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
| Published date | 10 November 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 62503 |
| Record Number | 2021-24629 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service,Interior Department |
62503
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
incarceration as voluntary
unemployment as stated in the
Flexibility, Efficiency, and
Modernization in Child Support
Programs (FEM) final rule published in
the Federal Register on December 20,
2016 (81 FR 93492). Setting and
modifying realistic child support
obligations for incarcerated parents can
improve their ability to provide
consistent support for their children
upon release from prison. Formerly
incarcerated noncustodial parents will
be more likely to meet their child
support obligations, benefiting their
children by improving child support
compliance and reliability, and
reducing uncollectable debt.
Other collateral consequences
associated with orders set beyond a
noncustodial parent’s ability to pay may
also decline, such as increased
underground employment activity and
reduced contact with their children.
HHS is therefore withdrawing the
NPRM published on September 17, 2020
(85 FR 58029).
JooYeun Chang,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and
Families.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–24606 Filed 11–9–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–42–P
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
eleanora_babij@fws.gov (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 § 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Nov 09, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10NOP1.SGM 10NOP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
62504
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Nov 09, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10NOP1.SGM 10NOP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
62505
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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 § 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Nov 09, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10NOP1.SGM 10NOP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
62506
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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 § 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Nov 09, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10NOP1.SGM 10NOP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
62507
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Nov 09, 2021 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10NOP1.SGM 10NOP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
