70580 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies.

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guides the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. Special local 

regulations issued in conjunction with a 

regatta or marine event permit are 

specifically excluded from further 

analysis and documentation under that 

section. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h), 

of the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are not 

required for this rule. Comments on this 

section will be considered before we 

make the final decision on whether to 

categorically exclude this rule from 

further environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. In §100.518, revise the section 

heading, paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph 

(c), to read as follows:

§ 100.518 Severn River, College Creek, 

Weems Creek and Carr Creek, Annapolis, 

Maryland. 

(a)(1) Regulated area. The regulated 

area is established for the waters of the 

Severn River from shoreline to 

shoreline, bounded to the northwest by 

the route 50 fixed highway bridge and 

bounded to the southeast by a line 

drawn from the Naval Academy Light at 

latitude 38°58′39.5′′ N, longitude 

076°28′49′′ W thence to Greenbury Point 

at latitude 38°58′29′′ N, longitude 

076°27′16′′ W. All coordinates reference 

Datum NAD 1983.

* * * * *

(c) Effective period. (1) This section is 

effective during, and 30 minutes before 

each of the following annual events: 

(i) Safety at Sea Seminar, held on the 

last Saturday in March; 

(ii) Naval Academy Crew Races, held 

on the third and fourth Saturday in 

April and the third Friday in May; and 

(iii) Blue Angels Air Show, held on 

the last Tuesday and Wednesday in 

May. 

(2) The Commander, Fifth Coast 

Guard District will publish a notice in 

the Federal Register and the Fifth Coast 

Guard District Local Notice to Mariners 

announcing the specific event dates and 

times.

Dated: November 24, 2004. 

Ben R. Thomason, III, 

Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District, Acting.

[FR Doc. 04–26842 Filed 12–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List Seven Foreign Species 

of Swallowtail Butterflies as 

Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Petition finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the following seven foreign swallowtail 

butterflies under the Endangered 

Species Act: Harris’ mimic swallowtail 

(Eurytides lysithous harrisianus), the 

Jamaican kite swallowtail (Eurytides 

marcellinus), the Oaxacan swallowtail 

(Papilio esperanza), the Fluminese 

swallowtail (Parides ascanius), Hahnel’s 

Amazonian swallowtail (Parides 

hahneli), the southern tailed birdwing 

(Ornithoptera meridionalis), and the 

Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail (Teinopalpus 

imperialis). The best available 

information indicates that listing is not 

warranted for Papilio esperanza and 

Ornithoptera meridionalis. For the 

remaining five species, listing is 

warranted but precluded by higherpriority listing actions. Our rationale is 

discussed below. We request that you 

submit any new information for these 

species concerning status and threats 

whenever it becomes available. This 

information will help us monitor the 

status of these species and encourage 

their conservation.

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on November 18, 

2004. Although we are not pursuing 

further action on these species at this 

time, we will accept new information on 

these species at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, 

information, and questions by mail to 

the Chief, Division of Scientific 

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 

750, Arlington, VA 22203; or by fax to 

703–358–2276; or by e-mail to 

ScientificAuthority@fws.gov. Comments 

received will be available for public 

inspection, by appointment, Monday 

through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at 

the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of 

Scientific Authority, at the above 

address, or by telephone, 703–358–

1708; fax, 703–358–2276; or e-mail, 

ScientificAuthority@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, 

for any petition to revise the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific and commercial information, 

the Service make a finding within 12 

months of the date of receipt of the 

petition on whether the petitioned 

action is (a) not warranted, (b) 

warranted, or (c) warranted but 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70581

precluded from immediate proposal by 

other pending proposals of higher 

priority. Pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) 

of the Act, when, in response to a 

petition, we find that listing a species is 

warranted but precluded, we must make 

a new 12-month finding each year until 

we publish a proposed rule or make a 

determination that listing is not 

warranted. These subsequent 12-month 

findings are referred to as ‘‘resubmitted’’

petition findings. 

Previous Federal Action 

On January 10, 1994, the Service 

received a petition dated January 1, 

1994, from Ms. Dee E. Warenycia to list 

the seven above-mentioned species of 

swallowtail butterflies as threatened or 

endangered. As the basis for her 

petition, Ms. Warenycia cited the IUCN 

(World Conservation Union) Red Data 

Book, Threatened Swallowtail 

Butterflies of the World (Collins and 

Morris 1985), in which these species 

had been classified as Endangered, 

Vulnerable, or Rare. On May 10, 1994, 

the Service published a 90-day finding 

in the Federal Register (59 FR 24117) 

that the petition had presented 

substantial information indicating that 

the requested action may be warranted. 

In that notice, we initiated a status 

review of the seven butterflies covered 

by the petition, as well as 20 other 

butterfly taxa that were potentially of 

similar concern, and requested the 

submission of data and other 

information for preparation of a 12-

month finding. This petition finding 

only covers the seven butterfly species 

that were the subject of the original 

petition. The other 20 species are 

potential candidate species that must be 

further evaluated, but for which any 

further action is currently precluded by 

higher-priority listing actions. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In response to our request for 

information in response to the 90-day 

finding, we received 14 responses from 

private citizens and public officials, 

both from the United States and abroad. 

Commenters addressed all but two of 

the seven species by name; the 

Fluminese swallowtail and Harris’

mimic swallowtail were not specifically 

mentioned. One commenter supported 

the listing of the Jamaican kite 

swallowtail; one commenter supported 

the listing of the Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail; and the remaining 

commenters opposed the listing of all of 

the species or the listing of specific 

butterflies. Species-specific information 

is discussed under the relevant species, 

below. Three main bases for opposition 

to the listing of these species were: (1) 

The paucity of status information; (2) 

disagreement over the effects of overcollection; and (3) an assertion that such 

listings impede conservation efforts. 

These issues are discussed below. 

1. Paucity of status information:

Several commenters noted that 

information in one of the references we 

had used (Collins and Morris 1985) is 

old, outdated, or not thoroughly 

scientific, and that the paucity of 

information provides an insufficient 

basis for listing. According to several 

swallowtail butterfly experts, the best 

sources of worldwide information 

continue to be Collins and Morris (1985) 

and New and Collins (1991), both of 

which were the sole sources of 

information used for the 1996 IUCN 

species assessments (Mariano Gimenez 

Dixon, Program Officer, Species 

Survival Commission, IUCN, pers. 

comm. 2004). Indeed, as discussed in 

our August 16, 2000, Federal Register

finding (65 FR 49958), an IUCN 

designation alone does not provide 

sufficient information to address the 

factors that we must consider under 

section 4(a)(1) the Act. An extensive 

literature search has revealed that few 

recently published treatments exist for 

swallowtail butterflies. Most regional 

works were written a decade or more 

ago (e.g., Brown and Heineman 1972; 

Tyler et al. 1994). None of these seven 

species appears in the 2003 IUCN Red 

List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2003) 

because they have not been re-assessed 

against the 1997 criteria (M. Dixon, pers. 

comm. 2004). There is also currently no 

IUCN Lepidoptera Specialist Group. In 

an attempt to obtain the most current 

information for this finding, the Service 

also solicited information from each 

range country and from other domestic 

and international experts. Pursuant to 

section 4(b)(1)(A), we have evaluated 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available to make the determinations in 

this finding. 

2. Effects of over-collection: Several 

commenter disagreed that overcollection of insects has a significant 

adverse impact and noted that it is 

nearly impossible for the entirety of a 

species’ eggs, larvae, pupae, and adults 

to be collected at a given time. However, 

experts generally agree that species with 

restricted distributions are more apt to 

be affected by over-collection than those 

with wider distributions. Substantive 

information obtained from experts and 

publications on this issue has been 

incorporated into this assessment, as 

appropriate. 

3. Such listings impede conservation 

efforts: Some commenters mentioned 

that listing might call undue attention to 

these rare butterflies, would create 

unnecessary restrictions on marketing, 

would impede further research, would 

provide no substantive conservation 

benefit, and would hinder butterfly 

ranching that actually benefits 

propagation and encourages local 

measures to protect the animals and 

their habitats. While most of these 

points are not statutory factors 

considered in listing species, we 

acknowledge that any substantive 

information that demonstrates how 

these factors mitigate the status of the 

species is useful, and where substantive 

information was provided, it has been 

considered as part of the status review.

Nomenclature and Biology of the 

Species 

The seven foreign butterfly species: 

Harris’ mimic swallowtail, the Jamaican 

kite swallowtail, the Oaxacan 

swallowtail, the Fluminese swallowtail, 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail, the 

southern tailed birdwing, and the 

Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail, all of which 

are the subject of this petition, belong to 

the family Papilionidae (order 

Lepidoptera). The Papilionidae are 

generally known as swallowtail 

butterflies, or simply as swallowtails, 

and will herein be collectively referred 

to as such. Synonyms and common 

names are summarized in Table 1. 

Nomenclature follows Morris and 

Collins (1985). 

The Lepidoptera life cycle begins with 

mating. Swallowtails may brood (i.e., 

produce offspring) once, twice, or 

several times per year. All Lepidoptera 

undergo complete metamorphosis and 

exhibit four distinct life stages: Egg, 

larva (caterpillar), pupa (chrysalis), and 

adult. Swallowtails reputedly maintain 

low population numbers and experience 

sporadic rebounds. Food sources vary 

widely. Caterpillars eat plant material 

(such as leaves) and may be generalists, 

enjoying a range of plant species, or 

they may be obligate feeders, feeding 

solely on a particular species. Adults 

typically feed on flower nectar. Some 

adults do not eat at all, others obtain 

nutrients from carrion, and some prereproductive males obtain nutrients 

from riversides (known as ‘‘puddling’’). 

Swallowtails may display sexual 

dimorphism, wherein males are 

generally smaller and/or more colorful 

than females. Four of the petitioned 

species (Jamaican kite, Harris’ mimic 

swallowtail, Fluminese swallowtail, and 

Southern tailed birdwing) are not 

sexually dimorphic; one species 

(Oaxacan swallowtail) displays only 

size dimorphism; and two species 

(Kaiser-I-Hind and Southern tailed 

birdwing) are dimorphic both in color 

70582 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

and size. Similarly, larvae and adults 

may display color polymorphism, 

wherein the same species exhibits 

different color patterns. Swallowtails 

may exhibit certain behaviors to 

increase their chance of finding a mate. 

‘‘Hilltopping,’’ for instance, is a male 

behavior in which they seek out a high 

ridge or hilltop whereupon they await 

the arrival of females, which tend to 

gravitate towards these areas. 

Swallowtails are all strong flyers. Many 

species fly several kilometers a day. 

After mating, females often disperse to 

find a new location to lay eggs. Some 

species disperse farther, sometimes as a 

group. Although dispersal is sometimes 

referred to as migration, for butterflies 

this movement may not entail a return 

trip. Where available, information on 

the lifespan, population dynamics, and 

current population status of each 

species are provided in the species 

assessments below. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) and regulations 

promulgated to implement the listing 

provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth the procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists. A species 

may be determined to be endangered or 

threatened due to one or more of the 

following five factors described in 

section 4(a)(1): (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. These factors and their 

application to each of the seven species 

are discussed below. Each assessment 

begins with a species-specific status 

summary. 

Findings on Species for Which Listing Is 

Not Warranted 

Oaxacan Swallowtail (Papilio esperanza

Bautelspacher, 1975) 

The Oaxacan swallowtail is endemic 

to the remote montane cloud forest of 

Mexico’s Jua ́rez Mountains (Oaxaca 

State). Larvae feed on Magnolia 

dealbata Zucc. (common name 

unknown) (Felipe Ramı ́rez Ruiz de 

Velasco, Director General, Secretaria de 

Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 

pers. comm. 2004). Adults prefer 

Eupatorium sordidum Less. (dirty 

thoroughwort) and produce two annual 

broods, one in the spring and one in late 

summer (Collins and Morris 1985). 

Populations are restricted to steepsloped canyons in the Jua ́rez Mountains 

(F.R.R. de Velasco, pers. comm. 2004; R. 

Robbins, pers. comm. 2004; Tyler et al.

1994). Considered a relict of modern 

swallowtails, this species was 

discovered only in 1975 and, for the 

first 20 years, was only known from one 

colony (New and Collins 1991; Tyler et 

al. 1994). New colonies were discovered 

in the early 1990s; the total habitat 

remains restricted to an area less than 

100 square kilometers (Tyler et al.

1994). This species is listed as 

Vulnerable by the IUCN, due mainly to 

a poaching problem that existed prior to 

1994 (IUCN 2003; see B., below). 

A. Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range: The Jua ́rez Mountains 

region is generally threatened by 

logging, agriculture, grazing, 

colonization, and potential construction 

of hydroelectric dams (Da ́vila et al.

n.d.); however, there is no evidence that 

this species’ specific habitat is being 

directly threatened (R. Robbins, pers. 

comm. 2004; Jorge Sobero ́n, Director of 

CONABIO [the Scientific Authority of 

Mexico for the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or 

CITES], pers. comm. 2004). Based on the 

best available information, we conclude 

that this species is not threatened by the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes: According to Collins and 

Morris (1985), only 20 specimens had 

been collected in the first 20 years after 

the species’ discovery due to the fierce 

protection of this species by local 

communities. For a time, poaching 

became a problem because several local 

residents would follow the colony and 

remove specimens for commerce (Tyler 

et al. 1994). In the mid-1990s, several 

smugglers were indicted in the United 

States for trading in illegally collected 

insects, including Oaxacan swallowtails 

(WildlifeWebsite.com 2000). Today, 

Mexican experts do not consider overcollection to be a threat (F.R.R. de 

Velasco, pers. comm. 2004) because 

local communities do not allow 

collection or sale of the species (J. 

Sobero ́n, pers. comm. 2004). There are 

also regulatory mechanisms in place 

that appear to be effectively regulating 

trade in this species (see D., below). 

Thus, this species is not threatened by 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes.

C. Disease or predation: There is no 

information to suggest that this species 

is subject to any threat from disease or 

predation. 

D. The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms: The Oaxacan 

swallowtail is listed as threatened, and 

its larval foodplant, Magnolia dealbata,

is also listed as endangered on Mexico’s 

List of Species at Risk (F.R.R. de 

Velasco, pers. comm. 2004). Mexican 

law, NOM (Norma Oficial Mexicana)–

059–ECOL–2001, protects listed native 

species of flora and fauna that have been 

assessed in any of four threat categories 

(threatened, endangered, specially 

protected, and likely to be extinct; INE 

2003). There are no officially designated 

protected areas or nature reserves in the 

Jua ́rez Mountains (Da ́vila et al. n.d.). 

However, large tracts of Oaxacan 

swallowtail habitat are under the strict 

control of indigenous Zapotec 

communities (J. Sobero ́n, pers. comm. 

2004), and these communities are very 

conservation oriented (F.R.R. de 

Velasco, pers. comm. 2004). The 

Mexican Federal government oversees 

several sustainable resource 

management units in that region (de 

Ferranti et al. 2000), and this species is 

not one of the resources being exploited 

under this regulatory framework (F.R.R. 

de Velasco, pers. comm. 2004). 

The Oaxacan swallowtail is not listed 

in the Appendices of the Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 

(CITES), but there is no information to 

suggest that such a listing is needed. 

Considered threatened by commercial 

trade in Europe (Melisch 2000), this 

species is now listed on Annex B of the 

European Union’s Council Regulation 

(EC) No. 338/97, which regulates 

imports of certain species into any 

country in the European Community. 

Annex B includes all species listed in 

CITES Appendix II and their lookalikes, as well as species being traded at 

levels that are incompatible with the 

survival of the species, as well as 

species that pose a threat to native 

species (CITES UK 2004). Import of an 

Annex B-listed species must be 

accompanied by information that 

demonstrates that the import will not 

detrimentally affect the conservation 

status of the species or its habitat (EurLex 2004). Based on the above 

information, this species is not 

threatened by the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence: There 

are no other known threats affecting this 

species. 

In summary, in addition to the 

discovery of new populations, the 

Oaxacan swallowtail is not subject to 

significant threats that cause the species 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70583

to be threatened with extinction 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range. Therefore, we have determined 

that listing of this species is not 

warranted. 

Southern Tailed Birdwing (Ornithoptera 

meridionalis Rothschild 1897) 

The southern tailed birdwing is native 

to lowland primary or secondary 

rainforests of Indonesia and Papua New 

Guinea. The larvae of this genus are 

known to feed solely on Aristolochia

spp. L. (birthwort). However, the 

identity of the specific larval foodplant 

of this species remains in dispute 

(Parsons 1999; Dr. Wari Iamo, 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation, Papua New Guinea, pers. 

comm. 2004). This birdwing butterfly 

occupies a wide range, but populations 

are localized, found at altitudes between 

20 and 200 meters above sea level 

(Collins and Morris 1985; Dr. Wari 

Iamo, Department of Environment and 

Conservation, Papua New Guinea, pers. 

comm. 2004). In Indonesia (Irian Jaya), 

there are three known localities of this 

species (Parsons 1999). In Papua New 

Guinea, there are at least seven widely 

distributed localities, and the species 

appears to be reasonably common in its 

habitat, especially in the spring (Parsons 

1999; W. Iamo, pers. comm. 2004). It is 

listed by the IUCN as Endangered, 

apparently due to threats from habitat 

destruction (see A., below; IUCN 2003). 

A. Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range: The southern tailed 

birdwing populations are found in two 

protected areas in Papua New Guinea 

where wildlife harvest and habitat 

destruction are prohibited (W. Iamo, 

pers. comm. 2004). The species’ lowlying habitat, in the center of its range, 

is vulnerable to timber extraction (W. 

Iamo, pers. comm. 2004). However, 

experts believe that properly managed 

butterfly farming (as discussed below, 

under B.) promotes habitat conservation 

by generating income as a viable 

alternative to deforestation (Dr. Rosser 

W. Garrison and Mr. Michael Parsons, 

Research Associates, Los Angeles 

County Museum of Natural History, 

California, pers. comm. 1994; Dr. L. 

Orsak, Director, Christensen Research 

Institute, Papua New Guinea, pers. 

comm. 1994; Dr. Scott Miller, Chair, 

Natural Science, The State Museum of 

Natural and Cultural History, Hawai’i, 

pers. comm. 1994; Parsons 1991, 1999). 

The Papua New Guinea farming 

program requires villagers to maintain a 

healthy wild population on or near their 

land (IFTA 1985). Based on the best 

available information, we have 

determined that this species is not 

threatened by the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes: Papua New Guinea began 

farming the southern tailed birdwing 

and other native butterflies in 1978. 

According to the non-profit Insect 

Farming and Trade Agency (IFTA), 

established in consultation with an 

entomologist-ecologist, the pupae are 

ranched and adults are sold in pairs 

(IFTA 2004; Parsons 1999). The Papua 

New Guinea farming program was 

endorsed by the now-defunct IUCN 

Lepidoptera Specialist Group (IFTA 

1985). Ranched specimens are often 

preferred over wild-caught specimens 

because the wings of wild specimens are 

often tattered from flying (Parsons 

1999). No wild-collected specimens are 

permitted in international trade, and 

designated exporters are strictly 

controlled (W. Iamo, pers. comm. 2004; 

Iamo Ila, Conservator of Fauna, 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation, Papua New Guinea, pers. 

comm. 1994; 1997; Gaikovina R. Kula, 

Acting Secretary, Department of 

Environment and Conservation, Papua 

New Guinea, pers. comm. 1994). Private 

citizens who are not part of IFTA must 

obtain certification from the Department 

of Environment and Conservation to 

carry out ranching and trading in this 

species (W. Iamo, pers. comm. 2004). 

This species has been listed in CITES 

Appendix II since 1979, and CITES data 

suggest a recent downward trend in 

trade volume, from 582 specimens in 

2000, to 163 specimens in 2001, and 89 

specimens in 2002 (J. Caldwell, pers. 

comm. 2004; W. Iamo, pers. comm. 

2004). All of this trade has originated 

from Papua New Guinea, and most of it 

has been recorded as ranched 

specimens. A 2000 market study 

revealed that this species was 

threatened by commerce in Germany 

(Melisch 2000), where the market price 

was reportedly US$8700 per pair 

(Schu ̈tz 2000). The southern tailed 

birdwing is now listed on the European 

Commission’s Annex B, which regulates 

imports of certain species into Europe, 

and requires that trade in these species 

is not detrimental to the survival of wild 

populations (see Oaxacan swallowtail, 

D.). While the reason for the decrease in 

trade volume for this species is 

unknown (W. Iamo, pers. comm. 2004), 

its listing on Annex B may account for 

the decrease in trade because several of 

the major importers are from European 

countries. This information suggests 

that this species is not threatened by 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes. 

C. Disease or predation: Parasitic flies 

have been known to attack southern 

tailed birdwings in the wild (Collins 

and Morris 1985). However, there is no 

specific information to suggest that 

these parasites are currently threatening 

existing populations, and we are 

unaware of any other disease or 

predators that pose a threat to this 

species. Thus, we conclude that disease 

or predation is not a current threat to 

this species. 

D. The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms: In 1966, Papua 

New Guinea declared the southern 

tailed birdwing protected under the 

Fauna Protection Control Act, which 

requires an amendment to the 

legislation to allow any controlled 

utilization of the species. Wild 

collection is prohibited, and wildcollected specimens are banned from 

international trade (W. Iamo, pers. 

comm. August 2004; G.R. Kula, pers. 

comm.; 1994 Parsons 1991). Only 

properly CITES-permitted adults are 

allowed in international trade (IFTA 

2004), and import of these specimens 

into Europe requires a further nondetriment finding in addition to the 

CITES findings made by exporting 

countries (see D., above). Based on the 

above information, this species is not 

currently threatened by the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence: There 

is no information to suggest that this 

species is subject to threats other than 

those listed above.

In summary, in addition to the 

discovery of new populations, the 

southern tailed birdwing is not subject 

to significant threats that cause the 

species to be threatened with extinction 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range, and therefore we have 

determined that listing of this species is 

not warranted. 

Findings on Species for Which Listing Is 

Warranted but Precluded 

Harris’ Mimic Swallowtail (Eurytides 

lysithous harrisianus Hu ̈ bner 1821) 

Harris’ mimic swallowtail is native to 

sub-coastal woods on unflooded fringes 

of ‘‘restinga’’ (swamp) habitat in the 

Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Paraguay also 

has been reported as a range country 

(Collins and Morse 1985; Funet 2004), 

but there is no information on colonies 

there. Larvae feed on Annona acutifolia

Sass. ex R.E. Fries (common name 

unknown). Juveniles are occasionally 

reported on Rollinia laurifolia Schltdl. 

(common name unknown). Adults feed 

70584 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

on species in a variety of genera from 

several plant families (including 

Annonaceae [custard-apple family], 

Asteraceae [daisy family], Fabaceae 

[legume family], Rubiaceae [madder 

family], and Verbenaceae [verbena 

family]). This subspecies is not listed in 

the 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Species (IUCN 2003). 

Previously reported in the two 

Brazilian states of Espirito Santo and 

Rio de Janeiro, this subspecies is 

confirmed only in the latter locality 

(Brown 1996). This has been interpreted 

as an indication that the subspecies has 

been extirpated from Espirito Santo 

(Collins and Morse 1985; Xerces 2004). 

However, Brown postulates that this 

could be due to misidentification due to 

mimicry (Keith S. Brown, Jr., LivreDocent, Universidade Estadual de 

Campinas, Brazil, pers. comm. 2004). 

Swallowtails occupying similar ranges 

may exhibit mimicry such that 

unrelated species resemble each other. 

The specific purpose of this mimicry is 

unknown, but it may be a defense 

mechanism. Although scientifically 

unproven, one form of mimicry, known 

as Batesian mimicry, consists of a 

palatable species (the mimic) that 

resembles an unpalatable species (the 

model). It is theorized that a predator 

(such as a bird) attempting to eat the 

unpalatable model will avoid that and 

other similar-looking butterflies in the 

future. For such mimicry systems to be 

effective, it is generally believed that the 

mimic must maintain lower population 

numbers than the model. 

Harris’ mimic swallowtail is 

polymorphic, mimicking at least three 

species of Parides throughout its range. 

There are two Harris’ mimic swallowtail 

morphs (color patterns): the 

sebastianus-rurik morph, which mimics 

Parides zacynthus Fabricius (common 

name unknown) and the subspecies 

Parides nephalion Godart (cattle heart 

swallowtail); and, the ascanius morph, 

which mimics the Fluminese 

swallowtail, also a subject of this 

petition finding (Collins and Morse 

1985; K.S. Brown, Jr., pers. comm. 

2004). The sebastianus-rurik morph is 

less common than the ascanius morph, 

the latter of which constituted about 

70% of the population during a nearly 

decade-long mark-recapture study 

(Brown 1996). The ascanius morph 

generally persists farther north than the 

Fluminese swallowtail. Thus, it is 

possible that Harris’ mimic swallowtail 

exists to the north, in Espirito Santo, 

where suitable habitat exists, but that it 

has been mistaken for the Fluminese 

swallowtail (Brown 1991; Otero and 

Brown 1984; Dr. Robert Robbins, 

Research Entomologist, National 

Museum of Natural History, Department 

of Entomology, Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, DC pers. comm. 2004). 

Brown (1996) monitored the only 

known colony of the species (in Rio de 

Janeiro) from 1984 to 1991, during 

which time the population size ranged 

from 50 to 250 individuals. Adults fly 

at an elevation of 1000 meters, and 

brood only once per year, being found 

almost exclusively from September to 

December. This colony is currently 

reported to be viable, vigorous, and 

stable (K. Brown, Jr., pers. comm. 2004). 

In 1997, another colony of unknown 

size was discovered in the Poco das 

Antas Biological Reserve (Rio de 

Janeiro), where it had not been seen in 

30 years. According to Brown, it is 

likely that more colonies exist between 

these two known localities and in other 

places, and he further states that their 

flight habits ‘‘do not favor recording by 

visitors * * * it is also very hard to 

find, see, or capture’’ (K. Brown, Jr., 

pers. comm. 2004). 

A. Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range: Habitat destruction 

prompted experts to consider this 

species to be either endangered (Collins 

and Morris 1985; Tyler et al. 1994) or 

critically endangered (Brown 1996). The 

mix of dense and open habitat preferred 

by adult Harris’ mimic swallowtails is 

no longer the dominant vegetation type 

in Rio de Janeiro. With this habitat 

almost entirely gone, the subspecies is 

found only in sub-coastal areas adjacent 

to ‘‘restinga’’ (swamp) habitat (Otero 

and Brown 1984). Considered the most 

endangered vegetation type in the world 

(Conservation International 2004), 

restinga swampland has been converted 

to rice fields and drained for urban 

development and cattle pastures (Otero 

and Brown 1984; WWF 2004a). In 1985, 

development threatened the only known 

colony (Collins and Morris 1985). The 

State of Rio de Janeiro harbors the 

densest human population in Brazil, 

and the city suffers from air and water 

pollution (CIA 2004; Conservation 

International 2004). The Poco das Antas 

Reserve (site of the recently discovered 

colony of Harris’ mimic swallowtail) is 

plagued by fires. Established in 1973 

and presently encompassing an area of 

approximately 6,883 square meters 

(WWF 2004b), the Reserve has suffered 

at least six fires since 1989 (Anonymous 

1997; Bryant 2002; Kyodo World 

Service 2000; Reuters 2002; Singapore 

National Zoo 2000). At least two of 

these fires were attributed to human 

causes (Anonymous 1997; Kyodo World 

Service 2000). Fire breaks have been 

constructed in the Reserve to help 

contain future fires, but regeneration of 

previously burned areas has been 

reportedly slow (Singapore National 

Zoo 2000). Thus, we conclude that this 

subspecies is threatened by the present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of its habitat or range 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range, although thus far we are not 

aware of a direct impact on the two 

known colonies of this species. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes: There is no documentation of 

overutilization of this subspecies. 

However, it is possible that this species 

is inadvertently entering trade 

misidentified as Parides spp., although 

there is no specific information on this. 

C. Disease or predation: There is no 

information to suggest that this species 

is subject to any threat from disease or 

predation. 

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms: Instituto Brasileiro do 

Meio Ambiente de dos Recursos 

Naturais Renova ́veis; Brazil’s 

Environmental Ministry (IBAMA) listed 

this species as ‘‘strictly protected’’ in 

1989. As such, collection and trade are 

prohibited (Brown 1996). It is unclear 

whether the discovery of a second 

colony in the Poco das Antas Biological 

Reserve, home of the charismatic golden 

lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia), 

will benefit Harris’ mimic swallowtail. 

The Reserve continues to be threatened 

by inadequate protection, unresolved 

land disputes, and illegal encroachment 

by landless peasants (Conservation 

International 2004). In 2002, criteria 

were established for land use and 

occupation within a newly established 

environmentally protected basin along 

the river where the new population of 

this species was found. How or whether 

these criteria account for invertebrates is 

unknown (WWF 2004b). Thus, the 

regulatory mechanisms in existence may 

be inadequate to protect this species.

E. Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence: Other 

than the above-mentioned fires, some of 

which may have been natural events, 

there are no other factors known to 

affect this species’ continued existence. 

In summary, although additional 

populations may exist, there are only 

two confirmed localities of Harris’

mimic swallowtail. This subspecies 

appears to be generally threatened by 

habitat destruction (clearing and fire) 

and the potential of overutilization for 

commercial purposes. While regulatory 

mechanisms are in place to control 

commercial trade, it is unclear whether 

existing regulatory mechanisms are 

adequately protecting the species’

habitat. The combination of these 

factors threatens this subspecies 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70585

throughout a significant portion of its 

range. 

Harris’ mimic swallowtail is a 

subspecies that faces threats that are low 

to moderate in magnitude and nonimminent. It therefore receives a priority 

rank of 12. 

Jamaican kite Swallowtail (Eurytides 

marcellinus Doubleday 1846) 

The Jamaican kite is endemic to 

Jamaica. The only known larval 

foodplant is Oxandra lanceolata Baill. 

(West Indian lancewood) (Bailey 1994; 

Brown and Heineman 1972; Garraway et 

al. 1993; Xerces 2004). There is no 

information as to adult food preferences. 

Despite the presence of the larval 

foodplant throughout the island, and 

although the species probably disperses 

only within 3 kilometers of its breeding 

site, the only confirmed breeding site is 

Rozelle, located in the extreme 

southeastern Parish of St. Thomas 

(Bailey 1994; Brown and Heineman 

1972; Garraway et al. 1993; R. Robbins, 

pers. comm. 2004; Strong and Johnson 

2001; WRC 2001; Dr. T.W. Turner, 

President, Caribbean Surveys Ltd., 

Florida, pers. comm. 1994). Reputedly 

unpredictable and sporadic in 

appearance, the Jamaican kite 

swallowtail generally maintains low 

population levels, but becomes locally 

abundant for a week or two at its only 

known breeding site, where it regularly 

broods in the early summer and 

sometimes again in early fall (Collins 

and Morris 1985; Garraway et al. 1993; 

Smith et al. 1994). Episodic population 

explosions have been recorded, with 

large westerly migrations of males when 

population numbers are high (Brown 

and Heineman 1972; Collins and Morris 

1985; Garraway et al. 1993). Large 

numbers were reported in western 

parishes in the 1940s and 1950s (Bailey 

1994; Garraway et al. 1993). Adults have 

recently been sighted in the parishes of 

St. Andrew, St. Ann, Trelawny, and 

Westmoreland on the extreme western 

coast, and the species has reportedly 

visited Florida (Bailey 1994; Funet 

2004; Smith et al. 1994; WRC 2001). 

A. Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range: Mining operations, 

deforestation, and a lack of public 

awareness for conservation issues are 

problematic on the entire island (WWF 

2001). The only confirmed breeding site 

has undergone extensive habitat 

destruction for agriculture and industry, 

prompting many experts to designate 

the Jamaican kite swallowtail as 

Vulnerable (Collins and Morris 1983; 

IUCN 2003; New and Collins 1991; 

Tyler et al. 1994). The larval hostplant, 

West Indian lancewood (native to 

Jamaica, Cuba, Hispaniola, and Puerto 

Rico), is a commercially desirable tree. 

Its yellow wood is used to make fishing 

rods, pool cues, and other products 

(Windsor Plywood 2004). This tree 

species reportedly does poorly in 

disturbed habitats (Collins and Morris 

1985). Habitat destruction continues to 

be a primary threat to this species (Dr. 

Audette Baillie, Research Fellow, 

Department of Life Sciences, University 

of the West Indies, Jamaica, pers. comm. 

2004). 

B. Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes: A survey of German markets 

concluded that this species is 

threatened by commercial trade 

(Melisch 2000). Schu ̈tz (2000) reported 

the asking price for a female Jamaican 

kite swallowtail as US$150. This species 

is neither listed under CITES nor on the 

European Commission’s Annex B, both 

of which regulate international trade. 

The Jamaican kite swallowtail is not 

bred in captivity and, in particular, 

there is no organized captive-breeding 

program for this species in Jamaica (A. 

Baillie, pers. comm. 2004). Thus, 

overutilization for commercial purposes 

may be a threat to the Jamaican kite 

swallowtail. 

C. Disease or predation: There is no 

information to suggest that this species 

is subject to any threat from disease or 

predation. 

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms: Listed as an endemic 

species, Jamaica does not consider the 

Jamaican kite swallowtail to be 

threatened, and therefore, it is not 

protected by the Wildlife Protection Act 

of 1998 (NEPA 2004a); according to the 

National Environment and Planning 

Agency (NEPA), this protects only 

‘‘specified species’’ (NEPA 2004b). 

However, all requests to collect endemic 

wildlife in Jamaica must be directed to 

NEPA for approval (A. Baillie, pers. 

comm. 2004). The protected area 

network has been plagued with staff 

shortages and inadequate fines for 

violators (WWF 2001). The John Crow 

Mountains, spanning several parishes 

where adult Jamaican kite swallowtails 

have been seen, was declared a 

protected area in 1993 (Anonymous 

n.d.). Cockpit Country, the terrain of 

which has made it veritably 

impenetrable to humans, became part of 

the Parks-in-Peril project in 2001. 

Cockpit Country is located in Trelawny 

Parish, where adult Jamaican kite 

swallowtails have recently been sighted. 

The status of the species in this area 

may be clarified as researchers conduct 

surveys for the CITES Appendix-I 

swallowtail (Pterourus homerus) 

occupying the same area (TNC 2004; 

WRC 2002). The presence of the 

Jamaican kite swallowtail in Rozelle and 

Cockpit Country has prompted NEPA to 

seek protected-area status for both 

locations within the next 5–7 years 

(Anonymous 2003). It is unclear how or 

whether the Jamaican protected-area 

network benefits the Jamaican kite 

swallowtail or protects it from the 

above-mentioned potential threats of 

habitat loss and commercial utilization. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence:

Jamaica lies within the Atlantic 

hurricane belt and is subject to severe 

tropical weather, such as tropical waves, 

tropical depressions, tropical storms, 

and hurricanes (Mahlung 2001). In the 

last 16 years, Jamaica has been 

devastated by a tropical storm (George 

1998), a Category 3 hurricane (Gilbert 

1988), and two Category 5 hurricanes 

(Mitch 1998; Ivan 2004). Hurricanes 

Gilbert and Ivan caused extensive 

damage throughout the island, 

including Rozelle, the only known 

breeding site for this species. In 1989, 

75 percent of Rozelle Beach was eroded, 

and extensive beach erosion occurred 

again in 2004 (Anderson 1989; Lehman 

1999; Go Local Jamaica 2004). These 

stochastic events are likely to have an 

adverse effect on this species’ continued 

existence. 

In summary, the Jamaican kite 

swallowtail has only one known 

breeding site. This species is threatened 

by habitat destruction from human 

activity and catastrophic natural storm 

events. Storms, such as hurricanes, can 

also directly kill these butterflies. The 

species is also potentially threatened by 

collection and inadequate protection of 

its habitat; this species is not 

specifically protected by law. The 

combination of these factors potentially 

threatens this species throughout a 

significant portion of its range. 

The Jamaican kite swallowtail is a 

species that does not represent a 

monotypic genus. It faces threats that 

are high in magnitude, but nonimminent. It therefore receives a priority 

rank of 5. 

Fluminese Swallowtail (Parides 

ascanius Cramer 1775) 

The Fluminese swallowtail is 

endemic to Brazil. Residing in 

‘‘restinga’’ (swamp) habitat in the 

Atlantic Forest of Brazil, adults can be 

found flying in scrubby to urbanized 

locations (K.S. Brown, Jr., pers. comm. 

2004). The only known larval foodplant 

is the poisonous vine Aristolochia 

macroura Gomez (Dutchman’s pipe), 

which has a wider distribution than the 

butterfly itself (Otero and Brown 1984). 

There is no information as to adult 

70586 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

foodplant preferences. This species has 

been reported from three Brazilian 

States: Rio de Janeiro, Espirito Santo, 

and Sao Paulo. Although ideal habitat 

exists in all three States, Rio de Janeiro 

harbors the only colonies confirmed in 

the past 50 years (Otero and Brown 

1984), perhaps due to mislabeling of 

initial collections (K.S. Brown, Jr., pers. 

comm. 2004). Assessed by the IUCN as 

Vulnerable, the species is sparsely 

distributed at best, becoming seasonally 

common, with sightings of up to 50 

individuals in one morning (IUCN 2003; 

Otero and Brown 1984; Tyler et al.

1994).

Populations are localized but colonies 

require a large area to maintain a viable 

population (Otero and Brown 1984). In 

a study conducted from 1984 to 1991, 

Brown (1996) found that a colony varied 

greatly (from 20 to 100 individuals) 

from year to year, and individuals flew 

distances of 1000 meters. Although it 

was presumed that many populations 

had gone extinct since 1970 and that no 

new colonies remained to be 

discovered, other large colonies have 

been found in Rio de Janeiro state, both 

far inland and within the Poco das 

Antas Biological Reserve (K.S. Brown, 

Jr., pers. comm. 2004; Collins and 

Morris 1985; Otero and Brown 1984). In 

a recent visit to Poco das Antas, Dr. 

Robert Robbins (pers. comm. 2004) 

reported that the Fluminese swallowtail 

was ‘‘everywhere.’’ All colonies 

continue to be monitored (K.S. Brown, 

Jr., pers. comm. 2004). 

A. Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range: The range of this 

species overlaps with Harris’ mimic 

swallowtail, and the restinga 

swampland habitat upon which the 

Fluminese swallowtail depends for 

breeding is threatened by urbanization, 

conversion for cultivation and cattle 

ranching, and arson (see Harris’ mimic 

swallowtail, A., above). The Fluminese 

swallowtail is particularly threatened by 

arson in the Poco das Antas Biological 

Reserve, because this is the only 

protected area large enough to maintain 

a viable Fluminese swallowtail colony 

(Otero and Brown 1984). Thus, a 

significant portion of this species’ range 

is potentially threatened with habitat 

destruction. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes: This butterfly is ‘‘easy to 

catch,’’ and although ‘‘many people 

have bred the species,’’ there is no 

formal effort to ranch the species (K.S. 

Brown, Jr., pers. comm. 2004). A survey 

of German markets reported female 

Fluminese swallowtails selling for 

US$560 (Melisch 2000; Schu ̈tz 2000), 

which is an indicator of the potential 

threat from commercial trade. This 

species is advertised for sale in Japan 

with the provision that no sales can be 

made of dry or live insects to the 

‘‘United States of America from Central 

and South America also CITES 

butterflies’’ (http://

www.worldinsect.com/). This species is 

not listed under CITES but is listed on 

the European Commission’s Annex B, 

which regulates imports of certain 

species into Europe (see Papilio 

esperanza, B.). It is unclear how this has 

affected trade in this species. Based on 

the above information, this species is 

potentially threatened by overutilization 

for commercial purposes. 

C. Disease or predation: There is no 

information to suggest that this species 

is subject to any threat from disease or 

predation. 

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms: In 1973, the Fluminese 

swallowtail became the first insect 

placed on Brazil’s list of animals 

threatened with extinction, and the 

species is currently considered 

imperiled by IBAMA, the Brazilian 

Environment Ministry (MMA 2004; 

Otero and Brown 1984). Although the 

species is strictly protected from 

commerce, fines are apparently either 

nonexistent or too nominal to dissuade 

commercial collection (K.S. Brown, Jr., 

pers. comm. 2004). It is also unclear 

what measures have been taken to 

reduce habitat destruction, for which 

the species was originally listed in 1973 

(Otero and Brown 1984). The protection 

afforded Fluminese swallowtail 

populations within Poco das Antas 

Biological Reserve is also unknown (see 

Harris’ mimic swallowtail, D.). Thus, 

the regulatory mechanisms in existence 

may be inadequate to protect this 

species. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence: Other 

than the fires, mentioned above, some of 

which may have been natural events, 

there are no other factors known to 

affect this species’ continued existence. 

In summary, there are several known 

Fluminese swallowtail colonies, each 

requiring a large area to maintain a 

viable population, and only one occurs 

within a protected area. This species is 

threatened by habitat destruction and 

the potential inadequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms to protect the species’

habitat, particularly in the Poco das 

Antas Biological Reserve, considered 

the only protected area large enough to 

maintain a viable population. This 

species is also potentially threatened by 

overutilization for commercial purposes 

and inadequate penalties to thwart 

commercial collection. The combination 

of these factors potentially threatens this 

species throughout a significant portion 

of its range. 

The Fluminese swallowtail is a 

species that does not represent a 

monotypic genus. It faces threats that 

are high in magnitude but nonimminent. It therefore receives a priority 

rank of 5. 

Hahnel’s Amazonian Swallowtail 

(Parides hahneli Staudinger 1882) 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is 

endemic to three localities in the sandy 

tributaries of the lower middle Amazon 

Basin in Brazil (Collins and Morris 

1985; New and Collins 1991; Tyler et al.

1994). The identification of the larval 

hostplant is unknown, but it is believed 

to be either Aristolochia lanceolatolorato S. Moore (common name 

unknown) or A. acutifolia Sass. ex R.E. 

Fries (common name unknown). This 

species occupies a fairly wide range, but 

‘‘the area of its range is very lightly 

populated’’ (K.S. Brown, Jr., pers. 

comm. 2004). The restricted nature of its 

habitat was determined only in the 

1990s (R. Robbins, pers. comm. 2004). 

Populations are characterized as very 

local, rare, and patchy in distribution 

(Collins and Morris 1985; Tyler et al.

1994). Until 1973, this species was 

known only in one location; two 

additional localized colonies were 

discovered in 1973 (Brown 1996; 

Collins and Morris 1985). There have 

been no recent discoveries of new 

populations (K.S. Brown, Jr., pers. 

comm. 2004). This species is sympatric 

(occupies the same range) with several 

butterflies, including at least two, 

Methona and Thyrides (common names 

unknown), that it reportedly mimics, 

and the subspecies Parides chabrias 

ygdrasilla (common name 

unknown)(Brown 1996). In 1996, when 

this species was last assessed by the 

IUCN, there was insufficient data to 

determine its status (IUCN 2003). 

A. Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range: Citing potential threats 

from habitat destruction, New and 

Collins (1991) considered the possibility 

that this species was critically 

threatened. Because the species’

ecological requirements are not well 

understood, habitat destruction could be 

a factor, but specific threats cannot be 

clearly identified. Therefore, we are 

unable to determine whether this 

species is or may be threatened by 

habitat destruction. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes: Although the species flies 

high, making it harder to catch, ‘‘local 

people can at times effectively reduce 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70587

populations since they know [this 

species’] habits’-(K.S. Brown, Jr., pers. 

comm. 2004). Many experts agree that 

species with restricted distributions or 

localized populations, such as Hahnel’s 

Amazonian swallowtail, are more 

vulnerable to over-collection than those 

with a wider distribution (K.S. Brown, 

Jr., pers. comm. 2004; R. Robbins, pers. 

comm. 2004). Commercial exploitation 

is a potential threat to this species 

(Melisch 2000; New and Collins 1991; 

Schu ̈tz 2000; Tyler et al. 1994). A 

survey of German markets found 

swallowtails to be among the most 

popular species being sold; Hahnel’s 

Amazonian swallowtail has sold for 

USD$200 per pair (Schu ̈tz 2000). The 

species is not listed under CITES. It is 

listed on the European Commission’s 

Annex B, which regulates imports of 

certain species into Europe (see Papilio 

esperanza, B.), but it is unclear how this 

listing has affected trade in this species. 

As such, we believe that overutilziation 

for commercial purposes may constitute 

a threat to the survival of the species.

C. Disease or predation: There is no 

information to suggest that this species 

is subject to any threat from disease or 

predation. 

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms: Hahnel’s Amazonian 

swallowtail is listed as a species ‘‘under 

study’’ (Brown 1996). It is not listed on 

the Brazilian list of animals threatened 

with extinction (MMA 2004). This may 

be due to the species’ wide range and 

tendency to be locally common (K.S. 

Brown, Jr., pers. comm. 2004). 

E. Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence: There 

is potential for foodplant competition 

with a sympatric butterfly, Parides 

chabrias ygdrasilla (common name 

unknown) (Collins and Morris 1985). 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is 

known from only three localities and 

consists of highly localized populations, 

which makes them potentially 

vulnerable to over-collection. 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail is a 

species that does not represent a 

monotypic genus. It faces threats that 

are low to moderate in magnitude, and 

the immediacy of the threat is nonimminent. Therefore, it receives a 

priority rank of 11. 

Kaiser-I-Hind Swallowtail (Teinopalpus 

imperialis Hope 1843) 

The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail is 

native to the Himalayan regions of 

Bhutan, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, 

Nepal, Thailand, and Vietnam. 

Preferring undisturbed montane 

deciduous forests, this fast-flying 

species flies near the treetops at 

altitudes of 1500–3050 m (Bond 1964; 

Igarashi 2001; Tordoff et al. 1999). The 

larval foodplant may differ across the 

species’ range, including Magnolia 

campbellii Hook.f. and Thompson in 

China (Yen and Yang 2001); Magnolia

spp. L. in Vietnam (Funet 2004); 

Daphne spp. L. in India, Nepal, and 

Myanmar (Funet 2004); and Daphne 

nipalensis (authority and common name 

unknown) in India (Robinson et al.

2004). Though this species was first 

described in 1843, its life history was 

not well characterized until 1986 

(Igarashi and Fukuda 2000). The KaiserI-Hind swallowtail produces two broods 

per year (spring and late summer) 

(Igarashi 2001). Females are much larger 

and rarer than males (Bond 1964). 

The species’ range is larger today than 

known at the time of the original 

petition, with confirmed reports in Laos, 

Thailand, and Vietnam (FAO 2001; 

Igarashi 2001; Masui and Uehara 2000; 

Osada et al. 1999). The range of the 

Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail overlaps with 

that of its close relative, the golden 

Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail (Teinopalpus 

aureus) in Laos and Vietnam. The 

golden Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail, which 

is listed in CITES Appendix II, is 

generally larger than the Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail (Masui and Uehara 2000; 

Igarashi 2001). The IUCN lists the 

Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail in the 

category of least concern (IUCN 2003), 

but it is considered ‘‘rare’’ by Collins 

and Morris (1985) and Tyler et al.

(1994). Despite its widespread 

distribution, local populations are not 

abundant (Collins and Morris 1985). 

The actual population status in Bhutan, 

India, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand is 

unknown, although it has been 

confirmed to be extant in Nepal, 

Thailand, and Vietnam. No butterflies 

are listed on the 1992 Red Data Book of 

Vietnam (Trai and Richardson 1999). In 

1994, Chinese experts considered the 

species to be in ‘‘immediate danger of 

extinction,’’ with no verified 

occurrences in half a century (Professor 

Wang Sung, Executive Vice Chairman of 

the Endangered Species Scientific 

Commission of China, pers. comm. 

1994). However, recent publications 

indicate that the species remains extant 

in China, although there is no 

information on population status (Pai 

and Wang 1998; Pai et al. 1996; 

Watanabe 1997; Yen and Yang 2001). 

A. Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range: Despite a Chinese 

moratorium on logging in 1999, KaiserI-Hind swallowtail populations 

continued to be threatened by 

commercial and illegal logging in 2001 

(Yen and Yang 2001). In Nepal, the 

species is threatened by limestone 

mining activities (E–Law 2002), and a 

recent report to by the Nepal Forest 

Ministry considers habitat destruction 

to be a critical threat to biodiversity, 

including this species (HMGN 2002). In 

Vietnam, the species is confirmed in 

three Nature Reserves, in areas where 

disturbance levels are low (Lien 2003; 

Tordoff et al. 1999; Trai and Richardson 

1999). Habitat degradation 

(deforestation and land conversion) is a 

primary threat to this species in 

Thailand (FAO 2001). Thus, this species 

is known to be threatened by habitat 

destruction in some of its countries. 

B. Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes: The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail 

was listed in CITES Appendix II in 1987 

and is listed in Annex B of the European 

Union’s Council Regulation (see 

Oaxacan swallowtail, D.). CITES trade 

data, obtained from the World 

Conservation Monitoring Centre, 

indicate that only 152 Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail specimens were traded 

between 1991 and 2002, and originated 

primarily from China (John Caldwell, 

WCMC, pers. comm. 2004). Nearly half 

of these were imported into the United 

States, all originating from China and 

declared as wild-collected. In a 3-month 

period (June–August 2004), a dealer in 

China sold 23 unmounted specimens: 4 

to one buyer in Germany and the rest to 

buyers in the United States. The average 

selling price was US$107 for females 

and US$45 for males. This commercial 

activity could not be compared with 

CITES trade data because the 2004 

CITES data will not be available until 

October 31, 2005. The Kaiser-I-Hind and 

golden Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtails 

resemble each other and both are 

commercially valuable. The species’

ranges overlap in at least two, possibly 

three, range countries, so there is a 

potential for both species to be collected 

due to their resemblance to each other. 

There are unconfirmed reports that 

this species is being captive-bred in 

China (Yen and Yang 2001), where it is 

considered to be more valuable than the 

southern tailed birdwing (Watanabe 

1997). In Nepal, collectors would 

commonly lie in wait for the butterflies 

in mountaintop encampments (New and 

Collins 1991). According to the Nepal 

Forestry Ministry, the high commercial 

value of endangered species on the local 

and international market may result in 

local extinctions of many of Nepal’s 

most endangered plants and animals, 

including this species (HMGN 2002). 

Unsustainable collection (for 

consumption or souvenirs) is a primary 

threat to this species in Thailand (FAO 

2001). Thus, overutilization for 

commercial purposes threatens this 

70588 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

species throughout a significant portion 

of its range. 

C. Disease or predation: There is no 

information to suggest that this species 

is subject to any threat from disease or 

predation.

D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms: The Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail is not protected under the 

Wildlife Conservation law of Taiwan 

(Yen and Yang 2001). In Nepal, where 

it is listed as threatened, the species is 

protected by the National Parks and 

Wildlife Conservation Act of 1973 

(HMGN 2002). Protective legislation in 

India and Nepal has previously been 

considered ineffective (New and Collins 

1991). In Thailand, the Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail is listed under the 1992 

Wildlife Reservation and Protection Act 

of 1992, which makes it illegal to collect 

(whether wild or dead) or to have the 

species in one’s possession (FAO 2001). 

Despite regulation in international trade 

by CITES and on Annex B in Europe, we 

believe that this species is threatened by 

a lack of specific regulatory mechanisms 

for the species itself as well as its 

habitat throughout a significant portion 

of its range. 

E. Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence: A 

review of the available information did 

not indicate that this species was 

threatened by other factors. 

In summary, the Kaiser-I-Hind 

swallowtail is a wide-ranging species 

that is experiencing varying degrees of 

threat throughout its range. There is 

potential for habitat destruction in at 

least four range countries, and 

collection for commercial purposes is 

reported throughout its range. However, 

regulatory mechanisms may not be 

adequately protecting the species from 

these threats. The combination of these 

factors potentially threatens this species 

throughout a significant portion of its 

range. 

The Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail does 

not represent a monotypic genus. It 

faces threats that are low to moderate in 

magnitude and imminent. It therefore 

receives a priority rank of 8. 

Summary of Findings 

The Service has carefully assessed the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available regarding the 

present and future threats facing the 

seven foreign butterfly species in this 

petition. Based on our review, we find 

that two species, the Oaxacan 

swallowtail and southern tailed 

birdwing, do not warrant listing under 

the Act because, as summarized above 

for each of these species, new 

populations have been discovered and 

neither species is subject to significant 

threats that cause the species to be 

threatened with extinction throughout a 

significant portion of its range. Further, 

both are strictly protected within their 

respective ranges. Thus, this 

determination of not warranted for these 

two butterfly species constitutes the 

agency’s final action on these species at 

this time. However, we request that you 

submit any new information for these 

species concerning status and threats 

whenever it becomes available. This 

information will help us monitor the 

status of these species and encourage 

their conservation. 

We also find, as discussed above, that 

the remaining five species, Harris’

mimic swallowtail, the Jamacian kite 

swallowtail, the Fluminese swallowtail, 

Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail, and 

the Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail, warrant 

listing as threatened. However, the 

publication of a proposed rule to list 

these species remains precluded by 

other higher-priority listing actions. 

Section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act 

indicates that the Service may make 

warranted-but-precluded findings with 

regard to cases in which (1) an 

immediate proposed rule is precluded 

by higher-priority proposals to list 

species as endangered or threatened, 

and (2) expeditious progress is being 

made on other listing measures. 

Expeditious progress in listing 

endangered and threatened species is 

being made, and our progress on listing 

species previously found to be 

warranted but precluded is reported 

annually in the Federal Register. Our 

most recent annual notice on these 12-

month ‘‘resubmitted’’ petition findings 

on foreign species was published on 

May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354). We 

published a complete description of our 

listing priority system on September 21, 

1983 (48 FR 43098). The listing priority 

number for each of the five butterfly 

species found to be warranted but 

precluded is presented in Table 1. Other 

foreign species, comprising a large 

number of birds covered by petitions 

received in 1980 and 1991, have listing 

priority numbers that are equal to or 

higher than those of at least some of the 

butterflies. 

As required by Section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of 

the Act, the Service will reassess the 

warranted-but-precluded finding when 

we publish our annual notice on 

resubmitted petition findings for foreign 

species. The Service seeks data and 

comments from the public on this 

petition finding. We will continue to 

monitor the status of these species as 

new information becomes available. Our 

review of any new information received 

will determine if a change in status is 

warranted, including the need to list 

any species on an emergency basis. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this petition finding is available on 

request from the Division of Scientific 

Authority (see ADDRESSES section). 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is Dr. Patricia De Angelis, Division of 

Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax 

Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 

22203. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.).

TABLE 1.—PETITION FINDING FOR SEVEN FOREIGN SPECIES OF SWALLOWTAIL BUTTERFLIES (FAMILY: PAPILIONIDAE) 

[R=listing not warranted/removed; C=listing warranted but precluded] 

Status 

Scientific name Synonyms Common name Historic range 

Category Priority 

C ............. 12 ........... Eurytides lysithous 

harrisianus.

Graphium lysithous 

harrisianus; Mimoides 

lysithous harrisianus.

Harris’ mimic swallowtail ..... Brazil, Paraguay (?). 

C ............. 5 ............. Eurytides marcellinus .......... Graphium marcellinus; 

Neographium marcellinus; 

Protographium 

marcellinus (nom. inv.); 

Protesilaus marcellinus.

Jamaican kite swallowtail 

Blue swallowtail.

Jamaica. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 2004 / Proposed Rules 70589

TABLE 1.—PETITION FINDING FOR SEVEN FOREIGN SPECIES OF SWALLOWTAIL BUTTERFLIES (FAMILY: PAPILIONIDAE)—

Continued

[R=listing not warranted/removed; C=listing warranted but precluded] 

Status 

Scientific name Synonyms Common name Historic range 

Category Priority 

R ............. n/a .......... Papilio esperanza ............... Pterourus esperanza 

Heraclides esperanza.

Oaxacan swallowtail, La 

llamadora.

Mexico. 

C ............. 5 ............. Parides ascanius ................ n/a ....................................... Fluminese swallowtail, 

Ascanius swallowtail.

Brazil. 

C ............. 11 ........... Parides hahneli ................... n/a ....................................... Hahnel’s Amazonian swallowtail.Brazil. 

R ............. n/a .......... Ornithoptera meridionalis .... Troides meridionalis; 

Schoenbergia 

meridionalis.

Southern tailed birdwing ..... Indonesia, Papua New 

Guinea. 

C ............. 8 ............. Teinopalpus imperialis ........ n/a ....................................... Kaiser-I-Hind swallowtail, 

Emperor of India.

Bhutan, China, India, Laos, 

Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam. 

Dated: November 18, 2004. 

Marshall P. Jones, Jr., 

Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 04–26611 Filed 12–6–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 041117321–4321–01; I.D. 

110904D]

RIN 0648–AS37

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Aleutian Islands 

Subarea Directed Pollock Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule 

that would implement Amendment 82 

to the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP). Amendment 82, if approved, 

would establish a framework for 

management of the Aleutian Islands 

subarea (AI) directed pollock fishery. 

This action is necessary to implement 

provisions of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2004 that require 

the AI directed pollock fishery to be 

allocated to the Aleut Corporation for 

the purpose of economic development 

of Adak, Alaska. This action is intended 

to promote the goals and objectives of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2004, and other applicable laws.

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by January 21, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Lori Durall. Comments may be 

submitted by:

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802.

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, AK.

• Fax: 907–586–7557.

• E-mail: BSA82–0648–

AS37@noaa.gov. Include in the subject 

line the following document identifier: 

AI pollock proposed rule. E-mail 

comments, with or without attachments, 

are limited to 5 megabytes.

• Webform at the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions at that site for submitting 

comments.

Copies of the Environmental 

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review 

(EA/RIR) prepared for the proposed 

rule, the 2000 FMP level biological 

opinion, and the 2001 biological 

opinion and its June 2003 supplement 

for the Steller sea lion protection 

measures may be obtained from the 

addresses stated above or from the 

Alaska Region NMFS website at 

www.fakr.noaa.gov.

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to NMFS, Alaska 

Region, and by e-mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melanie Brown, 907–586–7228 or 

melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

groundfish fisheries in the exclusive 

economic zone of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands management area 

(BSAI) are managed under the FMP. The 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) prepared the FMP 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.

Regulations implementing the FMP 

appear at 50 CFR part 679. General 

regulations governing U.S. fisheries also 

appear at 50 CFR part 600.

The Council has submitted 

Amendment 82 for review by the 

Secretary of Commerce, and a Notice of 

Availability of the amendment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 16, 2004 (69 FR 67107), with 

comments on the amendment invited 

through January 18, 2005. Comments 

may address the FMP amendment, the 

proposed rule, or both, but must be 

received by January 18, 2005, to be 

considered in the approval/disapproval 

decision on the FMP amendment. All 

comments received by that time, 

whether specifically directed to the 

FMP amendment or to the proposed 

rule, will be considered in the approval/

disapproval decision on the FMP 

Amendment.

Background

The Consolidated Appropriations Act 

of 2004 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 108–199) 

was signed into law on January 23, 

2004. Section 803 of this law allocates 

the AI directed pollock fishery to the 

Aleut Corporation for economic 

development of Adak, Alaska. The 

statute permits the Aleut Corporation to 

authorize one or more agents for 

activities necessary for conducting the