3298 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 14 /Thursday, January 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register.]

Par. 3. Section 1.141–8 is amended by

adding the text of the section to read as

follows:

§ 1.141–8 $15 million limitation for output

facilities.

[The text of this proposed section is the

same as the text of § 1.141–8T published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register.]

Par. 4. Section 1.141–15 is amended

by adding paragraphs (f) through (i) to

read as follows:

§ 1.141–15 Effective dates.

* * * * *

(f) through (i) [The text of proposed

paragraphs (f) through (i) are the same

as the text of § 1.141–15T(f) through (i)

published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register.]

Par. 5. Section 1.142(f)(4)–1 is added

to read as follows:

§ 1.142(f)(4)–1 Manner of making election

to terminate tax-exempt bond financing.

[The text of this proposed section is the

same as the text of § 1.142(f)(4)–1T

published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register.]

Par. 6. Section 1.150–5 is added to

read as follows:

§ 1.150–5 Filing notices and elections.

[The text of this proposed section is the

same as the text of § 1.150–5T published

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register.]

Michael P. Dolan,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 98–717 Filed 1–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 14

RIN 1018–AE08

Importation, Exportation, and

Transportation of Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

revise the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) regulations providing for user

fee collections from commercial

importers and exporters of wildlife and

wildlife products. We, the Service,

propose a licensing and fee scheme

which will exempt certain commercial

importers and exporters from our

inspection fee, based upon specific

criteria, including country of origin,

numbers of items, and permitting

requirements. We propose to modify our

user fee regulations to grant relief to

certain individuals and small

businesses, meeting the outlined

criteria, from the designated port

inspection fee and nondesignated port

administrative fee and hourly

minimums only. This proposal, if

implemented, will allow us to continue

to collect data on fee collections in

order to analyze the impact of user fees

on small business for future decision

making.

We will also update the authority

citation for this part to delete an

obsolete reference and to reflect the

current United States Code citation

regarding fees and charges for

Government services.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before March 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, P.O. Box 3247, Arlington,

Virginia 22203–3247. Comments and

materials may be hand-delivered to the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division

of Law Enforcement, 4401 N. Fairfax

Drive, Room 500, Arlington, Virginia,

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin R. Adams, Chief, Division of Law

Enforcement, Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior,

Washington, D.C. 20240, Telephone

Number (703) 358–1949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 21, 1996, we published a

final rule (61 FR 31850) which

established a new requirement in Part

14 for all commercial importers and

exporters of wildlife and wildlife

products to obtain an Import/Export

License (license) and also provided for

our charging license holders increased

inspection and overtime fees. The final

rule eliminated the $25,000 annual

dollar value exemption the Service had

utilized since 1984 in determining

whether a particular business or

individual was required to have a

license. The final rule raised the

inspection fees charged to licensees to

enable the Service to more fully recoup

the costs of operating the wildlife

inspection program. We published the

June 21, 1996, final rule after several

lengthy comment periods which began

with the notice of intent to review

published on November 14, 1991 (56 FR

57873). Of the 800 total comments

received, 81 were on the new fee

structure discussed in the notice of

intent, the proposed rule published

November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58811), and

the supplemental proposed rule

published March 23, 1995 (60 FR

15277). We received 64 favorable

comments on the fee increase out of 81

total with 17 commenters opposed to a

user fee increase. Several of the 17

commenters opposed to the fee increase

requested that we maintain a dollar

value exemption for small businesses.

We acknowledged these commenters’

concerns and expressed our own

concern for the new fee structure being

perceived as overly burdensome on

small business, and replied, as restated

in this proposed rule, that we are

attempting to maintain the most

efficient inspection program possible

without being overly burdensome on

smaller importers. We were attempting

to implement the smallest fee increase

possible which would allow us to

recoup the cost of the wildlife

inspection program. At the same time

we were attempting to respond to

several studies of the Service’s

inspection program that clearly indicate

a need to raise inspection fees and

overtime rates commensurate with costs

incurred by the Service. In addition to

the studies cited in the June 21, 1996,

final rule, a 1994 General Accounting

Office report states in its

recommendations to the Secretary of the

Interior, that the Service should

‘‘Proceed with plans to increase the user

fees charged by the wildlife inspection

program * * *.’’

Since the implementation of the new

fee schedule on August 1, 1996, we have

received comments, including eight

Congressional inquiries, indicating that

the burden on small business may be

greater than the Service initially

anticipated in the June 21, 1996,

rulemaking. In the economic effects

section of that document, we estimated

the costs to newly licensed small

businesses and individuals who are now

subject to the inspection fee

requirement. In the analysis we used

estimated numbers extrapolated from

1994 data contained in the Law

Enforcement Management Information

System (LEMIS) which represented the

best information available. Based upon

comments received subsequent to

publication of the final rule, we believe

that we may have underestimated the

cumulative effect that the increased

licensing and inspection fees may

impose on small business and certain

individuals. We have determined that

we may need better data upon which to

rely in making a definitive analysis of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 14 /Thursday, January 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 3299

the effect of user fee increases on small

business. The proposed system will

continue to provide that data.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

establishes as a principle of regulatory

issuance that ‘‘* * * agencies shall

endeavor, consistent with the objectives

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to

fit regulatory and informational

requirements to the scale of the

business, organizations, and

governmental jurisdictions subject to

regulation.’’ Therefore, in order to

address the immediate concerns of

small business and maintain

consistency with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, we propose a new

licensing and inspection fee system that

will accomplish two objectives. First,

the new system contained in this

proposed rule would grant immediate

relief from the economic burden of the

increased inspection fees, and/or

administrative fees and hourly

minimums, to importers and exporters

of wildlife and wildlife products at

designated ports, border or special

ports, and nondesignated ports that

meet specific criteria.

Second, by continuing to require that

all commercial importers and exporters

be licensed, the new system would

allow the Service to continue to monitor

wildlife import/export activity in order

to gather the data necessary to make

future decisions on the true impact of

our user fees on small businesses and

certain individuals.

Inspection Fee Exemption Criteria

We propose to amend the inspection

fee system to establish specific criteria

that we will use to determine if the

inspection fee applies at the time of

import or export. The proposed revision

uses distinctions that are already

established in the regulation. The

Service currently uses these distinctions

to determine the applicability of various

parts of the regulation to wildlife being

imported or exported. We propose to

use these same distinctions to establish

if the inspection fee applies to wildlife

shipments at the time of import to or

export from the United States.

Shipments will have to meet several

basic criteria in order to qualify for the

inspection fee exemption. The basic

exemption criteria are outlined as

follows: First, the inspection fee

exemption will only apply to shipments

that do NOT require permits under 50

CFR parts 16 (Injurious wildlife), 17

(Endangered and threatened wildlife

and plants), 18 (Marine mammals), 21

(Migratory bird permits), or 23

(Endangered species convention). Those

shipments that contain wildlife that

require permits will not be eligible for

any inspection fee exemption. Second,

the wildlife must have been lawfully

taken from the wild in the United

States, Canada, or Mexico, and imported

or exported between the United States

and Canada or Mexico. Shipments

containing wildlife taken in any other

country and imported or exported

between any countries other than the

United States, Canada, or Mexico will

not be eligible for the inspection fee

exemption. Third, the wildlife shipment

must be imported or exported by the

person who took the wildlife from the

wild, or by a member of that person’s

immediate family, provided, that the

importer or exporter of record is

licensed in accordance with 50 CFR

14.91. Last, the shipment must consist

of raw fur, raw, salted, or crusted hides

or skins, or separate parts thereof, and

the shipment cannot exceed 100 raw

furs, raw, salted, crusted, hides or skins

or separate parts thereof. The intent of

this rulemaking is to provide financial

relief from the burden of the inspection

fees for small business and certain

individuals who may be

disproportionately affected. The Service

believes that a cutoff point of 100 raw

furs, raw, salted, or crusted hides or

skins, or separate parts thereof will

adequately distinguish between small

shippers disproportionately affected and

those commercial wildlife dealers less

impacted by the user fee.

All of the primary criteria for the user

fee exemption outlined above serve as a

means of limiting the exemption

application to certain individuals or

small business, while at the same time

maintaining the integrity and intent of

the user fee rulemaking published on

June 21, 1996. By using distinctions

already drawn in the regulation, we

believe that the proposed criteria

represent a balance between

maintaining user fee revenues and

providing small business economic

relief.

In addition to the primary criteria, the

Service will use additional criteria,

outlined below, to ensure that the user

fee exemption is utilized by those

intended and to allow for statistical

tracking of the exemption’s use. As

stated, the importer or exporter of

record who is shipping wildlife that

otherwise meets the inspection fee

exemption criteria will still have to

obtain an Import/Export License from

the Service at a cost of $50 annually (see

50 CFR part 14, subpart I). The raw fur,

raw, salted or crusted hides or skins, or

separate parts thereof cannot have been

previously bought or sold if the

inspection fee exemption is to apply.

The fee exemption will not apply to

manufactured products or live animals

of any kind.

The reason for the latter two criteria

is that the fee exemption is intended to

apply to small, low volume businesses

engaged in wildlife trade on a small

scale where there is relatively low cash

flow, or to individuals who take wildlife

from the wild as a hobby or to

supplement their income and who do

not deal in manufactured products or

live animals as a primary means of

income. We believe that wildlife traders

buying and selling imported wildlife in

the United States and those dealing in

manufactured products or live animals

require a higher level of oversight and

are less impacted by the inspection fee.

The importer or exporter whose

wildlife shipments meet the user fee

exemption criteria will still be required

to pay overtime fees or designated port

exception permit fees if applicable. If

wildlife being shipped requires a

Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species (CITES) permit, no

exemption from the user fee will be

granted due to the higher level of

oversight required by the Service on

these shipments.

Certification

In order for the Service to have some

means of verifying that the raw furs,

raw, salted or crusted hides or skins, or

separate parts thereof are, in fact, taken

from the wild by the licensee who is

acting as importer/exporter of record, or

taken from the wild by a member of his

or her immediate family, the licensee

must sign a certification statement

supplied by the Service at the time

clearance is requested. The certification

statement will ask that the licensee

certify, subject to the penalties provided

for under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for

false or fraudulent statements, that he or

she took the raw furs, raw, salted, or

crusted hides or skins, or separate parts

thereof from the wild or that they were

taken from the wild by a member of that

person’s immediate family. We will

consider the term ‘‘immediate family’’

to mean a licensee’s spouse, parents,

siblings, and children. The Service

believes that extending the meaning to

include grandparents, cousins, aunts, or

uncles would compromise the intent of

this rule. This signed certification

statement will have to be presented to

a Service officer at the time clearance is

requested.

The Service intends that this

inspection fee exemption framework

utilize existing regulatory language that

grants various exemptions to 50 CFR

part 14, including § 14.15 and § 14.62.

In addition, 50 CFR part 14 already

exempts certain ‘‘classes’’ of wildlife
3300 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 14 /Thursday, January 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

from various regulatory requirements,

including farm-raised fish from the

designated port requirement on export,

aquatic invertebrates of the Class

Pelecypoda from the designated port

and declaration requirement, and

captive-bred furbearers from the

marking requirement. We believe that

these distinctions are consistent with

the intent of the regulation.

In summary, the Service will exempt

commercial wildlife shipments from the

designated port inspection fee and/or

the nondesignated port administrative

fee and hourly minimums, whichever

applies, for shipments meeting the

following criteria: no permits are

required under 50 CFR parts 16, 17, 18,

21, or 23; imports or exports are

between the United States and Canada

or Mexico of raw furs, raw, salted, or

crusted hides or skins, or separate parts

thereof, lawfully taken from the wild in

the United States, Canada, or Mexico;

imported or exported by the person

taking the wildlife from the wild, or

taken from the wild by a member of the

importer or exporters’ immediate

family; provided, the importer or

exporter of record is licensed; the

shipment or any part thereof has not

been previously bought or sold; the

shipment does not exceed 100 raw furs,

raw, salted, or crusted, hides or skins,

or separate parts thereof; the shipment

does not contain any manufactured

products or live animals; overtime fees,

if applicable, have been paid; and the

importer or exporter has attached a

certification statement stating that the

shipment contains items taken from the

wild by the importer/exporter of record

or by a member of that person’s

immediate family.

The following chart illustrates the

commercial user fee charges at

designated and nondesignated ports

during normal working hours before the

June 21, 1996, final rule, after the

August 1, 1996, effective date of that

final rule, and under this proposed rule,

for comparison:

Fees Prior to June 21, 1996 final rule After August 1, 1996 effective date Proposed

Designated Port ....... Under 25K/year No Charge. $125/year

License Fee. $25/Shipment Inspection Fee.

$50/year License Fee. $55/Shipment

Inspection Fee.

$50/year License Fee. $55/Shipment

Inspection Fee if criteria not met. No

Charge if criteria met.

Nondesignated Port Under 25K/year No Charge. $125/

Shipment Administrative Fee plus 2

hour minimum at $25/hr ($50).

$50/year License Fee. $55 Administrative Fee plus 2 hour minimum at

$20/hr ($40).

$50/year License Fee. $55 Administrative Fee plus 2 hour minimum at

$20/hr ($40) if criteria not met. No

Charge if criteria met.

All interested parties are invited to

submit comments on this proposal.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

This proposed rule affects only the

requirement to pay an inspection fee for

shipments and contains no information

collections for which Office of

Management and Budget approval is

required under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501).

Importers/exporters subject to this rule

may be subject to the requirement to file

a Declaration for Importation or

Exportation of Fish or Wildlife (FWS

form 3–177; OMB approval number

1018–0012; expiration date August 31,

2000). This rule does not change or

affect the information collection

requirements associated with the

declaration form 3–177.

Required Determinations

The Service has determined that these

proposed regulations meet the

applicable standards provided in

Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988.

The Service has determined and

certifies pursuant to the Unfunded

Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., 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.

Economic Effects

The Service conducted an economic

analysis of this proposed rule. The

declared value of all wildlife shipments

requiring Service clearance in Fiscal

Year 1995 was approximately

$860,000,000. In 1996, the total value of

all wildlife shipments which may be

eligible for the proposed exemption was

$700,734. Fees payable to the Service on

these shipments would be reduced

between $22,935 and $39,615 under the

proposed rule. No substantial indirect

economic effects are anticipated so the

effect of the rule is much less than $100

million annually. Shipment volume is

not expected to rise to a level that

would generate $100 million annual

impact. This rulemaking was not subject

to review by the Office of Management

and Budget under Executive Order

12866.

Accordingly, under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq.), this rulemaking will not have a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities,

which include businesses,

organizations, or governmental

jurisdictions. The proposed rule

exempts small shippers from the Fish

and Wildlife Service inspection fee and

so represents an adaptation of the

current fee structure to provide relief for

small shippers, therefore, this rule will

have a beneficial effect on such entities.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 14

Animal welfare, Exports, Fish,

Imports, Labeling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Service proposes to

amend Title 50, Chapter I, subchapter B

of the Code of Federal Regulations as set

forth below:

PART 14—IMPORTATION,

EXPORTATION, AND

TRANSPORTATION OF WILDLIFE

1. Revise the authority citation for

Part 14 to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 668, 704, 712, 1382,

1538(d)–(f), 1540(f), 3371–3378, 4223–4244,

and 4901–4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 31 U.S.C. 9701.

2. Amend § 14.94 by revising

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (e)

to read as follows:

§ 14.94 Fees.

(a) License and inspection fees. The

Service will impose a yearly fee for a

license pursuant to § 14.93. In addition,

each licensee must pay an inspection

fee for each wildlife shipment imported

into or exported from the United States

at a designated port. Licensees who

import into or export from the United

States wildlife shipments meeting the

criteria outlined in paragraph (e) of this

section are exempt from the designated

port inspection fee, or nondesignated

port administrative fee and hourly

minimums, whichever apply, provided,

that all overtime fees and permit fees

still apply.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 14 /Thursday, January 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 3301

(e) Exemption criteria. Wildlife

shipments meeting all of the following

criteria are exempt from the designated

port inspection fee or nondesignated

port administrative fee and hourly

minimums:

(1) No permits are required under

parts 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, or 23 of this

subchapter;

(2) The wildlife is imported or

exported between the United States and

Canada or Mexico;

(3) The wildlife shipment consists of

raw fur, raw, salted, or crusted hides or

skins, or separate parts thereof, lawfully

taken from the wild in the United

States, Canada, or Mexico;

(4) The wildlife was taken from the

wild by the importer or exporter of

record or a member of his immediate

family;

(5) The importer or exporter of record

is licensed in accordance with § 14.91;

(6) The wildlife or any part thereof

has not been previously bought or sold;

(7) The shipment does not exceed 100

raw furs, raw, salted, or crusted hides or

skins, or separate parts thereof;

(8) The shipment does not contain

any manufactured products or live

animals.

Donald J. Barry,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 98–1414 Filed 1–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE30

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of Public Hearing

and Extension of Comment Period on

Proposed Endangered Status for

Rough Popcornflower

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public

hearing and reopening and extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service), pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),

provides notice of a public hearing on

the proposed endangered status for

Plagiobothrys hirtus (rough

popcornflower). In addition, the Service

has reopened and extended the

comment period to accommodate a

public hearing that was requested by

Mr. Danny Lang of Roseburg, Oregon.

All parties are invited to submit

comments on this proposal.

DATES: The comment period now closes

on February 23, 1998. Any comments

received by the closing date will be

considered in the final decision on this

proposal. The public hearing will be

held on Tuesday, February 10, 1998,

from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be

held at the Holiday Inn Express, 375

West Harvard Boulevard, Roseburg,

Oregon. Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to the State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office,

2600 S.E. 98th Avenue, Suite 100,

Portland, Oregon 97266. Comments and

materials received will be available for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Andrew F. Robinson Jr. of the

Oregon State Office (see ADDRESSES

section) at (503) 231–6179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Plagiobothrys hirtus is an annual herb

on drier sites, or perennial herb on

wetter sites, that is known from only the

interior valley of the Umpqua River in

Douglas County, Oregon. The plant is

threatened by destruction and/or

alteration of habitat by development and

hydrological change (e.g., wetland fills,

draining, construction); spring and

summer grazing by domestic cattle,

horses, and sheep; roadside

maintenance; and competition from

native and non-native species (i.e.,

succession and encroachment).

Comments from the public regarding the

accuracy of this proposed rule are

sought, especially regarding:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or

other relevant data concerning any

threat (or lack thereof) to the species

listed above;

(2) The location of any additional

populations of the species and the

reasons why any habitat should or

should not be determined to be critical

habitat as provided by section 4 of the

Act;

(3) Additional information concerning

the range, distribution, and population

sizes of the species; and

(4) Current or planned activities in the

subject area and their possible impacts

on the species.

On November 20, 1997, the Service

published a rule proposing endangered

status for Plagiobothrys hirtus in the

Federal Register (62 FR 61953). The

original comment period was to close on

January 20, 1998. Section 4(b)(5)(E) of

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires

that a public hearing be held if it is

requested within 45 days of the

publication of the proposed rule. A

public hearing request from Mr. Danny

Lang of Roseburg, Oregon was received

within the allotted time period. The

Service has scheduled a public hearing

on Tuesday, February 10, 1998, at the

Holiday Inn Express in Roseburg,

Oregon.

Parties wishing to make statements for

the record should bring a copy of their

statements to the hearing. Oral

statements may be limited in length, if

the number of parties present at the

hearing necessitates such a limitation.

There are no limits to the length of

written comments or materials

presented at the hearing or mailed to the

Service. Written comments carry the

same weight as oral comments. The

comment period now closes on

February 23, 1998. Written comments

should be submitted to the Service

Office listed in the ADDRESSES section.

Author

The primary author of this notice is

Dr. Andrew F. Robinson Jr. (see

ADDRESSES section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: January 7, 1998.

Don Weathers,

Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Portland,

Oregon, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98–857 Filed 1–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE54

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the

Plant Lesquerella Thamnophila (Zapata

Bladderpod) as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) proposes to list the plant

Lesquerella thamnophila (Zapata

bladderpod) as an endangered species

under the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended (Act). Lesquerella

thamnophila is known from four

locations in Zapata and Starr Counties,

Texas. This species is threatened by

increased urban development, highway

construction, increased oil and gas