[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32664-32678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11201]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0052]
RIN 1018-AZ53


Inclusion of 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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are listing 
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 and their subspecies.

DATES: This listing is effective November 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may obtain information about permits for international 
trade in these species and their subspecies by contacting the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of 
Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; 
telephone: 703-358-2104 or 800-358-2104; facsimile: 703-358-2281; 
email: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.fws.gov/international.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Hoover, Chief, Division of 
Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 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: 

Background

    The Service's International Wildlife Trade Program convened a 
freshwater turtle workshop in St. Louis, Missouri, 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. In response to one of the recommendations 
put forth at the St. Louis workshop, in November 2011, the Service 
hosted a workshop in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to develop best management 
practices for turtle farms operating in the United States. All 16 
States with turtle farms attended the 2011 workshop. Information on 
these workshops can be found on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/international/animals/freshwater-turtles.html or from the Service's 
International Wildlife Trade Program (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
    On October 30, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 
64553) a document proposing listing the common snapping turtle 
(Chelydra serpentina), Florida softshell turtle (Apalone ferox), smooth 
softshell turtle (Apalone mutica), and spiny softshell turtle (Apalone 
spinifera), including their subspecies, except Apalone spinifera atra, 
which is already included in Appendix I of CITES, in Appendix III of 
CITES. We accepted public comments on that proposal for 60 days, ending 
December 29, 2014. We have reviewed and considered all public comments 
we received on the proposal (see the Summary of Comments and Our 
Responses section, below). Our final decision reflects consideration of 
the information and opinions we have received.

[[Page 32665]]

Species Information

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 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 temminckii) 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 slow-
moving 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).

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 it may also consume vegetation (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 extirpated 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).

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) (see title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) at Sec.  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 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 several States. The spiny softshell inhabits creeks and 
rivers, but also occurs in other types of water bodies, including 
artificial bodies, as 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).
    For further information on these species, including their 
subspecies, you may refer to our proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register on October 30, 2014 (79 FR 64553).

CITES

    CITES, an international treaty, regulates the import, export, re-
export, and introduction from the sea of certain animal and plant 
species. Currently 181 countries and the European Union have ratified, 
accepted, approved, or acceded to CITES; these 182 entities 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

[[Page 32666]]

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. The U.S. CITES implementing 
regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 23.

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 domestically 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 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. 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 or the CITES Guidelines for the non-air transport 
of live wild animals and plants (available from the CITES Secretariat's 
Web site at https://www.cites.org/eng/resources/transport/index.php) 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.

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 at 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

[[Page 32667]]

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.
    We have complied with the criteria outlined at 50 CFR 23.90(c) as 
follows:
    Sec.  23.90(c)(1): These four freshwater turtle species (including 
their subspecies, except Apalone spinifera atra, which is already 
included in Appendix I of CITES) are native to the United States.
    Sec.  23.90(c)(2): These four native U.S. freshwater turtle species 
are regulated by State laws and regulations throughout their ranges to 
prevent or restrict exploitation and control trade, and the laws and 
regulations are being implemented. For further information on the 
conservation status of these species, including their subspecies, you 
may refer to our proposed rule published in the Federal Register on 
October 30, 2014 (79 FR 64553). In response to our proposed rule 
(October 30, 2014; 79 FR 64553), 10 of the comments we received were 
from State agencies (see the Summary of Comments and Our Responses 
section, below). Our final decision reflects consideration of the 
additional information and opinions we have received from those State 
agencies.
    Sec.  23.90(c)(3): We have documented these four native U.S. 
freshwater turtle species in international trade. In our proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2014 (79 FR 64553), we 
describe recent trends in exportations of: Live common snapping turtles 
and meat, live Florida softshell turtles and eggs, live smooth 
softshell turtles, and live spiny softshell turtles. We update that 
information as follows:

                                          Table 1--U.S. Exportations of Live Common Snapping Turtles 2009-2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2009             2010             2011             2012             2013             2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live common snapping turtles exported from the             655,549          709,869          811,717        1,081,246        1,261,426        1,352,289
 United States....................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Table 2--U.S. Exportations of Live Florida Softshell Turtles 2009-2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2009             2010             2011             2012             2013             2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Florida softshell turtles exported from the           214,787          209,453          367,629          436,995          207,185          213,453
 United States....................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Table 3--U.S. Exportations of Live Spiny Softshell Turtles 2009-2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2009             2010             2011             2012             2013             2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live spiny softshell turtles exported from the              46,117           56,056           55,713           71,740           69,581            5,487
 United States....................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Table 4--U.S. Exportations of Live Smooth Softshell Turtles 2009-2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2009             2010             2011             2012             2013             2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live smooth softshell turtles exported from the                200                0                0              230                0                0
 United States....................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a significant proportion of the exported live specimens 
originated from turtle farms, the need for increased cooperation from 
other parties to control illegal trade is based upon the following:
     Despite varying export levels of the species from year to 
year, there is potential for significant increases in export demands in 
the future.
     Even with extensive turtle farming operations, the harvest 
pressure on wild turtle populations remain high (see Issue 30 and Issue 
33 below).
     Increased cooperation will help the U.S. better understand 
temporal trends and the source of exported turtles.
     The level of wild harvest utilized to maintain turtle farm 
production is unknown.
    Sec.  23.90(c)(4): We have consulted with the CITES Secretariat and 
the Animals Committee regarding our proposal to list these four native 
U.S. freshwater turtle species in Appendix III. The Secretariat and the 
Animals Committee have informed us that our proposal to list these four 
native U.S. freshwater turtle species in Appendix III is consistent 
with Resolution Conf. 9.25 (Rev. CoP16), and they have not raised any 
objections to this proposed listing. Further, we have also informed the 
Management Authorities of other range countries. Mainland China and 
Hong Kong are the major importers of these species from the United 
States. Accordingly, we have sought out their views on the potential 
effects of including these species in CITES Appendix III. Mainland 
China referred our request to Hong Kong and Hong Kong replied that they 
have ``no strong view'' on our proposal to list these four native U.S. 
freshwater turtle species in Appendix III. Hong Kong suggested that we 
consider that visual identification guides and protocols for genetic 
testing on these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species be 
available (and preferably shared with the Parties) in advance of the 
listing.
    For further information about the listing process, you may refer to 
our proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2014 
(79 FR 64553).

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

[[Page 32668]]

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 or the CITES 
Guidelines for the non-air transport of live wild animals and plants 
(available from the CITES Secretariat's Web site at https://www.cites.org/eng/resources/transport/index.php) 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. Because 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 
non-detriment 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 
enter or exit the United States at a designated port for wildlife, must 
be declared to a Service Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) 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 ADDRESSES, above). We will 
review the application to decide if the export meets the applicable 
criteria at 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 or the CITES Guidelines 
for the non-air transport of live wild animals and plants (available 
from the CITES Secretariat's Web site at https://www.cites.org/eng/resources/transport/index.php). 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 ADDRESSES, above). Additional information on designated ports for 
wildlife, declaration of shipments, inspection, and clearance of 
shipments is available upon request from OLE; contact the port in which 
shipment will obtain clearance (http://www.fws.gov/le/inspection-offices.html); email: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.fws.gov/le.

Lacey Act

    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 or in violation of any Indian tribal law. This 
prohibition applies, for example, 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, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, or another 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 
or in violation of any foreign law.
    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 which we 
summarized in our proposed rule (79 FR 64553) and clarified in some 
instances with this final rule (see the Summary of Comments and Our 
Responses section, below). Because many State laws and regulations 
regulate the take of these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species, 
certain acts (import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, 
purchase) with these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species taken 
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.

Summary of Comments and Our Responses

    We requested comments on our October 30, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 
64553) for 60 days, ending December 29, 2014. We received a total of 
26,343 comments during the comment period. Of these, 26,271 were form 
letters that voiced support for the proposed action, but did not 
provide significant supporting information for the proposed CITES 
Appendix-III listing of these four native U.S. freshwater turtle 
species.
    For the 72 comments we received that were not form letters, 10 of 
the comments were from State agencies, 9 were from nongovernmental 
organizations, and 53 were from private individuals. These comments are 
summarized and responded to below.
    Regarding the State agency comments, five State agencies generally 
supported listing all four of these native U.S. freshwater turtle 
species in Appendix III, and one State agency generally supported 
listing the common snapping turtle, smooth softshell turtle, and spiny 
softshell turtle species in Appendix III, while having no opinion of 
including the Florida softshell turtle. One State agency generally 
supported listing the common snapping turtle and spiny softshell turtle 
species in Appendix III, while having no opinion of including the 
smooth softshell turtle and the Florida softshell turtle. One State 
agency generally supported listing the common snapping turtle in 
Appendix III, but was opposed to including all three softshell turtle 
species in Appendix III. One State agency was opposed to listing all 
four of these native U.S. freshwater turtle species in Appendix III, 
and one State agency did not explicitly express support or opposition 
for the proposal, but rather concern about how the listing would create 
additional permitting requirements, expenses, potential loss of 
revenue, and export processing time.
    Regarding the comments from nongovernmental organizations and 
private individuals, 44 generally supported the proposal to list all 
four of these native U.S. freshwater turtle species in Appendix III, 
and 18 generally opposed the proposal to list these four native U.S. 
freshwater turtle species in Appendix III.
    We have considered all substantive information specifically related 
to the proposed rule that was provided to us during the open comment 
period. Several of the comments included opinions or information not 
directly related to the proposed rule, such as views expressing 
interest in increasing habitat for these species. We have not

[[Page 32669]]

addressed those comments, as they do not have direct bearing on the 
Appendix-III listing of these turtles and their subspecies. We have 
summarized the relevant comments, grouped them into general issues, and 
provided our responses to these issues below. Public comments and 
comments from State agencies regarding these issues are grouped 
separately. Some commenters submitted additional reports and references 
for our consideration, which we reviewed and considered as appropriate.

Public Comments

    Issue 1: Several commenters provided supporting data and 
information regarding the biology, range, distribution, life history, 
threats, and current conservation efforts affecting these four native 
U.S. freshwater turtle species.
    Our Response: We thank all the commenters for their interest in the 
conservation of these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species and 
thank those commenters who provided information for our consideration 
in making this CITES Appendix-III listing determination. Some 
information submitted was duplicative of the information contained in 
the proposed rule; some comments contained information that provided 
additional clarity or support for information contained in the proposed 
rule.
    Issue 2: Because these species are not endangered or threatened, 
the proposed rule is an unnecessary tax on turtle farmers. This 
proposed rule appears to be an attempt to regulate a legitimate 
business rather than to help a species in peril. Listing these animals 
should not adversely affect breeders using captive-bred turtles that 
have millions of dollars invested in their farms and earn a living 
producing these animals. Captive breeding of these species is 
sustainable and economically important. The cost of permits could be 
prohibitive to small businesses. Delays in permitting could have 
serious economic consequences. Increased Federal regulation will only 
increase government presence and be an undue tax burden.
    Our Response: Our intent is to implement an Appendix-III permitting 
system for these species that will not be burdensome to U.S. turtle 
farmers or exporters, while ensuring that persons engaging in illegal 
trade are stopped. We will also use the listing to gather data on trade 
in these species, to better quantify the level of trade and the impact 
of trade on these species. These data will be made available to State 
wildlife management agencies, to improve management programs and 
further the conservation of these species.
    Issue 3: The proposed listing is an example of over-regulation and 
has no purpose other than to determine if it is even necessary. The 
government has to justify it as a fact- finding regulation. The Service 
fails to address why the current Declaration of Wildlife Export Form 
(FWS Form 3-177) is insufficient to monitor international trade and 
whether exports are occurring legally with respect to State law. The 
proposed rule does not distinguish export of these species as captive-
bred or wild-caught when this information is required by FWS Form 3-
177. If monitoring these species is what the Service needs to improve, 
there are other ways available other than adding these species to 
protected lists. It is not clear what additional information the 
Service will gain by listing these species in Appendix III.
    Our Response: Many importing and re-exporting countries do not have 
national legislation that requires inspection of all wildlife, 
particularly if the species in question is not listed under CITES. One 
reason for listing these species is to improve enforcement of Federal 
and State laws by enlisting the support of other CITES Parties. An 
Appendix-III listing will increase inspection and reporting of imports, 
exports, and re-exports of these four native U.S. freshwater turtle 
species by all CITES Parties, not just the United States. The listing 
will also improve the quantity of turtle export data. It will help us 
detect trade trends and, in consultation with the States, implement 
pro-active conservation or trade management measures that better 
control exports and detect illegal trade.
    Issue 4: Protecting these species may be more successful if 
international trade was banned completely by listing them in Appendix I 
of CITES.
    Our Response: The CITES Parties meet periodically to review what 
species in international trade should be regulated and to consider 
other aspects of the implementation of CITES. 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 
approval of the Parties, under Articles II and XVI of the Convention. 
Prior to a CoP, we solicit recommendations for amending Appendices I 
and II, as well as recommendations for resolutions, decisions, and 
agenda items for discussion at the CoP. We invite such recommendations 
via a notice published in the Federal Register that includes a public 
comment period. The appropriate time to request inclusion of the 
species in Appendix I or II is during that public comment period. Our 
regulations governing this public process are found at 50 CFR 23.87. 
CoP17 is scheduled to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa, from 
September 24, 2016, to October 5, 2016. In the interim, international 
trade data and other relevant information gathered as a result of a 
CITES Appendix-III listing will help us determine whether we should 
propose the species for inclusion in Appendix I or II, remove it from 
Appendix III, or retain it in Appendix III. If, after monitoring the 
trade of any U.S. CITES Appendix-III species and evaluating its status, 
we determine that the species meets the CITES criteria for listing in 
Appendix I or II, based on the criteria set forth at 50 CFR 23.89, we 
will consider whether to propose the species for inclusion in Appendix 
I or II.
    Issue 5: We support adding these turtle species to CITES Appendix 
III. However, we encourage the Service to add these turtle species to 
CITES Appendix II.
    Our Response: See our response to Issue 4.
    Issue 6: There are large numbers of Americans who enjoy eating 
turtles; legitimate turtle farms should not be over-regulated.
    Our Response: This listing will allow us to monitor and evaluate 
the export of these species from the United States. The goal is to 
insure that the trade is legal, which we hope will minimize adverse 
impacts on wild populations. These listings are intended to support 
implementation of existing laws and control illegal trade. These 
listings will assist State and tribal agencies by ensuring that only 
those specimens that were collected or produced legally are permitted 
for export.
    Issue 7: CITES is not the proper avenue for taking action on these 
species at this time. The International Union for Conservation of 
Nature (IUCN) considered these species to be of ``Least Concern.''
    Our Response: The criteria for listing species in CITES Appendix 
III are different from the criteria used by the IUCN in evaluating 
species for the Red List. The criteria for deciding to list U.S. 
species in Appendix III are provided at 50 CFR 23.90. As detailed 
above, we have applied these criteria in deciding to list these four 
species in Appendix III.

[[Page 32670]]

    Issue 8: Population harvest control of the common snapping turtle 
should be regulated by the States. Each State is able to protect its 
interests by adopting appropriate regulations to protect these turtle 
species and ensure trade is legal and sustainable.
    Our Response: The conservation and management of these species is 
primarily under the jurisdiction of State and tribal agencies. However, 
we will monitor and evaluate the international trade in these species, 
to decide if there is a conservation concern that would require any 
further action on our part. These listings will assist State and tribal 
agencies by ensuring that only those specimens that were collected or 
produced legally are permitted for export.
    Issue 9: The proposal presents no scientific evidence that this 
action is warranted, but rather is using the CITES listing as a means 
to gather information. The science used to make a determination of the 
effects of exports on the wild population should be obtained by less 
draconian measures. Adding these turtles and their subspecies to CITES 
Appendix III would only hurt the already struggling turtle farmers. A 
study to collect and assess the current status and practices should be 
conducted before this action is taken.
    Our Response: We refer the commenter to the discussion under 
Listing a Native U.S. Species in Appendix III, above which includes new 
information on exportation of these species for 2012-2014. We have 
carefully considered the threats facing these species (described in our 
October 30, 2014, proposed rule) and the criteria for listing a species 
in Appendix III, and determined that the listing is appropriate. As 
required by the Convention, we will monitor trade in these species. We 
will periodically consult with the States and review the effectiveness 
of the listing, documented levels of illegal trade, and the volume of 
legal trade in the species, particularly trade in those specimens 
harvested from the wild. After these consultations, we will determine 
if further action is needed.
    Issue 10: Understanding the domestic origin of freshwater turtle 
shipments or the domestic origin of the turtles themselves is essential 
to understanding the commercial trade of freshwater turtles in the 
United States. The current gap in information is of concern.
    Our Response: We agree. These listings will help close that 
information gap and inform management decisions by State and tribal 
agencies and the Service.
    Issue 11: Captive breeding turtle farm operations for human 
consumption and the pet trade reduce pressure from harvest of wild 
populations.
    Our Response: It is unknown at this time if captive turtle breeding 
operations reduce harvest pressure on wild populations of these 
species. Turtles are produced in the United States by farms that 
specialize in propagating captive-bred hatchlings to meet demand for 
commercial trade, but turtles are also entering trade through 
collection from the wild. Listing these species in CITES 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.
    Issue 12: The number of snapping turtles reportedly collected under 
Pennsylvania's commercial permit has more than doubled during the past 
decade. Although declines in Pennsylvania's snapping turtle populations 
are not apparent at the present time, there is concern that 
continuation of this trend is not sustainable.
    Our Response: 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.
    Issue 13: The improved reporting of traded animals resulting from 
an Appendix-III listing would be highly valuable in understanding the 
trade trends and the likely impacts of trade on wild populations.
    Our Response: We agree.
    Issue 14: The vast majority of published peer-reviewed research 
papers on these species concern basic biology, ecology, and toxicology 
in the case of Chelydra; the number of papers examining the effects of 
offtake are minimal.
    Our Response: We agree. An Appendix-III listing will 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.
    Issue 15: With regard to the taxonomy used in your Federal Register 
publication, it is worth noting that it corresponds to the CITES 
Standard reference for turtles (Fritz & Havas 2007; Vertebrate Zoology 
57(2):149-368) in recognizing the subspecies osceola as valid. However, 
following a thorough molecular phylogenetic evaluation by Shaffer et 
al. (2008, in the Biology of the Snapping Turtle volume cited above), 
this subspecies is no longer recognized as taxonomically valid by the 
Committee on Standard English and Scientific Names of the American 
Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, the Canadian Association 
of Herpetologists, the Canadian Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 
Network, Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, the Society 
for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles and the Herpetologists' League 
(Crother 2012; ISBN 978-0-916984-85-4) or the Turtle Taxonomy Working 
Group (TTWG 2014: http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/checklist/). Should these 
species indeed be included in Appendix III, then this would be a matter 
to bring to the attention of the Nomenclature Specialist--Zoology of 
the CITES Animals Committee.
    Our Response: We appreciate this comment and will bring this to the 
attention of the Nomenclature Specialist. Irrespective of the taxonomic 
differentiation of the common snapping turtle, all recognized common 
snapping turtle subspecies will be included in the CITES Appendix-III 
listing.
    Issue 16: We surveyed the 36 range States for the common snapping 
turtle, 30 range States for the spiny softshell turtle, 23 range States 
for the smooth softshell turtle, and 4 range States for the Florida 
softshell turtle to determine the regulations currently in place to 
conserve the species. We have found that each of the States has 
instituted protections, if not outright harvest prohibitions. In 
particular, 14 of 36 range States representing approximately 35 percent 
of the common snapping turtle's natural range prohibit commercial 
harvest, with 19 of the remaining 22 range States allowing licensed, 
commercial harvest and 9 of the 22 requiring a minimum size of at least 
11 inches, which provides for natural reproduction. Relative to the 
spiny softshell turtle, 18 of 30 range States, representing 
approximately 50 percent of its natural range, prohibit commercial 
harvest, with 11 of the remaining 12 States requiring a harvest license 
and 6 of the 12 States either requiring a minimum size or a harvest 
season that avoids affecting natural reproduction. Concerning the 
smooth softshell turtle, 14 of 23 range States, representing 
approximately 40 percent of its natural range, prohibit commercial 
harvest, with 8 of the remaining 9 range States requiring a harvest 
license and 4 of the 9 States requiring a minimum size or harvest 
season that avoids affecting reproduction. The Florida softshell occurs 
in four States and, of those four

[[Page 32671]]

States, two States (Florida and South Carolina) that represent 90 
percent of its natural range prohibit harvest, and the other two 
require a commercial license, with one State requiring a minimum size 
to avoid effecting reproduction.
    Our Response: We note that one of the criteria for listing a 
species in CITES Appendix III is that there are domestic regulations in 
place to prevent or restrict exploitation and to control trade (see 
discussion under Listing a Native U.S. Species in Appendix III, above). 
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 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.
    Issue 17: Recently acquired export data for 2012 and 2013 for just 
the wild-caught cohorts of these four native U.S. freshwater turtle 
species indicate that 295,373 common snapping turtles, 63,986 Florida 
soft-shelled turtles, 230 smooth soft-shelled turtles, and 25,495 spiny 
soft-shelled turtles were exported over that 2-year period. Reviewing 
all of the data, we would also strongly support adding to the CITES 
Appendix-III listing razor-backed musk turtles (Sternotherus 
carinatus), of which 72,526 wild-caught turtles were exported, and 
common musk turtles (Sternotherus odoratus), of which 100,361 wild-
caught turtles were exported during that same 2-year time period. 
Sternotherus species are particularly vulnerable to over-collection, as 
females produce a very small numbers of eggs each year.
    Our Response: These two species were discussed at the Service's 
freshwater turtle workshop in St. Louis in September 2010. Although the 
Working Group at the meeting recommended no wild-caught commercial off-
take of these two species, it did not recommend including these two 
species in CITES Appendix III. We evaluate the need for CITES species 
listings or proposals on a regular, ongoing basis, and we will continue 
to consider the appropriateness of an Appendix-III listing for these 
two species.
    Issue 18: The trade in turtles, particularly for the markets in 
Asia, has decimated turtle populations worldwide. What was once known 
as the Asian turtle crisis has become a worldwide turtle crisis because 
of the lengths these markets will go to acquire turtles for food and 
medicinal purposes.
    Our Response: We agree that there is a substantial large-scale 
international commercial trade in many turtle species. Turtles are 
produced in the United States by farms that specialize in propagating 
captive-bred hatchlings specifically to meet this demand for commercial 
trade, but turtles are also entering trade through collection from the 
wild. Listing these species in CITES 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.
    Issue 19: The aquaculture industry in China preferentially imports 
wild-caught adult turtles as breeders.
    Our Response: We are aware that there is a demand for large, wild-
caught turtles both for food and as breeding adults. Long-term 
persistent take of wild-caught turtles makes these species vulnerable 
to decline. We acknowledge that more study is needed to determine what 
levels of harvest of mature adults of these species are sustainable.
    Issue 20: The Service does not provide any specific evidence or 
recent cases to support their assertions that State laws are not 
effectively regulating turtle harvest and that illegal trade and 
unauthorized collection (poaching) of these species is occurring in the 
United States.
    Our Response: In our October 30, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 64553), 
we stated that existing laws have not been completely successful in 
preventing the unauthorized collection and trade of these four native 
U.S. freshwater turtle species. Existing regulatory mechanisms detailed 
in the proposed rule in this regard, as well as comments we received on 
the proposed rule, support our initial determination. For example, the 
State of Virginia, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, commented 
that ``We have cross-referenced annual reports from harvesters with 
processors and have seen as much as 30,000 pounds unreported in a 
single season. This discrepancy between harvester reports and processor 
reports appears to be an issue in other [S]tates as well.''
    Issue 21: This proposed rule was initiated by economically powerful 
and litigious environmental groups with campaigns that seek to 
criminalize pet turtle ownership.
    Our Response: The commenter did not provide any evidence of this 
assertion. In fact, the Service's International Wildlife Trade Program 
convened a freshwater turtle workshop in St. Louis, Missouri, 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 (see Background, above). The 
Conservation, Status & Monitoring Working Group at the workshop 
recommended that listing these species in CITES Appendix III be 
considered. 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.
    Issue 22: The proposed rule cites Congdon et al. that snapping 
turtles are late maturing. However, the Congdon et al. study took place 
in a cold climate State. In the warm southeastern United States, where 
most turtle farming occurs, turtles may reach maturity in as little as 
2 to 3 years.
    Our Response: We agree that under controlled conditions, turtles 
may reach maturity earlier than would normally occur in the wild. 
However, maturity rates of captive-bred turtles are not relevant to 
this listing action.
    Issue 23: There is no information that the Service consulted Native 
American Tribes as required at 50 CFR 23.90.
    Our Response: Pursuant to 50 CFR 23.90(e)(1), we are required to 
consult with and solicit comments from all States and Tribes where the 
species occurs and all other range countries. We met this requirement 
when we solicited comments during a 60-day comment period from all 
interested parties in our October 30, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 64553) 
and by also directly reaching out to tribal entities to notify them of 
our proposed rule and to solicit comments from Tribes on our proposed 
rule. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Native American Liaison's 
serve as the point of contact between the Service and Tribes. We worked 
collaboratively with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Native 
American Liaison's to contact Tribes where these species occur within 
their respective regions for the purpose of informing them of our 
proposed rule and to solicit comments on the proposed rule. We did not 
receive any tribal comments to the proposed rule.
    Issue 24: The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies does not 
represent individual recommendations from

[[Page 32672]]

directors of State wildlife agencies. The proposed rule suggests that 
State wildlife agencies have approved the Appendix-III listing of these 
turtle species.
    Our Response: We did not intend to imply or assume that State 
wildlife directors have approved the Appendix-III listing of these 
turtle species. In fact, we made clear in our October 30, 2014, 
proposed rule that we have consulted the States, through the 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, on this proposed action. 
Further, the Conservation, Status & Monitoring Working Group at the 
freshwater turtle workshop in St. Louis, Missouri, in September 2010, 
recommended that listing these species in CITES Appendix III be 
considered (see Background, above). Our 60-day comment period for the 
proposed rule allowed all interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on our proposal to list these four native U.S. freshwater turtle 
species in CITES Appendix III, and we received comments from 10 State 
agencies, as described below.
    Issue 25: Restricting State possession of these species and 
enacting breeding laws are restrictive domestic measures that are 
contrary to Article XIV of CITES.
    Our Response: The commenter is in error regarding the 
interpretation of Article XIV of the Convention and regarding the 
effect of this Appendix-III listing. An Appendix-III listing is not a 
stricter domestic measure, nor does it restrict State possession of 
these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species or enact breeding laws 
for these species. Article XIV of the Convention explicitly recognizes 
the rights of Parties to adopt stricter domestic measures to restrict 
or prohibit trade, taking, possession, or transport of any wildlife or 
plant species. Resolution Conf. 11.3 (Rev. CoP16) further recommends 
that Parties make use of stricter domestic measures if they have 
determined ``that an Appendix-II or -III species is being traded . . . 
in a manner detrimental to the survival of that species'' or is being 
``traded in contravention of the laws of any country involved in the 
transaction.'' When necessary, the United States has utilized stricter 
domestic measures, such as the ESA, Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371-
3378), to implement CITES.
    Issue 26: Concerns by citizens who possess and breed common 
snapping turtles and softshell turtles should be publicly addressed 
first in an amended proposed rule, before publishing any final rule 
adding these species to Appendix III of CITES.
    Our Response: The rulemaking process is designed to allow for 
public input through the public comment period on the proposed rule, 
and agency response to those comments in the preamble to the final 
rule, as we have done here. We decline to accept this suggestion.

Comments From States

State of Arkansas, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC)
    Issue 27: AGFC supports this proposed action. The commercial 
harvest of aquatic turtles has been a component of wildlife resource 
use by Arkansans for many decades. Three of the four proposed species 
are commercially harvested in Arkansas: the common snapping turtle, 
spiny softshell, and smooth softshell. AGFC regulatory changes in 2006 
initiated reporting requirements of all turtles harvested from the 
wild. A quick summary of these harvest data show that between 2004-2014 
a total of 46,274 snapping turtles and 70,894 softshell turtles (both 
species of soft-shelled turtles combined) were harvested from Arkansas 
waters. It should be noted that these data are incomplete due to either 
incorrect (listed in pounds of turtle instead of number of individuals) 
or unreported harvests. Also, these numbers do not reflect whether the 
animals were exported or retained as captive brood stock. However, it 
is most likely that the majority of these turtles were exported from 
the State, destined for the Asian market. Current AGFC regulations 
impose no limits on the harvest of these species, in terms of season, 
size class, or numbers, within those areas designated as open to 
commercial aquatic turtle harvest, which covers approximately one half 
of the State.
    The only foreseeable impact this CITES listing would have would be 
on those Arkansas harvesters and dealers that wished to ship turtles 
directly overseas to foreign buyers. The vast majority of Arkansas 
turtle sales (including the species in question here) are made to 
buyers and brokers in California who then ship the turtles overseas, 
and the onus falls on the broker to obtain all required export permits 
and fulfill any reporting requirements. The proposed CITES Appendix-III 
listing of these three commercial aquatic turtle species would appear 
to have no adverse impacts or place any undue regulatory burden on the 
current commercial aquatic turtle harvester and dealer community in 
Arkansas. Therefore, the AGFC supports the proposed CITES Appendix-III 
listing of these species as it would allow better tracking of 
international exports of these commercially viable turtle species.
    Our Response: We thank the State of Arkansas for its comments.
State of Colorado, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)
    Issue 28: CPW staff members have reviewed the proposal and 
generally support the inclusion of the common snapping turtle and spiny 
softshell turtle in Appendix III of CITES. CPW has no comment on the 
other two species proposed for inclusion as they are not found in 
Colorado. Both of these native species (common snapping turtle and 
spiny softshell turtle) are regulated in Colorado, and we agree that 
their inclusion in CITES Appendix III will increase our ability to 
monitor their take from the State and allow for better enforcement of 
their international trade. One specific point we would like to clarify 
from the Federal Register publication is the State regulations as they 
apply to the spiny softshell. The Federal Register publication states 
that collection for personal use is permitted in Colorado. It should be 
noted that Colorado does not allow possession or collection of the 
spiny softshell turtle, except by special permit/license.
    Our Response: We thank the State of Colorado for its comments and 
for correcting the record regarding the regulation for possession and 
collection of spiny softshell turtles in Colorado.
State of Florida, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 
Services (FDACS)
    Issue 29: FDACS is the lead agency for the State of Florida for 
aquaculture. The department is charged by State law with enhancing the 
growth of aquaculture while protecting Florida's environment.
    Currently, the department has 56 certified aquaculture facilities 
that are growing and marketing freshwater turtles, the majority of 
which include one or several of the species proposed for CITES 
Appendix-III listing. Turtles are marketed domestically and 
internationally to the pet trade and for food consumption. Florida 
aquaculture turtle producers reported sales in 2012 of approximately 
$1.2 million based upon a survey conducted for the FDACS by the Florida 
Agricultural Statistics Service. Aquaculture farms certified by FDACS 
are subject to on-farm inspections for compliance with chapter 597, 
Florida Aquaculture Policy Act, Florida Statutes and with chapter 5L-3, 
Aquaculture Best Management Practices, Florida Administrative Code.

[[Page 32673]]

Each farm must include their unique identification number on all 
business-related paper trails (receipts, bills of lading, bills of 
sale), and we encourage including this identification number on 
packaging. FDACS conducts unannounced farm inspections for compliance 
with State laws, which includes regulations relative to the possession, 
transportation, and sale of native species.
    Since 2009, Florida law has prohibited all commercial harvest and 
trade of native freshwater turtles and eggs from the wild. Existing 
farms were able to obtain brood stock under a special permit from 
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; however, the permit 
is no longer available. Farms must be self-sustaining or obtain stock 
from other licensed farms or from other States that allow legal 
commercial harvest and sale of these species. Documentation of stock 
sources must be maintained by Florida turtle aquaculturists. Wild 
populations are further protected by these regulations required of all 
certified Florida turtle farms. Addition of the proposed turtle species 
in CITES Appendix III will create additional permitting requirements 
for certified turtle farms exporting products. A Service Import/Export 
License and filing of the declaration form (FWS Form 3-177) are 
required for aquaculture turtle shipments along with associated 
inspection fees. If these species are added to CITES Appendix III, a 
CITES export permit and potentially a Designated Port Exception Permit 
will be required for aquaculture shipments. A majority of the Florida 
turtle farms export hatchlings or market size adults, so a quick 
turnaround on export applications is critical. Additional permitting 
requirements increase export time and expenses for farms and 
potentially result in a loss of revenue if permits cannot be obtained 
in a timely manner.
    Our Response: We will continue to work with State and tribal 
agencies and the regulated industry to ensure that our permitting 
process is as streamlined and efficient as possible, while still 
meeting our legal obligations.
State of Iowa, Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
    Issue 30: The State of Iowa's regulations on the commercial harvest 
of wild turtles are among the least restrictive in the United States. 
This harvest is limited to the common snapping turtle, smooth softshell 
turtle, spiny softshell turtle, and painted turtle. Twenty-six years of 
recorded harvest statistics show the annual total harvest of common 
snapping turtles and both species of softshell turtles has steadily 
increased from 1987 to 2012. A steady increase in the number of 
licensed turtle harvesters has been associated with this increase. Much 
of these increases have been attributed to the demand for turtles in 
Asia. Lack of stringent reporting requirements prevents IDNR from 
knowing where many harvested turtles are marketed. However, it is 
believed many of the adults are exported to other States for use in 
turtle aquaculture facilities. Statistical harvest data, turtle life-
history information, and available research lead the IDNR to believe 
harvest is exceeding the capability for wild turtles to sustain their 
populations.
    An IDNR committee charged with determining the status of wild 
turtle populations found that the commercial harvest of common snapping 
turtles, smooth softshell turtles, and spiny softshell turtles is 
threatening these species due to overharvest and that it is inevitable 
that these populations will be on a decline if more restrictive harvest 
regulations are not enacted. However, it should be mentioned that loss 
of habitat quality and quantity, predation, and water quality are other 
probable factors influencing turtle populations.
    IDNR tentatively supports the Service's efforts to include the four 
native U.S. freshwater turtle species in Appendix III of CITES. 
However, there is concern for the IDNR's role in meeting CITES 
Appendix-III requirements. Undoubtedly more staff time will be needed 
to administer, coordinate, and enforce Federal CITES regulations. Iowa 
may also need to promulgate rules for regulatory purposes. Before full 
support can be given, the Service must clearly communicate with all 
States the processes involved in issuing CITES tags, and those 
processes must not be overly burdensome to the States.
    Our Response: A CITES Appendix-III listing only applies to import, 
export, and re-export of specimens covered by the listing. In June 
2006, the United States listed the alligator snapping turtle 
(Macroclemys temminckii) and all species of map turtle (Graptemys spp.) 
in Appendix III of CITES. There are no U.S. CITES tagging requirements 
for any turtle species, and we do not foresee any regulatory or 
administrative burdens that will fall to the States. Export permits 
will be the responsibility of the exporter.
State of Louisiana, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry 
(LDAF)
    Issue 31: LDAF is opposed to this proposed rule for the following 
reasons:
     Additional expenses will be incurred by turtle farmers for 
more CITES permits and inspections. All shipments containing a CITES 
species must be inspected at the airport prior to shipment. The Service 
charges an inspection fee, as does the shipping agent responsible for 
correctly packing and handling the shipment.
     Legitimate farmers are being punished due to the actions 
of illegal traders that may be collecting turtles from the wild, while 
Louisiana turtles are captive-raised.
     The Service has no way to determine if exported turtles 
are wild-caught or captive-raised from export documents because they 
have no source code for captive-raised turtles. On the export form (FWS 
Form 3-177), all turtles are required to be listed as ``LIV'' and ``W'' 
for live, wild-caught, and this is not a true reflection of Louisiana 
exports, which are farm-raised.
     The Service cites export statistics when demand was high 
but due to the cyclical nature of the turtle market, demand for 
softshells has dramatically fallen in the last few years and demand for 
snappers is slowing down, especially in the Asian market.

Therefore, we oppose the listing of these four species of turtles under 
CITES Appendix III. However, if they are to be listed, we ask that they 
be added to the Master File that is approved by the Service every year.
    Our Response: The trade information presented in our October 30, 
2014, proposed rule (79 FR 64553) was the best available data at the 
time. We have updated that information above (see Listing a Native U.S. 
Species in Appendix III) which shows that exportation of live snapping 
turtles from the United States increased by 69.7% during 2012-2014 as 
compared to 2009-2011. Also during 2012-2014 as compared to 2009-2011, 
live softshell turtles exported from the United States increased by 
5.7%.
    Personal collection and commercial harvest of these species is 
permitted in Louisiana. In our proposed rule, we acknowledge that 
export levels vary from year to year. We also believe that the 
potential remains for significant exports in the future based on 
overseas demand. It is not the case, as a matter of law, that all CITES 
shipments must be inspected. The requirement to declare these species 
at the time of export and make them available for inspection already 
applies. Subsequent to this listing, we expect that we will be working 
with interested parties to explore the feasibility of a Master File 
system for these species as well as an

[[Page 32674]]

assessment of how our reporting forms can accurately discriminate 
between wild-caught and farm-raised turtles.
State of Louisiana, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 
(LDWF)
    Issue 32: Exports of the common snapping turtle have increased 
steadily during the past 10 years, from about 130,000 turtles in 2003, 
to 3,157,000 turtles in 2013. In 2013, Louisiana turtle farmers 
exported less than 2 percent of the national total. We have been able 
to determine that the majority of exported snapping turtles are farmed 
hatchlings that originate from sources and operations in the Midwest. 
At this time, we do not oppose a CITES Appendix-III listing for the 
common snapping turtle.
    Of the three softshell turtle species proposed for listing in CITES 
Appendix III, the smooth softshell rarely enters into commerce, and 
exports have declined from about 10,000 in 2003, to about 75 per year 
in the past 3 years. The spiny softshell has shown no substantial 
increase: average of 36,000 per year (2003-2006) to an average of 
62,000 per year (2010-2013). Hatchlings that were raised on Louisiana 
turtle farms accounted for 15 percent of spiny softshell exports in 
2013. The IUCN considers the conservation status of the smooth and 
spiny softshells as ``Least Concern.'' Based on this status, the 
relatively low export numbers, a relatively inactive market, and the 
fact that many to most of the exported turtles are farm-raised 
hatchlings, we see no justification for the action, and therefore 
recommend against a CITES Appendix-III listing for the smooth and spiny 
softshells.
    The Florida softshell has shown an increase in exports during the 
past 10 years, from an average of about 44,000 per year (2003-2006) to 
an average of about 428,000 per year (2010-2013). The proposed rule 
makes outdated claims relative to this species (e.g., ``It is the most 
intensively harvested freshwater turtle in Florida'' and ``The level of 
wild harvest necessary to maintain farm production is unknown''). 
Florida banned all commercial take of freshwater turtles in 2009, and 
limited personal take to one turtle per day. Licensed turtle farms were 
given until 2011 to collect turtles for breeding stock. Thus, there is 
no longer a threat of harvest of Florida softshell in Florida, as wild 
harvest has been illegal for 3 years, and remains so. The other three 
range States for the Florida softshell have very limited population 
sizes (Alabama), or regulate the number that may be removed for 
commerce (Georgia and South Carolina). One Florida turtle farm 
accounted for about one-third of all Florida softshell hatchlings that 
were exported in 2013. Because commerce and exports of Florida 
softshell are almost completely limited to farm-raised hatchlings, and 
because its status is also considered ``Least Concern'' by IUCN, we see 
no justification for the action and therefore recommend against a CITES 
Appendix-III listing for the Florida softshell.
    Our Response: We thank the LDWF for its comments. The criteria for 
listing species in CITES Appendix III are different from the criteria 
used by the IUCN in evaluating the conservation status of a species. 
The criteria for deciding to list U.S. species in Appendix III are 
outlined at 50 CFR 23.90. As detailed above (see Listing a Native U.S. 
Species in Appendix III), we have complied with these criteria in 
deciding to list these four species in CITES Appendix III.
State of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
    Issue 33: MDNR has reviewed the proposed rule and supports the 
Service's proposal. The common snapping turtle occurs throughout most 
of Minnesota, and commercial harvest of this species has been widely 
practiced for many years. Because monitoring and regulation of this 
harvest was believed to be inadequate, the common snapping turtle was 
designated a Species of Special Concern under Minnesota's Endangered 
Species Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84.08 95) in 1984. While no 
formal population monitoring data were available, abundant anecdotal 
accounts of declining populations supported this concern. In response 
to the considerable scientific evidence that the commercial harvest of 
wild turtle populations is not sustainable in northern latitudes, in 
2004, the MDNR undertook a major revision of the State's statutes and 
rules governing turtle harvest. Among many changes was a phase-out of 
commercial harvest by placing a moratorium on the sale of new harvest 
licenses and implementing several improvements in reporting and 
recordkeeping. While a complete elimination of commercial harvest is 
still many years off, regulation and monitoring of harvest has been 
improved, and in 2013, the MDNR removed the common snapping turtle's 
designation under the Minnesota's Endangered Species Act. Although the 
enclosed report indicates that the number of commercial licenses issued 
has declined since 2002, the harvest of common snapping turtles remains 
substantial, and shows little evidence of a decline in the near term. 
Consequently, the MDNR supports the Service's proposal to list the 
common snapping turtle in CITES Appendix III.
    The smooth softshell turtle is restricted to the lower reaches of 
the St. Croix, Minnesota, and Mississippi Rivers in Minnesota. Due to 
its vulnerability to channelization, siltation, water pollution, and 
disturbance of nesting sites by humans and predators, the smooth 
softshell turtle was designated a Species of Special Concern under 
Minnesota's Endangered Species Act in 1984, and retains that 
designation to this date. Research into the habitat use of this species 
is ongoing within the MDNR. Harvest of the smooth softshell turtle is 
not permitted in Minnesota. Given the species vulnerable status within 
the State, MDNR supports the Service's proposal to list the smooth 
softshell turtle in CITES Appendix III.
    The spiny softshell turtle is found throughout the central and 
southern portions of Minnesota, and commercial harvest is permitted. 
Because harvest pressure on this species has historically not been as 
great as the pressure placed upon the common snapping turtle, this 
species has not received the concern given to the common snapping 
turtle. The enclosed report provides evidence that the harvest of this 
species is small and continuing to decline. While improvements in 
commercial harvest regulations have benefitted this species, concerns 
that commercial turtle harvest at any scale from wild populations is 
not sustainable in Minnesota leads the MDNR to support the Service's 
proposal to include the spiny softshell turtle in Appendix III of 
CITES.
    An additional change made to Minnesota's laws in 2004 created the 
regulatory framework for turtle farming in the State. While there has 
been relatively little activity in this area to date, there is evidence 
that turtle farming will become an increasingly popular activity in 
Minnesota in the future, and listing of these three turtles in CITES 
Appendix III would aid the MDNR in monitoring that activity and its 
relationship to harvest from the wild.
    Our Response: We thank the MDNR for its comments, including 
additional clarity on the status of these species in Minnesota.
State of North Carolina, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 
(NCWRC)
    Issue 34: NCWRC supports the proposal to include the common 
snapping turtle, Florida softshell turtle, smooth softshell turtle, and 
spiny softshell turtle in CITES Appendix III so

[[Page 32675]]

that they are monitored in international trade. Although only two of 
the species (common snapping turtle and spiny softshell turtle) occur 
in North Carolina, the listing of all four North American turtles is 
warranted to prevent any common snapping turtle or U.S. softshell 
turtle from being illegally exported in international trade. As these 
turtles are not being monitored in international trade at this time, it 
is important to begin monitoring these turtles to determine the 
exportation rate to overseas markets and how these markets may expand 
in the future. This export monitoring could have an impact on how these 
turtles are managed within their current native ranges to ensure stable 
populations.
    Current North Carolina wildlife regulations allow the common 
snapping turtle to be collected for personal consumption and trade, 
while the spiny softshell turtle may not be commercially collected. 
North Carolina regulations currently allow 10 snapping turtles to be 
collected per day, and 100 per year, by each collector. These limits 
were put in place due to high harvest numbers (thousands for some 
individual collectors) occurring for snapping turtles and other species 
prior to 2003. At the State level, we increased monitoring efforts and 
took regulatory action over a decade ago, and efforts should be 
increased at the Federal level to do the same. International trade in 
these species to meet the growing demand from other regions of the 
world could result in population declines within North Carolina and 
other States.
    The apparent increase in exports of the common snapping turtle (as 
shown in the 2009-2011 data in the October 30, 2014, proposed rule at 
79 FR 64557), coupled with declining turtle populations in Asia (see 
van Dijk, P.P., B.L. Stuart, and A.G.J. Rhodin, Editors. 2000. Asian 
Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop on Conservation and Trade of 
Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia, Chelonian Research 
Monographs, Number 2: pp. 1-164), could lead to increasing numbers of 
common snapping turtles and softshell turtles impacted in the United 
States. The findings of Congdon, Dunham, and Sels (1994. Demographics 
of Common Snapping Turtle, (Chelydra serpentina): Implications for 
Conservation and Management of Long-lived Organisms. American 
Zoologists, Volume 34: pp. 397-408) on snapping turtle survivorship and 
possible impacts from commercial harvesting suggest that long-lived 
vertebrates have more difficulty recovering from commercial harvest, 
and that because of long generation times, detection of population 
recovery may be delayed.
    Export monitoring of common snapping turtles and the three 
softshell turtles that are the subjects of the proposed rule is 
warranted to determine if their trade increases over time. At present, 
declines are not apparent in populations of these turtle species, but 
as fewer turtles are available from other countries, North American 
turtle populations are at risk from unregulated export.
    Our Response: We thank the NCWRC for its comments, including 
current North Carolina regulatory information regarding the common 
snapping turtle and spiny softshell turtle.
State of Texas, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD)
    Issue 35: TPWD currently permits commercial collection (from 
private water bodies) of three of the four freshwater turtle species 
listed in the Service's proposal to amend CITES Appendix III. Those 
species are the smooth softshell turtle, spiny softshell turtle, and 
common snapping turtle. The Florida softshell turtle does not occur in 
Texas. Collection of any freshwater turtle species from public water 
bodies is not allowed in Texas. Export to international markets has 
historically been the primary driver of freshwater turtle commercial 
collection in Texas. Assessing the impact of this practice has been 
challenging. Detection of illegal collection and trade by State law 
enforcement officials is difficult. Therefore, TPWD supports including 
the above-mentioned turtles in Appendix III of CITES. TPWD believes 
this inclusion will provide valuable data regarding freshwater turtle 
trade and will better inform management efforts and harvest guidelines.
    Our Response: We thank the TPWD for its comments, including current 
regulatory information regarding the collection of freshwater turtles 
in Texas.
State of Virginia, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 
(DGIF)
    Issue 36: DGIF supports the proposed action to include the snapping 
turtle, Florida softshell, smooth softshell, and spiny softshell in 
CITES Appendix III so that they can be monitored in international 
trade. Of the four species that are the subjects of the proposed rule, 
the snapping turtle and spiny softshell both occur in Virginia, and 
only the snapping turtle is permitted for commercial harvest. During 
2002-2013, the harvest of snapping turtles in Virginia increased 12-
fold (1,200 percent), with 2013 reports documenting the highest single-
year harvest (7,926 individual turtles). These harvest numbers should 
be considered conservative estimates, given the inaccuracies often 
found in harvest reports. We have cross-referenced annual reports from 
harvesters with processors and have seen as much as 30,000 pounds 
unreported in a single season. This discrepancy between harvester 
reports and processor reports appears to be an issue in other States as 
well. Although it is one of the fastest growing commercial harvests in 
many States, the commercial harvest of snapping turtles is also one of 
the poorest managed and monitored commercial harvests.
    Our Response: We thank the DGIF for its comments, including 
important information regarding the commercial harvest of the common 
snapping turtle.
    Issue 37: According to Crother (2012), the common name for 
``snapping turtle'' does not include the word ``common.'' According to 
Crother (2012), the common names for ``Florida softshell'' and ``spiny 
softshell'' do not include ``turtle.''
    Our Response: Although we use common names where appropriate, they 
cannot be relied upon for identification of any specimen, as they may 
vary greatly in local usage. Our use of a common name is based on 
current wider usage. In addition, the Integrated Taxonomic Information 
System (ITIS), a database representing a partnership of U.S., Canadian, 
and Mexican agencies, other organizations, and taxonomic specialists 
designed to provide scientifically credible taxonomic information, 
includes the common names ``common snapping turtle,'' ``Florida 
softshell turtle,'' and ``spiny softshell turtle''; therefore, we 
accept the use of these common names where appropriate. Because of the 
potential for confusion with common names, specimens must be identified 
on CITES permits using the scientific (Latin) name.
    Issue 38: We recommend not including or highlighting harvest 
reports from those States where the snapping turtle is considered 
invasive. These few States are irrelevant to the overall conservation 
of the species.
    Our Response: A CITES Appendix-III listing of the common snapping 
turtle applies to specimens destined for export that are derived from 
throughout the United States. On February 3, 1999, Executive Order 
13112 was signed, which directed Federal agencies to address invasive 
species issues to not authorize, fund, or carry out actions likely to 
cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species, and 
also established the

[[Page 32676]]

National Invasive Species Council. Executive Order 13112 requires 
monitoring invasive species populations accurately and reliably. 
Requiring harvest reports from those States where the snapping turtle 
is considered invasive could preclude additional introductions and 
potential `laundering' of illegal specimens and will contribute to 
compliance with Executive Order 13112.
    Issue 39: The Service's export database (LEMIS) only reports what 
is exported, not those animals processed for domestic sale. Considering 
the typical sex ratio of snapping turtles is about 1:1 and mostly 
females are being exported, the summary in the proposed rule may 
grossly underestimate the actual harvest amounts. This situation is 
exacerbated by inaccurate commercial harvest reporting and by 
unreported recreational harvest. Therefore, the actual number of 
snapping turtles being harvested could be potentially twice the numbers 
summarized by the Service. In the proposed rule's summary of total 
harvest figures, ``farm-raised'' turtles include the offspring of wild-
caught, gravid snapping turtles. We contend that those animals are 
being taken from the wild and should be reported as such.
    Our Response: We acknowledge the need to improve reporting of 
harvest levels of these species. A CITES Appendix-III listing of these 
species will assist us in this effort.
    Issue 40: The snapping turtle harvest size limits are often focused 
on larger individuals, which is contrary to the life history of a long-
lived species with low nest and hatchling survivorship and high adult 
survivorship. In such reproductive strategies, we want to protect the 
larger reproductive adults, but we have found that harvesters do not 
want smaller turtles.
    Our Response: Long-term persistent take of wild-caught turtles 
makes these species vulnerable to decline. We acknowledge that more 
study is needed to determine what levels of harvest of mature adults of 
these species are sustainable.

Decision 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. Take of Florida softshells 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 (A. s. 
atra [=Apalone atra], Webb and Legler 1960), which is already listed in 
CITES Appendix I, in CITES 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 will 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 will enlist the assistance of other countries in our 
efforts to monitor and control trade in these species and subspecies.
    Accordingly, we are listing 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 CITES. The listing includes live and dead whole 
specimens, and all readily recognizable parts, products, and 
derivatives, of these species and their subspecies, except Apalone 
spinifera atra, which is already included in Appendix I of CITES. 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.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 23.90 require us to publish a proposed 
rule and a final rule for a CITES Appendix-III listing even though, if 
a proposed rule is adopted, the final rule will not result in any 
changes to the Code of Federal Regulations. Instead, this final rule 
will result in DMA notifying the CITES Secretariat to amend Appendix 
III by including 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 for 
the United States.
    Subsequent to today's publication in the Federal Register of this 
final rule to list these species and their subspecies in CITES Appendix 
III, we will notify the CITES Secretariat. An Appendix-III listing 
becomes effective 90 days after the Secretariat notifies the CITES 
Parties of the listing. The effective date of this rule (see DATES, 
above) has been extended to give the CITES Secretariat sufficient time 
to notify all Parties of the listing.

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 the regulatory system must allow for public participation and an 
open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    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

[[Page 32677]]

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 will not have a significant effect on a 
substantial number of small entities for the reasons discussed below.
    This final 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 aquaculture businesses with less than $750,000.00 in annual 
sales. This final rule:
    (a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more.
    (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    (c) Will 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 has determined 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. The implementation of this rule is by 
Federal agencies, and there is no cost imposed on any State or local 
entities or tribal governments. This rule will not have a significant 
or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector because the Service, as the lead agency for CITES implementation 
in the United States, is responsible for the issuance of permits and 
the authorization of shipments of live wildlife, and wildlife parts and 
products, for CITES-listed species.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This final 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 will collect 
under this final 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.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    This final rule has been analyzed under the criteria of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 
Department of the Interior procedures for compliance with NEPA 
(Departmental Manual (DM) and 43 CFR part 46), and Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural 
provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). This final rule does not amount 
to a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 
human environment. An environmental impact statement or evaluation is 
not required. This final rule is a regulation that is of an 
administrative, legal, technical, or procedural nature, and its 
environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to 
lend themselves to meaningful analysis under NEPA. The FWS has 
determined that this final rule is categorically excluded from further 
NEPA review as provided by 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.9, of the Department of 
the Interior National Environmental Policy Act Revised Implementing 
Procedures and 43 CFR 46.210(i). No further documentation will be made.

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 final rule will not 
have significant takings implications. While export, which was 
previously unregulated, will now be regulated, export will still be 
allowed.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this final rule will 
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact 
statement is not required because this final rule will 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 final rule will generate information that will be beneficial to 
State wildlife agencies, we do not anticipate that any State monitoring 
or control programs will need to be developed to fulfill the purpose of 
this final rule. We have consulted the States, through the Association 
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, on this action. In addition, 10 of the 
comments we received to our proposed rule (October 30, 2014; 79 FR 
64553) were from State agencies, and our final decision reflects 
consideration of the information and opinions we have received from 
those State agencies. This final rule 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 rule, 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-
to-government basis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Native 
American Liaison's serve as the point of contact between the Service 
and Tribes. We worked collaboratively with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Regional Native American Liaison's to contact Tribes where 
these species occur within their respective regions for the purpose of 
informing them of our proposed rule and to solicit comments on the 
proposed rule. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 
1997

[[Page 32678]]

(American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 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 final rule 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, or use. This final rule will not significantly 
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is 
not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is 
required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is 
available 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 final rule is Clifton A. Horton, 
Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

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 will not result in any changes to 
the Code of Federal Regulations. Accordingly, for the reasons provided 
in this final rule, we will ask the CITES Secretariat to amend Appendix 
III of CITES to include for the United States these four native U.S. 
freshwater turtle species: the common snapping turtle (Chelydra 
serpentina), Florida softshell turtle (Apalone ferox), smooth softshell 
turtle (Apalone mutica), and spiny softshell turtle (Apalone 
spinifera). This listing includes live and dead whole specimens, and 
all readily recognizable parts, products, and derivatives of these 
species and their subspecies, except Apalone spinifera atra, which is 
already included in Appendix I of CITES.
    As a result of this action, exporters must obtain an export permit 
issued by the Service's Division of Management Authority; pack and ship 
live specimens according to the IATA Live Animals Regulations or the 
CITES Guidelines for the non-air transport of live wild animals and 
plants; and follow all applicable regulations pertaining to the export 
of wildlife, including declaration of the shipment to the Service prior 
to export.

    Dated: April 1, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11201 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P