[Federal Register: April 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 68)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 18311-18320]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 13 and 21

RIN 1018-AC57

Revisions to General Permit Procedures

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.


SUMMARY: This final rule revises the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 
permit application fee schedule for permits issued by the Divisions of 
Migratory Bird Management, Endangered Species, Law Enforcement, and 
Management Authority. The rule also clarifies several aspects of 
Service permit application procedures, and updates permit-related 
Service addresses. Additionally, the rule extends the tenure of two 
types of migratory bird permits.

DATES: This rule goes into effect on May 11, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours, in the office of the 
Division of Migratory Bird Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 
4401 North Fairfax Drive; MBSP-4107; Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 703/358-



    In implementing its responsibilities under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), 
and other wildlife laws, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues 
permits, licenses, and certificates that authorize the holders to 
engage in certain wildlife-related activities that are regulated by 
international treaty or laws of the United States. The Service charges 
user fees to offset the cost of processing applications for these 
permits, licenses, and certificates, as well as the cost of monitoring 
and maintaining active permit files.
    The general statutory authority to charge fees for processing 
applications for permits and certificates is found in 31 U.S.C. 9701, 
which states that services provided by Federal agencies are to be 
``self-sustaining to the extent possible.'' The authority to charge 
fees is also found under various wildlife laws. Specifically, the ESA, 
16 U.S.C. 1540(f), authorizes the Secretary to ``charge reasonable fees 
for expenses to the Government connected with permits or certificates 
authorized by [the ESA] including processing applications.'' The Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1374(g), also provides that the 
``Secretary shall establish and charge a reasonable fee for permits'' 
issued under the MMPA.
    Federal user fee policy, as stated in Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-25, requires Federal agencies to recoup the 
costs of ``special services'' that provide benefits to identifiable 
recipients. Permits are special services, authorizing identifiable 
recipients to engage in activities not otherwise authorized for the 
general public. Some of the Service's programs that issue permits 
receive little or no designated budget appropriations specifically for 
permitting activities. Others receive some funding, but such funding is 
part of the overall program budget and is not enough to completely 
cover the permitting activity costs. Our ability to effectively provide 
these special services depends in large part on user fees. As a result, 
we have revised the standard permit application fee, designated under 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Sec.  13.11(d)(4), 
which has not been revised since 1982, in order to recoup more of the 
costs associated with providing permitting services. [For additional 
discussion of why the Service must raise the current application fees, 
please refer to the proposed rule (68 FR 51222, published on August 26, 
    While the fee revisions promulgated by this rule will help the 
Service to recover a greater portion of the cost of administering 
permits, the increases are not sufficient to cover the total cost of 
our permit programs (much less defray other program costs). The new fee 
structure is a compromise between recouping the entire cost of 
providing these special services and the need to establish a fee 
schedule that will not unduly burden individual applicants.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    During the comment period, which was open from August 26 through 
October 10, 2003, the Service received a total of 273 comments. 
Thirteen of these comments were in agreement with raising application 
fees and did not raise any specific concerns. Eighty-six comments were 
in general disagreement with raising fees, but also did not raise any 
specific concerns beyond objecting to the concept of raising fees. Two 
comments addressed issues that were outside the scope of the proposed 
rule and therefore will not be addressed here (these comments will be 
passed on to the relevant Service office for further consideration). 
The remaining issues raised by the commenters, and our responses to 
each, are summarized below.
    Issue 1: We received three comments recommending that tribal 
entities and Native Americans be exempted from application fees. The 
proposed rule would have waived permit application fees only for 
Federal and State agencies and their agents, and for permits for Indian 
religious use. Generally, these commenters requested that the fee 
waiver be expanded to include all

[[Page 18312]]

activities conducted by Native Americans or by tribal governments. 
Another commenter questioned exempting tribal members from fees for 
applications involving religious activities. This commenter did not see 
such an exemption as being fair to other Americans who could not claim 
such an exemption.
    Response: We agree that fees should be waived for tribal 
governments, and have revised the final rule at Sec.  13.11(d)(3) to 
expand the fee waiver to tribal governments. However, the Service does 
not agree that exempting all tribal members from all application fees 
is justified. While we support, as indicated in the proposed rule, a 
fee exemption for tribal members who are engaged in religious 
activities, we do not believe that tribal members who request permits 
for secular or commercial activities should be exempt from paying the 
application fees. The basis for exempting tribal members from paying 
application fees for permits for religious use is the American Indian 
Religious Freedom Act of 1978 and the Service's Federal Trust 
responsibilities toward Native American tribes. Therefore, for example, 
we will not charge a fee for Native American religious eagle permits or 
Native American religious purposes--eagle transport permits. As we 
explained in the proposed rule, fees also may be waived on a case-by-
case basis for extraordinary extenuating circumstances provided that 
the issuing permit office and a Regional or Assistant Director approve 
the waiver.
    Issue 2: Twenty-five comments were received about the need to 
improve the permitting process as a way to reduce the cost of running 
the permitting programs and, thus, require lower fees from applicants.
    Response: The Service agrees that we need to continue improving the 
permitting process to ensure that it is effective and responsive to 
user needs. All of the Divisions that issue permits are involved in 
such efforts. While it is true that making the permitting process more 
effective and efficient should reduce some costs of the programs, it 
will not eliminate the need for application fees. In addition, since it 
has been so long since the fees were raised, the increased fees are 
needed to give the Service critical resources that will help us to 
improve the efficiency of the programs. As stated in the proposed rule, 
the Service will periodically re-evaluate the application fees to 
determine if changes are warranted.
    Issue 3: We received 18 comments regarding the financial difficulty 
migratory bird rehabilitators will face in paying a fee for the permit 
necessary to carry out their work. There was a general agreement among 
these commenters that rehabilitators spend a large amount of their own 
financial resources to rehabilitate injured migratory birds and as such 
should not be required to pay an application fee.
    Response: The Service recognizes that migratory bird rehabilitators 
provide care to injured and sick birds and help to increase public 
awareness about wildlife. Nevertheless, the Service incurs substantial 
costs when processing applications for these permits. As stated in the 
proposed rule, the $50 application fee would be for permits that are 
valid for 5 years. This means that the annual cost for obtaining a 
migratory bird rehabilitation permit is only $10/year. The Service does 
not consider such a fee to be a significant economic burden for permit 
    Issue 4: One commenter questioned the Service's commitment to 
scientific research, and raised concerns about application fees for 
scientific research and collection permits being too high and, as such, 
having an adverse effect on the ability of researchers to carry out 
their work. The commenter believes there is a disparity between the 
application fee for scientific collecting permits and the fee for other 
permitted activities, such as rehabilitation permits or scientific 
research import permits under the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA). 
The same commenter noted that migratory bird scientific collecting 
permits are not always issued for the full 3-year tenure authorized by 
regulations at 50 CFR 21.23, which provide that ``the term of the 
permit shall not exceed three (3) years.'' The commenter felt that the 
proposed fees would be more acceptable if the permit tenure was 
    Response: The Service is committed to promoting scientific research 
and facilitating the authorization of such activities. The Service also 
understands that researchers, particularly graduate students, may be 
constrained by budgetary issues and that application fees are one issue 
they face. However, the Service does not agree that the proposed 
application fees are too high or that implementing such fees would 
result in less research being carried out. As stated in the proposed 
rule, the Service will strive to combine permitting authorization to 
eliminate the need to submit multiple applications to cover all aspects 
of a researcher's work. By combining the permitting authority, the 
applicant would need to submit only one application (and only one fee) 
to request the required authorization to carry out their work. For 
instance, an applicant conducting research on eagles and migratory 
birds and importing or exporting specimens may obtain a single permit 
under the MBTA, BGEPA, and CITES. With regard to the apparent disparity 
between the cost of different applications, it is important to realize 
that the time and resources necessary to process different types of 
applications vary. As a rule, applications that involve take of healthy 
wildlife (as opposed to sick and injured wildlife) from the wild 
require more extensive review. The workload associated with the review 
is not necessarily less if the duration of the proposed project is less 
than 3 years. Rather, the processing workload is determined by the 
species, quantity, and status of the species. Given the different 
levels of review required for different types of applications and the 
varying issuance criteria under different laws, the application fees 
for different applications must vary.
    As far as permit tenure for migratory bird scientific collecting 
permits, many of these permits are issued for less than 3 years, for a 
variety of reasons. First, if an applicant proposes a project lasting 
only 1 or 2 years, the permit may be issued for less than 3 years. 
Second, new permits (as opposed to renewals) often will be issued for 
less than 3 years because our policy has been to coordinate scientific 
collecting permits to expire on the same date in a given year. This 
facilitates our administration by enabling us to generate permit 
renewal notices and renewed permits in large batches. In January 2003, 
we shifted the expiration date for scientific collecting permits from 
December 31 to March 31 to create a smoother renewal process for 
permittees and us. The shift benefits permittees by enabling them to 
submit their renewal request with their annual report, which is due 
January 31 of the year following conduct of the activities. Further, it 
benefits the permittee by better ensuring that we will have received 
the permittee's renewal request 30 days before expiration of the 
permit, which enables the permittee to continue to conduct permitted 
activities if the permit expires before the Service acts on the 
renewal. However, as a result of this fixed expiration date, the tenure 
of new permits will rarely be for a full 3 years (unless the permit was 
issued on or around March 31). Finally, scientific collecting permits 
are occasionally issued for less than 3 years because of biological 
concerns or uncertainties regarding the species to be taken, but these 
instances are rare.
    For projects that are not already limited to less than 3 years 
because of

[[Page 18313]]

the duration of the proposed scientific research project, and which are 
not limited by biological concerns, we will consider revising our 
procedures so that these permits can be valid for the full 3-year 
tenure authorized by regulation. We will also consider amending the 
scientific collecting permit regulation to extend the authorized permit 
tenure for collecting permits. However, since we did not propose 
extending the tenure of scientific collecting permits in our proposed 
rulemaking, we cannot amend the regulation by including it here in a 
final rulemaking. We intend to revise migratory bird scientific 
collecting regulations in the near future, and we will consider this 
option during the course of that rulemaking process.
    Issue 5: Forty-six commenters expressed concern that the increase 
in fees, particularly application fees for CITES re-export 
certificates, was too high and would adversely impact small businesses. 
The primary concern expressed by these commenters was the slim profit 
margin under which their businesses operate, such that any increase in 
application fees could adversely affect their business.
    Response: The Service is keenly aware that some businesses based on 
the utilization of wildlife may run on a very low profit margin. We 
recognize that if the overall cost of conducting business is 
significantly increased due to the application fee rising, there may be 
a negative impact on the business. This may be particularly true when 
requesting authorization to re-export a limited number of CITES listed 
species. For example, if a proposed re-export shipment of two snakes 
going to Japan is valued at only $300, an application fee of $75, one 
quarter of the shipment's value, may appear high. While the fee 
increase is not intended to restrict or eliminate the sustainable 
utilization of wildlife, it may have an economic effect on small 
shipments or transactions. However, as stated in the proposed rule, the 
Service must expend time and resources to review and process 
applications. In the case of businesses applying to conduct activities 
that are otherwise prohibited by law, the permits authorizing such 
activities are special use permits, and the burden for addressing such 
requests falls on the applicant and his/her customers, not the general 
public. It may be necessary for some businesses to readdress how they 
are conducting their activities to ensure that the most productive and 
efficient procedures are being used. While the Service understands that 
the increased fees may impact some businesses, we must raise the fees 
to ensure that we can adequately address our responsibilities under the 
various regulations and laws.
    Issue 6: Three commenters raised the point that local governments 
carry out similar activities as State and Federal agencies with regard 
to wildlife conservation and management. It was their opinion that the 
fee exemption should be extended to local government agencies as well.
    Response: The Service agrees that local governments should also be 
exempt from the requirement to pay application fees for Service 
permits. Accordingly, we have revised the final rule at Sec.  
13.11(d)(3) to extend the fee waiver to local governments, as well as 
tribal governments, and individuals and institutions acting on behalf 
of a Federal, tribal, State, or local government agency.
    Issue 7: Four commenters suggested that the application fees for 
migratory bird depredation permits not be raised. These commenters were 
concerned that the public would have to pay $50 or $100 to address the 
problem of property damage caused by migratory birds, and that it would 
be inappropriate to require homeowners and businesses to pay more than 
the current $25 application fee to process requests for depredation 
permits, particularly given the amount of time it sometimes takes to 
obtain this type of permit.
    Response: The final rule continues to require a $50 application fee 
for homeowner depredation permits and a $100 application fee for other 
depredation permits. We have not revised this fee from the proposed 
rule because these permits are among the most complex to process due to 
the extra level of scrutiny that we are required to undertake when 
issuing permits that would authorize taking birds--sometimes lethally--
from the wild. Even though this fee is one of the lowest of all the 
permit application fees the Service will charge, the increased fees 
will help the Migratory Bird Program to more quickly and efficiently 
issue these and other types of permits.
    Issue 8: One commenter stated that the application fee for ESA 
enhancement-of-survival permits for landowners entering into Safe 
Harbor Agreements (SHAs) and Candidate Conservation Agreements with 
Assurances (CCAAs) should not be raised to $50. The commenter expressed 
an opinion that no fee should be charged since the landowners are 
entering into a voluntary agreement with the Service that helps ``the 
Service achieve its objectives and legal responsibilities under the 
ESA.'' As such, the commenter called for the application fee to be 
rescinded in order to encourage more landowners to enter into CCAAs and 
    Response: While we recognize and appreciate the important 
conservation work that private landowners perform on their land, we 
incur substantial cost when processing enhancement-of-survival permit 
applications for CCAAs and SHAs. These agreements provide important 
benefits to listed and unlisted species, while the participating non-
Federal landowner benefits by receiving assurances and allowances for 
future take. The $50 application fee applies to permits that are valid 
for differing lengths of time, from 10 years and up to 50 or more years 
in some cases. We do not believe this fee is a significant economic 
burden to permit applicants, especially when averaged over the lifetime 
of the permit, or that the fee will be a disincentive to landowners. 
Additionally, private landowners may enter into an ``umbrella'' or 
programmatic agreement where a nongovernment organization, State 
agency, or other entity applies for and holds the permit under which 
they enroll private landowners through a Certificate of Inclusion. In 
these cases, the private landowner would not incur any application fee.
    Issue 9: A single commenter raised the point that, instead of 
raising the application fees for ESA permits, the Service should charge 
a fee for ``Section 7 consultations conducted by the Service, or for 
subsequent permits that are issued to a developer or project 
proponent'' who would be more economically able to bear the financial 
    Response: This final rule increases the fees for ESA incidental 
take permits associated with Habitat Conservation Plans, as well as the 
fees for recovery permits. Section 7 consultations are conducted on 
those projects that are authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal 
agencies. Congress has not given the Service authority to collect fees 
from other Federal agencies or their applicants to conduct section 7 
    Issue 10: A large number of commenters (97) commented on the cost 
of applying for falconry permits and how the program was being managed. 
A majority of these commenters specifically referred to an issue 
recently raised at an International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies (IAFWA) meeting. IAFWA called on the Service to transfer the 
Federal permitting responsibility of falconry to State agencies, thus 
consolidating the permitting requirements in one agency (the State), as 
opposed to two (State and Federal). Most of those commenting on

[[Page 18314]]

falconry permit application fees felt the proposed fee was too high, 
particularly given the current regulations requiring the renewal of a 
falconer's Federal permit at the same time State permits are renewed. 
Some States require renewal annually, while others require renewal 
every 2 or 3 years. The commenters pointed out that if the cost of a 
Federal falconry permit is $100 each time it is renewed, in a 3-year 
period, falconers who need to renew annually would pay $300, while 
others who have to renew only every 3 years would pay only $100.
    Response: We recognize that the Federal renewal process for 
falconers who live in States with regulations that require renewal of 
falconry permits every year or every 2 years may create an additional 
burden that other falconers may not face. However, in addition to 
creating more work and expense for the falconer, both the 1-year and 2-
year renewal requirements result in increased workload and staffing 
demands for the Service. The Service's costs associated with processing 
these renewals do not decrease because the permit tenure is shorter--
the workload entailed in processing these renewals remains the same 
regardless of how frequently we are required to undertake it because of 
a State's regulations. Therefore, we believe that a fee of $100 for 
Federal falconry permits and renewals, no matter in which State the 
applicant/falconer resides, is both necessary and appropriate.
    While the IAFWA proposal to consolidate falconry permitting may 
have merit, it exceeds the scope of the present rulemaking. We believe 
that this rule is not the appropriate venue for considering this 
option. To this end, a proposed rule addressing this specific issue was 
published on February 9, 2005 (70 FR 6978).
    Issue 11: One commenter expressed confusion regarding the fee that 
would be charged for the importation of non-native threatened or 
endangered sport-hunted trophies. This commenter thought that the 
narrative did not clearly explain how this fee would be applied.
    Response: The application fee for a permit to import a non-native 
threatened or endangered sport-hunted trophy will be $100. No 
additional fees would be charged in relation to CITES requirements. If 
the permit needs to be renewed due to a delay in importing the 
specimen, we will charge a $50 fee to reissue the permit.
    Issue 12: One commenter questioned whether some of the policies 
addressed in the proposed rule, such as ``Renewals and Amendments,'' 
merely codify existing Service policies or if they are actually new 
policies that are being presented for the first time. The commenter 
requested that the Service clearly indicate which of these issues are 
clarifications and which are new policies.
    Response: Most of the issues raised in the proposed rule are merely 
clarifications of procedures currently used by the Service. Since some 
issues, such as when a request is for a renewal versus when a request 
is for a new permit, have not been codified, doing so in this rule was 
important to ensure that the Service is being consistent across 
programs and to provide the public with clear guidance.
    Issue 13: One commenter was concerned about the proposed amendment 
to Sec.  13.42, which states that a permit is specific to a particular 
activity and that permittees are subject to appropriate conditions 
placed on the permit. The commenter was particularly concerned that the 
proposed language for Sec.  13.42 would give the Director the 
discretion to establish specific conditions for the issuance of 
permits, giving the Director the ability to treat different applicants 
disparately and inviting arbitrariness into the permit issuance system.
    Response: The proposed language for Sec.  13.42 is intended to 
clarify the existing regulatory language, not to change the criteria 
the Service uses to issue permits. The new language was proposed for 
Sec.  13.42 to reiterate that a permittee may have specific conditions 
placed on the permit that affect when, how, where, and to what extent 
the permitted activity can be carried out. Such specific conditions are 
needed to allow the Service to tailor individual permit authorizations 
to the applicant's particular qualifications, and to ensure the 
continued conservation of the affected species. Without the ability to 
refine permit conditions, all permittees would have identical permit 
authorizations, no matter what experience, facilities, or other 
qualifications they possess, and without regard for the unique 
conservation needs of the affected species.
    After further review of the proposed changes to Sec.  13.42, we 
realized that the language was somewhat redundant to language already 
codified in Sec.  13.21(e)(1). We have therefore taken the first two 
sentences of the proposed language for Sec.  13.42 and amended Sec.  
13.21(e)(1) to contain this language. This administrative change was 
made to eliminate duplicating language and to make the regulations 
easier to understand.
    The concept that permits are specifically issued for a particular 
activity is not a new idea, and the new language only clarifies the 
current section. This new language in no way alters or affects how the 
Service can issue or deny a permit request. The issuance of every 
permit must conform to the general issuance criteria for that permit 
type. These criteria are established in separate regulations addressing 
permit authorization for that type of activity (e.g., falconry or 
captive breeding for endangered species).

Revised Fee Language

    After reviewing the comments we received, the Service believes that 
the majority of the proposed changes to Sec.  13.11 are acceptable and 
should be implemented. However, as mentioned above in ``Summary of 
Comments and Recommendations,'' we have made a few revisions to this 
final rule from what we proposed originally.

Changes in CITES Permits and the Corresponding Fee Changes

    With the implementation of new CITES Resolutions and in an ongoing 
effort to improve the efficiency of the permitting process, the 
Division of Management Authority has implemented certain internal 
changes to the permit procedures. The Service announced some of these 
new procedures in a previous Federal Register proposed rule (65 FR 
26664; May 8, 2000). Other procedural changes were outlined in the 
proposed rule to this final rule. The procedural changes that were 
previously addressed were presented in the proposed rule to this final 
rule for information purposes and to explain why some additional fees 
were required. They were not proposed for codification.

Combining Permit Authorizations

    As stated in the proposed rule, when applicants need more than one 
type of permit to cover their proposed activities (e.g., for the export 
of a bird covered by both CITES and the MBTA, or the take from the wild 
of a bird covered by both the ESA and MBTA), the Service may issue a 
consolidated permit combining the multiple authorizations. We received 
no comments on this issue and will retain the language presented in the 
proposed rule.

Renewals and Amendments

    To ensure consistency, the Service is taking this opportunity to 
clarify its position on permit renewals and amendments. As stated in 
the proposed rule, applications to renew a permit when the tenure of a 
permit is expiring

[[Page 18315]]

or has expired are effectively new permit applications. Therefore, all 
applicable fees will be assessed. For most permit types, the Service 
will assess a fee for amendments to a valid permit where the amendment 
reflects a substantive change within the scope of the permit. We will 
not charge permittees for administrative changes to valid permits, such 
as address and telephone number changes. The amount for an amendment is 
identified in the fee schedule. If there is no fee next to the 
permitted activity you wish to amend, this indicates either that your 
particular permit cannot be amended and a new application would need to 
be submitted or that no fee would be charged for amending the permit 
(you would need to contact the issuing office to determine which 
situation applies). For further discussion on this issue, please see 
the proposed rule at 68 FR 51222.


    Currently, Sec.  13.11(d)(3) provides for a waiver of permit fees 
for ``any Federal, State or local government agency, [or] to any 
individual or institution under contract to such agency for the 
proposed activities.'' In the proposed rule, we suggested limiting the 
fee waiver for public institutions to Federal and State governmental 
agencies and to individuals or institutions under contract to such 
agencies. We also stated that fees could be waived on a case-by-case 
basis for extraordinary extenuating circumstances provided that the 
issuing permit office and a Regional or Assistant Director approves the 
waiver. However, after reviewing comments stating that we should waive 
fees for applications from both local and tribal governments, we agree 
that the fee waiver should include these entities. (See discussion 
under Issues 1 and 6, above.) In addition, we have altered the language 
to identify that individuals or institutions ``acting on behalf of '' 
any Federal, tribal, State, or local government agency would be exempt 
from application fees. We have amended the proposed language in Sec.  
13.11(d)(3) to reflect these changes.

Additional Revisions

    In the proposed rule, we proposed several administrative changes to 
Sec.  13.3, ``Scope of regulations''; Sec.  13.11(b) regarding Service 
addresses; and Sec.  13.11(c), regarding the time required to process 
some requests. We received no comments regarding these administrative 
changes, and because they will improve the permitting process, all of 
the proposed changes will be implemented as proposed.
    In reviewing the proposed rule, we determined that the proposed 
addition of Sec.  13.12(c) and the proposed revision of Sec.  13.42 
contained language that was somewhat redundant to language that had 
already been codified in Sec. Sec.  13.12(a)(9) and 13.21(e)(1). To 
eliminate any redundancy in Sec.  13.12, we will not finalize Sec.  
13.12(c) as proposed, but have instead revised Sec.  13.12(a)(9) to 
include the new language. In addition, we have removed the first 
sentence of the proposed Sec.  13.42, which contained the redundancy 
with Sec.  13.21(e)(1), and combined it with Sec.  13.21(e)(1). The 
remaining proposed language of Sec.  13.42 will be implemented as 

Extension of Permit Tenure for Two Migratory Bird Permits

    We received no comments on the proposal to extend the permit tenure 
for taxidermist permits (Sec.  21.24) and waterfowl sale and disposal 
permits (Sec.  21.25) from 3 years to 5 years, and we will implement 
the proposed changes through this final regulation.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) provides that 
``[t]he Secretary [of the Interior] shall review other programs 
administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the 
purposes of this Act.'' Furthermore, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
requires all Federal agencies to ``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.'' Our 
review of this rule pursuant to section 7 of the ESA concluded that 
this action will not affect listed or proposed species or critical 

Required Determinations

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies To Protect Migratory Birds (E.O. 

    This rule has been evaluated for impacts to migratory birds, with 
emphasis on species of management concern, and is in accordance with 
the guidance in Executive Order 13186.

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule 
is not a significant regulatory action. OMB has made this determination 
of significance under Executive Order 12866.
    a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 
environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and economic 
analysis is not required. The purpose of this rule is to more closely 
align the fee structure with the Federal cost of permit processing for 
permits issued by the Divisions of Migratory Bird Management, Law 
Enforcement, Endangered Species, and Management Authority. Fees charged 
for permits issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service have not increased 
since 1982. During that time period, Federal salaries have increased by 
128 percent and since permit reviews are a labor-intensive activity, 
Service programs have had to absorb the additional cost of permit 
    In total, the Service processes approximately 25,000 permits 
    About half of these permits are issued to small entities, many of 
whom can pass on the economic effect of the fee increase (an average of 
$50 per year per permit) to consumers, depending on the elasticity of 
demand. The maximum loss in consumer surplus, if all costs were passed 
along to consumers, would be $1.25 million annually. However, for 
commercial permittees, the average $50 cost increase of the permits 
will be spread over many products and result in negligible price 
increases to consumers. The Service believes that the permit fee for 
working with regulated plants and wildlife is a very small part of the 
cost of these activities and will result in a negligible economic 
impact to consumers and businesses.
    The benefit of better aligning the permit application fees schedule 
to the cost of Federal processing is that this will shift more of the 
burden of payment for these services from taxpayers as a whole to those 
persons who are receiving the government services. User fee increases 
reflect a related shift in appropriations of taxes to government 
programs, allowing those tax dollars to be applied to other programs 
that benefit the general public.
    The administrative costs involved in implementing this rule are 
minimal, since the Service permit programs are already established, and 
the mechanisms for collecting the permit application fees are already 
in place. Therefore, the net gain of reducing the costs on taxpayers 
greatly outweighs the costs of introducing the user fee increases.
    b. This rule will not create serious inconsistencies or otherwise 
interfere with other agencies' actions. This rule pertains to a Federal 
permit application process that already exists, and the only purpose of 
this rule is to update the fee structure to recover Federal costs of 
processing the permit applications.

[[Page 18316]]

    c. This rule will not negatively impact or affect entitlements, 
other grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations 
of their recipients. This rule affects user fees charged for plant and 
wildlife permits by updating and better aligning the fees with the 
Federal cost of processing the permits. The average fee increase will 
be $50 per year with a range of annual fee increases running from $10 
for a migratory bird rehabilitation permit to $275 for a marine mammal 
public display permit. Multiplying the expected 25,000 permits issued 
annually by the average fee increase of $50 yields a maximum of $1.25 
million, which is well below the threshold for a significant regulatory 
    d. This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. The 
current fee schedule for plant and wildlife related permits has been in 
place since July 15, 1982. No new permits are included in this 
rulemaking. The only purpose of this rulemaking is to update and better 
align the permit fee schedule with the actual Federal cost for 
processing the applications.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act

    The Service has performed the threshold analysis required under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq (RFA), and the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq 
(SBREFA), and has determined that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    a. The increase in user fees for Federal permits will affect 
approximately 12,737 small entities, including importers and exporters 
of plants, wildlife, and animal products, wildlife propagators, 
museums, airports, animal exhibitors, migratory bird taxidermists, and 
migratory bird rehabilitators.
    The total cost increase for small entities applying for permits 
will be approximately $636,850 for the approximately 12,737 permits 
that are issued annually to small entities. Thus, the average user fee 
under this proposal will increase by approximately $50 per year. This 
average includes annual increases ranging from $10 for a migratory bird 
rehabilitation permit to $275 for a marine mammal public display 
    The economic effect on small entities of this rulemaking will be an 
increased cost of doing business. Depending on the elasticity of demand 
for the goods and services authorized by the permits, much of the cost 
increase will be passed on to consumers. Thus, the Service does not 
anticipate that this rule will result in a significant economic burden 
to small businesses.
    b. This rule does not introduce any new reporting, record keeping, 
or other compliance requirements, and does not introduce any new legal 
requirements that duplicate other Federal regulations. The average cost 
increase will be borne by all entities doing business involving 
    c. This rule will not cause major increases in prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies or geographic regions; or have significant adverse impacts on 
competition, employment, investment, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign enterprises. A small 
cost increase to better reflect the cost of review of the permit 
application will not adversely affect competition in this industry 
since all entities will be required to pay the increased fees. Since 
the increase of the cost of the permits will be spread over many 
products, it will result in negligible price increases to consumers, 
and will not have a significant effect on the number of permit 
applications and the corresponding total number of permitted wildlife-
related activities conducted.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.):
    a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. The 
Service has determined and certified pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not impose 
a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State 
government or private entities. The rulemaking only affects the Federal 
review and issuance of permits under Federal laws. This rule does not 
apply to State regulations.
    b. This rule will 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. The process of 
wildlife permit application review and issuance is already in place, 
and this rulemaking is only updating the fee schedule to better align 
it with the actual cost of processing permits.


    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant takings implications. This rule will not result in the 
physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or 
the regulatory taking of any property. A takings implication assessment 
is not required.


    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, and based on the 
discussions in Regulatory Planning and Review above, this rule does not 
have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. This rule does not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal 
capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State 
governments, or intrude on State policy or administration.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain new or revised information collection 
for which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Information collection associated with this 
rule is covered by existing OMB approval Nos. 1018-0022 (expires 7/31/
07), 1018-0094 (expires 9/30/2007), 1018-0093 (expires 6/30/2007), and 
1018-0092 (expires 9/30/2007). For approvals that will expire soon, we 
are currently in the process of requesting 3-year renewals of OMB 
approval. The Service may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that this rule is categorically excluded under 
the Department's NEPA procedures in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10.

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), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, this 
rule will have no effect on Federally recognized Indian tribes.

[[Page 18317]]

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order addressing 
regulations that affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when 
undertaking certain actions. Because this rule is only updating the fee 
schedule for permit application review and issuance, it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and 
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 13

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports, 
Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, 

50 CFR Part 21

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 50, chapter I, 
subchapter B of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:


1. The authority citation for part 13 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 668a, 704, 712, 742j-l, 1374(g), 1382, 
1538(d), 1539, 1540(f), 3374, 4901-4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 19 U.S.C. 
1202; 31 U.S.C. 9701.

2. Revise Sec.  13.3 to read as follows:

Sec.  13.3  Scope of regulations.

    The provisions in this part are in addition to, and are not in lieu 
of, other permit regulations of this subchapter and apply to all 
permits issued thereunder, including ``Importation, Exportation and 
Transportation of Wildlife'' (part 14), ``Wild Bird Conservation Act'' 
(part 15), ``Injurious Wildlife'' (part 16), ``Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants'' (part 17), ``Marine Mammals'' (part 
18), ``Migratory Bird Permits'' (part 21), ``Eagle Permits'' (part 22), 
and ``Endangered Species Convention'' (the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) (part 23). As used 
in this part 13, the term ``permit'' will refer to a license, permit, 
certificate, letter of authorization, or other document as the context 
may require, and to all such documents issued by the Service or other 
authorized U.S. or foreign government agencies.

3. Revise Sec.  13.11 to read as follows:

Sec.  13.11  Application procedures.

    The Service may not issue a permit for any activity authorized by 
this subchapter B unless you have filed an application under the 
following procedures:
    (a) Forms. Applications must be submitted in writing on a Federal 
Fish and Wildlife License/Permit Application (Form 3-200) or as 
otherwise specifically directed by the Service.
    (b) Forwarding Instructions. Applications for permits in the 
following categories should be forwarded to the issuing office 
indicated below.
    (1) You may obtain applications for migratory bird banding permits 
(50 CFR 21.22) by writing to: Bird Banding Laboratory, USGS Patuxent 
Wildlife Research Center, 12100 Beech Forest Road, Laurel, Maryland 
20708-4037. Submit completed permit applications to the same address.
    (2) You may obtain applications for designated port exception 
permits and import/export licenses (50 CFR 14) by writing to the 
Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the Region in which you reside (see 50 
CFR 2.2 or the Service Web site, http://www.fws.gov, for addresses and 

boundaries of the Regions). Submit completed permit applications to the 
same address.
    (3) You may obtain applications for Wild Bird Conservation Act 
permits (50 CFR 15); injurious wildlife permits (50 CFR 16); captive-
bred wildlife registrations (50 CFR 17); permits authorizing import, 
export, or foreign commerce of endangered and threatened species, and 
interstate commerce of non-native endangered or threatened species (50 
CFR 17); marine mammal permits (50 CFR 18); and permits and 
certificates for import, export, and reexport of species listed under 
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES) (50 CFR 23) from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 
700, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610. Submit completed permit 
applications to the same address.
    (4) You may obtain Endangered Species Act permit applications (50 
CFR 17) for activities involving native endangered and threatened 
species, including incidental take, scientific purposes, enhancement of 
propagation or survival (i.e., recovery), and enhancement of survival 
by writing to the Regional Director (Attention: Endangered Species 
Permits) of the Region where the activity is to take place (see 50 CFR 
2.2 or the Service Web site, http://www.fws.gov, for addresses and 

boundaries of the Regions). Submit completed applications to the same 
address (the Regional office covering the area where the activity will 
take place). Permit applications for interstate commerce for native 
endangered and threatened species should be obtained by writing to the 
Regional Director (Attention: Endangered Species Permits) of the Region 
that has the lead for the particular species, rather than the Region 
where the activity will take place. You can obtain information on the 
lead Region via the Service's Endangered Species Program Web page 
(http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html) by entering the common or 

scientific name of the listed species in the Regulatory Profile query 
box. Send interstate commerce permit applications for native listed 
species to the same Regional Office that has the lead for that species. 
Endangered Species Act permit applications for the import or export of 
native endangered and threatened species may be obtained from the 
Division of Management Authority in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of 
this section.
    (5) You may obtain applications for bald and golden eagle permits 
(50 CFR 22) and migratory bird permits (50 CFR 21), except for banding 
and marking permits, by writing to the Migratory Bird Permit Program 
Office in the Region in which you reside. For mailing addresses for the 
Migratory Bird Regional Permit Offices, see below, or go to: http://permits.fws.gov/mbpermits/addresses.html.
 Send completed applications 

to the same address. The mailing addresses for the Regional Migratory 
Bird Permit Offices are as follows:

Region 1 (CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Migratory Bird Permit Office, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-
Region 2 (AZ, NM, OK, TX): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory 
Bird Permit Office, P.O. Box 709, Albuquerque, NM 87103.
Region 3 (IA, IL, IN, MN, MO, MI, OH, WI): U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Migratory Bird Permit Office, One Federal Drive, Fort 
Snelling, MN 55111.
Region 4 (AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, PR, VI): U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Permit Office, P.O. Box 49208, 
Atlanta, GA 30359.
Region 5 (CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA, VT, WV):

[[Page 18318]]

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Permit Office, P.O. Box 
779, Hadley, MA 01035-0779.
Region 6 (CO, KS, MT, ND, NE, SD, UT, WY): U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Migratory Bird Permit Office, P.O. Box 25486, DFC (60130), 
Denver, CO 80225-0486.
Region 7 (AK): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Permit 
Office (MS-201), 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503.

    (c) Time notice. The Service will process all applications as 
quickly as possible. However, we cannot guarantee final action within 
the time limit you request. You should ensure that applications for 
permits for marine mammals and/or endangered and threatened species are 
postmarked at least 90 calendar days prior to the requested effective 
date. The time we require for processing of endangered and threatened 
species incidental take permits will vary according to the project 
scope and significance of effects. Submit applications for all other 
permits to the issuing/reviewing office and ensure they are postmarked 
at least 60 calendar days prior to the requested effective date. Our 
processing time may be increased by the procedural requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the requirement to publish a 
notice in the Federal Register requesting a 30-day public comment 
period when we receive certain types of permit applications, and/or the 
time required for extensive consultation within the Service, with other 
Federal agencies, and/or State or foreign governments. When applicable, 
we may require permit applicants to provide additional information on 
the proposal and on its environmental effects as may be necessary to 
satisfy the procedural requirements of NEPA.
    (d) Fees. (1) Unless otherwise exempted under this subsection, you 
must pay the required permit processing fee at the time that you apply 
for issuance or amendment of a permit. You must pay by check or money 
order made payable to the ``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.'' The 
Service will not refund any application fee under any circumstances if 
we have processed the application. However, we may return the 
application fee if you withdraw the application before we have 
significantly processed it.
    (2) If regulations in this subchapter require more than one type of 
permit for an activity and the permits are issued by the same office, 
the issuing office may issue one consolidated permit authorizing the 
activity in accordance with Sec.  13.1. You may submit a single 
application in such cases, provided that the single application 
contains all the information required by the separate applications for 
each permitted activity. Where more than one permitted activity is 
consolidated into one permit, the issuing office will charge the 
highest single fee for the activity permitted.
    (3) Circumstances under which we will not charge a permit 
application fee are as follows:
    (i) We will not charge a permit application fee to any Federal, 
tribal, State, or local government agency or to any individual or 
institution acting on behalf of such agency. Except as otherwise 
authorized or waived, if you fail to submit evidence of such status 
with your application, we will require the submission of all processing 
fees prior to the acceptance of the application for processing.
    (ii) As noted in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
    (iii) We may waive the fee on a case-by-case basis for 
extraordinary extenuating circumstances provided that the issuing 
permit office and a Regional or Assistant Director approves the waiver.
    (4) User fees. The following table identifies specific fees for 
each permit application or amendment to a current permit. If no fee is 
identified under the Amendment Fee column, this particular permit 
either cannot be amended and a new application, and application fee, 
would need to be submitted or no fee will be charged for amending the 
permit (please contact the issuing office for further information).

              Type of permit                               CFR  citation                    Fee          fee
                                            Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory Bird Import/Export..............  50 CFR 21.................................          $75  ...........
Migratory Bird Banding or Marking.........  50 CFR 21.................................  ...........  ...........
Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting......  50 CFR 21.................................          100          $50
Migratory Bird Taxidermy..................  50 CFR 21.................................          100  ...........
Waterfowl Sale and Disposal...............  50 CFR 21.................................           75  ...........
Special Canada Goose......................  50 CFR 21.................................  ...........  ...........
Migratory Bird Special Purpose/Education..  50 CFR 21.................................           75  ...........
Migratory Bird Special Purpose/Salvage....  50 CFR 21.................................           75  ...........
Migratory Bird Special Purpose/Game Bird    50 CFR 21.................................           75  ...........
Migratory Bird Special Purpose/             50 CFR 21.................................          100  ...........
Falconry..................................  50 CFR 21.................................          100  ...........
Raptor Propagation........................  50 CFR 21.................................          100  ...........
Migratory Bird Rehabilitation.............  50 CFR 21.................................           50  ...........
Migratory Bird Depredation................  50 CFR 21.................................          100           50
Migratory Bird Depredation/Homeowner......  50 CFR 21.................................           50  ...........
                                      Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Eagle Scientific Collecting...............  50 CFR 22.................................          100           50
Eagle Exhibition..........................  50 CFR 22.................................           75  ...........
Eagle Falconry............................  50 CFR 22.................................          100  ...........
Eagle--Native American Religion...........  50 CFR 22.................................  ...........  ...........
Eagle Depredation.........................  50 CFR 22.................................          100           50
Golden Eagle Nest Take....................  50 CFR 22.................................          100           50
Eagle Transport--Scientific or Exhibition.  50 CFR 22.................................           75  ...........
Eagle Transport--Native American Religious  50 CFR 22.................................        (\1\)        (\1\)

[[Page 18319]]

                                     Endangered Species Act/CITES/Lacey Act
ESA Recovery..............................  50 CFR 17.................................          100           50
ESA Interstate Commerce...................  50 CFR 17.................................          100           50
ESA Enhancement of Survival (Safe Harbor    50 CFR 17.................................           50           25
ESA Enhancement of Survival (Candidate      50 CFR 17.................................           50           25
 Conservation Agreement with Assurances).
ESA Incidental Take (Habitat Conservation   50 CFR 17.................................          100           50
ESA and CITES Import/Export and Foreign     50 CFR 17.................................          100           50
ESA and CITES Museum Exchange.............  50 CFR 17.................................          100           50
ESA Captive-bred Wildlife Registration....  50 CFR 17.................................          200          100
    --Renewal of Captive-bred wildlife      50 CFR 17.................................          100  ...........
CITES Import (including trophies under ESA  50 CFR 17, 18, 23.........................          100           50
 and MMPA).
CITES Export..............................  50 CFR 23.................................          100           50
CITES Pre-Convention......................  50 CFR 23.................................           75           40
CITES Certificate of Origin...............  50 CFR 23.................................           75           40
CITES Re-Export...........................  50 CFR 23.................................           75           40
CITES Personal Effects and Pet Export/Re-   50 CFR 23.................................           50  ...........
CITES Appendix II Export (native            50 CFR 23.................................          100           50
 furbearers and alligators--excluding live
CITES Master File (includes files for       50 CFR 23.................................          200          100
 artificial propagation, biomedical, etc.
 and covers import, export, and re-export
    --Renewal of CITES Master File........  50 CFR 23.................................          100  ...........
    --Single-use permits issued on Master   50 CFR 23.................................        \2\ 5  ...........
CITES Annual Program File.................  50 CFR 23.................................           50  ...........
    --Single-use permits issued under       50 CFR 23.................................        \2\ 5  ...........
     Annual Program.
CITES replacement documents (lost, stolen,  50 CFR 23.................................           50           50
 or damaged documents).
CITES Passport for Traveling Exhibitions    50 CFR 23.................................       \3\ 75  ...........
 and Pets.
CITES/ESA Passport for Traveling            50 CFR 23.................................      \3\ 100  ...........
Import/Export License.....................  50 CFR 14.................................          100           50
Designated Port Exception.................  50 CFR 14.................................          100           50
Injurious Wildlife Permit.................  50 CFR 16.................................          100           50
    --Transport Authorization for           50 CFR 16.................................           25  ...........
     Injurious Wildlife.
                                        Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA)
Personal Pet Import.......................  50 CFR 15.................................           50  ...........
WBCA Scientific Research, Zoological        50 CFR 15.................................          100           50
 Breeding or Display, Cooperative Breeding.
WBCA Approval of Cooperative Breeding       50 CFR 15.................................          200          100
    --Renewal of a WBCA Cooperative         50 CFR 15.................................           50  ...........
     Breeding Program.
WBCA Approval of a Foreign Breeding         50 CFR 15.................................      \4\ 250  ...........
                                          Marine Mammal Protection Act
Marine Mammal Public Display..............  50 CFR 18.................................          300          150
Marine Mammal Scientific Research/          50 CFR 18.................................          150           75
 Enhancement/Registered Agent or Tannery.
    --Renewal of Marine Mammal Scientific   50 CFR 18.................................           75  ...........
     Research/Enhancement/Registered Agent
     or Tannery.
\1\ No fee.
\2\ Each.
\3\ Per animal.
\4\ Per species.

    (5) We will charge a fee for substantive amendments made to permits 
within the time period that the permit is still valid. The fee is 
generally half the original fee assessed at the time that the permit is 
processed; see paragraph (d)(4) of this section for the exact amount. 
Substantive amendments are those that pertain to the purpose and 
conditions of the permit and are not purely administrative. 
Administrative changes, such as updating name and address information, 
are required under 13.23(c), and we will not charge a fee for such 
    (6) Except as specifically noted in paragraph (d)(4) of this 
section, a permit renewal is an issuance of a new permit, and 
applicants for permit renewal must pay the appropriate fee listed in 
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
    (e) Abandoned or incomplete applications. If we receive an 
incomplete or improperly executed application, or if you do not submit 
the proper fees, the issuing office will notify you of the deficiency. 
If you fail to supply the correct information to complete the 
application or to pay the required fees within 45 calendar days of the 
date of notification, we will consider the application abandoned. We 
will not refund any fees for an abandoned application.

4. Amend Sec.  13.12 by revising paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows:

Sec.  13.12  General information requirements on applications for 

    (a) * * *
    (9) Such other information as the Director determines relevant to 
the processing of the application, including, but not limited to, 
information on the environmental effects of the activity consistent 
with 40 CFR 1506.5 and Departmental procedures at 516 DM 6, Appendix 
* * * * *

5. Amend Sec.  13.21 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  13.21  Issuance of permits.

* * * * *

[[Page 18320]]

    (e)(1) Conditions of issuance and acceptance. Any permit 
automatically incorporates within its terms the conditions and 
requirements of subpart D of this part and of any part(s) or section(s) 
specifically authorizing or governing the activity for which the permit 
is issued, as well as any other conditions deemed appropriate and 
included on the face of the permit at the discretion of the Director.
* * * * *

6. Revise Sec.  13.42 to read as follows:

Sec.  13.42  Permits are specific.

    The authorizations on the face of a permit that set forth specific 
times, dates, places, methods of taking or carrying out the permitted 
activities, numbers and kinds of wildlife or plants, location of 
activity, and associated activities that must be carried out; describe 
certain circumscribed transactions; or otherwise allow a specifically 
limited matter, are to be strictly interpreted and will not be 
interpreted to permit similar or related matters outside the scope of 
strict construction.


7. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Pub. L. 95-616; 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Pub 
L. 106-108.

8. Amend Sec.  21.24 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  21.24  Taxidermist permits.

* * * * *
    (e) Term of permit. A taxidermist permit issued or renewed under 
this part expires on the date designated on the face of the permit 
unless amended or revoked, but the term of the permit will not exceed 
five (5) years from the date of issuance or renewal.

9. Amend Sec.  21.25 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  21.25  Waterfowl sale and disposal permits.

* * * * *
    (d) Term of permit. A waterfowl sale and disposal permit issued or 
renewed under this part expires on the date designated on the face of 
the permit unless amended or revoked, but the term of the permit will 
not exceed five (5) years from the date of issuance or renewal.

    Dated: January 26, 2005.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-7127 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am]