[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 10, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62503-62507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24629]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 15
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2021-0116; FXIA16710900000-FF09A10000-212]
Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992; 90-Day Rulings on Petitions
To Add Cactus Conure and Lineolated Parakeet (Green Form) to the
Approved List for Captive-Bred Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of 90-day petition rulings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-
day rulings on two petitions to add species to the approved list for
captive-bred exotic bird species under the Wild Bird Conservation Act
(WBCA) of 1992. Based on our review, we find that the petitions to add
cactus conure (Aratinga cactorum) and lineolated parakeet (green form)
(Bolborhynchus lineola (green form)) do not present sufficient
information indicating that the petitioned actions might be warranted.
Therefore, we will not seek public comments on these petitions and will
take no further action in response to these petitions.
DATES: These rulings were made on November 10, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and information submitted are
available online in Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2021-0116 at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eleanora Babij, Chief, Branch of
Consultation and Monitoring, 703-358-2488 (phone); 703-358-2276 (fax);
or [email protected] (email). If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 4901-4916) was
enacted on October 23, 1992, to promote the conservation of exotic
birds listed in the appendices of the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) by: Ensuring that
all imports of exotic bird species into the United States are
biologically sustainable and not detrimental to the species; ensuring
that wild bird populations are not harmed by removal of birds from the
wild for importation into the United States; 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.
What is the approved list for captive-bred species?
The approved list for captive-bred exotic bird species under the
WBCA is authorized under the WBCA (16 U.S.C. 4905). It is a list of
bird species that are regularly bred in captivity and no wild-caught
birds of the species are in trade, and for which importation into the
United States of captive-bred specimens is not prohibited by the WBCA.
A WBCA import permit is not required if an exotic bird species is on
the approved list for captive-bred exotic bird species. CITES
requirements and any other applicable requirements for trade continue
to apply.
The criteria for a species to be included in the approved list for
captive-bred exotic bird species (``approved list'') are set forth in
our regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at
Sec. 15.31 (50 CFR 15.31), and the approved list is provided at 50 CFR
15.33(a).
How are bird species added to or removed from the approved list?
We periodically review and update the approved list. Under 50 CFR
15.31, to be included in the approved list, an exotic bird species must
meet all of the following criteria:
(a) All specimens of the species known to be in trade (legal or
illegal) are captive-bred;
(b) No specimens of the species are known to be removed from the
wild for commercial purposes;
(c) Any importation of specimens of the species would not be
detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild; and
(d) Adequate enforcement controls are in place to ensure compliance
with paragraphs (a) through (c), above.
Additional information relating to these criteria is available in
our December 2, 1994, final rule that promulgated our regulations for
the WBCA list of approved species (59 FR 62255).
Further, section 110 of the WBCA (16 U.S.C. 4909) and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 15 set forth the procedures for
petitions to add a species of exotic bird to, or remove such a species
from, the approved list at 50 CFR 15.33(a). Section 110(b) of the WBCA
requires that for each petition submitted in accordance with section
110(a) of the WBCA, we make a preliminary ruling on whether a petition
to add a species of exotic bird to, or remove such a species from, the
approved list presents sufficient information indicating that the
action requested in the petition might be warranted. We are to make
this preliminary ruling within 90 days of our receipt of the petition
and publish the ruling in the Federal Register pursuant to 16 U.S.C.
4909(b)(1).
The WBCA does not expressly define what constitutes ``sufficient
information indicating that the action requested in the petition might
be warranted'' with regard to a 90-day preliminary ruling. Given the
purposes of the WBCA, including ensuring that all imports of exotic
bird species into the United States are biologically sustainable and
not detrimental to the species, we interpret this language to refer to
the presentation of credible scientific or commercial information in
support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person
conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the
action proposed in the petition might be warranted.
[[Page 62504]]
As described in our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 15.31, a
species of exotic bird may be added to the approved list if the species
meets all of the criteria (a) through (d) set forth in that section.
However, the mere assertion that the species meets all of the criteria
is not enough to support a preliminary ruling that the information in
the petition is sufficient information indicating that the petitioned
action might be warranted. The information presented in the petition
must include sufficient information indicating that each of the
criteria set forth at 50 CFR 15.31 might be met.
If we find that a petition presents such sufficient information, we
will then provide an opportunity for the submission of public comments
on the petition, and issue and publish in the Federal Register a final
ruling on the petition, no later than 90 days after the end of the
period for public comment pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 4909(b)(2).
The WBCA places the obligation squarely on the petitioner to
present the requisite level of information to meet the ``sufficient
information'' test to demonstrate that the petitioned action might be
warranted. Therefore, in determining whether the petition presents
sufficient information, we are not required to seek out any supporting
source materials beyond what is included with a given petition. As a
result, we will not base our 90-day rulings on any claims for which
supporting source materials have not been provided in the petition. We
need not resort to supplemental information to bolster, plug gaps in,
or otherwise supplement a petition that is inadequate on its face.
We note, however, in determining whether a petition presents
sufficient information or not, we must determine whether the claims are
credible. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Service to consider
readily available information that provides context in which to
evaluate whether or not the information that a petition presents is
timely and up-to-date, and whether it is reliable or representative of
the available information on the species, in making its determination
as to whether the petition presents sufficient information. It is
reasonable for the Service to be able to examine the information and
claims included in a petition in light of readily available scientific
information prior to committing limited Federal resources to the
significant expense of a review pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 4909(b)(2). We
note further that because, as discussed below, the petitions at issue
here were on their face inadequate to meet the applicable standards,
our 90-day rulings are based solely on the information provided in the
petition--we did not consider any readily available scientific
information regarding these two species.
Evaluation of a Petition To Add the Cactus Conure to the Approved List
Species and Range
Cactus conure (Aratinga cactorum): Brazil.
Petition History
On July 30, 2021, we received a petition dated July 30, 2021, from
the Organization of Professional Aviculturists (OPA) requesting to add
captive-bred cactus conures (Aratinga cactorum) to the approved list
under the WBCA. This ruling addresses the petition.
Basis for the Ruling
Criterion (a)
Criterion (a) is that all specimens of the species known to be in
trade (legal or illegal) are captive-bred. The petition states: ``This
species is regularly bred in captivity in Europe. Attached to this
petition are several publications relating to the captive breeding of
Cactus Conure in Europe. Also attached are ads from the European
website, Parrots 4 Sale, which includes several ads of Cactus Conures
for sale. Also provided with this petition is a print out of the CITES
trade database which shows that the last trade in wild specimens
occurred in 1997. Since then, for over twenty-years, no wild caught
trade has occurred. As such, this petition demonstrates that the Cactus
Conure is regularly bred in European aviculture and there are no wild-
caught birds of the species [are] in world trade.''
The petition includes a two-part interview published in 2016 by
Parrots Daily News with Czech aviculturist Zdenek Vandelik, who keeps
and breeds cactus conures and other South American parrots. With regard
to cactus conure, in the first part of the interview, the breeder
mentions only that he keeps and breeds a ``colony of Cactus Conure,''
and in the second part of the interview he states that he ``still
keep[s] Cactus Conures in a colony system. But I am going to split the
group next year because the dominant pair is the only one which breeds.
Other pairs lay eggs but they do not incubate them or do not feed
chicks. Therefore I need to make a change.'' Altogether, the 2016 two-
part interview provides only one brief anecdote about cactus conure
breeding by a single cactus conure breeder. The interview provides no
information on the origin of the breeding stock or on the source of
cactus conures in trade to or from the breeder. The petition also
includes a section on conures from the book ``Psittaculture: A Manual
for the Care and Breeding of Parrots'' by Tony Silva. The book excerpt
does note that ``Cactus Conures Eupsittula cactorum are very popular in
Brazil, where they are regarded as fairly quiet, intelligent and active
pets.'' This passing reference indicates there is a popular pet trade
in the species in the range country, Brazil, but the book gives no
information as to whether the source of the pet trade is wild or
captive-bred, legal or illegal, or whether adequate enforcement
controls are in place in Brazil to ensure that wild specimens are not
entering international trade through this pet trade. The petition also
includes a printout of a search result for ``cactus conure'' from the
European website, Parrots 4 Sale, showing links to 13 advertisements
for small numbers of cactus conures for sale between 2017 and 2019 from
Denmark and the Netherlands. However, the advertisements do not provide
any indication of the source of the birds for sale (i.e., captive-bred
or wild). Of the advertisements, twelve are from a single seller in
Denmark, while the thirteenth is from the Netherlands. It is not
apparent from the printout whether these advertisements relate to the
same or different birds, and no information is presented on whether the
solicited trade took place. Although these sources briefly mention this
species, they do not discuss or address the issue of whether or not all
specimens of this species known to be in trade (legal and illegal) are
captive-bred.
The output from the CITES Trade Database submitted with the
petition shows the international trade in the species reported since
1975, with the most recently reported entry being a 2018 export of
bred-in-captivity specimens from Brazil to Portugal. The petitioner
notes that the last international trade in wild cactus conure reported
in the CITES Trade Database was in 1997. Although the CITES Trade
Database and its data contained within can be extremely valuable in
examining international trade in a particular species, there are
limitations of the database, including some discrepancies in reporting.
However, the limited data presented show a serious discrepancy in two
reported instances of trade in 2013 and in 2014 that indicate a
likelihood of non-compliant trade (illegal trade). In each instance an
export quantity of only 2 live specimens was reported exported from the
Netherlands, but an import quantity of 4 live specimens was
[[Page 62505]]
reported imported to Panama. The petition provides no further
information to explain these discrepancies. Additionally, during the
time period from 1998 to 2018, 46 actual imports of live cactus conure
were reported in the CITES Trade Database, while 86 exports of live
cactus conure were reported in the CITES Trade Database. Over the time
period, imports reported in the CITES Trade Database averaged only a
little over 2 live birds per year, while exports reported in the CITES
Trade Database averaged only a little over 4 live birds per year. While
it is not possible to determine the exact reason for the discrepancies
from this output alone, the discrepancy noted may indicate inaccurate
reporting, incomplete reporting, reporting by exporting countries of
quantities authorized for export (as opposed to actual quantities
exported), high bird mortality, or instances of trade that was not
conducted in accordance with CITES (illegal trade). Regardless of these
discrepancies, an average of approximately 2-4 live birds in
international trade annually indicates very few records of any
specimens in trade, and that the species is relatively rare in
aviculture. For the Service to list a species as exclusively captive-
bred, the statute requires the Service to determine that the species is
regularly bred in captivity and that no wild-caught birds of the
species are in trade, legally or illegally. Simply noting that a
species is bred in captivity is not sufficient to indicate that it is
regularly bred in captivity. As explained in our 1994 final rulemaking
(59 FR 62259-60), with so few records, we are not be able to make the
determination required by the statute that the species is regularly
bred in captivity. We noted that a purpose of the approved list for
captive-bred exotic bird species is to facilitate commercial
importation of captive-bred species whose trade in no way can be
detrimental to populations of these species in the wild. The
fundamental purpose of the WBCA is conservation of exotic bird species
in the wild. For species that are rare in aviculture, individual
captive-bred birds may be imported under permits for approved
cooperative breeding programs, zoological breeding and display, or
scientific research, pursuant to subpart C of 50 CFR part 15. The
Service also recognized that with increased captive breeding efforts
for those species, they may be able to meet criteria for approval in
Sec. 15.31 in the future.
Therefore, based on the limited information provided in the
petition regarding trade (legal or illegal) in this species, and the
indication from the limited information provided that the species is
rare in aviculture, we find that the petition does not present
sufficient information indicating this species might meet criterion (a)
at 50 CFR 15.31.
Criterion (b)
Criterion (b) is that no specimens of the species are known to be
removed from the wild for commercial purposes. While the petition
mentions information and advertisements concerning the captive-breeding
of cactus conures in Europe and CITES Trade Database output, as quoted
above under ``Criterion (a),'' the petition does not explicitly discuss
or address this criterion. No citations or supporting materials are
included in the petition to indicate that no specimens of the species
are known to be removed from the wild for commercial purposes. The
information provided in the petition indicates that some captive
breeding of this species is occurring, that a small number of birds are
being offered for sale commercially, and that there are few records of
international trade in the species. However, no information was
provided in the petition to confirm that birds are not being removed
from the wild to serve as parental stock for captive-bred specimens for
commercial purposes. In addition, the petition does not provide any
information on collection in the range country of this species, Brazil,
indicating that no wild specimens of cactus conures are being collected
for commercial purposes. As noted above, the book excerpt presented
notes only that cactus conures ``are very popular in Brazil, where they
are regarded as fairly quiet, intelligent and active pets.'' This
reference indicates there is a popular pet trade in the species in the
range country, Brazil, and may indicate demand for the species from the
wild, but the book gives no information as to whether the source of the
pet trade or its breeding stock is wild or captive-bred, legal or
illegal, or whether adequate enforcement controls are in place in
Brazil to ensure that wild specimens are not entering international
trade through this pet trade. Therefore, based on the lack of
information provided in the petition regarding removal of specimens
from the wild for commercial purposes, we find that the petition does
not present sufficient information indicating that this species might
meet criterion (b) at 50 CFR 15.31.
Criterion (c)
Criterion (c) is that any importation of specimens of the species
would not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild.
Given the purposes of the WBCA, we find the factors in our CITES
regulations for non-detriment findings at 50 CFR 23.61 relevant to this
criterion. The petition does not discuss or provide information to
address this criterion. For example, the petition provides no
information relating to the status or management of the species in the
wild or the effect of trade in live cactus conures on cactus conures in
the wild. As noted above, with regard to the range country, Brazil, the
information presented notes only that cactus conures ``are very popular
in Brazil, where they are regarded as fairly quiet, intelligent and
active pets.'' This reference indicates there is a popular pet trade in
the species in the range country, and may indicate demand for the
species from the wild, but the petition provides no information as to
whether the source of the pet trade or its breeding stock is wild or
captive-bred, legal or illegal, or whether adequate enforcement
controls are in place in Brazil to ensure that wild specimens are not
being used unsustainably as breeding stock or otherwise entering
international trade through this pet trade. Therefore, based on the
lack of information provided in the petition regarding whether or not
the importation of specimens of this species would be detrimental to
the survival of the species in the wild, we find that the petition does
not present sufficient information indicating that this species might
meet criterion (c) at 50 CFR 15.31.
Criterion (d)
Criterion (d) is that adequate enforcement controls are in place to
ensure compliance with criteria (a) through (c). The petition does not
discuss or provide information to address this criterion. As explained
in our 1994 final rulemaking (59 FR 62258), it is critical that
enforcement be in place and adequate in range countries and in
countries of export of captive-bred birds. The Service notes that
adequate enforcement in exporting countries is critical to ensure that
wild-caught birds will not be misrepresented and laundered as captive-
bred birds. Adequate enforcement is critical to implementation of
CITES, a specified purpose of the WBCA. With regard to the range
country, Brazil, the information presented notes only that cactus
conures ``are very popular in Brazil, where they are regarded as fairly
quiet, intelligent and active pets'' and the output from the CITES
Trade Database records Brazil as an exporting country. As previously
noted, the petition provides no information as to
[[Page 62506]]
whether adequate enforcement controls are in place in Brazil. The
remaining three pieces of information presented (the interview, the
advertisements, and the output from the CITES Trade Database) indicate
there might be captive breeding in and/or export from several
countries. No information is provided on the adequacy of enforcement
for any of the exporting countries. Therefore, based on the lack of
information provided in the petition regarding whether or not adequate
enforcement controls are in place to ensure compliance with criteria
(a) through (c), we find that the petition does not present sufficient
information indicating that this species might meet criterion (d) at 50
CFR 15.31.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 15.31 state that for a species to be
included in the approved list, an exotic bird species must meet all of
the criteria set forth at 50 CFR 15.31. Given that the petition does
not present sufficient information indicating that this species might
meet any of the criteria set forth at 50 CFR 15.31, based on our review
of the petition and the information submitted in the petition, we find
that the petition does not present sufficient information indicating
that adding the cactus conure (Aratinga cactorum) to the approved list
might be warranted. Because the petition does not present sufficient
information indicating that the petitioned action might be warranted,
we are not seeking public comments in response to this petition and
will take no further action in response to this petition.
Evaluation of a Petition To Add the Lineolated Parakeet (Green Form) to
the Approved List
Species and Range
Lineolated parakeet (green form) (Bolborhynchus lineola (green
form)): Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.
Petition History
On August 3, 2021, we received a petition dated August 3, 2021,
from the OPA and the Lineolated Parakeet Society (LPS) requesting to
add captive-bred lineolated parakeet (green form) (Bolborhynchus
lineola (green form)) to the approved list under the WBCA. This ruling
addresses the petition.
In the December 2, 1994, final rule that promulgated our
regulations for the WBCA list of approved species (59 FR 62259), we
noted that the lineolated or barred parakeet (Bolborhynchus lineola),
which commenters requested be included in the approved list, could not
be added to the approved list for captive-bred exotic bird species
because the species did not meet the criteria for approval in Sec.
15.31(a) and wild-caught birds are in international trade. However, as
further explained in our 1994 final rulemaking (59 FR 622561), the
Service agreed that when a bird species' color mutation is (a) rare or
nonexistent in the wild, and therefore not likely to be obtained as
wild-caught stock; (b) regularly produced in captivity; and (c)
distinguishable from the typical wild form and such ability to
distinguish the color mutation is easy for the non-expert, then color
mutations of a species may be added to the approved list. Therefore, at
that time, we added the following color mutations of the lineolated or
barred parakeet to the approved list: Blue, yellow and white forms (see
50 CFR 15.33(a)). However, given that the green form of the lineolated
parakeet is the typical, wild color form for this bird, and, therefore,
not a color mutation of the species that is rare or nonexistent in the
wild or distinguishable from the typical wild form, the green form of
the lineolated parakeet was not added to the approved list in 1994.
Basis for the Ruling
Criterion (a)
Criterion (a) is that all specimens of the species known to be in
trade (legal or illegal) are captive-bred. The petition states: ``This
species is regularly bred in captivity in Europe. Attached to this
petition are several publications relating to the captive breeding of
Lineolated Parakeet in Europe. Also attached are ads from several
European websites listing ads of captive-bred Lineolated Parakeets for
sale. Also provided with this petition is a printout of the CITES trade
database which shows that the last wild trade in the species occurred
in 2012 when two wild-caught Lineolated Parakeet[s] specimens were re-
exported from the U.S. to Canada for scientific purposes. The data also
demonstrates that the species is commonly bred in captivity. As such,
this petition demonstrates that the Lineolated Parakeets are regularly
bred in aviculture, i.e., captivity, and no wild-caught birds of the
species are in the worldwide trade.''
The petition includes an article titled, ``It's Not Easy Being
Green'' Project--The Importance of Wild Type Birds: The Disappearance
of Green Lineolated Parakeet'' by the Lineolated Parakeet Society
(LPS), which discusses care and breeding of the species, as well as the
goal of the LPS to propagate breeding of the wild, normal green color
form and support a healthy stock of normal green color forms for strong
breeding programs in U.S. aviculture. The petition also provided a
section on South American Parakeets from the book ``Psittaculture: A
Manual for the Care and Breeding of Parrots'' by Tony Silva and a 2020
account of Bolborhynchus lineola by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
Although these sources provide details regarding the biology and
breeding of this species, they do not discuss or address the issue of
whether or not all specimens of this color form of the species known to
be in trade (legal and illegal) are captive-bred. The small number of
advertisements provided in the petition from four European websites
show lineolated parakeets for sale in 2020 and 2021 from the United
Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. However, only one of the
advertisements lists the green color form for sale and none of the
advertisements indicate the source of the birds for sale (i.e.,
captive-bred or wild). The output from the CITES Trade Database
submitted with the petition shows the international trade in lineolated
parakeet reported since 1975. Although the CITES Trade Database and its
data contained within can be extremely valuable in examining
international trade in a particular species, there are limitations of
the database, including some discrepancies in reporting. Importantly
for purposes of evaluating this petition, the CITES Trade Database does
not indicate color form for the trade. Accordingly, without additional
information we are unable to evaluate whether the reported trade in the
CITES Trade Database is in the petitioned green form of the species. We
note that even if the reported trade presented in the output were able
to be attributed to the green form, then there would be a number of
examples of illegal trade where commercial imports to the U.S. are
reported in the time period since the enactment of the WBCA.
Additionally, a serious discrepancy is shown in several reported
instances of trade that indicate a likelihood of non-compliant trade
(illegal trade), where an export quantity of fewer live specimens was
reported exported from an exporting country, but an import quantity of
more specimens was reported imported to an importing country. For
example, as recently as 2019, an export quantity of 10 live specimens
was reported exported from the Netherlands to Oman, but an import
quantity of 100 live specimens was reported imported to Oman from the
Netherlands. The petition provides no
[[Page 62507]]
further information to explain these discrepancies.
For the Service to list a species as exclusively captive-bred, the
statute requires the Service to determine that the species is regularly
bred in captivity and that no wild-caught birds of the species are in
trade, legally or illegally. Simply noting that a species is bred in
captivity is not sufficient to indicate that it is regularly bred in
captivity. As explained in our 1994 final rulemaking (59 FR 62259-60),
with so few records presented pertaining to the green form, we are not
be able to make the determination required by the statute that the
green form of the species is regularly bred in captivity. We noted that
a purpose of the approved list for captive-bred exotic bird species is
to facilitate commercial importation of captive-bred species, whose
trade in no way can be detrimental to populations of these species in
the wild. The fundamental purpose of the WBCA is conservation of exotic
bird species in the wild.
Therefore, based on the lack of information provided in the
petition regarding trade (legal or illegal) in this color form of the
species, we find that the petition does not present sufficient
information indicating that this color form of the species might meet
criterion (a) set forth at 50 CFR 15.31.
Criterion (b)
Criterion (b) is that no specimens of the species are known to be
removed from the wild for commercial purposes. While the petition
mentions information and provides publications and advertisements
concerning the captive-breeding of lineolated parakeets in Europe and
CITES Trade Database output, as quoted above under ``Criterion (a),''
the petition does not explicitly discuss or address this criterion. No
citations or supporting materials are included in the petition to
indicate that no specimens of the green form of the species are known
to be removed from the wild for commercial purposes. The information
provided in the petition indicates that captive breeding of lineolated
parakeets is occurring and that captive-bred birds are being offered
for sale commercially, though as noted above little of the information
presented clearly relates to the petitioned color form. However, no
information was provided in the petition to confirm that birds of the
petitioned color form are not being removed from the wild to serve as
parental stock for captive-bred specimens for commercial purposes. In
addition, the petition does not provide any information on collection
in the range countries of this species indicating that no wild
specimens of the green form of lineolated parakeets are being collected
for commercial purposes. Therefore, based on the lack of information
provided in the petition regarding removal of specimens from the wild
for commercial purposes, we find that the petition does not present
sufficient information indicating that this color form of the species
might meet criterion (b) set forth at 50 CFR 15.31.
Criterion (c)
Criterion (c) is that any importation of specimens of the species
would not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild.
Given the purposes of the WBCA, we find the factors in our CITES
regulations for non-detriment findings at 50 CFR 23.61 relevant to this
criterion. The petition does not discuss or provide information to
address this criterion. For example, the petition provides no
information relating to the status or management of the species in the
wild in any of its range countries or the effect of trade in live green
form lineolated parakeets on lineolated parakeets in the wild.
Therefore, based on the lack of information provided in the petition
regarding whether the importation of specimens of this color form of
the species would be detrimental to the survival of the species in the
wild, we find that the petition does not present sufficient information
indicating this color form of the species might meet criterion (c) set
forth at 50 CFR 15.31.
Criterion (d)
Criterion (d) is that adequate enforcement controls are in place to
ensure compliance with criteria (a) through (c). The petition does not
discuss or provide information to address this criterion. As explained
in our 1994 final rulemaking (59 FR 62258), it is critical that
enforcement be in place and adequate in range countries and in
countries of export of captive-bred birds. The Service notes that
adequate enforcement in exporting countries is critical to ensure that
wild-caught birds will not be misrepresented and laundered as captive-
bred birds. Adequate enforcement is critical to implementation of
CITES, a specified purpose of the WBCA. The petition does not provide
information as to whether adequate enforcement controls are in place in
any of the range countries or exporting countries for the green form of
lineolated parakeet. Therefore, based on the lack of information
provided in the petition regarding whether or not adequate enforcement
controls are in place to ensure compliance with criteria (a) through
(c), we find that the petition does not present sufficient information
indicating that this color form of the species might meet criterion (d)
set forth at 50 CFR 15.31.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 15.31 state that for a species to be
included in the approved list, an exotic bird species must meet all of
the criteria set forth at 50 CFR 15.31. Given that the petition does
not present sufficient information indicating that this color form of
the species might meet any of the criteria set forth at 50 CFR 15.31
based on our review of the petition and the information submitted in
the petition, we find that the petition does not present sufficient
information indicating that adding the lineolated parakeet (green form)
(Bolborhynchus lineola (green form)) to the approved list might be
warranted. Because the petition does not present sufficient information
indicating that the petitioned action might be warranted, we are not
seeking public comments in response to this petition and will take no
further action in response to this petition.
Conclusion
Based on our evaluation of the information presented in the
petitions under our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 15.31, we have
determined that the petitions summarized above for cactus conure
(Aratinga cactorum) and lineolated parakeet (green form) (Bolborhynchus
lineola (green form)) do not present sufficient information indicating
that the petitioned actions might be warranted. Therefore, we will not
seek public comments on these petitions and will take no further action
in response to these petitions.
Author
The primary author of this document is a staff member of the
Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Wild Bird Conservation Act (16
U.S.C. 4901-4916 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-24629 Filed 11-8-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P