Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32413

whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety

standard is in effect, a state may not

adopt or maintain a safety standard

applicable to the same aspect of

performance which is not identical to

the Federal standard. Section 30161 sets

forth a procedure for judicial review of

final rules establishing, amending or

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety

standards. That section does not require

submission of a petition for

reconsideration or other administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court.

Request for Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the proposal. It is

requested but not required that 10

copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street

address given above, and seven copies

from which the purportedly confidential

information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section. A

request for confidentiality should be

submitted accompanied by a cover letter

setting forth the information specified in

the agency’s confidential business

information regulation, 49 CFR Part 512.

All comments received on or before

the closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received too late for consideration in

regard to the final rule will be

considered as suggestions for further

rulemaking action. It is recommended

that interested persons continue to

examine the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

docket must enclose a self-addressed

stamped postcard in the envelope with

their comments. Upon receiving the

comments, the docket supervisor will

return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

proposed that 49 CFR part 594 be

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 594

would be revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141, 30166;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

2. The title of part 594 would be

changed to read as follows:

PART 594—SCHEDULE OF FEES

AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141

3. Section 594.1 would be revised to

read as follows:

§ 594.1 Scope.

This part establishes the fees

authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141.

4. Section 594.4 would be amended

by revising its introductory paragraph to

read as follows:

§ 594.4 Definitions.

All terms used in this part that are

defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 are used as

defined in that section.

* * * * *

5. Section 594.6 would be amended

by;

(a) changing the year ‘‘1993’’ in

paragraphs (d) and to read ‘‘1996,’’ and

(b) revising the introductory language

in paragraph (a), (c) revising paragraph

(b),

(c) revising the final sentence of

paragraph (h); and

(d) revising paragraph (i)

to read as follows:

§ 594.6 Annual fee for administration of

the registration program.

(a) Each person filing an application

to be granted the status of a Registered

Importer pursuant to part 592 of this

chapter on or after October 1, 1996,

shall pay an annual fee of $501, as

calculated below, based upon the direct

and indirect costs attributable to: * * *

* * * * *

(b) That portion of the initial annual

fee attributable to the processing of the

application for applications file on and

after October 1, 1996, is $301. The sum

of $301, representing this portion, shall

not be refundable if the application is

denied or withdrawn.

* * * * *

(h) * * * This cost is $7.07 per manhour for the period beginning October 1,

1996.

(i) Based upon the elements, and

indirect costs of paragraphs (f), (g), and

(h) of this section, the component of the

initial annual fee attributable to

administration of the registration

program, covering the period beginning

October 1, 1996, is $200. When added

to the costs of registration of $301, as set

forth in paragraph (b) of this section, the

costs per applicant to be recovered

through the annual fee are $501. The

annual renewal registration fee for the

period beginning October 1, 1996, is

$332.

6. Section 594.7 would be amended

by revising the first two sentences of

paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 594.7 Fee for filing petition for a

determination whether a vehicle is eligible

for importation.

* * * * *

(e) For petitions filed on and after

October 1, 1996, the fee payable for a

petition seeking a determination under

paragraph (a)(1) of this section is $199.

The fee payable for a petition seeking a

determination under paragraph (a)(2) of

this section is $721. * * *

* * * * *

7. Section 594.8 would be amended

by revising the first sentence in

paragraph (b) and in paragraph (c) to

read as follows:

§ 594.8 Fee for importing a vehicle

pursuant to a determination by the

Administrator.

* * * * *

(b) If a determination has been made

pursuant to a petition, the fee for each

vehicle is $134. * * *

(c) If a determination has been made

pursuant to the Administrator’s

initiative, the fee for each vehicle is

$134. * * *

8. Section 594.9(c) would be revised

to read as follows:

§ 594.9 Fee for reimbursement of bond

processing costs.

* * * * *

(c) The bond processing fee for each

vehicle imported on and after October 1,

1996, for which a certificate of

conformity is furnished, is $5.15.

Issued on: June 14, 1996.

Michael B. Brownlee,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Assurance.

[FR Doc. 96–15732 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AC22

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period on Proposed Endangered

Status for Barton Springs Salamander

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.
32414 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

provides notice that the comment

period on the proposed endangered

status for Barton Springs salamander

(Eurycea sosorum) is reopened.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by July 24,

1996. Although every effort will be

made to consider comments received up

to July 24, 1996 the Fish and Wildlife

Service may be required to close the

comment period in advance of July 24,

1996 in order to comply with any orders

of the court in Save Our Springs Legal

Defense Fund v. Babbitt, Civil No. MO–

95–CA–230 (W.D. Tex.), ongoing

litigation involving this rulemaking.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road,

Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES

section) (512/490–0057).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposed rule to list the Barton Springs

salamander as endangered was

published on February 17, 1994 (59 FR

7968). The primary threat to this species

is contamination of waters in the

portion of the Edwards Aquifer that

feeds the springs, due to catastrophic

events (such as hazardous materials

spills) and chronic degradation resulting

from urban activities. Also of concern

are reduced groundwater supplies due

to increased groundwater withdrawal

and pool maintenance operations where

the salamander occurs. This proposal, if

made final, will implement Federal

protection provided by the Act for the

Barton Springs salamander.

The comment period on this proposed

rule originally closed April 18, 1994. It

was reopened on May 26, 1994, and

again on March 10, 1995. The last

comment period closed May 17, 1995.

On April 10, 1995, Public Law 104–06

imposed a moratorium preventing

addition of any species to the

Threatened and Endangered Species

List. Through a series of moratoria,

funding restrictions, and continuing

resolutions that prohibition remained in

effect until April 26, 1996. On that date,

the Omnibus Appropriations Act, which

provided $4,000,000 to the Service to

fund listing activities for the remainder

of fiscal year 1996, was enacted (Pub. L.

No. 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321, (1996)).

Because the Service expended $233,000

of this amount during the first six

months of 1996 under the rates of

operation provided by the various

continuing resolutions, $3,767,000

remains for the balance of the fiscal year

(61 FR 24722, 24723; May 16, 1996).

The Omnibus Appropriations Act

contained a moratorium on certain

listing activities but provided that the

President could waive the moratorium.

On April 26, 1996, President Clinton

suspended the provision limiting

implementation of Section 4 of the Act

(61 FR 24667; May 16, 1996).

On May 16, 1996, the Service

published guidance which set priorities

for the listing program in order to

ensure that the scarce resources

available through the end of the fiscal

year would provide the greatest

conservation benefit possible (61 FR

24722; Final Listing Priority Guidance.

This guidance identified emergency

listings as Tier 1 activities, in other

words, the highest priority activity the

Service will undertake during the

remainder of the fiscal year. Completing

final determinations for existing

proposals, such as the Barton Springs

salamander, are Tier 2 activities, which

will be undertaken to the extent

resources are available. Which final

determinations will be completed

depends on a number of factors

including magnitude and imminence of

threats to the species. Id. at 24727.

Region 2 of the Service, which

includes the area inhabited by the

Barton Springs salamander, conducted a

prioritization review in accordance with

the Notice of Final Listing Priority

Guidance. This process considered all

pending actions to determine whether

affected species faced an emergency

situation as defined by Section 4(b)(7) of

the Act, and the Service’s implementing

regulations. The Barton Springs

salamander has been recommended by

Region 2 as its number one priority for

final determination. In determining

which species to focus its listing

resources on, Region 2 evaluated the

threats to all species that have been

proposed for listing. Region 2

determined that while the Barton

Springs salamander is its number one

listing priority, the threats to the species

are not severe enough to warrant

emergency status. However, the Service

continues to monitor the status of the

Barton Springs salamander and other

Edwards Aquifer species in case

emergency listing becomes necessary.

Having given the Barton Springs

salamander top priority, Region 2 has

begun, as funds are now again available,

work on making a final decision on this

proposed listing.

The Service’s Final Listing Priority

Guidance notes that the inaction forced

upon the Service by the moratorium and

funding limitations may result in a need

to reopen comment periods due to

unresolved questions or the potential for

the existence of new information. (61 FR

24727). (See also 61 FR 9651, 9653)

(March 11, 1996; interim guidance).

Pursuant to this guidance, it is

necessary to reopen the comment period

to ensure the Service has the best

scientific and commercial information

currently available to make a final

listing determination regarding the

Barton Springs salamander.

The last comment period on the

proposal to list the Barton Springs

salamander closed on May 17, 1995,

over one year ago. The Service is aware

of new information relevant to listing

this species dated after the close of the

comment period. Specifically, proposed

regulatory protection under State

authorities including water quality

protection zones, nonpoint source

pollution programs, monitoring, and

Edwards Aquifer-specific actions have

been brought to the Service’s attention.

Since the close of the comment period,

the Service has learned that the State of

Texas has proposed and accepted

comments on new regulations governing

development in the Barton Springs

watershed that would require the state

to review and approve water quality

plans submitted for new developments.

The Service has also learned that the

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, the Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department, and the Texas

Department of Transportation have

entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding concerning water quality

protections during highway

construction. These efforts are aimed at

protecting water quality threats, to

which were identified as one of the

primary factors threatening the

existence of the Barton Springs

salamander in the proposal. (59 FR

7968, 7972). Information on these

regulatory initiatives does not currently

exist in the administrative record. To

evaluate effectively whether the existing

regulatory structure may adequately

protect the species, the Service must

obtain further information on these

developments. The Act requires the

Service to base listing decisions on the

‘‘best scientific and commercial

information available,’’ 16 U.S.C.

1533(b)(1)(A), and to consider the

‘‘inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms’’ as a factor upon which to

base listing decisions, id. 1533(a)(1)(D).

Given these facts, the Service believes it

has an obligation to reopen the public
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32415

comment period on this proposal, while

keeping careful watch on the species’

status.

In a letter dated June 3, 1996, Valarie

Bristol, Travis County Commissioner for

the County encompassing the Barton

Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer

and Barton Springs itself, requested that

the comment period be reopened in

order to accept information regarding

the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve, the

Loop 1/Highway 290 Task Force, and

other information. This letter is printed

in its entirety here for the information

of potential commenters.

Valarie Bristol,

Travis County Commissioner—Precinct 3,

Travis County Administration Building,

314 W. 11th Street, Room 500, P.O. Box

1748, Austin, Texas 78767, 473–9333

June 3, 1996.

Honorable Bruce Babbitt,

Secretary of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW,

Mailstop 7229, Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Secretary Babbitt: As a member of the

Travis County Commissioners’ Court, I

represent the portion of the county which

includes the Barton Springs segment of the

Edwards Aquifer, the five creeks which

overlay it, and the outflow at Barton Springs.

This karst system of water flow is a very

special treasure and needs thoughtful

protection of its water quality.

The listing of the Barton Springs

salamander under the Endangered Species

Act as an endangered species is a serious

decision that requires full analysis. I am

asking that the comment period on the

listing, which was closed in 1994, be reopened for a period to allow all significant

information which has occurred since then to

become part of the decision.

One major event which has occurred has

been the formation of the Balcones

Canyonlands Preserve which sets aside over

30,000 acres in Travis County, of which

4,000 acres are in the Barton Creek

watershed. The Balcones is an example of a

public/private partnership that brought

together the environmental and landowner

communities in an unprecedented level of

cooperation for mutual benefit to preserve

eight endangered species.

The Loop 1/Highway 290 Task Force is

another example of citizens and governments

trying to balance growth issues (in this case

a highway expansion) with water quality

over the aquifer recharge zone. State

Representative Sherri Greenberg and I serve

as co-chairs of the Loop 1/Highway 290 Task

Force and we have been gathering extensive

information on the water quality issues

surrounding all highway construction in the

aquifer area.

Travis County has completed a road project

which included an EPA funded vegetation

experiment to test the best method for

cleaning road area runoff.

These are only a few occurrences whose

information may be of importance in the

decision on the salamander. I hope that the

comment period can be re-opened to gather

all the relevant information.

I deeply believe that this community wants

to do its part in understanding and protecting

the clear, clean water of the Barton Springs

segment of the Edwards Aquifer.

Sincerely,

Valarie Scott Bristol,

Travis County Commissioner, Precinct Three.

The Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission has also

requested that the comment period be

reopened, citing its regulatory initiatives

described above. This letter is also

printed in its entirety here for the

information of potential commenters.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission

June 3, 1996.

The Honorable Bruce Babbitt,

Secretary of the Interior, 1849 C Street N.W.,

Main Interior Building, Room 6151,

Washington, D.C. 20240

Re: Proposed Listing of Barton Springs

Salamander

Dear Secretary Babbitt: The purpose of this

letter is to request that you reopen the

comment period concerning the proposed

listing of the Barton Springs Salamander. If

the comment period is reopened, the State of

Texas will submit to the Fish and Wildlife

Service additional information regarding

state and local efforts to protect this species

and its habitat. TNRCC staff believes there is

a substantial amount of information which

has not been considered, much of which was

not even available during the original

comment period.

There are numerous examples of state and

local regulations designed to protect water

quality. Some of these were in place at the

time of the original listing proposal and some

have been created or modified subsequent to

the proposal and some even subsequent to

closing of the comment period. For example,

TNRCC has published proposed rules

governing water quality protection zones and

will soon be publishing proposed revisions to

the ‘Edwards Aquifer Rules’. Both of these

rule packages are scheduled to be considered

by the Commission early this fall. Other

examples include highway construction

techniques and water quality monitoring

resulting from legislation enacted last year.

We do not believe these have been properly

or adequately taken into account as required

by the Act, particularly in light of the

magnitude of the decision on the proposed

listing.

Thank you for your consideration of this

request.

Very truly yours,

Barry R. McBee,

Chairman.

The Service is thus reopening the

comment period to allow commenters to

provide any additional information or

comments they have on the proposed

listing. Although every effort will be

made to consider comments received up

to July 24, 1996, the Fish and Wildlife

Service may be required to close the

comment period in advance of July 24,

1996 in order to comply with any orders

of the court in Save Our Springs Legal

Defense Fund v. Babbitt, Civil No. MO–

95–CA–230 (W.D. Tex.), ongoing

litigation involving this rulemaking.

Comments submitted during previous

comment periods will be considered

and need not be resubmitted.

Author

The primary author of this notice is

Steven Helfert (see ADDRESSES section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.

1531 et seq.).

Dated: June 17, 1996.

John G. Rogers,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 96–15899 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

50 CFR Part 32

RIN 1018–AD76

1996–97 Refuge-Specific Hunting and

Fishing Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) proposes to amend certain

regulations that pertain to migratory

game bird hunting, upland game

hunting, big game hunting and sport

fishing on individual national wildlife

refuges for the 1996–97 seasons. Refuge

hunting and fishing programs are

reviewed annually to determine

whether the individual refuge

regulations governing these programs

should be modified, deleted or have

additions made to them. Changing

environmental conditions, State and

Federal regulations, and other factors

affecting wildlife populations and

habitat may warrant modifications

ensuring continued compatibility of

hunting and fishing with the purposes

for which individual refuges were

established.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

will be accepted on or before July 24,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Assistant Director—Refuges

and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1849 C Street, NW, MS 670

ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen R. Vehrs, at the above address;

Telephone (703) 358–2397.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 50 CFR

part 32 contains provisions governing

hunting and fishing on national wildlife