47092 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Protection Systems, as incorporated by 

reference. The Director of the Office of 

the Federal Register has approved the 

NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, 

Testing, and Maintenance of WaterBased Fire Protection Systems, 1998 

edition, issued January 16, 1998 for 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. A copy of the Code is 

available for inspection at the CMS 

Information Resource Center, 7500 

Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. Copies may be 

obtained from the National Fire 

Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch 

Park, Quincy, MA 02269. 

* * * * * 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance 

Program) (Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—

Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, 

Medicare—Supplementary Medical 

Insurance Program) 

Dated: March 6, 2008. 

Kerry Weems, 

Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

Approved: May 6, 2008. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–18670 Filed 8–8–08; 3:30 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

[FWS–R9–MB–2007–0012; 91200–1231–

9BPP] 

RIN 1018–AV35 

Migratory Bird Permits; Revisions to 

Migratory Bird Import and Export 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, change the regulations 

governing migratory bird permitting. We 

amend 50 CFR part 21 to allow the 

export of lawfully-acquired, captivebred raptors without obtaining a 

migratory bird export permit; to resolve 

problems related to export of species 

covered by Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES) permits or 

certificates; to allow the importation 

and possession without an import 

permit of legally-acquired migratory 

game birds in the families Anatidae, 

Columbidae, Gruidae, Rallidae, or 

Scolopacidae that were lawfully hunted 

in a foreign country; to extend the 

maximum time for which an import and 

export permit is valid from 3 to 5 years; 

and to reorganize and reword the 

regulations to make them easier to 

understand. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 12, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

George T. Allen, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 703–358–1825. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

the Federal agency that has been 

delegated the responsibility to carry out 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which 

implements conventions with Great 

Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and 

the Soviet Union (Russia). Raptors 

(birds of prey) are afforded Federal 

protection by the 1972 amendment to 

the Convention for the Protection of 

Migratory Birds and Game Animals, 

February 7, 1936, United States-Mexico, 

as amended; the Convention between 

the United States and Japan for the 

Protection of Migratory Birds in Danger 

of Extinction and Their Environment, 

September 19, 1974; and the Convention 

Between the United States of America 

and the Union of Soviet Socialist 

Republics (Russia) Concerning the 

Conservation of Migratory Birds and 

Their Environment, November 26, 1976. 

Among other things, we manage the 

import and export of migratory birds 

and their parts, eggs, and nests. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 21.21 set forth the 

requirements for import and export 

permits for migratory birds and their 

parts, eggs, and nests, including 

requirements for import and export 

permits, application procedures for 

these permits, additional permit 

conditions, and the term for which a 

permit is valid. These regulations are 18 

years old and are, in part, outdated. In 

particular, these regulations do not 

mention the requirements associated 

with CITES, addressed in part 23 of our 

regulations. In addition, many of the 

requirements currently set forth at 

§ 21.21 simply reference another part or 

section of our regulations. They are 

therefore difficult to read and 

understand. 

We proposed revisions to the 

regulations governing import and export 

of migratory birds on November 19, 

2007 (72 FR 64981). Among other 

things, we wanted to: Address the 

export of species covered by CITES; 

allow the export of lawfully-acquired, 

captive-bred raptors without an export 

permit; allow the importation and 

possession without a migratory bird 

import permit of legally-acquired 

migratory game birds in the families 

Anatidae, Columbidae, Gruidae, 

Rallidae, and Scolopacidae that were 

lawfully hunted in a foreign country; 

extend the maximum time for which a 

migratory bird import and export permit 

is valid from 3 to 5 years; and reorganize 

and reword the regulations to make 

them easier to understand. We revised 

the proposed regulations to address 

comments we received, but we made no 

major changes to the proposed rule. 

Changes in the Migratory Bird Import 

and Export Regulations 

General requirements (§ 21.21(a)): 

Current § 21.21(a) provides the general 

requirements for import and export 

permits, as well as the exceptions to 

these requirements. We reorganize 

current § 21.21 to separate the general 

requirements (§ 21.21(a)) from the 

exceptions to the requirements 

(§ 21.21(b), (c) and (d)). In § 21.21(a), we 

acknowledge all of the regulations, 

including the CITES regulations at 50 

CFR part 23, that apply to imports and 

exports of migratory birds and their 

parts, eggs, and nests. These revisions 

will help ensure that importers and 

exporters of migratory birds or their 

parts, eggs, or nests understand all the 

requirements applicable to their imports 

and exports. 

Exceptions for import permits 

(§ 21.21(b)): Current § 21.21(a)(1) 

provides the requirements for import 

permits; it does not provide any 

exceptions to import permit 

requirements for migratory birds or their 

parts, eggs, or nests. Current 

§ 21.21(a)(2) does have one import 

permit exception for raptors for falconry 

that will be discussed later in this 

document. We add, in a new § 21.21(b), 

a provision to allow the importation and 

possession without an import permit of 

migratory game birds in the families 

Anatidae, Columbidae, Gruidae, 

Rallidae, and Scolopacidae that were 

lawfully hunted in a foreign country. 

The imported specimens can be 

carcasses, skins, or mounts. They must 

be accompanied by evidence of lawful 

export from the country of origin and by 

any other necessary permits, such as a 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47093 

CITES permit. These families may be 

legally hunted under the provisions of 

the migratory bird treaties with Canada 

and Mexico, though hunting seasons 

have not been established for all of 

them. We will allow import of birds in 

these families that were legally hunted 

outside the United States without 

requiring an import permit to do so. 

However, should we determine that 

hunting of any species in these families 

is not consistent with the conservation 

of the species, we will disallow import 

of that species if it was originally 

acquired by hunting. 

Exceptions for export permits 

(§ 21.21(c)): As stated above, current 

§ 21.21(a) provides the requirements for 

import and export permits, and 

exceptions to these requirements. 

Current § 21.21(a) does provide 

exceptions to the export permit 

requirements for certain captive-bred 

migratory game birds exported to 

Canada or Mexico and for raptors used 

for falconry exported to or imported 

from Canada or Mexico. Our § 21.21(c) 

retains these exceptions, with changes 

described below. 

Instead of simply directing readers to 

50 CFR 21.13(b) of the regulations for 

the marking requirements for captivebred migratory game birds exported to 

Canada or Mexico, we detail those 

requirements in this new paragraph. 

This revision will help ensure that 

exporters of migratory game birds 

understand the exceptions to our export 

permit requirements. 

In addition, we add a provision to 

allow export of lawfully acquired, 

captive-bred raptors without an 

additional export permit, provided that 

the exporter holds both a valid raptor 

propagation permit and a CITES export 

permit, and has full documentation of 

the lawful origin of the raptor(s). The 

raptor(s) would also have to be properly 

identified by a captive-bred raptor band 

(see § 21.30 of this subpart C of part 21). 

This change will eliminate redundant 

permitting reviews for export of captivebred raptors and help ensure that border 

inspectors can easily and accurately 

identify birds for export. 

The exception to the import and 

export permit requirements for falconry 

birds under a CITES passport currently 

resides in § 21.21(a)(2), with the general 

export permit requirements for 

migratory birds. We moved the 

exception to the requirements for 

falconry birds into its own paragraph 

(new § 21.21(d)) so that it is easier to 

find in the regulations. For clarity, we 

revise the language concerning the 

exception and acknowledge the CITES 

regulations at 50 CFR part 23 that apply 

to exports of these birds. This revision 

will help ensure that importers and 

exporters of falconry birds understand 

this exception to the temporary export 

and import requirements for falconry 

birds. We believe that this change will 

help readers more easily find this 

information. 

We believe it is reasonable to allow 

the temporary export and subsequent 

import of birds held for falconry out of 

the United States. Therefore, a provision 

in the regulation makes it clear that we 

allow this action. The provision states 

that unless a permittee has the 

necessary CITES permit or certificate to 

permanently export a raptor from the 

United States, he or she must bring any 

raptor transported out of the country for 

use in falconry back to the United States 

when he or she returns. However, if the 

raptor dies or is lost, the permittee must 

document the loss of the bird as 

required by his or her State falconry 

regulations and any conditions on the 

CITES document. 

Inspection procedures (§ 21.21(e)): 

The current § 21.21 is silent on 

inspection procedures for imported and 

exported migratory birds and their parts, 

eggs, and nests, even though these 

inspections occur regularly. We correct 

language in our proposed rule, in which 

we stated that Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) would be allowed to 

inspect any migratory birds brought into 

or out of the country. Doing so would 

be contrary to the provisions in 50 CFR 

part 14 and 23. 50 CFR § 14.54 does not 

authorize CBP to act on the Service’s 

behalf for any export. In addition, CBP 

is not authorized under 50 CFR 23 to 

validate CITES documents issued for the 

export of CITES listed migratory birds or 

for migratory birds traveling on a CITES 

pet passport. 

Application procedures (§ 21.21(f)): 

Current § 21.21(b) provides the 

application procedures for permits to 

import or export migratory birds or their 

parts, eggs, or nests. The current 

regulations set forth the information 

required on the application forms. The 

‘‘additional information,’’ specified in 

current § 21.21(b)(1) through (b)(6), has 

been incorporated into the relevant 

application forms, so we remove that 

information requirement from the 

regulations. Instead, we list the specific 

forms required to apply for an import or 

export permit (FWS form 3–200–6) or a 

permit for scientific collecting (FWS 

form 3–200–7). We also add language 

reminding applicants of the application 

fee that must accompany their 

application to import or export 

migratory birds or their parts, eggs, or 

nests. This change helps ensure that 

persons interested in importing or 

exporting know which form to complete 

and its associated application fee. 

Service criteria for issuing a permit 

(§ 21.21(g)): The current § 21.21 is silent 

on the criteria we consider when 

deciding whether or not to issue a 

permit to import or export migratory 

birds or their parts, eggs, or nests. We 

include the issuance criteria in this 

paragraph to ensure that the public 

understands how we make our 

decisions. 

Standard conditions for a permit 

(§ 21.21(h)): The current § 21.21(c) 

provides information on additional 

permit conditions. We retain this 

information, but rewrite it for clarity in 

this paragraph. We also add a reference 

to 50 CFR part 14 to ensure that 

importers and exporters of migratory 

birds or their parts, eggs, or nests 

understand that they must also comply 

with the general regulations concerning 

the importation, exportation, and 

transportation of wildlife. 

Term of permit (§ 21.21(i)): The 

current § 21.21(d) provides information 

on the length of time that a permit is 

valid. We extend the maximum time for 

which an import or export permit is 

valid from 3 to 5 years. In recent years, 

as we have completed regulations 

revisions we have extended the duration 

of some permit types that we believe 

have a limited potential effect on bird 

populations. This eases the burden on 

both permittees and our permit 

examiners. We believe that is also true 

of the import and export regulations, so 

this rule extends the term of an import 

and export permit. 

Plain Language: Throughout our 

revisions to § 21.21, we have used short 

sentences and active voice to make the 

regulations easy to understand. 

What Comments on the Proposed Rule 

Did We Receive? 

We received 58 sets of comments on 

the proposed rule. The following are 

concerns expressed about provisions of 

the regulations and suggestions for 

changes to them. 

Issue: Cross-border temporary export 

and import of falconry birds. 

• ‘‘I am concerned about the level of 

documentation required of falconers for 

a crossing and would prefer a clear 

definition concerning the sufficiency of 

documentation needed.’’

• ‘‘Due to the option of Customs 

being able to do the inspection, please 

clearly state there is no fee for the 

inspection. Some falconers are still 

being charged $195 each way for both 

the inspection and crossing at nondesignated port of entry.’’

• ‘‘Please also clearly state that there 

is no inspection fee, because in the past 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
47094 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

some falconers have been charged 

exorbitant fees. If at all possible, please 

exempt falconers from the requirement 

to use only specially designated ports of 

entry.’’

• ‘‘Almost all of the birds used in 

falconry are banded and/or captive bred. 

There will be a few wild caught birds 

with plastic bands and a few non 

banded birds but in all cases the 

falconer on the U.S. side will arrive 

with a 3–186A and a health certificate. 

At that point it should be up to the 

Canadian customs agents to accept or 

reject a person’s entry into the country 

based on having the health certificate 

and having birds that match the 

description on the 3–186As (or 

equivalent). The same would apply to 

Canadians coming south. The need for 

an expensive U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service inspection coming and going 

needs to be dropped. A falconer should 

be able to cross at any port of entry 

without the need for either a U.S. or 

Canadian health inspector being 

present. Again, crossing with your dog 

or cat does not require such restrictions. 

There really can’t be any legitimate 

health concerns as the very same falcons 

are flying overhead moving north and 

south over the borders every year.’’

• ‘‘Since the USFWS proposes to 

allow either a Service inspector or a 

Customs inspector to examine the birds 

at the border (which I think is very 

appropriate and agree with) and since 

birds held for falconry appear to be 

exempt (under 21.21(d), assuming all 

other requirements are met) * * * is it 

possible that falconers could also be 

granted an exemption from ‘‘designated 

ports’’ and not be required to file a 3–

200–2 for a Designated Port Exception? 

This would certainly help ease the 

paperwork requirements on both the 

falconer and the Service.’’

• ‘‘Falconers meeting the 

documentation requirements should be 

exempt from specific designated ports of 

entry and should be able to use any 

legal point of entry with either customs 

or UFWS able to perform inspections.’’

• ‘‘Concerning documentation of 

legally held raptors crossing borders, the 

CITES international authorities have 

accepted a ‘‘passport’’ system, now 

currently widely in use by falconers in 

the Middle East. Such documentation 

includes a microchip explicitly tying 

the passport to the individual bird 

described. It is good, I believe, for the 

life of the bird. Use of such a document 

in lieu of any import/export permitting 

would greatly facilitate crossing 

procedures and, as already accepted by 

CITES, should obviate any further 

significant governmental procedural 

harangues regarding adoption of its 

use.’’

• ‘‘We also agree with proposed 

21.21(e) that will allow inspections by 

either USFWS inspectors or Customs 

and Border Protection. However, we 

request a statement that falconers who 

are transporting birds for the purpose of 

practicing falconry are exempt from 

designated ports of entry and may use 

any legal point of entry. It is clear when 

the USFWS states that ‘‘We believe it is 

reasonable to allow temporary transport 

of birds held for falconry out of the 

United States. Therefore, a proposed 

provision in the regulation makes it 

clear that we allow this action. The 

provision states that unless you have the 

necessary CITES permit or certificate to 

permanently export a raptor from the 

United States, you must bring any raptor 

you transport out of the country for use 

in falconry back to the United States 

when you return. However, if the raptor 

dies or is lost, the permittee must 

document the loss of the bird as 

required by his or her State falconry 

regulations and any conditions on the 

CITES document.’’ Therefore, is it not 

also reasonable that falconers 

transporting birds for the purpose of 

practicing falconry, be exempt for the 

provision of ‘‘designated ports’’?’’

• ‘‘My personal recommendation 

includes both wild and CB [captivebred] raptors being allowed to cross 

(because falconers use both CB and wild 

taken raptors in this sport) at any 

designated port of entry. The reason for 

this request (any port of entry) is that 

most border crossings will be for 

‘‘hunting falconry meets’’ and these take 

place away from large cities, etc. So 

being able to cross the border at an entry 

that is close to the ‘‘hunting meet 

location’’ is critically important to the 

falconer.’’

• ‘‘Many of the designated and nondesignated ports of entry can be many 

miles from your intended destination, 

and in the case of Canada, due to the 

lack of an elaborate road system along 

the U.S. border, can force you to detour 

many additional miles to reach a 

designated or non-designated port. Even 

when a non-designated port of entry is 

reached, planning must occur to ensure 

that the USFWS Agent is available to 

review the required documentation. 

This is an unneeded requirement and 

Customs agents are amply qualified to 

verify the documentation against the 

band numbers of the raptors. Crossing 

the border only at a designated or nondesignated port of entry is an overly 

burdensome requirement and currently 

prevents crossings after normal business 

hours and on weekends. Entry at any 

port of entry, during their normal 

operating hours, should be allowed.’’

• ‘‘Please consider allowing either the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 

Customs to conduct inspections at 

border crossings.’’

• ‘‘Service actions at the time of my 

1996 crossing make any ‘‘designated 

port of entry’’ requirement ludicrous! 

My Canadian destination was some two 

hundred miles from my Montana 

hunting residence. To comply with your 

designated port requirement, however, 

those crossings necessitated my driving 

some four hundred additional miles 

each way. Further, in compliance with 

Service instructions I had made 

advanced appointments for the required 

personal Service-conducted inspection, 

both coming and going, with the Service 

resident ‘‘agent’’ agreeing as to both 

times and dates of my crossings. Despite 

my compliance with both agreed-upon 

appointments, no Service agent ever 

appeared, having told his Customsinspector associates to just go ahead and 

pass me (and my bird) through. To add 

injury to insult (and I use such term 

explicitly), my use of the Servicedesignated port required me to pass 

through yet another province enroute 

where falconry was not yet legal, 

necessitating all the paperwork for yet 

another set of permits.’’

• ‘‘It is possible for our raptors to 

unintentionally pursue game across the 

U.S. border which could result in 

needing to cross the border to retrieve 

the raptor. Please consider language that 

would specifically allow the USFWS LE 

authority to allow falconers to recover 

lost birds across the US/Canada border 

without the typical 30–90 day wait 

period for a CITES permit.’’

• ‘‘[T]here should be policy that 

allows a falconer to recover a lost bird 

across the U.S./Canada border without 

the typical 30–90 day wait period for a 

CITES permit. A statement that 

specifically allowed USFWS LE 

authority and discretion in this scenario 

is requested.’’

• Add ‘‘A statement specifically 

allowing USFWS LE authority to allow 

falconers to recover lost birds across the 

U.S./Canada border without the typical 

30–90 day wait period for a CITES 

permit.’’

• ‘‘I should be able to recover a lost 

bird without need of a CITES permit 

also.’’

Response: These comments all 

address CITES-related and 50 CFR part 

14 requirements that are not the subject 

of this rulemaking. All wildlife must 

pass through a Service-designated port 

out of or into the United States unless 

authorized otherwise by a designated 

port exception permit. We cannot make 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47095 

an exception for falconers. U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) can only 

act on the Service’s behalf for imports, 

when their role is to collect 

documentation for later investigation by 

the Service. CBP is not authorized to 

validate CITES documents, either upon 

export, or for CITES pet passports upon 

import. Nor is CBP authorized to 

operate on behalf of the Service for 

exports, primarily because CBP 

generally does not process exports. 

A falconer can get a CITES Certificate 

of Ownership for Personally Owned 

Wildlife, or ‘‘pet passport’’ (Form 3–

200–64) that facilitates temporary export 

and import of a falconry bird out of and 

into the United States. The 3–200–64 

form ‘‘is used to request a passport-like 

certificate for a single animal (one 

application per pet).’’ A ‘‘pet passport’’

certificate may be valid for up to 3 years 

for multiple border crossings. If a 

falconer has more than one raptor that 

he or she wishes to temporarily export 

and import out of and back to the 

United States, he or she should get a 

CITES ‘‘pet passport’’ for each bird. 

Issue: ‘‘If form 3–177 has not been 

pre-approved by USFWS, Customs 

should be allowed to stamp it.’’

• ‘‘Review of the required supporting 

documentation can easily be performed 

by the Border or Customs agents. 

Review by Border agents have been 

utilized and accepted by the FWS at 

times when FWS agents have not been 

available. Having only FWS agents to 

verify documentation is an unnecessary 

requirement and only serves as a 

punitive source of revenue for the FWS 

($195 each way) to have a FWS Agent 

review and stamp the documentation. 

Allowing Customs to check and stamp 

all documentation (CITES & 3–177 

forms) is probably the most important 

requested change. Not only would this 

allow for a much more streamlined 

process but would allow crossing at 

times other than those hours when a 

FWS Agent is on duty.’’

Response: We require a Form 3–177 

for all wildlife imports and exports, 

regardless of whether a CITES document 

is required. CBP cannot stamp the 

Service’s form. CBP may, however, 

collect it for later investigation by FWS, 

in which case CBP is conditionally 

allowing entry subject to FWS approval. 

Fees for permits, border inspections, 

and other fees are not set in this 

regulation. 

Issue: ‘‘In proposed 21.21(b), (c) and 

(d) there contains a section, which states 

in part, that compliance with parts 14, 

15, 17, 21, 22 and 23 is required. While 

I agree, may I request that the title of 

each of those parts be included? (i.e.: 50 

CFR part 14: Importation, Exportation, 

and Transportation of Wildlife)’’

Response: We made this change. It 

adds clarity to the rule. 

Issue: ‘‘Regarding permanent export, 

thank you for increasing the permit 

length to 5 years. However, this permit 

still seems redundant, as it could be 

issued automatically with each CITES 

permit. Even if a raptor propagator is 

giving a bird to a friend, they are still 

treated as commercial and charged extra 

fees in addition to the CITES permit.’’

Response: If you have a CITES permit, 

you do not need an export permit under 

this rule. In paragraph (c)(2), we stated 

that an import/export permit is not 

needed for the export of live lawfullyacquired, captive-bred raptors by a 

raptor propagation permittee if he or she 

has a CITES export permit or certificate 

issued under part 23 for the export. The 

language is unchanged in this final rule. 

Issue: The falconry transport 

provision did not allow for temporary 

export and import of wild-caught 

falconry birds without an import/export 

permit. 

• ‘‘The first [issue] includes adding 

both WILD taken and captive bred birds 

to this exemption. We must still meet 

the CITES requirements to receive a 

Passport for both, so why not allow a 

falconer to take all of his/her falconry 

birds whether wild or captive bred?’’

• ‘‘In section (d), may I request some 

additional clarification? It does not 

appear that wild caught raptors, 

transported for falconry are clearly 

being considered. I am sure this is a 

simple oversight and not your intention. 

Some wild caught birds are not required 

to be banded by the various states in the 

U.S. For those birds that are not 

required to be banded, would a 

completed 3–186A suffice for 

documentation?’’

Response: We agree that temporary 

export and import of wild-caught 

falconry birds should be allowed. We 

added appropriate language to the 

regulations. However, a falconry raptor 

taken across a U.S. border will need to 

be banded unless it has been exempted 

from banding because of problems with 

bands placed on the bird, or if it has an 

implanted ISO-compliant microchip 

that will allow us to identify it. 

Issue: ‘‘We also feel it is vital to 

include in 21.21(d) or a separate section, 

that transport across the border for 

falconry birds for the purpose of 

practicing falconry (i.e. a weekend 

hunt), not just at falconry meets, is 

allowed. The Service states this and we 

feel it is appropriate to place such 

verbiage in the regulations. We also feel 

it is vital that such transports also do 

not require an import/export permit.’’

Response: The language in the 

proposed rule addressed the practice of 

falconry—not just falconry meets. No 

change from the proposed regulation is 

needed, nor do we require a migratory 

bird import/export permit. However, a 

CITES document would be required, 

even for a short weekend hunt. 

Issue: ‘‘[T]he transport of semen 

should specifically be allowed without 

a permit due to its time sensitive 

nature.’’

Response: The MBTA addresses 

migratory birds and their parts, eggs, 

and nests. We may not exempt semen 

from the provisions of the Act. 

We made no major changes to the 

proposed rule based on comments we 

received. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866. 

OMB bases its determination upon the 

following four criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 

104–121)), whenever an agency is 

required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide the statement of the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
47096 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We have examined this rule’s 

potential effects on small entities as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, and have determined that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, because the 

changes we are proposing are intended 

primarily to simplify export for a 

limited number of raptor propagators. 

There are no costs associated with 

this regulatory change. Consequently, 

we certify that because this rule will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

This rule is not a major rule under 

SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). It will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

a. This rule will not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. 

b. This rule will not cause a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers; individual industries; 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies; or geographic regions. 

c. This rule will not have significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we have determined the following: 

a. This rule does not ‘‘significantly or 

uniquely’’ affect small governments. A 

small government agency plan is not 

required. Actions under this regulation 

will not affect small government 

activities in any significant way. 

b. This rule does not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year; i.e., it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this 

rule does not have significant takings 

implications because it does not contain 

a provision for taking of private 

property. Therefore, a takings 

implication assessment is not required. 

Federalism 

This rule will not have sufficient 

Federalism effects to warrant 

preparation of a Federalism assessment 

under E.O. 13132. It will not interfere 

with the States’ ability to manage 

themselves or their funds. No significant 

economic impacts are expected to result 

from changing exemptions in migratory 

bird permit requirements. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the 

Office of the Solicitor has determined 

that the rule will not unduly burden the 

judicial system and meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

We examined these regulations for 

compliance with the Paperwork 

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

We may not collect or sponsor, nor is a 

person required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid Office of 

Management and Budget control 

number. The Office of Management and 

Budget approved the information 

collection requirements for this part, 

and assigned OMB Control Number 

1018–0022. There are no new 

information collection requirements 

associated with this regulatory change. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have analyzed this rule in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 

U.S.C. 432–437(f), and Part 516 of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior Manual 

(516 DM). We have no data on the 

number of legally hunted birds that 

individuals might wish to import, 

though we doubt that the number will 

be large. Because these species are 

legally hunted elsewhere, we doubt that 

this regulations change will appreciably 

change the impact of hunting on these 

species. Therefore, we do not believe 

that there will be a significant 

environmental impact due to the 

regulations change. 

Environmental Consequences of the 

Action 

The primary change is to allow export 

of lawfully-acquired, captive-bred 

raptors without an export permit 

provided that the exporter holds a valid 

raptor propagation permit and has been 

issued a Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) 

export permit. This change should 

eliminate redundant permitting required 

for this activity. Another important 

change is to allow the import of legallyacquired migratory game birds without 

a permit. A permit is currently required 

to import such species. We believe that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts of this action. 

Socioeconomic. This rule will not 

have discernible socioeconomic 

impacts. 

Migratory bird populations. This rule 

will not affect migratory bird 

populations. 

Endangered and threatened species. 

The regulation is for migratory bird 

species that are not threatened or 

endangered. It will not affect threatened 

or endangered species or critical 

habitats. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), E.O. 

13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

evaluated potential effects on Federally 

recognized Indian Tribes and have 

determined that there are no potential 

effects. This rule will not interfere with 

the Tribes’ ability to manage themselves 

or their funds or to regulate migratory 

bird activities on tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(E.O. 13211) 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

E.O. 13211 addressing regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. Because this rule will 

affect only import and export of birds in 

limited circumstances, it is not a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866, and will not significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Compliance With Endangered Species 

Act Requirements 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that ‘‘The 

Secretary [of the Interior] shall review 

other programs administered by him 

and utilize such programs in 

furtherance of the purposes of this 

chapter’’ (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It 

further states that the Secretary must 

‘‘insure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out * * * is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

[critical] habitat’’ (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). 

The regulations change will not affect 

listed species. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47097 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

we amend part 21 of subchapter B, 

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 

Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 703); Public Law 95–616, 

92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Public Law 

106–108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note following 16 

U.S.C. 703. 

■ 2. Revise § 21.21 to read as follows: 

§ 21.21 Import and export permits. 

(a) Permit requirement. Except as 

provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) 

of this section, you must have a permit 

to import or export migratory birds, 

their parts, nests, or eggs. You must 

meet the applicable permit requirements 

of the following parts of this subchapter 

B, even if the activity is exempt from a 

migratory bird import or export permit: 

(1) 13 (General Permit Procedures); 

(2) 14 (Importation, Exportation, and 

Transportation of Wildlife); 

(3) 15 (Wild Bird Conservation Act); 

(4) 17 (Taking, Possession, 

Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, 

Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife 

and Plants); 

(5) 20 (Migratory Bird Hunting); 

(6) 21 (Migratory Bird Permits); 

(7) 22 (Eagle Permits); and 

(8) 23 (Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES)). 

(b) Game bird exception to the import 

permit requirements. If you comply with 

the requirements of parts 14, 20, and 23 

of this subchapter B, you do not need 

a migratory bird permit to import or 

possess migratory game birds in the 

families Anatidae, Columbidae, 

Gruidae, Rallidae, and Scolopacidae for 

personal use that were lawfully hunted 

by you in a foreign country. The game 

birds may be carcasses, skins, or 

mounts. You must provide evidence 

that you lawfully took the bird or birds 

in, and exported them from, the country 

of origin. This evidence must include a 

hunting license and any export 

documentation required by the country 

of origin. You must keep these 

documents with the imported bird or 

birds permanently. 

(c) General exceptions to the export 

permit requirements. You do not need a 

migratory bird export permit to: 

(1) Export live, captive-bred migratory 

game birds (see § 20.11 of this subpart) 

to Canada or Mexico if they are marked 

by one of the following methods: 

(i) Removal of the hind toe from the 

right foot; 

(ii) Pinioning of a wing by removal of 

all or some of the metacarpal bones of 

one wing, which renders the bird 

permanently incapable of flight; 

(iii) Banding of one metatarsus with a 

seamless metal band; or 

(iv) A readily discernible tattoo of 

numbers and/or letters on the web of 

one foot. 

(2) Export live, lawfully-acquired, 

captive-bred raptors provided you hold 

a valid raptor propagation permit issued 

under § 21.30 and you obtain a CITES 

permit or certificate issued under part 

23 to do so. You must have full 

documentation of the lawful origin of 

each raptor, and each must be 

identifiable with a seamless band issued 

by the Service, including any raptor 

with an implanted microchip for 

identification. 

(d) Falconry birds covered under a 

CITES ‘‘pet passport.’’ You do not need 

a migratory bird import or export permit 

to temporarily export and subsequently 

import a raptor or raptors you lawfully 

possess for falconry to and from another 

country for use in falconry when the 

following conditions are met: 

(1) You must meet applicable 

requirements in part 14 (Importation, 

Exportation, and Transportation of 

Wildlife) of this subchapter B. 

(2) You may need one or more 

additional permits to take a bird from 

the United States or to return home with 

it (see 50 CFR part 15 (Wild Bird 

Conservation Act), part 17 (Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants), 

and part 23 (Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora)). 

(3) Each raptor must be covered by a 

CITES certificate of ownership issued 

under part 23 of this chapter. You must 

have full documentation of the lawful 

origin of each raptor (a copy of a 

propagation report with band number or 

a 3–186A report), and each must be 

identifiable with a seamless band or a 

permanent, nonreusable, numbered Fish 

and Wildlife Service leg band issued by 

the Service, including any raptor with 

an implanted microchip for 

identification. We may exempt a raptor 

from banding because of health 

concerns, but you must provide proof of 

the exemption from your falconry 

permitting authority. 

(4) You must bring any raptor that you 

export out of the country for falconry 

under a CITES ‘‘pet passport’’ back to 

the United States when you return. 

(5) If the raptor dies or is lost, you are 

not required to bring it back, but you 

must report the loss immediately upon 

your return to the United States in the 

manner required by the falconry 

regulations of your State, and according 

to any conditions on your CITES 

certificate. 

(e) Inspection of imported or exported 

migratory birds. All migratory birds 

imported into, or exported from, the 

United States, and any associated 

documentation, may be inspected by the 

Service. You must comply with the 

import and export regulations in Part 14 

of this chapter. 

(f) Applying for a migratory bird 

import or export permit. You must 

apply to the appropriate Regional 

Director—Attention Migratory Bird 

Permit Office. You can find the address 

for your Regional Director in § 2.2 of 

subchapter A of this chapter. Your 

application package must include a 

completed application (form 3–200–6, 

or 3–200–7 if the import or export is 

associated with an application for a 

scientific collecting permit), and a check 

or money order made payable to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the 

amount of the application fee for 

permits issued under this section, as 

listed in § 13.11 of this chapter. 

(g) Criteria we will consider before 

issuing a permit. After we receive a 

completed import or export application, 

the Regional Director will decide 

whether to issue you a permit based on 

the general criteria of § 13.21 of this 

chapter, and whether you meet the 

following requirements: 

(1) You are at least 18 years of age; 

(2) The bird was lawfully acquired; 

and 

(3) The purpose of the import or 

export is consistent with the 

conservation of the species; and 

(4) For an import permit, whether you 

are authorized to lawfully possess the 

migratory bird after it is imported. 

(h) Are there standard conditions for 

the permit? Yes, standard conditions for 

your permit are set forth in part 13 of 

this subchapter B. You must also 

comply with the regulations in part 14 

(Importation, Exportation, and 

Transportation of Wildlife). We may 

place additional requirements or 

restrictions on your permit as 

appropriate. 

(i) Term of a migratory bird import 

and export permit. Your migratory bird 

import or export permit will be valid for 

not more than 5 years. It will expire on 

the date designated on its face unless it 

is amended or revoked. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
47098 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: August 4, 2008. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. E8–18774 Filed 8–12–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 070720400–81019–02] 

RIN 0648–AV30 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Precious Corals Fisheries; Black Coral 

Quota and Gold Coral Moratorium 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule implements 

Amendment 7 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Precious Coral 

Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region 

(Precious Corals FMP). The rule 

designates the Au’au Channel, Hawaii, 

black coral bed as an ‘‘Established Bed’’

with a harvest quota of 5,000 kg every 

two years that applies to Federal and 

State of Hawaii waters, and implements 

a 5-year moratorium on the harvest of 

gold coral throughout the U.S. western 

Pacific. This rule is intended to prevent 

overfishing and achieve optimum yields 

of black coral resources, and to prevent 

overfishing and stimulate research on 

gold corals. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

September 12, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Amendment 7 is available 

from the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council), 1164 

Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 

96813, tel 808–522–8220, fax 808–522–

8226, or www.wpcouncil.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brett Wiedoff, NMFS PIR, 808–944–

2272. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule is accessible on the internet at: 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/. 

Since 1980, almost all of the black 

coral harvested around the Hawaiian 

Islands has been taken from the Au’au 

Channel Bed. The biomass of the Au’au 

Channel black coral population has 

decreased by at least 25 percent in the 

last 30 years, and data collected during 

submersible dives has shown a decline 

in both recruitment and relative 

abundance of legal-sized black coral 

colonies. The decline may be related to 

both fishing pressure and competition 

with the highly-invasive soft coral, 

Carijoa riisei, or snowflake coral, which 

has been found overgrowing large areas 

of black coral habitat. The potentiallydevastating snowflake coral, combined 

with fishing pressure, warrants 

management action and further 

research. 

This final rule designates the Au’au 

Channel Bed (Fig. 1) as an ‘‘Established 

Bed’’ with a harvest quota for black 

coral of 5,000 kg (11,023 lb) every two 

years. This quota applies in both 

Federal and State of Hawaii waters, and 

all other existing Federal restrictions 

continue to apply. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULESER13AU08.044</GPH>