Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Exclusion of U.S. Captive-Bred Scimitar-Horned Oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle From Certain Prohibitions, 52310-52319 [05-17432]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52310-52319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17432]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT95


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Exclusion of U.S. 
Captive-Bred Scimitar-Horned Oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle From Certain 
Prohibitions

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are amending 
the regulations promulgated under the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to add new regulations to govern certain 
activities with U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah), 
addax (Addax nasomaculatus), and dama gazelle (Gazella dama), which 
have been listed as endangered. For U.S. captive-bred live wildlife, 
including embryos and gametes, and sport-hunted trophies of these three 
species, this rule authorizes certain otherwise prohibited activities 
that enhance the propagation or survival of the species. International 
trade in specimens of these species will continue to be subject to the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES). We have also prepared a final Environmental 
Assessment with a Finding of No Significant Impact for this final rule 
under regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA).

DATES: This rule is effective October 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The complete supporting file for this rule is available for 
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 
N. Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Historically, the scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah), addax (Addax 
nasomaculatus), and dama gazelle (Gazella dama) occupied the same 
general region of North Africa. Wild numbers of the three antelopes 
have declined drastically over the past 50 years. The scimitar-horned 
oryx may now be extinct in the wild. The declines have resulted 
primarily from habitat loss, uncontrolled killing, and the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms.
    Of the three antelope species, the scimitar-horned oryx is the most 
threatened with extinction. By the mid-1980s, it was estimated that 
only a few hundred were left in the wild, with the only viable 
populations known to be in Chad. However, no sightings of this species 
in the wild have been reported since the late 1980s, and the 2003 Red 
List of Threatened Species shows the status of the scimitar-horned oryx 
as ``extinct in the wild'' (World Conservation Union [IUCN] 2003). 
Captive-bred specimens of this antelope have been placed into large 
fenced areas for breeding in Morocco and Tunisia. Once animals are 
reintroduced, continuous natural breeding is anticipated so that wild 
populations will be re-established.
    It is believed that the addax was extirpated from Tunisia during 
the 1930s, and the last animals were killed in Libya and Algeria in 
1966 and 1970, respectively. Remnant populations may still exist in the 
remote desert areas of Chad, Niger, and Mali, with occasional movements 
into Libya and Algeria during times of good rainfall. In the IUCN/SSC 
Antelope Specialist Group's Global Survey of Antelopes, the addax is 
considered to be ``regionally extinct'' (Mallon and Kingswood 2001). 
The addax is listed as critically endangered by IUCN (IUCN 2003) and 
probably numbers fewer than 600 in the wild (Noble 2002).
    The dama gazelle is able to utilize both semi-desert and desert 
habitats, and is smaller than the scimitar-horned oryx or addax. Of the 
three antelope species, the dama gazelle is the least susceptible to 
pressures from humans and livestock. The original cause of its decline 
was uncontrolled killing; however, habitat loss through human 
settlement and livestock grazing, in addition to civil unrest, has more 
recently contributed to the decline. It is estimated that only small 
numbers survive in most of the eight countries within its historical 
range. The dama gazelle has declined rapidly over the last 20 years, 
with recent estimates of fewer than 700 in the wild. Noble (2002) 
estimated that the wild population of addra gazelle (G. dama 
ruficollis) is fewer than 200 specimens, the wild population of dama 
gazelle (G. dama dama) is about 500 specimens, and the mhorr gazelle 
(G. dama mhorr) is extinct in the wild. The dama gazelle was previously 
extirpated from Senegal, but has since been reintroduced, and in 1997, 
at least 25 animals existed there as part of a semi-captive breeding 
program (IUCN 2003). The IUCN lists all subspecies of dama gazelles as 
endangered.
    Captive breeding in the United States has enhanced the propagation 
or survival of the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle 
worldwide by rescuing these species from near extinction and providing 
the founder stock necessary for reintroduction. The scimitar-horned 
oryx is possibly extinct in the wild; therefore, but for captive 
breeding, the species might be extinct. Addax and dama gazelle occur in 
very low numbers in the wild, and a significant percentage of remaining 
specimens survive only in captivity (71% and 48%, respectively). 
Captive-breeding programs operated by zoos and private ranches have 
effectively increased the numbers of these animals while genetically 
managing their herds (Mallon and Kingswood 2001). Threats that have 
reduced these species' numbers to current levels in the wild continue 
throughout most of the historic range. As future opportunities arise 
for reintroduction in the antelope range countries, captive-breeding 
programs will be able to provide genetically

[[Page 52311]]

diverse and otherwise suitable specimens.
    Some U.S. captive-breeding facilities allow sport hunting of 
surplus captive-bred animals. Sport hunting of surplus captive-bred 
animals generates revenue that supports these captive-breeding 
operations and may relieve hunting pressure on wild populations. For 
further information regarding background biological information, 
factors affecting the species, and conservation measures available to 
scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle, please refer to the 
November 5, 1991; July 24, 2003; February 1, 2005; and today's Federal 
Register documents discussed below.

Previous Federal Action

    The Mhorr gazelle and Rio de Oro dama gazelle (G. d. lozanoi) were 
listed as endangered throughout their ranges on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 
8495). A proposed rule to list all scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and 
dama gazelle as endangered in the List of Threatened and Endangered 
Wildlife [50 CFR 17.11(h)] was published on November 5, 1991 (56 FR 
56491). We re-opened the comment period to request current information 
and comments from the public regarding the proposed rule on July 24, 
2003 (68 FR 43706), and November 26, 2003 (68 FR 66395). Stakeholders 
and interested parties, including the public, governmental agencies, 
the scientific community, industry, and the range countries of the 
species, were requested to submit comments or information. In 
accordance with the Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in 
Endangered Species Act Activities published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we selected three appropriate independent specialists to review 
the proposed rule. The purpose of such peer review is to ensure that 
our listing decisions for these species are based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analysis. The reviewers selected have 
considerable knowledge and field experience with scimitar-horned oryx, 
addax, and dama gazelle biology and conservation. Comments were 
received from all of the peer reviewers. After review of public 
comments, we prepared a final rule listing the three species as 
endangered. The final listing rule is being published in the Federal 
Register concurrent with this final rule regarding U.S. captive-bred 
specimens.
    A consistent theme among the comments received from peer reviewers 
and stakeholders on the proposed rule to list these species as 
endangered is the vital role of captive breeding in the conservation of 
these species. One reviewer noted that 100% of the world's scimitar-
horned oryx (including the reintroduced herds that are in enclosed 
areas), 71% of the addax, and 48% of the dama gazelles are in captive 
herds. In response to these comments, on February 1, 2005 (70 FR 5117), 
we announced a proposed rule and notice of availability of a draft 
environmental assessment to add new regulations under the Act to govern 
certain activities with U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx, addax, 
and dama gazelle, should they become listed as endangered. The proposed 
rule covered U.S. captive-bred live wildlife, including embryos and 
gametes, and sport-hunted trophies, and would authorize certain 
otherwise prohibited activities that enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species. The ``otherwise prohibited activities'' were 
take; export or re-import; delivery, receipt, carrying, transport or 
shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of a 
commercial activity; or sale or offering for sale in interstate or 
foreign commerce. In the proposed rule, we found that the scimitar-
horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle are dependent on captive breeding 
and activities associated with captive breeding for their conservation, 
and that activities associated with captive breeding within the United 
States enhance the propagation or survival of these species. Comments 
were accepted until April 4, 2005.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In response to the proposed rule and notice of availability of a 
draft Environmental Assessment, the Service received 181 comments from 
the public. Forty-two commenters expressed support for the proposed 
rule; these commenters included several nonprofit organizations and 
private individuals. Twenty-five letters of support were variations of 
a single form letter. Organizations in support of the rule were the 
American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), Conservation Force (on 
behalf of over 10 hunting and taxidermy organizations), the Exotic 
Wildlife Association, Safari Club International, and the Texas Wildlife 
Association. The form letter stated that the present situation in which 
ranchers raise and trade these antelopes benefits species conservation, 
as well as ranchers and hunters. It argued that ranchers will not be 
able to contribute to antelope conservation if they are ``restricted or 
penalized'' for raising and managing these species.
    There were 139 commenters who opposed the proposed rule (153 if co-
signers are included); of these, 96 were form letters. Organizations 
that opposed the rule included the Animal Protection Institute, 
Defenders of Wildlife, and The Humane Society of the United States (in 
joint comments representing 22 organizations), and TRAFFIC North 
America. A law firm provided a more detailed legal commentary on behalf 
of The Humane Society of the United States and Defenders of Wildlife. 
The Environmental Law Clinical Partnership submitted comments on behalf 
of the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of Animals. The vast 
majority of the form letters critical of the proposed rule were the 
result of a press release issued by Friends of Animals on March 8, 
2005. All of these comments included a request to list the three 
antelope species as endangered wherever they occur and not to include 
an exemption for U.S. ranches.
    The following is a summary of the substantive comments and our 
responses. We have included the ``talking points'' included in the form 
letters. We also received comments that were outside the rule's scope. 
However, responses to some of these comments are included where doing 
so will help clarify the purpose of the rule.
    Issue 1: Although supportive of the proposed rule, several 
commenters suggested broadening the scope of the rule to cover all 
captive-bred animals from species listed under the Endangered Species 
Act, wherever they occur. They also requested that we provide an 
exemption for all parts and products from a sport-hunted specimen, 
including meat and fur.
    Service Response 1: This rule covers only U.S. captive-bred 
scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle based on information 
regarding the conservation needs and the role of captive breeding for 
these particular species. We have exempted only specimens of these 
three species captive-bred in the United States because an important 
part of the rule is the requirement that any person participating in 
these activities maintain records and make these records available to 
Service officials upon request. It is difficult to establish a record-
keeping system for captive-breeding operations outside the United 
States and even more difficult to access records kept outside the 
United States. In addition, we have limited ability to monitor captive-
breeding operations located outside the United States, and we do not 
have sufficient information on operations outside the United States to 
determine whether they meet the standards for enhancement of 
propagation or survival of the species.

[[Page 52312]]

    We have limited the rule to captive-bred live wildlife, including 
embryos and gametes, and sport-hunted trophies because live wildlife, 
embryos, and gametes are essential to propagation and sport-hunted 
trophies. The sport-hunted trophy includes more than the mounted 
specimen. It may be raw or tanned parts, such as bones, hair, head, 
hide, hooves, horns, meat, skull, rug, taxidermied head, shoulder, or 
full body mount, of a specimen that was taken by the hunter during a 
sport hunt for personal use. It does not include articles made from a 
trophy, such as worked, manufactured, or handicraft items for use as 
clothing, curios, ornamentation, jewelry, or other utilitarian items 
for commercial purposes.
    Issue 2: Some commenters suggested that the rule should include 
criteria for approving individual captive-breeding operations to 
receive the benefits of the rule. Some commenters suggested including 
criteria for managing culls on ranches, requiring that all profits from 
ex situ activities be used for in situ conservation, and that the 
regulated operations must participate in conservation plans to 
establish wild populations in the range countries.
    Service Response 2: The successful breeding of these three species 
in captivity in the United States has added significantly to the global 
populations of these species. Persons may operate under the provisions 
of the rule only if the purpose of their activity is associated with 
the transfer of live wildlife, including embryos and gametes, or with 
sport hunting in a manner that contributes to increasing or sustaining 
captive numbers or to potential reintroduction to range countries. The 
rule also requires that each person claiming the benefit of the 
exception maintain accurate written records of activities, including 
births, deaths, and transfers of specimens, and make those records 
accessible to Service officials. In the final rule we have added two 
criteria that will ensure that any captive-breeding facility operating 
under the rule is managing the species to ensure genetic integrity and 
diversity.
    With these criteria, we have determined that U.S. operations that 
maintain captive-bred specimens of these three species contribute to 
the enhancement of the propagation or survival of these species, as 
required under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 17.22(a)(2). 
Therefore, the requirements in the rule are adequate and appropriate 
for these species.
    Issue 3: One commenter noted that the proposed rule referred to 
``populations'' of captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx, dama gazelle, and 
addax, and that this usage is inconsistent with the definition of this 
term in the applicable regulations.
    Service Response 3: We agree that captive-held animals may not 
qualify as populations as defined at 50 CFR 17.3 and have changed the 
rule accordingly.
    Issue 4: Some commenters argued that the Service has failed to show 
how these captive-breeding operations meet the standards for the 
enhancement of propagation or survival under section 10 of the Act and 
failed to explain how the Service's approach will benefit wild 
populations. One commenter argued that the Service offered no support 
for its statement that hunting of captive-bred animals relieves 
pressure on wild populations.
    Service Response 4: The rule discusses how authorizing these 
activities for U.S. captive-breeding operations enhances the 
propagation of these species by providing an incentive to continue to 
raise animals in captivity while managing their genetic diversity, 
serving as repositories for surplus animals, and facilitating the 
movement of specimens between breeding facilities. We found that 
authorizing these activities also enhances the survival of the species 
by providing an incentive to continue captive-breeding and genetic 
management programs, which have (in conjunction with foreign captive-
breeding operations) prevented the possible extinction of at least one 
of the species, contributed significantly to the total number of 
remaining animals of the other two species, and provided founder stock 
for reintroduction.
    As explained in the proposed rule, providing opportunities for 
sport hunting of captive-bred wildlife may relieve pressure on wild 
populations of the species by providing an alternative to legal and 
illegal hunting of animals in the wild.
    Issue 5: The majority of commenters opposing the proposed rule 
stated that captive-bred specimens from U.S. ranches do not contribute 
to reintroduction efforts in range countries, nor are specimens from 
U.S. ranches needed for these efforts.
    Service Response 5: In our proposed rule, we mentioned that 30 
founder lines of scimitar-horned oryx are represented on at least one 
ranch that works closely with the Scimitar-horned Oryx Species Survival 
Plan (SSP). The SSP has provided specimens for reintroduction programs 
in range countries, and the ranch will contribute specimens when 
needed. Indeed, one commenter noted that he recently shipped 44 dama 
gazelles, 32 addax, and 10 scimitar-horned oryx that were captive-bred 
on U.S. ranches to a private wildlife sanctuary in the United Arab 
Emirates, where they will be bred to produce specimens for eventual 
release in the historic range. The commenter added that the 
Conservation Committee of the Exotic Wildlife Association is developing 
a feasibility study to determine how ranchers can best contribute 
specimens to reintroduction programs. Between October 2003 and March 
2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Management 
Authority issued CITES permits for the export of U.S. captive-bred 
scimitar-horned oryx (45 specimens), addax (90 specimens), and dama 
gazelle (70 specimens) to the United Arab Emirates for captive 
breeding. Most of these specimens were captive-bred on U.S. ranches.
    We do not know when or to what degree any particular ranch will be 
called upon to provide specimens for reintroduction efforts or research 
necessary to facilitate such programs. However, their continued 
breeding of these species, and their monitoring and maintaining genetic 
diversity, will ensure that specimens will be available when the 
appropriate conditions for reintroduction exist in range countries. As 
one commenter pointed out, other species that are captive-bred on U.S. 
ranches, such as Grevy's zebra and blackbuck, have been used in 
research and reintroduction projects.
    Issue 6: Several commenters indicated that conservation resulting 
from ranches that allow sport hunting is not comparable to zoo-based 
conservation programs. They also noted that the AZA acquisition--
disposition policy prohibits AZA institutions from supplying animals to 
or receiving them from ranches that allow hunting of those species. 
Thus, they argue that few ranches can cooperate with zoo programs.
    Service Response 6: Both zoos and ranches may breed and otherwise 
contribute to the conservation of these species, whether or not there 
is collaboration. We acknowledge that some ranches breed these species 
and do not allow hunting of them, whereas others do. However, we have 
found that ranches that meet the regulatory criteria, whether or not 
they allow sport hunting of the three antelopes, enhance the 
propagation or survival of these species. According to several 
commenters, many ranches, whether offering sport hunts or not, have 
provided research opportunities to study these species in partnership 
with academic institutions.
    Issue 7: Some commenters contended that hunting on U.S. ranches may 
undermine the conservation of wild specimens by increasing the demand 
for

[[Page 52313]]

trophies or creating incentives for illegal trade.
    Service Response 7: There is no evidence that sport hunting of 
captive-bred animals increases poaching of these species in the wild. 
Sport hunting of these species has been occurring on ranches in the 
U.S. for more than 20 years. There is no evidence that the availability 
of captive-bred animals to trophy hunters has contributed in any way to 
hunting pressure on these species in the wild. Furthermore, the United 
States and range-country governments, as well as most countries 
worldwide, are required to strictly regulate trade in these species 
because the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle are listed in 
Appendix I of CITES. Listing in CITES Appendix I requires strict 
regulation of international movement of these species, which may only 
be authorized in ``exceptional circumstances.'' With the listing of 
these three antelopes as endangered under the Act, the regulatory 
protections will be further strengthened, not reduced, because both 
CITES and Act regulations will apply. Sport hunting of surplus animals 
from captive-breeding operations in the United States is anticipated to 
reduce the incentive for removal of wild animals in their range 
countries by providing an alternative source of specimens.
    Issue 8: One commenter stated that ranches that breed specimens 
select for trophy quality, which may reduce genetic fitness.
    Service Response 8: We know that 30 founder lines of scimitar-
horned oryx are represented on at least one ranch that works closely 
with the Scimitar-horned Oryx SSP. We have received no indication in 
the literature or from commenters indicating that breeding programs on 
ranches have caused a loss in overall genetic variation in U.S. 
captive-bred antelopes. In addition, we have added criteria to the 
final rule that will prevent hybridization of species or subspecies and 
require that all specimens be managed in a manner that maintains 
genetic diversity.
    Issue 9: One commenter suggested that surplus captive-bred 
specimens from ranches should be relocated, not killed.
    Service Response 9: Although thousands of these animals have been 
produced in captivity, the number of animals released into the wild has 
been limited. Reintroduction programs cannot absorb the entire 
production of captive-breeding operations for logistical reasons and 
because reintroductions--for almost any mammal--are limited to small 
groups of animals that can be conditioned and monitored to ensure their 
survival. The amount of secure habitat for reintroductions is also a 
factor limiting the numbers of animals that can be released. In our 
proposed rule, we stated that some killing of surplus specimens may be 
necessary to manage captive herds (e.g., to reduce aggression among 
males) and to finance captive-breeding operations. In addition, the 
United States does not have the jurisdiction to direct another country 
in regard to when it should accept animals and when it should release 
them to the wild.
    Issue 10: One commenter asserted that the Service cannot propose 
any exemptions or permits for a species under the Act until the species 
is actually listed under the Act; in doing so, they argue, the Service 
has violated its consultation responsibilities under section 7 of the 
Act.
    Service Response 10: It was critical that development of a rule 
that provides an incentive to continue captive breeding of these 
species proceed concurrently with the determination of their legal 
status under the Act to ensure that no breeding programs would be 
disrupted by a final listing determination. This final rule has 
therefore been released concurrently with the final listing 
determination to ensure there is no confusion regarding the authority 
of the Service to regulate such activities for these species. There is 
no limitation under either the Act or the Administrative Procedure Act 
for related proposed rulemakings to proceed concurrently to the final 
rule stage.
    After considering all of the effects that would be posed by the 
proposed rule, we determined that the measures included in the final 
rule would reduce the threat of extinction to the species by 
facilitating captive breeding. Therefore, no conference procedure under 
section 7(a)(4) of the Act is required.
    Issue 11: One commenter believed that the proposed rule would set a 
precedent for legal hunting of listed species in captivity.
    Service Response 11: We disagree. The development of this rule was 
specific to these three species and included consideration of specific 
threats, specific conservation needs, and the benefits of captive 
breeding to all three species. In no way should the development of this 
regulation for these species under the Act be interpreted as a 
statement of what regulatory scheme would be appropriate for other 
listed species also found in captivity within the United States.
    Issue 12: One commenter argued that we did not establish how 
conservation efforts for the species would be hampered by the 
application of current Act regulatory systems to captive-breeding 
operations.
    Service Response 12: The Act does not require a particular 
regulatory system be used to implement the Act. Rather, the Act 
requires that authorized activities must meet standards for enhancing 
the propagation or survival of the species. We have found that the 
regulatory framework established for the three antelope meets these 
standards and is the best management scheme to encourage continued 
captive breeding and management of these species. Similar regulations, 
the captive-bred wildlife regulations at 50 CFR 17.21(g), have been 
used as a basis for developing this rule. However, the current 
regulations do not cover species for which sport hunting is an integral 
part of management of the species, and they do not provide an 
authorization for the interstate and foreign commerce of sport-hunted 
trophies. Thus, the movement of sport-hunted trophies taken for 
management purposes would be limited unless an Act permit or 
authorization had been granted. Not requiring each person to apply for 
a permit or authorization prior to engaging in these activities 
provides an important incentive to these operations to continue their 
captive-breeding and management programs.
    Issue 13: One commenter argued that the Service does not have the 
authority under the Act to propose this rule for an endangered species.
    Service Response 13: As explained above, captive-breeding 
operations within the United States that meet the criteria established 
by this rule meet the standards for both enhancing the propagation and 
enhancing the survival of these three species, as shown by the findings 
for each of the criteria found at 50 CFR 17.22(a)(2). While the Service 
typically authorizes activities under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act on 
a case-by-case basis through the issuance of individual permits or 
authorizations, there is no requirement that we may do so only via this 
process. The requirements for notification and opportunity for public 
comment under section 10(c) and publication of final determinations 
under section 10(d) have been satisfied through this rulemaking 
process.
    Issue 14: A few commenters asserted that any regulatory scheme that 
facilitates killing of animals as contributing to conservation is not 
supported by the law except under extremely narrow circumstances.
    Service Response 14: Section 10 of the Act does not set absolute 
limits on the Service's ability to authorize the taking

[[Page 52314]]

of an endangered species. In fact, the section specifically states that 
the Secretary may authorize any act otherwise prohibited under section 
9, which includes take. Take includes to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect an endangered species, or 
attempt to engage in any such conduct (see section 3(19) of the Act). 
Section 10(a)(1)(A) does require that any authorized activity must 
enhance the propagation or survival of the species overall. An example 
of when take of a listed species benefits conservation is our 
regulation on the import of sport-hunted African elephant (Loxodonta 
africana) trophies. The African elephant is listed as threatened under 
the Act. The import of sport-hunted trophies from African countries is 
only allowed when certain criteria are met, including that ``a 
determination is made that the killing of the animal whose trophy is 
intended for import would enhance survival of the species'' [50 CFR 
17.40 (e)(3)(iii)(C)]. When evaluating a hunting program in an African 
country, Service biologists consider whether revenue derived from the 
hunt is used to further elephant conservation. These funds have been 
used to support anti-poaching activities and establish game management 
areas with important elephant habitat.
    Issue 15: One commenter opposed the rule because it would deny Act 
protection to most members of the three species.
    Service Response 15: This rule does not deny Act protection to most 
members of the three species. All of the prohibitions under section 9 
apply to all animals in the wild. These same prohibitions also apply to 
any animal captive-bred outside the United States. This regulation 
applies only to members of the species that were captive-bred within 
the United States. The comments that noted that many of the animals 
found in captivity are located in the United States support the 
Service's determination that U.S. captive-breeding operations have 
played a significant role in the propagation or survival of all three 
species and that a regulatory scheme that facilitates the continuation 
of these activities is appropriate for the species.
    Issue 16: Many commenters opposed the rule because of their 
philosophical opposition to trophy hunting or hunting in general. 
Others expressed concerns regarding ``canned hunts.''
    Service Response 16: Hunting has a long history of contributing to 
conservation in the United States. The Service acknowledges that 
wildlife populations and habitats have been sustained through the 
financial contributions of hunters. The proposed rule authorizes the 
taking of individual animals, but only if the purpose of the taking 
contributes to increasing or sustaining captive antelope numbers or to 
potential reintroduction to range countries. This approach to 
management has caused captive-bred specimens to proliferate, thus 
contributing to their propagation and increasing their chances of 
survival.

Contribution of Captive Breeding to Species Propagation or Survival

    A peer reviewer of the proposed rule for listing the three antelope 
species as endangered noted that 100% of the world's scimitar-horned 
oryx population (including the reintroduced specimens that are in 
enclosed areas), 71% of the addax population, and 48% of the dama 
gazelle population are in captive herds. Captive-breeding programs 
operated by zoos and private ranches have effectively increased the 
number of these animals while genetically managing their herds. 
International studbook keepers and managers of the species in captivity 
manage these programs in a manner that maintains the captive specimens 
as a demographically and genetically diverse megapopulation (Mallon and 
Kingswood 2001). In the 1980s and 1990s, captive-breeding operations in 
Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States provided scimitar-
horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle to Bou-Hedma National Park in 
Tunisia (Mallon and Kingswood 2001). These animals have become the 
founding stock of captive in situ herds that have grown substantially 
since 1995. The IUCN Species Survival Commission has proposed that some 
of the antelopes produced be used to establish other captive-breeding 
operations within the range countries or, given the appropriate 
conditions in the wild, for reintroduction. Similar in situ breeding 
programs for future reintroduction are occurring in Senegal and Morocco 
with captive stock produced and provided by breeding operations outside 
of these countries.
    This rule does not authorize or lead to the removal of any specimen 
of the three species from the wild. This rule would not affect 
prohibitions against possession and other acts with unlawfully taken 
wildlife or importation. This rule only applies to specimens that are 
captive bred in the United States. Any person who wishes to engage in 
any act that is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act with a 
specimen that has not been captive bred in the United States will still 
need to obtain a permit or authorization under the Act. The issuance or 
denial of such permits or authorizations is decided on a case-by-case 
basis and only after all required findings have been made. The rule 
contains provisions that will allow the Service to monitor the 
activities being carried out by captive-breeding operations within the 
United States to ensure that these activities continue to provide a 
benefit to the three antelope species. The rule also does not include 
dead specimens other than sport-hunted trophies or specimens derived 
from activities that do not meet the criteria.
    The probable positive direct and indirect effects of facilitating 
captive breeding in the United States for the conservation of scimitar-
horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle are exemplified in the research 
and reintroduction efforts involving the AZA and the Sahelo-Saharan 
Interest Group (SSIG) of the United Nations Environment Program. In 
North America, the AZA manages captive scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and 
dama gazelle through SSPs. The captive scimitar-horned oryx in North 
America and Europe are derived from two captures that occurred in Chad 
in 1963 and 1966. Members of the Scimitar-horned Oryx SSP are faced 
with three challenges (Antelope Taxon Advisory Group 2002b): They must 
manage the captive herds to maximize the genetic contributions of 
founder stock; second, they must find solutions for disposition of 
surplus animals given the limited holding space among SSP members; and 
third, they must find facilities that can house individual males or 
bachelor herds. Only through inter-institutional collaboration among 
members, such as the exchange of live specimens or gametes to maintain 
genetic diversity, can these challenges be surmounted. In one example, 
30 founder lines are represented at 1 ranch that works closely with the 
SSP. Since typical oryx herds consist of 1 male and 10-30 females, 
there will always be a need to manage nonbreeding males. Although the 
SSP consists mostly of AZA-accredited zoos, ranches can serve as 
repositories for surplus animals or assist in gene pool management. 
These partnerships also provide opportunities for behavioral and other 
research in spacious areas found in some zoos and ranches that can be 
used in forming and preparing groups of animals for reintroduction.
    Members of the Addax SSP have also been involved in translocating 
animals for captive breeding and release in Tunisia and Morocco. 
Animals held by members of the SSP are included in an international 
studbook for this species

[[Page 52315]]

that includes addaxes in zoos and private facilities worldwide 
(Antelope Taxon Advisory Group 2002a). The dama gazelle North American 
studbook also includes zoos and ranch participants worldwide. Some of 
the specimens bred in zoos originated from ranched stock (Metzler 
2000).
    Both zoos and ranches may breed and otherwise contribute to the 
conservation of these species, whether or not there is collaboration. 
According to several commenters on the proposed regulation, many 
ranches, whether offering hunts or not, have provided research 
opportunities to study these species in partnership with academic 
institutions.
    A commenter on the proposed regulation noted that he recently 
shipped 44 dama gazelles, 32 addax, and 10 scimitar-horned oryx that 
were captive-bred on U.S. ranches to a private wildlife sanctuary in 
the United Arab Emirates, where they will be bred to produce specimens 
for eventual release in the historic range. We note that between 
October 2003 and March 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 
Division of Management Authority issued CITES permits for the export of 
U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx (45 specimens), addax (90 
specimens), and dama gazelle (70 specimens) to the United Arab Emirates 
for captive breeding. Most of these specimens were captive-bred on U.S. 
ranches. We do not know when or to what degree any particular ranch 
will be called upon to provide specimens for reintroduction efforts or 
research necessary to facilitate such programs. However, their 
continued breeding of these species, and their monitoring and 
maintaining genetic diversity, will ensure that specimens will be 
available when the appropriate conditions for reintroduction exist in 
range countries.
    We are not aware of any negative direct or indirect effects from 
this rule on wild populations. This rule does not authorize or lead to 
the removal of any specimen of the three species from the wild. Indeed, 
many facilities in the United States that breed these species are 
working with range countries to breed and reintroduce specimens in 
areas that they have occupied historically. In 2000, the SSIG was 
formed as a consortium of individuals and organizations interested in 
conserving Sahelo-Saharan antelopes and their ecosystems (SSIG 2002). 
The SSIG has members representing 17 countries and shares information 
on wildlife management and conservation, captive breeding, wildlife 
health and husbandry, establishment and management of protected areas, 
and wildlife survey methods. Members are involved in in situ and ex 
situ conservation efforts for the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama 
gazelle. Several of its projects involve the translocation of captive-
bred antelopes to range countries for establishment of herds in large 
fenced breeding areas prior to reintroduction. A commenter on the 
proposed rule noted that the Conservation Committee of the Exotic 
Wildlife Association is developing a feasibility study to determine how 
ranchers can best contribute specimens to reintroduction programs.
    The rule does not directly or indirectly conflict with any known 
program intended to enhance the survival probabilities of the three 
antelope species. The SSP and SSIG programs work collaboratively with 
range country scientists and governments. Although the rule does not 
authorize or lead to the removal of any specimen of the three species 
from the wild, it may contribute to other programs by providing founder 
stock for reintroduction or research.
    This rule will reduce the threat of extinction facing the scimitar-
horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle by facilitating captive breeding 
for all three species in the United States. Based on information 
available to the Service, captive breeding in the United States has 
contributed significantly to the conservation of these species. 
Scimitar-horned oryx may be extinct in the wild; therefore, but for 
captive breeding, the species might be extinct. Addax and dama gazelle 
occur in very low numbers in the wild and a significant percentage of 
remaining specimens survive only through captivity (71% and 48% 
respectively). Threats that have reduced the species' populations to 
current levels in the wild continue throughout most of the historic 
range. As future opportunities arise for reintroduction in the antelope 
range countries, captive-breeding programs will be able to provide 
genetically diverse and otherwise suitable specimens. Ranches and large 
captive-wildlife parks for non-native herds (e.g., Bamberger Ranch, 
Texas; The Wilds, Ohio; Fossil Rim Wildlife Center, Texas) are able to 
provide large areas of land that simulate the species' native habitat 
and can accommodate a larger number of specimens than can most urban 
zoos. Thus, they provide opportunities for research, breeding, and 
preparing antelopes for eventual reintroduction.
    International consortia of zoos, private owners, researchers, and 
range country decision makers have acknowledged the need to reduce 
threats in the range countries (e.g., habitat protection, reduce 
poaching) of the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle. They 
also recognize that, but for captive breeding, it would be difficult, 
or in some cases impossible, to restore the species in the wild, 
particularly for species that have become extinct in the wild.
    One way this rule will reduce the threat of extinction is by 
allowing limited sport hunting of U.S. captive-bred specimens to 
facilitate captive breeding of all three species. Given the cost of 
establishing and maintaining a large captive breeding operation and the 
large amount of land that is required to maintain bachelor herds or 
surplus animals, it is difficult for many private landowners to 
participate in such endeavors. An incentive to facilitate these captive 
breeding operations and ensure that genetically viable herds are 
available for future reintroduction programs is to allow the limited 
hunting of captive-bred specimens. Most of the available land for 
captive-held specimens is owned by private landowners (ranchers). In 
Texas, the number of ranched scimitar-horned oryx went from 32 
specimens in 1979 to 2,145 in 1996; addax increased from 2 specimens in 
1971 to 1,824 in 1996; and dama gazelle increased from 9 specimens in 
1979 to 369 in 2003 (Mungall 2004). These increases were due mostly to 
captive breeding at the ranches supplemented with some imported 
captive-bred founder stock. Limited hunting of captive-bred specimens 
facilitated these increases by generating revenue for herd management 
and the operation of the facility. Ranches also need to manage herds 
demographically (i.e., appropriate age and gender numbers and ratios) 
and genetically (i.e., maximize genetic diversity). Such management may 
include culling specimens, which may be accomplished through hunting. 
For example, a ranch may need to reduce the number of adult males to 
achieve the necessary sex ratio for establishing a polygamous breeding 
group and facilitating the typical breeding behavior of the species. 
Hunting also provides an economic incentive for private landowners such 
as ranchers to continue to breed these species and maintain them as a 
genetic reservoir for future reintroduction or research, and as a 
repository for excess males from other captive herds. Sport hunting of 
U.S. captive-bred specimens may reduce the threat of extinction of wild 
populations by providing an alternative to legal and illegal hunting of 
wild specimens in range countries. Thus, hunting of U.S. captive-bred 
specimens of these species

[[Page 52316]]

reduces the threat of the species' extinction.
    The movement of live U.S. captive-bred specimens, both by 
interstate transport and export, is critical to the captive-breeding 
efforts to manage the captive herds as well as provide animals for 
reintroduction. Between October 2003 and March 2005, CITES permits were 
issued for the export of U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx (45 
specimens), addax (90 specimens), and dama gazelle (70 specimens). 
Studbook managers may recommend that specimens be exchanged among 
breeding institutions to achieve management goals for genetic or other 
reasons. These institutions may be separated by State (within the 
United States) or national boundaries. Zoos in Germany, for example, 
exchange specimens with zoos in the United States, as recommended by 
the International Studbook Keeper. The need to quickly move U.S. 
captive-bred specimens among breeding facilities is reflected in this 
rule by allowing such movement without requiring a separate ESA permit 
or authorization.
    The opinions or views of scientists or other persons or 
organizations having expertise concerning these species have been taken 
into account in this rule. The comments received from peer reviewers on 
our proposed rule for listing the three antelopes as endangered alerted 
us to the vital role that captive breeding, whether at zoos or ranches, 
is playing in species recovery and reintroduction. Comments on the 
proposed new regulation provided some information. More general 
comments are addressed in the summary of comments. Thus, the opinions 
or views of scientists or other persons or organizations having 
expertise concerning the three antelope species and other germane 
matters have been considered in the development of this rule.
    The U.S. expertise, facilities, and other resources available to 
captive-breeding operations have resulted in such a high level of 
breeding success that the SSIG estimated that there are 4,000-5,000 
scimitar-horned oryx, 1,500 addax, and 750 dama gazelle in captivity 
worldwide, many of which are held in the United States. The U.S. 
specimens have resulted from very few wild-caught founders that have 
been carefully managed to increase the numbers of specimens and 
maintain genetic diversity. Husbandry methods are shared by 
participants in regional and international studbooks through specialist 
meetings such as the Antelope Taxon Advisory Group meeting held at the 
AZA Annual Meeting. Such cooperation allows the sharing of resources 
among participants of coordinated breeding programs as specimens are 
moved from one facility to another according to management 
recommendations. As indicated by the Scimitar-horned Oryx SSP, one of 
the major issues confronting the captive-breeding community is how to 
preserve the necessary genetic diversity and manage population surplus, 
particularly given the space limitations at some facilities. Some 
private ranches in the United States have contributed to the success of 
captive-breeding programs by absorbing the surplus specimens produced 
in zoos so that zoos can utilize available space for more genetically 
important specimens or the appropriate herd social structure. Ranches 
have also enlarged the captive populations because they are able to 
dedicate more space to these species, and therefore house more 
specimens, than can zoos.
    Based on the best available scientific information and comments 
received from peer reviewers, non-government organizations, and the 
public, we have determined that U.S. operations that breed scimitar-
horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle have already contributed 
significantly to the propagation or survival of the three antelope 
species. Because of the need to facilitate the continued captive 
breeding of these species in private ranches and zoos, this rule is an 
appropriate regulatory management provision for scimitar-horned oryx, 
addax, and dama gazelle captive-bred in the United States. The probable 
direct and indirect effects of this rule will facilitate activities 
associated with captive breeding and thus contribute to the propagation 
and survival of the species. The rule will not, directly or indirectly, 
conflict with any known program intended to enhance the survival of 
populations in the wild. By maintaining genetic diversity and providing 
captive-bred stock for reintroduction efforts and research, captive-
breeding operations in the United States are reducing the threat of 
extinction of the three antelope species. The rule facilitates the 
functioning of conservation programs, including those organized by the 
AZA and SSIG, and encourages the breeding and management of these 
antelopes. In fact, the rule provides an incentive to continue captive 
breeding. Therefore, we find that authorizing certain otherwise 
prohibited activities for U.S. captive-bred live wildlife, including 
embryos and gametes, and sport-hunted trophies of the three species 
that meet specific criteria enhances the propagation and survival of 
the species.

Endangered Species Act 10(d) Finding

    The Service may grant exceptions under subsections (a)(1)(A) and 
(b) of the Act only if it finds and publishes the findings in the 
Federal Register that (1) such exceptions were applied for in good 
faith, (2) if granted and exercised will not operate to the 
disadvantage of such endangered species, and (3) will be consistent 
with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the Act. Based 
on the comments received from captive-breeding operation 
representatives demonstrating their commitment to the continued 
enhancement of the propagation and survival of the scimitar-horned 
oryx, addax, and dama gazelle, we find that the exceptions in this rule 
have been applied for in good faith.
    We also find that the rule will not operate to the disadvantage of 
these species. In fact, it will benefit them by assisting in their 
rescue from near extinction and providing the founder stock necessary 
for reintroduction. The scimitar-horned oryx is possibly extinct in the 
wild and therefore, but for captive breeding, the species might be 
extinct. For addax and dama gazelle, they occur in very low numbers in 
the wild, and a significant percentage of remaining specimens survive 
only in captivity (71% and 48%, respectively). Captive-breeding 
programs operated by zoos and private ranches have effectively 
increased the numbers of these animals while genetically managing their 
herds. As future opportunities arise for reintroduction in the antelope 
range countries, U.S. captive-breeding programs will be able to provide 
genetically diverse and otherwise suitable specimens.
    Section 2 of the Act defines the purpose of the Act as providing a 
means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and 
threatened species depend may be conserved, providing a program for the 
conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and 
taking such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the 
treaties and conventions set forth in paragraph 2(a) of the Act. One of 
the stated policies of the Act is for all federal agencies to seek to 
conserve listed species and use their authorities in furtherance of the 
purposes of the Act. In section 3, the term ``conservation'' means ``to 
use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to 
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at 
which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer 
necessary.'' The definition specifically

[[Page 52317]]

includes propagation and transplantation as methods that can lead to 
the recovery of listed species, both of which are components of captive 
breeding of the three antelope species. As discussed above, the rule 
provides incentive to U.S. captive-breeding operations that will ensure 
continued propagation of genetically diverse specimens of these three 
species, which can serve as a reservoir for future reintroductions and 
assist in research. Therefore, we find that this rule is consistent 
with section 2 of the Act.

Description of This Rule

    We are amending 50 CFR 17.21 by adding a new paragraph (h), which 
will apply to U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama 
gazelle. The provision allows for the take; export or re-import; 
delivery, receipt, carrying, transport or shipment in interstate or 
foreign commerce, in the course of a commercial activity; or sale or 
offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce of U.S. captive-
bred live scimitar-horned oryx, addax, or dama gazelle, including 
embryos and gametes, and sport-hunted trophies, as long as certain 
criteria are met.
    Any exports of such specimens must meet the marking and reporting 
requirements for export [50 CFR 17.21(g)(4) and part 14], general 
permit requirements and conditions (50 CFR part 13), and all CITES 
requirements (50 CFR part 23). Each specimen to be re-imported must be 
uniquely identified by a tattoo or other means that is reported on the 
required documentation. Each specimen at the captive-breeding operation 
must be managed to prevent hybridization of species or subspecies and 
must be managed in a manner that maintains genetic diversity.
    Each person claiming the benefit of the exception of this rule must 
maintain accurate written records of activities, including births, 
deaths, and transfers of specimens, and make those records accessible 
to Service officials for inspection at reasonable hours set forth in 50 
CFR 13.46 and 13.47.

Effects of This Rule

    With this rule we find that the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and 
dama gazelle are dependent on captive breeding and activities 
associated with captive breeding for their conservation, and that 
activities associated with captive breeding within the United States 
enhance the propagation and survival of these species. Therefore, 
persons who wish to engage in the specified otherwise prohibited 
activities that meet the criteria for enhancement of the propagation or 
survival of these species may do so without obtaining an individual 
Endangered Species Act permit.
    This rule does not authorize any activity for any specimen of the 
three species from the wild. It also does not affect provisions 
relating to importation or possession and other acts with unlawfully 
taken wildlife. In addition, this rule applies only to specimens that 
are captive-bred in the United States. Any person who wishes to engage 
in any act that is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act with a 
specimen that has not been captive-bred in the United States or from a 
facility that does not meet the criteria of this rule will need to 
obtain an individual permit under the Act. The issuance or denial of 
such permits is decided on a case-by-case basis and only after all 
required findings have been made.
    This rule does not affect the CITES requirements for these species. 
Therefore, any import into or export from the United States of 
specimens of these species would not be authorized until all CITES 
requirements have been met. See the proposed rule for more information 
on the application of CITES to these activities. The existing 
protections under CITES, in conjunction with the new provisions for the 
species under this rule, create an appropriate regulatory framework 
that protects populations in the wild, ensures appropriate management 
of U.S. captive-bred specimens, and provides an incentive for future 
captive breeding.

Required Determinations

    A Record of Compliance was prepared for the proposed rule. A Record 
of Compliance certifies that a rulemaking action complies with the 
various statutory, Executive Order, and Department Manual requirements 
applicable to rulemaking. Without this new regulation, individuals 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States would need individual 
permits to engage in various otherwise prohibited activities, including 
domestic and international trade in live and sport-hunted captive-bred 
specimens for commercial purposes. Captive-bred specimens in 
international trade for noncommercial purposes (e.g., breeding loans 
requiring export) would have to be authorized through the permit 
process. This process takes time, sometimes causing delays in moving 
animals for breeding or reintroduction. Such movements must often be 
completed within a narrow timeframe and can be further complicated by 
quarantine requirements and other logistics. We note that the economic 
effects of this rule do not rise to the level of ``significant'' under 
the following required determinations.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, the 
Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a 
significant regulatory action. The rule will not have an annual 
economic impact of more than $100 million, or significantly affect any 
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of 
government. This rule will reduce the regulatory impacts on captive-
breeding operations that breed the endangered scimitar-horned oryx, 
addax, and dama gazelle because it provides exemptions to certain 
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act that would otherwise apply to 
businesses and individuals under U.S. jurisdiction. The exemptions to 
the prohibitions of the Act provided by this rule will reduce economic 
costs of the listing. The economic effect of the rule is a benefit to 
the captive-breeding operations for the three antelopes because it 
allows the take and interstate commerce of captive-bred specimens. The 
rule, by itself, will not have an annual economic impact of more than 
$100 million, or significantly affect any economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A 
cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required. This rule does not 
create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions. Thus, no 
Federal agency's actions are affected by this final rule.
    This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. 
The rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The Service has 
previously promulgated species-specific rules for other endangered and 
threatened species, including other rules for captive-bred specimens.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    To assess the effects of the rule on small entities, we focused on 
the exotic wildlife ranching community in the United States because 
these are the entities most likely to be affected by the rule. We 
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic effect 
on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because it allows for 
the continued breeding of the species and trade in live specimens, 
embryos, gametes, and sport-hunted trophies of the three antelopes. An 
initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not required.

[[Page 52318]]

Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide was not required. This 
rule reduces the regulatory impact, because without this rule all 
prohibitions of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act would apply 
(i.e., take; export; delivery, receipt, carrying, transport or shipment 
in interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of a commercial 
activity; or sale or offering for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule would reduce 
certain regulatory obligations and will not have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more; will not cause a major increase in 
costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, 
or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and 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

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, 
et seq.), this rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 
million per year. This final rule will not have a significant or unique 
effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this final rule does not 
have significant takings implications. By reducing the regulatory 
burden placed on affected individuals resulting from the listing of the 
three antelopes as endangered species, this rule will not affect the 
likelihood of potential takings. Affected individuals will have more 
freedom to pursue activities that involve captive-bred specimens 
without first obtaining individual authorization.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this final rule does not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that this final rule does not unduly burden 
the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Executive Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget approved the information 
collection in part 17 and assigned OMB Control Numbers 1018-0093 and 
1018-0094. This rule does not impose new reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or 
organizations. We cannot conduct or sponsor, and you are not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Council on Environmental Quality regulations in 40 CFR 1501.3(b) 
state that an agency ``may prepare an environmental assessment on any 
action at any time in order to assist agency planning and decision 
making.'' We drafted an environmental assessment for the proposed rule 
in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (NEPA). A final environmental assessment was prepared based 
on comments received and a Finding of No Significant Impact was 
prepared.

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) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible 
effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that 
there are no effects.

Executive Order 13211

    We have evaluated this final rule in accordance with E.O. 13211 and 
have determined that this rule will have no effects on energy supply, 
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant 
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

References Cited

    Antelope Taxon Advisory Group. 2002a. Addax Fact Sheet. American 
Zoo and Aquarium Association. https://www.csew.com/antelopetag.
    Antelope Taxon Advisory Group. 2002b. Scimitar-Horned Oryx Fact 
Sheet. American Zoo and Aquarium Association. https://www.csew.com/
antelopetag.
    IUCN (World Conservation Union). 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of 
Threatened Species. https://www.iucn.org.
    Mallon, D.P., and S.C. Kingswood (Compilers). 2001. Antelopes. 
Part 4: North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Global Survey and 
Regional Action Plans. SSC Antelope Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, 
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Viii + 260 pp.
    Metzler, S. 2000. Addra Gazelle Gazella dama ruficollis North 
American Regional Studbook: December 31, 1999 Update. Disney's 
Animal Kingdom: Orlando, Florida.
    Mungall, E.C. 2004. Submission for the Comment Period Listing of 
Scimitar-horned Oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle Under the Endangered 
Species Act: A Technical Report Prepared for the Exotic Wildlife 
Association.
    Noble, D. 2002. Overview and status of captive antelope 
populations. Third Annual Sahelo-Saharan Interest Group Meeting, 
p.41
    SSIG (Sahelo--Saharan Interest Group) 2002. Third Annual 
Sahelo--Saharan Interest Group Meeting Proceedings. Available from 
S. Monfort, Chair SSIG, National Zoological Park. Smithsonian 
Institution: Washington, DC.

Author

    The primary author of this notice is Robert R. Gabel, Chief, 
Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see 
ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
re