Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25867

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting, Digital

television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11099 Filed 5–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD67

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reclassification of Yacare

Caiman in South America From

Endangered to Threatened, and the

Listing of Two Other Caiman Species

as Threatened by Reason of Similarity

of Appearance

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) is reclassifying the

yacare caiman (Caiman yacare; also

known as Caiman crocodilus yacare)

from its present endangered status to

threatened status under the Endangered

Species Act because the current

endangered listing does not correctly

reflect the present status of this species.

The Service also is listing the common

caiman (Caiman crocodilus crocodilus)

and the brown caiman (Caiman

crocodilus fuscus) as threatened by

reason of similarity of appearance.

Caiman yacare is native to Argentina,

Brazil, Paraguay, and Bolivia. Caiman

crocodilus crocodilus and C. c. fuscus

occur in Mexico and Central and South

America. All three taxa are listed in

Appendix II of the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES), which allows for international

commercial trade in these species.

Listing the two taxa as threatened by

reason of similarity of appearance will

assist in protecting the yacare caiman by

facilitating wildlife inspections of

shipments at the ports of entry and

detection of illegal shipments.

A special rule for these three caiman

populations allows U.S. commerce in

their skins, other parts, and products

from individual countries of origin and

countries of re-export if certain

conditions are satisfied by those

countries prior to exportation to the

United States. These conditions largely

pertain to the implementation of a

CITES Universal Tagging System

Resolution for crocodilian skins

(adopted at the ninth meeting of the

Conference of the Parties) as well as

provisions intended to support

sustainable management of wild

populations of the above three caiman

species/subspecies. In the case where

tagged caiman skins and other parts are

exported to another country, usually for

tanning and manufacturing purposes,

and the processed skins and finished

products are exported to the United

States, the rule prohibits importation or

re-exportation of such skins, parts, and

products if we determine that either the

country of origin or re-export is

engaging in practices that are

detrimental to the conservation of

caiman populations.

The purpose of this rule is threefold.

First, the rule accurately reflects the

conservation status of the yacare

caiman. Second, we wish to promote the

conservation of the yacare caiman by

ensuring proper management of the

commercially harvested caiman species

in the range countries and, through

implementation of trade controls (as

described in the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution), to reduce

commingling of caiman specimens.

Third, downlisting of C. yacare to

threatened reconciles listings of the

species in the Act and CITES.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on June 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for public inspection by

appointment, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

Office of Scientific Authority, 4401 N.

Fairfax Dr., Room 750, Arlington,

Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Javier Alvarez, Office of Scientific

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Mail Stop ARLSQ–750,

Washington, DC 20240 (phone: 703–

358–1708; fax: 703–358–2276; e-mail:

r9osa@fws.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Note: Portions of the original proposed rule

were re-written to conform to the new

Federal policy on the use of ‘‘plain English’’

in Federal documents. However, the original

intent of the text remains the same. Text in

the proposed rule has also been amended in

this final rule in response to comments

submitted by the public (see ‘‘Comments

Received’’ below) and to coincide with the

CITES Universal Tagging System Resolution.

Background

The yacare caiman was listed as

endangered throughout its entire range

under the predecessor of the

Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973

on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495). (At the

time of the original listing, Peru was

incorrectly listed as one of the range

countries, whereas Paraguay was

excluded. In this final rule, we correct

that situation.) On July 1, 1975, it was

also placed in Appendix II of the

Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora—CITES (42 FR 10465). (The

species has never been listed in CITES

Appendix I, which prohibits

international trade in the species if such

activity is conducted for primarily

commercial purposes and/or

determined to be detrimental to the

survival of the species.) The endangered

listing under the Act prohibited imports

and re-exports of the species into/from

the United States. However, the

Appendix II listing allows for regulated

commercial trade elsewhere in the

world, based on certain findings. As a

result, a substantial U.S. law

enforcement problem has occurred

because of the different listing status

under the Act and under CITES. Imports

and re-exports of yacare caiman into/

from the United States without an ESA

permit are prohibited under the Act,

including shipments originating from

countries of origin with valid CITES

export documents. However, imports

and re-exports of products from the

common and brown caimans are legal,

when accompanied by appropriate

CITES documents. Since products

manufactured from the yacare caiman,

common caiman, and the brown caiman

are often indistinguishable as to species

from which they are made, products

from the prohibited yacare caiman are

often commingled with products from

non-prohibited taxa among commercial

shipments into the United States. The

unauthorized entry of prohibited yacare

caiman products constitutes a violation

of the Act, and if the yacare is legally

protected in individual range countries,

then Lacey Act violations may also have

occurred.

Until relatively recently, Argentina,

Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay prohibited

the export of caiman products (Brazaitis

in comments on the October 29, 1990,

Federal Register notice [55 FR 43389]).

However, CITES Notification to the

Parties No. 781, issued on March 10,

1994, indicated that Brazil’s CITES

Management Authority had registered

75 ranching operations for producing

skins of C. c. crocodilus and C. yacare.

These ranching operations were

established under provisions of Article

6 B of Brazilian Wildlife Law No. 5.197,

of November 3, 1967. Caiman yacare

from these Brazilian ranches were being

legally traded in the international

25868 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

marketplace, except into the United

States. Paraguay and Bolivia have also

expressed an interest in the legal

international marketing of C. yacare

skins, and restricted legal hunts are

currently allowed (see below).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) recognizes that substantial

populations of crocodilians that are

managed as a sustainable resource can

be utilized for commercial purposes

while not adversely affecting the

survival of individual populations of the

species, when scientifically based

management plans are implemented.

When certain positive conservation

conditions have been met, the Service

has acted to allow utilization and trade

from managed populations of the

American alligator (Alligator

mississippiensis), the importation of

commercial shipments of Nile crocodile

(Crocodylus niloticus) from several

southern and eastern African countries,

and similar shipments of saltwater

crocodile (Crocodylus porosus)

specimens from Australia (61 FR 32356;

June 24, 1996). The CITES Parties

reviewed management activities prior to

transferring certain populations from

CITES Appendix I to Appendix II

(thereby allowing commercial trade) and

included assessments of population

status, determination of sustainable

harvest quotas (or approval of ranching

programs), and the control of the illegal

harvest. Management regulations

imposed after harvest included the

tagging of skins and issuance of permits

to satisfy the requirements for CITES

Appendix II species.

This final rule and its accompanying

special rule allow U.S. commerce in

skins, other parts, and products from

Caiman yacare, Caiman crocodilus

crocodilus, and C. c. fuscus into the

United States. These three Caiman

populations are widespread in Mexico

and Central and South America, and

have high reproductive potential

(Thorbjarnarson 1992, Thorbjarnarson

1994). In fact, they have survived in

spite of substantial legal and illegal

harvests in the past (Moura ̃o et al. 1996,

Da Silveria and Thorbjarnarson 1999).

As in the case of the final rules

involving Alligator mississippiensis,

Crocodylus niloticus, and Crocodylus

porosus (50 CFR part 17), this final rule

will allow commerce in Caiman yacare,

Caiman c. crocodilus, and C. c. fuscus

into the United States only from range

countries that regulate the legal harvest

and control illegal trade of these three

populations, so as to ensure that they

are being sustained at biologically

sound levels. Furthermore, the Service

does not intend to allow importation or

re-exportation of Caiman yacare, C.

crocodilus crocodilus, or C. c. fuscus

specimens from intermediary countries

that do not properly control trade in

crocodilian skins, other parts, and

products.

This rule reclassifies the yacare

caiman (Caiman yacare = C. crocodilus

yacare) from endangered to threatened

status under the Act and lists two

additional taxa, the common caiman (C.

c. crocodilus) and the brown caiman (C.

c. fuscus including C. crocodilus

chiapasius), as threatened by reason of

similarity of appearance. When traded

as skin pieces and products, the yacare

caiman is similar in appearance to the

common caiman and the brown caiman,

which are listed as CITES Appendix II

species but are not listed in the Act.

Other caiman species will be retained as

endangered under the Act, including the

black caiman (Melanosuchus niger) and

the broad-snouted caiman (Caiman

latirostris). This rule does not affect the

endangered or threatened status, under

the Act, of any other crocodilian species

in the Western Hemisphere.

The original listing for the yacare

caiman (under the provisions of the

Endangered Species Conservation Act of

1969) was C. yacare, which is the

presently accepted taxonomic name for

the species (King and Burke 1989) and

the name used throughout this rule.

Some authors treat the taxon as a

subspecies, C. c. yacare, and this is the

taxonomic name presently included in

the List of Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife (50 CFR part 17.11). King

believes (in litt.) that C. yacare should

be considered biologically as a

subspecies or at the end of a

morphological cline, but indicates that,

nomenclaturally, it is recognized as a

full species. A recent study, including

an analysis of mitochondrial DNA

variation, indicates that the C. yacare of

Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay

comprise a single taxonomic unit with

substantial genetic, morphological, and

zoogeographical similarities (Brazaitis et

al. 1993). Those authors indicate that C.

yacare populations are effectively

separated from C. c. crocodilus

populations by mountains and

highlands that limit nesting habitat and

the migration of individual animals

between southern and northern river

systems. Caiman yacare, C. c.

crocodilus, and C. c. fuscus are

considered, on the basis of their DNA

sequences, to be distinct populations of

a widespread and related taxon (Amato

1992) with C. yacare apparently having

greater genetic differences from C. c.

crocodilus than C. c. crocodilus has in

relationship to C. c. fuscus (Brazaitis et

al. 1993). Additional DNA analyses by

Brazaitis and others support the

interpretation that ‘‘Caiman yacare, C. c.

crocodilus, and C. c. chiapasius

(probably C. c. fuscus) are each

phylogenetic species, as per the criteria

of Davis and Nixon (1992)’’ (Brazaitis et

al. 1997a, Brazaitis et al. 1997b).

However, recent work by Busack and

Pandya (1996) suggests that C. c.

crocodilus and C. c. fuscus comprise a

single genetic population at the

subspecies level, while confirming that

the yacare caiman is a distinct

subspecies, C. c. yacare. Currently, no

biochemical evidence indicates that

recognizable subgroups of C. yacare

occur within its distributional limits in

the river systems of Argentina, Bolivia,

Brazil, or Paraguay (Brazaitis et al.

1993), and, therefore, no such subgroups

are recognized in this rule.

Comments Received

On March 15, 1988, the Service

received a petition from Mr. Armand S.

Bennett, President of Columbia Impex

Corporation, requesting the

reclassification of the yacare caiman

from endangered to threatened status.

The Service reviewed the petition and

concluded that it did not present

sufficient scientific or commercial

information to indicate that a

reclassification was warranted (55 FR

43387, published October 29, 1990).

However, the Service, in the October 29,

1990, Federal Register notice, also

solicited relevant data, comments, and

publications dealing with the current

status and distribution, biological

information, and conservation measures

pertaining to the yacare caiman. The

Service also requested comments about

the advisability and necessity of treating

the subspecies C. c. crocodilus and C. c.

fuscus as endangered or threatened due

to similarity of appearance to the listed

C. yacare. Based on the information

received in response to the Federal

Register notice and other available

information, the Service published on

September 23, 1998, a proposed rule for

the reclassification of the yacare caiman

from endangered to threatened, with a

special rule allowing U.S. commerce in

skins, other parts, and products of this

species. The Service also proposed

listing the common caiman (C. c.

crocodilus) and the brown caiman (C. c.

fuscus) as threatened by reason of

similarity of appearance.

We received a total of 26 comments in

response to the September 23, 1998,

proposed rule: 6 were from crocodilian

experts, 11 from foreign governments

and institutions (Argentina, Bolivia,

Brazil, Colombia, Paraguay, and

Singapore), 1 from a State government

(Louisiana), 6 from the crocodile trade

industry (2 based in the United States

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25869

and 4 foreign), and 2 from nongovernmental organizations (World

Wildlife Fund and The Humane Society

of the United States).

In summary, the majority of foreign

government correspondents (Argentina,

Bolivia, Brazil, and Colombia) and

World Wildlife Fund supported the

downlisting of yacare caiman. Likewise,

five of the six correspondents from the

crocodile trade industry in the United

States (Columbia Impex Corporation,

Florida) and overseas (Tecno—Caiman

Ltd., Argentina; Cooperative of Caiman

Breeders from the Pantanal of Mato

Grosso, Brazil; Colombian Association

of Animal Ranchers; and Singapore

Reptile Skin Trade Association)

supported the proposed downlisting.

However, the Humane Society of the

United States opposed it. The

Government of Paraguay considered that

the original listing of yacare caiman as

endangered was unwarranted, and,

therefore, commented that the species

should be removed form the Act.

Comments from various crocodilian

experts, including five members of The

World Conservation Union/Species

Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC)

Crocodile Specialist Group (CSG), were

mixed. Dr. James Perran Ross (CSG

Executive Officer), Mr. Alejandro

Larriera (CSG Regional Vice Chairman

for Latin America and Caribbean), and

Mr. Tomas Waller (CSG member from

Argentina), supported the proposed

downlisting of yacare caiman to

threatened. Mr. Ted Joanen (CSG Vice

Chairman for North America) and Mr.

Peter Brazaitis (Forensic Specialist in

Herpetology) opposed the proposed

downlisting, whereas Prof. F. Wayne

King (CSG Deputy Chairman)

considered that the original listing of

yacare caiman as endangered was

unwarranted. The Department of

Wildlife and Fisheries of Louisiana

partially supported the proposed

downlisting.

Comments: The Governments of

Argentina (Secretarı ́a de Recursos

Naturales y Desarrollo Sustentable—

Secretary of Natural Resources and

Sustainable Development), Bolivia

(Vice-Ministerio de Medio Ambiente,

Recursos Naturales y Desarrollo

Forestal, Ministerio de Desarrollo

Sostenible y Planificacio ́n—ViceMinistry of the Environment, Natural

Resources and Forestry Development,

Ministry of Sustainable Development

and Planning; Unidad de Recursos

Naturales y Medio Ambiente, Prefectura

y Comandancia General del Beni—

Natural Resources and Environment

Unit, Government of the Department of

Beni; Museo Nacional de Historia

Nacional—National Museum of Natural

History; Museo de Historia Natural,

Universidad Auto ́noma Gabriel Rene ́

Moreno—Museum of Natural History,

Gabriel Rene ́ Moreno Autonomous

University), Brazil (Instituto Brasileiro

de Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos

Naturais Renovaveis—Institute of the

Environment and Renewable Natural

Resources; and Brazilian Embassy in

Washington, DC), and Colombia

(Ministerio del Medio Ambiente—

Ministry of the Environment)

commented that yacare caiman is

abundant or has recovered in their

respective countries, and, therefore,

supported the proposed downlisting of

yacare caiman. Argentina supports

downlisting of C. yacare, even though it

bans export of the species. All four

countries (three of which are yacare

caiman range countries) believe that the

opening of commerce in C. yacare

products, through a special rule

allowing commercial importation and

re-exportation of yacare caiman

specimens into/from the United States,

will provide an economic incentive for

the protection of the species throughout

its range.

Prof. F. Wayne King, Dr. James Perran

Ross, and Mr. Tomas Waller (all

members of CSG) also considered the

yacare caiman to be abundant

throughout most of its range.

Furthermore, they argued that enough

national and international regulatory

and management mechanisms (such as

CITES) are in place in the range

countries, so that illegal harvest no

longer constitutes a major threat to the

species.

Finally, based on recent field surveys,

World Wildlife Fund also did not

consider C. yacare to be threatened.

Furthermore, they recognized that the

proposed downlisting and special rule

will help reconcile listings of yacare

caiman in the Act and CITES.

Response: We continue to believe that

the downlisting of yacare caiman from

endangered to threatened, with a special

rule allowing U.S. commerce in caiman

skins, other parts, and products, is

warranted (See ‘‘Summary of Factors

Affecting Caiman yacare’’ below).

Comment: Prof. F. Wayne King, Dr.

John Perran Ross, and the Government

of Paraguay (Ministry of Agriculture and

Cattle Ranching) considered C. yacare to

be abundant enough in the wild to

prompt its complete removal from the

Act.

Response: Although wild populations

of yacare caiman have recovered in

portions of the species’ range, we note

that some populations have not fully

recovered, and, therefore, we continue

to believe the threatened classification

is appropriate (See ‘‘Summary of Factors

Affecting Caiman yacare’’ below).

Comments: Mr. Ted Joanen, Mr. Peter

Brazaitis, the Department of Wildlife

and Fisheries of Louisiana, and The

Humane Society of the United States

opposed the proposed special rule

allowing U.S. commerce in skins, parts,

and products of yacare caiman because

of concerns about current management

of the species in some range countries.

They argued that some range countries

lack protected habitats, long-term

monitoring programs, effective national

legislation, or effective national law

enforcement to prevent uncontrolled

harvest of the species.

To address those concerns, Mr. Joanen

and Dr. John Perran Ross suggested that

importation of C. yacare specimens from

individual range countries not be

allowed until these countries provide

the Service with detailed written

descriptions of their respective

management plans, regulations, and

ongoing studies for the species, as was

requested in previous rules involving

Australian saltwater crocodile,

American alligator, and Nile crocodile.

Likewise, the National Museum of

Natural History of Bolivia recommended

amending the special rule, so as to

require that all skins allowed for import

into the United States originate from

populations under a sustainable use

management plan, such as the one

developed in Bolivia. Bolivia believes

that this requirement will prevent the

sale of illegally hunted crocodilian skins

that are seized by government agencies,

but legalized through governmentsponsored auctions.

Response: We note that enforcement

of domestic regulations pertaining to

harvest of wild yacare caimans is a

domestic issue. No government or

agency provides perfect management,

but many governments and agencies

provide sufficient management to

permit sustainable use of certain

individual species. A reasonable

standard for the Service to use to

determine sufficiency of a wildlife

management program in any country is

to compare management of a foreign

species with management in the United

States. In the United States, poaching of

white-tailed deer still occurs, despite

strict State laws regulating hunting of

the species. However, State enforcement

of deer hunting laws is sufficient to

continue allowing sustainable harvest of

the species.

Similarly, although all range countries

of yacare caiman regulate the harvest of

the species, they are not always capable

of enforcing such regulations,

particularly in isolated areas. Although

we acknowledge that illegal hunting of

25870 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

yacare caiman for local trade still occurs

in many of the species’ range countries,

international illegal trade in crocodilian

skins has been reduced significantly

since the adoption by CITES Parties of

Resolution Conf. 9.22 on the Universal

Tagging System Resolution for

crocodilians in November 1994 (see

‘‘Inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms’’ below). Given that all four

range countries (Argentina, Bolivia,

Brazil, and Paraguay) are CITES Parties,

we believe that international trade in

yacare caiman is adequately regulated to

allow commercial importation and reexportation of yacare caiman into/from

the United States.

Furthermore, C. yacare and other

species of caiman appear to be resilient

to hunting. In Brazil, the impact of

hunting on caiman populations is

reduced by strong bias for males among

hunted animals (Moura ̃o et al. 1996, Da

Silveria and Thorbjarnarson 1999). In C.

yacare and C. crocodilus, this bias is

largely due to the fact that hunters target

mostly the largest animals, which are

almost exclusively males. In the case of

black caiman (Melanosuchus niger; a

species listed as endangered in the Act),

male-biased sex ratios among harvested

animals appear to be caused by

preference of adult females for more

protected and difficult to reach areas.

Since a single male can fertilize several

females, this male-biased harvest is less

likely to have a negative impact on the

reproductive potential of caiman

populations. Impact of hunting on

caiman is also reduced by propensity of

hunters to concentrate their harvest in

areas easily accessible (Moura ̃o et al.

1996).

In anticipation to a possible increase

in illegal harvest of yacare caiman, this

rule contains language prohibiting

importation or re-exportation of yacare

caiman skins, other parts, or products,

if we obtain reliable information

indicating that the countries of origin or

re-export are engaging in practices that

are detrimental to the conservation of

yacare caiman populations in the wild.

Nevertheless, we agree with the

suggestion made by several

correspondents of requesting updated

information from the yacare caiman

range countries regarding their

respective management plans,

regulations, and ongoing studies for the

species. Maintenance of such

information in our files would permit us

and other interested parties to better

understand the measures being taken by

range countries to ensure that harvest of

yacare caiman is done in a sustainable

manner. Furthermore, submission of

such information by range countries on

a regular basis would allow us to

monitor the status of yacare caiman in

the wild, as required under the Act.

Therefore, we have added language in

this final rule requesting that the range

countries of C. yacare (Argentina,

Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay) provide to the

Service every 2 years current

information on the status of these taxa

in their countries (see ‘‘The Monitoring

of Yacare Caiman’’ below). We will also

monitor trade in the species by

requesting import and export data on C.

yacare from the World Conservation

Monitoring Centre (WCMC), a repository

of the annual CITES reports prepared

and submitted to the Secretariat by

CITES Parties.

Comments: Mr. Alejandro Larriera

and the Colombian Association of

Animal Ranchers (AZOOCOL)

supported the right of the United States

to prohibit imports from countries not

in compliance with the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution or engaging

in practices detrimental to the survival

of the species. However, the Singapore

Reptile Skin Trade Association

expressed concerns about unilateral

U.S. prohibition of crocodilian imports

from countries not in compliance with

CITES requirements. Columbia Impex

Corporation also commented that the

United States should never have

regulations different than those set by

other countries.

Response: We note that Article XV of

CITES allows CITES Parties to ‘‘adopt

stricter domestic measures’’ regulating

trade, taking, possession, or transport of

specimens of any species, regardless of

whether the species is listed in the

CITES Appendices or not. For example,

some CITES Parties currently prohibit

the export of all their native species

(Australia) or require permits for the

export of any of their native wildlife

(Mexico and Brazil), even though many

of the species are not listed in the CITES

Appendices. In the United States,

Congress has enacted several laws for

the protection of native and foreign

wildlife (including the African Elephant

Conservation Act, Eagle Protection Act,

Marine Mammal Protection Act,

Migratory Bird Treat Act, Wild Bird

Conservation Act, Rhinoceros and Tiger

Conservation Act, and the Endangered

Species Act), many of which impose

stricter restrictions on trade of certain

species compared to CITES. Thus,

adoption of this rule is in no way

contrary to the CITES treaty.

Comment: Prof. King and Dr. Ross

expressed concern about unilateral

prohibition of yacare caiman imports

from countries not in compliance with

the CITES Universal Tagging System

Resolution based on ‘‘information from

* * * other reliable resources’.

Response: We agree that any decision

regarding possible U.S. unilateral

prohibition of yacare caiman imports or

re-exports from countries not in

compliance with the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution should be

based on the best available information.

As recommended by Dr. Ross, we intend

to consult with experts within and

outside our agency (such as the

Service’s National Fish and Wildlife

Forensics Laboratory, university and

natural history museum researchers,

and IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group),

the Management and Scientific

Authorities of other countries, and any

other qualified persons prior to making

a final determination related to the

possible prohibition of yacare caiman

imports from any country.

Comments: Mr. Ted Joanen and Mr.

Peter Brazaitis expressed concern about

implementation of the proposed rule by

the Service, particularly since most

caiman skins imported into the United

States arrive in the form of

manufactured products, which are not

marked, and, therefore, difficult to

identify. Mr. Brazaitis also commented

that Federal regulations do not require

tamper-proof identification tags on

crocodile skins for importation.

Response: We consider that

international illegal trade in crocodilian

skins has been reduced significantly

since the adoption of Resolution Conf.

9.22 (Universal Tagging System

Resolution) by CITES Parties. Therefore,

requiring that yacare caiman shipments

imported into the United States be

accompanied by proper CITES

documentation, as described in this

rule, diminishes the likelihood of

importing yacare caiman specimens

obtained in a manner detrimental to the

species. Furthermore, by allowing U.S.

commerce in yacare caiman, we

eliminate the incentive to intentionally

misidentify yacare caiman specimens

for importation into the United States.

Consequently, we will be able to gather

more accurate trade data on the species.

At this time, the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution is codified

in the Federal regulations just for

Alligator mississippiensis, Crocodylus

niloticus, and Crocodylus porosus.

However, we are currently in the

process of updating the U.S. Code of

Federal Regulations to include language

codifying the CITES Universal Tagging

System Resolution for all crocodilians

(see Federal Register notice 62 FR

42093, published on August 5, 1997). In

the meantime, the language contained in

this rule implements the CITES

Universal Tagging System Resolution

for shipments involving C. yacare, C.

crocodilus fuscus, and C. c. crocodilus.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25871

Comment: The Humane Society of the

United States supported the listing of C.

crocodilus fuscus and C. c. crocodilus as

threatened because of similarity of

appearance, as well as the conditions in

the special rule. However, Strictly

Reptiles, Inc., opposed listing of C. c.

fuscus and C. c. crocodilus because of

similarity of appearance, since it

believes that C. yacare, C. c. fuscus, and

C. c. crocodilus are easily

distinguishable. Columbia Impex

Corporation also commented that C. c.

fuscus and C. c. crocodilus are easily

distinguishable once skins are tanned,

whereas the Government of Paraguay

commented that as long as skins are

properly tagged and accompanied by

CITES permits, there is no chance for

misidentification of shipments

involving C. yacare, C. c. fuscus, and C.

c. crocodilus.

Response: Controversy still exists as

to whether C. yacare, C. c. fuscus and

C. c. crocodilus can be distinguished

using morphological characters. Listing

of C. c. fuscus, and C. c. crocodilus

because of similarity of appearance will

bring C. yacare and all known

subspecies of C. crocodilus under the

Act (C. c. apaporiensis is already listed

as endangered) and, therefore, will

facilitate and expedite inspection of C.

crocodilus and C. yacare shipments into

the United States. Wildlife inspectors at

the ports will no longer face the timeconsuming and difficult task of

examining individual C. crocodilus and

C. yacare shipments to determine

whether or not they involve protected

species and/or subspecies, as all

shipments involving these two taxa will

be treated equally.

Comment: The Government of

Colombia and the Singapore Reptile

Skin Trade Association commented that

listing of C. c. fuscus and C. c.

crocodilus will make trade in these two

subspecies more difficult because of the

need for permits and inspections.

Likewise, the Colombian Association of

Animal Ranchers (AZOOCOL) opposed

listing of C. c. fuscus and C. c.

crocodilus because of similarity of

appearance because they believe that

such listing will punish sustainable use

of C. crocodilus in Colombia.

Response: As noted by the IUCN

Crocodile Specialist Group in their

October 1998—December 1998

newsletter (Volume 17, Number 4, pages

15–18), the listing of C. c. fuscus and C.

c. crocodilus as threatened by similarity

of appearance does not add any new

requirements to those already in place

for the importation and re-exportation of

skins, other parts, and products of these

two subspecies into/from the United

States. Since C. c. fuscus and C. c.

crocodilus are currently listed in

Appendix II of CITES, a CITES permit

issued by the exporting country is

already required for importation of

skins, parts, and products of these two

subspecies into another country. This

rule only requires that shipments

involving skins and other parts of C. c.

fuscus and C. c. crocodilus be tagged in

accordance with the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution and

accompanied by valid CITES

documents, as is currently required.

Furthermore, inclusion of these two

subspecies just codifies in the U.S.

Federal regulations an existing

international requirement.

However, this special rule does not

cover the importation of viable caiman

eggs or live caimans into the United

States. In addition to a valid CITES

export permit (already required),

importation of these two types of

specimens of C. c. fuscus and C. c.

crocodilus will require an Endangered

Species Act import permit. This

requirement will allow scrutiny of

individual applications for importation

of live caimans or eggs so as to prevent

accidental introduction of these exotic

species into the United States (in

accordance with Executive Order 13112

on Invasive Species issued by President

Bill Clinton on February 3, 1999), an

event that may have negative economic

and ecological impacts on humans,

native wildlife, and ecosystems in the

United States.

Comments: Dr. John Perran Ross, the

Singapore Reptile Skin Trade

Association, and the Governments of

Colombia and Singapore commented on

the 25 percent restriction on

replacement tags and opposed the

measure. Dr. Ross and the Singapore

Reptile Skin Trade Association noted

that the special rule goes beyond CITES

restrictions on replacement tags

(Resolution Conf. 9.22), which the

United States helped draft. The

Government of Colombia considered

this restriction an indication of mistrust

of range and re-exporting countries. The

Government of Singapore and the

Singapore Reptile Skin Trade

Association commented that, since

tanneries regularly removed tags from

raw skins before processing them, the 25

percent restriction will create problems

for skin traders in their country.

Singapore made two suggestions to

resolve this issue: (1) shipments

involving re-tagged skins must include

all tags from the country of origin, and

(2) re-exporting countries should fax

copies of their re-export CITES permits

as well as the CITES permits from the

country of origin.

Response: As noted above, Article XV

of CITES allows for CITES Parties to

adopt stricter domestic regulations for

the protection of wildlife, whether the

species is listed in the CITES

Appendices or not. Therefore, adoption

of this rule is not contrary to CITES.

Moreover, this 25 percent restriction on

replacement tags is consistent with the

requirements for importation of

saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus

porosus) and Nile crocodile (Crocodylus

niloticus) published in the Federal

Register on June 24, 1996 (61 FR

32356—‘‘Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification of

Saltwater Crocodile Population in

Australia From Endangered to

Threatened With Special Rule for the

Saltwater and Nile Crocodiles’’).

Summary of Factors Affecting Caiman

yacare

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 five criteria to be used in

determining whether to add, reclassify,

or remove a species from the list of

endangered and threatened species.

These factors and their applicability to

populations of the yacare caiman in

South America are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Since the initial listing of the yacare

caiman, controversy has been associated

with defining the ranges of caiman

species, especially that of C. yacare in

southern South America. To assist in

the clarification of the distribution and

status of C. yacare, the CITES

Secretariat, in conjunction with the

World Conservation Union/Species

Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC)

Crocodile Specialist Group (CSG),

undertook a survey (starting in late 1986

and early 1987) to develop a

conservation program for crocodilians of

the genus Caiman. These surveys were

conducted under the auspices of CITES

and were carried out by the CSG and the

Governments of Brazil, Bolivia, and

Paraguay. We review the available data

from these studies (Brazaitis 1989a;

Brazaitis et al. 1990; King and Vı ́dez

Roca 1989; and Scott et al. 1988 and

1990) on the distribution, ecology, and

status of C. yacare in this and following

sections assessing factors affecting the

species.

Caiman yacare is widely distributed

throughout the lowland areas and river

systems of northeastern Argentina,

southeastern and northern Bolivia,

Paraguay, and the western regions of the

25872 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Brazilian States of Rondonia, Mato

Grosso, and Mato Grosso do Sul

(Thorbjarnarson, J. B. 1992). The range

includes the entire Guapore River (=

Itenes River) drainage, including its

headwaters in the Brazilian State of

Mato Grosso and its tributaries in

northeastern Bolivia; eastern Bolivia

and western Brazil throughout the

drainage of the Paraguay River and the

Pantanal of Brazil; Paraguay River and

southern Pilcomayo River in Paraguay;

and the lower Salado River, the Parana ́

River east to the Uruguay River, and

south to the mouth of the Parana ́ River

in Argentina (Brazaitis et al. 1993). The

yacare caiman is found in a wide variety

of habitats, including those that are

altered by humans. The species occurs

in vegetated and non-vegetated large

open rivers, secondary rivers and

streams, flooded lowlands and forests,

roadside ditches and canals, oxbows,

large and small lakes and ponds, cattle

ponds, and streams (Brazaitis et al.

1988).

The common caiman, Caiman

crocodilus crocodilus, occurs in the

drainage basins of the Amazon and

Orinoco Rivers in French Guiana,

Surinam, Guyana, Venezuela, eastern

Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, and Brazil

(Thorbjarnarson 1992). A narrow zone

of intergradation exists between C.

yacare and C. c. crocodilus along the

northern border of Bolivia and Brazil in

the State of Acre in the Acre River and

Abuna drainages, northward to

approximately Humaita on the Madeira

River in the Brazilian State of Amazonas

(Brazaitis et al. 1990).

The brown caiman, Caiman

crocodilus fuscus (including C. c.

chiapasius), occurs from Mexico

through Central America to Colombia

(west of the Andes), along the coastal

and western regions of Venezuela, and

south through Ecuador to the

northwestern border of Peru. The CITES

Secretariat and several authors consider

C. c. chiapasius a synonym of C. c.

fuscus, and we consider it so for the

purposes of this rule.

The expansion of cattle grazing and

the concurrent construction of

permanent water sources for cattle has

increased the dry season freshwater

habitats available to yacare caiman in

some areas. However, cattle grazing has

also diminished habitat in other areas

by increasing the salinity of waterways

(King et al. 1994). Habitat destruction

and deterioration has taken place and

continues to occur in parts of the

species’ range. Deforestation for road

construction and mining not only

destroys habitat, but also increases

access of poachers to some yacare

habitats (Brazaitis et al. 1996).

Increasing human populations,

development of hydroelectric projects,

draining of wetlands, and deteriorating

water quality due to siltation or the

extensive dumping of pollutants

(particularly as a result of mining and

industry) also have caused habitat

degradation. However, yacare caiman

habitat is very extensive and the species

is so widespread that it is very unlikely

that the species is presently endangered

or threatened because of the destruction,

modification, or curtailment of its

habitat or range.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

In the past, large numbers of C. yacare

were taken from South America,

particularly from Brazil, in violation of

domestic laws protecting the species

(Brazaitis et al. 1988, Brazaitis et al.

1996). Although yacare caiman

populations declined in many areas, the

species still could be found in varying

population densities in most areas

where suitable habitat remained

(Brazaitis et al. 1988). Yacare caiman

found in some surveys almost a decade

ago also were small, extremely wary,

and exhibited a high male-biased sex

ratio. One hypothesis suggested that

females might be more heavily

harvested at a time when they might be

very vulnerable while protecting their

nests (Brazaitis 1989a).

In spite of substantial legal and illegal

harvests in the past, many caiman

populations have been able to survive

and recover after being protected or

properly managed (Moura ̃o et al. 1996,

Da Silveria and Thorbjarnarson 1999).

Recent research also suggests that C.

yacare and other species of caiman in

Brazil, and most likely other parts of the

species’ range, are resilient to hunting.

Recent estimates of C. yacare in the

Brazilian Pantanal show densities as

high as 147 individuals/square

kilometer, far larger than those reported

for other crocodilians (Coutinho and

Campos 1996). In Brazil, the impact of

hunting on caiman populations is

reduced by strong bias for males among

hunted animals (Moura ̃o et al. 1996, Da

Silveria and Thorbjarnarson 1999). In C.

yacare and C. crocodilus, this bias

appears to be largely due to the fact that

hunters target mostly the largest

animals, which are almost exclusively

males. In the case of black caiman

(Melanosuchus niger; a species listed as

endangered under the Act), male-biased

sex ratios among harvested animals

appear to be caused by preference of

adult females for more protected and

difficult to reach areas. Since a single

male can fertilize several females, this

male-biased harvest is less likely to have

a negative impact on the reproductive

potential of caiman populations. Impact

of hunting is also reduced by propensity

of hunters to concentrate their harvest

on areas that are easily accessible

(Moura ̃o et al. 1996).

To ensure sustainable management of

C. yacare in Brazil, the Instituto

Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e dos

Recursos Naturais Renovaveis

(IBAMA—Brazilian Institute for

Environment and Renewable Natural

Resources) regulates commerce of C.

yacare. To date, IBAMA has approved

and registered 65 yacare breeding

facilities, with a production of over

80,000 skins (communication from the

Embassy of Brazil, Washington, DC). In

recent months, IBAMA has also teamed

up with other Brazilian Federal and

State government agencies to help

enforce Brazilian laws for the protection

of wildlife, thus reducing illegal trade of

all native wildlife in Brazil.

The yacare caiman remains widely

distributed in Bolivia (communications

from Unidad de Recursos Naturales y

Medio Ambiente, Prefectura y

Comandancia General del Beni,

Bolivia—Natural Resources and

Environment Unit of the Department of

Beni; Museo Nacional de Historia

Nacional, La Paz, Bolivia—National

Museum of Natural History; Museo de

Historia Natural, Universidad

Auto ́noma Gabriel Rene ́ Moreno, Santa

Cruz, Bolivia—Natural History Museum,

Gabriel Rene ́ Moreno Autonomous

University; and Viceministro de Medio

Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y

Desarrollo Forestal, Ministerio de

Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificacio ́n, La

Paz, Bolivia—Vice-Minister of the

Environment, Natural Resources and

Forestry Development, Ministry of

Sustainable Development and

Planning). Although caiman

populations in some rivers were

extirpated, caimans still survive in

Bolivia due to abundant habitat and

their rapid growth to sexual maturity.

Where protected, populations have

recovered, including those in the

extensive wetlands of ‘‘El Pantanal’’. In

fact, the Bolivian Red Book lists C.

yacare as a low-risk species

(communication with Dr. Mario Sua ́rez,

Director of the Museo de Historia

Natural, Universidad Auto ́noma Gabriel

Rene ́ Moreno, Santa Cruz, Bolivia—

Natural History Museum, Gabriel Rene ́

Moreno Autonomous University).

Consequently, Bolivia has recently

approved conservation and sustainable

use plans for C. yacare in the

Departments of Beni and Santa Cruz.

Although a decade ago it was reported

that the long-term continuation of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25873

status quo could lead to the

endangerment of the species in Bolivia

(King and Videz Roca 1989), we believe

that situation has improved

considerably, with effective

management of the species by Bolivian

authorities.

In Paraguay, King et al. (1994)

reported that large populations of yacare

could still be found in suitable habitats.

Caiman yacare populations in Paraguay

are currently being monitored annually

(communications with Ministerio de

Agricultura y Ganaderı ́a—Ministry of

Agriculture and Cattle Ranching,

Paraguay’s CITES Authority). Recent

surveys show that populations are either

stable or increasing. Based on survey

data, hunting quotas are established

accordingly.

The CSG did not conduct a survey

and status assessment in Argentina.

However, Argentina currently bans

export of the species (communication

with Secretaria de Recursos Naturales y

Desarrollo Sustentable—Ministry of

Natural Resources and Sustainable

Development).

In summary, hunting for hides, both

legal and illegal, has in the past been the

major threat to the survival of

populations of yacare caiman. However,

the species has recovered in many parts

of its range, and the four range countries

either provide protection to the species

by domestic legislation and/or regulate

harvest by established hunting seasons

and limits on the size of animals that

can be legally killed for commercial

trade. In spite of these actions, we

believe sufficient cause exists to find, at

this time, that some populations of the

yacare caiman still may be threatened

by illegal hunting for domestic trade in

portions of its extensive range (see

‘‘Inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms’’ below).

C. Disease or Predation

The eggs of C. yacare are eaten by a

variety of predators, which in some

localities include humans, and

hatchlings are consumed by a variety of

predators including other crocodilians.

However, we have no evidence, at this

time, that disease or predation are

significant factors affecting C. yacare

populations.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

The yacare caiman is protected in

Argentina by a total ban on commercial

hunting and on the export of raw and

tanned hides and other products. Brazil

bans the export of wildlife and wildlife

products from native species (Article 6

B of Brazilian Wildlife Law No. 5.197,

of November 3, 1967), except from

approved ranching programs. In

Paraguay, the yacare caiman was

nominally protected by a 1961

Presidential decree that prohibits

hunting, commerce, and import and

export of all native wildlife, their parts,

and products. However, a limited

harvest of yacare caiman is currently

allowed, with quotas being determined

based on annual surveys of the species.

Bolivia permits the hunting of yacare

from January 1 to June 30, and imposes

a 1.5 m size limit on all harvested

caiman. The yacare was additionally

listed as endangered under the U.S.

Endangered Species Conservation Act of

1969 and was added to Appendix II of

CITES in 1975.

In the past, existing legislation and

decrees protecting the yacare caiman or

regulating its harvest have been

inadequately or unevenly enforced.

Many yacare caiman were apparently

illegally killed in Argentina, Bolivia,

Brazil, and Paraguay, and their skins

were illegally exported with real or

forged CITES export permits from some

South American countries. The CITES

Secretariat, in conjunction with the

CSG, and with the permission and

cooperation of the range countries,

conducted a series of surveys of the

status of the yacare caiman during the

1980s and found major inadequacies

associated with the existing regulatory

mechanisms. For example, Bolivia did

not effectively enforce either the

hunting season restriction or the

minimum size limit restrictions on

harvested animals. In the mid-1980s,

large numbers of poached yacare caiman

skins were illegally exported to

Paraguay, encouraging the transnational

movement of illegal wildlife products

through that country in violation of

CITES. As a result, in June 1986 and to

November 1987, the Bolivian

Government imposed a ban on the

export of wildlife specimens (Decreto

Supremo 21312 and Decreto Supremo

21774, respectively) and, through the

CITES Secretariat, asked that the Parties

to the Convention no longer accept

certain CITES export permits issued

illegally by the former Bolivian

Government (Notice of Information No.

3–50 FR 34016; Notice of Information

No. 4–50 FR 34016; Notice of

Information No. 8–50 FR 50965; Notice

of Information No. 11–51 FR 43978).

Some countries of manufacture,

knowingly or unknowingly, have also

apparently accepted illegally killed and

illegally exported yacare caiman, used

these materials in the production of

leather goods, and shipped the resulting

finished products to the United States.

Although a live or whole yacare caiman

can be distinguished from other caiman

species, the products from tanned or

processed skins are often very difficult

to distinguish from other caiman

species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Wildlife Inspectors, by clearing

crocodilian products from these leather

good manufacturing countries, could

have inadvertently allowed the import

of parts and products from illegally

harvested yacare caiman. Such imports

would constitute violations of the U.S.

Lacey Act and the Endangered Species

Act, and would be detrimental to the

conservation of the yacare caiman by

not effectively promoting the

sustainable management of the species.

However, currently available

information indicates that many of the

irregularities have been corrected since

the CITES survey in the 1980s. A

combination of increased awareness of

conservation needs, reduced crocodilian

hide prices, increased action by

government and international agencies,

and increased difficulty in marketing

illegally harvested crocodilian skins

have relieved some of the hunting

pressure on wild caiman populations

(Scott et al. 1990, King et al. 1994).

International illegal trade in

crocodilian skins has been reduced

significantly since the adoption by the

CITES Parties of Resolution Conf. 9.22

(Universal Tagging System Resolution

for the Identification of Crocodilian

Skins) in November 1994. This

resolution establishes an universal

tagging system for the tracking of

international trade in crocodilian skins,

other parts, and products, which

includes: (1) Universal tagging of raw

and processed crocodilian skins with

non-reusable tags for all crocodilian

skins entering international trade,

unless they have been further processed

and cut into smaller pieces; (2) tagging

of transparent containers for crocodilian

parts; (3) use of non-reusable tags that

include as a minimum the International

Organization for Standardization twoletter code for the country of origin, a

unique serial identification number, a

standard species code, and the year of

production or harvest; (4) registration of

such non-reusable tags with the CITES

Secretariat; (5) recording of the same

information that appears on the tags on

the export permit, re-export certificate,

or other Convention document; and (6)

implementation by the re-exporting

countries of an administrative system

that allows for effective matching of

imports and re-exports, and ensures that

the original tags are intact upon reexport, and, if tags are broken, the retagging of skins is performed as

described in CITES Resolution Conf.

9.22. Given that all four range countries

are Parties to CITES (Argentina acceded

25874 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

on April 8, 1981; Bolivia on October 4,

1979; Brazil on November 14, 1975;

Paraguay on February 13, 1977), we

believe that international trade in yacare

caiman is adequately regulated.

To improve implementation of CITES,

at the invitation of the Bolivian

Government and with the financial

support of the U.S. Agency for

International Development’s Partnership

for Biodiversity, the Service’s Office of

Scientific Authority and Division of

Law Enforcement visited Bolivia in the

summer of 1998 to conduct CITES

training. The participants included not

only staff from the Bolivian CITES

Management and Scientific Authorities,

but also representatives from other

Bolivian governmental agencies

involved in the implementation of

CITES, including the Bolivian National

Police and Defense Ministry. During the

one-week training, the Service also

discussed with the participants how to

improve collaboration between the

United States and Bolivia in the

protection and conservation of wildlife.

The training participants also took this

unique opportunity to develop a plan to

implement and coordinate CITES as

well as other fish and wildlife

enforcement activities in Bolivia.

Although all four range countries

have taken steps to curtail illegal

international trade in yacare caiman and

other crocodilians, enforcement of

already existing laws regulating

domestic trade in crocodilians may still

be insufficient in some areas (Brazaitis

et al. 1996, Moura ̃o et al. 1996), due

mostly to the limited resources available

to local enforcement agencies as well as

the remoteness and inaccessibility of

many of the areas. Therefore, we believe

that sufficient cause exists to find that

the yacare caiman is presently

threatened, but no longer endangered, in

some parts of its range by the

inadequacy of the existing regulatory

mechanisms.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Its Continued Existence

A recent new possible threat to yacare

caimans and their habitats is chemical

pollution, primarily from mineral

mining and industry (Brazaitis et al.

1996). However, short-and long-term

effects of chemical contamination on

yacare caiman populations are

unknown.

Summary of Findings

Wildlife, such as the yacare caiman,

can be advantageously utilized in

commerce if management is sufficient to

maintain satisfactory habitats and

harvest is at levels that allow

maintenance of healthy and sustainable

populations. The yacare, under such

conditions, can provide revenue to pay

for its own management.

In developing this rule, we have

carefully assessed the best available

biological and conservation status

information regarding the past, present,

and future threats faced by the yacare

caiman. The available data from these

studies on the distribution, ecology, and

status of C. yacare indicate that this

species is not endangered or in danger

of extinction in any significant portion

of its range. The Service has concluded

that an extensive population of yacare

caiman still exists over large and

seasonally inaccessible areas within the

four South American range countries.

The Service recognizes that yacare

caimans near human populations may

be illegally taken. However, the best

available information indicates that this

and many other species of crocodilians

are capable of surviving despite

unregulated harvests and that new

international requirements are being

implemented to curtail international

trade in illegally harvested crocodile

skins.

Criteria for reclassification of a

threatened or endangered species, found

in 50 CFR part 424.11(d), include

extinction, recovery of the species, or

error in the original data for

classification. The original listing did

not encompass the survey information,

such as Medem’s 1973 work, which

documented an extensive range for this

species. Given the reproductive

capabilities and current status of the

yacare caiman, this species is more

properly considered not as in danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its vast range, but as

threatened due to inadequately

regulated domestic commercialization

in some portions of its range. Therefore,

if range countries continue to

successfully implement measures to

regulate its harvest and domestic

commercialization, the yacare caiman

should be able to maintain stable and

sustainable population levels.

Similarity of Appearance

In determining whether to treat a

species as endangered or threatened due

to similarity of appearance, the Director

shall consider the criteria in section 4(e)

of the Endangered Species Act. Section

4(e) of the Act and criteria of 50 CFR

17.50 set forth three criteria in

determining whether to list a species for

reasons of similarity of appearance.

These criteria apply to populations of

common caiman (C. c. crocodilus) in

South America and the brown caiman

(C. c. fuscus) in Mexico and Central and

South America.

The Service has intercepted numerous

shipments of manufactured items with

documents identifying them as a

lawfully tradeable Appendix II species

(most often C. c. crocodilus and C. c.

fuscus) and have determined that they

are, in fact, made from yacare caiman.

In other instances, products from other

endangered species, such as

Melanosuchus niger, have been declared

as C. c. fuscus. One reason for this

situation is that many vendors, buyers,

and traders in South and Central

America have deliberately misidentified

yacare caiman by obtaining documents

purporting to permit export of other

Appendix II species. In addition,

representatives of the manufacturing

industry and others have indicated that

a common practice in the trade is to

commingle skins at the tanning, cutting,

and assembly stages of the

manufacturing process so that

inadvertent commingling frequently

occurs. While some affirmative yacare

caiman identifications can be made in

manufactured products, in numerous

instances, proper identifications are not

made and significant quantities of

yacare caiman are probably being

imported unlawfully. This situation

occurs because a positive identification

of yacare caiman depends upon whether

certain indicator patterns are present on

a piece of skin. However, a large

proportion of commercially useful

pieces of skins do not bear these

identification patterns.

In his comments submitted in

response to the October 29, 1990,

Federal Register notice, Mr. Peter

Brazaitis provided extensive

information on the similarity of

appearance among six caiman and

crocodilian species or subspecies as

they occur in manufactured products

and some hides. He discussed in detail

the indicator characteristics for C.

yacare, C. c. crocodilus, C. c. fuscus, C.

c. apaporiensis, C. latirostris, and M.

niger for live animals, whole skins, and

untanned skins that remain after

tanning and cutting, and how frequently

similar characteristics found on pieces

of skin prevent positive identification.

The three criteria for listing of other

caiman by similarity of appearance are

discussed below:

(1) The degree of difficulty

enforcement personnel would have in

distinguishing the species, at the point

in question, from an endangered or

threatened species (including those

cases where the criteria for recognition

of a species are based on geographical

boundaries).

Caiman yacare, C. c. crocodilus, and

C. c. fuscus are distinguishable as live

animals because of different markings

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25875

and coloration in the head region.

However, manufactured products

(shoes, purses, belts, or watchbands,

etc.) are extremely difficult even for an

expert to identify as to the species of

origin (Brazaitis 1989b). Products from

the three crocodilians often cannot

readily be distinguished by law

enforcement personnel, which means

that under present conditions mixed

products from U.S. listed and unlisted

species may occur in U.S. commerce.

(2) The additional threat posed to the

endangered or threatened species by

loss of control occasioned because of the

similarity of appearance.

The inability to adequately control

commerce in caiman products has likely

allowed losses to occur to other

endangered species such as C. latirostris

and M. niger. For example, the Service

has records of leather goods

manufactured from M. niger being

included in product shipments declared

as C. c. fuscus.

Another problem occurs when

unlawfully harvested yacare caiman

skins enter commerce in non-range

South American countries and then are

re-exported with documents describing

the export as native caiman. The Service

has intercepted a number of shipments

of yacare caiman from Colombia despite

domestic laws that permit only the

export of caimans from captive breeding

programs, and despite the fact that the

yacare caiman does not occur naturally

in Colombia.

This rule allows for cessation of

commercial trade to the United States if

CITES bans are imposed for failure to

implement appropriate trade control

measures, including the use of nonreusable tags for species identification.

A secondary effect of this rule may be

to enhance the management of C.

yacare, C. c. crocodilus, and C. c. fuscus

to facilitate commerce in products of

caiman species that can tolerate a

managed commercial harvest, and to

more effectively protect the endangered

species of caiman or of other taxa that

cannot sustain a managed commercial

harvest.

(3) The probability that so designating

a similar species will substantially

facilitate enforcement and further the

purposes and policy of the Act.

The Division of Law Enforcement

presently inspects caiman shipments to

determine the validity of the proffered

Appendix II CITES documents and

consults herpetologists to evaluate

specimens when warranted. Due to the

problems of commingling and

identification, a substantial number of

seizures, forfeitures, and penalty

assessments have been contested.

Judicial decisions have affirmed the

validity of the Service’s identifications,

but the expenditure of funds and

resources is disproportionate to that

devoted to other species. An earlier

judicial forfeiture action was concluded

after 6 years, a full trial, and the

employment, by both parties, of several

expert witnesses. One of the purposes of

this similarity-or-appearance listing is to

shift the inquiry from one of evaluating

a particular shipment to one of

supporting the effectiveness of the

CITES crocodilian skin control system

as well as the effectiveness of yacare

caiman management programs in

countries of origin and re-export,

thereby enhancing the management of

the species while permitting other

allocations of enforcement resources.

The improved management of trade

should enhance the conservation status

of each species, and this listing action

and special rule should assist CITES

Parties to control the illegal trade in

caiman skins, products, and parts.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include

recognition of conservation status,

requirements for Federal protection, and

prohibitions against certain practices.

Recognition through listing encourages

and results in conservation actions by

Federal, State, and private agencies and

groups, and individuals.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,

and as implemented by regulations at 50

CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies

to evaluate their actions that are to be

conducted within the United States or

on the high seas, with respect to any

species that is proposed to be listed or

is listed as endangered or threatened

and with respect to its proposed or

designated critical habitat, if any is

being designated. However, given that

C. yacare is not native to the United

States, no critical habitat is being

proposed for designation with this rule.

Currently, with respect to C. yacare,

no Federal activities, other than the

issuance of CITES export permits, are

known that would require conferral or

consultation. According to the CITES

treaty, Appendix-II species need only a

CITES export permit issued by the

exporting country for their importation

into another country. However, because

of its listing as endangered under the

Act, the importation and exportation of

specimens from C. yacare presently

require an Endangered Species Act

permit issued by the Office of

Management Authority. Consequently, a

consultation with our Office of

Scientific Authority is currently

required before our Office of

Management Authority can issue any

import or export permit for C. yacare.

The listing of C. c. fuscus and C. c.

crocodilus as threatened by similarity of

appearance does not add any new

requirements to those already in place

for the importation or re-exportation of

skins, other parts, and products of these

two subspecies into/from the United

States. This rule just requires that

shipments involving skins and other

parts of C. c. fuscus and C. c. crocodilus

be tagged in accordance with the CITES

Universal Tagging System Resolution

and accompanied by valid CITES export

documents, as is currently required. No

U.S. import permits will be required for

these specimens. However, this special

rule does not cover the importation of

viable caiman eggs or live caimans into

the United States. In addition to a valid

CITES export permit (already required),

importation of viable eggs or live

specimens of C. c. fuscus and C. c.

crocodilus will require an Endangered

Species Act import permit.

Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the

provision of limited financial assistance

for the development and management of

programs that the Secretary of the

Interior determines to be necessary or

useful for the conservation of

endangered species in foreign countries.

Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act

authorize the Secretary to encourage

conservation programs for foreign

endangered species, and to provide

assistance for such programs, in the

form of personnel and the training of

personnel.

Sections 4(d) and 9 of the Act, and

implementing regulations found at 50

CFR part 17.31, (which incorporate

certain provisions of 50 CFR part 17.21),

set forth a series of prohibitions and

exceptions that generally apply to all

threatened wildlife. These prohibitions,

in part, make it illegal for any person

subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States to take (within U.S. territory or on

the high seas), import or export, ship in

interstate commerce in the course of a

commercial activity, or sell or offer for

sale in interstate or foreign commerce

any listed species. It also is illegal to

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or

ship any such wildlife that has been

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply

to employees or agents of the Service,

other Federal land management

agencies, the National Marine Fisheries

Service, and State conservation agencies

(50 CFR part 17.21(c)(3) and part

17.31(b)).

Permits may be issued to carry out

otherwise prohibited activities

involving threatened wildlife species

under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are

25876 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

codified at 50 CFR part 17.32. With

regard to threatened wildlife, a permit

may be issued for the following

purposes: Scientific research,

enhancement of propagation or survival,

zoological exhibition or education,

incidental taking, or special purposes

consistent with the Act. All such

permits must also be consistent with the

purposes and policy of the Act as

required by section 10(d). Such a permit

will be governed by the provisions of

§ 17.32 unless a special rule applicable

to the wildlife (appearing in § 17.40 to

§ 17.48) provides otherwise.

Threatened species are generally

covered by all prohibitions applicable to

endangered species, under section 4(d)

of the Act. The Secretary, however, may

propose special rules if deemed

necessary and advisable to provide for

the conservation of the species. The

special rule described here for § 17.42

allows commercial importation and reexportation into/from the United States

of certain farm-reared, ranch-reared, and

wild-collected specimens of threatened

caiman species, which are listed in

CITES Appendix II. Importation could

be restricted from a particular country of

origin or re-export if that country is not

complying with the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution, or if that

country has been identified as a subject

to a recommended suspension of trade

by the CITES Standing Committee or at

a CITES Conference of the Parties.

Interstate commerce within the United

States and re-export of C. yacare, C. c.

crocodilus, and C. c. fuscus parts will

not require additional U.S. threatened

species permits.

Effects of This Rule

This rule revises § 17.11(h) to

reclassify the C. yacare from endangered

to threatened to reflect more accurately

the present status of this species. The

Apaporis River caiman (C. c.

apaporiensis), the black caiman (M.

niger), and the broad-snouted caiman

(C. latirostris) retain their endangered

status under the Act. Crocodylus

crocodylus crocodilus and C. c. fuscus

(including C. c. chiapasius) are listed as

threatened by reason of similarity in

appearance. /-

Description of the Special Rule

Currently, listing of C. yacare in

Appendix II of CITES allows

commercial trade in the species. This

special rule allows commercial

importation and re-exportation into/

from the United States of C. yacare

skins, other parts, and products

originating from countries effectively

implementing the crocodilian CITES

Universal Tagging System Resolution,

and only from countries that have not

been identified by the CITES Parties for

inadequate implementation of CITES.

The intent of this special rule is to

enhance the conservation of the yacare

caiman and the other endangered and

threatened caiman populations by

supporting those countries properly

managing their caiman populations

through the opening of commercial

markets in the United States.

The degree of endangerment of

crocodilian species varies by species

and specific populations. Some caiman

species are listed on Appendix I of

CITES. Such listing prohibits

international trade in the species if such

activity is conducted for primarily

commercial purposes and/or

determined to be detrimental to the

survival of the species. The remaining

species and populations of caiman are

included in Appendix II, thereby

allowing commercial trade if certain

scientific and management findings are

made. Some caiman species are also

listed as endangered in the U.S. List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,

while other species are not included. In

addition to the United States, several

countries have taken domestic actions to

protect wild caiman populations, but

allow trade in specimens bred or raised

in captivity under appropriate

management programs.

We agree that yacare caiman

populations in some range countries are

being sufficiently managed through

ranching or captive breeding programs

to support controlled commercial use.

However, the Service is concerned

about: (1) The illegal harvest and

inadequate trade controls for caiman

species in Appendix II of CITES; (2) the

commingling and misidentification of

legal and illegal skins in intermediary

trading, processing, and manufacturing

countries; and (3) the sustainable

management of the yacare caiman in

those countries allowing a legal harvest

of wild specimens.

The CITES Parties adopted at the 1994

Fort Lauderdale meeting (COP9) and are

currently implementing proisions of the

Universal Tagging System Resolution

for crocodilian skins (Resolution Conf.

9.22). The Service supports these efforts,

including the most recent clarifications

of the resolution resulting from the

Animals Committee meeting held in

September 1996. At the CITES meeting

of the Conference of the Parties in

Zimbabwe in 1997, the CITES

Secretariat reported that, to its

knowledge, all range countries were

effectively implementing the Universal

Tagging System Resolution. Adherence

to the CITES tagging requirements has

reduced the potential for substitution of

illegal skins and reduced the trade

control problems with the similarity of

appearance of skins and products

among different species of crocodilians.

In addition to the measures

established by CITES in the Universal

Tagging System Resolution, this special

rule contains other steps designed to

restrict or prohibit trade from countries

that are not effectively implementing

the CITES Universal Tagging System

Resolution and, thus, to ensure that the

United States does not become a market

for illegal trade in crocodilian species

and to encourage other nations to

control illegal trade.

Effects of the Special Rule

Consistent with the requirements of

sections 3(3) and 4(d) of the Act, this

rule also contains a special rule that

amends 50 CFR 17.42 to allow

commercial importation and reexportation, under certain conditions, of

whole and partial skins, other parts, and

finished products from yacare caiman

without a threatened species import

permit otherwise required by 50 CFR

part 17, if all requirements of the special

rule and 50 CFR parts 13 (General

Permits Procedures), 14 (Importation,

Exportation, and Transportation of

Wildlife), and 23 (Endangered Species

Convention—CITES) are met.

The reclassification of C. yacare to

‘‘threatened’’ and the accompanying

special rule allowing commercial trade

into the United States without

endangered species import permits does

not end protection for this species,

which remains on Appendix II of

CITES. To the contrary, the special rule

complements the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution for

crocodilian skins by allowing imports

and re-exports only from those range

countries properly managing this

species and controlling exports, and

only from those intermediary countries

properly implementing the CITES

Universal Tagging System Resolution.

Thus, this special rule simply reconciles

ESA requirements for the importation

and exportation of C. yacare shipments

into and from the United States with

CITES ones.

The listing of C. c. fuscus and C. c.

crocodilus as threatened by similarity of

appearance, and the accompanying

special rule allowing commercial trade

into the United States, also will have no

effect on the issuance of permits for the

commercial importation and exportation

of skins, other parts, and products of

these two caiman subspecies into and

from the United States. Since C. c.

fuscus and C. c. crocodilus are currently

listed in Appendix II of CITES, a CITES

permit issued by the exporting or reVerDate 27<APR>2000 20:27 May 03, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM pfrm07 PsN: 04MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25877

exporting country is already required for

importation of shipments of these two

subspecies into another country. This

rule requires only that shipments

involving skins and other parts of C. c.

fuscus and C. c. crocodilus be tagged in

accordance with the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution and

accompanied by valid CITES export

documents, as is currently done. No

U.S. import permits are required for

these specimens. However, in the case

of viable eggs or live specimens of C. c.

fuscus and C. c. crocodilus into the

United States, an Endangered Species

Act import permit will be required in

addition to the already required CITES

export permit.

In summary, this special rule

prohibits the importation and reexportation of specimens (skins, other

parts, or products) of C. caiman, C. c.

crocodilus, and C. c. fuscus originating

from any country (range country or a

country of manufacture or re-export)

that: (1) Is not effectively implementing

the CITES Universal Tagging System

Resolution including (but not limited to)

the use of properly marked tamper-proof

tags on all skins, the package of other

crocodile parts in transparent sealed

containers clearly marked with parts

tags, the recording of the same

information on the tags on the CITES

documents, and maintenance of records

accounting for transactions of skins,

parts, and products; or (2) has failed to

designate a Management Authority or

Scientific Authority; or (3) have been

identified by the Conference of the

Parties to the Convention, the

Convention’s Standing Committee, or in

a Notification from the Secretariat as a

country from which Parties should not

accept permits.

In a limited number of situations

where the original tags from the country

of export have been lost in processing

the skins, we will allow whole skins,

flanks, and chalecos into the United

States if CITES-approved re-export tags

have been attached in the same manner

as the original tags and proper re-export

certificates accompany the shipment. If

a shipment contains more than 25

percent replacement tags, the reexporting country must consult with the

U.S. Office of Management Authority

prior to clearance of the shipment, and

such shipments may be seized, if the

Service cannot determine that the

requirements of the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution have been

observed.

In the case where tagged caiman skins

are exported to another country for

manufacturing purposes, and the

finished products are re-exported to the

United States, then neither the country

of origin nor the country of re-export

can be subject to a Notice of Information

based on the criteria described in the

special rule if imports are to be allowed.

The Service will initially presume that

intermediary countries are effectively

implementing the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution, but the

special rule has provisions to impose

bans if persuasive evidence to the

contrary is presented.

Our Office of Management Authority

will provide on request the list of those

countries subject to a Schedule III

Notice of Information to manufacturers

in the country of re-export and to

importers so that they may be advised

of restrictions on caiman skins,

products, and parts that can be utilized

in products intended for U.S.

commerce. The Management Authority

of the country of manufacture should

ensure that re-export certificates

provided for manufactured goods

intended for the United States are not

for products and re-exports derived

from countries subject to a Schedule III

Notice of Information. In compliance

with these rules, commerce in finished

products from a re-export country

would be allowed only with the

required CITES documentation and

without an endangered or threatened

species permit for individual shipments

otherwise required under 50 CFR part

17.

Finally, this special rule does not

cover the importation of viable caiman

eggs or live caimans into the United

States. Importation of these two types of

specimens will require an Endangered

Species Act import permit and the

appropriate CITES permit. This

requirement will allow scrutiny of

individual applications for importation

of live caimans or eggs so as to prevent

accidental introduction of these exotic

species into the United States, which

may have detrimental effects on U.S.

native wildlife or ecosystems. Reexportation from the United States of

caiman skins, other parts, and products

will continue to require CITES

documents. Interstate commerce within

the United States in legally imported

caiman skins, other parts, and products

will not require U.S. threatened species

permits.

This special rule allows trade through

intermediary countries. Countries are

not considered as intermediary

countries or countries of re-export if the

specimens remain in Customs control

while transiting or being transshipped

through the country and provided those

specimens have not entered into the

commerce of that country. However, the

CITES Universal Tagging System

Resolution presupposes that countries

of re-export have implemented a system

for monitoring skins.

We wrote this special rule to allow

the Service to respond quickly to

changing situations that may result in

lessened protection to crocodilians. The

criteria described in the special rule

establish specific, non-discretionary

bases for determining whether CITES

provisions are being effectively

implemented. Therefore, by the

publication of such notice in the

Federal Register, we can deny approval

of permits, and imports into the United

States can be prohibited from any

country that fails to comply with the

requirements of the special rule.

In a separate rule-making proposal,

amending 50 CFR part 23, the Service

will propose implementation of the

CITES Universal Tagging System

Resolution for all crocodilians. That

rulemaking will adopt CITES tags as the

required tag for all crocodilian skins,

including caiman chalecos and flanks,

being imported into or exported from

any country if the skin is eventually

imported into the United States. For the

reasons noted above, the Service finds

that the special rule for caiman species,

including the yacare caiman, includes

all of the protection that is necessary

and advisable to provide for the

conservation of such species.

The Monitoring of Yacare Caiman

Requirements of the Act for the

monitoring of species also apply to

foreign species (see final rule

‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Removal of Three Kangaroos

From the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife’’ published in the

Federal Register on March 9, 1995; 60

FR 12887). Monitoring programs are

conducted to ensure that species

continue to fare well after delisting or

downlisting occurs. These monitoring

programs frequently include population

and species distribution surveys,

assessment of the condition of

important habitats for the species, and

assessment of threats identified as

relevant to the species.

The Service depends primarily on

range countries to monitor C. yacare. To

monitor the status of C. yacare, we will

request the governments of the range

countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay,

and Bolivia) wishing to export

specimens of C. yacare to the United

States for commercial purposes to

provide us every two years, for the

following 10 years, with the most recent

information available on the status of

the species, gathered by the respective

range countries to fulfill their CITES

scientific and management

requirements. The first submission of

25878 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

status information is due on December

31, 2001. All information provided by

the range countries will be available for

public review.

For each country, the following

information should be provided on the

status of C. yacare:

(1) Recent distribution and population

data, and a description of the

methodology used to obtain such

estimates;

(2) Description of research projects

currently being conducted related to the

biology of the above species in the wild,

particularly their reproductive biology

(for example, age or size when animals

become sexually mature, number of

clutches per season, number of eggs per

clutch, survival of eggs, survival of

hatchlings);

(3) Description of laws and programs

regulating harvest of the above species,

including approximate acreage of land

set aside as natural reserves or national

parks that provide protected habitat for

the above species;

(4) Description of current sustainable

harvest programs for the above species,

including ranching (i.e., captive-rearing

of crocodiles collected from the wild as

eggs or juveniles) and farming (captivebreeding of animals) programs;

(5) Current harvest quotas for wild

populations; and

(6) Export data for the last 10 years

(preferably organized according to

origin of animals: wild-caught, captivereared, and captive-bred).

Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget

under Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior

certifies that the special rule in

§ 17.42(g) will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities, as defined under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) Most or all of the potential

applicants who might take advantage of

the procedures implemented through

this special rule are individuals or small

entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The special rule in § 17.42(g) does not

impose an unfunded mandate on State,

local, or tribal governments or the

private sector of more than $100 million

a year.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, the special rule in § 17.42(g) does

not have significant takings

implications.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the special rule in § 17.42(g) does

not have significant Federalism effects

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has

determined that this special rule in

§ 17.42(g) does not unduly burden the

judicial system and meets the

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)

of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The special rule in § 17.42(g) does

require an information collection from

10 or more parties and, therefore, a

submission under the Paperwork

Reduction Act is required. The Office of

Management and Budget approved the

information collection requirements

contained in this special rule under the

Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned

clearance number 1018–0093 as part of

the permit requirements contained in

Part 23 of Title 50.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that

Environmental Assessments and

Environmental Impact Statements, as

defined under the authority of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, need not be prepared in

connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act of

1973, as amended. A notice outlining

the Service’s reasons for this

determination was published in the

Federal Register on October 25, 1983

(48 FR 49244).

References Cited

Amato, G. D. 1992. Expert Report. Yale

University, New Haven, CT. 6 pp.

Unpublished report.

Brazaitis, P. 1989a. The caiman of the

Pantanal: Past, present, and future, pp.

119–124, in Crocodiles. Proceedings of the

8th Working Meeting of the Crocodile

Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland,

Switzerland. 204 pp.

Brazaitis, P. 1989b. The forensic

identification of crocodilian hides and

products, pp. 17–43, in Crocodiles: Their

ecology, management and conservation.

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Brazaitis, P., C. Yamashita, and G. Rebelo.

1988. CITES central South American

caiman study: Phase I-central and southern

Brazil. 62 pp.

Brazaitis, P., C. Yamashita, and G. Rebelo.

1990. A summary report of the CITES

central South American caiman study:

Phase I: Brazil, pp. 100–115, in Crocodiles.

Proceedings of the 9th Working Meeting of

the Crocodile Specialist Group. Vol. I.

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 300 pp.

Brazaitis, P., G. Amato, G. Rebelo, C.

Yamashita, and J. Gatesy. 1993. Report to

CITES on the biochemical systematics

study of Yacare caiman, Caiman yacare, of

central South America. Unpublished

report. 43 pp.

Brazaitis, P., R. Madden, G. Amato, and M.

Watanabe. 1997a. The South American and

Central American caiman (Caiman)

complex. Systematics of the Caiman:

Results of morphological, statistical,

molecular genetics, and species

discrimination studies. Special report to

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 62 pp.

Unpublished.

Brazaitis, P., R. Madden, G. Amato, and M.

Watanabe. 1997b. Morphological

characteristics, statistics, and DNA

evidence used to identify closely related

crocodilian species for wildlife law

enforcement. Proceedings of the American

Academy of Forensic Sciences. Annual

Meeting, New York City, February 17–22,

1997. D28: 92–93. Published abstract.

Brazaitis, P., G. H. Rebeˆlo, C. Yamashita, E.

A. Odierna, and M. E. Watanabe. 1996.

Threats to Brazilian crocodilian

populations. Oryx, 30:275–284.

Busack, S. D., and S. S. Pandya. 1996.

Presented at 76th annual meeting of the

American Society of Ichthyologists and

Herpetologists. New Orleans, LA. Abstract.

Coutinho, M., and Z. Campos. 1996. Effect of

habitat and seasonality on the densities of

caiman in southern Pantanal, Brazil.

Journal of Tropical Ecology, 12:741–747.

Da Silveria, R., and J. B. Thorbjarnarson.

1999. Conservation implications of

commercial hunting of black and

spectacled caiman in the Mamiraua ́

Sustainable Development Reserve, Brazil.

Fitch, H., and M. Nadeau. 1979. An

assessment of Caiman latirostris and

Caiman crocodilus yacare in northern

Argentina. Unpublished progress report to

World Wildlife Fund—U.S., U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, and New York Zoological

Society. 7 pp.

Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN AmphibiaReptilia red data book. Part I: Testudines,

Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland. 426 pp.

King, F. W., and Burke, R. L. 1989.

Crocodilian, tuatara, and turtle species of

the world: A taxonomic and geographic

reference. Association of Systematic

Collections, Washington, D.C.

King, F. W., and D. H. Vı ́dez-Roca. 1989. The

caimans of Bolivia: A preliminary report

on a CITES and Centro Desarrollo Forestal

sponsored survey of species distribution

and status, pp. 128–155, in Crocodiles.

Proceedings of the 8th Working Meeting of

the Crocodile Specialist Group. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland. 204 pp.

King, F. W., A. L. Aquino, N. J. Scott, Jr., and

R. Palacios. 1994. Status of the crocodiles

of Paraguay: Results of the 1993 monitoring

surveys. Report from Biodiversity Services,

Inc., to Paraguay’s Ministerio de

Agricultura y Ganaderia and the Secretariat

of the Convention on International Trade

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora (CITES). 39 pp.

Moura ̃o, G., Z. Campos, and M. Coutinho.

1996. Size structure of illegally harvested

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25879

and surviving caiman Caiman crocodilus

yacare in Pantanal, Brazil. Biological

Conservation, 75:261–265.

Scott, N. J., A. L. Aquino, and L. A.

Fitzgerald. 1988. Distribution, habitats, and

conservation of the caiman (Alligatoridae)

of Paraguay. Unpublished report to the

CITES Secretariat, Lausanne, Switzerland.

30 pp.

Scott, N. J., A. L. Aquino, and L. A.

Fitzgerald. 1990. Distribution, habitats and

conservation of the caimans (Alligatoridae)

of Paraguay. Vida Silvestre Neotropical,

43–51.

Thorbjarnarson, J. B. 1992. Crocodiles: An

action plan for their conservation. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland. 136 pp.

Thorbjarnarson, J. B. 1994. Reproductive

ecology of the spectacled caiman (Caiman

crocodilus) in the Venezuelan Llanos.

Copeia, 1994:907–919.

Authors

The primary author of this rule is Dr.

Javier Alvarez, Office of Scientific

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, DC 20240 (703–

358–1708 or FTS 921–1708).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Regulations Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby

amends part 17, subchapter B of chapter

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17— [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the

current entry for the yacare caiman and

by adding entries for the brown and the

common caimans in alphabetic order

under ‘‘Reptiles’’ on the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to

read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate

population

where endangered or

threatened

Status When

listed

Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

*******

REPTILES

*******

Caiman, brown ..................... Caiman crocodilus fuscus (includes Caiman crocodilus

chiapasius).

Mexico, Central

America, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezula,

Peru.

Entire T(S/A) 695 NA 17.42(g)

Caiman, common ................. Caiman crocodilus crocodilus ..... Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador

French Guiana, Guyana,

Surinam, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru.

Entire T(S/A) 695 NA 17.42(g)

Caiman, yacare .................... Caiman yacare ............................ Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil,

Paraguay.

Entire T 3,695 N/A 17.42(g)

*******

3. Section 17.42 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (g) as follows:

§ 17.42 Special rules—reptiles.

* * * * *

(g) Threatened caiman. This

paragraph applies to the following

species: Yacare caiman (Caiman

yacare), the common caiman (Caiman

crocodilus crocodilus), and the brown

caiman (Caiman crocodilus fuscus

including Caiman crocodilus

chiapasius). These taxa will be

collectively referred to as ‘‘caiman.’’

(1) What are the definitions of terms

used in this paragraph (g)? (i) Caiman

skins means whole or partial skins,

flanks, chalecos, and bellies (whether

these are salted, crusted, tanned,

partially tanned, or otherwise

processed).

(ii) Caiman parts means body parts

with or without skin attached (including

tails, throats, feet, and other parts, but

excluding meat and skulls) and small

cut skins pieces.

(iii) Caiman product means any

processed or manufactured product

items (including curios and souvenirs)

that are ready for retail sale, and

composed, totally or in part, of yacare

caiman, brown caiman, or common

caiman.

(iv) Country of re-export means those

intermediary countries that import and

re-export caiman skins, parts, and/or

products. However, we will not

consider intermediary countries those

through which caiman skins, parts, and/

or products are shipped while

remaining under Customs control.

(v) Universal Tagging System

Resolution means the CITES

(Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora) resolution entitled ‘‘Universal

Tagging System for the Identification of

Crocodilian Skins’’ and numbered Conf.

9.22, and any subsequent revisions.

(2) What activities involving yacare

caiman (Caiman yacare), the common

caiman (Caiman crocodilus crocodilus),

and the brown caiman (Caiman

crocodilus fuscus) are prohibited by this

rule? (i) Import, export, and re-export.

Except for the activities described in

paragraph (g)(3) of this section, it is

unlawful to import, export, re-export, or

present for export or re-export without

valid permits (as required under 50 CFR

parts 17 and 23) any caiman or their

skins, other parts or products.

25880 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Commercial activity. Except as

described in paragraph (g)(3) of this

section, it is unlawful to sell or offer for

sale, deliver, receive, carry, transport, or

ship in interstate or foreign commerce

any caiman or their skins, other parts,

or products.

(iii) It is unlawful for any person

subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States to commit, attempt to commit,

solicit to commit, or cause to be

committed any acts described in

paragraphs (g)(2) (i) and (ii) of this

section.

(3) What activities involving yacare

caiman (Caiman yacare), the common

caiman (Caiman crocodilus crocodilus),

and the brown caiman (Caiman

crocodilus fuscus) are allowed by this

rule? The import/export/re-export of, or

the interstate/foreign commerce in

caiman skins, other parts, or products

may be allowed without a threatened

species permit (issued according to 50

CFR 17.32) only when the provisions in

50 CFR parts 13, 14, and 23, and the

requirements of the applicable

paragraphs below have been met.

(i) Import, export, or re-export. The

import, export, or re-export into/from

the United States of caiman skins, parts,

or products may be allowed provided

the following conditions are met:

(A) Each caiman skin imported into or

exported or re-exported from the United

States after the effective date of the final

rule must bear either:

(1) An intact, uncut tag from the

country of origin meeting all the

requirements of the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution, or

(2) An intact, uncut replacement tag

from the country of re-export where the

original tags were lost or removed from

raw, tanned, and/or processed skins.

These replacement tags must meet all

the requirements of the CITES Universal

Tagging System Resolution, except

showing the country of re-export instead

of the country of origin, provided those

re-exporting countries have

implemented an administrative system

for the effective matching of imports

and re-exports consistent with the

CITES Universal Tagging System

Resolution. If a shipment contains more

than 25 percent replacement tags, the

Management Authority of the reexporting country must consult with the

U.S. Office of Management Authority

before clearance of the shipment. Such

shipments may be seized if we

determine that the requirements of the

CITES Universal Tagging System

Resolution have not been met.

(B) In accordance with the CITES

Universal Tagging System Resolution,

all caiman parts must be placed in a

transparent, sealed container. Each

container imported, exported, or reexported into/from the United States

after the effective date of the rule:

(1) Must have a parts tag attached in

such a way that opening of the container

will prevent later reuse of such tag; and

(2) The parts tag must contain a

description of the contents plus total

weight of the container and its contents.

(C) The information on the export

permit or re-export certificate must be

the same as that on the skin and part

tags, carry the same permit or certificate

number, and be validated by the

government authority designated as the

CITES document-issuing authority.

(D) The CITES permit or certificate

accompanying shipments of caiman

skins, parts, or products must contain

the following information:

(1) The country of origin, its export

permit number, and date of issuance;

(2) If re-export, the country of reexport, its certificate number, and date

of issuance; and

(3) If applicable, the country of

previous re-export, its certificate

number, and date of issuance.

(E) The country of origin and any

intermediary country(s) must be

effectively implementing the CITES

Universal Tagging System Resolution. If

we receive persuasive information from

the CITES Secretariat or other reliable

sources that a specific country is not

effectively implementing the CITES

Universal Tagging System Resolution,

we will prohibit or restrict imports from

such country(s) as appropriate for the

conservation of the species.

(F) At the time of import, for each

shipment covered by this exception, the

country of origin and each country of reexport involved in the trade of a

particular shipment must not be subject

to a Schedule III Notice of Information

(see paragraph (g)(4) of this section)

prohibiting or restricting imports of all

wildlife or any members of the Order

Crocodylia. A listing of all countries

subject to such a Schedule III Notice of

Information is available by writing to:

Office of Management Authority, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop

ARLSQ–700, Washington, DC 20240, or

via e-mail at r9oma@fws.gov.

(ii) Shipment of skulls, processed

meat, and scientific specimens. The

import, export, and re-export into/from

the United States of skulls, processed

meat, and scientific specimens of

caiman is allowed without permits

otherwise required by 50 CFR part 17,

provided the requirements of part 23 are

met.

(iii) Noncommercial accompanying

baggage. The conditions described in

paragraphs (g)(3)(i) and (ii) for skins,

skulls, meat, other parts, and products

made of specimens of caiman do not

apply to non-commercial personal

effects in accompanying baggage or

household effects.

(iv) Eggs and live specimens. This

special rule does not apply to live

specimens or eggs of caiman. Import of

such specimens requires an import

permit as described in 50 CFR 17.32.

(4) When and how will we inform you

of additional restrictions in trade of

yacare caiman (Caiman yacare), the

common caiman (Caiman crocodilus

crocodilus), and the brown caiman

(Caiman crocodilus fuscus)? Except in

rare cases involving extenuating

circumstances that do not adversely

affect the conservation of the species,

the Service will issue a Notice of

Information announcing additional

CITES restrictions in trade in specimens

of caiman dealt with in this paragraph

(g) if any of the following criteria are

met:

(i) The country is listed in a

Notification to the Parties by the CITES

Secretariat as not having designated

Management and Scientific Authorities

that issue CITES documents or their

equivalent.

(ii) The country is identified in any

action adopted by the Conference of the

Parties to the Convention, the

Convention’s Standing Committee, or in

a Notification issued by the CITES

Secretariat, whereby Parties are asked

not to accept shipments of specimens of

any CITES-listed species from the

country in question or of any

crocodilian species listed in the CITES

appendices.

(iii) We determine, based on

information from the CITES Secretariat

or other reliable sources, that the

country is not effectively implementing

the CITES Universal Tagging System

Resolution.

(5) What are the approved

information collection requirements in

this rule? The Office of Management and

Budget approved the information

collection requirements contained in

this special rule under the Paperwork

Reduction Act and assigned clearance

number 1018–0093 as part of the permit

requirements contained in Part 23 of

Title 50. We may not conduct or

sponsor, and you are not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The collection of

information under this rule is done to

provide information necessary to

evaluate permit applications. We will

use this information to review permit

applications and make decisions,

according to criteria established in

various Federal wildlife conservation

statutes and regulations, on the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25881

issuance, suspension, revocation, or

denial of permits. You must respond to

obtain or retain a permit. We estimate

the public reporting burden for these

reporting requirements to vary from 20

minutes to 2 hours per response, with

an average of 1 hour per response,

including time for reviewing

instructions, gathering and maintaining

data, and completing and reviewing the

forms.

Dated: April 7, 2000.

Stephen C. Saunders,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 00–11055 Filed 5–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 600 and 660

[Docket No. 991223347–9347; I.D. 042600B]

Fisheries Off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery; Trip Limit

Adjustments

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Fishing restrictions; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces changes to

trip limits in the Pacific Coast

groundfish fishery. These actions,

which are authorized by the Pacific

Coast groundfish fishery management

plan (FMP), are intended to help the

fisheries achieve optimum yield (OY).

DATES: Effective 0001 hours local time

May 1, 2000 (May 16, 2000 for the ‘‘B’’

platoon), unless modified, superseded

or rescinded, until the effective date of

the 2001 annual specifications and

management measures for the Pacific

Coast groundfish fishery, which will be

published in the Federal Register.

Comments on this rule will be accepted

through May 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to

William Stelle, Jr., Administrator,

Northwest Region (Regional

Administrator), NMFS, 7600 Sand Point

Way N.E., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle,

WA 98115–0070; or Rodney McInnis,

Acting Administrator, Southwest

Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd.,

Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–

4213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katherine King or Yvonne deReynier,

Northwest Region, NMFS, 206–526–

6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following changes to current

management measures were

recommended by the Pacific Fishery

Management Council (Council), in

consultation with the States of

Washington, Oregon, and California, at

its April 3–7, 2000, meeting in Portland,

OR. Pacific coast groundfish landings

will be monitored throughout the year,

and further adjustments to the trip

limits will be made as necessary to stay

within the OYs and allocations

announced in the annual specifications

and management measures for the

groundfish fishery, published in the

Federal Register at 65 FR 221 (January

4, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 17805

(April 5, 2000).

Housekeeping

The Council made a number of

housekeeping recommendations that

would remedy minor problems in the

management measures that were

implemented at the beginning of the

year. (1) The trip limits for Pacific ocean

perch (POP) were inadvertently applied

coastwide even though POP south of

40°10′ N. lat. were already included in

the trip limits for minor slope rockfish.

This document clarifies that the trip

limits for POP (line 5 in Tables 3, 4, and

5) apply only north of 40°10′ N. lat.,

South of 40°10′ N. lat., POP remains in

the minor slope rockfish category. (2)

Flag rockfish are not found north of

40°10′ N. lat., and in Table 2 are

removed from the minor shelf rockfish

category in that area. (3) New testimony

from fishers revealed that red-banded

rockfish are not caught on the

continental shelf, but are taken in

deeper waters. Consequently, redbanded rockfish, which is one of the

minor rockfish species that occurs both

north and south of 40°10′ N. lat., is

moved from the shelf to the slope

category in Table 2. These

reassignments result in no change to the

OYs or trip limits for any species or

species group. Other provisions remain

the same except as explained below.

Flatfish

The Council heard testimony that

limited entry trawl fishers were

encountering small amounts of flatfish,

particularly English sole, when fishing

with large footropes in deeper water on

the continental slope. Current

restrictions would have required the use

of small footrope gear for landings of

any flatfish except Dover and rex soles

between May 1–October 31, 2000. (This

provision also applies to petrale sole

from March 1–April 30, 2000.) The

Council recommended an incidental

trip limit for other flatfish of 400 lb (181

kg) per trip for large footrope trawls

between May and October so that

unavoidable incidental catch would not

have to be discarded. This amount is

believed to be too small to encourage

any target fishing for flatfish on the shelf

with large footrope gear, which is

discouraged due to the potential

interception of depleted species. Dover

and rex soles remain in the only flatfish

species in the FMP that are not managed

according to the size of the trawl

footrope onboard; there continues to be

no poundage limit on arrowtooth

flounder, petrale sole, and other flatfish

taken with small footrope trawls.

Nearshore Minor Rockfish

A new strategy for managing rockfish

was implemented on January 1, 2000,

which reduced the amount of rockfish

available to nearshore commercial

fisheries (65 FR 221, January 4, 2000, as

amended). When the current limits were

recommended by the Council in

November 1999, there was a clear need

to reduce landings significantly, but

there was no way to anticipate

reductions in participation. The best

available information at the April

Council meeting indicated that landings

of rockfish through February 2000 were

minimal. Although the commercial

nontrawl fisheries are subject to a high

degree of seasonality, it appears

unlikely that the current limits would

allow achievement of the nearshore

rockfish limited entry and open access

allocations. The Council recommended

that cautious increases to the nearshore

rockfish limits begin May 1, with further

adjustments to be made later in the year

as needed. Any increase runs some risk

of accelerating the fisheries to the point

where they would need to be closed

before the end of the year, but the

Council believed the risk to be

preferable to continuing with limits that

provide very little opportunity for

profitable trips. Even with these

increases, the trip limits for nearshore

rockfish remain significantly lower than

in recent years, and will not

accommodate the needs of the entire

open access fleet. The Council made the

following recommendations:

For the limited entry nontrawl fishery

north of 40°10′ N. lat., the nearshore

minor rockfish trip limit is changed

from 2,400 lb (1,089 kg) per 2 months,

of which no more than 1,200 lb (544 kg)

may be species other than black or blue

rockfish, to 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per 2

months, of which no more than 1,400 lb

(635 kg) may be species other than black

or blue rockfish.