Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64335

day public comment period. All public

comments received on or before August

8, 1997, were reviewed and considered

as part of EPA’s evaluation of the CCA.

ANPRM comments received on or

before August 8, 1997, were responded

to in the Compliance Application

Review Documents (CARDs), which are

part of the proposed certification

decision. Comments received from

August 8, 1997, to October 30, 1997,

will be responded to with comments on

the proposed rule.

DOE is developing the Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad in

southeastern New Mexico as a deep

geologic repository for disposal of

transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste. As

defined by the WIPP LWA, as amended,

TRU wastes are materials containing

elements having atomic numbers greater

than 92, in concentrations greater than

100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU

isotopes per gram of waste, with halflives greater than twenty years. Most

TRU wastes are items contaminated

during the production of nuclear

weapons, e.g., rags, equipment, tools,

and organic and inorganic sludges.

The WIPP LWA, as amended,

specifies the terms and conditions for

DOE’s activities at the WIPP and the

regulatory requirements which apply

throughout various stages of the

repository’s development including the

requirement that before beginning

disposal of radioactive wastes at the

WIPP, DOE must demonstrate that the

WIPP will comply with the EPA’s

radioactive wastes disposal standards,

‘‘Environmental Standards for the

Management and Disposal of Spent

Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and

Transuranic Radioactive Wastes’’ (40

CFR Part 191).

Under the WIPP LWA, as amended,

EPA is required to develop criteria for

the Administrator’s certification of

compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191

disposal standards. EPA’s final rule for

the compliance criteria was published

in the Federal Register on February 9,

1996, at 61 FR 5224–5245,

approximately one year after proposal.

On March 29, 1996, EPA issued the

Compliance Application Guidance

(CAG) which provided DOE with

specific guidelines regarding the format

and content of the compliance

certification application and a clear

description of the information that EPA

would need to make its certification

decision. The guidance provided in the

CAG is within the framework

established by 40 CFR Parts 194 and

191. On November 15, 1996, EPA

published an ANPRM in the Federal

Register at 61 FR 58499–58500, entitled

‘‘Decision to Certify Whether the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant Complies With the

40 CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations

and the 40 CFR Part 194 Compliance

Criteria.’’

If EPA finalizes the decision that the

WIPP meets its radioactive waste

disposal standards, then DOE may

continue to take necessary steps

required prior to emplacement of TRU

wastes in the repository. Following the

initial emplacement of TRU wastes in

the facility and throughout its

operational phase, DOE will be required

to submit a re-certification application

to EPA every five years throughout the

operational phase of the disposal

system. The Agency will review the

applications and determine whether the

WIPP remains in compliance with the

disposal standards.

Hearing Procedures

Those persons wishing to present

testimony at the public hearings are

requested to pre-register by calling

EPA’s toll-free WIPP Information Line at

1–800–331–WIPP between the hours of

11:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Eastern

Standard Time (EST) with the following

information: Name/Organizational

Affiliation (if any)/address/hearing date,

location, time(s) available to testify, and

a daytime telephone number. In order to

be guaranteed an opportunity to testify,

requests must be received by EPA no

later than 12:00 p.m. EST on December

30, 1997. Speakers not registered in

advance may register at the door, if time

slots are available. Individuals testifying

on their own behalf will be allowed 5

minutes. One individual may testify as

the official representative or

spokesperson on behalf of groups and

organizations and will be allocated 10

minutes for an oral presentation. Time

allowed is exclusive of any time

consumed by questions from the

government panel and answers to these

questions. Requests to testify at a second

or possibly third location will be

accommodated, to the extent possible,

once pre-registration has been

completed. Written comments will be

considered to the same extent as oral

testimony and will be included as part

of the official hearings transcripts. The

hearing transcript will constitute the

official record of the hearing. All written

comments which are submitted outside

of the public hearings must be received

by the HQ EPA Air Docket by February

27, 1998. These comments will also be

given EPA’s full consideration. Thus, all

comments received by EPA, whether

written or oral, will be given equal

consideration in development of the

final rule.

The public will be permitted to

inspect and comment on any recertification application.

Dated: December 3, 1997.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–32041 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 14

RIN 1018–AD98

Humane and Healthful Transport of

Wild Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and

Amphibians to the United States;

Notice of Reopening of Comment

Period and Scheduling of Public

Meetings

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public

meetings and reopening of comment

period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service), pursuant to the Lacey Act

Amendments of 1981, provides notice of

the reopening of the comment period

and the scheduling of two public

meetings to receive input from the

general public for the proposed

amendment of 50 CFR part 14, covering

the humane and healthful transport of

wild mammals, birds, reptiles and

amphibians to the United States. The

comment period was extended to

October 6, 1997 for this proposed rule

and has, thus, closed. However, based

on requests received, and in order to

receive further input from the general

public, the Service will reopen the

comment period for a period of 30 days

and hold two public meetings during

that time. Therefore, additional written

comments will be accepted during that

time, and oral and written comments

will be accepted at the public meetings.

DATES: A public meeting in New York

City (Queens) will be held on January

17, 1998, from 1:00 pm–5:00 pm, and a

public meeting in Los Angeles will be

held on January 27, 1998, from 1:00

pm–5:00 pm. Comments in writing will

be accepted by the Service beginning

January 17, 1998, through February 17,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting in New

York City will be held at St. John’s

University, Bent Hall Seminar Room,

8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, NY

11439. The public meeting in Los
64336 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Angeles will be held at The Westin

Hotel (Los Angeles Airport), 5400 West

Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA

90045. Please note that the rooms for

these meetings are accessible to the

handicapped. Written comments can be

presented to the Service at either of the

public meetings or can be sent to:

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Office of Management Authority either

by mail, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room

700, Arlington, VA 22203, or by fax

(703) 358–2298.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Bruce J. Weissgold or Dr. Susan S.

Lieberman, Office of Management

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, telephone (703) 358–2095, fax

(703) 358–2298.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On Friday, June 6, 1997, the Service

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 31044) a proposed rule announcing

the Service’s intention to amend 50 CFR

part 14 subpart J to further implement

the requirements of the Lacey Act (18

U.S.C. 42 (c)) for reptiles and

amphibians. On August 5, 1997, at the

request of two commercial reptile

importers, Underground Reptiles and

the Reptile Service, the Service

published a notice in the Federal

Register (62 FR 42091) extending the

comment period until September 6,

1997. The Lacey Act Amendments of

1981 (Pub. L. 87–79, 95 Stat. 1073)

prohibit the importation into the United

States of all wild animals and birds

under inhumane or unhealthful

conditions, and require that the United

States Government promulgate

regulations governing the importation of

wildlife. The purpose of this rulemaking

is to ensure the Lacey Act Amendments’

consistency and enforceability extend

across all species of wildlife, as

described by Congress. On June 17,

1992, the Service finalized (57 FR

27094) the rules contained in 50 CFR

part 14 subpart J, establishing rules for

the humane and healthful transport of

wild mammals and birds to the United

States. This proposed rule, once

finalized, will enable the Secretary of

the Interior to meet the responsibilities

of the Lacey Act for reptiles and

amphibians.

Thus, to more fully implement the

amendments of the Lacey Act, which

requires the humane and healthful

transport of all classes of wild animals

and birds and the promulgation of

regulations necessary to that end, the

Service proposes to extend 50 CFR part

14 subpart J to include rules for the

healthful and humane transport of

reptiles and amphibians. Furthermore,

many reptiles and amphibians are

species included in the Appendices of

the Convention on International Trade

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora (CITES). The Parties to CITES

have adopted a resolution that calls for

all CITES-listed species to be packed

and shipped in accordance with the

International Air Transport Association

(IATA) Live Animals Regulations.

Therefore, the proposed rule would

place these internationally accepted

standards into the Code of Federal

Regulations for reptiles and amphibians.

For this, and other reasons discussed

in the June 6, 1997 Federal Register

notice, the Service is proposing

amendments to 50 CFR part 14

concerning humane and healthful

transport of reptiles and amphibians

into the United States.

The Service received numerous letters

which indicated that there is a great

deal of misunderstanding in the

commercial reptile and amphibian

community regarding the content of the

proposed rule and the process followed

by the Service while promulgating these

regulations under the requirements of

the Administrative Procedures Act.

Basic confusion partially appears to be

present as a result of misrepresentations

of the Service’s intent and scope of

authority to regulate the transport of live

reptiles and amphibians. Among the

misrepresentations was the suggestion

that the Service was moving towards the

regulation of the domestic shipping of

live reptiles and amphibians and their

export, which the Service has neither

the intent nor the statutory authority to

address, as well as a misrepresentation

about the current packing standards of

IATA.

The Service received numerous

comments on the proposed rule during

the extended comment period, which

closed October 6, 1997. Many of the

comments received were form letters

and reiterated the concerns that the

proposed rule did not include sufficient

‘‘quantifying information’’ to justify its

necessity, would not contribute to

improving the humane and healthful

transport of live reptiles and

amphibians, and would substantially

increase shipping costs for commercial

traders. Other criticisms included

complaints that the Service relied too

heavily in drafting the proposed rule on

input from ‘‘Animal Rights Activists,’’

technical aspects of the proposed rule

were burdensome and unnecessary,

including the Service’s proposals

regarding the numbers of animals which

could be packed in primary enclosures,

temperature requirements, venomous/

poisonous species shipping

requirements, packing materials/

techniques restrictions, and other

related issues. The Service also received

many individual letters expressing

similar concerns. Conversely, the

Service received many comments

critical of the proposal to increase the

numbers of small animals which can be

packed per primary enclosure, relative

to the current IATA standards. (The

Service has proposed that five small

snakes and lizards can be packed per

primary enclosure, while IATA

standards limit such packing

configurations to one animal). In

addition, the numerous criticisms were

received regarding the Service’s findings

in the proposed rule which were made

pursuant to Executive Order 12988. The

Service will evaluate this in the

development of the final rule.

The Service also received many

comments supportive of the proposals

related to several of the issues discussed

above. Many letters generally supportive

of the Service’s proposed rule cited the

Service’s draft regulations on the

numbers of animals which would be

packed per primary enclosure,

temperature requirements, and packing

materials/techniques restrictions.

Comments supportive of the proposed

rule also cited the Service’s proposal to

bar the importation of reptiles and

amphibians which have visible external

parasites, and to require veterinary

examination prior to dispatch, and

veterinary certificates with shipments of

live reptiles and amphibians entering

the United States. Other letters generally

supportive of the Service’s proposed

regulations cited importers’ desire to cut

costs in shipping animals, while others

noted that the proposed prohibition on

external parasites would help protect

human and wildlife health by reducing

the risks of the importation of pests with

zoonotic or other transmittable diseases.

Another supportive letter stated that the

new regulations would keep species

poorly suited for international transit

from being shipped for the ‘‘pet trade,’’

while another cited that it was

incumbent on the government to ‘‘step

in’’ and regulate the trade in common

green iguanas (Iguana iguana) and other

live reptiles because pet purchasers in

the United States are unable to ‘‘make

human, sensible and logical decisions

on their own.’’

The Service also received numerous

letters which indicated neither support

nor opposition to the proposed rule, but

instead offered constructive suggestions

on making technical changes to the

proposed regulations. Many of the

technical changes suggested in the

letters addressed the issues discussed

above, such as temperature
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64337

requirements, packing densities,

materials requirements, venomous

species shipping requirements, and

other related issues.

In addition the Service has received

numerous criticisms of the proposed

rule from the commercial trade

community involved in exporting

hatchling farm raised turtles. The

Service notes that this proposed rule

does not affect the export of live reptiles

and amphibians from the United States

or their interstate (domestic) commerce.

Under the Lacey Act Amendments of

1981, the Service does not have the

statutory authority to regulate humane

and healthful transport of live reptiles

and amphibians being exported from the

United States. Therefore, the only

humane and healthful transport rules

applicable to the export of non-CITES

reptiles and amphibians from the

United States are the IATA Live

Animals Regulations, which are

enforced privately by participating

airlines. Exports of live CITES-listed

reptiles and amphibians are still

required to be shipped in accordance

with IATA packing requirements, but

that requirement is independent, and

not related to, this proposed

rulemaking. This proposed rule applies

only to live reptiles and amphibians

being imported into the United States.

In order to provide the public with

additional opportunities to

communicate with the Service regarding

these proposed regulations, and to

provide an opportunity to clarify

misunderstandings in the public sector

regarding this proposed rule, including

its content and the process of Federal

rulemaking, the Service will reopen the

comment period from January 17–

February 17, and hold two public

meetings during that time, one in New

York, NY, and one in Los Angeles, CA,

as discussed above (see DATES and

ADDRESSES). These two cities were

selected by the Service because of the

high volume of live reptiles and

amphibians which are imported into the

United States through local Fish and

Wildlife Service designated ports, and

the corresponding concentration of

affected members of the general public.

Interested members of the general

public are encouraged to attend these

meetings to communicate their opinions

and pertinent factual information to the

Service regarding the proposed

regulations which can be utilized by the

Service in preparation of a final rule.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Lacey Act, as amended (18 U.S.C. 42

(c)).

Dated: November 26, 1997.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97–31925 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AC62

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Public

Comment Period on the Proposed Rule

to List the Arkansas River Basin

Population of the Arkansas River

Shiner as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice reopening

the public comment period.

SUMMARY: On August 3, 1994, the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

proposed to list the Arkansas River

basin population of the Arkansas (AR)

River shiner (Notropis girardi) as an

endangered species under the authority

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended (Act)(59 FR 39532). Public

comments were solicited, three public

hearings were held, and the last

comment period expired on February 3,

1995 (60 FR 2070).

The enactment of Pub. L. 104–6 in

April 1995, and a series of continuing

resolutions from October 1, 1995,

through April 26, 1996, established a

moratorium against issuing final listings

or critical habitat designations. The

Service’s listing program was essentially

shut down and listing program

personnel were reassigned to other

duties. When the moratorium was lifted,

the Service published guidance for

assigning relative priorities to listing

actions conducted under section 4 of the

Act during Fiscal Year 1997 (61 FR

64475).

This species was proposed for

endangered status in 1994. New

information concerning the AR River

shiner’s status has since become

available.

This notice identifies possible issues

the public should be aware of and

provides the public opportunity to

comment on these issues. All previous

comments submitted in response to the

August 3, 1994, proposal, including

comments that were received after the

expiration of the previous comment

periods, will be entered into the public

record for the AR River shiner.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by January 5,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

materials should be sent to: Supervisor,

Ecological Services Field Office, 222

South Houston, Suite A, Tulsa,

Oklahoma 74127–8909. Comments and

materials received will be available for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken

Collins at the above address (telephone

918/581–7458 ext. 230).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 3, 1994 (59 FR 39532), the

Service proposed to list the Arkansas

River basin population of the AR River

shiner (Notropis girardi) as an

endangered species under the authority

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended (Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.). The introduced population which

occurs in the Pecos River basin is not

under consideration for protection

under the Act because it is not native to

the area.

Two public comment periods were

established, with the last comment

period expiring on February 3, 1995 (60

FR 2070). During the second comment

period, the Service held three public

hearings, one each in Kansas,

Oklahoma, and Texas. The Service

received 602 comments (letters and oral

testimony) from 567 individuals or

agencies, including a petition

containing the names of 36 individuals.

Contents of the written comments and

oral statements obtained during the

public hearings and comment periods

were being evaluated at the time Public

Law 104–6 was enacted.

The enactment of Pub. L. 104–6 in

April 1995, and a series of continuing

resolutions from October 1, 1995,

through April 26, 1996, established a

moratorium against issuing final listings

or critical habitat designations. Funding

for the Service’s listing program was

severely reduced or eliminated and

listing personnel were reassigned to

other duties, essentially shutting down

the listing program.

On April 26, 1996, President Clinton

approved the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1996 and

exercised the authority granted under

this Act to waive the listing moratorium.

When the moratorium was lifted, the

Service published guidance for

assigning relative priorities to listing

actions conducted under section 4 of the

Act during Fiscal Year 1997 (61 FR

64475). Based on this priority system,