58184 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 

Mississippi, and Texas. Responsibilities 

of the Panel include: 

a. Identifying priorities for the Gulf of 

Mexico Region with respect to aquatic 

nuisance species; 

b. Making recommendations to the 

Task Force regarding actions to carry 

out aquatic invasive species programs. 

c. Assisting the Task Force in 

coordinating Federal aquatic nuisance 

species program activities in the Gulf of 

Mexico region; 

d. Coordinating, where possible, 

aquatic invasive species program 

activities in the Gulf of Mexico region 

that are not conducted pursuant to the 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (as 

amended, 1996); 

e. Providing advice to public and 

private individuals and entities 

concerning methods of controlling 

aquatic nuisance species; and 

f. Submitting an annual report 

describing activities within the Western 

region related to aquatic nuisance 

species prevention, research, and 

control. 

The Gulf of Mexico Regional Panel 

will discuss several topics at this 

meeting including: Panel administrative 

issues, potential new memberships, 

updates on the status of State ANS 

management plans, presentations from 

South Atlantic States, a discussion on 

the pet industry project, a discussion of 

the public aquarium project, work group 

reports, and a discussion of strategic 

plan development.

Dated: September 10, 2004. 

M. A. Parker, 

Co-Chair, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 

Force, Assistant Director—Fisheries & Habitat 

Conservation.

[FR Doc. 04–21781 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Conference of the Parties to the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES); Thirteenth Regular 

Meeting; Tentative U.S. Negotiating 

Positions for Agenda Items and 

Species Proposals Submitted by 

Foreign Governments and the CITES 

Secretariat; Announcement of Public 

Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

tentative U.S. negotiating positions on 

agenda items, resolutions, and species 

proposals submitted by other countries 

and the CITES Secretariat for 

consideration by the Conference of the 

Parties to the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES) at its thirteenth regular meeting 

(COP13). The meeting will be held in 

Bangkok, Thailand, October 2–14, 2004. 

With this notice we also announce a 

public meeting to be held after the 

conclusion of COP13 to inform the 

public of the results of COP13 and 

invite public input on whether the 

United States should take a reservation 

on any of the amendments to the CITES 

Appendices adopted at the meeting.

DATES: In further developing U.S. 

negotiating positions on these issues, we 

will continue to consider information 

and comments submitted in response to 

our notice of July 2, 2004 (69 FR 40411). 

We will also continue to consider 

information received at the public 

meeting announced in that notice, 

which was held on August 12, 2004. 

The public meeting to be held after 

COP13 will be held on December 13, 

2004, at 1:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Please send comments 

pertaining to resolutions and agenda 

items to the Division of Management 

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 

700, Arlington, VA 22203, or via e-mail 

at: citescop13@fws.gov. Please send 

comments pertaining to species 

proposals to the Division of Scientific 

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 

750, Arlington, VA 22203, or via e-mail 

to: ScientificAuthority@fws.gov. 

Comments and materials that we receive 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, at the Division 

of Management Authority and the 

Division of Scientific Authority. 

Public Meeting 

The post-COP13 public meeting will 

be held in the Rachel Carson Room, in 

the Department of the Interior at 18th 

and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC. 

Directions to the building may be 

obtained by contacting the Division of 

Management Authority (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, below). 

Available Information 

Information concerning the results of 

COP13 will be available after the close 

of the meeting on the Secretariat’s Web 

site at http://www.cites.org, or upon 

request from the Division of 

Management Authority, or via our 

COP13 Web site at http://

international.fws.gov/cop%2013/

cop13.htm. If you wish to contact the 

U.S. delegation to COP13 during the 

meeting, you may send an e-mail to the 

following address: 

COP13_daily@fws.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information pertaining to resolutions, 

discussion papers, and agenda items, 

contact Peter O. Thomas, Ph.D., Chief, 

Division of Management Authority, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, tel. 703–358–

2095; fax 703–358–2298; e-mail: 

citescop13@fws.gov. For information 

pertaining to species proposals, contact 

Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of 

Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, tel. 703–358–1708; fax 

703–358–2276; e-mail: 

ScientificAuthority@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora, (CITES or the 

Convention), is an international treaty 

designed to control and regulate 

international trade in certain animal and 

plant species that are now or potentially 

may become threatened with extinction 

due to trade. These species are listed in 

Appendices to CITES, COPies of which 

are available from the Division of 

Management Authority or the Division 

of Scientific Authority at the above 

addresses, from our Web site at http://

international.fws.gov, or from the 

official CITES Secretariat (Secretariat) 

Web site at http://www.cites.org/.

Currently, 166 countries, including the 

United States, are Parties to CITES. 

CITES calls for regular meetings of the 

Conference of the Parties (COP) to 

review issues pertaining to CITES 

implementation, make provisions 

enabling the CITES Secretariat to carry 

out its functions, consider amendments 

to the list of species in Appendices I 

and II, consider reports presented by the 

Secretariat, and make recommendations 

to improve the effectiveness of CITES. 

Any country that is a Party to CITES 

may propose and vote on amendments 

to Appendices I and II (species 

proposals), resolutions, decisions, 

discussion papers, and agenda items 

submitted for consideration by the 

Conference of the Parties. Accredited 

nongovernmental organizations may 

participate in the meeting as approved 

observers and may speak during 

sessions when recognized by the 

meeting Chairman, but they may not 

vote or submit proposals. COP13 will be 

held in Bangkok, Thailand, October 2–

14, 2004. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 58185

This is fourth in a series of Federal 

Register notices that, together with 

announced public meetings, provide 

you with an opportunity to participate 

in the development of U.S. tentative 

negotiating positions for COP13. In this 

notice we announce the tentative U.S. 

negotiating positions on agenda items, 

resolutions, and species proposals 

submitted by other countries and the 

Secretariat for consideration at COP13. 

In our first Federal Register notice of 

June 19, 2003 (68 FR 36831), we 

requested information and 

recommendations on species proposals, 

proposed resolutions and decisions, and 

agenda items for the United States to 

consider submitting for consideration at 

COP13. In our second Federal Register

notice, published on January 12, 2004 

(69 FR 1757), we listed each issue that 

the United States was considering 

submitting for COP13. In that notice, we 

also invited public comments and 

information on these potential 

proposals, announced a public meeting 

to discuss them, and provided 

information on how nongovernmental 

organizations based in the United States 

could attend COP13 as observers. At the 

same time we posted an expanded 

document on our Web site (http://

international.fws.gov/) that provided 

detailed background for proposed 

resolutions, proposed decisions, and 

agenda items that the United States was 

considering submitting for 

consideration at COP13, as well as for 

proposed amendments to the 

Appendices that the United States was 

considering submitting. On February 5, 

2004, we held the public meeting 

announced in our second Federal 

Register notice; at that meeting, we 

discussed the issues contained in our 

January 12 Federal Register notice and 

in our Web site posting on the same 

topic. In our third Federal Register

notice, published on July 2, 2004 (69 FR 

40411), we announced the provisional 

agenda for COP13, solicited public 

comment on items on the provisional 

agenda, and announced a public 

meeting to discuss the agenda items. 

That public meeting was held on August 

12, 2004. 

You may locate our regulations 

governing this public process in 50 CFR 

23.31–23.39. Pursuant to 50 CFR 23.38 

(a), the Director has decided to suspend 

the procedure for publishing a notice of 

final negotiating positions in the 

Federal Register because time and 

resources needed to prepare a Federal 

Register notice would detract from 

essential preparation for COP13. 

Tentative Negotiating Positions 

In this notice we summarize the 

tentative U.S. negotiating positions on 

agenda items, resolutions, and proposals 

to amend the Appendices that have 

been submitted by other countries and 

the CITES Secretariat. Documents 

submitted by the United States for 

consideration of the Parties at COP13 

can be found on the Secretariat’s Web 

site at: http://www.cites.org/eng/COP/

13/docs/index.shtml. Those documents 

are: COP13 Doc. 41, COP13 Doc. 47, 

COP13 Doc. 48, COP13 Doc. 49, COP13 

Doc. 51, and COP13 Doc. 52. The United 

States, either alone or as a co-proponent, 

submitted the following proposals to 

amend the Appendices I and II: COP13 

Prop. 5, COP13 Prop. 10, COP13 Prop. 

12, COP13 Prop. 14, COP13 Prop. 16, 

COP13 Prop. 18, COP13 Prop. 20, 

COP13 Prop. 21, COP13 Prop. 23, 

COP13 Prop. 33, COP13 Prop. 47, and 

COP13 Prop. 48. In this notice, we will 

not provide any additional explanation 

of the U.S. negotiating position for 

documents that the United States 

submitted. The introduction in the text 

of each of the documents the United 

States submitted contains a discussion 

of the background of the issue and the 

rationale for submitting the document. 

In this notice, numerals next to each 

agenda item or resolution correspond to 

the numbers used in the agenda for 

COP13 and posted on the Secretariat’s 

Web site. When we completed the 

notice, the Secretariat had not yet made 

available documents for a number of the 

agenda items on the COP13 agenda. For 

several other documents, we are still 

working with other agencies in the 

United States and other CITES Parties in 

negotiating the U.S. position. The 

documents for which we do not 

currently have tentative U.S. negotiating 

positions are: COP13 Doc. 9.2.1, COP13 

Doc. 17, COP13 Doc. 29.2, COP13 Doc. 

29.3, and COP13 Doc. 56.2. 

In the discussion that follows, we 

have included a brief description of 

each proposed resolution, agenda item, 

or species proposal submitted by other 

countries or the Secretariat, followed by 

a brief explanation of the tentative U.S. 

negotiating position for that item. New 

information that may become available 

at COP13 could lead to modifications of 

these positions. The U.S. delegation will 

fully disclose changes in our negotiating 

positions and the explanations for those 

changes during public briefings at 

COP13. The United States is concerned 

about the budgetary implications and 

workload burden that will be placed 

upon the Parties, the Committees, and 

the Secretariat and intends to review all 

suggested changes in view of these 

concerns. 

Agenda (Provisional) [Doc. 3] 

Opening Ceremony and Welcoming 

Addresses 

The Secretariat will not prepare a 

document on these agenda items. 

According to tradition, as the host 

country for COP13, Thailand will 

conduct an opening ceremony and make 

welcoming remarks. 

Strategic and Administrative Matters

1. Rules of Procedure: 

1.1 Use of secret ballots (Doc. 1.1). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. With Document COP13 Doc. 

1.1, the Standing Committee proposes 

not making any changes to the Rules of 

Procedure of the Conference of the 

Parties relating to the use of secret 

ballots. The United States historically 

has not supported the use of secret 

ballots, believing that the process at a 

COP should be as transparent as 

possible, and that open voting 

encourages responsible voting by the 

Parties. The United States agrees that 

the Rules of Procedure should not be 

changed to facilitate the increased use of 

secret ballots, and would only support 

changes to decrease their use. 

1.2 Adoption of the Rules of 

Procedure (Doc. 1.2). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. The 

CITES Secretariat prepared document 

COP13 Doc. 1.2, the draft Rules of 

Procedure for COP13. The draft contains 

amendments to Rules 3.2, 3.5, and 15.1, 

and to the title of Rule 20 agreed to by 

the Standing Committee at its 50th 

meeting (SC50) in March 2004. As the 

concerns raised by the United States to 

these amendments were addressed by 

the Standing Committee, and are 

reflected in document CoP13 Doc. 1.2, 

the United States supports the draft 

Rules of Procedure. 

2. Election of Chairman and ViceChairman of the meeting and of 

Chairman of Committees I and II (No 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided. According to 

tradition, the host country—in this case, 

Thailand—will provide the Conference 

Chair. The United States will support 

the election of Committee Chairs and a 

Vice-Chair of the Conference who have 

the required technical knowledge and 

skills and also reflect the geographic 

and cultural diversity of the CITES 

Parties. 

3. Adoption of the agenda (Doc. 3). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. 

4. Adoption of the working 

programme (Doc. 4). Tentative U.S. 

58186 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 

negotiating position: Support. Prior to a 

COP the working programme is 

provisional and changes may be made to 

it prior to the start of COP13 or at the 

beginning of the COP. The United States 

supports the provisional working 

programme posted at the time this 

notice was prepared. 

5. Credentials Committee: 

5.1 Establishment of the Credentials 

Committee (No document). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. 

5.2 Report of the Credentials 

Committee (No document). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. 

The United States will follow the work 

of the Credentials Committee and 

intervene as appropriate. 

6. Admission of observers (Doc. 6). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Undecided. A document for this agenda 

item is not normally distributed prior to 

the start of a COP. In accordance with 

Article XI of the Convention, 

organizations technically qualified in 

protection, conservation or management 

of wild fauna and flora may participate 

in a COP. After being approved as an 

observer, a nongovernmental 

organization (NGO) is admitted to the 

COP, unless one-third of the Parties 

object. National NGOs are admitted as 

observers if their headquarters are 

located in a CITES Party country and if 

the national government of that Party 

approves their attendance at the COP. 

International NGOs are admitted by 

approval of the CITES Secretariat. The 

United States supports admission to the 

meeting of all technically qualified 

NGOs, and the United States opposes 

unreasonable limitations on their full 

participation as observers at COP13. In 

addition, the United States supports 

flexibility and openness in the process 

for disseminating documents produced 

by NGOs to Party delegates, which are 

vital to decision-making and scientific 

and technical understanding. 

7. Matters related to the Standing 

Committee: 

7.1 Report of the Chairman (Doc. 

7.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. The United States, as Chair of 

the Committee, will prepare this 

requisite report on the execution of the 

Committee’s responsibilities and its 

activities between COP12 and COP13. 

7.2 Election of new regional and 

alternate regional members (No 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. The U.S. term as 

North American regional representative 

to the Standing Committee will end at 

the end of COP13. Following 

consultation with Canada and Mexico, 

the North American region has reached 

a consensus decision concerning the 

Standing Committee representation 

following COP13. Canada will serve as 

the North American regional 

representative, and Mexico will serve as 

the alternate representative.

8. Financing and budgeting of the 

Secretariat and of meetings of the 

Conference of the Parties. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position on Agenda Items 

8.1, 8.2, and 8.3: Undecided. These are 

comprehensive documents that require 

extensive review, internal discussion, 

and analysis of the financial 

implications for Parties and the impact 

on the work of the Secretariat and the 

Committees. The United States will 

review the documents carefully, bearing 

in mind the need to balance tasks with 

available resources. We advocate fiscal 

responsibility and accountability on the 

part of the Secretariat and the 

Conference of the Parties and plan to 

actively participate in the budget 

discussions at COP13. We further 

support a budget that represents zerogrowth in Parties’ voluntary 

contributions. 

8.4 External funding (Doc. 8.4). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. External funding is financial 

support provided by Parties and NGOs 

for projects approved as CITES priorities 

by the Standing Committee. The 

external funding procedure is designed 

to avoid conflicts of interest (real or 

apparent) when approving projects and 

channeling funds between the provider 

and the recipient. The United States 

continues to support the efforts to 

identify appropriate sources of external 

funding, with the oversight of the 

Standing Committee. 

9. Committee reports and 

recommendations—

9.1 Animals Committee: 

9.1.1 Report of the Chairman (Doc. 

9.1.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support with exceptions. This 

report is largely a summary of activities 

conducted by the Animals Committee, 

or particularly by the Chairman, since 

COP12. Many of these activities are 

covered by other COP13 agenda items. 

There are several recommendations at 

the end of the report, many of which the 

United States supports. However, some 

of these carry financial implications for 

the Convention. Under his 

‘‘Recommendations regarding training,’’

the Chairman suggests that the Parties 

adopt two decisions, one directing the 

Parties to provide financial support for 

the CITES Masters Course conducted by 

the University of Cordoba in Spain, and 

the second one directing the Standing 

Committee and the Secretariat to seek 

external funding to support students for 

the course from developing countries 

and countries with economies in 

transition. The United States believes 

that this CITES Masters Course is very 

worthwhile. However, due to current 

budgetary constraints, it must be clear 

that any funding for this course must 

come from sources other than the CITES 

Trust Fund, such as external sources, 

including voluntary contributions from 

Parties. 

The final recommendation of the 

Chairman is to provide US$30,000 

annually to assist the Chairman of the 

Animals Committee, if sufficient 

financial and technical support is not 

provided by the Chairman’s own 

government or institution. Due to 

budget limitations and recent efforts by 

the Parties to contain costs for the 

Convention’s operations, it is unlikely 

that a decision can be taken at this time 

to provide additional funding to support 

the Chairmen of the two scientific 

committees (assuming a similar amount 

should go to each). Based on 

discussions from the recent meetings of 

the scientific committees, we realize 

that this proposal may not be to provide 

funding for the current Chairman, but 

for future Chairmen of both committees 

if they come from developing countries 

or small institutions without the 

capability of providing the necessary 

support for the Chairmen to execute 

their duties. The United States suggests, 

therefore, that this issue be included in 

the review of the scientific committees 

proposed by Australia (CoP13 Doc. 

11.1). 

9.1.2 Election of new regional and 

alternate regional members (No 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. Following 

consultation with Canada and Mexico, 

the North American region has reached 

a consensus decision concerning the 

Animals Committee representation 

following COP13. Mr. Rodrigo A. 

Medellin of Mexico will serve as the 

North American regional representative, 

and Mr. Robert R. Gabel of the United 

States will serve as the alternate 

representative. 

9.2 Plants Committee: 

9.2.2 Election of new regional and 

alternate regional members (No 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. Following 

consultation with Canada and Mexico, 

the North American region has reached 

a consensus decision concerning the 

Plants Committee representation 

following COP13. Mr. Robert R. Gabel of 

the United States will serve as the North 

American regional representative to the 

Plants Committee, and Ms. Carolina 

Caceres of Canada will serve as the 

alternate representative until April 

2005, after which time, Dr. Adrianne 

Sinclair, also of Canada, will serve as 

the alternate representative. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 58187

9.3 Nomenclature Committee: 

9.3.1 Report of the Nomenclature 

Committee (Doc. 9.3.1). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Undecided. The 

report contains numerous 

recommendations regarding the 

adoption of standard nomenclatural and 

taxonomic references, and we are still 

evaluating them and consulting with 

experts. 

9.3.2. Appointment of the members 

(No document). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. With the 

resignation of one of the two members 

of the Nomenclature Committee, a new 

member will have to be appointed. The 

United States supports the appointment 

of an individual with the appropriate 

expertise in the nomenclature of fauna 

to the Committee. 

10. Strategic Vision (Doc. 10). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. The Strategic Vision through 

2005 presents an overview of the 

specific aims of the Convention, 

outlines seven specific goals to meet the 

Convention’s mission, and identifies 

specific objectives to provide focus to 

the Parties in their implementation of 

the Convention, its Committees and the 

Secretariat, as well as to serve as an 

effective outreach and educational tool. 

At SC50, the Committee submitted a 

draft decision to the Secretariat, for 

adoption at COP13, to extend the time 

of validity of the Strategic Vision 

through 2005 and its Action plan, until 

the end of 2007. The decision would 

also establish a Strategic Plan Working 

Group as a subcommittee of the 

Standing Committee, which would 

develop a proposal for submission to 

COP14 for a Strategic Vision and Action 

Plan through 2013. The United States 

supports the proposed extension and 

the establishment of a Strategic Plan 

Working Group. 

11. Review of permanent committees:

11.1 Review of the scientific 

committees (Doc. 11.1; Australia). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. Australia proposes that the 

Standing Committee conduct a review 

to determine whether the current 

Animals and Plants Committees are the 

most efficient and effective means of 

providing scientific advice to the 

Convention and the Parties. They 

propose that a working group develop 

terms of reference to conduct the 

review. We do not fully agree that the 

current two scientific committees have 

not provided information that informs 

the decisions of the Parties, or that the 

Parties are not consistent in heeding the 

recommendations of these committees. 

Currently, the review of the listing 

criteria, Significant Trade Review, and 

the Review of the Appendices are 

activities of the two technical 

committees that are anticipated to result 

in recommendations that will contribute 

significantly to important decisions and 

actions by the Parties. However, we 

agree that the Parties need to seek 

efficiencies, which should include an 

objective evaluation of the current 

committee structure, the overall 

effectiveness of the committees in 

dealing with all of the issues referred to 

them, the workload of each committee, 

and how the committees conduct their 

business. 

11.2 Improving regional 

communication and representation 

(Doc. 11.2; Animals and Plants 

Committees). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. Although this 

document is not yet available, the 

United States has attended recent 

meetings of the Animals and Plants 

Committee where this issue was 

discussed. We anticipate that this 

document will contain a number of 

recommendations to improve regional 

communication and more effective 

representation and participation on the 

technical committees, particularly in 

large regions with many developing 

countries. The United States has 

supported these discussions and 

believes any efforts to improve the 

effectiveness of the Convention should 

be supported. 

11.3 Standard nomenclature and the 

operation of the Nomenclature 

Committee (Doc. 11.3; Mexico). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support with exceptions. Because of 

recent controversy in the Animals and 

Plants Committees over nomenclatural 

changes that have been adopted, as well 

as a change in how standard references 

are adopted and incorporated for use by 

the Parties, Mexico has submitted this 

document in which it recommends 

various changes, including possible 

changes to the terms of reference and 

makeup of the Nomenclature 

Committee. We agree that these are 

important issues that have caused 

significant concern among the Parties at 

the meetings of the technical 

committees. However, we are unsure if 

all of the recommendations made by 

Mexico are warranted or may 

themselves cause additional difficulties. 

For example, expanding the 

membership of the Nomenclature 

Committee may incur more costs for the 

Convention and make the committee 

itself more inefficient due to the 

controversial nature of nomenclature 

and taxonomy. We note that overall the 

Nomenclature Committee has served the 

Parties well. However, the United States 

shares the concerns of Mexico and other 

Parties with regard to the change in the 

way standard references for taxonomy 

and nomenclature are being handled 

since COP12, and how changes to 

standard nomenclature can occur 

without input or review from the 

Conference of the Parties. 

12. Cooperation with other 

organizations—

12.1 Synergy between CITES and 

CBD: 

12.1.1 Achieving greater synergy in 

CITES and CBD implementation (Doc. 

12.1.1; Ireland). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Oppose with exception. Following an 

expert workshop on promoting 

cooperation and synergy between CITES 

and the Convention on Biological 

Diversity (CBD), held on the Isle of 

Vilm, Germany, April 20–24, 2004, the 

Member States of the European 

Community endorsed in principle the 

overall objectives of that workshop and 

recommended a substantive discussion 

of its report at COP13 with a view to the 

adoption of some of the 

recommendations. While we find the 

intent behind the Vilm workshop 

supportive of moving forward a better 

and practical synergy between the two 

Conventions, we do not support 

Ireland’s proposal to refer the 

recommendations of the workshop to 

the CITES Committees and the CBD 

Liaison Group. We believe that it is 

premature at this time to incorporate the 

findings and recommendations of the 

workshop into the Work Plan attached 

to the MOU. The workshop was not an 

official meeting of either CITES or the 

CBD, and few Parties had the 

opportunity to provide information and 

insight into the recommendations and 

conclusions. Recognizing the effort that 

went into this workshop, we suggest 

that a Standing Committee working 

group, if financial support can be 

secured, be formed to report to the 

Parties at COP14 on improving synergy 

between the two Conventions as 

recommended in this workshop report. 

We recommend that the CBD Secretariat 

and the CBD Liaison Group be invited 

to participate in the working group in 

order to ensure full participation and 

cooperation by both Conventions and 

their Parties. 

12.1.2 Sustainable use principles 

and guidelines (Doc. 12.1.2; Namibia). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Undecided. Namibia has submitted a 

draft resolution to promote 

collaboration between CITES and the 

CBD concerning the issue of sustainable 

use. In particular, the draft resolution 

asks CITES to adopt the definition of 

sustainable use contained in the Articles 

of the CBD, and seeks help from CITES 

in the dissemination of the CBD’s Addis 

58188 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 

Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the 

Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, 

including their application to making 

CITES non-detriment findings. We are 

evaluating the potential implications 

and relevance of adopting these 

principles and definitions to CITES 

operations. 

12.2 CITES listing of whale stocks 

and the International Whaling 

Commission (Doc. 12.2; Japan). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Undecided. This is a draft resolution 

that, if adopted, would call on the 

International Whaling Commission 

(IWC) to complete a global plan for 

regulating and managing commercial 

whaling activities. The IWC has been 

developing the Revised Management 

Scheme (RMS) for several years, and the 

United States continues to advocate its 

completion. Although we are inclined to 

support the short operative sentence of 

Japan’s resolution, we disagree with the 

basic foundation and controversial 

remarks in the preamble. We plan to 

work bilaterally with Japan before 

COP13 to achieve a more neutral 

document that may be more acceptable 

to a majority of Parties. 

12.3 Revision of Resolution Conf. 

12.4 on Cooperation between CITES and 

the Commission for the Conservation of 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

regarding trade in toothfish (Doc. 12.3; 

Australia). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. Australia’s proposed 

amendments to Resolution Conf. 12.4 

would make reporting by CITES Parties 

to the CITES Secretariat on their use of 

CCAMLR Dissostichus Catch Documents 

(DCDs), and the Secretariat’s 

transmission of those reports to 

CCAMLR, an ongoing effort. They note 

that the decisions calling for such 

reports (12.57 and 12.58) applied only 

to 2003 and they see merit in continuing 

the practice on an annual basis. The 

proposal would also change references 

to ‘‘illicit, unregulated and unreported 

fishing’’ to ‘‘illegal, unreported and 

unregulated fishing (IUU)’’ in order to 

explicitly recognize that IUU fishing 

poses a threat to toothfish populations. 

The United States supports continued 

cooperation between CITES and 

CCAMLR and Australia’s proposed 

amendments to Resolution Conf. 12.4.

12.4 Cooperation with the Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations (Doc. 12.4; Japan). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This 

document was submitted by Japan for 

consideration in the event that a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

between CITES and the Food and 

Agricultural Organization of the United 

Nations (FAO) has not been signed by 

COP13. If there is no MOU in place, 

Japan calls for a brief report from the 

Chairman of the Standing Committee on 

the negotiations with FAO and asks the 

Parties to extend the timeline for this 

process. The Chairman of the Standing 

Committee and the CITES Secretariat 

have developed draft MOU text guided 

by input from the Parties and discussion 

with FAO. We strongly support the 

negotiation of an MOU between CITES 

and FAO to facilitate cooperation on 

marine issues. The United States has 

worked with Japan and other Parties to 

promote establishment of this MOU. 

Negotiations between the Chairman of 

the Standing Committee and FAO to 

reconcile the two drafts are ongoing 

under a procedure established by the 

Standing Committee and we are hopeful 

that an agreement will be concluded by 

COP13. However, we find Japan’s 

recommendations unnecessary from a 

procedural standpoint, since there is a 

process already under way to conclude 

the agreement, and we are concerned 

that taking it back to the Conference of 

the Parties before it is concluded 

undermines the intensive work of the 

Standing Committee. 

12.5 Statements of representatives of 

other conventions and agreements (No 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. The United States 

supports ongoing dialogue between 

CITES and other relevant and related 

conventions and agreements, and 

believes statements from them can be 

valuable at a COP. 

13. Economic incentives and trade 

policy (Doc. 13). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose. This 

document provides a report of activities 

conducted under Decision 12.22 on 

Economic Incentives and Trade Policy 

and recommends further work on 

National Trade Policy Reviews and a 

second workshop on how Economic 

Incentives can be designed to further the 

specific implementation of CITES. This 

Secretariat-driven and low priority 

initiative, as compared to important 

CITES considerations on capacitybuilding, legislation development, and 

technical support to Parties, has rapidly 

expanded since COP12 and produced a 

massive output of activities and 

recommendations that requires the 

review of the Secretariat, the Parties, 

and the Committees. The United States 

opposes this initiative as it has great 

potential to continue to draw more and 

more of the already overburdened 

Secretariat’s time and technical 

expertise away from other much more 

urgent and high priority needs. We are 

also concerned that this initiative will 

compete with high priority needs for 

limited international funds and the 

Secretariat’s fundraising efforts. 

14. Financing of the conservation of 

and sustainable international trade in 

species of wild fauna and flora (Doc. 

14). Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support with exception. This document 

describes the analysis and evaluation of 

information received by the Secretariat 

in response to Decisions 12.25 and 

12.26. The United States supports these 

efforts and the Secretariat’s exploration 

of the feasibility of a designated 

financial mechanism for 

implementation of the Convention, 

provided that the Secretariat reports its 

findings to and requests advice from the 

Standing Committee between COPs. 

15. Report of the African elephant 

dialogue meeting (Doc. 15). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided 

until document is available for review. 

The African elephant dialogue meeting 

is scheduled to be held in Bangkok, 

Thailand, immediately prior to the start 

of COP13. When we receive the 

document, we will review it closely and 

develop our position. We note, however, 

that we support the range States 

dialogue process for debating multinational species issues, and the United 

States provided funding for this meeting 

through a grant under the African 

Elephant Conservation Act. 

Interpretation and Implementation of 

the Convention 

Review of Resolutions and Decisions 

16. Review of Resolutions (Doc. 16). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support with the exceptions noted 

below. 

Review of Resolution Conf. 4.6 (Rev. 

CoP12). Support. The proposed change 

would establish the effective date of 

resolutions adopted by the Conference 

of the Parties as 90 days after the 

meeting, rather than the date on which 

the resolutions are sent to the Parties by 

the Secretariat. It would set a firm date 

for implementation of resolutions, and 

mean that resolutions and species 

listings generally become effective on 

the same date.

Review of Resolution Conf. 5.11. 

Support. The proposed new resolution 

would resolve confusion surrounding 

the trade in pre-Convention specimens 

by recommending that Parties use the 

date a species was first listed to decide 

whether to issue a pre-Convention 

certificate. 

Review of Resolution Conf. 9.21. 

Support. These proposed changes 

clarify that a Party that wants the 

Conference of the Parties to either 

establish or amend an export quota for 

an Appendix I species must submit a 

proposal, which includes details of the 

scientific basis for the proposed quota, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 58189

150 days before the meeting at which it 

is to be considered. These procedures 

would help Parties make sound 

decisions on export quotas. 

Consolidation of Resolution Conf. 

10.6 on control of trade in tourist 

souvenir specimens and Resolution 

Conf. 12.9 on personal and household 

effects. Support. Combining these two 

resolutions would reduce the number of 

resolutions and provide one document 

that addresses the interpretation of 

personal and household effects. We 

believe the Parties might want to further 

consolidate duplicative paragraphs 

relating to the sale of Appendix I tourist 

souvenirs at international airports and 

borders. 

Review of Resolutions Conf. 10.16 

(Rev.) and Conf. 12.10. Oppose with 

exception. The goal of the proposed 

changes is to harmonize the language in 

two different resolutions. We support 

the proposed change to the preamble of 

Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.) on animal 

species bred in captivity. We oppose the 

proposal to add a reference to Article III 

to the definition of the term ‘‘bred for 

non-commercial purposes’’ in 

Resolution Conf. 12.10. Article III 

contains the basic provisions on trade in 

Appendix I specimens and should not 

be included in the definition of an 

exemption under Article VII. 

Review of Resolution Conf. 11.11. 

Support with exception. The proposal is 

to delete the reference to the no-longerused annotation °608 on the CITES list 

and replace it with an example of ‘‘see 

the annotation to Orchidaceae spp 

***’’ The United States agrees that 

the reference to annotation °608 needs 

to be deleted, but believes that the 

recommendation of the Plants 

Committee working group (see COP13 

Doc 51) to not use an example is a better 

approach. The use of ‘‘Orchidaceae 

spp.’’ is misleading since the current 

exclusion from CITES controls applies 

only to artificially propagated hybrids of 

Phalaenopsis under specific conditions 

or to a few artificially propagated 

‘‘supermarket’’ cacti hybrids. 

Review of Resolution Conf. 11.21. 

Support with exception. We agree that 

the new format used by the Secretariat 

to publish the CITES list after COP12 

necessitates the revision of this 

resolution on annotations. We find, 

however, that the revised language in 

paragraph b) of the first agrees relating 

to export quotas to be confusing. 

Because of the importance of CITESadopted export quotas, we suggest 

deleting the reference to export quotas 

from b)i) and b)ii) and adding a separate 

subparagraph ‘‘and; iii) annotations that 

specify an export quota;’’

Regular and Special Reports 

18. Reporting requirements (Doc. 18). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. In this document the 

Secretariat reports on the issues 

addressed by the Standing Committee’s 

Working Group on Reporting 

Requirements and endorsed by the 

Standing Committee, and makes a 

number of recommendations including 

that the Parties adopt: the draft biennial 

report format provided in Annex 4 of 

the document; the draft revisions of 

Resolutions Conf. 11.17 (Rev. COP12) 

and 4.6 (Rev. COP12) provided in 

Annexes 1 and 2 of the document; and 

the two draft decisions provided in 

Annex 3 of the document. The United 

States supports adoption of the biennial 

report format and generally supports the 

other recommendations in this 

document. 

19. Appendix I species subject to 

export quotas: 

19.1 Leopard: export quota for 

Namibia (Doc. 19.1; Namibia). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support. 

Namibia seeks approval for the increase 

of its leopard export quota from 100 to 

250 animals. The proposed new quota 

represents a take of less than 5% of an 

estimated 8,038 leopards in the country. 

Thus, it is unlikely that, if properly 

managed, the proposed new quota will 

have a negative impact on the species. 

19.2 Leopard: export quota for South 

Africa (Doc. 19.2; South Africa). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Oppose. South Africa seeks approval for 

the increase of its leopard export quota 

from 75 to 150 animals. However, 

according to the proposal, there is no 

nationwide leopard population estimate 

or trend information available. Thus, 

there is no clear justification for this 

increase. Unless there is additional 

information forthcoming from the 

proponent to support this proposal; the 

United States cannot support the 

proposed increase.

19.3 Black rhinoceros: export quota 

for Namibia (Doc. 19.3; Namibia). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Undecided. Namibia seeks approval for 

the establishment of an export quota for 

5 adult male black rhinoceros (Diceros 

bicornis bicornis) hunting trophies. The 

proposed quota represents an annual 

take of less than 0.5% of the estimated 

current population of 1,134 black rhinos 

in the country. In addition, the quota 

would apply only to ‘‘surplus’’ male 

rhinos, primarily post-reproductive or 

problem animals, designated by 

Namibia’s Management Authority. 

Thus, the proposed quota appears to be 

sustainable, based on an evaluation of 

the Namibian population. We note that 

the Namibian black rhino population is 

categorized as Vulnerable by IUCN 

(2003), instead of Critically Endangered 

as for the rest of the species. However, 

we are also aware that range countries 

still must take unusual measures to 

protect black rhinos due to continued 

poaching and demand for illegal trade. 

Therefore, we are still evaluating the 

potential impact that adoption of such 

a proposal may have on black rhino 

conservation, particularly as it may 

affect other range countries. We also 

note that under the United States 

Endangered Species Act, the black 

rhinoceros is listed as endangered. The 

historic practice under our stricter 

domestic measure is that the necessary 

findings to allow such imports into the 

United States have not been made, and 

pending any change in practice, the 

United States would not allow imports 

of sport hunted trophies. 

19.4 Black rhinoceros: export quota 

for South Africa (Doc. 19.4; South 

Africa). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided. South Africa seeks 

approval to establish an export quota for 

10 adult male black rhinoceros (Diceros 

bicornis minor) hunting trophies. The 

proposed quota represents an annual 

take of approximately 1.0% of the 

estimated current population of 1,200 

black rhinos in the country. However, 

there are outstanding questions about 

the overall management program 

including the initial size of the quota, its 

effective allocation and monitoring 

within the private sector, individual 

trophy selection process, and 

transparency in the use of revenues 

generated for in-situ black rhino 

conservation. We also note that under 

the United States Endangered Species 

Act, the black rhinoceros is listed as 

endangered. The historic practice under 

our stricter domestic measure is that the 

necessary findings to allow such 

imports into the United States have not 

been made, and pending any change in 

practice, the United States would not 

allow imports of sport hunted trophies. 

20. Trade in vicun ̃ a cloth (Doc. 20). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. The Secretariat has submitted 

a report in accordance with Resolution 

Conf. 11.6 that includes information for 

each range country on vicun ̃ a cloth 

exports, numbers of animals sheared, 

and the local populations to which the 

animals belong. The Secretariat suggests 

that these trade data should be 

incorporated into the annual reports 

instead of reported separately. 

Therefore, the Secretariat recommends 

deleting paragraph (b) of Resolution 

Conf. 11.6, which requires these reports. 

In addition, because paragraph (a) of 

Resolution Conf. 11.6 is redundant to 

58190 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 

the annotations for Appendix II vicun ̃ a 

populations, the Secretariat 

recommends the repeal of Resolution 

Conf. 11.6 entirely. 

21. Transport of live specimens (Doc. 

21). Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. The United States is a member 

of the Transport Working Group and 

supports the recommendation to 

encourage exchange of information on 

transport of live animals and plants 

between the Animals and Plants 

Committees, and to broaden the scope of 

Resolution Conf. 10.21 to include the 

transportation of live plants, as well as 

live animals. We also welcome the 

recommendation to revise requirements 

regarding the collection, submission and 

analysis of data on mortality and injury 

or damage to health during transport of 

live specimens. 

General Compliance Issues 

22. National laws for implementation 

of the Convention (Doc. 22). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support. The 

United States supports the proposed 

decisions, which would continue and 

expand the current review of national 

laws. The United States strongly 

believes that the Convention’s 

effectiveness is undermined when Party 

States do not have adequate national 

laws in place for implementing CITES. 

23. Enforcement matters (Doc. 23). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. The United States supports the 

proposed decisions, which would 

improve the flow of enforcement-related 

information among enforcement 

officials, and provide needed guidance 

to the public on how to submit 

enforcement-related information to the 

Secretariat. 

24. Revision of Resolution Conf. 11.3 

on Compliance and enforcement (Doc. 

24; Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose. The United States 

supports the general issues of 

compliance and enforcement and 

supports the proposed decisions 

concerning these issues presented in 

Doc. 23. The United States does not 

support the use of limited Secretariat 

enforcement staff and resources to 

restore the creation of the infractions 

report that at past COPs proved 

controversial, inaccurate, and of limited 

use for actual enforcement efforts.

25. Guidelines on compliance with 

the Convention (Doc. 25; Ireland). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Oppose. The United States does not 

support the proposal to open discussion 

on this document. We also oppose the 

establishment of a Compliance Working 

Group pending the completion of the 

process currently underway in the 

Standing Committee. Pursuant to 

Decision 12.84, the Standing Committee 

is currently reviewing draft Guidelines 

on Compliance with the Convention, 

through an intersessional working 

group. The Committee also established 

a process for the working group to create 

a document for consideration at SC53. 

The United States believes this 

collaborative process should be allowed 

to continue and considers it premature 

to bring this issue to COP13. 

Species Trade and Conservation Issues 

26. Conservation of and trade in great 

apes (Doc. 26; Ireland). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support the draft 

decision with exception, and oppose the 

draft resolution. Ireland, on behalf of the 

Member States of the European 

Community, has submitted a document 

that includes a draft resolution urging 

Parties to adopt and implement 

legislation protecting great apes, 

including prohibiting all international 

and internal commercial trade of wildcaught specimens and strengthening 

enforcement controls, including antipoaching measures. The draft resolution 

directs the Secretariat to work with 

Parties, and as a member of the Great 

Ape Survival Project (GRASP) 

partnership, to develop measures to 

reduce and ultimately eliminate illegal 

trade in great apes. The document also 

includes a draft decision directing the 

Secretariat to prepare a consolidated 

Resolution concerning the enforcement 

of trade controls in all Appendix I 

species, to be considered at COP14. 

The United States supports the draft 

decision and believes a comprehensive 

process should be developed, possibly 

through a working group, whereby 

mechanisms from other processes (e.g., 

Significant Trade Review, National 

Legislation Project) might be used to 

develop a standardized approach for 

addressing enforcement of trade 

controls for all Appendix I species. The 

United States supports the principles 

and goals of the draft resolution on the 

conservation of and trade in great apes, 

but we do not support the draft 

resolution itself. While we applaud the 

efforts of GRASP, adopting the draft 

resolution included in this document 

would create yet another speciesspecific resolution. Many of the goals 

outlined in this draft resolution are 

already being addressed by the CITES 

Bushmeat Working Group and we 

believe that they should be addressed as 

part of the larger bushmeat issue. 

27. Conservation of and trade in bears 

(Doc. 27). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. This report was 

prepared by the Secretariat in response 

to Decision 12.27, which required the 

Parties that did not report to the 

Secretariat on the progress made in 

controlling illegal trade in bear 

specimens to submit the requested 

reports. The document lists the Parties 

that have provided reports and 

describes measures taken in attempting 

to get reports from those Parties that had 

not yet responded to Decision 12.27. 

The Secretariat will report at COP13 on 

any new reports or additional 

information relating to bears. The 

United States supports the Secretariat in 

its effort to obtain information from 

Parties relating to the trade in bear 

specimens and looks forward to the 

Secretariat’s report at COP13. The 

United States also supports the Irish 

proposal (COP13 Doc. 26) to develop a 

holistic, rather than species-specific, 

approach to eliminate the illegal 

international commercial trade in all 

Appendix I specimens and assist Parties 

in mitigating or eliminating detrimental 

domestic trade in those same 

specimens. 

28. Conservation of and trade in Asian 

big cats (Doc. 28). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. In this 

document, the Secretariat presents a 

progress report on activities regarding 

conservation of and trade in Asian big 

cats and non-commercial trade in 

specimens of Appendix I species. The 

United States supports continued work 

on the issues of Asian big cat 

conservation and is concerned that 

commercial trade in Appendix I species 

by professional dealers is continuing. 

We urge the relevant range States to 

implement the recommendations arising 

from the CITES Technical and Political 

Tiger Missions. The United States also 

supports the Irish proposal (COP13 Doc. 

26) to develop a holistic, rather than 

species-specific, approach to eliminate 

the illegal international commercial 

trade in all Appendix I specimens and 

assist Parties in mitigating or 

eliminating detrimental domestic trade 

in those same specimens. 

29. Elephants: 

29.1 Trade in elephant specimens 

(Doc. 29.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided, pending outcome 

of the African elephant dialogue 

meeting. This document was submitted 

by the Secretariat to report on work 

accomplished under Resolution Conf. 

10.10 (Rev. COP12) and Decision 12.39. 

Decision 12.39 directed the Secretariat 

to assess countries with currently active 

internal ivory markets. The Secretariat 

has suggested that it may be more 

effective to develop sub-regional 

strategies to work with Parties in west 

and central Africa, where the majority of 

illegal ivory appears to originate, than to 

confine work to the 10 Parties identified 

in the original Decision 12.39. Toward 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 58191

that end, a draft work plan was attached 

as an annex to the report. The United 

States supports the development of subregional strategies and looks forward to 

the results of the African elephant range 

States dialogue.

29.4 Illegal ivory trade and control 

of internal markets (Doc. 29.4; Kenya). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Oppose. This document submitted by 

Kenya provides background information 

on domestic ivory markets around the 

world and notes concerns that illegal 

ivory trade may present a threat to 

elephant populations. Kenya supports 

the Secretariat’s draft work plan (SC50 

Doc. 21.1, Annex) and proposes that it 

be incorporated into Resolution Conf. 

10.10 (Rev.COP12), except for an 

exemption for Zimbabwe. It also 

proposes additional amendments to 

Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.COP12), 

including a 20-year moratorium on 

ivory trade, except for non-commercial 

trade in hunting trophies, following 

completion of sales approved at COP12. 

In addition to the amendments, Kenya 

has put forward three draft decisions 

regarding implementation of the 

amended resolution. While the United 

States can appreciate Kenya’s position 

relative to conservation efforts for 

African elephants we believe that this 

issue is being addressed in a methodical 

and analytical way through the Standing 

Committee and the African Range States 

Dialogue meetings. We look forward to 

the consideration during the African 

Elephant Range States Dialogue of a 

work plan to address domestic trade 

problem in source range countries. 

29.5 Conditions for the export of 

registered stocks of ivory in the 

annotation to the Appendix II listing of 

populations of Loxodonta africana in 

Botswana, Namibia and South Africa 

(Doc. 29.5; Kenya). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose. Kenya 

asks that the Parties re-examine the 

geographical scope and nature of 

Monitoring of Illegal Killing of 

Elephants (MIKE) baseline data agreed 

at SC49 and the mechanism for 

determining detrimental impacts on 

elephant populations agreed at SC50. 

Kenya proposes two draft decisions. The 

United States supports the decisions of 

the Standing Committee and is opposed 

to reopening these discussions at 

COP13. 

29.6 Ivory stocks in Burundi (Doc. 

29.4). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose. The United States is 

sympathetic to the Government of 

Burundi’s position, and will be 

interested in the outcome of any 

discussions on this topic at the African 

Elephant Range States Dialogue 

meeting. However, for the most part, the 

options presented in this paper appear 

either to involve trade in violation of 

existing resolutions and decisions or 

scenarios with little real chance for 

success. 

30. Conservation of and trade in 

rhinoceroses (Doc. 30). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. The 

Secretariat recommends the repeal of 

Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev.) because it 

believes that the value of the Resolution 

is doubtful and the administrative 

burden it places on the Parties is of little 

benefit. Additionally, as of the report 

submission deadline of April 2, 2004, 

the Secretariat had not received any 

reports from Parties on conservation of 

and trade in rhinoceroses. We 

sympathize with the Secretariat’s 

frustration over the poor rate of report 

submission, and the United States also 

supports the Irish proposal (CoP13 Doc. 

26) to develop a holistic, rather than 

species-specific, approach to eliminate 

the illegal international commercial 

trade in all Appendix I specimens and 

assist Parties in mitigating or 

eliminating detrimental domestic trade 

in those same specimens.

31. Conservation of and control of 

trade in Tibetan antelope (Doc. 31). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. In compliance with Decision 

12.40, the Secretariat undertook an 

enforcement needs mission to China 

and submitted a report to the Standing 

Committee (SC50 Doc. 20), and this 

information will be relayed to COP13. 

Therefore, the Secretariat is 

recommending that paragraphs (b) and 

(c) under ‘‘DIRECTS’’ in Resolution 

Conf. 11.8 (Rev. COP12) be deleted 

because the reporting requirements have 

been met. However, because legislation 

to prohibit processing and trade in 

Tibetan antelope wool in the State of 

Jammu and Kashmir, India, is not being 

enforced, the Secretariat also 

recommends that the following wording 

be inserted in the resolution at the end 

of paragraph a) under URGES, ‘‘and, in 

particular, that the State of Jammu and 

Kashmir in India halts the processing of 

such wool and the manufacture of 

shahtoosh products.’’

32. Conservation of Saiga tatarica

(Doc. 32; Ireland). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. This 

document contains a draft decision that, 

if adopted, would establish a framework 

of coordinated actions to be taken by all 

stakeholders to conserve and protect the 

saiga antelope. The United States has a 

longstanding interest in the saiga 

antelope and previously contributed 

financial support for the range State 

workshop on this species in May 2002 

in Kalmykia. We also urged the Parties 

to consider further actions for this 

species at AC19. 

33. Conservation of and trade in 

tortoises and freshwater turtles (Doc. 

33). Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. This is primarily a report by 

the Secretariat on activities related to 

these species since COP12. The 

document includes information from 

three range countries, China, Japan, and 

Malaysia, which was submitted to the 

Secretariat to comply with Decision 

12.41. This information shows that the 

three range countries have made 

significant progress in meeting the 

recommendations of Resolution Conf. 

11.9 on Conservation of and trade in 

tortoises and freshwater turtles. The 

United States concurs with the 

Secretariat’s recommendations for range 

countries to continue their efforts for 

these species; to have the Animals 

Committee continue to provide 

scientific guidance to range countries on 

the conservation and management of 

these species, especially with regard to 

the recommendations from the 2002 

Kunming workshop on turtle and 

tortoise trade; and to have Asian range 

countries for these species continue to 

report on progress in this area. 

34. Conservation of hawksbill turtle 

(Doc. 34). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose. The CITES Secretariat 

has raised partial funding for a meeting 

of the wider Caribbean region on 

hawksbill conservation and 

management, as directed under Decision 

12.46. However, full funding is not 

available for such a meeting, and there 

is currently no proposal to amend the 

Appendices or to take other actions with 

regard to this species at COP13. The 

United States suggests that the funding 

raised for the Caribbean hawksbill 

meeting could be redirected to support 

monitoring activities agreed to by the 

Parties at COP12 and to promote 

cooperation among CITES and other 

relevant bodies and multilateral 

agreements in the absence of such a 

regional meeting. 

35. Conservation and management of 

sharks (Doc. 35). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Undecided. Under 

Decision 12.47, the Chairman of the 

Animals Committee is to maintain a 

liaison with the Secretary of the 

Committee on Fisheries of the FAO to 

monitor progress in implementation of 

the International Plan of Action for the 

Conservation and Management of 

Sharks. This may be covered in the 

Report of the Chairman of the Animals 

Committee (Doc. 9.1.1), which was not 

available by July 1, 2004. There was also 

no separate document posted under this 

agenda item by July 1, 2004. 

58192 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 

36. Conservation of and trade in 

Dissostichus species (Doc. 36). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support. This 

document represents the Secretariat’s 

report on work performed under three 

decisions agreed on at COP12 pertaining 

to toothfish. Decision 12.57 asked 

Parties to report to the Secretariat on 

their use of CCAMLR Dissostichus Catch 

Documents. Information was received 

from 10 Parties, including the United 

States, and is summarized in this 

document. Copies of the full 

submissions were transmitted to 

CCAMLR, as recommended in Decision 

12.58, and the Secretariat attended 

CCAMLR’s 22nd Commission meeting, 

as called for in Decision 12.59, to 

promote cooperation between the two 

organizations. The Secretariat considers 

that its obligations under these 

decisions have been met, but 

recommends that information exchange 

and cooperation between CITES and 

CCAMLR should continue under 

Resolutions Conf. 12.4. The United 

States agrees that the Secretariat has 

fulfilled its obligations under Decisions 

12.57–12.59 and supports ongoing 

cooperation and information exchange 

between CITES and CCAMLR. 

37. Sea cucumbers:

37.1 Trade in sea cucumbers in the 

families Holothuriidae and 

Stichopodidae (Doc. 37.1; Animals 

Committee). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided. Under Decision 

12.60, the Animals Committee was 

directed to prepare a discussion paper 

on the biological and trade status of sea 

cucumbers to provide guidance on 

actions needed for their conservation. 

This paper should be a reflection of 

recommendations resulting from a 

workshop on sea cucumber trade and 

conservation convened by the 

Secretariat in February 2004 in 

Malaysia. 

37.2 Implementation of Decision 

12.60 (Doc. 37.2; Ecuador). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support. 

Decision 12.60 directed the Animals 

Committee to prepare a discussion 

document on the trade and conservation 

of sea cucumbers for COP13. Ecuador’s 

paper notes that the Committee was 

unable to meet the required deadlines 

and proposes to extend the work until 

COP14. The United States proposed this 

work on sea cucumbers at COP12, and 

is therefore eager to see a meaningful 

output from the Animals Committee. 

38. Trade in stony corals (Doc. 38). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Oppose. This document was prepared 

by the Animals Committee and should 

be considered along with Prop. 36 on 

the amended annotation for fossil 

corals. The document proposes specific 

deletions from Resolution Conf. 12.3 to 

make it consistent with a proposed 

annotation that exempts several types of 

coral rock from the provisions of CITES. 

For reasons described below under 

Prop. 36, we have serious concerns 

about the Animals Committee’s 

approach to fossil corals. 

39. Conservation of bigleaf 

mahogany: report of the Working Group 

(Doc. 39). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. The second meeting 

of the Bigleaf Mahogany Working Group 

(BMWG) was held October 6–8, 2003, in 

Belem, Brazil. The recommendations 

from this meeting were circulated at 

PC14 (February 2004). The Plants 

Committee prioritized the 

recommendations and developed a list 

of the five most urgent ones. The 

Secretariat then forwarded these five 

priority recommendations to the BMWG 

so that they could be considered in the 

report to COP13. However, in the report 

it submitted to COP13 (Annex to CoP13 

Doc. 39), the BMWG included the same 

long list of recommendations that were 

circulated at PC14, and did not take into 

consideration the priority list developed 

by the Plants Committee. In Document 

CoP13 Doc. 39, the Secretariat 

recommends that the Parties take note of 

the report of the BMWG and turn the 

five priority actions recommended by 

the Plants Committee into decisions 

directed to range countries. The 

Secretariat also recommends that the 

BMWG not continue after COP13 and 

that, if the Parties determine that bigleaf 

mahogany still requires special attention 

after COP13, such attention should be 

given under the auspices of the Plants 

Committee. 

The United States tentatively supports 

the recommendation of the Secretariat 

that the Parties adopt the five priority 

actions recommended by the Plants 

Committee as decisions directed to 

range countries. The United States 

believes that special attention should 

still be given to bigleaf mahogany after 

COP13, but tentatively supports the 

Secretariat’s recommendation that the 

BMWG not continue after COP13 but 

that activities be undertaken under the 

auspices of the Plants Committee. 

40. Evaluation of the Review of 

Significant Trade (Doc. 40). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support. This 

document presents the terms of 

reference developed by the Animals and 

Plants Committees for evaluating the 

process for the Review of Significant 

Trade. The purpose of this evaluation is 

to assess the efficacy of the Significant 

Trade Review process and make 

possible recommendations for its 

improvement. The United States has 

been actively involved in the 

development of terms of reference for 

this review, both as a member of a joint 

working group of the Animals and 

Plants Committees, and through 

discussions as an observer at meetings 

of the two committees. The United 

States believes an evaluation of the 

process will assist the Parties and the 

two scientific committees to ensure that 

the Review of Significant Trade is 

effective in improving the 

implementation of the Convention for 

Appendix II species traded in 

significant quantities. 

Trade Control and Marking Issues 

42. Commercial trade in Appendix I 

species (Doc. 42; Israel). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose with 

exception. The United States supports 

the principle behind this document and 

appreciates Israel’s efforts on this issue. 

Israel proposes amending Resolution 

Conf. 5.10 to clarify that when making 

a determination of whether an import is 

for ‘‘primarily commercial purposes,’’

an importing Party should take into 

account the nature of the transaction 

between the exporter and the importer 

to ensure that a commercial transaction 

does not underlie the transfer of 

Appendix I specimens. The United 

States agrees that there appears to be a 

loop-hole in implementation of this 

resolution, and that some Appendix I 

specimens are being transferred for 

commercial purposes. This is contrary 

to the fundamental principles of Article 

II of the Convention that trade in 

Appendix I specimens ‘‘* * * must 

only be authorized in exceptional 

circumstances.’’ To close the apparent 

loop-hole, we encourage Parties to agree 

to a broader interpretation of ‘‘to be 

used’’ for primarily commercial 

purposes in Article III, paragraphs 3(c) 

and 5(c), whereby the importing Party 

would look at both the intended use in 

the importing country and the nature of 

the transaction between the exporter 

and importer. However, we believe that 

many transfers have some commercial 

aspects, which does not automatically 

mean the import is for primarily 

commercial purposes. Thus, we believe 

that the importing Party in making its 

determination should ensure that the 

commercial transaction is not the 

primary purpose of the transfer, rather 

than ‘‘ensure that a commercial 

transaction does not underlie the 

transfer’’ as proposed by Israel. 

43. Management of annual export 

quotas (Doc. 43). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. At 

COP12, the United States submitted the 

document that provided the basis for the 

formation of the Export Quota Working 

Group (EQWG). While we are 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 58193

disappointed that further progress on 

this issue has not been achieved since 

COP12, the United States supports the 

approach outlined by the Secretariat 

and approved by the Standing 

Committee. The United States will 

remain engaged in this important 

process because export quotas for 

Appendix II species constitute one of 

the primary controls on the trade in 

Appendix II specimens under CITES, 

and the management and 

implementation of such quotas needs to 

be more consistent. 

44. Use of CITES certificates with 

ATA or TIR carnets (Doc. 44). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support with 

exception. The United States supports 

this proposal, if it is amended to clarify 

that the official who is responsible for 

validating CITES documents would 

need to be the official to enter the carnet 

number on the CITES document at the 

first point of exit. The proposal would 

provide the appropriate level of 

monitoring of trade for CITES-listed 

sample collections that are being 

exhibited at trade shows in a number of 

countries before returning home. The 

first exporting country retains the 

responsibility of ensuring that 

specimens are legal and the trade is not 

detrimental, while cross-border 

movement of sample collections is 

facilitated by the CITES document being 

accompanied by an ATA carnet.

45. Electronic permitting systems for 

CITES specimens (Doc. 45; Ireland). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Oppose. Ireland, on behalf of the 

Member States of the European 

Community, has submitted a proposed 

decision for the Secretariat to establish 

guidelines for an electronic permitting 

system for the Parties. This system 

would eventually create a paper-less 

permitting system that would allow 

Parties to use IT technology for the 

submission of applications, issuance of 

documents, clearance at the port of 

entry and reporting for all CITES 

specimens. At SC50, the Working Group 

on Reporting Requirements 

recommended that the Standing 

Committee address this issue in its 

report to COP13 and instruct the 

Secretariat, in consultation with UNEP–

WCMC and interested Parties, to 

develop and test software and ‘‘internetbased modules’’ for permit issuance and 

reporting. The United States welcomes 

discussion of this issue at COP13, but 

believes that the majority of 

recommendations in the document are 

premature. We believe that the Standing 

Committee should continue to work on 

this issue and that a Resolution on this 

issue is not appropriate at this time. 

46. Retrospective issuance of 

permits (Doc. 46; Ireland). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. 

Ireland, on behalf of the Member States 

of the European Community, has 

submitted a proposal to amend section 

XIII of Resolution Conf. 12.3 to expand 

the language concerning when a 

retrospectively issued permit or 

certificate could be accepted by Parties, 

giving greater leniency in accepting 

such documents for non-commercial 

shipments. The United States believes 

that the current language in section XIII 

fully addresses this issue and does not 

need to be expanded. 

50. Plant specimens subject to 

exemptions (Doc. 50; Switzerland). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. Several exemptions allow 

international trade in live plant 

specimens without CITES permits until 

circumstances change and the plants no 

longer qualify for the exemption. For 

example, a plant grown from an exempt 

flasked seedling or tissue culture 

requires a CITES export permit to be 

traded internationally. The United 

States supports this proposal, which 

would help Parties use consistent 

information on CITES permits and, thus, 

help in the analysis of trade data. 

53. Revision of Resolution Conf. 

9.10 (Rev.) on Disposal of illegally 

traded, confiscated and accumulated 

specimens (Doc. 53; Kenya). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support. The 

United States supports the proposal to 

replace language from Resolution Conf. 

9.10 that was omitted during the 

consolidation process. The United 

States does not object to the addition of 

language on disposal of Appendix III 

specimens and agrees that Parties have 

the right to not sell confiscated dead 

Appendix II and III specimens. 

54. Identification Manual (Doc. 54). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. This document is a report from 

the Secretariat on progress in the 

development of identification materials 

for listed species. 

Exemptions and Special Trade 

Provisions 

55. Personal and household effects. 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position on 

Agenda Items 55.1, 55.2, and 55.3:

Support with the exceptions noted 

below. The United States supports 

China’s proposal to have the Secretariat 

maintain a list by country of specific 

specimens that require an export permit 

when traded as personal or household 

effects. Importing Parties would 

generally assume that an export permit 

is not required if the exporting Party 

had not notified the Secretariat of a 

requirement. Under the Lacey Act, 

however, the United States would 

require an export permit if the Party 

requires an export permit, even if that 

Party had not notified the Secretariat of 

the requirement. The United States also 

supports Ireland’s and Australia’s 

proposals to add specimens of certain 

coral, shells of giant clam, and seahorse 

to the current list of Appendix II species 

that do not require CITES permits for 

personal effects when the quantities do 

not exceed a specified number. We 

believe that the coral exemption needs 

to be discussed to clarify if it includes 

manufactured products. Both lists could 

assist enforcement personnel and help 

facilitate trade in personal and 

household effects when such trade is 

not of conservation concern. However, 

the United States hopes that over time 

the list of specimens does not become 

so long as to create a burden to 

enforcement personnel. 

56. Operations that breed Appendix 

I species in captivity for commercial 

purposes: 

56.1 Evaluation of the process for 

registration (Doc. 56.1). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. This 

document presents the conclusions and 

recommendations derived from a review 

of problems the Parties have 

experienced in implementing the 

registration procedures contained in 

Resolution Conf. 12.10 for commercial 

captive-breeding operations for 

Appendix I species. The United States 

agrees with the Animals Committee that 

it is too soon to recommend changes to 

Resolution Conf. 12.10, since this 

resolution has been revised at both 

COP11 and COP12. However, the 

United States also agrees that the 

Standing Committee should examine 

the issue of trade in Appendix I species 

from non-registered commercial 

breeding operations.

The United States notes that the 

consultation process contained in the 

current resolution has been valuable in 

precluding registration of operations—

and preventing trade from them—when 

they were determined not to be 

producing specimens that meet the 

CITES definition of ‘‘bred in captivity.’’

56.3 Relationship between ex situ

breeding and in situ conservation: 

56.3.1 Report of the Animals 

Committee (Doc. 56.3.1). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose. The 

Animals Committee has spent 

considerable time and effort on the 

evaluation of the relationship between 

ex situ captive-breeding operations for 

Appendix I species and conservation of 

these species in situ. The United States 

concurs that further deliberation on this 

issue within the Animals Committee 

could be time-consuming, with 

58194 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 

potentially no clear outcome. We agree 

that this issue is linked to other topics, 

such as the relationship between CITES 

and the Convention on Biological 

Diversity, but is not strictly related to 

implementation of the Convention. The 

United States believes the 

recommendations contained in the 

document from Mexico (Doc. 56.3.2) 

provide reasonable guidance to the 

Parties on this issue and should 

preclude the need for further 

deliberations on this topic. As an 

alternative, the United States would 

advocate that the Parties focus more 

broadly on measures that reduce trade 

threats to Appendix I species and 

encourage their conservation, with a 

goal of eventual downlisting or even 

delisting from the Appendices. 

56.3.2 Relationship between 

commercial ex situ breeding operations 

and in situ conservation of Appendix I 

species (Doc. 56.3.2; Mexico). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support. The 

United States has had a longstanding 

interest in issues related to the captive 

breeding of Appendix I animals. We are 

supportive of efforts to consider how 

conservation of these species in the wild 

can be encouraged, including through 

voluntary partnerships between range 

countries and captive-breeding 

operations in non-range countries. 

Amendment of the Appendices 

57. Criteria for amendments of 

Appendices I and II (Doc. 57). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support 

although the document was not 

available for review. The United States 

was an active participant in the process 

to review and revise the existing 

criteria, having served as chairman or 

co-chairman of the listing criteria 

working groups at PC13 (Geneva, 

August 2003), AC19 (Geneva, August 

2003), and AC20 (Johannesburg, MarchApril 2004). Thus, we can anticipate the 

content of the document. The document 

will reflect a comprehensive evaluation 

of the applicability of the criteria to a 

wide range of taxa, which has served as 

a basis for recommendations to revise 

Resolution Conf. 9.24. 

58. Annotations for medicinal plants 

in the Appendices (Doc. 58). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support. This 

document is a report on the Plants 

Committee’s review of medicinal plant 

annotations to harmonize the terms 

used, so that they accurately refer to the 

parts and derivatives included in a 

listing and are consistently used across 

species. The United States has been 

actively involved in the Plants 

Committee’s review and supports the 

continuation of this work to its 

completion. 

59. Standard nomenclature: 

59.1 Standard nomenclature for 

birds (Doc. 59.1; Mexico). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. Since 

COP12, at meetings of the Animals 

Committee, Mexico has raised concerns 

about the standard reference, Handbook 

of the Birds of the World (del Hoyo et 

al., eds., 1997, 1999) adopted at COP12 

for Psittaciformes (parrots and their 

relatives) and Trochilidae 

(hummingbirds). Mexico has raised 

questions about the scientific rigor 

behind the taxonomy presented in the 

new reference, noting that it has also 

complicated the listing of the yellowheaded amazon parrot (Amazona 

ochrocephala) and its subspecies. 

Mexico recommends that the Parties 

should return to using the reference by 

Sibley and Monroe (1990) as the 

standard reference for taxonomy and 

nomenclature for all birds. The United 

States believes that Mexico’s 

recommendation has merit, to reduce 

confusion (i.e., by maintaining a single 

taxonomic reference for birds) and to be 

conservative with regard to the use of 

taxonomy that has had longstanding 

application in CITES. 

59.2 Recognition of Chamaeleo 

excubitor as a separate species (Doc. 

59.2; Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. Kenya has provided 

documentation and a rationale for 

treating this taxon as a separate and 

distinct taxon from C. fischeri, with 

which it is currently treated as a 

synonym. Kenya asks that this be 

considered by the Nomenclature 

Committee to assist in the regulation 

and monitoring of trade in this species. 

We agree that it is entirely appropriate 

for the Nomenclature Committee to 

evaluate the situation and provide a 

recommendation on whether or not to 

separate these two species of chameleon 

in the CITES checklist.

60. Proposals to amend Appendices 

I and II (Doc. 60). 

Prop. 1. Exempt from the provisions 

of the Convention in vitro cultivated 

DNA, cells or cell lines, urine and feces, 

medicines and other pharmaceutical 

products, and fossils (Ireland). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The 

proposal stipulates that the exempted 

DNA, cells or cell lines, and medicines 

and pharmaceutical products would not 

contain any part of the original 

organism from which it was derived. 

This proposal is similar to the next 

proposal (Prop. 2), but includes 

additional types of specimens to be 

exempted, which were not included in 

the recommendations of the Standing 

Committee working group. Furthermore, 

we have consulted with U.S. geneticists 

about the terminology used in this 

proposal and have concluded that the 

term ‘‘in vitro cultivated DNA’’ is not 

widely used in the scientific 

community, but that ‘‘synthetic DNA,’’

‘‘amplified DNA,’’ or ‘‘replicated DNA’’

would be preferable. The United States 

also advocates the development of a 

clear definition of ‘‘fossil’’ so that, if this 

proposal is adopted, implementation 

problems can be avoided and so that the 

term is not interpreted so broadly as to 

be potentially detrimental to listed 

species. 

Prop. 2. Exempt from the provisions 

of the Convention in vitro cultivated 

DNA, urine and feces, synthetically 

produced medicines and other 

pharmaceutical products, and fossils 

(Switzerland as the Depositary 

Government, at the request of the 

Standing Committee). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support with 

exception. A similar proposal was 

submitted to COP12, but was withdrawn 

for technical reasons. This proposal 

stipulates that the exempted DNA as 

well as medicines and pharmaceutical 

products would not contain any part of 

the original organism from which it was 

derived. The proposal reflects the 

outcome of deliberations of a working 

group, established by the Standing 

Committee, in which the United States 

participated. The United States already 

exempts synthetic DNA, feces, and 

urine from CITES requirements. As with 

the previous proposal, we have 

concerns regarding the term ‘‘in vitro

cultivated DNA’’ and ‘‘fossil’’ (see Prop. 

1 above). 

Prop. 3. Transfer the Irrawaddy 

dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) from 

Appendix II to Appendix I (Thailand). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Undecided. The Irrawaddy dolphin is 

widely distributed through bays and 

some rivers from Australia to the 

Philippines and into eastern India. The 

Standing Sub-Committee on Small 

Cetaceans of the Scientific Committee of 

the International Whaling Commission 

recently reviewed the status of this 

species and reported that densities 

appear to be low in most areas and 

several populations are believed to be 

seriously depleted. The Sub-Committee 

expressed concern about reports of live 

capture from small populations of the 

species. Incidental take in fisheries and 

habitat degradation are also causes of 

concern. The proposal does not provide 

much information about the current 

extent of trade in these dolphins, or why 

a ban on international commercial trade 

would help conserve the species (which 

is protected in most range States). We 

will continue to investigate the 

information in the proposal and from 

other sources, with a view toward 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 58195

understanding the current level of 

illegal trade and the vulnerability of the 

species to extinction in the near term. 

Prop. 4. Transfer from Appendix I to 

Appendix II the Okhotsk Sea—West 

Pacific stock, the Northeast Atlantic 

stock, and the North Atlantic Central 

stock of the northern minke whale 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) (Japan). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Oppose. As with past proposals to 

downlist whales under CITES, the 

United States opposes this proposal 

because of the need for IWC–CITES 

coordination (as repeatedly expressed in 

CITES Resolutions), the lack of an 

international management regime under 

the International Convention for the 

Regulation of Whaling, the lack of 

international consensus on tracking 

whale products with DNA registers, and 

the stipulations of the CITES 

downlisting criteria. 

Prop. 6. Transfer all Appendix I 

populations of lion (Panthera leo) to 

Appendix I (Kenya). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose. The 

African populations of the species are 

proposed for inclusion in Appendix I 

(the Asian subspecies, P.l. persica, is 

already listed in Appendix I) on the 

basis that all are declining, and those of 

West and Central Africa are fragmented, 

small, and isolated. Although African 

lions have experienced declines due to 

a number of factors, these are primarily 

related to loss of habitat, reductions in 

prey populations, and killing of lions as 

‘‘problem animals.’’ International trade 

in lion specimens, primarily hunting 

trophies, is limited, but has the 

potential to exacerbate population 

declines if not managed at sustainable 

levels. We believe that listing of the 

species in Appendix I may be 

premature, and a more appropriate 

action would be to include the species 

in the Significant Trade Review of the 

Animals Committee, to review the basis 

for current trade levels, particularly 

since the proponent has indicated that 

hunting quotas could be considered 

even if the species were to be placed in 

Appendix I. 

Prop. 7. Amendment of the annotation 

regarding the Namibian population of 

African elephant (Loxodonta africana), 

listed in Appendix II, to allow an 

annual export quota of raw ivory, trade 

in worked ivory for commercial 

purposes, and trade in leather and hair 

goods for commercial purposes 

(Namibia). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose with exception. This 

and other elephant issues will be 

discussed at an African Elephant Range 

States Dialogue meeting just prior to 

COP13, and the United States intends to 

await the outcome of deliberations by 

the range countries. However, we 

particularly note that no determination 

has yet been made as to whether 

conditions have been met for the one-off 

sale of ivory from Namibia approved by 

the Conference of the Parties at COP12, 

so the consideration of additional ivory 

trade, especially a sustained annual 

quota, may be premature. The available 

information suggests that trade in 

elephant leather and hair products are 

not linked to poaching, and as such the 

U.S. has supported such trade in the 

past. 

Prop. 8. Amendment of the annotation 

regarding the South African population 

of African elephant (Loxodonta 

africana), listed in Appendix II, to allow 

trade in leather goods for commercial 

purposes (South Africa). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. At 

COP12, the proposal by South Africa 

with regard to its elephant population 

(COP12 Prop. 8) was to allow, among 

other things, commercial trade in 

leather goods. During debate on the 

proposal and subsequent amendments, 

this was inadvertently modified to refer 

to non-commercial trade in leather 

goods, which was adopted. South Africa 

has submitted the current proposal to 

reflect their original intent. This and 

other elephant issues will be discussed 

at an African Elephant Range States 

Dialogue meeting just prior to COP13. 

The United States intends to await the 

outcome of deliberations by the range 

countries and may adjust its final 

position on this proposal based on the 

outcome of that meeting.

Prop. 9. Transfer of the Southern 

white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum 

simum) population of Swaziland from 

Appendix I to Appendix II for the 

exclusive purpose of allowing trade in 

live animals and hunting trophies 

(Swaziland). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. We understand that 

Swaziland has only two small but stable 

or increasing populations of this species 

(a total of approximately 60 animals in 

2003) in protected areas constituting a 

small proportion of the country’s land 

area. However, the Southern white 

rhinos in Swaziland are considered to 

be part of the South African 

metapopulation of this subspecies 

(Swaziland previously having been part 

of South Africa, with the majority of its 

current border contiguous with South 

Africa). Because the South African 

population of this subspecies has 

already been downlisted to Appendix II, 

it makes biological sense to also transfer 

Swaziland’s population to Appendix II. 

We note that the purpose of this 

proposal is to allow only limited trade 

in live animals and trophies, much of 

which would be allowed even if the 

species were to be retained in Appendix 

I, and is therefore precautionary. 

Prop. 11. Transfer of the lesser 

sulphur-crested cockatoo (Cacatua 

sulphurea) from Appendix II to 

Appendix I (Indonesia). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. This 

species has long been a focus of 

international concern. The species is 

considered Critically Endangered by 

IUCN, and both Germany and the 

United States have considered 

submitting proposals for previous COPs 

to include this species in Appendix I. 

Illegal trade in the species continues to 

be a problem, and wild-caught birds 

may be traded as captive-bred 

specimens once they leave Indonesia. 

The species qualifies for Appendix I 

based on its biological status and the 

continued threat from trade. 

Prop. 13. Transfer of Finsch’s amazon 

parrot (Amazona finschi) from 

Appendix II to Appendix I (Mexico). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. This species has experienced 

significant declines in Mexico, where it 

is an endemic species. This is a species 

that has been historically smuggled into 

the United States in significant 

numbers, and illegal shipments have 

also been seized elsewhere. Recent 

studies in Mexico indicate that the 

species cannot currently sustain harvest 

for commercial trade. The United States 

previously considered proposing this 

species for inclusion in Appendix I, but 

deferred to Mexico to take appropriate 

action. 

Prop. 15. Transfer of the spider 

tortoise (Pyxis arachnoides) from 

Appendix II to Appendix I 

(Madagascar). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose. This species is 

endemic to Madagascar and has been 

subject to increased demand for legal 

and illegal trade in recent years. 

Deterioration and loss of habitat are 

potential threats to this species, but 

actual relationship of these factors to the 

status of the species is not well 

documented in the proposal. The 

population is estimated at over 10,000 

individuals, but the area of distribution 

and extent of population fragmentation 

is currently unknown and under 

discussion. At least through 2000–2001, 

trade in the species was not well 

regulated, and seizures of the species 

and anecdotal information point to 

ongoing illegal trade. Due to the 

country-wide review of trade in CITESlisted species, exports of this species 

from Madagascar may be better managed 

and regulated than in the past. Because 

of improvements in trade controls by 

the range country, combined with the 

lack of information to indicate an 

imminent threat to the species, it is 

58196 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 

difficult to conclude that this species 

currently qualifies for Appendix I 

listing. 

Prop. 17. Include the Malayan snaileating turtle (Malayemys subtrijuga) in 

Appendix II (Indonesia). This proposal 

is the same as Prop. 16. Due to wording 

discrepancies, the Secretariat 

considered this to be a separate proposal 

from Indonesia, whereas Indonesia had 

indicated to us that they had submitted 

a letter indicating their intent to cosponsor the U.S. proposal. No actual 

proposal, other than the letter, was 

submitted by Indonesia. 

Prop. 19. Include the Malayan flatshelled turtle (Notochelys platynota) in 

Appendix I (Indonesia). This proposal is 

the same as Prop. 18. See discussion in 

Prop. 17, above. 

Prop. 22. Include the Fly River turtle 

(Carettochelys insculpta) in Appendix II 

(Indonesia). This proposal is the same as 

Prop. 21. See discussion in Prop. 17, 

above. 

Prop. 24. Transfer of the Cuban 

population of the American crocodile 

(Crocodylus acutus) from Appendix I to 

Appendix II under the ranching 

provisions of Resolution Conf. 11.16 

(Cuba). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. Based on 10 years of 

monitoring, as well as other information 

demonstrating general compliance with 

the ranching resolution, the population 

appears to qualify for downlisting as 

proposed. The proposal is endorsed by 

the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group. 

We note that under the United States 

Endangered Species Act, the American 

crocodile is listed as endangered. The 

historic practice under our stricter 

domestic measure is that the necessary 

findings to allow commercial imports 

into the United States have not been 

made, and pending any change in 

practice, the United States would not 

allow imports of skins or products 

originating from ranched populations.

Prop. 25. Transfer of the Namibian 

population of Nile crocodile 

(Crocodylus niloticus) from Appendix I 

to Appendix II (Namibia). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support with 

exceptions. The population of this 

species in Namibia is limited in 

distribution, because of the arid 

conditions in most of the country, but 

where it occurs the population is 

considered to be stable or increasing 

and not subject to significant harvest 

pressures or other factors. The proposed 

downlisting is purported to be primarily 

to allow trade in hunting trophies, with 

no other planned exports. The Namibian 

population of this species may be 

considered part of the metapopulation 

of neighboring countries, and their 

populations are already listed in 

Appendix II. However, there are 

concerns that Namibia has not provided 

actual population information in the 

proposal, and the IUCN Crocodile 

Specialist Group has not provided an 

opinion on the proposal. Both of these 

may be forthcoming before or at the 

COP. 

Prop. 26. Maintenance of the Zambian 

population of Nile crocodile 

(Crocodylus niloticus) in Appendix II, 

with an annual quota of 548 wild 

specimens (Zambia). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. It is the 

U.S. interpretation of Resolution Conf. 

11.16 that such a proposal from Zambia 

is not necessary, but only that they 

should consult with the Secretariat 

when they modify exports of wild-origin 

specimens from levels established in 

their original ranching proposal adopted 

by the Parties. It can be expected that, 

if a ranching program is successful and 

results in the improved status of the 

ranched population, a higher level of 

sustainable harvest may ultimately be 

achieved. It is known that one 

population, that of the Luangwa River, 

increased by 63% between 1996 and 

2003. 

Prop. 27. Include all species of leaftailed geckos (Uroplatus spp.) in 

Appendix II (Madagascar). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support. The 

proposal is to list U. alluaudi due to its 

restricted range and rarity, and the 

remaining species as look-alikes. U.S. 

trade data show that thousands have 

been imported in recent years. We also 

note that these species continue to be 

the subject of articles in reptile hobbyist 

magazines, which promote keeping 

them and state that they are available as 

wild-collected specimens. 

Prop. 28. Include all species of leafnosed snakes (Langaha spp.) in 

Appendix II (Madagascar). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The 

proponent states that these species 

should be included in the Appendices 

as a precautionary measure, due to their 

rarity. Although two of the species (L. 

alluaudi and L. pseudoalluaudi) have 

restricted distributions and all species 

are found infrequently, the proponent 

clearly states and documents that trade 

in the species is very limited. None of 

the species is listed by the IUCN (2004). 

Given that this proposal lacks any 

scientific information on population 

status or trends, and that there is no 

evidence of a substantial number of 

specimens in legal or illegal trade, an 

Appendix III listing would be more 

appropriate if Madagascar wishes to 

regulate and monitor trade in this 

endemic species. 

Prop. 29. Include a tree snake 

(Lycodryas [= Stenophis] citrinus) in 

Appendix II (Madagascar). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. 

Although L. citrinus appears to be 

restricted to two national parks and 

nearby areas, the proposal states that ‘‘in 

the wild, the animal is rather plentiful 

locally.’’ Furthermore, the proponent 

clearly states and documents that trade 

in the species is very limited (4 

exported in 2001, 15 in 2002, and 0 in 

2003). The species is not listed by IUCN 

(2004). Given that this proposal lacks 

any scientific information to indicate 

that the species is significantly affected 

by trade, an Appendix III listing would 

be more appropriate if Madagascar 

wishes to regulate and monitor trade 

this endemic species. 

Prop. 30. Include the Mt. Kenya bush 

viper (Atheris desaixi) in Appendix II 

(Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose. This species is only 

found in Kenya. Despite a lack of any 

population surveys or monitoring, 

Kenya assumes the population is in 

decline due to habitat loss and 

increased removal of specimens for 

trade. The species is protected under 

Kenyan law. There has been illegal trade 

in the species, as evidenced by a 

confiscation of 27 specimens destined 

for the United States between 1999 and 

2000. Although there are no data on the 

number of specimens in the global 

captive population, the proponent states 

that the number is presumed to be 

significant. This species is not listed by 

IUCN (2004). Given that this proposal 

lacks any scientific population status 

information and that there is no 

evidence of a substantial number of 

specimens in legal or illegal trade, an 

Appendix III listing would be more 

appropriate if Kenya wishes to regulate 

and monitor trade in this endemic 

species. 

Prop. 31. Inclusion of Kenya horned 

viper (Bitis worthingtoni) in Appendix II 

(Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose. This species is 

endemic to Kenya. Despite the lack of 

any population surveys or monitoring, 

Kenya assumes the population is in 

decline due to habitat loss and 

increased removal of specimens for 

trade. The species is protected under 

Kenyan law. There has been illegal trade 

in the species, as evidenced by a 

confiscation of 37 specimens destined 

for the United States between 1999 and 

2000. Germany reported 19 specimens 

illegally imported between May and 

October 1999. Although there are no 

data on the number of specimens in the 

global captive population, the 

proponent states that the number is 

presumed to be significant. This species 

is not listed by IUCN (2004). Given that 

this proposal lacks any scientific 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 58197

population status information, and that 

there is no evidence of a large amount 

of specimens in legal or illegal trade, an 

Appendix III listing would be more 

appropriate if Kenya wishes to regulate 

and monitor trade in this endemic 

species.

Prop. 32. Inclusion of the great white 

shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in 

Appendix II with a zero quota 

(Australia, Madagascar). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support with 

exception. Australia and the United 

States unsuccessfully proposed this 

species for listing in Appendix I at 

COP11. In March 2004, the CITES 

Animals Committee evaluated an 

Australian proposal to list white sharks 

in Appendix I and determined that the 

species appeared to qualify for 

Appendix II. The current proposal 

provides substantial information about 

the species’ decline in various parts of 

its range, and presents some compelling 

reasons to list the species in Appendix 

II. We are concerned that the zero quota 

contained in the proposal is more 

restrictive than an Appendix I listing 

and would bar any international 

movement in scientific research samples 

or other non-commercial, nondetrimental trade. We note that the 

Fisheries Department of the FAO 

convened a panel of fisheries experts in 

July 2004, in part to review this 

proposal. The panel could not ascertain 

the global status for the species, but 

indicated that some regional and 

national populations appeared 

threatened by unsustainable catches in 

recent years. Catches in other regions 

appeared sustainable, while the status of 

some populations remained uncertain. 

Given these results, the expected 

continued demand for white shark 

products, the species’ vulnerability to 

overexploitation, and the international 

scope of trade in its parts, we support 

the adoption of the proposal with some 

modification to its zero quota. 

Prop. 34. Deletion of the annotation 

‘‘sensu D’Abrera’’ from the listings of 

Ornithoptera spp., Trogonoptera spp., 

and Troides spp. in Appendix II 

(Switzerland as Depositary Government, 

at the request of the Nomenclature 

Committee). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. This deletion would 

serve to bring this listing in line with 

the rules adopted by the Nomenclature 

Committee (i.e., that the choice of 

nomenclatural standard is not part of 

the listing process, but is a decision 

made by the Nomenclature Committee) 

and would not affect the status of the 

listed butterflies. More information on 

this will be presented by the 

Nomenclature Committee, as part of its 

report, which is not yet available. 

Prop. 35. Inclusion of the European 

date mussel (Lithophaga lithophaga) in 

Appendix II (Italy, Slovenia, on behalf 

of the Member States of the European 

Community). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. Listing in Appendix 

II is proposed to help regulate 

international trade, document shifting 

international trade, prevent illegal trade, 

and promote sustainable harvest 

methods for the species that will help to 

conserve coastal limestone rock habitat. 

The proponents state that trade in the 

species is shifting from Western 

Mediterranean countries that limit or 

ban collection, utilization, and export of 

the species to northern and eastern 

European countries, where conservation 

of the species is limited. Discussions 

with the proponents indicate that illegal 

trade has increased, as evidenced by the 

confiscation of several tons of the 

species annually in Italy and Slovenia. 

Current harvest methods are considered 

unsustainable and destructive to the 

local habitat, and over-harvest is 

negatively affecting the population 

status of this late-maturing species. 

Prop. 36. Amendment of the 

annotation to Helioporidae, 

Tubiporidae, Scleractinia, Milleporidae, 

and Stylasteridae to exempt fossils, and 

specifically coral rock, except for live 

rock (Switzerland as the Depositary 

Government, at the request of the 

Animals Committee). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose. This 

proposal arose from discussions in the 

Animals Committee, which could not 

reach consensus on a scientific and 

geological definition of fossil corals. It 

instead endorsed a list of coral products 

that could be considered fossils, hoping 

to ease confusion among customs 

officers and law enforcement personnel 

about this issue. The list distinguishes 

‘‘fossil’’ from ‘‘non-fossil’’ coral rocks by 

their shipping method, size, and 

presence or absence of attached 

invertebrate organisms. The intent of 

this list is to retain ‘‘live rock’’ (as 

defined by CITES) in Appendix II while 

excluding all other coral rock specimens 

as fossils. Although we originally agreed 

with the Animals Committee proposal 

in March 2004, we have since conferred 

with our law enforcement personnel on 

this issue. These discussions have 

raised serious concerns about the 

precedent, ecological risk, and 

enforceability of the proposed 

annotation. U.S. wildlife inspectors 

indicate that many shipments of coral 

‘‘live rock’’ are already packed in ways 

that would characterize them as fossils 

and thus exempt them from CITES 

controls under the proposed definition. 

Furthermore, inspections of coral rock 

shipments could become unacceptably 

burdensome and subjective if officials 

must decide whether the brief 

descriptions in the Swiss proposal 

apply to a given shipping method or a 

given type of commodity. 

Prop. 37. Inclusion of Hoodia spp. in 

Appendix II (with an exemption for 

certain materials produced by 

proponent countries that will bear a 

label stating that export is in 

compliance with the requirements of the 

CITES Management Authority) 

(Submitted by Botswana, Namibia, 

South Africa). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose. Hoodia spp. is native 

to the proponent states, as well as 

Angola and possibly Zimbabwe. The 

proposal discusses the threat of overharvest of wild populations in light of 

the recent increased popularity of H. 

gordonii, mainly in Europe and North 

America, due to its appetite-suppressing 

qualities in dietary supplements. 

Despite legislation in the proponent 

countries to regulate the harvest and 

export of Hoodia spp., potential, 

although unquantified, illegal collection 

may threaten existing wild populations. 

Species are not clearly enumerated, nor 

are their ranges. The proposed 

exemption is problematic, and 

information from other range countries 

(i.e., Angola and Zimbabwe) is lacking. 

If the purpose of the listing is to ensure 

legal control, then an Appendix III 

listing would be more appropriate.

Prop. 38. Annotate Euphorbiaceae in 

Appendix II to exempt artificially 

propagated specimens of Euphorbia 

lactea from CITES provisions if they are 

grafted on Euphorbia neriifolia, color 

mutants, or crested-branch forming or 

fan-shaped (Thailand). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support with 

exception. Although the United States 

agrees in principle with the proposal, as 

written, we are concerned that the 

proposal does not exempt the rootstock 

of E. neriifolia from CITES controls. 

Therefore, the rootstock of the grafted 

specimens proposed for exemption 

would still be regulated as an Appendix 

II species. We are unsure whether the 

term ‘‘color mutant’’ is adequately 

descriptive, which may lead to wild 

specimens traded under the exemption 

because the species is naturally dark 

green with whitish-green bands 

(variegated) along the midrib of the 

plant. Modifications are needed to 

improve this proposal before it is 

adopted. The proponent should revise 

the proposal before the Parties take a 

decision on it. 

Prop. 39. Annotate Euphorbiaceae in 

Appendix II to exempt artificially 

propagated specimens of Euphorbia 

milii from CITES provisions if they are 

58198 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 

traded in shipments of 100 or more 

specimens and are readily recognizable 

as artificially propagated specimens 

(Thailand). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose. The proponents state 

that the proposal is to exempt 

artificially propagated ‘‘poysean’’

cultivars of Euphorbia milii. However, 

the poysean is a hybrid of Euphorbia 

milii and Euphorbia lophogona, and 

should be referred to as Euphorbia x 

lomi. Both species and hybrid are 

popular ornamental plants. The species 

are endemic to Madagascar and have 

been reported to hybridize in the wild. 

Neither species is listed in the 1997 

IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants.

However, eight forms (varieties and 

subspecies) of Euphorbia milii have 

recently been assessed by IUCN as 

Vulnerable and two as Endangered. 

We are concerned that the proponent 

did not include Euphorbia lophogona in 

the proposal, nor any information on 

trade in wild-collected specimens of 

these species and their wild forms, and 

the implications this exemption may 

have for enforcement and control of 

trade in wild specimens. Amending the 

proposal to include Euphorbia 

lophogona would expand the scope of 

this proposal. Therefore, the proponent 

should consider withdrawing the 

proposal to address these deficiencies 

and submit it to the next meeting of the 

Plants Committee for a more thorough 

review and discussion, and possible 

resubmission for consideration at 

COP14. 

Prop. 40. Annotation of Orchidaceae 

in Appendix II to exempt all hybrids 

from the provisions of the Convention 

(Thailand). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose. This proposal was 

discussed at the PC14. The United 

States and other Parties advised 

Thailand at the time that this proposal 

was overly broad, could result in 

enforcement difficulties, and was 

premature given the lack of experience 

with the more limited exemption of 

Phalaenopsis adopted at COP12. 

Prop. 41. Annotation of Orchidaceae 

in Appendix II to exempt hybrids of 

seven genera when they are in flower 

with at least one fully open flower, and 

when they are potted and labeled, and 

professionally processed for commercial 

retail sale. Exempt specimens must also 

exhibit the characteristics of artificially 

propagated plants (Switzerland). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. This proposal was discussed at 

PC14, where the Parties advised that 

such a proposal could be considered at 

COP13 if identification materials were 

provided with the proposal so that they 

would be available before the exemption 

would go into effect. The proponent has 

provided as an annex to the proposal 

extensive color images of the various 

types of hybrids that would be 

exempted. This proposal is similar to 

the original proposal submitted by the 

United States for COP12 (CoP12 Prop. 

51) and includes most of the same 

genera, but includes a further 

requirement that the plants must be in 

flower, which would aid greatly in 

identification. 

Prop. 42. Amendment of the current 

annotation of Orchidaceae in Appendix 

II so that shipments of Phalaenopsis

hybrids may qualify for an exemption to 

the provisions of the Convention when 

shipments contain a minimum of 20 

rather than 100 specimens per 

container, with the other requirements 

remaining unchanged (Switzerland as 

the Depositary Government, at the 

request of the Plants Committee). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. At PC14 the United States 

reported that an informal survey of 

orchid importing and exporting 

countries, including the United States, 

had indicated that the annotation 

adopted at COP12 to exempt 

Phalaenopsis hybrids was not being 

applied, partly because the minimum 

number of plants per container, 100, 

was too high to be practical. It was 

agreed by the Plants Committee to have 

a proposal submitted to COP13 to 

reduce this number to 20, which is still 

a sufficient number to judge uniformity 

and consistency to evaluate whether the 

plants are artificially propagated.

Prop. 43. Transfer the Christmas 

orchid (Cattleya trianei) from Appendix 

I to Appendix II (Colombia). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This 

orchid species was included in 

Appendix I in 1975; all other species of 

the genus Cattleya are listed in 

Appendix II. It is an epiphyte endemic 

to the Colombian Andes. In the late 19th 

and early 20th Centuries, the species 

was severely over-collected to near 

extinction. It is currently listed as 

Indeterminate (yet to be determined as 

Vulnerable or Endangered) in the 1997 

IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants.

The information provided in the 

proposal appears to represent 

preliminary findings on the current 

status of the species, but indicates that 

the majority of historically documented 

subpopulations have not been studied. 

The proposal to transfer the species to 

Appendix II is based on presumptions 

that the species will recover, not that it 

has recovered, and also on the fact that 

current trade consists of artificially 

propagated specimens that are well 

regulated. No recent illegal trade has 

been documented. The proposal does 

not provide sufficient information about 

the current status of the wild population 

to determine whether or not the species 

continues to meet the biological criteria 

for Appendix I, and therefore such a 

proposal seems premature. 

Prop. 44. Transfer the blue vanda 

orchid (Vanda coerulea) from Appendix 

I to Appendix II (Thailand). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This 

orchid was severely depleted in 

portions of its range due to overcollection in the past, although, the 

proponent states that most range 

countries’ populations are believed to 

have recovered and that export of wildcollected specimens is prohibited in all 

range countries by domestic legislation. 

The preferred specimens for trade in 

this species are artificially propagated 

specimens of select clones and hybrids, 

which are vastly superior in color and 

form to wild-collected specimens. This 

species is listed as Rare in the 1997 

IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants,

although currently the main threat to 

the species is forest conversion and not 

collection from the wild for 

international trade. There is still 

concern, however, that this species 

continues to be collected from the wild, 

particularly in India and Myanmar. 

Prop. 45. Annotation of Cistanche 

deserticola to include all parts and 

derivatives except seeds, spores, and 

pollen; flasked seedlings and tissue 

cultures; and cut flowers from 

artificially propagated plants (China). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. Since its inclusion in 

Appendix II at COP11, there has been 

confusion and problems with properly 

annotating the listing to ensure that the 

correct parts are regulated. This 

proposal is intended to correct this 

longstanding problem. 

Prop. 46. Transfer Dypsis decipiens

(syn. Chrysalidocarpus decipiens) from 

Appendix II to Appendix I 

(Madagascar). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. In 1995, the wild 

population of this slow-growing 

endemic palm species was estimated at 

200 individuals. Because seed was 

excluded from the 1975 Appendix II 

listing, unchecked trade in wild seed 

continues. The proponents believe that 

uplisting is necessary to save this 

species from extinction. Biologically, 

this species qualifies for inclusion in 

Appendix I, although seeds of this 

species cannot be readily distinguished 

from other palms. Still, listing in 

Appendix I may prove useful by 

requiring non-range countries to clearly 

demonstrate the origin of seed used to 

grow artificially propagated plants. This 

will be especially important if the 

recommended changes to Resolution 

Conf. 11.11 are adopted (see agenda 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 58199

item 51), since plants grown from 

exempt parts (e.g., seeds) would be 

treated as artificially propagated. An 

alternative to the current proposal 

would be to annotate the current listing 

so that seeds are included and no longer 

exempt.

Prop. 49. Inclusion of Aquilaria spp. 

and Gyrinops spp. in Appendix II 

(except A. malaccensis, which is 

already listed) (Indonesia). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. 

Immediately after listing of A. 

malaccensis Appendix II at COP9, the 

Parties recognized that several other 

genera in the family Thymelaeaceae (up 

to seven genera, all of which have 

species native to Indonesia) produce the 

resinous heartwood, known as 

agarwood, which is the commodity in 

trade. It is unclear why only two of 

these genera are included in this 

proposal and how the expansion of this 

listing (which does not propose 

including parts and derivatives) would 

improve the control of trade in 

agarwood. Trade in agarwood has been 

studied by the Plants Committee, which 

has not yet developed final 

recommendations for achieving 

sustainability in the harvest and trade of 

agarwood, or advised whether 

additional agarwood-producing species 

should be listed. Therefore, the proposal 

from Indonesia may be premature. 

Prop. 50. Inclusion of ramin 

(Gonystylus spp.) in Appendix II with 

an annotation to include all parts and 

derivatives except seeds, spores, and 

pollen; flasked seedlings and tissue 

cultures; and cut flowers from 

artificially propagated plants 

(Indonesia). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided. The genus 

Gonystylus consists of 29–40 species of 

tropical hardwoods, the vast majority of 

which are found on Borneo. All species 

have declined throughout their ranges, 

with 15 species listed as vulnerable in 

the 1997 IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Plants. Of the six species known to be 

commercially valuable, G. bancanus is 

the dominant species traded as ramin 

wood. Gonystylus bancanus occurs in 

peat-swamp, lowland freshwater 

swamp, and coastal peat-swamp forests 

of Indonesia and Malaysia. The vast 

majority of ramin in trade is from 

Indonesia (Kalimantan) with smaller 

amounts from Malaysia (Sarawak and 

Sabah). However, most of the ramin 

stocks in Indonesia and Malaysia have 

been depleted over the last 30 years. At 

COP8 and COP9, the Netherlands 

proposed Gonystylus bancanus for 

listing in Appendix II, only to withdraw 

the proposals at those meetings. In 2001, 

Indonesia included all Gonystylus

species in Appendix III with annotation 

#1 (same annotation as this proposal), 

and subsequently prohibited the export 

of all ramin logs and saw timber. In 

2002, Malaysia imposed a complete ban 

on the import of all ramin logs from 

Indonesia. Despite these measures, 

illegal logging of ramin for the 

international market still occurs in 

Indonesia and has resulted in 

deforestation in many of the country’s 

national parks. We understand that 

Indonesia and Malaysia continue to 

negotiate over this proposal and which 

parts and products might be included if 

it is adopted. We are not certain of the 

position of other range countries, 

including Malaysia, on inclusion of 

these species in Appendix II and what 

such a listing might practically 

accomplish beyond the current 

Appendix III listing by Indonesia. We 

are consulting with the range countries, 

as well as experts and other importing 

countries to clarify that range of support 

for, and the anticipated effect of, this 

proposal. 

61. Inclusion of species in Appendix 

III (Doc. 61; Switzerland, the 

Secretariat). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. In 1994, the Parties 

adopted criteria for inclusion of species 

in Appendix III in Resolution Conf. 9.25 

(Rev.), which was later amended at 

COP10. If a proposal to amend the 

Appendices I or II is adopted at COP13 

that includes an annotation to exempt 

certain types of specimens (e.g., feces), 

this document then proposes to revise 

the criteria for inclusion of species in 

Appendix III to include the same 

annotation unless otherwise noted by 

the listing Party. Additionally, this 

document calls for the repeal of 

Resolution Conf. 1.5 (Rev. COP12) since 

a species cannot be included in more 

than one Appendix. The United States 

supports the view that general 

exemptions that apply to species 

included in Appendices I and II also 

apply to species included in Appendix 

III. The United States also supports 

repealing Resolution Conf 1.5, since a 

species cannot be included in more than 

one Appendix. 

Other Themes and Issues 

62. Bushmeat: 

62.1 Bushmeat Working Group (Doc. 

62.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support the adoption of the 

draft resolution but oppose the adoption 

of the two draft decisions. This 

document reports on the progress of the 

Working Group since its establishment 

at COP11. It contains a draft resolution 

that incorporates the lessons learned to 

date and identifies issues the Group 

believes must be addressed in order to 

regulate bushmeat in a sustainable 

manner and combat illegal trade. The 

document also contains two draft 

decisions. The first draft decision 

encourages the Working Group, which it 

suggests be renamed the Central African 

Bushmeat Working Group, to continue 

its work and report to the Secretariat on 

its progress. The second draft decision 

encourages governments and other 

donors to support the implementation of 

national action/management plans and 

the development of a database of 

information on trade in bushmeat. 

Because bushmeat continues to be 

traded internationally, both regionally 

and on a larger scale, the United States 

believes that it is appropriate that the 

issue remain a focus within CITES and 

supports the adoption of the draft 

resolution. We recommend that the draft 

resolution also include a 

recommendation that the Working 

Group report to the COP as appropriate 

on its progress. We do not support the 

adoption of the first draft decision 

because we believe that the Working 

Group should retain its present name in 

order to encourage other regions facing 

similar issues to become involved in 

this work. Also, we believe that the 

reporting recommendation should be 

included in the draft resolution. We 

believe that the recommendations 

included in the second draft decision 

are more fully addressed in the draft 

decision included in document COP13 

Doc. 62.2.

62.2 Bushmeat (Doc. 62.2; Ireland). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position:

Support. Recognizing that bushmeat 

trade is largely restricted to domestic 

markets and many of the species 

involved are not listed under CITES, 

Ireland believes that more needs to be 

done to encourage other international 

organizations to provide assistance in 

regulating the trade in bushmeat. The 

draft decision contained in the 

document directs the Secretariat to 

encourage increased involvement of the 

Parties to the Convention on Biological 

Diversity (CBD), through the Secretariat 

of the CBD, and the FAO in this issue. 

It further calls on the FAO to convene 

a workshop of international 

organizations, subject to sufficient 

funding, to facilitate the development of 

an action plan to address the problems 

underlying the unsustainable trade in 

bushmeat. 

Conclusion of the Meeting 

63. Determination of the time and 

venue of the next regular meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties (No 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. The Secretariat does 

not normally circulate a document on 

the time and venue of the next COP. We 

58200 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Notices 

anticipate receiving information on this 

at COP13, at which time the United 

States will develop a negotiating 

position. The United States favors 

holding COP14 in a country where all 

Parties and observers will be admitted 

without political difficulties. 

64. Closing remarks (No document): 

Future Actions 

During our regular public briefings at 

COP13, we will discuss any changes in 

our negotiating positions. After COP13, 

we will host a public meeting to (see

ADDRESSES, Public Meeting, above) to 

announce results of COP13 and invite 

public input on whether the United 

States should take a reservation on any 

of the amendments adopted to the 

CITES Appendices. While CITES 

provides a period of 90 days from the 

close of a COP for any Party to enter a 

reservation with respect to an 

amendment to Appendices I or II, the 

United States has never entered a 

reservation on any CITES listing. As 

discussed in the Federal Register notice 

of November 17, 1987 (52 FR 43924), 

entering a reservation would do very 

little to relieve importers in the United 

States from the need for foreign export 

permits because the Lacey Act 

Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et 

seq.) make it a Federal offense to import 

into the United States any animals 

taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of foreign conservation laws. If 

the foreign nation has enacted CITES, 

and has not taken a reservation with 

regard to the species, part, or derivative, 

the United States would continue to 

require CITES documents as a condition 

of import. A reservation by the United 

States also would provide exporters in 

this country with little relief from the 

need for the U.S. export documents. 

Receiving countries that are party to 

CITES will require CITES-equivalent 

documentation from the United States 

even if it enters a reservation, because 

the Parties have agreed to allow trade 

with non-Parties (including reserving 

countries) only if they issue documents 

containing all of the information 

required in CITES permits and 

certificates.

Authority: This Federal Register notice has 

been published under the authority of the 

U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: September 17, 2004. 

Marshall P. Jones, Jr., 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–21780 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

[AZ–910–0777–XP–241A] 

State of Arizona Resource Advisory 

Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior.

ACTION: Arizona Resource Advisory 

Council Meeting notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting of the Arizona Resource 

Advisory Council (RAC). 

The business meeting will be held on 

October 27, 2004, at the Crowne Plaza 

located at 2532 W. Peoria Avenue, 

Phoenix, Arizona. It will begin at 9 a.m. 

and conclude at 4 p.m. The agenda 

items to be covered include: Review of 

the August 18, 2004, meeting minutes; 

BLM State Director’s update on 

statewide issues; new RAC member 

orientation; presentations on Mineral 

Split-Estate, Service First, and Draft 

Report to Congress on Section 321 of the 

Defense Authorization Act; and Arizona 

land use planning updates; RAC 

questions on written reports from BLM 

Field Managers; Field Office Rangeland 

Resource Team Proposals; reports by the 

Standards and Guidelines, Recreation, 

Off-Highway Vehicle Use, Public 

Relations, Land Use Planning and 

Tenure, and Wild Horse and Burro 

Working Groups; reports from RAC 

members; and discussion of future 

meetings. A public comment period will 

be provided at 11:30 a.m. on October 27, 

2004, for any interested publics who 

wish to address the Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land 

Management, Arizona State Office, 222 

North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 

85004–2203, (602) 417–9215.

Joanie Losacco, 

Acting Arizona State Director.

[FR Doc. 04–21822 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–32–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management 

[NV–930–1430–ET; Nev–045154; 4–08807] 

Public Land Order No. 7617; Partial 

Revocation of Public Land Order No. 

2307; Nevada

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior.

ACTION: Public land order.

SUMMARY: This order partially revokes 

Public Land Order No. 2307 insofar as 

it affects approximately 19 acres of land 

withdrawn for use by the Department of 

the Air Force in Nye County, Nevada. 

This order opens the land to surface 

entry, mining, mineral leasing, and 

mineral material disposals.

DATES: October 29, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy Seley, BLM Tonopah Field 

Station, P.O. Box 911, 1553 South Main, 

Tonopah, Nevada 89049, (775) 482–

7800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

21, 1961, Public Land Order No. 2307 

withdrew three parcels of land which 

included a Department of the Air Force 

radar site. The radar site is no longer 

needed and has been relinquished by 

the Air Force. 

Order 

By virtue of the authority vested in 

the Secretary of the Interior by Section 

204 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 

1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows: 

1. Public Land Order No. 2307, which 

withdrew public land for use by the 

Department of the Air Force for the 

Beatty Range Radar Site, is hereby 

revoked insofar as it affects the 

following described land:

Mount Diablo Meridian 

T. 10 S., R. 46 E., 

Sec. 9, unsurveyed. Commencing for 

reference at a point on a high peak 

whose approximate geographical 

location is latitude 37°05′ and longitude 

116°49′ thence south 466.69 feet to the 

point of beginning; thence West, 466.69 

feet; North, 933.38 feet; East, 933.38 feet; 

South, 933.38 feet; West, 466.69 feet to 

the point of beginning.

The tract described contains 

approximately 19 acres in Nye County. 

2. At 9 a.m. on October 29, 2004, the 

land described in paragraph 1, will be 

opened to the operation of the public 

land laws generally, the operation of the 

mineral leasing laws, and the mineral 

material laws, subject to valid existing 

rights, the provisions of existing 

withdrawals, other segregations of 

record, and the requirements of 

applicable law. All valid applications 

received at or prior to 9 a.m. on October 

29, 2004, shall be considered as 

simultaneously filed at that time. Those 

received thereafter shall be considered 

in the order of filing. 

3. At 9 a.m. on October 29, 2004, the 

land described in paragraph 1, will be 

opened to location and entry under the 

United States mining laws, subject to 

valid existing rights, the provisions of 

existing withdrawals, other segregations 

of record, and the requirements of 

applicable law. Appropriation of any of