, to develop population monitoring methods,
including a stream survey for otter sign, a capture-per-unit-effort
index based on trappers' records, and a refined population model based
on age-specific reproduction data and age-distribution data from a
sample of Missouri river otters; (2) the State uses aerial surveys of
winter tracks to monitor populations, along with Archer's Index to
Furbearer Populations, as an index of population trends; and (3) the
State has in place a mandatory pelt registration and tagging program
during annual trapping seasons, in order to provide a harvest
accounting system.
In 1995, the Missouri Conservation Commission approved an otter
trapping season for the 1996-1997 season. After further deliberation we
approved export authorization for pelts of Missouri river otters taken
during the 1996-1997 season. Subsequently, in July 1997, the MDC
requested export authority for the 1997-1998 season and subsequent
trapping seasons. We granted export authorization for the 1997-1998
season only, based on our evaluation of information provided by
Missouri. On June 22, 1998, our Office of Scientific Authority received
a detailed request from the State of Missouri for approval of exports
of river otter pelts for 1998-1999 and subsequent seasons. The June 22,
1998, request from the State of Missouri Department of Conservation
contained detailed analyses of data from the 1997-1998 season as well
as previous seasons. This information is available on request from the
Office of Scientific Authority.
According to the State of Missouri, trappers took 1,146 otters in
the 1997-1998 trapping season. The State believes that trapping
pressure and the number of otters taken per licensed trapper (an index
of population status) remained basically the same from previous years.
Of those otters taken, the State tagged 1,128 with CITES tags provided
by the Service. The State also analyzed and necropsied 260 river otters
taken in the State as an important component of its assessment of river
otter populations. The submission of June 22, 1998, from the State
elaborates on these assessments. Using a number of indices and
measurements, the State of Missouri has determined that reproductive
rates are higher than previously predicted for river otters and that a
healthy proportion of the river otter population in the State consists
of juveniles and yearlings (both males and females), which reinforces
the State's assertion that the population is increasing. The State also
used population demographic data from otter necropsies and survival
data from radio-telemetry studies to model otter population growth. The
MDC has concluded that there is a pre-season estimated population of
6,736 river otters in the State of Missouri, and that this population
continues to increase.
Ongoing river otter population surveys in Missouri have taken place
both prior to and after the trapping seasons. Preliminary results
indicate a stable or increasing population. The State also calculates
indices of capture-per-unit-effort based on trapper diaries, and has
provided preliminary data for the 1996-1997 and the 1997-1998 seasons.
The MDC has also used Archer's Index to Furbearer Populations to detect
changes in furbearer populations; those results are consistent with an
increase in river otter populations.
The State of Missouri has presented information that supports a
conclusion that river otter populations are widely distributed and
secure in Missouri. The Service notes that the State of Missouri has
primary responsibility for managing its river otter population
including its decision to authorize trapping. The State of Missouri is
committed to continue its surveys, population monitoring, and
population modeling. Based on: (1) The biological and other information
provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation; (2) the existence
of a management infrastructure in the State for managing and enforcing
trapping regulations; (3) independent scientific review of the Missouri
Department of Conservation otter population model and assessment; (4)
an evaluation of the disparate comments received on the proposed rule;
and (5) the determination that permitting and tagging requirements will
minimize the risk that exporters will misrepresent other similar-
appearing CITES-listed species in trade as river otters, the Service's
Office of Scientific Authority has advised the Office of Management
Authority that exports of river otter pelts of animals legally taken in
the State of Missouri
[[Page 773]]
will not be detrimental to the population of other similar furbearer
species listed in CITES Appendix I or II. Furthermore, the Office of
Scientific Authority also believes that river otters in the United
States do not qualify for inclusion in CITES Appendix II pursuant to
Article II.2(a). Therefore, the Service hereby adds the State of
Missouri to the list of States and Indian Nations approved for export
of river otters.
Management Authority Findings
Exports of Appendix-II species are allowed under CITES only if the
Management Authority is satisfied that the specimens were not obtained
in violation of laws for their protection. Therefore, to allow any
export, we must be satisfied that applicants wishing to export river
otter pelts, hides, or products obtained those items in compliance with
State, Indian, and Federal law. State or Tribal tagging programs
provide evidence of legal take for the following native U.S. species:
Alaskan gray wolf, Alaska brown or grizzly bear, American alligator,
bobcat, lynx, and river otter. The States and Tribes have
responsibility for management of these species, and we assure ourselves
that pelts are taken in accordance with State and Tribal law through a
tagging program. The Service annually contracts for the manufacture and
delivery of specific CITES animal-hide tags for States and Indian
Nations that qualify. We note that, although the United States
instituted this tagging requirement independently of CITES, the CITES
Parties adopted it for all crocodilian species. The Office of
Management Authority is responsible for ordering the tags for all
approved States and Indian Nations and provides them at no charge. We
have adopted the following export requirements for the 1983-1984 and
subsequent seasons:
(1) Current State or Indian Nation, Tribe, or Reservation hunting,
trapping, and tagging regulations and sample tags must be on file with
our Office of Management Authority;
(2) The tags must be durable and permanently locking, and must show
the U.S.-CITES logo, the name of the State or Indian Nation, Tribe, or
Reservation of origin, the year of take, the species, and a unique
serial number;
(3) Trappers or other persons taking otters must attach tags to all
pelts taken within a minimum time after take, as specified by the State
or Indian regulation, and must do so as soon as possible to minimize
movement of untagged pelts (even pelts not intended for export must be
tagged);
(4) Trappers or other persons taking otters must attach tags
permanently as authorized and prescribed by the State or Indian
regulation;
(5) Takers/trappers/dealers who are licensed or registered by the
State or Indian Nation must account for all tags received and must
return unused tags to the State or Indian Nation within a specified
time after the season closes; and
(6) We will allow the export of fully manufactured fur or hide
products from the United State only when the CITES export tags removed
from the hides prior to manufacture are surrendered to us prior to
export.
Export Approval
This document represents the final administrative step in
procedures established to authorize exports of river otters and other
designated furbearing mammals from Service-approved States and Indian
Nations in accordance with CITES. Accordingly, the export of Missouri
river otters harvested during the 1998-1999 and subsequent seasons is
now approved on the grounds that such exports meet the criteria for
both the Scientific Authority and Management Authority under CITES.
The Department has determined within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)
(1) and (3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, that there is good
cause to make these findings and rule effective immediately. It is the
Department's opinion that a delay in the effective date of the
regulations after this rule is published could affect the export of
pelts taken in the harvest season that has already begun in Missouri.
Because Scientific and Management Authority criteria have been
satisfied, it follows that making this rule effective immediately will
not adversely affect the species involved. This approval is subject to
revision prior to any subsequent taking season in any State or Indian
Nation, if a review of information reveals that Management Authority or
Scientific Authority findings in favor of export should be changed.
Effects of the Rule and Required Determinations
As a preface to this portion of the notice, we note that the
issuance of Management Authority and Scientific Authority findings
under CITES does not constitute rulemaking under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA). Nevertheless, we have used the rulemaking
procedure to enhance involvement by the States and the public.
The Department of the Interior previously determined (48 FR 37494,
August 18, 1983) that the export of river otters from various States
and Indian Nations, taken in the 1983-1984 and subsequent seasons, is
not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality
of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). The Fish and Wildlife Service has
determined that a finding of no significant impact is appropriate for
this action under regulations implementing NEPA.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866 and would not pose significant economic
effects to a substantial number of small entities as outlined under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because the existing
rule treats exports on a State-by-State and Indian Nation-by-Indian
Nation basis and approves export in accordance with an already existing
State or Indian Nation management program, the rule would have little
effect on small entities in and of itself. This final rule will allow
continued international trade in river otters from the United States in
accordance with CITES and does not contain any Federalism impacts as
described in Executive Order 12612. This action is not expected to have
significant taking implications for U.S. citizens, as per Executive
Order 12630.
Information Collection Requirements
We have examined this regulation under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 and found it to contain no new information collection
requirements for which Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval
is required. Persons exporting river otter skins from the United States
may obtain permits which are already authorized under 50 CFR part 23 as
approved by OMB and assigned clearance number 1018-0093. No new
information collection or permit requirements are contained in this
regulation. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule does not have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; will not cause
a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic
regions; and does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability
[[Page 774]]
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501,
et seq.), this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, nor will it produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year ( i.e., it is not a significant regulatory action
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act).
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible
effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that
there are no effects. Individual tribal members are subject to the same
regulatory requirements as other individuals who export American river
otters.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate
errors and ambiguity, has been written to minimize litigation, provides
a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and specifies in clear
language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation.
This final rule is issued under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 23
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Treaties.
PART 23--ENDANGERED SPECIES CONVENTION
Accordingly, the Service amends Part 23 of Title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for Part 23 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 27 U.S.T. 1087; and Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
2. In Subpart F-Export of Certain Species, revise Sec. 23.53 to
read as follows:
Sec. 23.53 River otter (Lontra canadensis)
States for which we permit the export of the indicated season's
take under Sec. 23.15 of this part:
(a) States and Indian Nations, and Seasons Approved for Export of
River Otter From the United States:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1983-84 and 1995-96 and 1996-98 and 1998-99 and
1977-78 \1\ 1978-79 \2\ 1979-80 \3\ 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 future future future future
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ Q + + + + + + + + +
Alaska......................... + + + + + + + + + +
Arkansas....................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Connecticut.................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Delaware....................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Florida........................ Q + + + + + + + + +
Georgia........................ Q + + + + + + + + +
Louisiana...................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Maine.......................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Maryland....................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Massachusetts.................. Q + + + + + + + + +
Michigan....................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Minnesota...................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Mississippi.................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Missouri....................... - - - - - - - - + \5\ +
Montana........................ Q + + + + + + + + +
New Hampshire.................. Q + + + + + + + + +
New Jersey..................... - - - - - + + + + +
New York....................... Q + + + + + + + + +
North Carolina................. Q + + + + + + + + +
Oregon......................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Penobscot Nation............... - - - - - - + + + ..............
Rhode Island................... Q + - - - - - - - -
South Carolina................. Q + + + + + + + + +
Tennessee...................... - - - - - - - + \4\ + +
Vermont........................ Q + + + + + + + + +
Virginia....................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Washington..................... Q + + + + + + + + +
Wisconsin...................... Q + + + + + + + + +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For further information, see 42 FR 43729, Aug. 30, 1977; 43 FR 11081, Mar. 16, 1978; and 43 FR 29469, July 7, 1978.
\2\ For further information, see 43 FR 11096, Mar. 16, 1978; 43 FR 13913, Apr. 3, 1978; 43 FR 15097, Apr. 10, 1978; 43 FR 29469, July 7, 1978; 43 FR 35013, Aug. 7, 1978; 43 FR 36293, Aug. 16,
1978; and 43 FR 39305, Sept. 1, 1978.
\3\ For further information, see 44 FR 25383, Apr. 30, 1979; 44 FR 31583, May 31, 1979; 44 FR 40842, July 12, 1979; 44 FR 52289, Sept. 7, 1979; and 44 FR 55540, Sept. 26, 1979.
\4\ Export for 1994-95 approved administratively (for Tennessee).
\5\ Export for 1996-97 and 1997-98 approved administratively (for Missouri).
Q Export approved with quota.
+ Export approved.
- Export not approved.
(b) Condition on export: Exporters must clearly identify each pelt
as to species, State or Indian Nation of origin, and season of taking
by permanently attaching a serially numbered tag of a type approved and
provided by the Service and attached under conditions established by
the Service. Exception to the tagging requirement: We will allow
[[Page 775]]
the export of fully manufactured fur or hide products from the United
States only when the CITES export tags removed from the hides prior to
manufacture are surrendered to us prior to export. Such tags must be
removed by cutting the tag straps on the side next to the locking
socket of the tag, so that the locking socket and locking tip remain
joined.
Dated: December 29, 1998.
Stephen C. Saunders,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 98-34837 Filed 12-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
