[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59149-59152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28490]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 16
[1018-AE34]
Listing of the Brush-tailed Possum as Injurious
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) published a
notice on January 24, 1996, soliciting information relative to the
threat that Trichosurus
[[Page 59150]]
spp. poses to agriculture, human health, and fish and wildlife
resources. Analysis of the available information warrants the listing
of only one species, T. vulpecula, as injurious. We received little
information about the other two species in the genus, T. arnhemensis
and T. caninus. Consequently, we will not propose their listing at this
time. Listing T. vulpecula would prohibit its importation into, or
transportation between, the continental United States, the District of
Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or
possession of the United States with limited exceptions.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 3, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed or sent by fax to the Chief, Division
of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, 1849 C Street, NW, Mail
Stop 840 ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240, or FAX (703) 358-2044.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Mangin, Division of Fish and
Wildlife Management Assistance at (703) 358-1718.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We received a letter from the Texas Animal
Health Commission requesting that we prohibit the importation of T.
vulpecula into the United States. Because other members of the genus
Trichosurus could possibly pose a threat, the Service placed a notice
in the Federal Register January 24, 1996, (61 FR 1893) requesting
information about the injurious nature of the entire genus.
We received 11 responses to our request for information. Review of
the information received through the request and additional information
indicates the extreme injurious nature of T. vulpecula. For this
reason, the Service is proposing to list it as injurious. Limited data
were available relative to the injurious nature of T. arnhemensis and
T. caninus. Review of these data did not support listing these two
species at this time.
T. vulpecula, introduced to New Zealand from Australia between 1873
and 1930, is now found throughout much of New Zealand with a population
of approximately 70 million (Department of Conservation National Possum
Control Plan, 1993-2002, February 1994). They can adapt to a wide
variety of habitats and elevations (P.E. Cowan, The Ecological Effects
of Possums on the New Zealand Environment). They are vectors for the
bovine tuberculosis pathogen (M. bovis) and have played a major role in
keeping it in the environment. This pathogen is found in cattle, deer,
pigs, cats, ferrets, rabbits, hedgehogs, and stoats (National Tb
Strategy, Animal Health Board, November 1995). The impact of exposure
to M. bovis in the U.S. would probably be even more devastating due to
the presence of a more diverse mammal population (Milton Friend,
National Biological Service memorandum, March 12, 1996).
No evidence exists that T. vulpecula achieves an ecological balance
once introduced into an area. They have altered native plant
communities causing forests to degrade to scrub or even to bare ground.
They damage erosion control plants like willows and poplars. They eat
bark, leaves, buds, flowers, and fruit of trees. They threaten other
animals by preying on them, competing for their food, or interfering
with nesting sites (P.E. Cowan, The Ecological Effects of Possums on
the New Zealand Environment). Management practices used to control
them, such as trapping or poisoning, can negatively impact other
species.
1. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule
is not a significant regulatory action. OMB makes the final
determination under Executive Order 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100
million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the government. A cost-benefit and
economic analysis is not required. This rule adds additional
restrictions over and above the regulations issued by the Department of
Agriculture, which has banned the importation of brush-tailed possums
from New Zealand. As a result, discussion is limited to the effect that
these additional importation restrictions will have on the American
economy.
The brush-tailed possum is abundant in south eastern Australia and
Tasmania. Possums have been hunted in Tasmania since the 1920's for the
fur trade. However, the fur market has declined in recent years, and
the possum industry has been selling skins and meat to Taiwan and
China. In 1996, about 3,000 possum skins and meat were exported to
Taiwan and 1,000 to China from Australia. The number of permit holders
and royalties paid in Australia for brush-tailed possums has been
declining steadily. In 1990, there were 493 permit holders receiving
$18,800 in royalties for brush-tailed possums. In 1995, there were 40
permit holders receiving $1,996 in royalties. Since 1995, royalties
have been paid for skins and carcasses. No live brush-tailed possums
have been imported in the U.S. since 1995. World trade in brush-tailed
possums has focused primarily on meat and most of it is going to Asian
markets. Consequently, this rule should have little, if any, measurable
economic affect on the U.S. economy and will not have an annual effect
of $100 million or more for a significant rule making action.
A major, though not quantified, effect of this rule is the reduced
risk of substantial environmental damage in the U.S. including the
spread of M. bovis, that could be caused by having brush-tailed possums
escape from captivity. The risk reduction is a benefit of this rule
that cannot be quantified with existing data. However, the damage in
New Zealand caused by the introduction of the brush-tailed possum in
1840 is well documented. There is no way of knowing where the brush-
tailed possums would enter the natural environment in the U.S. and
consequently, the economic effect avoided by not having the
introduction cannot be estimated.
(2) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture has developed and implemented
regulations to prohibit the importation of brush-tailed possums from
New Zealand because they carry bovine tuberculosis. This rule will
further expand this prohibition to include all countries because of the
potential of brush-tailed possums carrying M. bovis and the damage that
they could inflict on native ecosystems.
(3) This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
This rule does not affect entitlement programs.
(4) This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. There is
no indiction that listing wildlife as injurious in the past has caused
legal or policy problems. As no live brush-tailed possums have been
imported since 1995, this rule should not raise legal, policy, or any
other issues.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity
Compliance Guide is not required. For the reasons described in section
3 below, no individual small industry within the United States will be
significantly affected if brush-tailed possum importation is
prohibited.
[[Page 59151]]
3. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more. Live brush-tailed possums have not been imported into the United
States since 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service records from 1994 and
1995 indicate that 1,030 brush-tailed possums have been imported for a
total value of $11,900. Since only four importers were involved and no
additional trade has occurred, the Service believes that a market for
live brush-tailed possums has not been established in the U.S.
Consequently, there is no measurable economic effects on small
businesses.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service records
indicate that only four importers brought in a total of 1,030 brush-
tailed possums in 1994 and 1995. None have been imported since 1995.
c. Does 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. The
low number of brush-tailed possums imported into the U.S. indicates
that listing the brush-tailed possum as injurious would not have
significant adverse effects.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.)
a. The rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. The
Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
Act that this rule making will not impose a cost of $100 million or
more in any given year on local or State governments or private
entities.
b. This rule will not 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. The Service has
determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Act that
this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any
given year on local or State governments or private entities.
5. Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant takings implications. Although once listed as injurious,
all brush-tailed possum in this country would be exported or destroyed,
the takings would not be significant.
6. Federalism (E.O. 12612)
In accordance with Executive Order 12612, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, in their relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12612, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
7. Civil Justice Reform (E.O.12988)
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 Executive Order. The proposed rule has been reviewed to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, written to minimize
litigation, and provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard, and promotes simplification and burden
reduction.
8. Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation does not contain any information collection
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
9. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this policy in accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act. This rule does not constitute a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. An environmental impact statement/assessment is not
required. The action is categorically excluded under Department NEPA
procedures (516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10), which applies to policies,
directives, regulations, and guidelines of an administrative, legal,
technical, or procedural nature; or the environmental effects of which
are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to
meaningful analysis and will be subject later to the NEPA process,
either collectively or case-by-case.
10. Public Comment Solicitation
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as
the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2)
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided
into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type
and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for
example Sec. 16.11 Importation of live wild animals. (5) Is the
description of the rule in the Supplementary Information section of the
preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else could we
do to make the rule easier to understand?
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of
several methods. You may mail comments to U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 840, Arlington, VA 22030.
Finally, you may hand-deliver comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Suite 840, Arlington, VA 22203. Our practice is to
make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents,
available for public review during regular business hours. Individual
respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the
rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law.
There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the
rulemaking record a respondents's identity, as allowable by law. If you
wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves
as representatives or officials of organizations or business, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
The Service is issuing this proposed rule under the authority of
the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). Accordingly, the Service proposes to
amend 50 CFR part 16 as follows:
[[Page 59152]]
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 16
Fish, Import, Reporting and recordkeeping, Transportation,
Wildlife.
PART 16--INJURIOUS WILDLIFE
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 42.
2. We amend Sec. 16.11 by adding paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 16.11 Importation of live wild mammals.
(a) * * *
(7) Any rush-tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula).
* * * * *
Dated: November 3, 1999.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-28490 Filed 11-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
