[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2084-2093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-795]
[[Page 2083]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 15
Importation of Exotic Wild Birds to the United States; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 2084]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 15
RIN 1018-AC15
Importation of Exotic Wild Birds to the United States; Final Rule
Implementing the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 23, 1992, the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992
(WBCA) was signed into law, the purposes of which include promoting the
conservation of exotic birds by: ensuring that all imports into the
United States of species of exotic birds are biologically sustainable
and not detrimental to the species; ensuring that imported birds are
not subject to inhumane treatment during capture and transport; and
assisting wild bird conservation and management programs in countries
of origin. This final rule would implement procedures for establishment
of an approved list of non-captive-bred (wild-caught) species listed in
the Appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, or the Convention) that can be
imported.
DATES: This rule is effective February 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Susan S. Lieberman, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Management Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, room 420C, Arlington VA 22203, telephone (703) 358-2093.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule implements aspects of the
WBCA, which was signed into law on October 23, 1992. This is the fourth
of five rulemakings under the WBCA; the first final rulemaking under
the WBCA was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 1993 (58
FR 60524). The second and third final rulemakings under the WBCA were
published in the Federal Register on December 2, 1994 (59 FR 62255).
The WBCA limits or prohibits imports of exotic bird species to ensure
that their wild populations are not harmed by trade. It also encourages
wild bird conservation programs in countries of origin by both ensuring
that all imports of such species into the United States are
biologically sustainable and not detrimental to the species, and by
creating an Exotic Bird Conservation Fund to provide conservation
assistance in countries of origin. The final rule of November 16, 1993,
implemented the prohibitions stipulated in the WBCA and provided permit
requirements and procedures for some allowed exemptions.
During the one-year period immediately following enactment of the
WBCA, from October 23, 1992, to October 22, 1993, import quotas were
established for CITES-listed bird species. Those quotas were announced
in the Federal Register on December 4, 1992 (57 FR 57510). A notice
published on March 30, 1993 (58 FR 16644), solicited public comments
and announced a public meeting, held April 15-16, 1993, to receive
input from the public for the development of regulations to implement
some of the provisions of the WBCA. Useful input was received from a
broad cross-section of interested members of the public who
participated in the meeting and submitted comments in writing; that
input has been used to develop this final rule. A notice published on
April 16, 1993 (58 FR 19840), announced species for which the quotas
had been met and no further individual birds could be imported.
Since the publication of the final rule of November 16, 1993,
imports of all CITES-listed birds (as defined in the final rule) are
prohibited, except for (a) species included in an approved list; (b)
specimens for which an import permit has been issued; (c) species from
countries that have approved management plans for those species; or (d)
specimens from approved foreign captive-breeding facilities. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register on March 17, 1994 (59 FR 12784), that would implement
procedures for approval of foreign captive-breeding facilities,
establishment of an approved list of captive-bred species listed in the
CITES Appendices that can be imported without a WBCA permit and
establishment of criteria for including non-captive-bred (wild-caught)
species in the approved list.
As a result of a lawsuit filed on February 15, 1994, by the Humane
Society of the United States and Defenders of Wildlife, and a resultant
District Court Order that found a portion of the regulation in the
November 16, 1993, Federal Register invalid, the Service, consistent
with that Court Order, announced in the Federal Register on May 24,
1994 (59 FR 26810), that all exotic birds listed in Appendix III of
CITES are covered by the automatic import moratorium of the WBCA,
regardless of their country of origin. A proposed rule was published on
June 3, 1994 (59 FR 28826), to promulgate that regulatory change and
the final rule was published on Dec. 2, 1994 (59 FR 62254).
On Dec. 2, 1994 (59 FR 62255), a final rule was published which
implemented procedures for the establishment of an approved list of
captive-bred species listed in the CITES Appendices that may be
imported without a WBCA permit; those approved captive-bred species
were those for which it has been determined that trade involves only
captive-bred specimens.
This rule addresses the proposals made in the Federal Register of
March 17, 1994, for the criteria for including species in the approved
list of non-captive-bred species, with some modifications based on
comments received and further analysis by the Service. This final rule
establishes regulations called for in the WBCA that will accomplish the
following: (1) For wild-caught CITES-listed birds to be on an approved
list, the Service must determine that: CITES is being effectively
implemented for the species for each country of origin from which
imports will be allowed; CITES-recommended measures are implemented;
there is a scientifically based management plan for the species that
provides for the conservation of the species and its habitat, includes
incentives for conservation, ensures that the use of the species is
biologically sustainable and maintained throughout its range at a level
consistent with its role in its ecosystem, and addresses factors that
include illegal trade, domestic trade, subsistence use, disease, and
habitat loss; and that the methods of capture, transport, and
maintenance of the species minimize the risk of injury or damage to
health.
Comments and Information Received
The Service received roughly 1500 comments from the public,
including over 1409 form letters from private aviculturists (bird
breeders) and comments from 12 conservation and/or animal welfare
organizations, 1 zoological organization, 4 scientific organizations, 1
representative of the pet industry, 2 private companies, 5 avicultural
organizations, and 1 falconry/raptor breeder organization; the
remaining comments were from other private individuals.
Comments of a General Nature
The Service proposed to consider only sustainable use management
plans for Appendix II and III species since trade for primarily
commercial purposes is not permitted under the Convention for Appendix
I species. If specimens of
[[Page 2085]]
an Appendix I species are required for zoological, scientific, or
breeding purposes, individuals or institutions desiring such import may
apply for a permit under Subpart C of this Part 15.
Few comments were received opposing such a consideration for
sustainable use. A few aviculturists objected because they consider
Appendix I species to be the species most in need of conservation
attention, and believe that the Service should allow for imports of
Appendix I species under this provision of the WBCA. The Service
recognizes the need to conserve these threatened and endangered
species, and agrees that they are of the highest conservation priority.
The Service notes however that approval to import wild-caught birds
under a sustainable use management plan will allow commercial trade,
and as such is inconsistent with both the intent and the requirements
of CITES Appendix I. The Service disagrees that scientifically-based
management plans can be submitted for commercial exports of Appendix I
listed species. If individuals or organizations wish to import wild-
caught specimens of an Appendix I species for zoological, scientific,
or cooperative breeding programs, they already may apply for a permit
for such an import under Subpart C of this Part 15.
Comments Pertaining to Section 15.30: Definitions
The Service has modified the definition of trend and the new
language reflects the need to evaluate past experience as well as
future projections in deterimining trend.
The Service notes that in the development of its definition of
`sustainable use' it drew upon IUCN draft guidelines for `An Initial
Procedure for Assessing the Sustainability of Uses of Wild Species'.
These draft guidelines recommend that assessing the impacts of use
should cover three factors: (1) Demographic sustainability or the
impact of the use on the population being used (the use must be at a
rate that is within the population's capacity for renewal); (2)
ecological sustainability or the compatibility of a use with the
quality and native diversity of the ecosystem; and (3) impacts of other
factors (human activities and/or natural events) on the ecosystem. The
Service has incorporated these concepts into a working definition of
sustainable use.
Several commenters supported the definition of sustainable use
while numerous commenters, including the pet industry, avicultural,
animal welfare, and conservation organizations disagreed with the
Service's proposed definition--``the use of a species in a manner and
at a level such that populations of the species are maintained at
optimal levels for the long term and involves a determination of the
productive capacity of the species and its ecosystem, in order to
ensure that utilization does not exceed those capacities or the ability
of the population to reproduce and maintain itself''. They objected
that the Service's use of ``optimal'' was vague and left the definition
open-ended and subject to interpretation by the reader. The Service
recognizes the extreme importance of the term ``sustainable use'' since
the WBCA requires that the import of wild-caught birds must be
biologically sustainable. The Service has modified its definition to
remove any ambiguity, by replacing the term ``optimal levels'' with the
term ``biologically viable levels''.
One conservation organization objected to the phrase ``long term''
in the sustainable use definition, arguing that interpretation of the
phrase is open to debate as to the exact length of time meant in the
definition. They would prefer a modifier ``biased toward the indefinite
maintenance of viability, such as in perpetuity'' be added to the
definition. The Service disagrees, in that such a modifier would be
unnecessarily confusing. The phrase ``long term'' is sufficiently
clear, as it refers to many generations and indeed many, many years.
The Service considers it too extreme to require exporting countries to
implement management plans that are designed to maintain a species at
biologically viable levels in perpetuity.
Comments Pertaining to Section 15.32: Criteria for Including Non-
Captive-bred Species in the Approved List
This section establishes the criteria for the inclusion of non-
captive-bred (wild-caught) bird species in the approved list, thereby
allowing their importation into the U.S. under the WBCA without needing
WBCA import permits under Subpart C of this Part 15. Pursuant to
Section 106 of the WBCA, the Secretary is required to publish a list of
species of exotic birds that are listed in an Appendix to CITES and
that are not subject to a prohibition or suspension of importation
otherwise applicable under the WBCA. For non-captive-bred birds to be
imported from other countries and therefore, for such birds to be
listed in an approved list, the Service is required by the WBCA to
``use the best scientific information available, and to consider the
adequacy of regulatory and enforcement mechanisms in all countries of
origin for the species, including such mechanisms for control of
illegal trade.''
The WBCA requires the Service to make the finding that CITES is
being effectively implemented, by making each of the following findings
specified in Section 106, paragraph (c) of the WBCA:
(1) That the country of origin has established a Scientific
Authority or other equivalent authority;
(2) That the requirements of Article IV of the Convention are
implemented with respect to that species;
(3) That remedial measures recommended by the Parties to the
Convention with respect to that species are implemented;
(4) That a scientifically-based management plan has been developed
for the species which provides for the conservation of the species and
its habitat and includes incentives for conservation (section 106,
paragraph (c)(2)(A) of the WBCA);
(5) That a scientifically-based management plan has been developed
for the species which ensures that the use of the species is
biologically sustainable and maintained throughout the range of the
species in the country to which the plan applies at a level that is
consistent with the role of the species in the ecosystem and is well
above the level at which the species might become threatened with
extinction (Section 106, paragraph (c)(2)(B) of the WBCA);
(6) That a scientifically-based management plan has been developed
for the species which addresses factors relevant to the conservation of
the species, including illegal trade, domestic trade, subsistence use,
disease, and habitat loss (section 106, paragraph (c)(2)(C) of the
WBCA);
(7) That the management plan is implemented and enforced (Section
106, paragraph (c)(3) of the WBCA); and
(8) That the methods of capture, transport, and maintenance of the
species minimize the risk of injury or damage to health, including
inhumane treatment (Section 106, paragraph (c)(4) of the WBCA).
The Service notes that Congress in the WBCA used the terminology
``scientifically-based management plan'' and it has retained this
phrase in this final rule. However, the Service recognizes that
preferable phrasing is ``science-based'' or ``scientifically-sound''
management plan and notes that this is the objective of a sustainable
use management plan under the WBCA. Some animal welfare and
conservation organizations recommended that the Service insert the word
``scientific'' throughout the criteria, such as ``scientific study'' or
scientific
[[Page 2086]]
methodology. The Service is making no changes based on these comments,
since this wording is redundant and already incorporated in the phrase
``scientifically-based''.
Numerous comments were received on the criteria which the Service
proposed for making the above findings and these comments are addressed
in the following sections.
General Comments on the Criteria
The pet industry representative and several avicultural
organizations and aviculturists objected to the amount of scientific
information required under the proposed regulations because they
believe such information is impossible to obtain in developing
countries because of scientific, logistical and financial constraints.
They oppose the adoption of the proposed criteria because they consider
them to be too complex and unattainable for the underdeveloped
countries of the world. The Service strongly disagrees. In particular,
the Service disagrees that range states that may be interested in
exporting wild-caught birds are incapable of developing management
plans based on scientific information.
The WBCA requires that the management plans be ``scientifically-
based'' and that the imports of wild-caught birds be biologically
sustainable and non-detrimental to the survival of the species in the
wild. Therefore, the Service is required to receive and review
scientific data that will ensure such findings can be made. The Service
notes that such scientific studies are currently being undertaken in
several developing countries by nationals from these countries. Some
examples include the Blue-fronted Amazon (Amazona aestiva) sustainable
use project in Argentina; the study of three Amazon parrot species in
Mexico; the study of the Yellow-crowned Amazon (Amazona ochrocephala)
and its potential sustainable use in Guatemala; the study of parrot
populations in Venezuela; the study of Atlantic coastal forest Amazon
parrots in Brazil; the study of macaws and other parrot species in Manu
National Park, Peru; the study of psittacine populations in Cuba; and
the study of cockatoo species in Indonesia. These studies are not just
brief censuses, but often multi-year studies addressing a spectrum of
biological questions integral to the development of comprehensive
management plans. In addition to the scientific data collected during
these projects, these research projects serve an invaluable function in
training ecologists and conservation biologists in these countries. The
WBCA encourages such studies and the Service is willing to offer
technical expertise to those countries requesting assistance. The
Service hopes that development agencies, consumers (industry and
avicultural groups) and the conservation communities will join efforts
with the Service to provide support and expertise to sustainable use
projects that address the use of exotic birds.
One animal welfare organization opposed the use of the phrase
``sustainable use'' throughout Section 15.32 and commented that the
term ``sustainable use has become a buzzword, conjuring up images of
carefully planned and strictly controlled use of wildlife that will not
harm wild populations or their ecosystems''. They requested that the
term ``scientifically-based'' management plan be substituted for
sustainable use management plan. The Service disagrees and will retain
the use of this terminology. However, the Service believes that any
valid sustainable use management plan must be scientifically-based. The
WBCA requires that imports of wild-caught birds be ``biologically
sustainable'' and therefore, the management plans submitted must
provide information that addresses such use and must be scientifically-
based. A management plan based only on commercial interests or market
demand would be considered inadequate.
Comments on Specific Requirements for Scientifically-Based Sustainable
Use Management Plans
Section 15.32(a)(1) Background Information
One avicultural organization opposed the requirement to provide ``a
summary of the country's export legislation related to this species,
implementing the Convention, and where appropriate, a summary of
implementing regulations; and a summary of the country's enforcement
and monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance with the management
plan''. The Service disagrees. Such information is required under the
WBCA to evaluate the implementation of CITES in the exporting country
and to make the required non-detriment finding that the import of wild-
caught birds will not affect the survival of the species throughout its
range. The Service requires such information to ensure that wild-caught
birds from neighboring range countries are not being laundered through
an exporting country's sustainable use management plan. A copy of a
country's export legislation would be extremely useful in assisting
importing countries as it would help the Service in smuggling
interdiction efforts and identification of fraudulent documents.
Some animal welfare organizations requested that a scientific study
within the previous three years be required for information on a
species' distribution and status. The Service disagrees and does not
believe the WBCA mandates such a requirement. The Service recognizes
that such information needs to be current and factual, but will allow
the exporting country to chose a time frame for the information
submitted. The Service is requesting that information on distribution
be ``recent''.
One animal welfare organization suggested also requiring the
following background information: Summaries, prepared by the Management
Authority of each country of origin of the species, addressing the
legislation related to this species, implementation and enforcement of
CITES. The Service disagrees. Should the Service require such
information to evaluate the management plan for a species with a multi-
country distribution, the Service can obtain such information directly
from the CITES Management Authority for these countries or the CITES
Secretariat. It would be an unfair administrative burden for an
exporting country to have to submit such summaries.
Section 15.32(a)(2) Habitat Information
The pet industry representative and several avicultural
organizations and individuals opposed the requirement for the
submission of habitat information, which they consider to be irrelevant
and unavailable. The Service strongly disagrees. The WBCA requires
``that a scientifically-based management plan has been developed for
the species which provides for the conservation of the species and its
habitat and includes incentives for conservation'' (Section 106,
paragraph (c)(2)(A) of the WBCA). In order to make this finding, the
Service needs information on a species' ecological requirements and
habitats. The Service also believes that the exporting country needs
this information in order to develop a scientifically-based sustainable
use management plans. The approval criteria incorporate this
consideration in a number of ways, including requiring: (a) Information
on species conservation status and distribution; and (b) habitat
conservation information, including habitat requirements, habitat
distribution and protection status, and habitat status and trends.
Scientific organizations and one zoo representative supported these
requirements for habitat information.
[[Page 2087]]
Some animal welfare organizations requested that such information be
provided from the results of a scientific study conducted within the
previous three years prior to the submission of a sustainable use
management plan. The Service disagrees, recognizing that such
information needs to be current and factual; the Service will allow the
exporting country to choose a time frame for the information submitted,
as long as it reflects the current situation.
Some animal welfare organizations recommended an additional
requirement that would request habitat information on reserves which
provide protection for a species and management/enforcement information
on those reserves. The Service recognizes the usefulness of this
information in evaluating sustainable use plans, but does not believe
that this calls for establishing a separate requirement. Rather, such
information can be provided under Sec. 15.32(a)(2)(ii), and the Service
recommends its submission when available. The Service notes as well
that in any application, any such additional information that
demonstrates the scientific basis of a sustainable use management plan
should be submitted in order to facilitate decision-making.
Section 15.32(a)(3) Information on the Role of a Species in its
Ecosystem
Conservation, scientific, and animal welfare organizations
commented that it is not possible for a country of export to ensure
that a species is being used in a sustainable manner when that species
does not breed in the country of export. Since the breeding cycle is
one of the most crucial stages in an organism's annual cycle and the
one that provides data to assess reproductive output and population
dynamics, it would not be possible to assess the affect of take on the
population and evaluate the sustainable use of such a population
according to these commenters. They argue that a scientifically-based
management plan must address these concerns to be valid. The Service
strongly agrees and has modified its criteria accordingly. Unless an
exporting country can demonstrate that a management plan is
scientifically valid and the export of a non-breeding species from the
country is biologically sustainable and not detrimental to the species'
survival in its breeding range, the Service will consider only
management plans for species which breed in the exporting country. The
Service does not believe that a species that breeds elsewhere than the
exporting country can be managed sustainably in the absence of
reproductive data unless such management is a cooperative submission by
both countries. The Service strongly encourages bilateral or
multilateral cooperation in the case of such migratory species.
Section 15.32(a)(4) Population Dynamics of the Species
In order to determine that any utilization proposed in the
management plan is sustainable, the Service proposed to require
evidence of how levels of sustainable use were determined, including
either (1) adequate long-term population trends and take levels, or (2)
population estimates, reproductive success, and estimation of the
number exported from the country during the past 2 years, and
estimation of the number of birds removed directly from the wild for
export, domestic trade, illegal trade, subsistence use, and other
purposes. The information should include the estimated number of birds
to be removed from the wild from each area or region of take each year
for all purposes, including age-class information for species, and a
description of future plans to monitor the species in each area of take
and to determine whether the number of birds taken has been
sustainable. Throughout this rule, area or region of take refers to the
area or region within the country of export where birds will be removed
from the wild; the degree of specificity used will depend on the
particular situation in the country of export. If the species is
abundant throughout its range, the region of take could be the entire
country; a species that is locally abundant but rare elsewhere might
have a more restricted area of take.
This section generated extensive comments; the criteria listed in
this section are essential to evaluate whether the proposed
scientifically-based management plan is biologically sustainable. The
proposed rule (59 FR 12784, March 17, 1994) required recent population
data for the population of the species in the country of export, as
well as population data from the population being harvested, derived
from indices of relative abundance (such as catch per unit effort or
call count surveys) or population estimates (if available), along with
documentation for each estimate. These population data or estimates
should be based on studies conducted for at least three separate years,
or data for one year can be provided, with a description of survey
plans for future years. Population assessments should have been
conducted during the same season (breeding or non-breeding) of each
year for which documentation is submitted.
For long-lived, more ``K-selected'' species of birds (as listed in
the proposed rule in Sec. 15.32) the Service proposed requiring that
the management plan (for species that breed in the country of export)
include information on nesting ecology, and reproductive rates or
mortality rates. Those ``K-selected'' species were defined as those not
in one of 19 specified families of birds. The Service proposed more
rigorous standards for the sustainable utilization of ``K-selected''
species, based on an awareness that their sustainable utilization is
very difficult, and that they are extremely sensitive to population
depletion.
For species included in one of the 19 families of birds specified
in the proposed rule in Sec. 15.32 (more ``r-selected'' species), the
Service proposed that, instead of detailed demographic information, the
management plan (for species that breed in the country of export) need
include: An estimation (with documentation) of recent reproductive
success; estimation of annual mortality or loss; or documentation of
long-term population and offtake trends based on indices of relative
abundance and measures of offtake and description of any long-term
changes in other mortality factors. Reproductive success may be
estimated using pre-breeding and post-breeding counts, wherever that is
appropriate. For all birds, when the species occurs in the country of
export only during the non-breeding season, the Service proposed to
require documentation or a letter from the CITES Scientific Authority
that the species does not breed there.
Two biologists supported the proposed regulations. Two scientific
organizations who represent the ornithological community, and the
animal welfare and conservation organizations opposed aspects of the
proposed regulations regarding population dynamics. They considered the
proposed regulations to be scientifically flawed. Representatives of
the scientific community argued that ``the amount of information needed
to prove sustainable use should be sufficient to demonstrate
convincingly that the level of extraction is in proportion to the
annual growth of the population.'' To determine if levels of use are
sustainable, they recommend a minimum of four kinds of biological
information: (1) Population size and trends; (2) annual reproductive
success (number of young produced) per female by age groups; (3) annual
rate of survival of males and females by age groups; (4) the number of
birds harvested. They recommend that population trends and
[[Page 2088]]
levels of harvest should be measured and reported for each year of
harvest. Reproductive and survival rates should be measured for 3 to 5
years, and periodically thereafter. They strongly disagree with the
proposed regulations which require information on reproductive rates or
survivorship rates. They recommend that both be measured for the
scientific determination of quotas for sustainable use, and that this
should be required for all species in trade, not only for K-selected
species.
The scientific community, the zoo representative, and animal
welfare and conservation organizations opposed the use of different
requirements for ``r- and K-''selected species. They argued that while
it is generally true that K-selected species are more sensitive to
overharvesting than r-selected species, ``the population dynamics of
long-lived, K-selected birds are usually most affected by (or sensitive
to) changes in adult mortality rates. In contrast, r-selected species
have shorter life spans and require frequent, successful reproduction
for populations to be sustained. In other words, population dynamics of
r-selected species are often equally influenced by changes in
reproductive success and adult mortality. The proposed regulations do
not delineate what age classes should be harvested for trade.'' Given
that both adults and nestlings are likely to be traded, and the general
lack of biological information that exists on species in international
trade, the commenters argued that it is essential to require similar
information for all species of birds. Lastly, they argued that the r-K
dichotomy is of little use when comparing families of birds because
within families, there is great variation in life history traits. They
support the adoption of one set of standards for all birds, and that
such standards should be strict and require information on all the
population parameters discussed above as necessary to determine
biologically sustainable use.
The pet industry and avicultural organizations opposed the
requirements for ``r- and K-''selected species. They argued that the
reproductive information called for may not be necessarily relevant to
the determination of sustainable use. They support the adoption of one
set of standards for all birds, and that such standards be based on
indices of relative abundance, and measures of offtake. A general one-
time population study for certain species should be acceptable. The
Service strongly disagrees and supports the use of population
estimates, reproductive rates, survivorship rates, and mortality rates
in determining if a sustainable use management plan is biologically
valid and non-detrimental to the species' survival. For many long-lived
species, indices of abundance provide insufficient information to
assess a population's status and determine measures of offtake. For
many Amazon, cockatoo and macaw species, population numbers may be
stable but without reproductive or mortality information, it is
impossible to determine if the population is stable, declining or
increasing over a limited time period. In the early 1950's the Puerto
Rican Parrot population numbered around 200 birds in the wild but by
1968, it had crashed to less than 50 individuals. Population nesting
success was so low that the recruitment rate for the population was
zero.
The Service strongly believes that it is critical to require
information on population dynamics which would allow the Service to be
able to evaluate sustainable use management plans in a rigorous
scientific manner. The Service has modified the final rule to require
the minimum four types of biological information that the scientific
ornithological community has suggested. However, should an exporting
country be able to demonstrate that its management plan is
scientifically valid without the submission of all the documentation
required in Sec. 15.32, the Service would consider such a plan. For
example, a scientifically-based management plan for estrildid finches
could be considered without documentation on annual reproductive
success (number of young produced per female by age groups). The
Service also recognizes that the theory of the biologically sustainable
use of species is continually evolving and methodologies to measure
population dynamics will change and become increasingly refined as
theory is put into practice. Therefore, the Service wishes to allow
some flexibility in evaluating a scientifically-based management plan.
The Service has reviewed the scientific information available on
sustainable use and the biological underpinnings of such theory. The
Service notes that the most successful projects currently in place for
sustainable use involving international trade in CITES-listed species
involve reptiles, particularly some lizards and crocodilians, and as
such caution should be utilized in translating such projects to birds,
particularly long-lived species such as psittacines. In developing the
proposed criteria on which to base approval of sustainable use
management plans, the Service drew upon the model for sustainable use
of parrot species by Beissinger and Bucher (1992) [Bioscience vol. 42,
March 1992: Can parrots be conserved through sustainable harvesting?].
The scientific, animal welfare and conservation communities supported
this model in their comments and urged the Service to adopt it. The
Service has added an additional criterion to Sec. 15.32(a)(4) to
reflect sustainable use management options contained in this model
where management operations are used to boost productivity and harvest
levels of young are commensurate with such enhancement. In such a case,
it is unnecessary to measure adult survival rates, provided there is
baseline data upon which to compare population growth rates pre/post
enhancement and to determine quotas for the harvesting of young birds.
Section 15.32(a)(5) Determination of Biologically Sustainable Use
The pet industry representative and an avicultural organization
argued that the Service failed to ``recognize the ability of countries
to provide for alternative managed and sustainable use of pest
species''. They argue that the criteria for the determination of
biologically sustainable use are excessive and unnecessary for pest
species. ``Pest species'' are often subject to management control
programs in exporting countries and exports of pest species are often
used as a measure to reduce the population levels of these pest
species.
Although Congress did not exempt pest species from the Wild Bird
Conservation Act, the Service recognizes that some bird species in
their country of origin may be pests and could be exceedingly abundant
which allows for their sustainable use in high quantities. However, the
mere designation of a species as a pest is insufficient to determine if
exports are non-detrimental to the species. The Service notes that
Congress, in the Committee Report on the WBCA, said that ``the bill
does not authorize the Secretary to include a species on the approved
list by virtue of the fact that it is designated as a pest in the
country of origin. Rather the Committee expects the Secretary to
evaluate the management program based on the best scientific
information available, and determine whether it effectively provides
for the conservation of birds''. These regulations accordingly reflect
Congress' intent.
Several animal welfare organizations opposed the estimation of the
number exported from a country of origin during the past 2 years.
Animal welfare
[[Page 2089]]
organizations argued that such information should be provided for 3
years. The Service is making no change based on these comments. The
Service believes that 2 years of data are adequate. Of course, more
than 2 years of data are welcome. Furthermore, prior to approval, any
proposed management plan will be the subject of a notice published in
the Federal Register for public comment, at which time any interested
organizations or members of the public may comment on the adequacy of
data provided.
Some animal welfare organizations requested that the phrase ``under
the management plan'' be inserted into Sec. 15.32(a)(5)(ii) for the
number of birds removed from the wild. The Service is making no change
based on these comments. This phrase would not add anything, and might
be confusing. Data on the numbers removed from the wild are necessary
whether part of the management plan or due to other causes.
Some animal welfare organizations requested that
Sec. 15.32(a)(5)(iii) be modified to include a description of pre-
export holding. The Service agrees and has modified this requirement.
Animal welfare, scientific and conservation organizations supported
Sec. 15.32(a)(5)(iv).
Several avicultural organizations and individuals opposed
Sec. 15.32(a)(5)(v), claiming that it was too broadly written and
requires more information than is necessary to determine if CITES is
being effectively implemented. The Service disagrees and is requiring
this information to evaluate the scientific management plan and make
the required non-detriment finding. Based on its experience in
enforcement, the Service is concerned about the laundering of wild-
caught birds taken from other areas being represented as birds coming
from the areas proposed in the sustainable use management plan. The
Service will work with exporting countries on means to prevent such
laundering.
Several biologists and conservation organizations supported this
requirement in its entirety while most animal welfare organizations and
several individuals wish to have it strengthened and text inserted
which ``ensures that the species is maintained throughout the range of
the species in the country to which the plan applies at a level that is
consistent with the role of the species in the ecosystem and is well
above the level at which the species might become threatened with
extinction''. The Service is making no changes based on these comments.
These elements are addressed adequately within the definition of
sustainable use.
Some animal welfare organizations requested that the wording in
Sec. 15.32 (a)(5)(vi) regarding monitoring plans be made clearer to the
reader. The Service agrees and has changed its wording.
Some animal welfare organizations and one conservation organization
recommended that two additional requirements be added to
Sec. 15.32(a)(5) as part of the determination of biologically
sustainable use. One requirement would be monitoring of the population
during use and how taking will be halted if it is determined that the
number of birds taken is not sustainable. The Service disagrees with
incorporating such a redundant requirement. Article IV paragraph 3 of
the CITES treaty requires the Scientific Authority of the exporting
country to monitor its exports, and limit exports when necessary to
maintain species throughout their range at a level consistent with
their role in their ecosystems and well above a level at which they
might become eligible for inclusion in Appendix I. The Service in
approving the sustainable use management plan will be evaluating the
implementation of CITES by the exporting country, including its
implementation of Article IV. The Service also notes that the Secretary
may be petitioned at any time under the WBCA to remove a species from
the approved list of non-captive bred species should information become
available that the number of birds taken is not sustainable.
The other requirement would be ``a description of how the country
of export has made Article IV determinations for each CITES listed
species it has exported in the past 3 years, including the bird species
that is the subject of the management plan under consideration''. While
it would be useful to understand the functioning of a country's
Scientific Authority, requiring submission of this information would be
excessive and burdensome. The Service has not incorporated this
recommended change.
Section 15.32(a)(6) Incentives for Conservation
Some animal welfare groups recommended that the wording of this
requirement be changed to ``a demonstration of how export of the bird
species to the United States will result in a verifiable improvement in
the status of the species or its habitat in the country''. The Service
is making no changes based on this comment. The Service recognizes that
such information could be used to meet the requirement of ``how the
sustainable use management plan promotes the value of the species and
its habitats''; however, this is not the only way to demonstrate a
conservation incentive.
The pet industry representative, an avicultural organization and
several aviculturists argued that ``pest species'' which are subject to
management control programs in exporting countries need not demonstrate
a conservation incentive for the species. For species where the
scientifically based management plan provides documentation that such
species is a pest in the country of origin, the Service has modified
the requirements for a conservation incentive to allow for the
consideration of pest species. However, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) commented that ``APHIS and its customers are very
concerned about the careful importing of birds from other countries,
particularly those that are already known to cause threats in
agriculture, natural resources, facilities, or human health and safety
in their countries of origin''. They requested that the Service
consider these factors when approving species for importation. The
Service agrees that these should be critical factors to consider. The
Service is cognizant of the harm that non-indigenous species can do in
the United States. However, the Wild Bird Conservation Act does not
specifically restrict the import of pest bird species. Any applications
involving the importation of pest species or species that are claimed
to be pests in their country of origin will be forwarded to USDA for
their comments, which will be taken into consideration.
Section 15.32(a)(7) Additional Factors
One zoological organization, 1 scientific organization, and 12
conservation and animal welfare organizations supported the additional
requirements in this section. The pet industry representative and the
avicultural organizations opposed the factor which asked for a
description of the shipping methods and enclosures. The Service is
making no changes based on these comments. The Service is required
under Section 106(c) of the WBCA to determine that the methods of
capture, transport, and maintenance of the species proposed for export
in the sustainable use management plan minimize the risk of injury or
damage to health, including inhumane treatment. Therefore, the Service
is requiring such information, as it is necessary to evaluate the
transport and maintenance of the species. The Service believes that
exporting countries are capable of complying with U.S. and CITES humane
transport standard. The Service's
[[Page 2090]]
primary concern in this regard is the humane and healthful transport of
birds, in order to minimize or eliminate mortality and morbidity due to
preparation for shipment and transport.
An avicultural organization opposed the requirement for a
description of any captive-propagation program for the species carried
out in the country as not relevant to the sustainable use management
plan. The Service agrees that captive propagation has no bearing on
sustainable use and has deleted this factor from the final rule.
A scientific organization for ornithology, one conservation
organization and some animal welfare organizations requested that the
Service add a requirement which would address how the exporting country
will prevent the spread of disease from captured birds being held prior
to export to wild populations. While the Service is aware that the
birds taken for sustainable use may pose a disease risk to wild
populations in the country of import and encourages exporting countries
to minimize such risks, we are making no changes based on these
comments. The Service is unaware of any reliable, documented examples
of where captive-held birds have transmitted diseases to wild
populations in the exporting country.
Section 15.32(b) Approval Criteria
General Comments on the Approval Criteria
Some animal welfare and conservation organizations recommended that
the Service strengthen the wording of the approval criteria to require
the Director to ``determine whether or not an exotic bird species
should be listed as an approved species for importation from the
country of export, under Section 15.33. In making this determination,
the Director shall make a finding that all of the approval criteria
have been demonstrably satisfied''. The Service disagrees and is making
no changes. The Service notes that Congress, in the Committee Report on
the WBCA, said that ``the Committee expects the Secretary to evaluate
the management program based on the best scientific information
available, and determine whether it effectively provides for the
conservation of birds. It is the intent of the Committee that the
Secretary have wide discretion in reviewing management plans under this
section. Clearly management plans for birds that are becoming rare
should be much more stringent than those for birds that are very
abundant and are subject to population control programs''. For example,
a sustainable use management plan for the CITES Appendix II-listed
Blue-fronted Amazon (Amazona aestiva) which has declined in some parts
of its range would be evaluated more stringently than a sustainable use
management plan for the CITES Appendix III-listed red-billed waxbill
(Lonchura senegala) which is abundant and widespread in its range. The
approval criteria in Section 15.32(b) give the Director the flexibility
and discretion needed to evaluate sustainable use management plans as
Congress intended.
The pet industry representative, an avicultural organization and
several aviculturists expressed their support for the proposal by the
Service ``to give particularly positive consideration to situations
wherein very conservative capture and export quotas are implemented
prior to being able to obtain all of the biological information
necessary for a more large-scale management plan (in effect, a
preliminary approval)''. They recommended that such approval criteria
be built into the regulations themselves. Several animal welfare and
conservation organizations opposed such a ``preliminary approval''.
The Service notes that the criteria in Section 15.32 will be used
to evaluate the sustainable use management plans submitted by an
exporting country but that the Director has flexibility and discretion
in approving plans, as Congress intended. The Service is aware that the
criteria for approval of sustainable use plans may appear rigorous, and
although desirable and scientifically valid, they may be difficult for
some exporting countries. The Service will evaluate each sustainable
use plan and the information provided within on its own scientific and
conservation merit. The Service may give positive consideration to
plans wherein very conservative capture and export quotas are
implemented prior to being able to obtain all of the biological
information necessary for a more large-scale management plan, if the
country can demonstrate that such conservative capture and export
quotas are non-detrimental to the species survival in the wild. There
is precedent among CITES Parties to impose such conservative quotas
when some scientific data is available and a species' status is known
while the firmer scientific database is being developed. While some of
the biological information in the sustainable use management plan may
be lacking, the plan must address all the other approval criteria
requiring the effective implementation of CITES in the exporting
country. The Service notes that Congress, in the Committee Report on
the WBCA, said that ``the Committee expects the Secretary to consider
the extent to which a country's Scientific Authority is technically
capable of carrying out the duties described by CITES.'' It directs the
Secretary to review whether a country is effectively implementing
remedial measures recommended by the Parties to CITES.
One scientific organization commented that the Service should be
required to establish an ``advisory board of scientists chosen for
their competence in demography'' to review management plans and make
recommendations to the Service on the approval of such plans. The
Service strongly disagrees. The Service makes non-detriment findings
routinely and has the expertise and competency to evaluate sustainable
use management plans. The Service shall publish notice in the Federal
Register of sustainable use management plan applications. Interested
parties, including the scientific community, are invited to submit
comments regarding these plans.
A few animal welfare organizations and individuals commented in
opposition to the duration of approval of 3 years and requested that
the Service approve sustainable use programs for 1 year only. The
Service strongly disagrees and is making no changes. Given the amount
of data and information required by the Service to evaluate sustainable
use management plans, an approval for only 1 year would be excessive
and burdensome to an exporting country and would not allow an exporting
country to develop long-term sustainable use and conservation
management programs. The Service notes that the Secretary may be
petitioned at any time under the WBCA to remove a species from the
approved list of non-captive bred species should information become
available that the number of birds taken is not sustainable.
General Comments Pertaining to Section 15.33: Species Included in the
Approved List for Non-Captive-Bred Species
No comments were received on the proposed organization of this
subpart. This subpart is established in this rule; actual text will be
proposed as sustainable use management plans are received and approved.
Effects of the Rule
The Service has determined that this final rule is categorically
excluded under Departmental procedures in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). See
[[Page 2091]]
516 DM [Departmental Manual] 2, Appendix 1 Paragraph 1.10. The
regulations are procedural in nature, and the environmental effects,
while crafted to carry out the benign purposes of the WBCA, are judged
to be minimal, speculative, and do not lend themselves to meaningful
analysis. Future regulations and permitting decisions implementing the
WBCA may be subject to NEPA documentation requirements, on a case-by-
case basis.
Executive Orders 12866, 12612, and 12630 and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866. This action is not expected to have
significant taking implications for United States citizens, as per
Executive Order 12630. It has also been certified that these revisions
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities as described by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Since
the rule applies to importation of live wild birds into the United
States, it does not contain any Federalism impacts as described in
Executive Order 12612.
Paperwork Reduction Act
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has received approval for
this collection of information, with approval number 1018-0084, with
the expiration date of August 31, 1996.
This collection of information will be achieved through the use of
USFWS Application Form 3-200, which will be modified pursuant to 50 CFR
13.12(b), to address the specific requirements of this final rule. This
collection information will establish whether or not the applicant can
include a given species of exotic bird in the approved list of non-
captive-bred species.
The likely respondents to this collection of information will be
foreign governments who wish to include a given species of exotic bird
in the approved list of non-captive-bred species. This information will
be needed by the USFWS to determine whether a given species of exotic
bird can be managed in a scientifically based sustainable manner, thus
warranting inclusion in the approved list of non-captive-bred species.
A species and country of export will be approved for three (3) years,
at which time renewal of approval will be considered by the USFWS. The
annual burden of reporting and record keeping should be between five
(5) and ten (10) hours per response. The estimated number of likely
respondents is less than ten (10), yielding a total annual reporting
and recordkeeping burden of one hundred (100) hours or less.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 15
Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation,
and Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, 50 CFR part 15 is amended as follows:
PART 15--WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT
1. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 102-440, 16 U.S.C. 4901-4916.
2. Amend Part 15, subpart A, section 15.3 by adding the following
definitions, in alphabetical order:
Sec. 15.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Documentation means a description of how scientific information was
collected, including the methodologies used; names and institutions of
individuals conducting the work; dates and locations of any study; and
any published results or reports from the work.
* * * * *
Life cycle means the annual processes involved with breeding,
migration, and all other non-breeding activities.
* * * * *
Status means a qualitative measure of the vulnerability to
extinction or extirpation of a population at a given time (e.g.,
endangered, threatened, vulnerable, non-threatened, or insufficiently
known).
Sustainable use means the use of a species in a manner and at a
level such that populations of the species are maintained at
biologically viable levels for the long term and involves a
determination of the productive capacity of the species and its
ecosystem, in order to ensure that utilization does not exceed those
capacities or the ability of the population to reproduce, maintain
itself and perform its role or function in its ecosystem.
Trend means a long-term assessment of any change in the absolute or
relative size of a species' population or habitat over time (e.g.,
increasing, decreasing, at equilibrium, insufficiently known).
* * * * *
3. Section 15.32 is amended by adding text to read as follows:
Sec. 15.32 Criteria for including species in the approved list for
non-captive-bred species.
Upon receipt of a completed sustainable use management plan for a
country of export, the Director may approve a species listed in
Appendices II or III of the Convention for importation from that
country. Such approval shall be granted in accordance with the issuance
criteria of this section. All approved species and countries of export
will be listed in section 15.33.
(a) Requirements for scientifically-based sustainable use
management plans. Sustainable use management plans developed by the
country of export should be submitted for species which breed in the
country of export. If the species does not breed in the country of
export, the Service will consider sustainable use management plans only
when the plan is scientifically valid and nesting (breeding)
information can be provided from countries in which the species breeds.
Sustainable use management plans shall include the following
information, and any other information that may be appropriate:
(1) Background information, including the following:
(i) The scientific and common name of the species;
(ii) Letters from the country of export's Management and Scientific
Authorities transmitting the management plan of this species;
(iii) A summary of the country of export's legislation related to
this species and legislation implementing the Convention, and, where
appropriate, a summary of implementing regulations;
(iv) A summary, from the country of export's Management Authority,
of the country's infrastructure and law enforcement and monitoring
mechanisms designed to ensure both enforcement of and compliance with
the requirements of the management plan, and that the number of birds
removed from the wild or exported will be consistent with the
management plan;
(v) Recent information on the distribution of the species within
the country of export, including scientific references and maps, and
historical information on distributions, if relevant; and
(vi) The species' status and its current population trend in the
country of export, including scientific references and copies of the
most recent non-detriment findings made by the exporting country's
Scientific Authority.
(2) Habitat information, including:
(i) A general description of habitats used by the species for each
portion of the life cycle completed within the country of export;
[[Page 2092]]
(ii) Recent information on the size and distribution of these
habitats throughout the country of export and in each area or region of
take, including scientific references and maps. The approximate
location of any reserves that provide protection for this species
should be indicated on the accompanying map(s), along with a brief
description of how reserves are protected and how that protection is
enforced;
(iii) Status and trends of the important habitats used by the
species in the country of export as a whole whenever available and
within each area or region of take, including scientific references;
(iv) Factors, including management activities, favoring or
threatening the species' habitat in the foreseeable future within each
area or region of take, and throughout the country of export whenever
available, including scientific references; and
(v) A list of management plans that have been or are being planned,
developed, or implemented for the species' important habitats, if any.
(3) Information on the role of the species in its ecosystem,
including:
(i) A description of the part(s) of the species' life cycle
completed within the country of export;
(ii) A description of nest sites and/or plant communities that are
most frequently used for placement of nests and, if applicable, nesting
habits;
(iii) A general description of the species' diet and where the
species forages (aerial feeder, tree canopy, tree trunk, midstory,
understory, open water or other), and seasonal changes in foraging
habits, including, when available, scientific references; and
(iv) Information on any species or plant community which is
dependent on the occurrence of the exotic bird species.
(4) Population dynamics of the species, including:
(i) Recent population data for the population of the species in the
country of export, as derived from indices of relative abundance or
population estimates, along with documentation for each estimate;
(ii) Within each area or region of take, documentation for recent
population data or estimates, conducted for at least 3 separate years
or 1 year with a description of survey plans for future years. These
population assessments should have been conducted during the same
season (breeding or non-breeding) of each year for which documentation
is submitted (i.e., be methodologically comparable--both temporally and
spatially);
(iii) Within each area or region of take, a scientific assessment
(with documentation) of recent reproductive (nesting) success. This
assessment should include information on the number of young produced
per egg-laying female per year or per nesting pair, or if
scientifically appropriate for the species to be exported, estimates on
the number of young produced per year from pre-breeding and post-
breeding surveys conducted within the same annual cycle;
(iv) Within each area or region of take, estimation (with
documentation) of annual mortality or loss including natural mortality
and take for subsistence use, export trade, and domestic trade in each
area of take; or
(v) When appropriate, information (with documentation) on the
number of young which can be taken from the area, as a result of a
conservation enhancement program.
(5) Determination of biologically sustainable use:
(i) Estimation of the number exported from the country during the
past 2 years, and the number of birds removed from the wild for export,
domestic trade, illegal trade, subsistence use, and other purposes
(specify) for the country of export during the past 2 years;
(ii) The estimated number of birds that will be removed from the
wild from each area of take each year for all purposes (export trade,
domestic trade, illegal trade, and subsistence use), including a
description of age-classes (nestlings, fledglings, sub-adults, adults,
all classes), when applicable;
(iii) For the projected take addressed in the management plan, a
description of the removal process, including, but not limited to,
locations, time of year, capture methods, means of transport, and pre-
export conditioning;
(iv) Documentation of how each projected level of take was
determined;
(v) Explanation of infrastructure and law enforcement and
monitoring mechanisms that ensure compliance with the methodology in
the management plan and that the species will be removed at a level
that ensures sustainable use; and
(vi) Description of how species in each area or region of take will
be monitored in order to determine whether the number and age classes
of birds taken is sustainable.
(6) (i) For species that are considered ``pests'' in the country of
origin: documentation that such a species is a pest, including a
description of the type of pest,--e.g., agricultural, disease carrier;
a description of the damage the pest species causes to its ecosystem;
and a description of how the sustainable use management plan controls
population levels of the pest species.
(ii) For non-pest species: A description of how the sustainable use
management plan promotes the value of the species and its habitats.
Incentives for conservation may be generated by environmental
education, cooperative efforts or projects, development of cooperative
management units, and/or activities involving local communities.
(7) Additional factors:
(i) Description of any existing enhancement activities developed
for the species, including, but not limited to, annual banding
programs, nest watching/guarding, and nest improvement; and
(ii) Description, including photographs or diagrams, of the
shipping methods and enclosures proposed to be used to transport the
exotic birds, including but not limited to feeding and care during
transport, densities of birds in shipping enclosures, and estimated
consignment sizes.
(b) Approval criteria. Upon receiving a sustainable use management
plan in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the Director
will decide whether or not an exotic bird species should be listed as
an approved species for importation from the country of export, under
section 15.33. In making this decision, the Director shall consider in
addition to the general criteria in part 13 of this subchapter, all of
the following factors for the species:
(1) Whether the country of export is effectively implementing the
Convention, particularly with respect to:
(i) establishment of a functioning Scientific Authority;
(ii) the requirements of Article IV of the Convention;
(iii) remedial measures recommended by the Parties to the
Convention with respect to this and similar species, including
recommendations of permanent committees of the Convention; and
(iv) Article VIII of the Convention, including but not limited to
establishment of legislation and infrastructure necessary to enforce
the Convention, and submission of annual reports to the Convention's
Secretariat;
(2) Whether the country of export has developed a scientifically-
based management plan for the species that:
(i) provides for the conservation of the species and its
habitat(s);
(ii) includes incentives for conservation unless the species is a
documented pest species;
(iii) is adequately implemented and enforced;
(iv) ensures that the use of the species is:
(A) sustainable;
[[Page 2093]]
(B) maintained throughout its range at a level that is consistent
with the species' role in its ecosystem; and
(C) is well above the level at which the species might become
threatened;
(v) addresses illegal trade, domestic trade, subsistence use,
disease, and habitat loss; and
(vi) ensures that the methods of capture, transport, and
maintenance of the species minimize the risk of injury, damage to
health, and inhumane treatment; and
(3) If the species has a multi-national distribution:
(i) Whether populations of the species in other countries in which
it occurs will not be detrimentally affected by exports of the species
from the country requesting approval;
(ii) Whether factors affecting conservation of the species,
including export from other countries, illegal trade, domestic use, or
subsistence use are regulated throughout the range of the species so
that recruitment and/or breeding stocks of the species will not be
detrimentally affected by the proposed export;
(iii) Whether the projected take and export will not detrimentally
affect breeding populations; and
(iv) Whether the projected take and export will not detrimentally
affect existing enhancement activities, conservation programs, or
enforcement efforts throughout the species' range.
(4) For purposes of applying the criterion in paragraph (b)(2)(iv)
of this section, the Director may give positive consideration to plans
wherein very conservative capture and export quotas are implemented
prior to being able to obtain all of the biological information
necessary for a more large-scale management plan, if the country can
demonstrate that such conservative capture and export quotas are non-
detrimental to the species survival in the wild under the criterion in
paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
(c) Publication in the Federal Register. The Director shall publish
notice in the Federal Register of the availability of each complete
sustainable use management plan received under paragraph (a) of this
section. Each notice shall invite the submission from interested
parties of written data, views, or arguments with respect to the
proposed approval.
(d) Duration of approval. A species and country of export listed in
section 15.33 as approved shall be approved for 3 years, at which time
renewal of approval shall be considered by the Service.
4. Section 15.33(b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 15.33 Species included in the approved list.
* * * * *
(b) Non-captive-bred species. The list in this paragraph includes
species of non-captive-bred exotic birds and countries for which
importation into the United States is not prohibited by section 15.11.
The species are grouped taxonomically by order, and may only be
imported from the approved country, except as provided under a permit
issued pursuant to subpart C of this Part.
Dated: November 7, 1995.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-795 Filed 1-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P