Comment on FR Doc # E8-03330

Mr. Benito Perez, Chief Office of Law Enforcement U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive MS-LE-3000 Arlington, VA 22203 Public Comments Processing, Attn: [RIN 1018–AV31] Division of Policy and Directives Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222 Arlington, VA 22203 April 25, 2008 Re: 50 CFR 14 Dear Mr. Perez: The undersigned organizations strongly support the changes proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to subpart I—Import/Export Licenses, of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 14, (50 CFR 14), including increased license and user fees. We applaud the Service for seeking to make the services provided to U.S. importers and exporters engaged in wildlife trade, “self-sustaining to the extent possible.” We note that in the most recent year for which data are available (2006), the value of the legal U.S. wildlife trade was $ 2.1 billion; during that same time, the volume of trade increased 6.3%. Certainly, the costs of services to this industry are expected to rise along with the high value and increasing volume of wildlife trade. We believe that the proposed changes are reasonable, as they appropriately shift the burden of the costs of operating wildlife trade-related licensing and inspection from the American taxpayer to the private beneficiaries of this trade. Our comments on specific portions of Part 14 follow: § 14.91 When do I need an import/export license? We strongly support the proposed removal of the exemption for businesses that exclusively import or export chinchilla, fisher, fox, marten, mink, muskrat, and nutria that have been bred and born in captivity, and products of these animals. We agree with the Service that removal of this exemption will weaken the ability of traders to falsely declare wild-sourced products as from captive-bred animals. In addition, this change will require importers and exporters to maintain records of trade, allowing the Service to investigate instances of false declarations. We also support the removal of exemptions for businesses that export food items derived from aquaculture sturgeon and paddlefish, American bison meat, and ostrich and emu meat. We believe that those who utilize the inspection services must bear their cost. We strongly support the proposed removal of the exemption for circuses. We agree that wildlife imported or exported as part of commercial entertainment, such as circuses, magic shows, animals acts, are for-profit businesses as they import or export wildlife to stimulate ticket sales. We agree with the proposed definition of “engage in business” provided in paragraph (a) (“to import or export wildlife for commercial purposes”), as the term “commercial” is defined in § 14.4. We encourage the Service to make the following change to item (4) in the table of examples of those that will need an import/export license in paragraph (c), in order to accurately reflect the examples currently provided in § 14.91: (4) As an animal dealer, animal broker, pet dealer, or pet or laboratory supplier In addition, we urge the Service to make the following changes to items (5) and (6) in the table in order to clarify the type of specimens involved (not only the user) and also to clarify that the specimens are owned by the individual prior to import or export: (5) As an individual pet owner of personally owned live wildlife (pets) for personal use (6) As an collector or hobbyist individual owner of personal or household effects for personal use § 14.93 How do I apply for an import/export license? We are concerned that the term “repeatedly” used in (2) and (3) is not clear in meaning and may put the Service at a disadvantage in applying these restrictions. Therefore, we recommend the Service replace “repeatedly” with “more than once.” § 14.94 What fees apply to me? We fully support the proposed additional fees for the import of live wildlife and protected species. We understand that the inspection of live wildlife is not only time dependent in order to safeguard the health of the specimens involved but expertise is needed to identify and handle the animals and insure that transport meets the standards of the IATA Live Animal Regulations. Additional staff and health and safety equipment also may be required. These additional costs should be borne by importers and exporters. Regarding the table of the inspection fee schedule in paragraph (h), we recommend that the title of the table be changed as follows: “Fee cost per year shipment” otherwise, it may be misunderstood to mean that the inspection fees are paid on an annual basis rather than on a per shipment basis. In order to make the inspection service financially-self sustaining, we urge the Service to delete the exemption from inspection fees for certain North American origin wild mammal furs or skins in paragraphs (k) and (l). Such shipments will require inspection and it is unfair that importers and exporters of these specimens will not be required to cover such costs. In closing, we applaud the Service for moving to make the inspection service financially self-sustaining. We also encourage the Service to use the increased fees collected to make more funds available to the Office of Law Enforcement’s Wildlife Inspection Program. The Wildlife Inspection Program provides the nation’s frontline defense against illegal wildlife trade yet, in March 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had only 114 inspectors to handle the tens of thousands of wildlife shipments passing through U.S. ports and borders. We encourage the Service, as a priority, to increase the inspection rate of legal exports and imports and, provide additional staff, training, and equipment to the program. Thank you for consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Animal Welfare Institute Born Free USA Defenders of Wildlife Earthtrust Environmental Investigation Agency Humane Society International Humane Society of the United States International Primate Protection League Species Survival Network WildAid World Society for the Protection of Animals