If that is the case, then somethin slipped through the cracks. In the section of the federal language on apprentice falconers is this:
That's something I would like to see changed because its vague and silly, but its in there. I don't think its generally a good idea for a green apprentice to raise an imprint, but I suppose with the right guidance it would not be a big deal. It also wouldn't be a big deal in the case of the apprentice with several years under their belt - like a kid that started at 12 and still wasn't old enough to be a general.50 CFR 21.29 (c) (2) (i) (I) You may not possess a bird that is imprinted on humans.
Where I think this is really silly is in the case of a many times intermewed adult bird. The authorities wont be able to tell whether its an imprint or not, so how can this be enforced? Behaviorally, a mature polished game hawk is not going to be a problem to give to an apprentice, so why prevent it?
The same goes for the regulation preventing an apprentice from possessing a hawk taken from the wild as a nestling. Its not something I would argue against early in that hawks career, but when they are a polished game hawk, why not let an apprentice have it. In this case, its pretty easy to determine and enforce because there would be, in theory, a 3-186a paperwork trail determining when the bird was first taken.