[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