Importation, Exportation, and Transportation of Wildlife; Inspection Fees, Import/Export Licenses, and Import/Export License Exemptions, 9972-9983 [E8-3330]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9972-9983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3330]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 14

[FWS-R9-LE-2008-0024; 99011-1224-0000-9B]
RIN 1018-AV31


Importation, Exportation, and Transportation of Wildlife; 
Inspection Fees, Import/Export Licenses, and Import/Export License 
Exemptions

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: We propose to revise subpart I--Import/Export Licenses, of 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 14, (50 CFR 14) to 
clarify the import/export license and fee requirements, adjust the user 
fee schedule and update license and user fee exemptions. We propose to 
clarify when an import/export license is required by persons who engage 
in the business of importing and exporting wildlife as well as change 
the license requirement exemptions. Revised regulations will help those 
importing and exporting wildlife better understand when an import/
export license is required and will allow us to consistently apply 
these requirements. We also propose to change our user fee structure 
for the importation and exportation of wildlife and the fee exemptions. 
We propose to generally increase these fees and publish the changes for 
2008 through 2012. We determined that these fees must be adjusted every 
year to cover the increased cost of providing these services. By 
publishing these user fee changes in advance, importers and exporters 
can accurately predict the costs of importing and exporting wildlife 
several years in advance.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
April 25, 2008. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 
information on the date of the public meeting.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: [RIN 1018-AV31]; Division of Policy and Directives Management; 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; 
Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://

[[Page 9973]]

www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information that you provide to us (see the Public Comments 
section below for more information).
    Public Meeting: A public meeting will be held on April 3, 2008, 
from 1 to 4 p.m. in Room 200, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia, during which we will accept written 
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Garlick, Special Agent in 
Charge, Branch of Investigations, Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, telephone (703) 358-1949, fax (703) 358-1947.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be as accurate and effective as possible. The Service invites 
interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this proposed rule. 
Comments that will provide the most assistance to us in developing this 
rule will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain 
the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, 
or authority that support that recommended change. Therefore, we 
request comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned 
government agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested party concerning this proposed rule.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
accept comments you send by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed 
in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments; your 
comment must include your first and last name, city, State, country, 
and postal (zip) code. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered 
comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not 
postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information in addition to the required items 
specified in the previous paragraph, such as your street address, 
telephone number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov., or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 3000, Arlington, VA.

Public Assistance for Import/Export Questions

    We highly recommend that you contact our wildlife inspectors about 
importing and exporting procedures and requirements before you import 
or export your wildlife. We have wildlife inspectors stationed at 
numerous ports throughout the country. You can find contact information 
for our wildlife inspectors on our Web site at: https://www.fws.gov/le/
ImpExp/inspectors.htm. In addition, the Service has a telephone hotline 
that is staffed Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. through 8 p.m. Eastern 
time, that can provide assistance for any questions you may have 
regarding importing and exporting wildlife, at 1-800-344-WILD.

Public Meeting

    A public meeting will be held on April 3, 2008, from 1 to 4 p.m. in 
Room 200, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, Virginia. All interested persons wishing to present oral 
comments at this meeting must submit a written copy of their oral 
comments at the meeting. Oral comments may be limited based upon the 
number of persons wishing to speak at the meeting. We will accept 
written comments at the public meeting.

Background

    The regulations contained in 50 CFR part 14 provide individuals and 
businesses with guidelines and procedures to follow when importing or 
exporting wildlife, including parts and products. These regulations 
explain the requirements for individuals or businesses importing or 
exporting wildlife for commercial purposes, those moving their 
household goods, personal items, or pets, and the exemptions provided 
for specific activities or types of wildlife. The regulations at 50 CFR 
part 14 provide individuals and businesses with the specific ports and 
locations where these activities may be conducted and any fees that may 
be charged as a result of these activities.
    The following parts of this preamble explain the proposed rule and 
present a discussion of the substantive issues of each section that we 
propose to change in subpart I of part 14. We retained the current 
organizational structure of subpart I but propose changes to the 
requirements for an import/export license, how to apply for an import/
export license, what user fees apply to importers and exporters, and 
what exemptions we apply to licenses and fees.

Proposed Import/Export License Requirements

    We propose to remove the definition of ``engage in business as an 
importer or exporter of wildlife'' because the elements of the 
definition are already expressed in the current definition of 
``commercial,'' and the broader definition of commercial more 
accurately reflects what we consider as ``engaging in business.''
    We propose to remove the section on certain persons required to be 
licensed and replace it with a table that provides examples of when we 
consider persons to be engaging in business as an importer or exporter 
of wildlife. We propose to limit who should be licensed to those 
persons directly involved with importing and exporting wildlife. 
Therefore, we propose to eliminate requirements for persons who are 
indirectly involved with a shipment either before or after our 
clearance of the shipment.

Proposed Exemptions To Import/Export License Requirements

    We propose to remove two exemptions from our import/export license 
requirements for businesses that import or export products from several 
mammal species that have been bred and born in captivity and for 
circuses that import or export wildlife.
    Our current regulations allow businesses that exclusively import or 
export chinchilla, fisher, fox, marten, mink, muskrat, and nutria that 
have been bred and born in captivity, and products of these animals, to 
conduct business without obtaining an import/export license. If a 
particular business chooses to import or export wild specimens of these 
species or species other than those listed above, they must obtain an 
import/export license.
    We propose to remove the import/export license exemption in Sec.  
14.92 for businesses that exclusively import or export chinchilla, 
fisher, fox, marten, mink, muskrat, and nutria that have been bred and 
born in captivity or products of these animals. Our current import/
export license regulations also exempt businesses that import or export 
products from the rabbit and karakul. The rabbit and karakul, which is 
a variety of the domestic sheep, are defined to be domesticated species 
and

[[Page 9974]]

are, therefore, already exempted from all Service import or export 
requirements.
    Our import/export data shows that the majority of businesses that 
import or export mammals or products made from mammals do not deal 
exclusively in chinchilla, fisher, fox, marten, mink, muskrat, and 
nutria that have been bred and born in captivity. Rather, most 
businesses deal in a mixture of these species and other species that do 
not qualify for the import/export license exemption, or the trade is in 
wild-caught specimens. Only approximately 1.5 percent of the shipments 
declared to us in fiscal year 2005 consisted exclusively of captive-
bred specimens of the above-listed species. Although many businesses 
have not taken advantage of the exemption, any exempted shipments still 
require our inspection and clearance.
    All other wildlife types that are identified as being exempt from 
the import/export license, such as certain shellfish and nonliving fish 
products, are also wildlife that the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) or these regulations have exempted from inspection and 
clearance. No statutory or regulatory inspection or clearance 
exemptions are provided for captive-bred mammals or their products. 
This exemption has had the unfortunate consequence of creating a 
monetary incentive for the global trade community to falsely declare 
wild mammal specimens as captive-bred upon import into the United 
States. In addition, due to shipping and other business practices, 
importers of foreign-sourced mammal products imported into the United 
States are more likely to declare the products as captive-bred for 
purposes of claiming the exemption than exporters of U.S.-sourced 
mammal products.
    Because these specific captive-bred mammal shipments are exempt 
from the import/export license, the corresponding importers or 
exporters are not required to maintain records of their imports or 
exports or any subsequent dispositions and do not have to provide the 
Service with access to these records or inventories of wildlife upon 
reasonable notice. The lack of recordkeeping requirements and access to 
these records hinders our ability to investigate instances of false 
declarations. These corresponding importers and exporters are also 
exempt from paying user fees and filing reports with the Service upon 
request. Based upon all the problems that have resulted with this 
exemption, we propose to remove the exemption to the import/export 
license for persons engaging in the business of importing or exporting 
shipments containing only chinchilla, fisher, fox, marten, mink, 
muskrat, and nutria that have been bred and born in captivity or their 
products.
    We also propose that circuses no longer qualify for the exemption 
from our import/export license requirements. Our current import/export 
regulations allow certain persons and businesses, including circuses, 
to import or export wildlife without obtaining an import/export 
license. However, with the exception of circuses, it is apparent that 
these exempt businesses or organizations, which include common 
carriers, custom house brokers, public museums, scientific or 
educational institutions, and government agencies, are not engaging in 
business as importers or exporters of wildlife. While circuses 
typically do not import or export wildlife for resale, they do import 
or export wildlife to stimulate additional business, through ticket 
sales or other promotions. We, therefore, consider circuses to be 
importing or exporting wildlife for commercial purposes and believe 
they should not be exempted from our import/export license 
requirements. Other shipments of wildlife imported or exported as part 
of commercial entertainment, such as magic acts or animal shows, are 
considered commercial as well and are not exempt from import/export 
license requirements.

Proposed Import/Export License Application Requirements

    We propose to remove the specific additional information language 
from the current Sec.  14.93(b) because the import/export license 
application form, FWS Form 3-200-3, is updated and contains this 
additional specific information. We also propose to reorganize the 
license conditions section for clarity and to add the requirement that 
importers and exporters are responsible for providing current contact 
information, including a mailing address, to be used for official 
notifications from the Service.
    We propose to reorganize the section that outlines issuance, 
denial, suspension, revocation, or renewal of an import/export license 
for clarity. We also propose to add two new factors that are grounds 
for suspension, revocation, denial, or renewal of an import/export 
license. Although these factors are already generally covered by the 
regulations in part 13 of subchapter B of chapter I of title 50, we 
wish to bring these two factors to the attention of wildlife importers 
and exporters. We propose to consider repeated failure to provide the 
required prior notification for certain shipments as possible grounds 
for action against an existing import/export license holder or during 
consideration of a new or renewal import/export license application. 
Failure by importers or exporters to provide this required notification 
risks the health or condition of live and perishable shipments because 
of clearance delays and requires us to accommodate last-minute 
inspection schedule changes that directly impact the schedules of other 
importers or exporters.
    We also propose to add the repeated import or export of certain 
types of wildlife without following the requirements in this subpart as 
grounds for action against an existing import/export license holder or 
during consideration of a new or renewal import/export license 
application. This repeated failure to follow requirements for certain 
wildlife imports or exports may result in a restriction of the license 
to disallow engaging in business with those particular types of 
wildlife while still allowing the importer or exporter to continue to 
engage in business with other wildlife.

Proposed Inspection Fees

    The regulations in 50 CFR part 14 contain a user fee schedule for 
inspections of wildlife shipments. We propose to change the user fee 
structure and generally increase fees to cover the increased cost of 
providing these services and the required support. The user fees 
currently apply primarily to commercial importers and exporters whose 
shipments of wildlife are declared to, and inspected and cleared by, 
Service wildlife inspectors, to ensure compliance with wildlife 
protection laws. These fees are not intended to fully fund the wildlife 
inspection program, which includes both a compliance monitoring 
function, involving services to the trade community, and a vital 
smuggling interdiction mission focused on detecting and disrupting 
illegal wildlife trade. The proposed fee increase will appropriately 
focus only on recovering costs associated with services provided to 
importers and exporters engaged in legal wildlife trade.
    In developing this proposed rule, the Service is guided by the 
Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952, codified at 31 U.S.C. 
9701 (``the User Fee Statute''), which mandates that services provided 
by Federal agencies are to be ``self-sustaining to the extent 
possible.'' We are also guided by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) Circular No. A-25, Federal user fee policy, which establishes 
Federal policy regarding fees assessed for

[[Page 9975]]

government services. It provides that user fees will be sufficient to 
recover the full cost to the Federal Government of providing the 
service, will be based on market prices, and will be collected in 
advance of, or simultaneously with, the rendering of services. The 
policy requires Federal agencies to recoup the costs of ``special 
services'' that provide benefits to identifiable recipients. The 
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1540(f)) also authorizes the Service 
to charge and retain reasonable fees for processing applications and 
for performing reasonable inspections of importation, exportation, and 
transportation of wildlife. The benefit of user fees is the shift in 
the payment of services from taxpayers as a whole to those persons who 
are receiving the government services. While taxes may not change by 
the same amount as the change in user fee collections, there is a 
related shift in the appropriations of taxes to government programs, 
which allows those tax dollars to be applied to other programs that 
benefit the general public. Therefore, there could be a relative 
savings to taxpayers as a result of the changes in user fees.
    The inspection and clearance of wildlife imports and exports is a 
special service, provided to importers and exporters who are authorized 
to engage in activities not otherwise authorized for the general 
public. Our ability to effectively provide these services and the 
necessary support for these services depends on inspection fees. 
Although the Service began collecting user fees in February 1986, we 
have been unable to achieve full cost recovery as several categories of 
importers and exporters have been exempt from paying fees, and fees 
were not established at levels that would cover all costs of the 
services provided to the trade community. Exempt business have included 
most noncommercial importers/exporters; companies dealing in specific 
captive-bred or personally trapped furs, meat from bison, ostrich, and 
emu, and aquacultured sturgeon food items; and circuses. The current 
fee schedule has been in place since 1996. These fees were calculated 
based solely upon the salary and benefits of a journeyman-level 
wildlife inspector and did not attempt to recover other costs of 
conducting compliance inspections and providing clearance services to 
the wildlife trade community. Commercial importers or exporters, 
entities that hold a Service import/export license, now pay a flat rate 
of $55 per shipment for inspections at designated ports during normal 
working hours. Additional per-hour charges are applied when inspections 
are conducted outside normal working hours; non-licensees receiving 
inspections outside normal working hours also pay these hourly charges.
    All importers or exporters, whether licensed or not, pay a $55 
administrative fee for inspections at a staffed nondesignated port plus 
a 2-hour minimum of $20 per hour for inspections during normal working 
hours. Higher hourly charges apply for inspections outside normal 
working hours. Inspections at nondesignated ports that are not staffed 
by Service inspectors are charged all costs associated with providing 
the inspection, including salary, travel, transportation, and per diem 
costs.
    The proposed user fee structure will consist of a flat rate base 
inspection fee based upon the type of port: $85.00 for designated ports 
or ports acting as designated ports; $133.00 for staffed, nondesignated 
ports; and $133.00 for nonstaffed, nondesignated ports, that reflects 
the recovery of specific direct and indirect costs; and two premium 
inspection fees, each $19.00, reflecting additional labor costs 
associated with specific types of commodities. The proposed structure 
also provides for overtime fees. The proposed fees reflect the cost of 
the services provided for routine shipments, shipments that contain 
species that are protected by Federal or international law, and 
shipments that contain live specimens. We propose that routine 
shipments would be charged a base inspection fee based upon the type of 
port. We propose that shipments containing protected species or live 
specimens would be charged a premium inspection fee in addition to the 
base inspection fee. If a shipment contains both protected species and 
live specimens, we propose to charge two premium inspection fees in 
addition to the base inspection fee.
    For commercial shipments at designated ports, our current 
regulations require an inspection fee of $55. The proposed fee 
structure requires an $85 base inspection fee for inspections at these 
ports. These shipments would result in an additional $30 in inspection 
fees per shipment ($85-$55) under the new fee structure. For fiscal 
year 2005, we inspected 83,203 shipments at designated ports that did 
not contain species that are protected by Federal or international law 
or live specimens.
    In addition to the nonstaffed, nondesignated port base inspection 
fee, we propose that all importers or exporters who use these types of 
ports will be required to pay any associated travel and per diem 
expenses needed for our wildlife inspector to conduct an inspection at 
these ports. Our current regulations require importers or exporters who 
use these types of ports to pay these travel and per diem expenses plus 
the salary of the wildlife inspector conducting the inspection in 
addition to a base hourly administrative fee. The proposed fee 
structure simplifies the fees for a nonstaffed, nondesignated port to 
include a flat rate base fee of $133 to use these ports, which 
incorporates the salary of the wildlife inspector conducting the 
inspection, in addition to any travel and per diem costs. Importers and 
exporters using this type of port would also be responsible for payment 
of premium fees if their shipment includes live or protected specimens, 
as is the case at the other types of ports.
    We propose to publish 5 years worth of fees and apply an inflation 
factor to the base fees, premium fees, and overtime fees. Throughout 
the 5-year period, we propose to increase the base inspection fees 
annually based upon inflation using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 
indices. We propose to increase the premium inspection fees gradually 
over the 5-year period, reflecting both inflation and a gradual move to 
100 percent cost recovery. By publishing these user fee changes for the 
5-year period, importers and exporters of wildlife can incorporate 
these fee increases into their budget planning.

Calculation of the Proposed Inspection Fees

    For these proposed fee increases, we conducted an economic analysis 
of the costs associated with the services provided to the legal 
wildlife trade community, and we propose to create a user fee template 
that will form the basis for the determination of user fee increases 
for a 5-year period. The economic analysis uses data on shipment types 
and quantities, inspection times required for different types of 
shipments, and direct and indirect costs associated with the services 
provided to the legal wildlife trade community.
    In order to recalculate these inspection fees, we began by 
analyzing the actual total costs of providing services to the legal 
wildlife trade community during fiscal year 2005, as compared to the 
actual total money that we collected for activities authorized by the 
wildlife inspection program during fiscal year 2005.
    The total costs include wildlife inspector salaries and benefits, 
the appropriate portion of our managers' salaries and benefits, direct 
costs such as vehicle operation and maintenance, equipment purchase and 
replacement,

[[Page 9976]]

data entry and computer support for the Service's electronic filing 
system, communications costs, office supplies, uniforms, and 
administrative costs and indirect costs such as office space. We 
calculated these costs using a Service-wide standard of 22 percent of 
direct costs. The total cost of providing services to the legal 
wildlife trade community during fiscal year 2005 was $20,083,627.
    The total amount of money that we collected for activities 
authorized by the wildlife inspection program during fiscal year 2005 
was $8,724,289. It must be noted that this total includes application 
fees for import/export licenses, designated port exception permits, and 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) permits 
and certificates, as well as inspection and overtime fees. Currently, 
our data does not distinguish between license and permit fees and 
inspection fees. However, it is readily apparent that whatever portion 
of this total is derived from inspection fees, it falls well below the 
total costs associated with the wildlife trade compliance program 
during fiscal year 2005.
    The inspection of shipments that contain species protected by 
Federal or international law, or live specimens, requires considerably 
more knowledge, time, and equipment than is required for a routine 
shipment. In addition to the increased time required for document 
inspection and handling of the shipment, the inspection of these 
``premium'' shipments requires more thorough knowledge of Federal or 
international law or, in the case of shipments containing live 
specimens, the use of equipment that provides for the safety of the 
wildlife inspector conducting the inspection.
    In addition, there are other costs associated with the inspection 
of premium shipments. In many instances, foreign documents that are 
presented for clearance of shipments containing protected species under 
CITES or foreign wildlife laws must be verified with foreign 
governments, a process that can be extremely time consuming. These 
foreign documents must be stored and recorded in our electronic 
database. Data on shipments containing wildlife protected under CITES 
must be analyzed for quality and reported internationally on an annual 
basis, as one of our obligations as a party nation to this 
international treaty.
    Since the trade compliance portion of the wildlife inspection 
program is to be ``self-sustaining to the extent possible,'' we propose 
a user fee structure that will provide 100 percent cost recovery by the 
end of the 5-year period. If we had developed a user fee structure to 
provide 100 percent cost recovery immediately, the initial premium fees 
would have been substantially higher than the proposed premium fees 
described in this proposed rule.
    During the development of the proposed fee structure, we estimated 
the inflation rate based upon the GDP. The GDP indices are obtained 
from the Economic Report of the President, which projects the growth of 
real GDP. For the 5-year period covered in this proposed rule, the GDP 
indices were as follows: 2.1 percent for 2008, 2009, and 2010 and 2.2 
percent for 2011 and 2012. We decided to use inflation using the GDP 
indices as the only factor contributing to the increased costs by the 
end of the 5-year period. This is a conservative approach since 
wildlife inspector salaries and benefits could increase at a 
substantially greater rate than inflation by the end of the 5-year 
period. While salaries may increase consistent with inflation, 
promotions would increase salaries considerably more than inflation.
    In order to recalculate these inspection fees, we estimated what 
the fiscal year 2005 base inspection fees and premium inspection fees 
would need to be to provide 100 percent cost recovery by the end of the 
5-year period, and inflated those fees to 2008 dollars. We used this 
approach because this proposed rulemaking will not be finalized until 
2008 and if, at that time, we used 2005 dollars consistent with actual 
total costs during fiscal year 2005, 100 percent cost recovery by the 
end of the 5-year period would not be possible.
    It is extremely difficult to estimate what portion of the total 
amount of money that we collected for activities authorized by the 
wildlife inspection program was derived from travel and per diem 
expenses and overtime fees we received. Currently, our data does not 
distinguish between license and permit fees and inspection fees, which 
include travel and per diem expenses and overtime fees we received. 
However, it is readily apparent that these amounts are a very small 
portion of the total amount that is derived from inspection fees, and 
will have little impact on the total amount of money that we collect 
for activities authorized by the wildlife inspection program. 
Therefore, during the development of the proposed fee structure, we 
decided not to include overtime fees, or salary, travel, and per diem 
expenses collected at a nonstaffed, nondesignated port, which can be 
highly variable.
    During the development of the user fee template, we considered the 
impact that increased user fees would have on small businesses. 
Essentially all of the businesses that engage in commerce by importing 
or exporting wildlife would be considered small businesses according to 
the Small Business Administration (SBA). Examples of some of these 
businesses can be placed in the following SBA categories: ``Zoos and 
Botanical Gardens,'' with an SBA size standard of $6.0 million in 
average annual receipts; ``Merchant wholesalers, nondurable goods,'' 
with an SBA size standard of 100 employees; ``Leather and allied 
product manufacturers,'' with an SBA size standard of 500 employees; 
and ``Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores,'' with an SBA size 
standard ranging from $6.0 million to $7.5 million in average annual 
receipts.
    Since essentially all of these businesses are small, we believe 
that those companies who deal with more complex shipments that require 
additional services from us, such as those containing species that are 
protected by Federal or international law, or live specimens, should 
assume a greater share of the costs associated with the additional 
services, rather than us spreading these additional costs out among all 
importers and exporters.
    To help determine how realistic our proposed fee increases were, we 
decided to calculate what the user fees in place since 1996 would be 
equal to in the beginning of and by the end of the 5-year period, based 
only on inflation using the GDP indices. This calculation yielded an 
inspection fee of $70 for 2008, and an inspection fee of $76 by the end 
of the 5-year period in 2012. Both of these projected fees are quite 
close to the proposed base inspection fee of $85.00. Recognizing that 
the 1996 user fees were based only on the salary and benefits of a 
journeyman-level wildlife inspector and did not take into account all 
of the other costs associated with the services provided to the legal 
trade community, the proposed $85.00 base inspection fee, which is 
based on all of the associated costs of the wildlife inspection 
program, is reasonable.

Exemptions to the Proposed Inspection Fees

    During the development of the user fee template, we decided that 
some individuals, organizations, or certain commodities should be 
exempt from the proposed inspection fees. Governments agencies at the 
Federal, State, local, or tribal level have been exempt from inspection 
fees in the past and will continue to be exempt from the

[[Page 9977]]

proposed inspection fees, including overtime fees.
    Individuals who import or export shipments of 100 or fewer raw furs 
or, raw, salted, or crusted mammal hides or skins between the United 
States, Canada, or Mexico, have been exempt from inspection fees in the 
past and will continue to be exempt from the proposed designated port 
base inspection fees. However, this exemption applies only to shipments 
of mammal furs, hides, or skins lawfully taken from the wild by those 
individuals or their family members in the United States, Canada, or 
Mexico, from species that are not protected under parts 17, 18, or 23 
of title 50. These individuals will still require an import/export 
license and be responsible for overtime fees for any shipments 
inspected outside normal working hours.
    Individuals or organizations who import or export shipments of 
wildlife for noncommercial purposes at designated ports that do not 
contain species that are protected by Federal or international law, or 
live specimens, will continue to be exempt from the proposed designated 
port inspection fees. These individuals will still be responsible for 
overtime fees for any shipments inspected outside normal working hours 
and all fees for import or export through a nondesignated port.
    We propose that individuals or organizations who import or export 
shipments of wildlife for noncommercial purposes at designated ports, 
that do contain species that are protected by Federal or international 
law, or live specimens, will pay proposed premium inspection fees when 
importing or exporting via air, ocean, rail, or truck cargo. However, 
these shipments will continue to be exempt from the proposed base 
inspection fees. Examples of these individuals or organizations would 
include but not be limited to: individuals importing or exporting 
personal pets that may or may not be protected species; hunters 
importing or exporting protected game species; and public museums, 
zoos, and scientific or educational institutions importing or exporting 
protected species or live specimens. These shipments require 
considerably more knowledge, time, and equipment than is required for a 
routine shipment. It should be noted that the Service does not consider 
these individuals or organizations to be exempt from paying for other 
services that provide benefits. Our regulations in part 13 already 
require these individuals or organizations to pay application fees for 
permits that authorize them to engage in activities not otherwise 
authorized for the general public. In our review of other agencies' 
user fees for import and export, we note that other agencies do not 
make a distinction between commercial and noncommercial individuals or 
organizations. Based upon these findings, we decided to charge premium 
fees but exempt these shipments from base inspection fees as long as 
the shipments are imported or exported through a designated port. These 
shipments will continue to be subject to overtime fees and all fees for 
import or export through a nondesignated port.
    Individuals or organizations who import or export shipments of 
wildlife for noncommercial purposes at designated ports, using the 
mail, as passengers, or by personal vehicle, that contain species that 
are protected by Federal or international law, or live specimens, will 
be exempt from designated port base inspection fees and premium 
inspection fees. However, they will still be responsible for overtime 
fees for any inspections that take place outside normal working hours. 
We decided to provide this exemption under these circumstances because 
we do not consistently provide inspection services at mail facilities, 
passenger terminals, or for personal vehicles.
    Our current regulations exempt certain captive-bred mammals from 
designated port user fees as part of an exemption from the import/
export license requirements. We propose to reinstate the import/export 
license requirement for these types of shipments as previously 
indicated. Although most businesses have not taken advantage of the 
exemption as discussed earlier, any exempted shipments still require 
inspection and clearance by us. This exemption has also had the 
unintended consequence of creating a monetary incentive to falsely 
declare certain mammals and their products as captive-bred.
    By policy, we currently exempt the export of sturgeon and 
paddlefish that are captive-bred in aquaculture facilities from user 
fees, including nondesignated port fees if the shipments are for 
immediate human or animal consumption. This exemption applies to 
caviar, meat, and other food items, but does not cover live fish. By 
policy, we also currently exempt the export of American bison, ostrich, 
and emu meat produced in ranching operations in the United States from 
user fees if the meat is intended for human consumption. All of these 
shipments still require inspection and clearance by us.
    Our ability to effectively provide inspection and clearance 
services and the necessary support for these services depends on user 
fees. By exempting these types of shipments from user fees, the costs 
associated with inspection and clearance are borne either by the 
taxpayers through appropriated funds or by other importers and 
exporters. The services provided to these exempt businesses are 
specialized services that do not benefit the public as a whole and, as 
such, the costs should not be borne by the taxpayer. As discussed 
earlier, the majority of importers and exporters of wildlife are small 
businesses. We do not find it equitable that nonexempt businesses must 
pay more than their share of the costs in order for us to recover the 
costs not paid by exempt businesses. We, therefore, propose to remove 
the user fee exemption for businesses that import or export certain 
captive-bred mammals or their products and circuses. We also propose to 
remove the user fee exemption for businesses that export food items 
derived from aquacultured sturgeon and paddlefish, American bison meat, 
and ostrich and emu meat.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions 
such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule 
clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language 
or jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the 
proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, 
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description 
of the proposed rule in the Supplementary Information section of the 
preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? (5) What else 
could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand? Send a copy 
of any comments that concern how we could make this proposed rule 
easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of 
the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You 
may e-mail your comments to this address: Execsec@ios.doi.gov.

Required Determinations

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

    Under the criteria in Executive Order 12866, OMB has determined 
that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action.
    a. This proposed rule will not have an annual economic effect of 
$100 million

[[Page 9978]]

or negatively affect a part of the economy, productivity, jobs, the 
environment, or other units of the government. A cost benefit and 
economic analysis is not required.
    This proposed rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million.
    The proposed removal of two exemptions from our import/export 
license requirements for businesses that import or export certain 
captive-bred mammals or their products and circuses that import or 
export wildlife will not adversely affect those businesses.
    For fiscal year 2005, our records indicate that 2,628 shipments of 
captive-bred chinchilla, fisher, fox, marten, mink, muskrat, and nutria 
were imported or exported by 351 businesses. However, 296 of these 
businesses already have import/export licenses because they also trade 
in species other than these captive-bred mammals. We are proposing that 
the remainder of these businesses must obtain an import/export license, 
at a cost of $100.00 per year. These proposed changes will result in an 
additional cost to these businesses of $5,500.00 as importers or 
exporters of these captive-bred mammals or their products (351-296 = 55 
businesses x $100.00 = $5,500.00). We estimate that approximately 30 
circuses will import or export animals during a given year. We are 
proposing that these circuses must obtain an import/export license. 
These proposed changes will result in an additional cost to these 
circuses of $3,000.00 as importers or exporters of circus animals.
    The total cost to businesses and circuses based upon the proposed 
removal of two exemptions from our import/export license requirements 
will be approximately $8,500.00.
    We propose that routine shipments be charged a base inspection fee 
based upon the type of port. Shipments containing protected species or 
live specimens would be charged a premium inspection fee in addition to 
the base inspection fee. If a shipment contains both protected species 
and live specimens, we propose to charge two premium inspection fees in 
addition to the base inspection fee. The proposed fee structure 
requires an $85 base inspection fee for inspections at designated ports 
and a $19 premium inspection fee.
    The greatest increased costs contained in the proposed fee 
structure would apply to wildlife shipments imported or exported at 
nonstaffed, nondesignated ports. Assuming that every shipment we 
inspect occurs at one of these ports, the total net annual economic 
effect in the worst-case scenario would be approximately $20 million.
    For inspections at these ports, our current regulations require an 
administrative fee of $55 plus all costs associated with the inspection 
and clearance including salary, travel, and per diem for the wildlife 
inspector conducting the inspection. The proposed fee structure 
requires a $133 base inspection fee for inspections at these ports. 
Assuming that every shipment at these ports contained species that are 
protected by Federal or international law and live specimens, these 
shipments would require an additional $38 in premium inspection fees, 
for a total of $171 per shipment.
    The worst-case scenario for inspections at nonstaffed, 
nondesignated ports, as described above, and not including travel and 
per diem, would result in an additional $116 in inspection fees per 
shipment ($171-$55) under the new fee structure. We estimate that we 
inspect approximately 170,000 shipments per year nation-wide. Assuming 
that all of these shipments were inspected at nonstaffed, nondesignated 
ports, the net annual economic effect would equal $19,720,000 under the 
new fee structure. While the proposed fee structure of $133 to use 
these ports does require the additional payment of travel and per diem 
expenses, it does not require the additional payment of the salary of 
the wildlife inspector conducting the inspection. In many cases, the 
base fee of $133 will be considerably less than the salary of the 
wildlife inspector conducting the inspection.
    In reality, nearly one-half of our inspections are conducted at 
designated ports for shipments that do not contain species that are 
protected by Federal or international law or live specimens, so the net 
annual economic effect of the proposed fee structure is considerably 
less than $19,720,000. For commercial shipments at designated ports, 
our current regulations require an inspection fee of $55. The proposed 
fee structure requires an $85 base inspection fee for inspections at 
designated ports. These shipments would result in an additional $30 in 
inspection fees per shipment ($85-$55) under the new fee structure. For 
fiscal year 2005, we inspected 83,203 shipments at designated ports 
that did not contain species that are protected by Federal or 
international law or live specimens. The net annual economic effect for 
inspections of these shipments would equal $2,496,090 under the new fee 
structure.
    As described above, the proposed removal of two exemptions from our 
import/export license requirements for businesses that import or export 
certain captive-bred mammals or their products and circuses means that 
these entities must pay inspection fees authorized under their import/
export license.
    For fiscal year 2005, our records indicate that 2,628 shipments of 
certain captive-bred mammals or their products were imported or 
exported by 351 businesses. These proposed changes will result in an 
additional cost to these businesses of $223,380.00 when they import or 
export shipments of certain captive bred mammals or their products at 
designated ports (2,628 shipments x $85 base inspection fee at 
designated ports).
    Our records indicate that, at most, there would be 75 shipments of 
circus animals imported or exported during a given year by 
approximately 30 circuses. Circuses will likely be assessed two premium 
inspection fees per shipment since most of their shipments will contain 
live specimens that are protected by Federal or international law. 
Under the worst-case scenario, these proposed changes will result in an 
additional cost to these circuses of $9,225.00, when they import or 
export circus animals at designated ports (75 shipments x $85 base 
inspection fee at designated ports + 75 shipments x $38 premium 
inspection fee).
    For fiscal year 2005, our records indicate that 7,800 shipments 
that contained species that are protected by Federal or international 
law or live specimens were imported or exported for noncommercial 
purposes at designated ports via air, ocean, rail, or truck cargo. We 
are proposing that these persons must pay premium inspection fees for 
these shipments. In many cases these shipments will contain species 
that are protected by Federal or international law and live specimens. 
Under the worst-case scenario, these proposed changes will result in an 
additional cost to these persons of $296,400.00, when they import or 
export these shipments at designated ports (7,800 shipments x $38 
premium inspection fee).
    For fiscal year 2005, our records indicate that 145 shipments of 
American bison, ostrich, emu, or sturgeon and paddlefish products were 
exported. These proposed changes will result in an additional cost to 
these businesses of $12,325.00 when they export shipments of American 
bison, ostrich, or emu meat at designated ports (145 shipments x $85 
base inspection fee at designated ports).
    The total cost to businesses, circuses, and persons importing or 
exporting species that are protected by Federal or international law or 
live specimens for

[[Page 9979]]

noncommercial purposes, based upon the proposed removal of license fee 
exemptions will be approximately $541,330.00.
    Considering that nearly one-half of the shipments that we inspect 
account for an annual economic effect of just under $2.5 million, it is 
safe to assume that all of the other types of shipments that we inspect 
at all of our other ports, when combined with this amount, will total 
far less than $100 million. The proposed removal of import/export 
license exemptions and inspection fee exemptions accounts for an 
additional $549,830.00. To summarize, this proposed rule will have an 
annual economic effect of far less than $100 million.
    Though it is apparent that this proposed rule will not have an 
annual economic effect of $100 million, we recognize that these fee 
increases will have a negative effect on small entities. Since 
essentially all of the businesses that engage in commerce by importing 
or exporting wildlife would be considered small businesses, and 
considering that the wildlife trade compliance program is to be ``self-
sustaining to the extent possible,'' we have no option but to raise 
inspection fees to cover the increasing costs associated with the 
wildlife trade compliance program. It would not be appropriate to pass 
these increased costs on to the general public, who are not the primary 
beneficiaries of these services.
    b. This proposed rule will not create inconsistencies with other 
agencies' actions.
    We are the lead Federal agency for implementing regulations that 
govern and monitor the importation and exportation of wildlife and 
carrying out the United States' obligations under CITES. Therefore, 
this proposed rule has no effect on other agencies' responsibilities 
and will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions.
    c. This proposed rule will not materially affect entitlements, 
grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
their recipients.
    This proposed rule will materially affect user fees, however, 
because the wildlife trade compliance program is to be ``self-
sustaining to the extent possible,'' we have no option but to raise 
inspection fees to cover the increasing costs associated with the 
wildlife trade compliance program. If we do not increase user fees, 
funds will not be available to continue to provide these services at a 
level sufficient to meet customer demand.
    d. This proposed rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues.
    This proposed rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues 
because we are required to charge fees for inspections to meet the 
mandate in 31 U.S.C. 9701, which states that services provided by 
Federal agencies are to be ``self-sustaining to the extent possible,'' 
and to comply with OMB Circular No. A-25, Federal user fee policy, 
which requires Federal agencies to recoup the costs of ``special 
services'' that provide benefits to identifiable recipients. The 
inspection and clearance of wildlife imports and exports are special 
services provided to importers and exporters who are authorized to 
engage in activities not otherwise authorized for the general public. 
Our ability to effectively provide these services depends on inspection 
fees. Since the wildlife trade compliance program is to be ``self-
sustaining to the extent possible,'' we propose a user fee structure 
that will provide 100 percent cost recovery of the wildlife trade 
compliance program by the end of the 5-year period.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    This proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small businesses as defined under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. An initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not 
required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.
    During the development of the user fee template, we considered the 
impact that increased user fees would have on small businesses. 
Essentially all of the businesses that engage in commerce by importing 
or exporting wildlife or wildlife products would be considered small 
businesses according to the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
Examples of some of these businesses can be placed in the following SBA 
categories: ``Zoos and Botanical Gardens,'' with an SBA size standard 
of $6.0 million in average annual receipts; ``Merchant wholesalers, 
nondurable goods,'' with an SBA size standard of 100 employees; 
``Leather and allied product manufacturers,'' with an SBA size standard 
of 500 employees and; ``Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores,'' 
with an SBA size standard ranging from $6.0 million to $7.5 million in 
average annual receipts.
    This proposed rule will not have a significant economic effect on 
these businesses. In most cases, the increased user fees will represent 
a small fraction of the value of the affected wildlife shipment. In 
addition, the small entities directly affected by this proposed rule 
are not likely to bear the full burden of the proposed user fee 
increases because some or most of the proposed cost increases will be 
passed on to the purchasers of the wildlife.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

    This proposed rule is not a major rule under the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This proposed rule:
    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million of 
more.
    As described above, nearly one-half of the shipments that we 
inspect account for an annual economic effect of just under $2.5 
million, and it is safe to assume that all of the other types of 
shipments that we inspect at all of our other ports, when combined with 
this amount, will total far less than $100 million. The proposed 
removal of import/export license exemptions and inspection fee 
exemptions accounts for an additional $549,915.00. To summarize, this 
proposed rule will have an annual economic effect of far less than $100 
million.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    This proposed rule will increase costs for individual industries 
and potentially consumers, however, because the wildlife trade 
compliance program is to be ``self-sustaining to the extent possible,'' 
we have no option but to raise inspection fees to cover the increasing 
costs associated with the wildlife trade compliance program. If we do 
not increase user fees, funds will not be available to continue to 
provide these services at a level sufficient to meet customer demand.
    c. Does not have significant negative effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies.
    This proposed rule will not have significant adverse effects on the 
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises because foreign-based enterprises that are subject to U.S. 
jurisdiction must comply with the same regulatory requirements as U.S.-
based enterprises who import or export wildlife. In addition, this rule 
proposes to remove the exemption from an import/export license 
requirements and payment of user fees for shipments of certain captive-
bred mammals or their products. Due to shipping and other business 
practices, foreign-sourced mammals or their products imported into the 
United States are more likely to be declared as captive-

[[Page 9980]]

bred and appropriate for the current exemption than exports of U.S.-
sourced mammals or their products. The removal of the exemption will 
result in equal treatment of foreign-sourced and U.S.-sourced mammals 
or their products.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act:
    a. This proposed rule will not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
    We are the lead Federal agency for implementing regulations that 
govern and monitor the importation and exportation of wildlife and 
carrying out the United States' obligations under CITES. Therefore, 
this proposed rule has no effect on small government's 
responsibilities.
    b. This proposed rule will not produce a Federal requirement that 
may result in the combined expenditure by State, local, or tribal 
governments of $100 million or greater in any year, so it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.
    This rule will not result in any combined expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments.

Executive Order 12630 (Takings)

    Under Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule does not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication evaluation is 
not required. Under Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule does not 
affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This proposed 
rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the 
physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any 
property.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Under Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism evaluation is not 
required. This proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 
determined that this proposed rule does not overly burden the judicial 
system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the 
Order. Specifically, this proposed rule has been reviewed to eliminate 
errors and ensure clarity, has been written to minimize disagreements, 
provides a clear legal standard for affected actions, and specifies in 
clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection 
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB 
has approved the information collection requirements contained in this 
subpart I and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0092, which expires on 
September 30, 2007. The Service may not conduct or sponsor and you are 
not required to respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    This proposed rule has been analyzed under the criteria of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and 318 DM 2.2 (g) and 6.3 (D). This 
proposed rule does not amount to a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact 
statement/evaluation is not required. This proposed rule is 
categorically excluded from further National Environmental Policy Act 
requirements, under part 516 of the Departmental Manual, Chapter 2, 
Appendix 1.10. This categorical exclusion addresses policies, 
directives, regulations, and guidelines that are of an administrative, 
financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature and whose 
environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to 
lend themselves to meaningful analysis under NEPA.

Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation) and 512 DM 2 (Government-
to-Government Relationship With Tribes)

    Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-
to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 
FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated 
possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have 
determined that there are no adverse effects. Individual tribal members 
must meet the same regulatory requirements as other individuals who 
import or export wildlife.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule 
proposes to clarify the import/export license and fee requirements, 
adjust the user fee schedule, and update license and user fee 
exemptions. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866, and it is not expected to significantly 
affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action 
is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects 
is required.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 14

    Animal welfare, Exports, Fish, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons described above, we propose to amend part 14, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
as set forth below.

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. 668, 704, 712, 1382, 1538(d)-(f), 1540(f), 
3371-3378, 4223-4244, and 4901-4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 31 U.S.C. 9701.

    2. Revise subpart I to read as follows:
Subpart I--Import/Export Licenses and User Fees
Sec.
14.91 When do I need an import/export license?
14.92 What are the exemptions to the import/export license 
requirement?
14.93 How do I apply for an import/export license?
14.94 What fees apply to me?

Subpart I--Import/Export Licenses and User Fees


Sec.  14.91  When do I need an import/export license?

    (a) The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(d)(1)) makes it 
unlawful for any person to engage in business as an importer or 
exporter of certain fish or wildlife without first having obtained 
permission from the Secretary. For the purposes of this subchapter, 
engage in business means to import or export wildlife for commercial 
purposes.

[[Page 9981]]

    (b) Except as provided in Sec.  14.92, if you engage in the 
business of importing or exporting wildlife for commercial purposes 
(see Sec.  14.4), you must obtain an import/export license prior to 
importing or exporting your wildlife shipment.
    (c) The following table includes some examples of when an import/
export license is required:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If I import into the United States    * * * do I need an import/export
  or export from the United States                 license?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Wildlife in the form of          Yes.
 products such as garments, bags,
 shoes, boots, jewelry, rugs,
 trophies, or curios for commercial
 purposes.
(2) Wildlife in the form of hides,   Yes.
 furs, or skins for commercial
 purposes.
(3) Wildlife in the form of food     Yes.
 for commercial purposes.
(4) As an animal dealer, animal      Yes.
 broker, pet dealer, or pet
 supplier.
(5) As an individual pet owner for   No.
 personal use.
(6) As a collector or hobbyist for   No.
 personal use.
(7) As a laboratory researcher or    Yes.
 biomedical supplier for commercial
 purposes.
(8) As a customs broker or freight   No.
 forwarder engaged in business as a
 dispatcher handler, consolidator,
 or transporter of wildlife or
 filing documents with the Service
 on behalf of others.
(9) As a common carrier when         No.
 engaged in business as a
 transporter of wildlife.
(10) As a taxidermist, outfitter,    Yes.
 or guide importing or exporting my
 own hunting trophies for
 commercial purposes.
(11) As a taxidermist, outfitter,    No.
 or guide transporting or shipping
 hunting trophies for clients or
 customers.
(12) As a U.S. taxidermist           Yes.
 importing wildlife from or
 exporting wildlife to foreign
 owners who are requesting my
 services.
(13) As a foreign owner of wildlife  No.
 exporting my personal hunting
 trophies to my home.
(14) As a circus for exhibition or   Yes.
 resale purposes.
(15) As a Federal, State,            No.
 municipal, or tribal agency.
(16) As a public museum, or public   No.
 scientific or educational
 institution for noncommercial
 research or educational purposes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  14.92  What are the exemptions to the import/export license 
requirement?

    (a) Certain wildlife. Any person may engage in business as an 
importer or exporter of the following types of wildlife without an 
import/export license:
    (1) Shellfish and nonliving fish products that do not require a 
permit under parts 16, 17, or 23 of this subchapter, and are 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;
    (2) Live farm-raised fish