31850 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

[FR Doc. 96–15881 Filed 6–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 13 and 14

RIN 1018–AB49

Importation, Exportation, and

Transportation of Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule updates the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

regulations providing for uniform rules

and procedures for the importation,

exportation, and transportation of

wildlife. Several definitions are added

and amended. The Service’s exception

to the designated port of entry

requirement for wildlife products or

manufactured articles worn as articles of

clothing or contained in accompanying

personal baggage is amended. The

exceptions to the import declaration

requirements and export declaration

requirements are also amended. The

Service minimum age requirement for

certain antique articles, other than

scrimshaw, imported into the United

States is changed. The Service is also

revising its clearance requirements and

its refusal of clearance requirements.

The Service’s import declaration filing

requirements are also changed.

Changes are also made in the marking

requirements for containers used to ship

fish or wildlife. Further changes are

made in the import and export

requirements and fee schedules and the

exceptions to license requirements. In

addition to the above changes, the nonstandards fee schedule in part 13 for an

import/export license is amended.

Finally, the Service will allow the

importation and exportation of dead,

preserved, dried, or embedded scientific

wildlife specimens by accredited

scientists or accredited scientific

institutions engaged in taxonomic or

systematic research at any U.S. Customs

port, or by way of the international mail.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

July 22, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Striegler, Special Agent in

Charge, Branch of Investigations,

Division of Law Enforcement, Fish and

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of

Interior, Washington, DC 20240,

Telephone Number (703) 358–1949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) has oversight responsibilities

under statutory and regulatory authority

to regulate the importation, exportation,

and transportation of wildlife. The

Service, consistent with this authority,

has established an inspection program

to oversee the importation, exportation,

and transportation of wildlife and

wildlife products. The Service, in

support of its program activities, has

promulgated regulations, subject to

exemptions and permitted exceptions,

restricting the importation and

exportation of wildlife and wildlife

products to certain designated ports,

border ports, and special ports

enumerated within the Code of Federal

Regulations. Service regulations

governing the importation, exportation,

and transportation of wildlife are

codified in 50 CFR part 14 and are

implemented through the efforts of

Service Special Agents and Wildlife

Inspectors, and with the essential

support, cooperation, and assistance of

the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) and

the Department of Agriculture, Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) and other cooperating agencies.

The Service is making the following

changes to the Importation, Exportation,

and Transportation of Wildlife

regulations in part 14. A new section

§ 14.4, entitled ‘‘Definitions’’, is being

added to include several new

definitions. In adding these new

definitions, the Service’s intent is to

provide greater uniformity in the

interpretation of part 14. This section,

includes a definition for the term

‘‘commercial’’ to explain when the

commercial intent of a shipment

becomes presumptive. The effect of this

definition is to clarify when a wildlife

shipper is required to obtain an import/

export license, and when the personal

baggage exception does not apply. A

definition is also added for the term

‘‘export’’ to delineate when the filing of

an export declaration and clearance by

a Service Officer will be required. The

term ‘‘accompanying personal baggage’’

is also defined to eliminate any

ambiguity as to when hand-carried

items and checked baggage will be

regarded by the Service as an export or

import. The meaning of the term

‘‘domesticated animal’’ is defined to

distinguish such animals from wildlife.

The Service, in order to clarify its

requirements, is defining the terms

‘‘Accredited scientific institutions’’ and

‘‘Accredited scientist.’’ The term

‘‘Accredited scientific institution’’ is

defined to include any public museum,

public zoological park, accredited

institution of higher education,

accredited member of the American Zoo

and Aquarium Association, accredited

member of the American Association of

Systematic Collections, or any State or

Federal government agency that

conducts biological or medical research.

The term ‘‘Accredited scientist’’ is

defined to include any individual

associated with, employed by, or under

contract to and accredited by an

accredited scientific institution for the

purposes of conducting biological or

medical research, and whose research

activities are approved and sponsored

by the scientific institution granting

accreditation.

In addition to the above changes, the

term ‘‘worn’’ in § 14.15 is being

removed and replaced with term ‘‘used’’

in order to clearly define when wildlife

products are included within the

personal baggage and household effects

exception to the designated port

requirements.

The Service is making several

administrative corrections within the

text of the regulations. The erroneous

references to § 14.93(d) in § 14.82(a)(2)

and the erroneous reference to

§ 14.93(d)(1) in § 14.93(c)(5) are being

changed to read § 14.93(c) and

§ 14.93(c)(1), respectively. These

citations refer to the requisite record

requirements applicable to holders of an

import/export license.

A reference to the permit

requirements of part 23 is included

within several sections of part 14. The

requirements of part 23 implement the

Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora (CITES). The following provisions

are being changed to include references

to part 23: At § 14.21, the exceptions to

the Service’s license requirements for

shellfish and fishery products; at

§ 14.55, the exceptions to Service

wildlife clearance requirements stating

when wildlife and wildlife products

may be imported without clearance; at

§ 14.62(a), the exceptions to the import

declaration requirements stating when a

Service import declaration (Form 3–177)

is not required; at § 14.64(a), the

exception to export declaration

requirements stating when a Service

export declaration (Form 3–177) is not

required; and at § 14.92(a)(1) and

14.92(a)(2), the exceptions to license

requirements stating when wildlife may

be imported or exported without the

procurement of a Service import/export

license.

The Service is changing the age

minimum in § 14.22 for certain antique

articles to be consistent with changes in

the Endangered Species Act. The
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31851

Service is also adding in § 14.21(a)(2) an

exception to the designated port

requirements for live aquatic

invertebrates of the Class Pelecypoda

(commonly known as oysters, clams,

mussels, and scallops) and the eggs,

larvae, or juvenile forms thereof

exported for purposes of propagation, or

research related to propagation. A

designated port exception is also added

at § 14.21(b) for pearls imported or

exported for commercial purposes.

The Service is also facilitating the

importation or exportation of dead,

preserved, dried, or embedded scientific

taxonomic or systematic collection

specimens, or parts thereof, by

accredited scientists or accredited

institutions by making several changes

in its current regulations. The Service is

adding a new section, at § 14.24, to be

entitled ‘‘Scientific Specimens.’’ This

new section provides that dead,

preserved, dried, or embedded

taxonomic or systematic collection

specimens may be imported or exported

by accredited scientists or scientific

institutions by way of any Customs port

or to be shipped through the

international mail. This exception,

however, does not apply in situations

where the wildlife being imported or

exported requires a permit under any of

the Service regulations established in 50

CFR parts 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 23 that

set forth the Service regulations

implementing: the Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C.

42; the Endangered Species Act (ESA),

16 U.S.C. 1531–1543; the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16

U.S.C. 1361–1407; the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703–712;

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection

Act (Eagle Act), 16 U.S.C. 668; and the

Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Flora and

Fauna (CITES), respectively. In

addition, this exception does not apply

to any specimen or part of any specimen

taken as a result of sport hunting. The

term ‘‘sport hunting’’ will be given its

common and ordinary meaning.

The requirements for the clearance of

wildlife, at § 14.52, and the refusal of

clearance of wildlife, at § 14.53, are

being changed to show the applicability

of these sections to both exported and

imported wildlife. The provisions of

§ 14.52 are being changed to specifically

state, in both import and export

situations, the requirements of

presentation of wildlife for clearance

and the requirement of clearance of

wildlife by a Service officer prior to

export or prior to U.S. Custom Service

release of an importation.

The Service’s refusal of clearance

provisions at § 14.53 are also being

changed to require the identification of

wildlife by species or subspecies name.

This change is intended to alleviate the

confusion often caused by the use of

common names. This section is also

being changed to include as an

additional basis for the refusal of

clearance the failure to pay an assessed

penalty levied upon an importer or

exporter under part 11. Another

significant change being made to § 14.53

is the establishment of a formal

detention process for wildlife or wildlife

products, similar to that of the Customs

Service. The detention procedure is

necessary in order for the Service to

determine the applicability of state or

foreign law relating to imported or

exported wildlife, and/or to ascertain

the validity of foreign permits.

In order to ensure humane and

expeditious inspection and handling of

shipments of wildlife, the Service is

revising § 14.54 to include a provision

requiring that the Service be notified at

least 48 hours prior to the ‘‘estimated

time of arrival’’ of live or perishable

shipments of wildlife or wildlife

products. The Service is to be similarly

notified when wildlife inspection is

requested to be accomplished upon

arrival or when wildlife is to be

inspected prior to export.

In general, all wildlife imported into

the United States must be cleared in

accordance with § 14.52 by a Service

officer prior to its release from detention

by Customs officers. Clearance by a

Service officer may be obtained only at

designated ports, border ports, special

ports, or any port where importation is

authorized by permit, unless the

wildlife is otherwise exempted from

such requirement. The Service’s existing

exceptions to clearance requirements for

certain wildlife are set forth in § 14.55.

The Service is amending § 14.55 by

adding a new paragraph at § 14.55(d)

providing an additional exception to the

Service clearance requirements for dead,

preserved, dried, or embedded

specimens or parts thereof imported or

exported by accredited scientists or

accredited scientific institutions for

taxonomic or systematic research

purposes.

The regulations concerning the

requirements of the Service Form 3–177,

Declaration for Importation or

Exportation of Fish or Wildlife, in

§ 14.61 are being changed to include

changes brought about by the U.S.

Customs Automated Commercial

System (ACS) and the Automated

Broker Interface (ABI) electronic entry

system, and to clarify the requirement of

filing an import declaration. Changes in

Customs entry system allow entry

documents to be filed electronically by

an authorized Customs broker using the

electronic entry system. The provisions

of § 14.61 require that a completed

Declaration for Importation and

Exportation of Fish and Wildlife (Form

3–177) be filed with the Service when

clearance is requested. A Declaration for

Importation and Exportation of Wildlife

does not have to be filed, however, for

certain categories of wildlife provided

an exception under § 14.62, entitled

‘‘Exceptions to Import Declaration

Requirements.’’ The Service is

amending § 14.62 by revising § 14.62(c)

and adding a new paragraph at § 14.6(d)

to provide an additional exception to

the import declaration requirements.

New 14.62(d) provides that a

Declaration for the Importation or

Exportation of Fish or Wildlife (Form 3–

177) does not have to be filed at the time

of importation for shipments of dead,

preserved, dried, or embedded scientific

specimens or parts thereof, imported by

accredited scientists or accredited

scientific institutions for taxonomic or

systematic research purposes. Instead,

Form 3–177 must be filed within 180

days of importation with the

appropriate Assistant Regional Director

for Law Enforcement in the Region

where the importation occurs. The

specimens must be identified to the

most accurate taxonomic classification

reasonably practicable using the best

available taxonomic information, and

the country of origin must be declared.

This exception to the import declaration

requirements is limited to exchanges

made by accredited scientists or

accredited scientific institutions and

does not apply to any specimens or

parts thereof taken as a result of sport

hunting. In addition, this exception

does not apply in situations where the

wildlife being imported requires a

permit under any of the Service

regulations established in Title 50 CFR

parts 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 23, or in

situations involving non-accredited

scientists or institutions.

The Service’s exceptions to import

requirements in § 14.62 also are being

changed to exclude, in addition to

articles intended for sale, articles or

samples used as exhibits to solicit sales.

In addition, § 14.62 is being revised to

remove the incorrect reference to an

obsolete Customs Service form.

Section 14.63 sets forth the

requirement that a completed

Declaration of Importation and

Exportation of Fish or Wildlife (Form 3–

177) must be filed with the Service prior

to the export of any wildlife. Certain

exceptions to this export declaration

requirement are provided in § 14.64.

The Service is amending § 14.64 by

adding a new paragraph at § 14.64(b)(3)

to provide an additional exception to
31852 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

the Service’s export declaration

requirements. This exception will

provide that a Declaration for the

Importation or Exportation of Fish or

Wildlife (Form 3–177) does not have to

be filed at the time of exportation for

shipments of dead, preserved, dried, or

embedded scientific specimens or parts

thereof, exported by accredited

scientists or accredited scientific

institutions for taxonomic or systematic

research purposes. This exception,

however, will not apply in situations

where the wildlife being exported

requires a permit under any of the

Service regulations established in Title

50 CFR parts 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 23,

or in situations involving nonaccredited scientists or institutions. A

Form 3–177 must be filed, however,

within 180 days of exportation with the

appropriate Assistant Regional

Director—Law Enforcement in the

Region where the exportation occurs.

The specimens must be identified to the

not accurate taxonomic classification

reasonably practicable using the best

available taxonomic information, and

the country of origin must be declared.

This exception to the export declaration

requirements will be limited to

exchanges made by accredited scientists

or accredited scientific institutions and

will not apply to any specimens or parts

thereof taken as a result of sport

hunting.

In § 14.64(a) the Service is adding an

additional exception to the export

declaration requirements for live aquatic

invertebrates of the Class Pelecypoda

(commonly known as oysters, clams,

mussels, and scallops) and the eggs,

larvae, or juvenile forms thereof

exported for the purposes of

propagation, or research related to

propagation. The word ‘‘live’’ has been

added to this exception to more

accurately reflect the Service’s intent of

applying to live specimens only. The

Service is also restating the exceptions

to the export declaration requirements

under § 14.64(b)(1) and § 14.64(b)(2) by

excluding, in addition to wildlife

articles intended for sale, articles or

samples used as exhibits to solicit sales.

Changes are also being made in the

marking requirements of § 14.81, and

the alternatives and exceptions to the

marking requirements in § 14.82, to add

provisions requiring the conspicuous

marking of containers or packages to

indicate when the contents are

venomous species. In making this

proposal, the Service hopes to prevent

injuries. The Service is also revising

§ 14.81 to require that wildlife

shipments be accompanied with an

accurate and legible list of the contents

by scientific species name and the

number of each species.

Section 14.91(c) establishes that

persons engaged in certain enumerated

activities are required to hold an

import/export license. The provisions of

this section are being changed and

amended to reduce any ambiguity and

to require persons who commercially

import or export wildlife in the form of

food products taken from populations of

non-domesticated animals to be

licensed. Sections 14.92(a)(5) and

14.92(a)(6) are being added to include

within the exceptions to the license

requirements an exception for live

aquatic invertebrates of the Class

Pelecypoda, (commonly known as

oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops)

and the eggs, larvae, or juvenile forms

thereof exported for purposes of

propagation, or research related to

propagation, and for pearls imported or

exported for commercial purposes.

Sections 14.92(b)(1) and 14.92(b)(2) are

being amended to limit the existing

exception to the import/export license

requirement for common carriers and

custom house brokers to instances

where they are acting as transporters or

agents and not as the importer or

exporter of record.

Inspection and License Fees

Inspectors working at designated

ports of entry are vested with the

authority by statute and regulation to

undertake the physical inspection and

identification of wildlife shipments and

to examine all associated wildlife

shipment documentation for

sufficiency. Service uniform import

export user fee schedules are currently

set out at 50 CFR 14.93(f). With some

exceptions, these inspection procedures

are required for all shipments of wildlife

regardless of value, size of shipment, or

variety of regulated wildlife species, and

therefore, are equivalent in their

demands upon work units of the

Service. Because of the nature of

inspections and the administrative

support required, a direct correlation

between the value of wildlife shipments

and the operating costs incurred by the

Service in inspection of wildlife cannot

be made. The Service, therefore, has

historically assessed user fees according

to standardized schedules codified in

the Code of Federal Regulations and has

avoided as impracticable the levying of

fees based solely upon the value of

wildlife shipped.

Since 1988 there have been four

studies of the Service’s import/export

user fee policies: A 1988 report

prepared by the Service, Division of

Finance, of findings and

recommendations on review of Law

Enforcement Management Information

System and Import/Export Fee Billing

and Collection System; a 1988 user

charges and collection report by the

Department of Interior, Office of the

Inspector General; a 1991 Law

Enforcement Functional Analysis

Review prepared by a fish and Wildlife

Service Functional Analysis Review

Team; and a 1992 draft of the CITES

Implementation Study, prepared by

Traffic, U.S.A., a wildlife trade

monitoring group associated with the

World Wildlife Fund. One

recommendation consistently made in

these studies is that the Service should

change its user fee policies and rates to

recover the full cost of services provided

to individuals and businesses. The

recommendation was also made that the

Service license and charge user fees to

all commercial importers and exporters

of wildlife and wildlife products. The

Service is therefore adjusting its fees for

certain activities in order to recover the

actual costs of the services provided for

all commercial import/export activities.

An analysis of import/export data for

the three most recent years for which

complete data is available from the Law

Enforcement Management Information

System database shows that the Service

is only recouping about $2 million

annually of the total wildlife inspection

budget of $4.35 million. Thus,

approximately 45 percent of the total

cost of the Service’s wildlife inspection

program is recovered through the

current user fees rates.

Consequently, the Service is adjusting

its fee schedules in order to recoup the

full cost of the import/export inspection

program. The new fee schedules are

being moved to a new section, § 14.94,

entitled ‘‘Fees.’’ First, the Service is

requiring all commercial importers and

exporters of wildlife and wildlife

products to obtain an import/export

license without regard to the total value

of wildlife or wildlife products

imported or exported each year. Thus,

the Service is eliminating the yearly

value exception in § 14.92(b)(6). This is

a change from the current system in

which only commercial importers/

exporters who import or export more

than $25,000 in wildlife products

annually have been required to obtain a

license. Second, the Service is reducing

the cost of an import/export license

from the present rate of $125 per year

to $50 per year. Third, the Service is

increasing the fees charged at

designated ports in order to cover the

full cost of the inspection services

provided. The present inspection fee

has been $25 since 1986. The Service’s

analysis indicates that the average cost
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31853

to the Service to process a shipment is

approximately $55 per shipment.

Therefore, the Service is increasing the

cost of this fee to $55 per shipment to

more realistically recover costs. Fourth,

the Service is increasing the

administrative fee changed at nondesignated ports from $25 to $55, in

addition to an hourly minimum fee, to

recover its actual costs and to make this

fee consistent with the increase in the

designated port inspection fee. The

Service believes these adjustments in

the fee rates and applications are

reasonable and fair in light of the actual

demands upon limited Service

resources.

The Service will make substantive

changes to Title 50 CFR part 13 at a later

time. The Service has changed the nonstandard fee schedule in § 13.11(d)(4) to

be consistent with the changes made to

part 14.

Summary of Comments and

Information Received

On Wednesday, September 14, 1994,

the Service published, in the Federal

Register (59 FR 47212) a proposed rule

revising Title 50 CFR parts 13 and 14.

In response to this notice, the Service

received a total of 568 comments from

the public. These included: 14 from

academies, 13 from associations, 30

from companies, 11 from congressmen,

106 from museums, 28 from societies,

17 from states, 107 from citizens, 163

from universities, and 70 from

miscellaneous other groups. Several of

the comments received by the Service in

response to the proposed rule were

either unrelated to the proposed

changes or resulted from lack of

understanding of the current regulation,

and are not discussed below.

During the comment period, the

Service received numerous inquiries

and comments from members of the

scientific community. Members of the

scientific community were extremely

concerned about the effects of the

Service’s regulations upon the ordinary

scientific exchange of scientific

specimens being shipped

internationally through the mail or by

way of ports other than officially

designated Service ports of entry. Many

expressed the concern that the Service’s

proposed regulations would seriously

discourage much needed scientific

research by adding significantly to its

cost in dollars, hours worked, and

paperwork. The Service, in publishing

its proposed rule of September 14, 1994,

did not intend to make any substantive

changes to the existing requirements

related to scientific specimens. The

existing requirements relating to the

importation and exportation of wildlife

at Service Designated Ports, and the

inclusion of invertebrates within the

definition of wildlife, remained

unchanged.

The Service, however, has benefited

from the many comments received and

is making additional changes to Part 14

to address the concerns of the

respondents. The numerous comments

and inquiries received by the Service

have helped the Service identify the

technical and procedural problems

associated with the present

requirements in part 14, and those

problems contained in the proposed

rule. The Service has already

acknowledged the need for some

substantive changes and published in

the Federal Register (60 FR 15277) a

supplementary proposed rule on

Thursday, March 23, 1995, allowing for

scientific exchange. The significant

change is the addition of a new section

at § 14.24, entitled ‘‘Scientific

Specimens’’ that allows accredited

scientists or accredited scientific

institutions to import or export, at any

Customs port or through the

international mail system, dead,

preserved, dried, or embedded

taxonomic or systematic collection

specimens. This exception would not

apply to wildlife being imported or

exported that would require a permit

under any of the Service regulations

established in Title 50, Code of Federal

Regulations, parts 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, and

23.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.4:

Definitions

Comments

The Service received numerous

comments on the definitions proposed

for inclusion within § 14.4. Comments

were received from a great variety of

interested persons on this section,

including, numerous scientists involved

in importing or exporting scientific

specimens for taxonomic or biological

control purposes, individual sportsmen

and sportsmen’s organizations

concerned with the importation or

exportation of sport-hunted trophies,

commercial import/export businesses,

and ‘‘for-profit’’ amusement parks

importing or exporting live wildlife for

display purposes.

A significant portion of the comments

pertaining to § 14.4 concerned the

Service’s definition of ‘‘commercial.’’

This term is used to clarify when a

wildlife shipper is required to obtain an

import/export license, and when the

personal baggage exception does not

apply. The proposed rule defines

commercial to mean related to the

offering for sale or resale, purchase,

trade, barter, or the actual or intended

transfer in the pursuit of gain or profit,

of any item of wildlife and includes the

use of any wildlife article as an exhibit

for the purpose of soliciting sales,

without regard to quantity or weight. A

presumption is also established within

this definition to provide that eight or

more similar unused items will be

considered by the Service to be

commercial use. This presumption

specifically excludes such items as

antiques, collectibles, or curios. The

effect of this presumption, however,

may be rebutted by the importer,

exporter, or owner, or by the Service.

Many scientists were of the opinion

that the definition of ‘‘commercial’’ as

written would have an adverse effect

upon scientific study by restricting the

free exchange of scientific specimens

among researchers and systematic

biologists. Another scientist noted that

systematic biology is a shared endeavor,

that has as its basic scientific data the

natural history specimens that are

maintained in museums or similar

institutions that are shared

internationally by way of scientific

exchange.

Many respondents considered the

presumption effect of this definition to

be inappropriate when applied to

shipments of scientific shipments such

as insects. Some scientists characterized

the definition as a ‘‘subjective

determination’’ that lacked all merit as

applied to invertebrates. Others saw the

definition as having a ‘‘vertebrate’’ bias

and thought that the regulations seem to

be targeted to vertebrate species and not

invertebrates. The laws governing the

traffic, loan, and exchange of

invertebrate scientific specimens, as one

respondent noted, should not be

confused with commercial uses of

wildlife. Comments included the

assertion that scientific specimens are

not generally imported or exported for

profit or commercial gain, have no

commercial value or commercial use,

and will often contain more than eight

similar items or scientific specimens

within a shipment. Many comments

explained that an exchange of scientific

specimens of insects may contain many

hundreds of specimens. Several other

common themes ran through many of

the comments.

Service Response

The Service’s definition of

commercial has been misinterpreted to

apply to scientific exchange specimens.

The Service acknowledges the concerns

of the many respondent scientists and

has made changes to accommodate

scientific exchange in its final

regulations by adding a new section at
31854 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 14.24 allowing for certain exceptions

to the designated port and declaration

filing requirements by accredited

scientists and scientific institutions. A

definition of commercial is important to

clearly differentiate when a particular

import or export is being done for a

commercial purpose, due to the obvious

detrimental impact commercial activity

can have on wildlife populations. In

many instances, items intended for

commercial sale or to solicit sales are

declared as personal effects. The effect

of the presumption is merely to inform

the public that unless a person can

prove otherwise, eight or more unused

items will automatically be considered

a commercial shipment. Other amounts

can be considered commercial

depending on the facts and

circumstances of each case. This

definition was never intended to reach

taxonomic specimens since it was

intended only to apply to wildlife

products and not scientific specimens.

Comments

One commercial exhibitor requested

that the Service amend the definition of

commercial to include what the

respondent termed ‘‘the use of any

wildlife article as an exhibit for the

purpose of soliciting sales thereof.’’

Another respondent from the business

community suggested the ‘‘presumed

commercial’’ number be reduced from 8

to 3, and further suggested that the

Service include a value limit of

$5,000.00 for any individual wildlife

item being imported or exported.

Another commenter from the wildlife

import/export industry, questioned

whether wildlife items, imported for

display at trade shows or as a sample,

would necessarily be considered a

commercial importation under what the

respondent termed the ‘‘eight or more’’

commercial presumption, if the item(s)

themselves were not intended for sale.

One respondent requested that the

definition of commercial be revised to

include a presumption that cataloged

specimens, transported from one

research institution to another, are not

commercial. Several respondents

suggested that such scientific

collections be considered ‘‘collectibles’’

and therefore exempt from what was

characterized as the ‘‘rule of eight’’

commercial shipment presumption

standard.

Service Response

The Service’s intent was to clearly

include samples used to solicit sales

within the definition of commercial,

because of the obvious commercial

intent. Items used as exhibits in order to

solicit sales are clearly being transferred

for a commercial purpose, although the

individual items may not actually be

sold, they are being imported or

exported for a commercial purpose. The

Service will keep the commercial

presumption at eight. This presumption

number merely serves as a threshold

point and gives the public some notice

of when the Service will view their

imports or exports as presumptively

commercial. Again, other lesser

amounts can be determined to be

commercial based upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. The Service

will evaluate such indicators of

commercial intent such as the value,

condition, the purpose of the import

etc., in making its determination.

Comments

Several comments were received from

wildlife professionals commenting in an

unofficial capacity, regarding the

exception provided for antiques,

collectibles and curios, within the

proposed definition of commercial. One

individual noted that there has been an

increase in the commercial trade of such

wildlife items, which in the

commenter’s opinion, may encourage

certain individuals to attempt to

circumvent the applicable declaration

requirements and inspection fee by

falsely claiming this exception. The

Service, however, also received

extensive comments from

representatives of wildlife user groups

suggesting that additional exceptions be

added within the definition of

commercial for such articles as antiques,

collectibles, and curios that are

presently not included.

Service Response

The Service has considered the above

comments carefully and agrees with the

commenters suggestion to eliminate the

exception in the definition of

commercial for antiques, collectibles

and curios, for the following reasons.

The Service believes that the commenter

is correct in stating that the trade in

antiques, collectibles and curios

containing wildlife products is on the

increase. Importers of antiques,

collectibles or curios containing wildlife

which are subject to the provisions of

this part should be required to rebut the

same commercial presumption, for

quantities of 8 or more, as importers of

wildlife products not considered to be

antiques, collectibles or curios. the

intent of the commercial definition is to

advise the public that the Service will

consider an importer to have

commercial intent when importing eight

or more similar unused items containing

wildlife, in order to discourage

commercial dealers from using the

personal effects exemption contained at

§ 14.15 to circumvent declaration and

license requirements. This definition

was proposed by the Service to address

the enforcement problem of wildlife

dealers, including dealers in antiques,

curios and collectibles, using the

personal effects exemption improperly.

The Service finds serious inequity in

allowing dealers in these items an

exception in the definition of

commercial while not allowing

exceptions for other commercial dealers.

The Service has removed this exception

from the definition of commercial.

Importers of eight or more similar

unused wildlife products will be

considered uniformly by the Service

and will be required to rebut the same

presumption regardless of the wildlife

being imported being classified as an

antique, curio or collectible. The Service

has considered the fact that removing

this exception from the definition of

commercial will increase the volume of

wildlife products being viewed as

having potential commercial intent and

requiring additional attention by Service

personnel. This manpower

consideration is, in part, what prompted

the inclusion of an exception in the

definition of commercial in the

proposed rule initially. However, upon

further review, the Service believes that

having a threshold number of eight

before the commercial presumption is

triggered will eliminate many shipments

from requiring more detailed inquiry

from Service personnel. This change to

the definition of commercial will relieve

Customs and Service personnel from

defining ‘‘antique, curio or collectibile’’

(for purposes of the commercial

definition), will not change the ability of

noncommercial importers to rebut the

commercial presumption if they are

importing eight or more similar items,

and will make the Service’s intent, of

requiring all commercial dealers to

obtain import/export licenses and

declare their shipments, less ambiguous.

The commenters suggestion of not

excepting antiques from the definition

of commercial has also been considered

by the Service. The Service believes that

§ 14.22, Certain antique articles,

adequately addresses the importation of

bona fide antiques containing

endangered or threatened species. The

Service believes that to include an

additional exception in the definition of

commercial for antiques is unnecessary.

Those antiques not containing

endangered or threatened species will

be presumed commercial if eight or

more similar items are imported,

requiring the importer to rebut the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31855

commerical presumption, similar to

importers of collectibles and curios.

Comments

Several commenters expressed

concern that their particular activity

involving the import and export of

wildlife would be considered

‘‘commercial’’ using the Service’s

definition of commercial in the

proposed rule.

Service Response

Without exception, the Service

intends that any activity meeting the

definition of commercial contained in

§ 14.4 will be considered as such and

will require the individual or business

to obtain an Import/Export License.

However, the use of the new definition

of commercial is not the only criteria

which the Service uses to determine if

an Import/Export License is required.

The current § 14.91(a), which is not

being changed in this rulemaking,

requires anyone ‘‘engaging in business

as an importer or exporter of wildlife’’

to first obtain a valid import/export

license.

Comments

One representative of a hunting/

conservation group expressed the

opinion that within the definition of

commercial there should be an

additional exemption for ‘‘personal use

sport hunted trophies.’’ Sport hunted

trophies as the respondent explained

will often number more than eight items

and should be entitled to a presumption

of being a noncommercial import or

export.

Service Response

The Service recognizes that the

importation of most sport hunted

trophies are for personal use. However

due to the fact that some sport hunted

trophies are of a commercial nature, the

Service feels that a categorical

exemption is not warranted.

Comments

Many respondents proposed specific

changes or additions to the definitions

provided to address their particular

activity. One respondent suggested that

the Service define the terms ‘‘item of

wildlife’’ and ‘‘similar unused items’’ to

exclude scientific collection of

invertebrates. Other respondents

questioned whether the word ‘‘similar’’

was to be defined by either Class,

Family, Species, Subspecies or some

other classifying factors. Another

respondent representing a large animal

advocacy group suggested that ‘‘items of

wildlife’’ and ‘‘similar items’’ do not

adequately address shipments of live

animals and should be amended to read

‘‘shipment of eight or more similar

items or live wild animals.’’

Service Response

The Service believes that the terms to

be used in the Definitions section

should be interpreted in the broadest

sense and assigned their common

ordinary meaning. The Service does not

see any merit in attempting to define

terms so narrowly as to apply only to

one specific activity or circumstance.

Comments

Although most respondents opposed

the adoption of the commercial

presumption as written and its

application to all wildlife being

imported or exported for scientific

purpose, some respondents supported

the proposal. Most notably, one

respondent expressed the opinion that

all such shipments should be uniformly

considered commercial with the burden

of proof being placed upon the importer,

exporter or owner to clearly

demonstrate otherwise.

As the respondent further elaborated,

this is especially applicable to situations

where commercially traded highly

priced wildlife and wildlife products

are imported or exported in small

quantities.

Service Response

The Service continues to believe that

there is a strong rationale and basis for

the application of the presumption

provided in the definition of

commercial.

Comments

The Service received a few comments

on the definition of export. One broker,

concerned about the definition of export

in § 14.4, noted that the single act of

presenting a shipment by a broker or

exporter to a Service Wildlife Inspector

for export should not automatically

constitute an export or attempt to export

as proposed by the Service. The

respondent further emphasized that

there are occasions when the required

documentation or tags for the export of

wildlife is only discovered to be missing

after the wildlife has been presented for

export clearance. This, the respondent

maintained, has subjected exporters to

civil and or criminal penalties, even

where such omissions are due to

innocent behavior and no illegal act was

attempted. The respondent suggested

that the exporter and the Service should

be given an opportunity to mutually

determine whether a particular

shipment has met all the legal

requirements.

Service Response

The burden of presenting the proper

documentation is clearly upon the

importer or exporter of record. The

effect of the Service regulations is

merely to establish when an item is an

export or import. In the case of imports

the Service will only have access to

items when those items have been

imported. The Service is also required

to inspect shipments of wildlife being

exported. In such situations the status of

the item needs to be clearly understood

for declaration filing and for validation

of CITES permits. The Service’s intent

was to clearly define when an item has

become an export, all allow the public

to ascertain at what point in the

shipping process the Service considers

a wildlife item to be exported. For

example, the Service would consider

the consignment of goods to a common

carrier destined for a point outside the

United States as an attempt to export.

Comments

Responses were received concerning

the definition proposed in § 14.4 for

Domesticated animals. Several

respondents requested the inclusion of

particular species within the list

provided of recognized ‘‘domesticated

animals.’’ One respondent suggested the

inclusion of such vertebrates as the corn

snake, rat snake, king snake, milk snake,

bearded dragon, leopard gecko, garter

snake, and others. Another importer

suggested the Service include within its

list several additional species of reptiles

and amphibians such as the prairie king

snake, clawed frog, alligator, red-eared

slider, bullfrog, and leopard frog. One

respondent requested that the Asian

water buffalo and the bactrian camel

also be included.

Service Response

The list of domesticated animals

incorporates Service policy which was

developed over a substantial period of

time. This list represents many of the

most commonly seen species that have

been domesticated historically. The list

was never intended to be all inclusive

and many additional species could be

added. The Service will reevaluate the

list on a periodic basis. The Service has

reviewed the suggestions made and has

determined that the domesticated

animals definition will remain as

proposed, with the exception of the

addition of honeybees.

Comments

A few comments were received that

concerned the list of domesticated birds

contained within the definition of

domesticated animals in § 14.4. One

respondent suggested the Service
31856 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

further explain what was meant by the

descriptive words ‘‘Ducks and geese—

domesticated varieties.’’ Another

respondent requested that the Service

delete from the list of domesticated

birds the word domestica from the

scientific name Columba livia

domestica.

Service Response

The terms, ducks and geese—

domesticated varieties, means common

varieties of ducks and geese that are

raised in animal husbandry and are not

commonly found in the wild. The

scientific name ‘‘domestica’’ is intended

to indicate that the Service considers

only domesticated varieties of this

species to be domesticated animals.

Comments

One respondent was concerned with

the Service list of domesticated fish

categorized as domestic for export

purposes only. This list, as the

respondent noted, includes

domesticated carp and goldfish. The

respondent was concerned about the

effects of such classification for there

has been an increased number of

smuggling cases of fish that are falsely

marked as goldfish. The respondent

suggested that a wildlife declaration

form, 3–177, should be a minimum

requirement for the import or export of

such items. A few respondents were

concerned with insects listed as

domesticated. One respondent

suggested adding honeybees, with the

exclusion of the Africanized honeybees,

to the list of domesticated insects.

Service Response

The Service is cognizant that any

exemption to its inspection and

clearance requirements may be

perceived as an opportunity for persons

to smuggle. The Service, however, is

prepared for such eventualities and will

periodically spot check the trade in

such items to ascertain the degree of

compliance. The Service does not

believe that the regulation of such

exempt items is warranted at this time.

The Service does, however, see merit in

the suggestion of adding honeybees, not

to include africanized honeybees, to the

list of insects exempted from inspection

and clearance. Honeybees do not

represent an enforcement concern for

the Service, are considered to be

ecologically beneficial insects that are

not endangered or threatened or

proposed for such listing under the

Endangered Species Act, and have

historically been domesticated. In

response to the comments received,

honeybees have been added to the list

of domesticated insects at § 14.4.

Comments

A significant number of comments

were received from the scientific

community regarding the shipment of

scientific specimens in the form of

taxonomic or systematic collections via

the U.S. and international mail systems.

Most respondents expressed great

concern that without this method of

shipment the U.S. scientific community

would become isolated from foreign

institutions. This would result,

according to the respondent, in the

scientific community becoming

unwilling and economically unable to

ship scientific materials to the United

States for research purposes. Most

respondents felt that an exemption

should be included within the

definition of commercial in § 14.4 or at

§ 14.55 for bona fide research

specimens.

Many respondents were troubled by

the Service’s failure to define the terms

‘‘bona fide research institution’’ and

‘‘scientist.’’ Many respondents

specifically requested that the Service

define the terms ‘‘scientific institution’’

and ‘‘scientific collection’’ by regulation

and provide such entities an exception

to the marking and clearance

requirement of part 14. One respondent

suggested that the term ‘‘Research

Institution’’ should be defined to

include any institution, organization, or

agency established for the purpose of

conducting scientific biological research

and educational activities, that is

eligible for registration as a scientific

institution by the Management

Authority of the CITES Conference 2.14

standards for registration of scientific

institutions.

Service Response

The Service, as mentioned earlier in

the discussion, has taken steps to clarify

its requirements as they pertain to

scientific specimens. The Service does

not use the term ‘‘bona fide research

institution’’ and has defined the terms

accredited scientific institution and

accredited scientist. The Service has

made several changes in its regulations

to provide an exception for dead,

preserved, dried, or embedded scientific

specimens in § 14.24. The Service is

also providing an exception to its

clearance requirements in § 14.55, an

exception to import declaration

requirements in § 14.62, and an

exception in its export declaration

requirements in § 14.64 for such

specimens in response to commenters

concerns.

Comments

Several respondents were opposed to

the Service providing any special status

to bona fide scientists or scientific

institutions. One respondent noted that

much valuable research has been done

by ‘‘amateurs’’ such as Charles Darwin

and James Audubon and that the ability

of such persons to continue their

valuable work should not be hindered

and that they too should be included

within the definition of ‘‘scientist.’’

Service Response

The Service provided for this

exemption because it did not intend to

interfere with the work of accredited

scientists engaged in scientific pursuits.

The Service was faced with the

problem, however, of how it could

provide for scientific exchange yet

maintain oversight and differentiate

such exchange from commercial

shipments. The Service acknowledges

that much important work in the natural

sciences has and continues to be done

by independent collectors and

researchers, many of which lack formal

degrees in science. Amateur scientists,

however, can seek and obtain

accreditation for their work from such

institutions as defined, or can simply

comply with the requirements of this

part. The Service believes this to be a

proper and reasonable alternative in

view of the recent trend of commercial

sale of insects, particularly, species of

butterflies and beetles. The Service

arrived at what it believed was a fair

standard in providing for such exchange

by accredited scientists working with

accredited institutions.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.12

Designated Ports

Many comments were received

concerning the use of designated ports

for the import or export of wildlife and

the shipment of wildlife items through

the U.S. mail. Many respondents

requested that the shipment of scientific

specimens through the mail be made

exempt from the designated port and

border port requirements for wildlife.

Many respondents were concerned

about the anticipated economic

hardship if the shipment of scientific

specimens were limited to Service

designated ports for clearance and the

ordinary use of the mail was restricted.

One respondent suggested that the

scientific specimens should be included

within the revised § 14.15, or that

§ 14.31(b)(4) be rephrased to read: ‘‘The

port(s) of entry, including all ports of

entry for international mail, where

importation or exportation is requested

* * *.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31857

Service Response

The Service acknowledges the

concerns scientists have about the use of

the mail and has provided a limited

exemption explicitly at § 14.24.

Comments Pertaining to § 14.15:

Personal Baggage and Household

Effects

One respondent requested that the

Service define the terms ‘‘household

effects’’ and ‘‘residence.’’ One

representative of a scientific institution

requested that the Service include

scientific specimens within the existing

provisions of § 14.15 that provide for

personal baggage and household effects.

This, as noted by the respondent, would

allow scientific specimens contained in

a person’s personal baggage or

household effects to be imported or

exported at any Customs port of entry

and would help to avoid any confusion

regarding certain scientific specimens,

particularly bird and mammal skins,

being considered ‘‘raw or dressed fur,

raw, salted, or crusted hide or skin.’’

These, as the respondent noted, are

specifically excluded at § 14.15(b) from

this exception to the designated port

requirement for imported or exported

wildlife.

One respondent representing a

falconry association requested that

falconry birds, lawfully held pursuant to

a permit under 50 CFR 21.28 and 21.29

be included in the ‘‘personal baggage

exemption’’ for temporary imports and

exports when such imports and exports

are to Mexico or Canada for recreational

sport hunting purposes.

Service Response

The Service finds no merit in the

above suggestions. The provisions of

§ 14.15 were intended to cover only

certain kinds of wildlife products and

manufactured articles not intended for

sale and used as clothing or contained

in personal baggage, or such products

and articles as mounted game trophies

or tanned hides which are a common

part of a shipment of household effects.

These exceptions to the designated port

requirements were never intended to

apply to live wildlife, or to wildlife

requiring a permit, even if the intended

use is of a scientific nature. Live

wildlife, and wildlife covered under the

provisions of 50 CFR parts 16, 17, 18,

21 or 23, require a higher level of

oversight by the Service.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.21

Shellfish and Fishery Products

One respondent expressed some

concern about the harvest and export of

freshwater mussel shells within the

Class Pelecypoda. Although the

amendment as proposed in § 14.21(a)(2)

specifically states ‘‘aquatic invertebrates

of the Class Pelecypoda,’’ the

respondent felt that there would be

some confusion by the public and the

courts. The respondent suggested that

the Service identify what freshwater

species of aquatic invertebrates are not

exempt.

Service Response

The Service finds no merit in the

above suggestion in view of the burden

of codifying thousands of species of

aquatic invertebrates when

comparatively few species are being

exempted.

Comments

Another respondent recommended

changes to § 14.21(b) Pearls, suggesting

that this part should be expanded to

include both import and export by

including ‘‘pearls imported or exported

for commercial purposes may enter or

leave.’’

Service Response

The Service finds merit in this

suggestion in that it points out a

deficiency in the proposed language of

the exception. The Service’s intent in

referencing Pearls under the shellfish

and fishery products exemption at

§ 14.21 is to grant the same exemption

to pearls as is currently given fishery

products for human consumption,

which includes exemption from the

designated port requirement and

declaration requirement for exports. The

addition of § 14.21(b) is intended to

codify Service policy on pearls issued in

March 1985, in which pearls would be

considered shellfish and fishery

products. The language at § 14.21(b) will

be changed in this final rule to reflect

the intent of the Service to exempt

pearls exported for commercial

purposes. Section 14.21(b) will be

modified to read ‘‘pearls imported or

exported for commercial purposes may

enter or exit the United States at any

Customs port of entry.’’

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.22

Certain Antique Articles

Under the provisions of § 14.22 as

revised, any person may import any

article, other than scrimshaw, that is at

least 100 years old, and is composed in

whole or in part of an endangered or

threatened species listed under 50 CFR

17.11 or 17.12, and has not been

repaired or modified with any part of

any endangered or threatened species.

Under this section, such importations

are authorized to occur at any port

designated by Customs for the

importation of such antique articles.

Several comments were received in

regards to this section. One respondent

recommended that this section be

amended to include both importations

and exportations. The respondent

suggesting addition of text to the section

to provide that ‘‘Except for antique

items requiring a permit pursuant to

part 23, any person may import or

export at any port * * *.’’ One

respondent recommended that the

exemptions for certain antiques in

§ 14.22 be completely eliminated and

noted as a basis for making this

recommendation the apparent increased

commercial trade in such items. A

concern expressed by one respondent

was that certain dealers would attempt

to circumvent the declaration

requirement and inspection fee by

falsely claiming the exemption. Another

respondent who was similarly

concerned noted that as proposed this

section would allow the importation of

antique elephant ivory.

Service Response

The Service has carefully considered

these comments and responds by noting

that the exemption at § 14.22 is

intended to only apply to the import of

certain antique articles. The statutory

exemption contained at 16 U.S.C.

1539(h) is specific in granting the

exemption only to imports. To authorize

export of certain antiques under this

Section would clearly be beyond the

Service’s statutory authority. This

section, however, does not prohibit

persons from applying for a permit to

export certain antique articles

containing endangered species from the

United States under the provisions of 16

U.S.C. 1539(f). It is clearly the intent of

the Service that antique articles

containing parts of species now listed as

endangered or threatened and meeting

certain standards be exempt from the

designated port requirement. With

respect to the commenter’s suggestion of

eliminating the exemption in this part

for certain antiques, collectibles and

curios, the Service believes it has

addressed the issue that many of these

items are destined for commercial

markets by removing the exemption for

antiques, collectibles and curios from

the definition of commercial. The

Service believes that it has adequately

and reasonably addressed this issue.

With respect to the commenter’s

suggestion that the revision to § 14.22

will allow the importation of antique

elephant ivory, antique ivory is already

allowed to be imported under

provisions of the African Elephant

Conservation Act.
31858 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.52

Clearance of Wildlife

Many respondents expressed some

concern about the effects of physical

inspection on fragile scientific

specimens by Service Wildlife

Inspectors. Many of these respondents

strongly recommended that the transfer

of scientific collections between

‘‘accredited scientific institutions’’ be

made exempt from the inspection and

clearance requirements. One scientist

suggested that if documents are

provided for non-protected species then

actual physical inspection of such

specimens should not be required.

Several environmental education and

animal advocacy groups expressed

contrary views and were insistent that

all shipments of wildlife be physically

inspecte4d prior to clearance. On a

related issue, many representatives of

animal welfare organizations were

concerned with the adequacy of the

Service’s inspection program and

expressed the view that all shipments,

particularly importations and

exportations of live wildlife, should be

physically inspected.

One representative of an

entomological society was concerned

with what the respondent perceived as

the Service’s increased, burdensome

regulations upon entomologists. The

respondent further noted that the

Service’s regulations as proposed would

require the hiring of brokers and agents

to facilitate the shipment of scientific

specimens through Service designated

ports. The respondent also noted that

such requirements will significantly

increase the costs of scientific exchange.

Service Response

The Service has responded to these

concerns raised by the scientific

community in the provisions added at

§ 14.24. This section provides for an

exception to the designated port

requirement and extends the declaration

filing requirements of dead, preserved,

dried, or embedded scientific

specimens, not requiring a permit, that

are imported or exported by accredited

scientists or accredited scientific

institutions.

Comments

Other respondents were concerned

with § 14.52(c)(3), which requires the

importer to make available to the

Service all permits and documents

required by the laws or regulations of

any foreign country prior to obtaining

clearance by the Service. Many

respondents were concerned about the

detainment and possible seizure of

cargo while the Service determines the

permits and documentation required by

a foreign country.

The Service proposed to add a

paragraph at § 13.52(c)(5) to provide that

the Service will require ‘‘any documents

and permits required by the country of

natal origin of the wildlife’’ to be

provided upon importation or

exportation. Many respondents were

concerned with problems in

establishing the ‘‘country of natal

origin’’ of wildlife. Several respondents

were concerned with the scope of this

additional documentation requirement.

The respondents noted, that importers

and exporters would be required to

obtain export licenses, captive-breeding

certificates, or breeding licenses from

the ‘‘country of natal origin.’’ Some

respondents were concerned about

potential challenges to foreign permits

and the procedures that would become

necessary to establish the validity of

such permits and other documentation.

Many importers expressed concern with

‘‘country of natal origin’’ requirements

and believed that it would often be

impossible to determine what

documentation was required. Several

respondents anticipated problems in

obtaining the required documentation

and were concerned that shipments may

be detained and seized under the

procedures specified in § 14.53(a). One

respondent was concerned about having

to obtain documents and permits from

foreign governments within the

proposed time period. The respondent

recommended that a mechanism be

provided for the granting of extensions.

Several respondents asked: if wildlife is

currently to be exported legally, why

should additional documentation be

required? It would be difficult, noted

one respondent, to obtain documents

and permits from the country of natal

origin for ‘‘thousands of specimens.’’

Another respondent suggested that this

requirement should be maintained for

endangered invertebrate wildlife but

believed such a requirement to be

unworkable when applied to nonprotected species.

Service Response

The Service has historically required,

and will continue to require, the

importer of record to satisfy the

provisions of § 14.52 by supplying those

items listed under paragraph (c), in

order for the Service to make a

determination as to the legality of the

wildlife or wildlife products being

imported. It is clearly the position of the

Service that those individuals engaged

in importing wildlife or wildlife

products into the United States make

reasonable efforts to determine lawful

origin of the wildlife or wildlife

products and to ensure compliance with

applicable foreign law. It is also the

intent of the Service to detain shipments

containing wildlife or wildlife products

when compliance with foreign law is in

question. Questions will arise as to the

status of a shipment under foreign law

or CITES when the importer of record

fails to supply the Service with permits

or other documentation which are

known or suspected by the Service to be

required by a foreign country. In some

instances it may require an additional

amount of time (in excess of 30 days) for

the Service to verify the requirements of

a foreign country when a shipment is

questioned, in which case the revision

to § 14.53(a) allows, for the extension of

the 30 day provision to ‘‘a longer period

if specifically stated.’’

The Service’s intent in modifying

§ 14.52 is to clarify for the public what

documentation the importer of record is

required to supply upon requesting

clearance for imported wildlife and

wildlife products. In proposing to

require documentation from the

‘‘country of natal origin’’ the Service

was attempting to address the

enforcement concern of wildlife being

unlawfully exported from an originating

country in violation of an existing ban

on exports, or in violation of a foreign

law designed to regulate the export of

such wildlife, and its subsequent reexportation from a secondary country to

the United States. The Service is bound

by domestic law and international treaty

to ensure compliance with foreign law.

The Service finds merit, however, in the

comments submitted. The Service

recognizes that determining the natal

origin and requiring documentation for

each successive importation and reexportation of wildlife may impose an

unreasonable burden on importers and

Service personnel. In response to these

concerns the Service will revise

§ 14.52(c)(5) to read: ‘‘Any documents

and permits required by the country of

export or re-export of the wildlife.’’ This

revision will allow the public to more

easily determine when they have met

the requirements imposed by CITES or

of foreign law. However, this revision

will not completely relieve the importer

of the burden of providing proof of

lawful export in circumstances where

wildlife is coming from a country

known to the Service to have a ban on

the export of such wildlife, even if

coming through a re-exporting country.

In those circumstances the importer

may be required to show proof of lawful

export from the ‘‘country of natal

origin’’ to the country of re-export or to

the United States. In response to the

comments received, the Service has
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31859

determined that it would be

unreasonable to require country of natal

origin documentation with every

importation, especially in the absence of

reasonable suspicion of unlawful export

from the country of natal origin. This

Section has been appropriately revised

in this final rule.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.53

Detention and Refusal of Clearance

The Service has proposed several

amendments to the Refusal of Clearance

section in § 14.53. Many respondents

were concerned about the new

detention and refusal of clearance

requirements in § 14.53(a) and the

process by which a detention becomes

a formal seizure. In general, this new

section provides that any Service officer

may detain imported wildlife in

accordance with established procedures.

The Service, however, will provide

notice of the detention containing a

description of the wildlife involved, and

the basis for the detention, and describe

the general nature of the tests or

inquiries to be conducted during the

detention. This section also provides

that if the legality of the wildlife has not

been determined within 30 days after

the date of notice, or other period as

stated, that the wildlife shall be deemed

to be seized and no further notification

of seizure will be issued. This

requirement is intended to establish a

limit to the duration of any detention by

the Service of wildlife items being

imported or exported and to specify

when such detention may be given the

status of having been seized for the

purposes of filing an appeal. The effect

of this change is to clearly distinguish

at what point an ordinary detention of

wildlife for purpose of inspection,

clearance, or identification can be

regarded as having been seized.

One representative of the pet industry

thought the proposed conversion, from

a detention to a ‘‘formal’’ seizure would

violate Constitutional Due Process

requirements. Another respondent was

concerned that the 30-day seizure rule

could be manipulated in the Service’s

favor by dragging its feet. This

respondent was also concerned that

detained property, that later became a

seizure, would be disposed of without

further notice to the importer. Another

wildlife exhibitor expressed concern

regarding the detention of large animals

without providing the shipper the

opportunity to respond ‘‘within a

reasonable period of time’’ after being

notified.

Service Response

The Service does not intend for any

of the changes in § 14.53 to discourage

dialog between an importer and the

Service during a period of detention.

The importer of wildlife being detained

would be free to offer, in good faith, any

information documentary or otherwise,

to assist the Service in its inquiry of the

legality, identity, or origin of wildlife or

wildlife products being imported.

Comments

Another respondent requested that

formal detention criteria be established

similar to the criteria outlined for

refusal of clearance in § 14.53(b). The

respondent noted that without such

guidelines there would be significant

inconsistencies in the application of

detention and the potential for abuse.

One representative of the wildlife

import/export industry remarked that

although there are guidelines provided

for the Service’s ‘‘refusal of clearance’’

of wildlife shipments, there are no such

guidelines for the ‘‘detention’’ of

wildlife.

Service Response

Guidelines are offered in this section

for refusal of clearance due to a refusal

being of a direct nature which could

lead to the immediate seizure and

initiation of forfeiture action or other

appropriate action by the Service.

Detention of wildlife or wildlife

products being imported is merely a

formal inquiry period whereby the

Service establishes the status of a given

shipment. The Service believes that

providing for a formal detention period

giving the importer or exporter time in

which to comply with Service

requirements is reasonable, given the

alternative of refusing clearance on the

shipment, and possibly seizing it and

seeking forfeiture. The myriad

circumstances which would give rise to

some reasonable suspicion and would

then dictate formal detention are so

numerous and variable that the Service

needs some flexibility in its application

of detention. In general, goods will be

detained either to identify the wildlife

being imported, or to verify foreign

permits presented for clearance. The

Service would note that specific

guidelines for seizure and forfeiture of

imported wildlife and wildlife products

are contained at 50 CFR part 12.

Comments

One respondent suggested that the

Service amend the proposed changes to

§ 14.53(a) by adding safeguards found in

Customs law found at 19 U.S.C. 1499.

Specifically, the respondent requested

that the Service add two phrases: ‘‘the

anticipated length of the detention’’;

and ‘‘what information should be

furnished by the importer or consignee

that may accelerate the disposition of

the detention.’’

Service Response

This section will require the Service

to inform the importer or consignee of

the maximum period of detention, after

which the wildlife, if not released, will

be considered seized. As stated, the

Service is willing to accept any

information, offered in good faith, that

the importer or consignee can provide to

assist in determining the status of

imported wildlife. However, the Service

does not want to require information to

be submitted by the importer in each

detention circumstance, since detention

frequently involves communication

between the Service and foreign

governments in document verification,

which is beyond the control of the

importer or does not require input from

the importer.

Comments

Several respondents suggested that

the text of § 14.53(a) be amended to

provide for the detention for both

imported and exported wildlife.

Another respondent suggested adding

APHIS inspectors to those officers

vested with the authority to detain

wildlife shipments. The respondent

noted that APHIS has the authority to

regulate CITES plant material under part

24 and on those occasion when Customs

or Service Inspectors are not available,

APHIS Inspectors are available to detect

shipments which need Service

attention. Many respondents were

concerned about the storage of detained

wildlife. Other respondents were

concerned about who would be

responsible for the storage costs

incurred as a result of the Service

detaining an importation and whether,

in the case of live wildlife shipments,

they would be stored in adequate

facilities.

Service Response

The USDA, in particular APHIS,

unlike the Customs Service has not been

granted authority in this regulation to

detain wildlife shipments for the

Service. Although the USDA provides

valuable assistance to the Service in

detecting shipments containing wildlife,

only the Customs Service is authorized

to act in the absence of Service

personnel.

The Service clearly intends for the

cost of storage or demurrage of

shipments in a formal detention status

to be borne by the importer or owner of

those goods as is customary with other

regulatory agencies such as the Customs

Service.
31860 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Comments

Several respondents were concerned

about § 14.53(b)(2). This paragraph

provides that any Service officer may

refuse clearance of imported or exported

wildlife and any Customs officer acting

under § 14.54 may refuse clearance of

imported wildlife when there are

reasonable grounds to believe that the

correct identity and country of origin of

the wildlife has not been established.

This paragraph further provides that in

such cases the burden is upon the

owner, importer, exporter, consignor, or

consignee to establish such identity by

scientific names to the species level or,

if any subspecies is protected by the

laws of this country or the country of

origin, to the subspecies level. Several

respondents expressed concern with the

addition at § 14.53(b)(5), which provides

that the Service, or any Customs officer

acting under § 14.54, may refuse

clearance of imported or exported

wildlife when there is reasonable

grounds to believe that any fee or

assessed penalties against the importer

or exporter under part 11 of this chapter

have not been paid. A few respondents

felt that they would be penalized for

exercising their right to contest a civil

or criminal penalty which had

previously been assessed.

Service Response

The Service has carefully considered

these comments and believes that

nothing in the amendment to § 14.53

will actually deny any individual the

right to contest or appeal a civil or

criminal penalty levied against them.

The Service finds merit, however, in the

commenter’s concern that this Section

may appear to be coercive, and would

discourage an importer or exporter from

exercising their right to file an appeal

under part 11. In response to the

commenter’s concerns, and to clarify for

the public when the Service will or will

not exercise its authority under § 14.53,

the Service will further revise this

section to read that the Service will

refuse clearance for non-payment of

assessed penalties, except for those

assessments on appeal. The revised

§ 14.53(b)(5) will read as follows: ‘‘Any

fee or portion of balance due for

inspection fees required by § 14.93,

14.94, or penalties assessed against the

importer or exporter under 50 CFR part

11, has not been paid. This paragraph

shall not apply to penalty assessments

on appeal in accordance with the

provisions of part 11.’’

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.54

Unavailability of Service Officers

Many respondents were concerned

with Service proposals to change

§ 14.54(a). Several scientists thought the

requirement to notify the Service 48

hours in advance of importations and

exportations was impractical for such

shipments are often times made on a

continuous basis during the scientific

field work season. One Service

employee responding in a private

capacity noted that the Service in

§ 14.54(a) needs to expand or define the

term ‘‘conditional release’’ as it relates

to shipments released to importers prior

to clearance. Another respondent noted

that the phrase ‘‘within a reasonable

time’’ could be subject to differing

interpretations if it was not better

explained or defined. One respondent

noted the proposed amendments

changed the word ‘‘if’’ to ‘‘where’’ in the

phrase ‘‘where a Service officer is not

available.’’ The respondent further

remarked that at designated ports

Service officers are available. One

wildlife professional commenting in a

private capacity suggested that the 48

hour notification should be required to

be made during normal business hours.

Another respondent suggested that to

cover weekend and holidays the 48 hour

notification should be increased to 72

hours. Importers, as one respondent

explained, often do not receive notice of

importations until 12 hours prior to the

importations. Another respondent

claimed that wildlife importers are often

not notified of the arrival of such

shipments until after they are in route.

One respondent suggested that in such

circumstances a ‘‘special inspection

fee,’’ similar to that assessed for

overtime fees, should be charged to

provide for these unscheduled

inspections.

Service Response

The Service has carefully reviewed

these comments and notes that the

revisions to § 14.54(a) do not apply to

every importation. This section is

intended to apply to circumstances

involving import of live or perishable

wildlife or wildlife products or when

inspection is requested at the time of

arrival. The Service believes that

businesses dealing in perishable

wildlife or wildlife products at least

contemplate the arrival of shipments

within a 48 hour time frame, which

would allow for Service notification.

The Service is attempting to provide an

increased level of service to those

persons dealing in live or perishable

wildlife or to those whose shipments

must be expedited upon arrival. The

Service cannot provide this level of

response, if some form of prior

notification is not given. The Service

will keep the notification requirement at

48 hours for affected imports.

Comments

Many other comments were received

concerning the proposed provision to

require that the Service be notified and

the shipment be made available for

inspection 48 hours prior to exportation.

Several respondents from the Alaskan

fur trade anticipated problems with the

Service notification requirement.

The lack of basic communication, as

one respondent explained, from the

‘‘bush,’’ the prevalence of ‘‘multicarrier’’ methods of shipments

originating with small bush carriers, and

the usual delays caused by weather are

all significant factors which would

complicate or inhibit individual

compliance with such notification

requirements. Several representatives of

the wildlife import/export industry

thought the 48 hour advance notice for

exportations in § 14.54(f) was

unreasonable, particularly when notice

is given to a Designated Port during

normal working hours. Several other

respondents agreed with the 48 hour

prior notification for exports in

§ 14.54(f) but believed it would not be

possible to make shipments of live

perishable wildlife available for

inspection 48 hours prior to shipment.

One respondent requested that the term

‘‘time of exportation’’ be made clearer

and suggested that the term be revised

to read ‘‘the scheduled time of

departure’’ of the vehicle, vessel, or

aircraft from the port where the

shipment was presented for inspection.

One commenter believed that such a

requirement would be detrimental to the

welfare of live wildlife. The respondent

suggested that the proposal be amended

to provide for a 24 hour notice and to

require that the shipment be made

available for inspection at least five (5)

hours prior to shipment. One

respondent representing a sports

hunting and conservation organization

expressed concern with the term

‘‘perishable’’ and asked if salted or dried

skins and sport hunted trophies would

be considered as perishable wildlife.

The respondent further noted that

without a more specific definition of the

term, there would be inconsistencies in

the interpretations made by individual

Wildlife Inspectors. One respondent

was particularly concerned that

§ 14.54(f) did not include the same

provision for ‘‘when Service officers are

not available’’ as does § 14.54(a). The

respondent noted that in situations

when a shipment is prepared for export
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31861

and the Service is unavailable to inspect

it, there should be a provision to allow

the shipment to be sent without

physical inspection by the Service so as

not to incur additional fees and charges.

Service Response

The Service believes that the 48 hour

notification requirement is reasonable in

view of the ability of Customs Officers

to act on behalf of Service Officers

under the authority of § 14.54 when

Service Officers are not available, and

the provision under § 14.54 requiring

clearance by a Service Officer ‘‘unless

expressly authorized otherwise.’’ This

last provision will allow for clearance of

exports without physical inspection in

unusual situations. The Service is

attempting to maintain effective

oversight while allowing for clearance

in those situations in which an export

would be delayed an unreasonable

period of time waiting for physical

inspection, or in which an officer is not

available. The 48 hour notification

becomes particularly important, in view

of the requirement to obtain clearance

prior to export, when dealing with live

wildlife. The Service cannot maintain a

high level of service, maintain oversight,

and avoid unnecessary and costly live

wildlife mortality, without some prior

notification of the intent to export. The

Service will not automatically consider

salted or dried skins or sport-hunted

trophies to be perishable items.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.55

Exceptions to Clearance Requirements

Many representatives of professional

scientific organizations were concerned

with the effect of clearance

requirements on the field of biological

control. One respondent noted that

wildlife shipments are already regulated

by APHIS under the Plant Pest Act and

should, therefore, be exempted from the

Service’s inspection and clearance

requirement. Customs and APHIS, in

the respondent’s opinion, already

adequately regulate the movement of

such wildlife and the Service

regulations are, therefore, overly

burdensome. The Service, as the

respondent suggested, could be

alternatively notified of pending

shipments by the receipt of an APHIS

PPQ–526 permit.

Service Response

Neither APHIS nor the Customs

Service is mandated to regulate the

import and export of wildlife and

wildlife products to and from the

United States. The Service’s mission

and expertise is different than that of

APHIS or the Customs Service and no

additional exceptions under this part

can be justified.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.61

Import Declaration Requirements

One respondent representing an

entomological society requested that

§ 14.64(b)(1) apply to both imports and

exports of scientific specimens.

Numerous respondents expressed

concern with the requirement to file 3–

177 declarations with wildlife

identification to the species level,

stating that identifying scientific

specimens is a long and laborious

process that would take much longer

than the 180 day requirement.

Numerous other respondents expressed

concern with the anticipated

administrative burden and cost

associated with the declaration

requirement. Many respondents

suggested exempting the trade of

scientific specimens from the Service’s

requirement to file a Declaration for

Importation or Exportation of Fish or

Wildlife (Form 3–177) except where

shipments contained endangered

species. Other respondents were

concerned with what was characterized

as the anticipated ‘‘endless loop of filing

for extensions.’’

Numerous respondents representing

museums and the systematic scientists’

community expressed concern with the

requirement to file 3–177 for shipments

of scientific collections. Many

commenters noted that their current

inventory of specimens is extensive and,

therefore, would be impossible to list.

Another respondent similarly noted that

shipments of scientific collections are

often made in bulk and the required

inventory would be impossible to

provide.

Service Response

The Service believes that it has

addressed these concerns in its addition

of § 14.24 to this Part.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.62

Exceptions to Import Declaration

Requirements

One respondent believed that the 180

day requirement to update a declaration

in § 14.62(c) is too long a time period.

This, in the respondent’s opinion, had

made it difficult for the Service to track

incomplete 3–177s. One scientist

requested that the text of § 14.62(a) be

revised to provide that a 3–177 form

does not have to be filed for importation

of scientific specimens that are being

shipped from one scientific institution

to another. The respondent further

noted that ‘‘the Service can have no

particular interest in keeping track of

the tens of thousands of scientific

specimens in museums that are being

sent to experts or authorities around the

world for study purposes.’’

Service Response

The Service believes it has addressed

these comments in its addition of

§ 14.24 to this part.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.64

Exception to Export Declaration

Requirements

Several respondents suggested that

the export of American raw furs should

be made totally exempt from the

Service’s regulations. Several other

respondents expressed similar opinions

about what they regarded as the overregulation of the fur trapping

‘‘industry.’’ One self-described producer

of captive-bred reptiles and amphibians

requested that an exemption for reptiles

and amphibians be added, similar to

that provided in § 14.64(a) for live

aquatic invertebrates. This, the

respondent proposed, would allow the

shipment of such animals for

propagation purposes such as the

exchange of breeding stocks. One

respondent noted, regarding

§ 14.64(b)(1), that because the value of

wildlife products is arbitrary, the

threshold value of $250.00 should be

eliminated as a specific exemption to

the declaration requirement. One

representative of an entomological

society requested that § 14.64(b)(1) be

made uniformly applicable to both the

import and export of scientific

specimens. One respondent from a sport

hunting association requested that the

Service eliminate the exception for

game trophies in § 14.62(b)(2). The

respondent believed that there was a

continued need for the Service to

monitor this activity as it relates to the

illegal harvest and subsequent

exportation of wildlife. One respondent

representing an animal advocacy

organization suggested eliminating the

game trophy exemption of this part and

cited the Service’s need to maintain

records pertaining to noncommercial

exportations of sport taken trophy fish

and big game animals by foreign hunters

and fisherman departing with wildlife

trophies as personal baggage.

Numerous respondents suggested that

scientific specimens should be allowed

to be shipped via the U.S. mail. Many

respondents suggested amending this

section to include scientific specimens

for scientific institutions and museums.

Many scientists concerned with the

import and export of biological control

agents stated there should be an

exemption to the declaration

requirement for these items. One

representative of a state wildlife agency
31862 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

noted that scientific specimens have no

commercial value or a value less than

$250.00 and, therefore, should be

exempted from the export declaration

requirement. It has been suggested that

noncommercial importations of

scientific specimens be exempted as

well. One respondent suggested that

wildlife being imported as personal

accompanying baggage should be

required to be declared and the 3–177

presented.

Service Response

The Service must balance effective

oversight of activities involving the

import and export of wildlife against the

inconveniences caused by regulation.

Those species indigenous to the U.S.

and those species of wildlife common in

trade are of particular importance in the

regulatory scheme due to the Service’s

mission of protecting both indigenous

wildlife and wildlife around the world

threatened by over-utilization. The

United States is a leader in wildlife

management and the world’s largest

consumer of wildlife products, which

places a burden on the Service to ensure

that wildlife imported or exported

complies with appropriate state and

foreign law. Exceptions to regulatory

requirements are carefully considered

by the Service and developed over a

long period of time. The Service does

not see any merit in adding species

commonly found in commercial trade,

and not currently captive-bred to any

large degree, to the exceptions to export

declaration requirements. The

suggestions made by commenters to

expand the export declaration

exemptions to species whose survival is

affected by trade would be inconsistent

with the mission of the Service and the

intent of the regulation. Conversely, the

Service cannot regulate all exports made

under the personal effects exemption

due to the Service’s limited statutory

authority, and the obvious impact this

would have on movement of persons

into and out of the United States. The

Service will maintain oversight of

export activity and make adjustments to

the exceptions section as appropriate.

The Service believes that the exceptions

granted to scientific specimens in this

part are warranted and adequately

address those respondents’ concerns.

The Service has added the word

‘‘live’’ to the export declaration

exception at § 14.64(a) for aquatic

invertebrates of the Class Pelecypoda, to

more accurately reflect the Service’s

intent of exempting only living

specimens of oysters, clams, mussels,

and scallops.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.81

Marking Requirements

Numerous comments were received in

regards to § 14.81. One respondent

expressed concern with toxic substances

being shipped incidental to

importations or exportations of wildlife,

for example, insecticides in shipments

of raw hides. The containers, according

to the respondent, should be marked as

to the hazard/identity of the toxic

substances. One respondent suggested

that the change the term ‘‘scientific

species name’’ to read ‘‘species

scientific name.’’ One representative of

a Federal agency expressed concern

regarding the inability to accurately

identify scientific specimens to meet

this requirement. Several

representatives of scientific institutions

noted that it may not be possible to

identify scientific specimens to species

level at the time of importation. Many

state agency representatives expressed

similar concern regarding the

identification of scientific specimens to

the species level. It was noted by several

such agencies that such invertebrate

shipments often contain thousands of

specimens which may take years to

identify.

Several specific suggestions were

received concerning the marking of

containers. One respondent suggested

marking as ‘‘specimens for scientific

study’’ with the shipper and receiver

being on a registry of ‘‘registered

scientific collections.’’ The respondent

further noting that if follow up

document inspections were required by

the Service, the shipments would be

well documented by the scientific

facility making such inspection

possible. Numerous representatives of

foreign scientific institutions also

expressed concern with the marking of

as yet unidentified scientific specimens

being submitted for identification.

Several representatives of foreign

institutions noted that scientific

collections are generally sent as roughsorted, bulk shipments and meeting this

requirement would be impossible. One

respondent from the wildlife import/

export business community noted that

the requirement to submit a shipping

list containing the scientific name being

shipped was a redundant effort as the 3–

177 already contains this information.

Additionally, the shipping documents

are often provided by the shipper’s

agent and not directly under the control

of the importer. Several respondents

noted that they may have many different

species in an insect specimen shipment.

Another requested that the wording be

amended to provide for a legible list of

a shipment’s contents containing the

identification of the specimens

identified to the lowest taxonomic level

that is scientifically possible. This

would involve the number of each taxon

listed and whether the members of the

listed taxa are venomous.

Service Response

The Service’s intent in revising this

section is twofold. First, is the obvious

safety concern of Wildlife Inspectors

examining live wildlife shipments that

may contain venomous species. This

requirement will allow inspectors to

identify the presence of venomous

species without having the importer’s

declaration present. Declarations are

generally filed when making entry, not

necessarily when the shipment arrives.

Second, this revision will assist Wildlife

Inspectors in determining the

applicability of this part when

encountering wildlife shipments for

which no declaration has been filed.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.82

Aternatives and Exceptions to the

Marking Requirement

Several responses received pertained

to this Section. One representative of a

large animal advocacy group suggested

using the words ‘‘the scientific name the

identifies the species,’’ due to what the

respondent noted as the variety and

confusion concerning the use of

common names and the problem of

proper identification using those names.

Service Response

The Service finds merit in this

suggestion but will not make any

additional changes to this section at this

time in order to avoid making the

revision to the marking requirement

overly burdensome on wildlife shippers.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.91

License Requirements

Many comments were received

regarding § 14.91. Several wildlife

importers agreed with the requirement

that all persons engaged in the business

as an importer or exporter of wildlife

obtain a valid import/export license,

and that no exemption by class or

threshold dollar amount should be

provided. One respondent questioned,

with regard to § 14.91(c)(5), whether the

requirement was to include a

taxidermist who is not the ‘‘importer of

record’’ but is a direct recipient of

hunting trophies taken by the ‘‘importer

of record.’’

Service Response

This section requires certain persons

who engage in the enumerated activities

to hold a valid Service import/export

license, including taxidermists. If a
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31863

taxidermist is importing or exporting

wildlife for commercial purposes as the

‘‘importer or exporter of record,’’ then a

license is required. No license is

required if a taxidermist is the mere

recipient of wildlife or delivery point

for a hunter acting as ‘‘importer or

exporter of record,’’ since the actual

importing and exporting is arranged and

paid for by the hunter himself.

Comments

Several comments were received from

trappers in Alaska pertaining to this

section. Many of these respondents

expressed concern with the proposed

change that would require them to

obtain a license to export furs to

Canada. Many of these trappers,

according to the respondent, are parttime operators who did not previously

meet the $25,000.00 threshold license

requirement. Many commenters

believed that this proposal was

unwarranted due to the fact that they

currently have to obtain CITES permits

and non-designated port permits.

Several fur industry representatives

were concerned about the regulations as

they would apply to the shipment of

furs and were opposed to the

elimination of the $25,000.00 threshold.

Many believed that the added cost of

this requirement was not warranted.

Several respondents were concerned

about the effects of the Service’s license

requirements on small importers or

exporters. One respondent thought that

small import or export business should

not be required to obtain licenses. One

respondent requested the duration of an

import/export license in § 14.93(d) to be

changed to a period of two years to

reduce costs incurred by smaller

importers.

Service Response

Clearly, fur trappers exporting furs

from the United States are doing so with

a commercial intent. Therefore, those

persons are ‘‘engage[d] in business as an

importer or exporter of wildlife,’’

whether they do so on a full-time or

part-time basis. Moreover, although the

Service recognizes that the elimination

of the $25,000 threshold will impose

additional costs on some small

importers and exporters, the revised

licensing system will more accurately

reflect the Service’s costs in providing

inspection services.

Comments

One respondent inquired as to

whether the proposed regulation

changes were in compliance with the

‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act,’’ which

establishes procedural requirements for

Federal agencies to determine whether a

particular regulation is having a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

This law is intended to ensure that laws

and regulations designed for application

to large scale entities have been applied

uniformly to small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions even though the problems

that gave rise to government action may

not have been caused by those small

entities.

Service Response

The Service has determined that this

regulatory change will not have a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities as

required by the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (See Required Determinations).

Comments

Many respondents representing

scientific institutions had

misunderstandings concerning the

license requirement for noncommercial,

scientific shipments. Many were

concerned that they would now be

presumed to be commercial under the

presumption of commercial intent

provided within the definition of

commercial in § 14.4.

Service Response

The Service clearly intends to exclude

scientific specimens from the license

and designated port requirements unless

those scientific specimens are imported

or exported for primarily commercial

purposes. The exceptions contained at

§ 14.24 apply to dead, preserved, dried,

or embedded scientific specimens

imported or exported by accredited

scientists or accredited scientific

institutions for research purposes only.

The license requirement will apply to

those importers or exporters of scientific

specimens whose intent is commercial.

Comments

One environmental education

company and several animal advocacy

groups suggested that convicted wildlife

violators should be prohibited from

obtaining an Import/Export license. The

respondent further suggested that any

license already issued should be

revoked by the Service upon the

individual or organization’s conviction.

Service Response

Provisions for the revocation or

suspension of permits or licenses are

contained at 50 CFR part 13.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.92

Exception to License Requirements

Numerous comments were received

regarding § 14.92. One Service employee

responding in a private capacity

requested a change in § 14.92(a)(3) to

require importers to document their

claim that certain imported items are

‘‘ranched,’’ meaning the item was

derived from ranched-raised wildlife.

The respondent believed that many

such shipments are routinely declared

as ranched to circumvent fee

requirements. Another respondent

suggested deleting this exception

entirely. The respondent explained that

this exception was first established to

assist World War II veterans operating

fur ranches as a commercial business.

The respondent noted that other

commercial businesses dealing with

captive-raised wildlife have not been

afforded a similar exception. One

respondent suggested that § 14.92(a)(6)

be amended to include export within

the exception provided to exempt pearls

imported or exported for commercial

purposes.

Service Response

The Service finds merit in the above

responses but will not make the changes

to § 14.92(a)(3) regarding furbearers born

and bred in captivity at this time due to

the prevalence of ranched furs in the fur

industry, and due the Service’s ability to

verify whether or not furs have in fact

been taken from the wild and portrayed

as captive bred. The Service also finds

merit in the addition of the word

‘‘exported’’ to § 14.92(a)(6) to exempt

pearls exported for commercial

purposes from the license requirement.

The Service has made the appropriate

revision to this section in response to

comments received.

Comments

Numerous respondents representing

wildlife importers and exporters

requested that the Service add the

words, ‘‘for-profit zoological institutions

and theme parks’’ to this section to

provide for when importation or

exportations are for educational or

exhibition purposes and not for resale.

One respondent representing the

falconry community requested that

falconers, licensed pursuant to part 21

or by the nation of permanent residence,

importing or exporting legally held

raptors for falconry purposes and not for

purchase, sale, barter, or transfer of such

raptors, be included as an exemption to

this license requirement in § 14.92(b).

Service Response

The Service believes that it has

adequately addressed the most common

exceptions to the license requirement in

this section. The Service believes that to

categorically exempt faconers or ‘‘forprofit zoological institutions and theme
31864 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

parks’’ from the license requirement

would be inappropriate since these

activities can involve a commercial

purpose. The exceptions listed in this

part represent longstanding exceptions

to several regulatory requirements of the

Service. If falconers or zoological

institutions are not engaged in the

business of importing or exporting

wildlife, as defined at § 14.91(b), then

the license requirement will not apply.

Comments Pertaining to 50 CFR 14.94–

Fees

Numerous comments were received

on the issue of user fees provided for in

§ 14.94 Fees. This section establishes

the Service fee schedule for a variety of

services provided by the Service to

importers and exporters of wildlife.

Many comments were directed

specifically at the requirements of

§ 14.94(a)(1), which provides that an

overtime fee may be charged, in

addition to the inspection fee, for

certain importations or exportations of

wildlife, where the wildlife being

imported or exported is part of a

commercial shipment. One respondent

expressed concern that the Service

would not be charging overtime fees for

noncommercial shipments, i.e., personal

pets, or shipments by scientific nonprofit institutions.

Many respondents expressed concern

with the proposed $55.00 inspection fee

and questioned whether such a fee

would apply to scientific specimens

imported for research purposes. Many

respondents believed that this would

present them with a significant problem

considering their limited operating

budgets. Several representatives from

foreign scientific institutions were

concerned with the imposition of

inspection fees for scientific specimens,

believing that such shipments would

now be considered as presumptively

commercial under the Service’s revised

definition of commercial.

One respondent suggested that the

calculation of the inspection fees should

be based on 5% of the declared value of

the shipment with a minimum level of

$100.00 per inspection. The monies

collected, according to the respondent,

should then be used to increase the

number of physical inspections

performed. The U.S. taxpayer, as the

respondent noted, should not be

subsidizing the wildlife import and

export business. Another respondent

suggested that the Service adopt an

overtime fee schedule consistent with

other regulatory agencies. One

respondent was concerned as to the

collection of fees by the Service for

commercial shipments made via the

mail. The respondent wondered

whether such items would be subject to

a Service refusal of clearance while the

Service is awaiting payment.

Several of the respondents were

concerned about the application of

overtime fees as provided in § 14.94(b),

as such fees relate to after-hour

noncommercial importations.

Respondents expressed concern

regarding the Service’s increase in

inspection fees while at the same time

reducing the license fee to commercial

operators. This, as one respondent

expressed, seemingly discriminates

against the noncommercial importers in

favor of commercial users. A respondent

noted that the preamble background

information, found in the Federal

Register notice (September 14, 1994; 59

FR 47214) states that noncommercial

shipments and shipments by persons

exempt from the license requirements

are not to be charged an inspection fee,

but may be charged ‘‘overtime costs’’

incurred at the specific request of the

importer or exporter. The respondent

further noted that under § 14.94(a)(1)

overtime fees apply only to

‘‘commercial shipments.’’

Service Response

The Service appreciates these

comments because it points out a

deficiency in the proposed rule which

erroneously tied overtime fees to

‘‘commercial shipments.’’ The Service

clearly intends for overtime fees to

apply to importers and exporters of

wildlife who request clearance outside

of normal work hours, regardless of

commercial or noncommercial status.

The language in the proposed rule

which erroneously linked overtime fees

to those holding import/export licenses

may have suggested to the respondents

that the Service was ‘‘discriminating’’

against noncommercial importers.

Section 14.94(b) has been revised

appropriately to reflect the Service’s

intent and in response to commenters

concerns. Paragraph (b) has been revised

in this final rule to reflect that any

importer or exporter requiring clearance

by a Service Officer who requests that

an inspection be done outside of normal

work hours will be charged an overtime

fee in accordance with the fee schedule

found in § 14.94(d). The structure of the

fee schedule at § 14.94(d) has also been

redesigned in this final rule to make the

applicability of the new fees clearer and

less confusing for the public. The fees

themselves will remain as proposed for

the reasons stated.

Comments

Many commercial importers

expressed concern with the proposed

increase in inspection fees. One

representative of a wildlife import/

export business complained that the

average cost of $55 to process a

shipment was not valid and that a flat,

per-shipment fee is not the best method.

The respondent further suggested that

the Service adopt a fee schedule similar

to that used by Customs which uses an

‘‘ad valorem’’ with flat fee minimum/

reimbursable overtime. One respondent

noted that at the John F. Kennedy

International Airport tropical fish

shipments routinely arrive on Sundays.

The respondent questioned why such

fees were necessary, when other Federal

regulatory agencies schedule employees

to work on Sunday without charging

higher fees. The Service, as the

respondent further noted, should be

more flexible in scheduling their

Inspector work hours to fit the needs of

individual ports. Several importers

requested that a cap on importation

filing fees of $1250.00 annually be

placed on smaller importers. Another

respondent similarly suggested

eliminating the fee for, small business

which do not import more than

$20,000.00 annually. Another

respondent suggested that the Service

eliminate the fee for reexports for, as the

respondent explained, the importer had

been charged originally without the

shipment having been changed.

Service Response

The Service acknowledges these

concerns and is attempting, through this

revision, to maintain the most efficient

inspection program possible without

allowing its fee structure to become

overly burdensome to smaller importers.

The analyses of the Service’s inspection

program mentioned in the proposed rule

clearly indicate a need to raise

inspection fees and overtime rates to be

commensurate with costs incurred by

the Service. Most ports, both designated

and non-designated, are not staffed to

allow for the inclusion of ‘‘regular

hours’’ on weekends or holidays or after

normal business hours, which may

require certain importers or exporters to

pay more for inspections done at these

hours. The Service has, in the past,

examined the ‘‘ad valorem’’ method of

reimbursement and has determined that

a flat fee is the best method, since actual

work required to inspect wildlife

shipments does not correlate well with

the value of the shipment. In other

words, shipments of high value do not

always require Wildlife Inspectors to

perform more work. The Service will

monitor the collection of fees closely

and in the event fees generate sufficient

revenue to pay for additional staffing at

certain ports to allow for expanded
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31865

hours of inspection, the Service will

respond accordingly.

Comments

One response was received with

regards to the Service billing of an

overtime inspection in which three

wildlife shipments were inspected. The

respondent noted that the charges for

the three inspections were not prorated

over the three shipments but all three

received the same full charge. The

respondent suggested the Service

prorate the charge for multiple

importations and incorporate a 1 hour

minimum overtime charge. One

respondent noted that in his opinion the

fees were so high with regards to

exportations that it seemed to constitute

a ‘‘tax’’ on exportations which, in his

words, was unconstitutional. One

exporter commented that most of his

business is exporting the same or like

item over and over. His inspection

consists of sending in his fee and

3–177 with his shipments never being

physically inspected. He suggests

reducing or eliminating this repetitive

process but gave no suggestions on how

this might be accomplished.

Service Response

As noted in the proposed rule the

Service is merely attempting to recoup

costs incurred in the inspection process

by adjusting its fee schedule in this final

rule. In those instances, as described by

the commenter, when several shipments

are inspected outside normal work

hours or multiple shipments are

inspected for one importer on multiple

entries, the Service, by policy, does not

prorate associated charges. However, in

response to commenter’s concerns the

Service has added an exception at

§ 14.94(b)(4) to allow for multiple

shipments consigned to the same

importer/exporter and inspected at one

location on overtime, to pay one

minimum hourly overtime fee at

designated ports. The inspection fee

will still apply to each shipment.

Comments

Many comments were received from

the animal welfare community that

requested increased inspections at port

of Miami and that the Service should

increase fees to a minimum of $100 to

pay for the increased cost of law

enforcement personnel. Many

comments were received from

representatives of scientific institutions

concerning fees. Many respondents

representing scientific organizations

expressed concern with the inspection

fee of $55.00 per shipment, noting that

such a fee imposed upon wildlife

imports and exports would be too high

for their budgets. Several respondents

perceived the Service’s proposal as an

increased regulatory burden on the

scientific community and believed it

had the potential to ‘‘isolate’’ the United

States from the international scientific

community. Of particular concern to

several scientists was the ‘‘trade’’ of

non-endangered species. One

respondent noted that he knew of no

evidence that supported the notion that

scientific collecting poses a threat to

non-endangered insects. Another

scientist similarly suggested that the

Service, due to lack of funding and

manpower, should concentrate its

regulatory effort on threatened and

endangered species and those covered

by CITES.

Service Response

The Service notes that these

commenters’ concerns are precisely why

an inspection program was established

by the Service in 1975. In order for the

Service to determine if a shipment

contains threatened or endangered

species, or CITES species, and

consequently to determine if those

species are affected by trade, the

shipment must be inspected by

qualified personnel who can make that

determination. Again, noncommercial

importers and exporters of wildlife will

not be subject to fees unless requiring

and requesting clearance outside of

normal business hours, or using

nondesignated ports.

Comments

Many respondents appeared to have

some misunderstanding regarding the

collection of fees and quoted the

overtime schedule as if the overtime

fees applied to all inspections. Other

respondents suggested that higher rates

be charged for inspections performed at

non-designated ports. Many

respondents opposed the reduction in

the license fee but supported an

increase in the inspection fee to cover

the inspection program, to the extent

that such an increase would allow for

100% inspection of shipments. One

respondent suggested that the service

should establish a mileage fee for

overtime inspections similar to

Customs. A pet industry spokesman

suggested the increase in fees be phased

in over time and requested that a more

detailed justification of the hourly rate

for inspections be made available when

the final rule is published. Several

respondents suggested that the

inspection fee be prorated when

multiple inspections are being

performed for the same importer,

primarily at non-designated ports.

Numerous respondents requested the

Service justify the increased inspection

fee.

Service Response

Under the new user fee structure the

Service will charge a higher rate at

nondesignated ports, in the form of an

Administrative fee plus a 2 hour

minimum charge, to cover the increased

administrative costs associated with

nondesignated ports. The Service has

determined that inspection fees or

administrative fees at nondesignated

ports will not be prorated due to the

obvious incentive given to importers/

exporters to combine shipments, when

the workload for wildlife inspectors

would remain the same. The Service

intends to charge mileage fees for

inspections conducted at nondesignated

ports with no permanent law

enforcement staff present. The Service

understands the concerns raised by

respondents regarding justification of

user fee increases, and refers to the

following four studies, conducted since

1988 which recommended, and

justified, fee increases in the inspection

program: the Service, Division of

Finance, findings and recommendations

on review of the Law Enforcement

Management Information System and

Import/Export Fee Billing and

Collection System, a 1988 user charges

and collection report by the Department

of the Interior Office of Inspector

General, a 1991 Law Enforcement

Functional Analysis Review, and a 1992

draft of the CITES Implementation

Study prepared by Traffic USA, the

trade monitoring group associated with

the World Wildlife Fund.

Comments

Many respondents were concerned

with the low numbers of physical

inspections of wildlife shipments being

imported into the United States. One

respondent expressed support for the

Service’s regulation of imports and

exports of wildlife and other products

being imported for a commercial

purpose, particularly, as the respondent

noted, when such imports or exports

involve threatened and endangered

species.

Service Response

The Service anticipates an increase in

the physical inspection rate of wildlife

shipments on a nationwide basis, due,

in part, to the increase in fees justified

in the studies mentioned in this final

rule. Fee adjustments allowing the

Service to more accurately recover costs

may also allow the Service to hire

additional personnel.
31866 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Summary of Comments Received to the

Supplemental Rule

On March 23, 1995, the Service

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 15277) a supplemental proposed rule

proposing additional changes to these

parts. In response to this notice the

Service received a total of 12 comments.

These included 2 from associations, 2

from states, 3 from museums, 1 council,

1 union, 1 club, 1 university and a

citizen. The comments were as follows:

One respondent noted an error in the

definition section provided at § 14.4.

The respondent noted that the term

‘‘accredited member of the American

Zoological Association’’ was stated

twice. The correct name according to

the respondent is the American Zoo and

Aquarium Association.

In regards to § 14.53(b)(2), one

respondent noted that in his research

during foreign explorations for natural

enemies of targeted plant pests, which

are collected and shipped to quarantine

facilities, organisms are usually

identified to a higher level of taxa than

species. Identification of such collected

materials, may not be available for a

considerable period of time. Another

respondent noted that although the

original Lacey Act recognized the

existence of the Federal Plant Pest Act,

the new FWS regulations appear to

overlook this provision.

Several comments pertained to the

Service 3–177 form. One respondent

suggested the Service make the

reporting of dead specimens an annual

or biannual report. One scientific

institution noted that their collections

do not specify whether the wildlife was

taken as a result of sport hunting, and

that, therefore, such collections should

be given a blanket exemption for already

deposited specimens. Another

respondent was concerned with the

perceived requirement that a scientific

collector obtain a hunting license and

worried that scientific collecting may be

viewed as sport hunting.

One respondent observed that the

Service’s definition of scientist does not

include retired professors or those at

smaller colleges that do not have

established public collections, who are

generally considered amateurs in the

field of entomology. Another

respondent noted that dead specimens

should be allowed to be transported

freely (3–177 form only) without further

clearance. One respondent requested

that the Service automate the 3–177

form to streamline the process by

downloading the data from each

accredited institution twice annually.

One respondent suggested that birds

should not require authentication of

collecting and export permits from the

country of origin each time they are

transferred; that dead, non-endangered

or CITES listed birds should have no

restriction on importation; and that a 3–

177 should not be needed for dead

birds. Instead, the respondent noted that

the paperwork could be kept at the

institution and open for inspection at

any time. Another respondent asked for

additional time to respond to what the

respondent characterized as a

complicated piece of law.

Another respondent noted that if a

specimen was procured for a scientific

institution, the regulations that are

applied to permit the legal import

should be consistent across the board

with no exceptions as to how it was

acquired. Once a permit is issued, the

respondent noted, the specimens

covered by that permit should have the

status of specimens that do not require

a permit. Other respondents, however,

saw no logical reason why scientific

specimens legally taken as the result of

sport hunting should be excluded from

the exceptions provided. One

respondent requested that the Service

not require authentication of collecting

and export permits from the country of

origin each time they are transferred

internationally. One respondent

suggested that the Migratory Bird Office

and Law Enforcement get together on a

common definition of scientific

institution to avoid two different

standards. The only shipments that

should require reporting to the Service,

one respondent noted, should be those

that contain species listed under CITES

or the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

One respondent requested that State and

Federal government agencies should be

exempt from requirements pertaining to

permits and be given some kind of

blanket import-export permit.

Service Response

The Service appreciates these

comments and responds by stating that

the Federal Government, in particular

the Service, is bound by international

treaty and domestic law to require

certain types of documentation,

reporting, declaration, and regulation as

relates to the import and export of

wildlife and wildlife products

(including insects). The Service, in its

revision of this part, has been

responsive to the demands of the public

while fulfilling its obligations under

law. The Service believes that the

modification of these regulations, in

particular addressing the concerns of

the scientific collecting community,

have taken into account public concerns

while fulfilling the Service’s obligations.

Need for Final Rule Making

The Fish and Wildlife Service is

updating the regulations for the

importation, exportation, and

transportation of wildlife. Definitions

have been added and several errors and

missing references have been corrected.

Several ambiguities in the text have

been restated for clarify. Changes were

necessary in several sections for the

purposes of identification of wildlife, to

provide uniformity with the Customs

Service, to more clearly articulate

requirements, to circumscribe

exceptions to requirements, and to

provide for the safety of inspectors.

Changes in the Service import/export

user fees policies and rates were made

in order to recover the full costs of

license and inspection services to

require all commercial importers and

exporters of wildlife and wildlife

products to obtain an import/export

license, to adjust the cost of a wildlife

import/export license, to adjust the

inspection fee charged to licensees at

designated ports, and to adjust the

administrative fee charged for each

wildlife shipment cleared at a nondesignated port.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

As required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

3507(d)), the Service has received

approval for collection of information

under this regulation using the

Declaration for Importation or

Exportation of Fish or Wildlife form 3–

177, approval number 1018–0012 which

expires June 30, 1997, and using the

Federal Fish and Wildlife License/

Permit Application form 3–200,

approval number 1018–0022 which

expires January 31, 1997.

Information collection is

accomplished under this part through

the use of these two forms and is used

to satisfy various requirements in this

regulation, including, species and

shipping information from the

Declaration form 3–177, and licensing

information from the Application form

3–200. The information requested on

these forms is not being modified in this

rule, however, changes are being made

which will affect the number of persons

or businesses required to file an Import/

Export License Application form 3–200

to obtain an Import/Export License.

Changes also are being made in the

exceptions granted to certain persons

from the Declaration filing

requirements.

The Declaration filing exceptions

contained in this final rule will not

result in any increased information
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31867

collection by the Service. However,

those persons or businesses engaging in

business as an importer or exporter of

wildlife who may have previously been

excepted from the license requirement,

will now be required to file a 3–200

Application form with the Service in

order to obtain an import/export license.

This will result in increased use of an

existing information collection. The

information to be collected will include

the applicant’s name and complete

address, type of business and

description of the activity for which a

license is required, principal officer

information, location where activity

under the license is conducted, and

business, agency, or institutional

affiliation of the applicant. The likely

respondents to this collection of

information will be persons engaging in

business as importers or exporters of

wildlife who are not currently licensed

by the Service. This information will be

used by the Service to determine the

applicability of the license requirement,

and to implement the licensing and fee

collection process. This information

collection will be required annually and

will require approximately a 1.0 hour

total annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden per respondent.

The Service estimates that the number

of likely respondents will be

approximately 700, making a total

annual reporting and recordkeeping

burden of 700 hours.

Economic Effects

This rulemaking was not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget under Executive Order 12866.

The Service conducted a cost/benefit

analysis in compliance with the

provisions of the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (Pub. L. 104–121). Data for

commercial imports and exports of

wildlife and wildlife products for the

1994 calendar year were used to

estimate the financial impact on

commercial wildlife importers and

exporters from the revised user fee

schedule contained in the proposed rule

and in this final rule. Calendar year

1994 data were chosen for the analysis

for their completeness and because the

Service feels that the commercial data

for 1994 are typical of calendar year

totals. The analysis shows that the

Service processes approximately 70,000

wildlife and wildlife product imports

and exports per year, and that of those

shipments approximately 56,000 are

imported or exported for commercial

purposes. The 1994 data show that the

Service issued approximately 1,700

commercial import/export licenses in

1994, and those licensees imported or

exported approximately 40,000

commercial shipments. These figures

equate to approximately 23 commercial

shipments per licensee per year. The

total number of shipments made for

commercial purposes (56,000) minus

the number of commercial shipments

made by licensees (40,000) equals

16,000 shipments made for commercial

purposes by non-licensees that,

presumably, meet one of the current

licensing exceptions. The most likely

exception in these cases would be the

$25,000 annual threshold requirement

for obtaining a license. This exception is

being eliminated in this final rule. By

using the 23 shipments per licensee per

year figure as representative of all

commercial importers and exporters, the

Service estimates that 700 non-licensed

commercial importers and exporters

shipping 16,000 shipments per year will

be affected by the new license

requirement. Based upon the 23

shipments per year figure, the 1,700

licensees currently paying $25 per

shipment in user fees and $125 annual

license fee are paying $700 annually in

user fees. Under this final rule those

licensees will pay an additional $615

based upon $55 per shipment and a $50

license fee, or $1,315 annually in user

fees. The 700 non-licensed commercial

importers and exporters who are now

exempt from the fee requirement also

will pay $1,315 per year based upon the

23 shipment per year average and the

new user/license fees. As stated in this

final rule, these fees will generate

approximately $2 million in additional

user fees which will allow the Service

to more closely recoup actual costs of

the wildlife inspection program.

A review under the Regulatory

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

seq.) has revealed that this rulemaking

will not have a significant effect on a

substantial number of small entities,

which include businesses,

organizations, or governmental

jurisdictions. The Department of the

Interior is seeking to assess the least

possible fee increase that will enable the

Service to recoup its costs associated

with the Service’s Import/Export

program. As discussed in the proposed

rule, fees have not been increased since

1986. This fee increase will more

closely align the Federal Government’s

operating cost with revenues. This rule

will affect all importers and exporters

equally and is expected to remove any

competitive advantage enjoyed by

unlicensed importers or exporters.

Because of the modest cost involved, the

fee increase is expected to have a

minimal effect on those small entities as

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act.

The Service has determined and

certifies pursuant to the Unfunded

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

his rulemaking will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

or local or State governments or private

entities.

National Environmental Policy Act (40

CFR part 1500)

Pursuant to the requirements of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), an environmental

assessment was not prepared for this

action. The action that is covered under

a categorical exclusion from the

National Environmental Policy Act

procedures. An Environmental Action

memorandum is on file at the Service’s

office in Arlington, Virginia. A

determination has been made pursuant

to section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act that the revision of part 14 will not

affect any Federally listed or proposed

for listing threatened or endangered

species or their critical habitats.

Authorship

The originators of this final rule are

Law Enforcement Specialist Paul

McGowan and Special Agent John M.

Neal, Division of Law Enforcement, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,

DC.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 13

Administrative practice and

procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports,

Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

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, title 50, chapter I, subchapter

B of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as set forth below:

PART 13—GENERAL PERMIT

PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 13 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 668a, 704, 712, 742j–

1, 1382, 1538(d), 1539, 1540(f), 3374, 4901–

4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 19 U.S.C. 1202; E.O.

11911, 41 FR 15683; 31 U.S.C. 9701.
31868 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart B—Applications for Permits

2. Section 13.11 is amended by

revising the table in (d)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 13.11 Application procedures.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(4) * * *

Type of permit Fee

Import/Export License (Section

14.93).

$50.

Marine Mammal (Section 18.31) ..... $100.

Migratory Bird-Banding or marking

(21.22).

None.

Bald or Golden Eagles (Part 22) .... None.

* * * * *

PART 14—IMPORTATION,

EXPORTATION, AND

TRANSPORTATION OF WILDLIFE

1. The authority citation for part 14

continues to read as follows:

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

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

and 4901–4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 19 U.S.C. 42;

31 U.S.C. 483(a).

2. A new § 14.4 entitled ‘‘Definitions’’

is added to subpart A to read as follows:

§ 14.4 Definitions.

In addition to definitions contained in

Part 10 of this subchapter, in this part:

Accompanying personal baggage

means all hand-carried items and all

checked baggage of a person entering

into or departing from the United States.

Accredited scientist means any

individual associated with, employed

by, or under contract to and accredited

by an accredited scientific institution

for the purpose of conducting biological

or medical research, and whose research

activities are approved and sponsored

by the scientific institution granting

accreditation.

Accredited scientific institutions

means any public museum, public

zoological park, accredited institution of

higher education, accredited member of

the American Zoo and Aquarium

Association, accredited member of the

American Association of Systematic

Collections, or any State or Federal

government agency that conducts

biological or medical research.

Commercial means related to the

offering for sale or resale, purchase,

trade, barter, or the actual or intended

transfer in the pursuit of gain or profit,

of any item of wildlife and includes the

use of any wildlife article as an exhibit

for the purpose of soliciting sales,

without regard to quantity or weight.

There is a presumption that eight or

more similar unused items are for

commercial use. The Service or the

importer/exporter/owner may rebut this

presumption based upon the particular

facts and circumstances of each case.

Domesticated animals includes, but is

not limited to, the following

domesticated animals that are exempted

from the requirements of this

subchapter B (except for species

obtained from wild populations).

Mammals: Alpaca—Lama alpaca;

Camel—Camelus dromedarius; Camel

(Boghdi)—Camelus bactrianus; Cat

(domestic)—Felis domesticus; Cattle—

Bos taurus; Dog (domestic)—Canis

familiaris; European rabbit—

Ortyctolagus cuniculus; Ferret

(domestic)—Mustela putorius; Goat—

Capra hircus; Horse—Equus caballus;

Llama—Lama glama; Pig—Sus scrofa;

Sheep—Ovis aries; Water buffalo—

Bubalus bubalus; White lab mice—Mus

musculus; White lab rate—Rattus

norvegicus.

Fish (For export purposes only): Carp

(koi)—Cyprinus carpio; Goldfish—

Carassius auratus.

Birds: Chicken—Gallus domesticus;

Ducks & geese—domesticated varieties;

Guinea fowl—Numida meleagris;

Peafowl—Pavo cristatus; Pigeons

(domesticated)—Columba livia

domestrica; Turkey—Meleagris

gallopavo; Domesticated or Barnyard

Mallards include: Pekin; Aylesbury;

Bouen; Cayuga; Gray Call; White Call;

East Indian; Crested; Swedish; Buff

Orpington; Indian Runner; Campbell;

Duclair; Merchtem; Termonde; Magpie;

Chinese; Khaki Campbell.

Insects: Crickets, mealworms,

honeybees (not to include Africanized

varieties), and similar insects that are

routinely farm raised.

Other Invertebrates: Earthworms and

similar invertebrates that are routinely

farm raised.

Export means to depart from, to send

from, to ship from, or to carry out of, or

attempt to depart from, to send from, to

ship from, or to carry out of, or to

consign to a carrier in any place subject

to the jurisdiction of the United States

with an intended destination of any

place not subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States, whether or not such

departure, sending, or carrying, or

shipping constitutes an exportation

within the meaning of the Custom laws

of the United States. When a passenger

leaving the jurisdiction of the United

States enters the designated

international area of embarkation of an

airport, all accompanying personal

hand-carried items and checked baggage

will be regarded as exports.

Import means to land on, bring into,

or introduce into, or attempt to land on,

bring into, or introduce into any place

subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States, whether or not such landing,

bringing, or introduction constitutes an

importation within the meaning of the

tariff laws of the United States.

3. Section 14.15 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 14.15 Personal baggage and household

effects.

(a) Any person may import into or

export from the United States at any

Customs port wildlife products or

manufactured articles that are not

intended for commercial use and are

used as clothing or contained in

accompanying personal baggage.

However, this exception to the

designated port requirement does not

apply to any raw or dressed fur; raw,

salted, or crusted hide or skin; game

trophy; or to wildlife requiring a permit

pursuant to part 16, 17, 18, 21, or 23 of

this subchapter B.

* * * * *

4. Section 14.21 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 14.21 Shellfish and fishery products.

(a) (1) General. Except for wildlife

requiring a permit pursuant to part 17

or 23 of this subchapter, shellfish and

fishery products imported or exported

for purposes of human or animal

consumption or taken in waters under

the jurisdiction of the United States or

on the high seas for recreational

purposes may enter or exit at any

Customs port.

(2) Except for wildlife requiring a

permit pursuant to part 17 or part 23 of

this subchapter, live aquatic

invertebrates of the Class Pelecypoda

(commonly known as oysters, clams,

mussels, and scallops) and the eggs,

larvae, or juvenile forms thereof may be

exported for purposes of propagation, or

research related to propagation, at any

Customs port.

(b) Pearls. Except for wildlife

requiring a permit pursuant to part 17

or 23 of this subchapter, pearls imported

or exported for commercial purposes

may enter or exit the United States at

any Customs port of entry. For the

purposes of this Part, all references to

the term shellfish and fishery products

will include pearls.

5. Section 14.22 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 14.22 Certain antique articles.

Any person may import at any

Customs Service port designated for

such purpose, any article (other than

scrimshaw, defined in 16 U.S.C

1539(f)(1)(B) and 50 CFR 217.12 as any

art form that involves the etching or
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31869

engraving of designs upon, or the

carving of figures, patterns, or designs

from, any bone or tooth of any marine

mammal of the order Cetacea) that is at

least 100 years old, is composed in

whole or in part of any endangered or

threatened species listed under § 17.11

or § 17.12 of this subchapter, and has

not been repaired or modified with any

part of any endangered or threatened

species on or after December 28, 1973.

6. A new § 14.24 is added to read as

follows:

§ 14.24 Scientific specimens.

Except for wildlife requiring a permit

pursuant to parts 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 or

23 of this subchapter, dead, preserved,

dried, or embedded scientific specimens

or parts thereof, imported or exported

by accredited scientists or accredited

scientific institutions for taxonomic or

systematic research purposes may enter

or exit through any U.S. Customs port,

or may be shipped through the

international mail system. Provided,

that this exception will not apply to any

specimens or parts thereof taken as a

result of sport hunting.

7. Section 14.32 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 14.32 Permits to import or export wildlife

at non-designated port to minimize

deterioration or loss.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) Permittee must pay fees in

accordance with § 14.94.

* * * * *

8. Section 14.33 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 14.21 Permits to import or export wildlife

at non-designated port to alleviate undue

economic hardship.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) Permittee must pay fees in

accordance with § 14.94.

* * * * *

9. Section 14.52 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (b), the

introductory text of paragraph (c),

paragraphs (c)(3), and (c)(4) and by

adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as

follows:

§ 14.52 Clearance of wildlife.

(a) Except as otherwise provided by

this subpart, a Service officer must clear

all wildlife imported into the United

States prior to release from detention by

Customs officers. A Service officer must

clear all wildlife to be exported from the

United States prior to the physical

loading of the merchandise on a vehicle

or aircraft, or the containerization or

palletizing of such merchandise for

export, unless a Service officer

expressly authorizes otherwise. Such

clearance does not constitute a

certification of the legality of an

importation or exportation under the

laws or regulations of the United States.

(b) An importer/exporter or his/her

agent may obtain clearance by a Service

officer only at designated ports (§ 14.12),

at border ports (§ 14.16), at special ports

(§ 14.19), or at a port where importation

or exportation is authorized by a permit

issued under subpart C of this part. An

importer/exporter must return forthwith

any wildlife released without a Service

officer’s clearance or clearance by

Customs for the Service under authority

of § 14.54 to a port where clearance may

be obtained pursuant to this subpart.

(c) To obtain clearance, the importer,

exporter, or the importer’s or exporter’s

agent will make available to a Service

officer or a Customs officer acting under

§ 14.54:

* * * * *

(3) All permits or other documents

required by the laws or regulations of

any foreign country;

(4) The wildlife being imported or

exported; and

(5) Any documents and permits

required by the country of export or reexport for the wildlife.

10. Section 14.53 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 14.53 Detention and refusal of clearance.

(a) Detention. Any Service officer, or

Customs officer acting under § 14.54,

may detain imported or exported

wildlife and any associated property. As

soon as practicable following the

importation or exportation and decision

to detain, the Service will mail a notice

of detention by registered or certified

mail, return receipt requested, to the

importer or consignee, or exporter, if

known or easily ascertainable. Such

notice mut describe the detained

wildlife or other property, indicate the

reason for the detention, describe the

general nature of the tests or inquiries

to be conducted, and indicate that if the

releasability of the wildlife has not been

determined within 30 days after the date

of the notice, or a longer period if

specifically stated, that the Service will

deem the wildlife to be seized and will

issue no further notification of seizure.

(b) Refusal of clearance. Any Service

officer may refuse clearance of imported

or exported wildlife and any Customs

officer acting under § 14.54 may refuse

clearance of imported wildlife when

there are responsible grounds to believe

that:

(1) A Federal law or regulation has

been violated;

(2) The correct identity and country of

origin of the wildlife has not been

established (in such cases, the burden is

upon the owner, importer, exporter,

consignor, or consignee to establish

such identity by scientific name to the

species level or, if any subspecies is

protected by the laws of this country or

the country of origin to the subspecies

level);

(3) Any permit, license, or other

documentation required for clearance of

such wildlife is not available, is not

currently valid, has been suspended or

revoked, or is not authentic;

(4) The importer, exporter, or the

importer’s or exporter’s agent has filed

an incorrect or incomplete declaration

for importation or exportation as

provided in § 14.61 or § 14.63; or

(5) The importer, exporter, or the

importer’s or exporter’s agent has not

paid any fee or portion of balance due

for inspection fees required by § 14.93

or § 14.94, or penalties assessed against

the importer or exporter under 50 CFR

part 11. This paragraph does not apply

to penalty assessments on appeal in

accordance with the provisions of part

11.

11. Section 14.54 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), and adding

paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 14.54 Unavailability of Service officers.

(a) Designated ports. All wildlife

arriving at a designated port must be

cleared by a Service officer prior to

Customs clearance and release. When

importers or their agents expect live or

perishable shipments of wildlife or

wildlife products or request inspection

at the time of arrival, they must notify

the Service at least 48 hours prior to the

estimated time of arrival. However,

where a Service officer is not available

within a reasonable time, Customs

Officers may clear live or perishable

wildlife subject to post-clearance

inspection and investigation by the

Service.

* * * * *

(f) Exports. Exporters or their agents

must notify the Service and make the

shipment available for inspection at

least 48 hours prior to the estimated

time of exportation of any wildlife.

12. Section 14.55 is amended by

revising the introductory text of the

section and by adding paragraph (d) to

read as follows:

§ 14.55 Exceptions to clearance

requirements.

Except for wildlife requiring a permit

pursuant to part 17 or 23 of this

subchapter B, clearance is not required
31870 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

for the importation of the following

wildlife:

* * * * *

(d) Dead, preserved, dried, or

embedded scientific specimens or parts

thereof, imported or exported by

accredited scientists or accredited

scientific institutions for taxonomic or

systematic research purposes. Except:

That this exception will not apply to

any specimens or parts thereof taken as

a result of sport hunting.

13. Section 14.61 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 14.61 Import declaration requirements.

Except as otherwise provided by the

regulations of this subpart, importers or

their agents must file with the Service

either a completed Declaration for

Importation or Exportation of Fish or

Wildlife (Form 3–177), signed by the

importer or the importer’s agent, or an

electronic Form 3–177, filed through the

United States Customs Service

Automated Commercial System (ACS)

by an authorized Customs broker using

the Automated Broker Interface (ABI),

upon the importation of any wildlife at

the place where Service clearance under

§ 14.52 is requested. However, wildlife

may be transshipped under bond to a

different port for release from custody

by Customs Service officers under 19

U.S.C. 1499. For certain antique articles

as specified in § 14.22, importers or

their agents must file a Form 3–177 with

the District Director of Customs at the

port of entry prior to release from

Customs custody. Importers or their

agents must furnish all applicable

information requested on the Form 3–

177 and the importer, or the importer’s

agent, must certify that the information

furnished is true and complete to the

best of his/her knowledge and belief.

14. Section 14.62 is amended by

revising paragraph (a), by removing

paragraph (b)(2) and by redesignating

existing paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) as

(b)(2) and (b)(3) respectively, and by

revising paragraph (c) and adding

paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 14.62 Exceptions to import declaration

requirements.

(a) Except for wildlife requiring a

permit pursuant to part 17 or 23 of this

subchapter B, an importer or his/her

agent does not have to file a Declaration

for Importation or Exportation of Fish or

Wildlife (Form 3–177) for importation of

shellfish and fishery products imported

for purposes of human or animal

consumption, or taken in waters under

the jurisdiction of the United States or

on the high seas for recreational

purposes;

(b) * * *

(2) Wildlife products or manufactured

articles that are not intended for

commercial use and are used as clothing

or contained in accompanying personal

baggage, except that an importer or his/

her agent must file a Form 3–177 for raw

or dressed furs; for raw, salted, or

crusted hides or skins; and for game or

game trophies; and

(3) Wildlife products or manufactured

articles that are not intended for

commercial use and are a part of a

shipment of the household effects of

persons moving their residence to the

United States, except that an importer or

his/her agent must file a declaration for

raw or dressed furs and for raw, salted,

or crusted hides or skins.

* * * * *

(c) General declarations for certain

specimens. Notwithstanding the

provisions of 14.61 and except for

wildlife included in paragraph (d) of

this section, an importer or his/her

agent may describe in general terms on

a Declaration for the Importation or

Exportation of Fish or Wildlife (Form 3–

177) scientific specimens imported for

scientific institutions for taxonomic,

systematic research, or faunal survey

purposes. An importer or his/her agent

must file an amended Form 3–177

within 180 days after filing of the

general declaration with the Service.

The declaration must identify

specimens to the most accurate

taxonomic classification reasonably

practicable using the best available

taxonomic information. The Director

may grant extensions of the 180-day

period.

(d) Except for wildlife requiring a

permit pursuant to part 16, 17, 18, 21,

22 or 23 of this subchapter, an importer

or his/her agent does not have to file a

Declaration for the Importation or

Exportation of Fish or Wildlife (Form 3–

177) at the time of importation for

shipments of dead, preserved, dried, or

embedded scientific specimens or parts

thereof, imported by accredited

scientists or accredited scientific

institutions for taxonomic or systematic

research purposes. An importer or his/

her agent must file a Form 3–177 within

180 days of importation with the

appropriate Assistant Regional

Director—Law Enforcement in the

Region where the importation occurs.

The declaration must identify the

specimens to the most accurate

taxonomic classification reasonably

practicable using the best available

taxonomic information, and must

declare the country of origin. Except:

That this exception will not apply to

any specimens or parts thereof taken as

a result of sport hunting.

15. Section 14.64 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(2) and

by adding (b)(3) to read as follows:

§ 14.64 Exceptions to export declaration

requirements.

(a) Except for wildlife requiring a

permit pursuant to Part 17 or 23 of this

subchapter B, an exporter or his/her

agent does not have to file a Declaration

for Importation or Exportation of Fish or

Wildlife (Form 3–177) for the

exportation of shellfish and fishery

products exported for purposes of

human or animal consumption or taken

in waters under the jurisdiction of the

United States or on the high seas for

recreational purposes, and does not

have to file for the exportation of live

aquatic invertebrates of the Class

Pelecypoda (commonly known as

oysters, claims, mussels, and scallops)

and the eggs, larvae, or juvenile forms

thereof exported for purposes of

propagation, or research related to

propagation.

(b) * * *

(1) Wildlife that is not intended for

commercial use where the value of such

wildlife is under $250;

(2) Wildlife products or manufactured

articles, including game trophies, that

are not intended for commercial use and

are used as clothing or contained in

accompanying personal baggage or are

part of a shipment of the household

effects of persons moving their

residence from the United States; and

(3) Shipments of dead, preserved,

dried, or embedded scientific specimens

or parts thereof, exported by accredited

scientists or accredited scientific

institutions for taxonomic or systematic

research purposes. An exporter or his/

her agent must file a Form 3–177 within

180 days of exportation with the

appropriate Assistant Regional

Director—Law Enforcement in the

Region where the exportation occurs.

The declaration must identify the

specimens to the most accurate

taxonomic classification reasonably

practicable using the best available

taxonomic information, and must

declare the country of origin. Except:

That this exception will not apply to

any specimens or parts thereof taken as

a result of sport hunting.

16. Section 14.81 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 14.81 Marking requirement.

Except as otherwise provided in this

subpart, no person may import, export,

or transport in interstate commerce any

container or package containing any fish

or wildlife (including shellfish and

fishery products) unless he/she marks

each container or package
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31871

conspicuously on the outside with both

the name and address of the shipper and

consignee. An accurate and legible list

of its contents by species scientific

name and the number of each species

and whether or not the listed species are

venomous must accompany the entire

shipment.

17. Section 14.82 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A), (1)(2),

and (a)(3) to read as follows:

§ 14.82 Alternatives and exceptions to the

marking requirement.

(a) * * *

(1)(i) * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) The common name that identifies

the species (examples include: Chinook

(or king) salmon; bluefin tuna; and

whitetail deer) and whether or not the

listed species is venomous; and

* * * * *

(2) Affixing the shipper’s wildlife

import/export license number preceded

by the three letters ‘‘FWS’’ on the

outside of each container or package

containing fish or wildlife, if the

shipper has valid wildlife import/export

license issued under authority of 50

CFR part 14. For each shipment marked

in accordance with this paragraph, the

records maintained under § 14.93(c)

must include a copy of the invoice,

packing list, bill of lading, or other

similar document that accurately states

the information required by paragraph

(a)(1)(ii) of this section.

(3) In the case of subcontainers or

packages within a larger packing

container, only the outermost container

must be marked in accordance with this

section. Except, that for live fish or

wildlife that are packed in

subcontainers within a larger packing

container, if the subcontainers are

numbered or labeled, the packing list,

invoice, bill or lading, or other similar

document, must reflect that number or

label. However, each subcontainer

containing a venomous species must be

clearly marked as venomous.

* * * * *

18. Section 14.91 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) and (c) to read as

follows:

§ 14.91 License requirement.

(a) Prohibition. Except as otherwise

provided in this subpart, it is unlawful

for any person to engage in business as

an importer or exporter of wildlife

without first having obtained a valid

import/export license from the Director.

* * * * *

(c) Certain persons required to be

licensed. The definition in paragraph (b)

of this section includes, but is not

limited to, persons who import or

export wildlife for commercial

purposes:

(1) For trade, sale, or resale, such as

animal dealers, animal brokers, pet

dealers, pet suppliers, and laboratory

research suppliers;

(2) In the form of fur for tanning,

manufacture, or sale, such as fur

trappers, dealers, brokers, and

manufacturers;

(3) In the form of hides and skins for

tanning, manufacture, or sale, such as

hide, skin, and leather dealers, brokers,

manufacturers, and processors;

(4) In the form of products (such as

garments, bags, shoes, boots, jewelry,

rugs, or curios) for sale, such as

wholesalers, retailers, distributors, and

brokers;

(5) As taxidermists in connection with

the mounting processing, or storage of

trophies or specimens;

(6) As freight forwarders; and

(7) In the form of food products taken

from populations of non-domesticated

animals.

19. Section 14.92 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3),

and (a)(4) and adding (a)(5) and (a)(6),

and by revising (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4), and

(b)(5) and by removing paragraph (b)(6)

to read as follows:

§ 14.92 Exceptions to license

requirements.

(a) * * *

(1) Shellfish and fishery products that

do not require a permit under Part 17 or

23 of this subchapter B and that are

imported or exported for purposes of

human or animal consumption;

(2) Shellfish and fishery products that

do not require a permit under part 17 or

23 of this subchapter B and that are

taken in waters under the jurisdiction of

the United States or on the high seas for

recreational purposes;

(3) Fox, nutria, rabbit, mink,

chinchilla, marten, fisher, muskrat, and

karakul and their products if the

animals have been bred and born in

captivity;

(4) Live farm-raised fish and farmraised eggs of species not requiring a

permit under part 17 or 23 of this

subchapter B that are being exported;

(5) Live aquatic invertebrates of the

Class Pelecypoda (commonly known as

oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops)

and the eggs, larvae, or juvenile forms

thereof exported for purposes of

propagation or research related to

propagation; and

(6) Pearls imported or exported for

commercial purposes.

(b) * * *

(1) Common carriers when engaged as

transporters and not as importers or

exporters of record;

(2) Custom house brokers when

engaged as agents and not as importers

or exporters of record;

* * * * *

(4) Federal, State, or municipal

agencies; and

(5) Circuses importing or exporting

wildlife for exhibition purposes only

and not for purchase, sale, barter, or

transfer of such wildlife.

20. Section 14.93 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c)(4), and (c)(5) to

read as set forth below, and by removing

paragraph (f).

§ 14.93 License application procedure,

conditions, and duration.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) Subject to applicable limitations of

law, licensees must provide duly

authorized Service officers at all

reasonable times, upon notice, access to

the licensee’s places of business and

give an opportunity to examine the

licensee’s inventory of imported

wildlife and the records required to be

kept under paragraph (c)(1) of this

section, and give an opportunity to copy

such records;

(5) Licensees must, upon written

request by the Director, submit within

30 days of such request a report

containing the information required to

be maintained by paragraph (c)(1) of this

section.

* * * * *

21. Section 14.94 is added 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.

(b) Designated port overtime fees. The

Service may charge importers or

exporters of wildlife, regardless of being

licensed as a commercial importer or

exporter, a fee for overtime for

inspections that begin before normal

working hours, that extend beyond

normal working hours, or are on a

holiday, Saturday, or Sunday if the

importer/exporter requested that the

inspection be performed outside normal

work hours. Overtime fees consist of an

increased hourly rate equal to 11⁄2 times

the average hourly rate of a journeyman

level wildlife inspector. Overtime fees

will be in addition to inspection fees

imposed for license holders at

designated ports. If an importer/exporter

presents a shipment for inspection

during normal work hours but the

Service cannot perform the inspection
31872 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

during normal work hours on that day,

the service will give the importer/

exporter the option of performing the

inspection later during normal work

hours or charging for overtime. The

Service’s ability to perform inspections

during overtime hours will depend on

the availability of Service personnel.

The Serivce will use the following

parameters when calculating the

overtime fee:

(1) Inspection overtime commences

when a Service officer departs that

officer’s residence or official duty

station enroute to the inspection site or

at the end of normal work hours.

Inspection overtime terminates when

the officer returns to the point of

departure or official duty station or

when the inspection is completed,

whichever occurs later.

(2) For an inspection at a designated

port beginning less than 1 hour before

normal work hours, the Service will

charge 1 hour of time, at an hourly rate

of 11⁄2 times the average hourly rate of

a journeyman level Wildlife Inspector.

For all other overtime inspections at a

designated port the Service will charge

a minimum of 2 hours of time, at an

hourly rate of 11⁄2 times the average

hourly rate of a journeyman level

Wildlife Inspector, except that for all

inspections performed on a federal

holiday the Service will charge a

minimum of 2 hours at twice the

average hourly rate of a journeyman

level Wildlife Inspector.

(3) The Service will charge any

inspection time in excess of the 2-hour

minimum in quarter hour increments at

the same hourly rate as the first 2 hours.

The Service will round up inspection

time of 10 minutes or more to the next

quarter hour and will disregard any time

less than 10 minutes.

(4) The fee schedule will apply to all

inspections regardless of importer/

exporter of record, except, that the

Service will charge multiple shipments

consigned to the same importer/exporter

and inspected at one location one 2-

hour minimum or actual time,

whichever is greater.

(c) Nondesignated port fees. The

Service will charge permittees issued

permits under subpart C of this part,

and licensed commercial importers and

exporters a fee for inspections at

nondesignated ports. The fees consist of

a flat administrative fee plus a

minimum of two hours of time at staffed

nondesignated ports. The Service will

use the following parameters when

calculating fees:

(1) During normal working hours the

Service will charge permittees issued

permits under subpart C of this part,

regardless of being licensed as a

commercial importer or exporter, an

administrative fee plus a minimum of 2

hours of time at the average hourly rate

of a journeyman level wildlife inspector.

The Service will charge permittees

requesting clearance outside normal

working hours, including Saturday and

Sunday, an administrative fee plus a

minimum of 2 hours of time at 11⁄2 times

the average hourly rate of a journeyman

level wildlife inspector, except that for

all inspections performed on a federal

holiday the Service will charge a

minimum of 2 hours at twice the

average hourly rate of a journeyman

level wildlife inspector.

(2) The Service will charge any

inspection time in excess of the 2-hour

minimum in quarter hour increments at

the same hourly rate as the first 2 hours.

The Service will round up inspection

time of 10 minutes or more to the next

quarter hour and will disregard any time

less than 10 minutes.

(3) The Service will not charge

importers or exporters who are not

required to have a permit under subpart

C of this part, except that the Service

will charge licensed importers or

exporters an administrative fee only

during normal working hours, and

overtime hourly rates and minimums

will apply outside normal working

hours.

(4) For inspections performed under a

permit issued under subpart C of this

part at nondesignated ports with no

permanent Service law enforcement

staff, the Service will charge all costs

associated with inspection and

clearance, including, salary, travel and

transportation costs, and per diem.

(d) Schedule.

General Fees

Import/Export license fee ................................................................................................................................................ $50 per year.

Inspection fee .................................................................................................................................................................. $55 per shipment.

Inspection Fee Schedule

Designated ports: Licensees:

Inspections during normal work hours .................................................................................................................... $55 Inspection fee.

Inspections beginning less than 1 hour before normal work hours ............................................................................... $55 Inspection fee plus

$30.

Inspections beginning more than 1 hour before normal work hours ............................................................................. $55 Inspection fee plus 2

hour minimum at $30/hr.

Inspections after normal work hours (including Saturdays and Sundays) ..................................................................... $55 Inspection fee plus 2

hour minimum at $30/hr.

Inspections on federal holidays ...................................................................................................................................... $55 Inspection fee plus 2

hour minimum at $40/hr.

Designated ports: Nonlicensees:

Inspection during normal work hours ...................................................................................................................... No charge.

Inspections beginning outside normal work hours .................................................................................................. 2 hour minimum at $30/hr.

Staffed nondesignated ports: Subpart C permit holders, regardless of license status:

Inspections during normal work hours .................................................................................................................... $55 Administrative fee plus

2 hour minimum at $20/

hr.

Inspections beginning outside normal work hours (including Saturdays and Sundays) ........................................ $55 Administrative fee plus

2 hour minimum at $30/

hr.

Inspections on federal holidays ............................................................................................................................... $55 Administrative fee plus

2 hour minimum at $40/

hr.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 121 / Friday, June 21, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 31873

Nonstaffed nondesignated ports: ............................................................................................................................. $55 Administrative fee plus

all costs associated with

inspection and clearance.

Staffed nondesignated ports: No subpart C permit required (Border/Special Ports):

Import/export license holders .................................................................................................................................. $55 Administrative fee.

All others .................................................................................................................................................................. No charge.

(1) The Service will not refund any

fee or any portion of any license or

inspection fee or excuse payment of any

fee because importation or clearance of

wildlife shipment is refused for any

reason.

(2) [Reserved]

Dated: February 6, 1996.

George T. Frampton Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

[FR Doc. 96–15388 Filed 6–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 661

[Docket No. 960126016–6121–04; I.D.

061196C]

Ocean Salmon Fisheries Off the

Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and

California; Closure from Cape Arago,

OR, to the Oregon-California Border

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

commercial salmon fishery in the area

from Cape Arago, OR, to the OregonCalifornia border was closed at 1700

hours, June 5, 1996. The Director,

Northwest Region, NMFS (Regional

Director), has determined that the

commercial quota of 5,300 chinook

salmon for the area has been reached.

This action is necessary to conform to

the preseason announcement of the

1996 management measures and is

intended to ensure conservation of

chinook salmon.

DATES: Effective 1700 hours local time,

June 5, 1996, through 2400 hours local

time, June 30, 1996. Comments will be

accepted through July 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

William Stelle, Jr., Director, Northwest

Region, National Marine Fisheries

Service, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way

NE., BIN C15700–Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA

98115–0070. Information relevant to

this action has been compiled in

aggregate form and is available for

public review during business hours at

the office of the Regional Director.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William L. Robinson, 206–526–6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations governing the ocean salmon

fisheries at 50 CFR 661.21(a)(1) state

that when a quota for the commercial or

the recreational fishery, or both, for any

salmon species in any portion of the

fishery management area is projected by

the Regional Director to be reached on

or by a certain date, the Secretary of

Commerce will, under 50 CFR 661.23,

close the commercial or recreational

fishery, or both, for all salmon species

in the portion of the fishery

management area to which the quota

applies as of the date the quota is

projected to be reached.

In the annual management measures

for ocean salmon fisheries (61 FR 20175,

May 6, 1996), NMFS announced that the

1996 commercial fishery in the area

between Cape Arago, OR, and the

Oregon-California border would open

on May 1 and continue through June 30

or attainment of the 5,300 chinook

salmon quota, whichever occurred first.

The best available information on

June 3 indicated that commercial

catches in this area totaled about 4,300

chinook salmon through June 2. Based

on the recent catch and effort levels,

NMFS determined to close the

commercial fishery at 1200 hours, June

4. The U.S. Coast Guard Notice to

Mariners was not broadcast, however,

until Wednesday afternoon, June 5.

Therefore, the Federal closure was not

effective until 1700 hours, June 5. The

season remains closed under the terms

of the preseason announcement of the

1996 management measures.

The Regional Director consulted with

representatives of the Pacific Fishery

Management Council and the Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife

regarding this closure. The State of

Oregon closed its commercial fishery

between Cape Arago and the OregonCalifornia border at 1200 hours on June

4. As provided by the inseason notice

procedures of 50 CFR 661.23, actual

notice to fishermen of this action was

given prior to 1700 hours local time,

June 5, 1996, by telephone hotline

number 206–526–6667 or 800–662–9825

and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to

Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16

VHF-FM and 2182 kHz. Because of the

need for immediate action to stop the

fishery upon achievement of the quota,

NMFS has determined that good cause

exists for this action to be issued

without affording a prior opportunity

for public comment. This action does

not apply to other fisheries that may be

operating in other areas.

Classification

This action is authorized by 50 CFR

661.21 and 661.23 and is exempt from

review under E.O. 12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: June 17, 1996.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Fisheries

Conservation and Management, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 96–15890 Filed 6–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F