50 C.F.R. § 216.34

Issuance criteria

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) For the Office Director to issue any permit under this subpart, the applicant must demonstrate that:

(1) The proposed activity is humane and does not present any unnecessary risks to the health and welfare of marine mammals;

(2) The proposed activity is consistent with all restrictions set forth at § 216.35 and any purpose-specific restrictions as appropriate set forth at § 216.41, § 216.42, and § 216.43;

(3) The proposed activity, if it involves endangered or threatened marine mammals, will be conducted consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA;

(4) The proposed activity by itself or in combination with other activities, will not likely have a significant adverse impact on the species or stock;

(5) Whether the applicant's expertise, facilities, and resources are adequate to accomplish successfully the objectives and activities stated in the application;

(6) If a live animal will be held captive or transported, the applicant's qualifications, facilities, and resources are adequate for the proper care and maintenance of the marine mammal; and

(7) Any requested import or export will not likely result in the taking of marine mammals or marine mammal parts beyond those authorized by the permit.

(b) The opinions or views of scientists or other persons or organizations knowledgeable of the marine mammals that are the subject of the application or of other matters germane to the application will be considered.

[61 FR 21936, May 10, 1996]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2014–2015 · leading case: Georgia Aquarium, Inc. v. Pritzker, 135 F. Supp. 3d 1280 (N.D. Ga. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Georgia Aquarium, Inc. v. Pritzker, 135 F. Supp. 3d 1280 (N.D. Ga. 2015). · cites it 27× “• First, NMFS determined that Georgia Aquarium did not demonstrate that the proposed import “by itself or in combination with other activities, will not likely have a significant adverse impact on the species or stock” in accordance with 50 C.F.R. § 216.34 (a)(4): We cannot…”

Georgia Aquarium, Inc. v. Pritzker, 309 F.R.D. 680 (N.D. Ga. 2014). · cites it 3× “§§ 1371 (a)(1), 1374(c)(2)(A); 50 C.F.R. § 216.34 . The MMPA explicitly prohibits the import of any marine mammal that was — (1) pregnant at the time of taking; (2) nursing at the time of taking, or less than eight months old, whichever occurs later; (3) taken from a species or…”

— 50 C.F.R. § 216.34(a)(7) — 1 case

Georgia Aquarium, Inc. v. Pritzker, 135 F. Supp. 3d 1280 (N.D. Ga. 2015). “• First, NMFS determined that Georgia Aquarium did not demonstrate that the proposed import “by itself or in combination with other activities, will not likely have a significant adverse impact on the species or stock” in accordance with 50 C.F.R. § 216.34 (a)(4): We cannot…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.