30606 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 

recreation, water use, local economy, 

and environmental justice. 

After the environmental review is 

complete, we will publish a notice of 

availability and a request for comment 

on the draft EIS and the applicant’s 

permit application, which will include 

the Williamson County RHCP. 

The draft EIS and RHCP are expected 

to be completed and available to the 

public by October 2007. 

Christopher T. Jones, 

Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

[FR Doc. E7–10576 Filed 5–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Conference of the Parties to the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES); Fourteenth Regular 

Meeting; Tentative U.S. Negotiating 

Positions for Agenda Items and 

Species Proposals Submitted by 

Foreign Governments and the CITES 

Secretariat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We, the United States, as a 

Party to the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES), will attend the 

fourteenth regular meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties to CITES 

(CoP14) in The Hague, The Netherlands, 

June 3–15, 2007. This notice announces 

the tentative U.S. negotiating positions 

on amendments to the CITES 

Appendices (species proposals), draft 

resolutions and decisions, and agenda 

items submitted by other countries and 

the CITES Secretariat for consideration 

at CoP14. With this notice we also 

announce that we will publish a notice 

after the conclusion of CoP14 to invite 

public input on whether the United 

States should take a reservation on any 

of the amendments to the CITES 

Appendices that are adopted. 

DATES: In further developing U.S. 

negotiating positions on these issues, we 

will continue to consider information 

and comments submitted in response to 

our notice of February 21, 2007 (72 FR 

7904). We will also continue to consider 

information received at the public 

meeting announced in that notice, 

which was held on April 9, 2007. We 

will publish a notice after June 15, 2007, 

to invite public input on whether the 

United States should take a reservation 

on any of the amendments to the CITES 

Appendices that are adopted. 

ADDRESSES: Comments pertaining to 

draft resolutions and decisions, and 

agenda items should be sent to the 

Division of Management Authority; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North 

Fairfax Drive; Room 700; Arlington, VA 

22203; or via e-mail at: cop14@fws.gov; 

or via fax at: 703–358–2298. Comments 

pertaining to species proposals should 

be sent to the Division of Scientific 

Authority; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive; Room 

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

at: scientificauthority@fws.gov; or via 

fax at: 703–358–2276. Comments and 

materials received will be available for 

public inspection, by appointment, from 

8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, at either the Division of 

Management Authority or the Division 

of Scientific Authority. 

Reservations 

With this notice, we announce that 

we will publish a notice after the 

conclusion of CoP14 to invite public 

input on whether the United States 

should take a reservation on any of the 

amendments to the CITES Appendices 

that are adopted. 

Available Information 

Information concerning the results of 

CoP14 will be available after the close 

of the meeting on the Secretariat’s Web 

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

request from the Division of 

Management Authority; or on our CITES 

Web site (http://international.fws.gov/ 

cites/cites.html). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information pertaining to resolutions 

and agenda items contact: Chief, Branch 

of CITES Operations, Division of 

Management Authority; telephone, 703–

358–2095; fax, 703–358–2298; e-mail, 

cop14@fws.gov. For information 

pertaining to species proposals contact: 

Chief, Division of Scientific Authority; 

telephone, 703–358–1708; fax, 703–

358–2276; e-mail, 

scientificauthority@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES or the 

Convention) is an international treaty 

designed to control and regulate 

international trade in certain animal and 

plant species that are now or potentially 

may become threatened with extinction 

due to trade. These species are listed in 

the Appendices to CITES, which are 

available on the CITES Secretariat’s Web 

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

index.shtml. Currently, 171 countries, 

including the United States, are Parties 

to CITES. The Convention calls for 

regular meetings of the Conference of 

the Parties (CoP) to review issues 

pertaining to implementation, makes 

provisions enabling the CITES 

Secretariat to carry out its functions, 

consider amendments to the list of 

species in Appendices I and II, consider 

reports presented by the Secretariat, and 

make recommendations to improve the 

effectiveness of CITES. Any country that 

is a Party to CITES may propose and 

vote on amendments to Appendices I 

and II (species proposals), draft 

resolutions and decisions, and agenda 

items submitted for consideration by the 

Conference of Parties. Accredited 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) 

may participate in the meeting as 

approved observers and may speak 

during sessions when recognized by the 

meeting Chairman, but they may not 

vote or submit proposals. 

This is our fourth in a series of 

Federal Register notices that, together 

with announced public meetings, 

provide you with an opportunity to 

participate in the development of U.S. 

tentative negotiating positions for 

CoP14. In this notice we announce the 

tentative U.S. negotiating positions on 

species proposals, draft resolutions and 

decisions, and agenda items submitted 

by other Parties and the Secretariat for 

consideration at CoP14. We published 

our first CoP14-related Federal Register 

notice on January 20, 2006 (71 FR 3319), 

and with it we requested information 

and recommendations on species 

proposals, draft resolutions and 

decisions, and agenda items for the 

United States to consider submitting for 

consideration at CoP14. We published 

our second such Federal Register notice 

on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65126), 

and with it we requested public 

comments and information on species 

proposals, draft resolutions and 

decisions, and agenda items that the 

United States was considering 

submitting for consideration at CoP14. 

On December 11, 2006, we held the 

public meeting announced in our 

second Federal Register notice; at that 

meeting, we discussed the issues 

contained in our November 7 Federal 

Register notice and in our Web site 

posting on the same topic. In our third 

Federal Register notice, published on 

February 21, 2007 (72 FR 7904), we 

announced the provisional agenda for 

CoP14, solicited public comments on 

items on the provisional agenda, and 

announced a public meeting to discuss 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 30607 

the agenda items. That public meeting 

was held on April 9, 2007. 

You may obtain information on the 

above Federal Register notices from the 

following sources. For information on 

draft resolutions and decisions, and 

agenda items, contact the Division of 

Management Authority (see ADDRESSES, 

above); and for information on species 

proposals, contact the Division of 

Scientific Authority (see ADDRESSES, 

above). Our regulations governing this 

public process are found in 50 CFR 

23.31–23.39. Pursuant to 50 CFR 

23.38(a), the Director has decided to 

suspend the procedure for publishing a 

notice of final negotiating positions in 

the Federal Register because time and 

resources needed to prepare a Federal 

Register notice would detract from 

essential preparation for CoP14. 

Tentative Negotiating Positions 

In this notice we summarize the 

tentative U.S. negotiating positions on 

proposals to amend the Appendices 

(species proposals), draft resolutions 

and decisions, and agenda items that 

have been submitted by other countries 

and the CITES Secretariat. Documents 

submitted by the United States for 

consideration of the Parties at CoP14 

can be found on the Secretariat’s Web 

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

index.shtml. Those documents are: 

CoP14 Doc. 18.2, CoP14 Doc. 39, and 

CoP14 Doc. 43. The United States also 

submitted Document CoP14 Doc. 67 at 

the request of the Animals and Plants 

Committees. The United States, either 

alone or as a co-proponent, submitted 

the following proposals to amend 

Appendices I and II: CoP14 Prop. 2, 

CoP14 Prop. 17, CoP14 Prop. 19, CoP14 

Prop. 21, CoP14 Prop. 22, CoP14 Prop. 

23, CoP14 Prop. 28, and CoP14 Prop. 36. 

In this notice, we will not provide any 

additional explanation of the U.S. 

negotiating position for documents that 

the United States submitted. The 

introduction in the text of each of the 

documents the United States submitted 

contains a discussion of the background 

of the issue and the rationale for 

submitting the document. 

In this notice, numerals next to each 

agenda item or resolution correspond to 

the numbers used in the agenda for 

CoP14 and posted on the Secretariat’s 

Web site. When we completed the 

notice, the Secretariat had not yet made 

available documents for a number of the 

agenda items on the CoP14 agenda. For 

several other documents, we are still 

working with other agencies in the 

United States and other CITES Parties to 

develop the U.S. negotiating position. 

The documents for which we do not 

currently have tentative U.S. negotiating 

positions are: CoP14 Doc. 10 and CoP14 

Doc. 30. 

In the discussion that follows, we 

have included a brief description of 

each species proposal, draft resolution, 

draft decision, and agenda item 

submitted by other Parties or the 

Secretariat, followed by a brief 

explanation of the tentative U.S. 

negotiating position for that item. New 

information that may become available 

prior to or at CoP14 could lead to 

modifications of these positions. The 

U.S. delegation will fully disclose 

changes in our negotiating positions and 

the explanations for those changes 

during public briefings at CoP14. The 

United States is concerned about the 

budgetary implications and workload 

burden that will be placed upon the 

Parties, the committees, and the 

Secretariat, and intends to evaluate all 

documents for CoP14 in view of these 

concerns. 

Agenda (Provisional) 

Opening Ceremony and Welcoming 

Addresses 

The Secretariat will not prepare a 

document on these agenda items. 

According to tradition, as the host 

country for CoP14, The Netherlands will 

conduct an opening ceremony and make 

welcoming remarks. 

Administrative Matters 

1. Rules of Procedure (Doc. 1). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. The CITES Secretariat 

prepared Document CoP14 Doc. 1, the 

draft Rules of Procedure for CoP14. The 

draft Rules are identical to those 

adopted for CoP13, except for several 

amendments proposed to Rules 14 and 

15, regarding the creation of the position 

of an Alternate Chairman of the 

Conference, and Rule 28, regarding 

submission of informative documents 

for the CoP. The United States 

tentatively supports the draft Rules of 

Procedure and the amendments 

proposed to Rules 14, 15, and 28, but 

plans to propose several additional 

amendments to the text of these three 

Rules to clarify several points. 

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

Chairmen of Committees I and II (No 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided. According to 

tradition, the host country—in this case, 

The Netherlands—will provide the 

Conference Chairman. The United 

States will support the election of 

committee Chairmen and a ViceChairman of the Conference who have 

the required technical knowledge and 

skills and also reflect the geographic 

and cultural diversity of the CITES 

Parties. 

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

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. 

4. Adoption of the working 

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

negotiating position: Support. Prior to a 

CoP, the working programme is 

provisional and changes may be made to 

it prior to the start of CoP14 or at the 

beginning of the CoP. The United States 

supports the provisional working 

programme posted at the time this 

notice was prepared. 

5. Credentials Committee 

5.1 Establishment of the Credentials 

Committee (No document). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. 

5.2 Report of the Credentials 

Committee (No document). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. 

The United States will follow the work 

of the Credentials Committee and 

intervene as appropriate. 

6. Admission of observers (Doc. 6). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Undecided. A document for this agenda 

item is not normally distributed prior to 

the start of a CoP. National NGOs are 

admitted as observers if their 

headquarters are located in a CITES 

Party country and if the national 

government of that Party approves their 

attendance at the CoP. International 

NGOs are admitted by approval of the 

CITES Secretariat. After being approved 

as an observer, an NGO is admitted to 

the CoP unless one-third of the Parties 

object. The United States supports 

admission to the meeting of all 

technically qualified NGOs, and 

opposes unreasonable limitations on 

their full participation as observers at 

CoP14. In addition, the United States 

supports flexibility and openness in the 

process for disseminating documents 

produced by NGOs to Party delegates, 

which are vital to decision-making and 

scientific and technical understanding. 

7. Financing and budgeting of the 

Secretariat and of meetings of the 

Conference of the Parties. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position on Agenda Items 

7.1, 7.2, and 7.3: Undecided. These are 

comprehensive documents that require 

extensive review, internal discussion, 

and analysis of the financial 

implications for Parties and the impact 

on the work of the Secretariat and the 

committees. The United States will 

review the documents carefully, bearing 

in mind the need to balance tasks with 

available resources. The United States 

advocates fiscal responsibility and 

accountability on the part of the 

Secretariat and the Conference of the 

Parties and plans to be an active 

participant in the budget discussions at 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
30608 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 

CoP14. The voluntary annual 

contribution of the United States to 

CITES is determined through our 

domestic budgeting process. The United 

States believes it is necessary that the 

CITES Secretariat provide additional 

information on budgetary and financial 

matters in relation to the costed 

programme of work proposed in 

Document CoP14 Doc. 7.3. Until such 

information is provided and analyzed, 

and discussed with the Parties and the 

Secretariat, we will not be able to 

consider supporting any increase in the 

budget of the Convention. 

8. Committee Reports 

8.1 Report of the Chairman of the 

Standing Committee (Doc. 8.1). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: At 

the time this notice was prepared, this 

document had not been posted on the 

Secretariat’s website. This report is 

largely a summary of activities 

conducted by the Standing Committee, 

or particularly the Chairman, since 

CoP13. Many of these activities are 

covered by other CoP14 agenda items. 

8.2 Report of the Chairman of the 

Animals Committee (Doc. 8.2). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Most of this document is a report by the 

Chairman of his activities or a 

recounting of the proceedings of 

meetings of the Animals Committee, 

and therefore not requiring a position. 

The outcomes of some of the Animals 

Committee deliberations are reflected in 

other agenda items for CoP14, where 

they are elaborated more substantially. 

However, there are some specific 

recommendations contained in the 

report requiring a position. These (and 

the tentative U.S. position) include: 

• Draft decisions for Psittacus 

erithacus, derived from the Review of 

Significant Trade in this species, calling 

for the development of management 

plans by range countries, with 

assistance from the Secretariat, subject 

to external funding (Support); 

• A draft decision for the Secretariat 

to convene, subject to external funding, 

a workshop to initiate regional 

cooperation on fisheries management 

for Tridacnidae (Support); 

• Extending Decision 13.93 to 

continue the review of the Felidae, 

particularly the review of Lynx spp. and 

look-alike issues, until CoP15 (Support); 

• Consider that the Parties, Animals 

Committee, and Secretariat have 

complied with Decisions 13.95–13.97 

related to fossil corals (Support); and 

• Consideration of providing 

supplemental funding (US$30,000 

annually) to the Chairman of the 

Animals Committee, especially if from a 

developing country and where 

governmental or institutional support is 

insufficient to fulfill the duties of the 

position (Unable to support given the 

current budgetary situation for the 

Convention). 

8.3 Report of the Chairman of the 

Plants Committee (Doc. 8.3). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Most of this 

document is a report by the Chairman 

of her activities or a recounting of the 

proceedings of meetings of the Plants 

Committee, and therefore not requiring 

a position. The outcomes of some of the 

Plants Committee deliberations are 

reflected in other agenda items for 

CoP14, where they are elaborated more 

substantially. However, there are some 

specific recommendations contained in 

the report requiring a position. These 

(and the tentative U.S. position) 

include: 

• A draft decision directed to range 

countries, regional Plants Committee 

representatives, and the Secretariat to 

address the management and 

enforcement needs of seven species of 

medicinal plants from Asia, and to 

report on progress to the Plants 

Committee at its 17th and 18th meetings 

(Support); 

• Consideration by the Parties of 

ways to obtain identification materials 

for plants listed in the Appendices 

given that there is no longer a specific 

budget line for this activity (Support); 

• A draft decision directed to the 

Plants Committee and the Secretariat to 

continue cooperation with the 

Convention on Biological Diversity on 

the Global Strategy for Plant 

Conservation (Support, as amended by 

the Secretariat); 

• A draft decision directed to the 

Plants Committee to develop principles, 

criteria, and indicators for making nondetriment findings for timber and 

medicinal plant species (Support); 

• Renewal of Decision 13.54, which 

directs the Plants Committee to 

continue to consider proposals to 

include additional timber species in the 

Appendices, based on the outcomes of 

regional workshops and other 

information (Support); 

• Consideration that the Plants 

Committee’s work under Decisions 

13.51 and 13.52 regarding annotations 

of medicinal plants, Decision 13.60 

related to Harpagophytum, and Decision 

13.72 regarding monitoring effects of the 

revision of the definition of ‘‘artificially 

propagated’’ have been completed 

(Support); 

• Draft decisions directed to the 

Parties and the Plants Committee to 

monitor the effects of exempting the 

artificially propagated hybrids of 

various orchid genera from CITES 

controls, and consideration of whether 

the exemption of hybrids of additional 

genera is advisable (Support); and 

• Draft decisions directed to the 

Parties, Plants Committee, Secretariat, 

and inter-governmental and nongovernmental organizations (IGOs and 

NGOs) to address various issues related 

to trade in agarwood, including capacity 

building, the making of non-detriment 

findings, information sharing, definition 

of terms relating to agarwood, 

development of identification and 

training materials, and 

recommendations on appropriate units 

of measure for agarwood, as well as 

consideration of potential annotations to 

exempt certain agarwood specimens 

from CITES controls (Support, but with 

reservations regarding the ability of the 

CoP to direct work to IGOs and NGOs, 

and also regarding the scope of work 

and potential budget implications). 

8.4 Joint report of the Chairmen of 

the Animals and Plants Committees 

(Doc. 8.4). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: U.S. position: Much of this 

document is a report by the Chairmen 

of the Animals and Plants Committees 

recounting the proceedings of joint 

meetings of the two committees, and 

therefore not requiring a position. The 

outcomes of some of the deliberations of 

the two committees meeting in joint 

session are reflected in other agenda 

items for CoP14, where they are 

elaborated more substantially. However, 

there are some specific 

recommendations contained in the 

report requiring a position. These (and 

the tentative U.S. position) include: 

• Recommended Rules of Procedure 

for the two committees, which follow 

longstanding practices and represent the 

committees’ views with regard to a 

practicable adaptation of the Rules of 

Procedure for the Standing Committee 

(Support, with some amendments 

proposed by the Secretariat); 

• A draft decision directed to the 

Secretariat to publish and distribute, 

subject to available funding, manuals for 

regional representatives to the 

committees in the three languages of the 

Convention (Support, as amended by 

the Secretariat); 

• A recommendation to eliminate 

Resolution Conf. 13.10 on ‘‘Trade in 

invasive alien species’’ and incorporate 

elements of it into Resolution Conf. 10.4 

on ‘‘Cooperation and synergy with the 

Convention on Biological Diversity,’’ to 

reflect the limited role CITES can play 

in addressing the problem of invasive 

species (Support); and 

• Draft decisions directed to the 

Parties, Standing Committee, and 

Secretariat to provide support to the 

University of Co ́rdoba and the 

International University of Andalusia 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 30609 

(Spain) to support the continuation of 

the Master’s course on ‘‘Management, 

Access and Conservation of Species in 

Trade’’ (Support). 

8.5 Report of the Nomenclature 

Committee (Doc. 8.5). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Undecided. The 

report contains numerous 

recommendations regarding the 

adoption of standard nomenclatural and 

taxonomic references for CITES-listed 

fauna and flora, and a program of work 

and proposed budget for the next 

intersessional period. We are still 

evaluating the references, and the 

proposed work and budget implications. 

9. Committee Elections and 

Appointments 

9.1 Standing Committee (No 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. Since the close of 

CoP13, the North American region has 

been represented on the Standing 

Committee by Canada, serving as the 

North American regional representative, 

and Mexico, serving as the alternate 

representative. Canada and Mexico will 

continue to serve in their current 

capacities until the end of CoP15. 

9.2 Animals Committee (No 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. Since the close of 

CoP14, the North American region has 

been represented on the Animals 

Committee by Mr. Rodrigo A. Medellı ́n 

of Mexico, serving as the North 

American regional representative, and 

up until May 2007, Mr. Robert R. Gabel 

of the United States, serving as the 

alternate representative. Mr. Gabel has 

now moved on to other duties as the 

Chief of the U.S. Management 

Authority, and as such, the United 

States will provide a new alternate 

representative who has yet to be 

determined. 

9.3 Plants Committee (No 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. Since the close of 

CoP14, the North American region has 

been represented on the Plants 

Committee by Mr. Robert R. Gabel of the 

United States, serving as the North 

American regional representative, and 

Dr. Adrianne Sinclair, of Canada, 

serving as the alternate representative. 

9.4 Nomenclature Committee (No 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. In its report to the 

CoP, the Nomenclature Committee 

recommends, as also recommended in 

CoP14 Doc. 12 (on review of the 

scientific committees), submitted by the 

Standing Committee, that the 

Nomenclature Committee be recharacterized as a working group of the 

Animals and Plants Committees. 

However, we anticipate that this will 

have little effect on the operation of the 

Nomenclature Committee, and we 

expect the current Chairmen of this 

committee, Dr. Ute Grimm of Germany 

(co-Chairman for Fauna) and Dr. Noel 

McGuff of the United Kingdom (coChairman for Flora), to continue in their 

positions, regardless of how this body is 

characterized. 

Strategic Matters 

11. CITES Strategic Vision: 2008–2013 

(Doc. 11). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: While the United States 

supports the revision and updating of 

both CITES’ Strategic Plan and the 

accompanying Action Plan, we have 

significant concerns related to the 

revisions proposed in Document CoP14 

Doc. 11, which we communicated in 

comments to the Strategic Plan Working 

Group (SPWG) following the 54th 

meeting of the CITES Standing 

Committee (SC54). CITES developed its 

current (and first) ‘‘Strategic Vision 

Through 2005’’ when the United States 

chaired the Standing Committee. This 

earlier document was adopted at CoP11 

and was closely linked to an Action 

Plan, with practical and measurable 

steps for the Parties, Secretariat, and 

other entities. The Action Plan was 

developed in concert with the Strategic 

Vision to provide evidence that the 

goals of the latter were being met. At 

CoP13 the Parties adopted Decision 

13.1, which extended the Strategic 

Vision through CoP14, but also set in 

motion the process to revise and update 

both the Strategic Vision and the Action 

Plan. Document CoP14 Doc. 11 

represents the output of the SPWG, 

taking into account the comments 

received from Parties and NGOs on the 

draft Strategic Plan after SC54. The 

SPWG has also prepared a draft 

resolution for consideration by the 

Parties at CoP14 (Document Doc. 11 

Annex, p. 4), and the ‘‘CITES Strategic 

Vision: 2008–2013’’ is included as a 

sub-annex to that document (pp. 5–12). 

While the SPWG accepted some of the 

comments of the United States in 

preparing this document, we remain 

concerned that the document would 

direct CITES away from its core mission 

of monitoring and controlling 

international trade in wildlife and 

plants. Although the ‘‘CITES Strategic 

Vision: 2008–2013’’ does not prescribe 

or proscribe specific actions by the 

Parties, if adopted, it is intended to 

provide guidance for the evolution of 

CITES through 2013. 

12. Review of the scientific 

committees (Doc. 12). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. This 

document is submitted by the Standing 

Committee. At SC54 in October 2006, 

the Committee adopted the 

recommendations of an External 

Evaluation Working Group’s review of 

the CITES scientific committees 

(Animals, Plants, and Nomenclature), 

and agreed to propose to CoP14 

pertinent modifications to Resolution 

Conf. 11.1 (Rev. CoP13) and 12.11 (Rev. 

CoP13). The United States supports 

adoption of the Standing Committee’s 

recommendations that will enhance the 

work and efficiency of the scientific 

committees. However, the United States 

disagrees with the Secretariat’s 

suggestion to merge the scientific 

committees. 

13. Addis Ababa Principles and 

Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of 

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

negotiating position: Support. 

Document CoP14 Doc. 13 was prepared 

by the Plants and Animals Committees, 

and is based on the outcome of 

discussions at the 22nd meeting of the 

Animals Committee and 16th meeting of 

the Plants Committee (PC16—Lima, 

Peru; July 2006). The committees 

focused on the applicability of the 

Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines 

for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity 

(Addis Ababa Principles) to the making 

of non-detriment findings, and 

concluded that not all of the principles 

and guidelines are directly relevant. The 

committees proposed that Resolution 

Conf. 10.4 be amended to acknowledge 

the use of the Addis Ababa Principles as 

a voluntary additional tool that can be 

used in making non-detriment findings. 

The United States agrees with the 

committees’ conclusion that the Addis 

Ababa Principles are not always 

applicable to the decision making 

process under CITES, and supports the 

proposal to consider them as a 

voluntary additional tool that can be 

used in making non-detriment findings. 

14. CITES and livelihoods (Doc. 14; 

Argentina, China, Germany on behalf of 

the European Community Member 

States, and Nicaragua). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. In 

Document CoP14 Doc. 14, the 

proponents summarize the outcomes 

and recommendations from the CITES 

and Livelihoods Workshop (Cape Town, 

South Africa; September 2006), and 

propose two draft decisions that build 

on those recommendations. The first 

draft decision directs the Standing 

Committee to assist in the development 

of tools and guidelines for the Parties to 

use in examining the impacts of CITES 

regulation on human well-being and the 

livelihoods of the poor. The second 

draft decision directs the Secretariat to 

provide an assessment of the ways in 

which the implementation of CITES has 

taken, or could take, into account these 

impacts on the livelihoods of the poor. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
30610 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 

Although we are supportive of 

considering human well-being and 

livelihoods in the implementation of 

CITES, these considerations should be 

separate from the objective scientific 

assessments required for listings and 

making non-detriment findings. We are 

also concerned about the budget 

implications of the proposed Decisions 

in this document. 

15. National wildlife trade policy 

reviews (Doc. 15). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. In 

Document CoP14 Doc. 15, the CITES 

Secretariat reported on progress made in 

implementing Decisions 13.74 and 

13.75 and that the four pilot countries 

interested in undertaking wildlife trade 

policy reviews, will be provided an 

opportunity to share compiled and 

synthesized information on the initial 

results from their wildlife trade policy 

reviews at a CoP14 side event. The 

Secretariat further recommends that 

interested importing countries carry out 

national wildlife policy reviews in order 

to provide a balanced view to exporting 

countries and facilitate a better 

understanding of wildlife trade policy at 

both ends of the international wildlife 

trade (supply and demand), and invites 

donors to provide financial support to 

countries interested in preparing these 

reviews. The Secretariat recommends 

renewing the deadlines in Resolution 

Conf. 13.74 for reporting to the Standing 

Committee and Conference of the 

Parties to SC57 and CoP15, and deleting 

a recommendation calling for 

submission of project proposals in order 

to seek financial support for preparation 

of trade policy reviews in interested 

countries. 

The United States looks forward to 

reviewing the results achieved with the 

four pilot countries. However, given the 

overall lackluster response of the Parties 

(7 out of 171 Parties expressed interest), 

this is not high priority work of the 

CITES Secretariat. Implementation of 

the Secretariat’s recommendations 

would have budgetary implications that 

must be weighed against priorities that 

are more urgent. 

16. Capacity building (Doc. 16). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Oppose. This document from the CITES 

Secretariat proposes the creation of an 

interactive CITES Virtual College for 

basic and more advanced training in the 

Convention over the Internet. The 

Secretariat proposes that this program 

could be linked to academic 

institutions. In Document CoP14 Doc. 

7.3 Annex 1, the CITES Secretariat 

estimates that it would cost close to $1.6 

million to run this program from 2009 

through 2011. While the United States 

has always, and continues to be, a 

strong supporter and proponent of 

training in the implementation and 

enforcement of CITES, we do not 

support such an initiative with such 

significant budget implications. There 

are already similar educational and 

capacity-building programs and 

mechanisms that would be duplicated 

by the development of such a program 

at the Secretariat (e.g., the Masters and 

Doctoral courses conducted by the 

International University of Andalucia, 

and current U.S. training offered in 

connection to Regional Free Trade 

Agreements). 

17. Cooperation between Parties and 

promotion of multilateral measures 

(Doc. 17). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided. At the time this 

notice was prepared, this document had 

not been posted on the Secretariat’s Web 

site. 

18. Cooperation With Other 

Organizations 

18.1 Cooperation with the Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations (Doc. 18.1). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Undecided on 

establishment of a Fishery Working 

Group within CITES; support 

strengthening cooperation between 

CITES and United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization (FAO) with 

regard to forestry and non-timber forest 

products, but opposed to formalization 

of the relationship through a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). 

This document was submitted by the 

CITES Secretariat. It provides a history 

of the collaboration between CITES and 

FAO regarding marine listing and 

implementation issues, and summarizes 

cooperative activities in recent years 

related to queen conch, sturgeons, 

sharks, sea cucumbers, and other 

species. Pointing to the success of 

collaborative efforts between CITES and 

FAO on marine issues, the Secretariat 

recommends strengthening cooperation 

with FAO on issues related to forestry 

and non-timber forest products. The 

document includes draft decisions for 

consideration by the Parties at CoP14. 

One of these decisions directs the 

Secretariat to initiate discussions with 

FAO on strengthening and formalizing 

cooperation between CITES and FAO 

with regard to forestry and non-timber 

forest products. Another, directed to the 

Standing Committee, would establish a 

Fishery Working Group to address 

practical issues related to the 

implementation of the Treaty for fish 

and marine invertebrates. 

The United States endorsed the 

establishment of the MoU with FAO on 

marine issues that was finalized at 

SC54, and we fully support ongoing 

cooperation between CITES and FAO 

regarding marine issues. FAO has 

provided valuable advice and assistance 

to CITES on a number of marine issues, 

including the development of listing 

criteria for marine species and the 

formation of ad hoc expert advisory 

panels to evaluate marine listing 

proposals prior to a CoP. We have 

endorsed the idea of a marine working 

group in the past; in fact, at CoP10, the 

United States submitted a document 

calling for the Standing Committee to 

establish a temporary working group for 

marine fish species. However, given the 

formalized cooperative arrangement 

with FAO, ongoing work in the Animals 

Committee, and the desire to avoid 

duplication of effort, we are uncertain of 

the need for establishing a Fishery 

Working Group within CITES at this 

time. No information has been provided 

regarding the proposed composition or 

the mandate of such a group. We will 

develop a position as more information 

becomes available. 

The International Tropical Timber 

Organization (ITTO) promotes the 

conservation and sustainable 

management of and trade in tropical 

forest resources. We submitted a 

document for consideration at CoP14 

(Doc. 18.2) that recognizes the 

importance of close cooperation 

between CITES and ITTO in the 

consideration and implementation of 

CITES listings of tropical timber species 

and recommends strengthening the 

cooperation between the CITES and 

ITTO Secretariats. While we would also 

support increased cooperation between 

CITES and ITTO regarding forestry and 

non-timber forest products, we do not 

believe that it is necessary to formalize 

the relationship through a MoU. 

18.3 Statements from representatives 

of other conventions and agreements 

(No document). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Not applicable. 

19. Dialogue Meetings 

19.1 Terms of reference for CITES 

dialogue meetings (Doc. 19.1). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support. 

Range country dialogue meetings have 

occurred for the African elephant since 

1996 and hawksbill sea turtles since 

2001. The Standing Committee 

instructed the Secretariat to draft terms 

of reference for the organization and 

conduct of dialogue meetings for any 

taxon. The Secretariat’s draft was 

reviewed at SC50 and approved with 

amendments at SC53 (July 2005). The 

Standing Committee agreed with the 

Secretariat that the revised document 

should be the basis for a draft resolution 

at CoP14. This document incorporates 

the suggestions from the Standing 

Committee and describes what a 

dialogue meeting is, who may call a 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 30611 

dialogue meeting, the organization of 

the meeting, how decisions are made 

and communicated, and how the rules 

of procedure may be amended. The 

United States participated in the SC53 

discussions and generally supports the 

document. 

19.2 Results of the dialogue meeting 

on the African elephant (Doc. 19.2). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Not 

applicable. The African elephant 

dialogue meeting is scheduled to be 

held in The Hague, The Netherlands, 

immediately prior to the start of CoP14. 

When the document is available, we 

will review it closely and develop our 

position. We support the range States 

dialogue process for debating 

multinational species issues, and the 

United States provided funding for this 

meeting through a grant under the 

African Elephant Conservation Act. 

Interpretation and Implementation of 

the Convention 

Review of Resolutions and Decisions 

20. Review of Resolutions 

20.1 Resolutions relating to 

Appendix-I species (Doc. 20.1). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 20.1, 

the Secretariat puts forward two draft 

consolidated resolutions relating to 

Appendix-I species. The first draft 

resolution is a consolidation of the 

resolutions related to hunting trophies 

for Appendix-I species, and the second 

draft resolution consolidates the 

resolutions related to the conservation 

of and trade in specimens of specific 

Appendix-I species. The United States 

has long supported the efforts to 

consolidate resolutions related to 

Appendix-I species, as long as such an 

approach continues to allow for the 

elaboration of specific measures that 

may be needed for individual species 

and does not result in a generic 

approach to the conservation of these 

rare and endangered species. 

20.2 General review (Doc. 20.2). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Undecided. At the time this notice was 

prepared, Document CoP14 Doc. 20.2 

was not available for review on the 

Secretariat’s Web site. Prior to CoP12, 

the Secretariat began a review of the 

existing CITES resolutions to identify 

those that were difficult to implement, 

redundant with other resolutions, or 

with outdated text. At CoP12 and again 

at CoP13, the Secretariat proposed 

changes to and consolidations of 

sections of several resolutions, which 

the Parties considered, and some of 

which the Parties adopted. With 

Document CoP14 Doc. 20.2, the 

Secretariat is continuing this review 

process by identifying a number of 

resolutions for which it has proposed 

changes, consolidations, or transfers of 

text to other resolutions. 

21. Revision of Resolution Conf. 11.16 

on ranching and trade in ranched 

specimens of species transferred from 

Appendix I to Appendix II (Doc. 21). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Oppose, but agree with some aspects. 

While the United States agrees that 

reporting requirements should request 

only appropriate information that is 

used to monitor ranching operations 

and to determine that such operations 

continue to meet the requirements 

agreed by the Parties in Resolution Conf. 

11.16, we do not agree with eliminating 

the collection of needed information 

based on Parties’ inability or 

unwillingness to submit a complete 

report. Annual reporting must include 

sufficient information to determine if 

ranching operations are having an 

adverse effect on wild populations and 

that population trends are stable or 

increasing. 

Regarding the revision to the 

definition of ‘‘ranching,’’ the United 

States agrees that the definition should 

be amended, but does not accept the 

proposed definition. The Parties should 

postpone a revision of the definition of 

‘‘ranching’’ in Resolution Conf. 11.16 

until consideration of Document CoP14 

Doc. 38, and if agreed, the review 

proposed in that document has been 

completed. 

22. Review of Decisions (Doc. 22). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Undecided. At the time this notice was 

prepared, Document CoP14 Doc. 22 was 

not available for review on the 

Secretariat’s Web site. At CoP13, the 

Parties reviewed the current CITES 

decisions to identify those that were 

long term in nature. For these long-term 

decisions, the Parties adopted the 

transfer of their text into new or existing 

resolutions. With Document CoP14 Doc. 

22, the Secretariat is continuing this 

process by identifying existing decisions 

that are intended to be valid for a long 

term and making proposals for the 

transfer of the relevant texts of these 

decisions into new or existing 

resolutions. 

Compliance and Enforcement Issues 

23. Guidelines for compliance with 

the Convention (Doc. 23). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. At CoP12, 

the Parties directed the Standing 

Committee to develop guidelines for 

compliance with the Convention and a 

working group was established at SC50 

to accomplish the task. The United 

States has been an active member of the 

Working Group on Compliance and 

supports completion of the draft 

guidelines at CoP14. The existing 

compliance mechanisms in the Treaty 

and resolutions are effective and 

appropriate. We have worked to ensure 

that the guidelines for compliance 

accurately describe those mechanisms 

and do not go beyond what already 

exists by introducing new mechanisms 

or procedures. Although significant 

progress was made and agreement was 

reached on most of the text, some areas 

of disagreement remained after SC54. 

Document CoP14 Doc. 23 was prepared 

by the Chairman of the Working Group 

on Compliance and includes the draft 

guidelines and the Chairman’s 

recommendations for resolving 

remaining areas of disagreement. The 

United States supports his 

recommendations because they focus 

the guidelines on describing existing 

practice instead of creating new 

compliance procedures. 

24. National laws for implementation 

of the Convention (Doc. 24). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. At 

the time this notice was prepared, this 

document had not been posted on the 

Secretariat’s Web site. The United States 

strongly believes that the Convention’s 

effectiveness is undermined when Party 

States do not have adequate national 

laws in place for implementing CITES, 

and we have previously supported 

action by the Conference of the Parties 

to compel Parties to adopt effective 

CITES implementing legislation. 

25. Enforcement matters (Doc. 25). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. The United States supports the 

proposed decisions relating to a meeting 

of the CITES Enforcement Experts 

Group and the suggestion that 

Resolution Conf. 11.3 be revised. The 

United States agrees that existing efforts 

to capture illegal trade information have 

largely been unsuccessful and welcomes 

an opportunity to discuss the issue so 

that illegal trade activities are better 

understood and enforcement efforts to 

combat them are made more effective. 

The United States also concurs with the 

Secretariat’s assessment that, despite 

remarkable efforts by dedicated wildlife 

enforcement officers around the world, 

governments need to raise the profile of 

wildlife enforcement and ensure that 

sufficient resources are devoted to 

interdiction of illegal trade and 

prosecution of wildlife criminals. 

26. Compliance and enforcement 

(Doc. 26; Germany, on behalf of the 

European Community Member States). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Partial support. The United States 

agrees with many of the Secretariat’s 

concerns. The United States does not 

believe it is necessary, at this point, to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
30612 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 

establish a permanent Enforcement 

Experts Group. However, a second 

meeting of this group is warranted to 

follow up on previous recommendations 

and take up some of the issues 

identified in this document as well as 

enforcement-related documents, such as 

Document CoP14 Doc. 25 and Document 

CoP14 Doc. 28. 

27. Disposal of illegally traded and 

confiscated specimens of Appendix-II 

and -III species (Doc. 27; Indonesia). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Oppose. The United States does not 

support the proposed decision directed 

to the Standing Committee regarding 

amendments to Resolution Conf. 9.10 

(Rev. CoP13). Some of the issues raised 

in Document CoP14 Doc. 27 and the 

proposed decision are clearly addressed 

in existing resolutions. In addition, 

several of the issues identified as 

possible amendments would raise 

enormous logistical, financial, and 

workload challenges that would 

substantially outweigh any possible 

conservation benefit for Parties that 

regularly confiscate large volumes of 

wildlife. The proposed amendments to 

Resolution Conf. 9.10 (Rev. CoP13) 

included in this document, if adopted, 

could have a negative conservation 

impact by discouraging Parties from 

confiscating illegally traded wildlife if 

they were required to take on the 

substantial logistical, financial, and 

workload burdens that would 

accompany these requirements. 

28. Internet trade in specimens of 

CITES-listed species (Doc. 27; Germany, 

on behalf of the European Community 

Member States). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. The 

United States is concerned about the 

role of the Internet in illegal wildlife 

trade and has already devoted 

enforcement resources to this issue. The 

United States supports the Secretariat’s 

alternative draft decisions, which would 

be a more efficient and cost-effective 

approach to the workshop. 

29. National reports (Doc. 29). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support with minor changes. With 

Document CoP14 Doc. 29, the 

Secretariat reports on progress it and the 

Parties have made since CoP13 in 

implementing Resolution Conf. 11.17 

(Rev. CoP13) on national reports, and on 

progress it has made in implementing 

Decisions 13.90–13.92 on reporting 

requirements. The Secretariat 

recommends that the Parties consider 

adopting two draft decisions included 

in Annex 2 of Document CoP14 Doc. 29. 

The first draft decision, which the 

United States supports, would direct the 

Standing Committee to undertake a 

review of the CITES recommendations 

to Parties to provide special reports, 

assess whether they might be effectively 

incorporated into the annual and 

biennial reports, and report to CoP15 on 

its conclusions and recommendations. 

The second draft decision would direct 

the Secretariat to continue work 

directed under Decision 13.92 to 

facilitate the harmonization of 

knowledge management and reporting 

with other biodiversity-related 

conventions. This draft decision would 

continue work directed under Decision 

13.90 to identify ways to reduce 

reporting burdens on Parties. The 

United States supports both of these 

aspects of the draft decision. However, 

the second point of the draft decision 

also directs the Secretariat to support 

the Standing Committee on electronic 

permitting. The United States 

recognizes the potential benefits 

electronic permitting could provide in 

relation to national reports, but we are 

concerned about the potential financial 

impact on some Parties and the limited 

capacity of many Parties to completely 

implement electronic permitting (see 

the U.S. position on Document CoP14 

Doc. 40.1 and Document CoP14 Doc. 

40.2). Therefore, the United States, 

while supportive of most of the text of 

the second draft decision, does not 

support inclusion of the phrase ‘‘* * * 

its support of the Standing Committee 

on electronic permitting* * *’’

31. Monitoring of the implementation 

of the annotations to Euphorbia spp. 

and Orchidaceae spp. included in 

Appendix II (Doc. 31; Switzerland). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. Switzerland has submitted a 

proposal for CoP14 to amend the 

annotation to Orchidaceae (Prop. 34), 

and another proposal to amend the 

annotation to Euphorbia spp. (Prop. 29). 

In Document CoP14 Doc. 31, 

Switzerland explains that, if these two 

proposals are adopted, then it would be 

appropriate to renew Decisions 13.98 

and 13.99 to monitor the 

implementation of the amended orchid 

annotation, and also adopt similar 

decisions to monitor the 

implementation of the amended 

Euphorbia annotation. In the Annex to 

Document CoP14 Doc. 31, Switzerland 

provides the draft renewals of Decisions 

13.98 and 13.99, plus two new similar 

draft decisions on the Euphorbia 

annotation. The United States agrees 

that, if the species proposals amending 

the Euphorbia annotation and the 

orchid annotation are adopted at CoP14, 

then the Parties should also adopt 

decisions to monitor the 

implementation of these amended 

annotations, in order to determine how 

effective they are and whether they are 

causing any significant enforcement 

difficulties. It is also the U.S. position 

that, if these two proposals are not 

adopted, Decisions 13.98 and 13.99 

should still be continued. 

32. Incentives for implementation of 

the Convention (Doc. 32). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose. Document 

CoP14 Doc. 32 reviews Decisions 13.76 

and 13.77, and summarizes the issues 

involved in incentives for 

implementation of the convention. The 

Secretariat’s lists numerous 

recommendations, including the 

creation of a working group to identify 

options for CITES Authorities in 

designing and using specific incentive 

measures. 

While the United States does not have 

any fundamental objections to the use of 

economic incentives to further wildlife 

conservation in the context of CITES, 

the text of the Convention is silent on 

this matter. Although careful and 

detailed consideration must be given by 

the Parties prior to incorporating these 

concepts and specific recommendations 

into the body of CITES soft law, we note 

that the Secretariat’s report indicates 

that there was no response from Parties 

to the Notification calling for 

submissions on economic incentives 

(2005/022). We, therefore, have 

questions about the value of this work 

to the CITES Parties. The report presents 

interesting information to the Parties, 

but given the lack of interest, this work 

can be successfully brought to a close 

and this agenda topic retired. Specific 

work, such as the survey of fee 

structures is valuable in its own right as 

an implementation item, but other 

proposed decision elements directed to 

the Standing Committee, the Parties, 

and the Secretariat are not a priority and 

should not be supported. 

Trade Control and Marking Issues 

33. Introduction from the sea (Doc. 

33). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. This document was prepared 

by the CITES Secretariat on behalf of the 

Standing Committee and reports on 

progress made since CoP13 on issues 

related to introduction from the sea. In 

2005, a workshop on introduction from 

the sea was convened in accordance 

with Decision 13.18. The report of the 

workshop, the comments received on 

the report, and a draft resolution and 

draft decision prepared by the 

Secretariat were considered at SC54. It 

was agreed that a working group would 

work electronically to refine the 

definition of the ‘‘marine environment 

not under the jurisdiction of any State’’

based on issues raised at SC54 and 

comments on the workshop report. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 30613 

Document CoP14 Doc. 33 includes a 

draft resolution that contains both the 

definition agreed by the workshop and 

an alternative definition put forward by 

the working group. The Standing 

Committee recommends that the CoP 

reach agreement on the bracketed text 

and adopt the resolution to provide a 

definition of the ‘‘marine environment 

not under the jurisdiction of any State.’’

The United States has been actively 

involved in discussions related to 

introduction from the sea since the 

drafting of the Treaty, and we strongly 

support continuing efforts to achieve 

common understanding of the practical 

application of the introduction from the 

sea provision under CITES. We 

participated in the 2005 workshop and 

the electronic working group following 

SC54. We strongly support adoption of 

the draft resolution with the alternative 

definition put forward by the working 

group in place of the definition agreed 

at the 2005 workshop. 

Document CoP14 Doc. 33 also 

includes a draft decision directed to the 

Standing Committee. The decision calls 

for the establishment of a working group 

on introduction from the sea, to work 

primarily through electronic means, to 

consider further clarification of terms 

and other issues identified in the 2005 

workshop report. The working group 

would be asked to report its findings to 

CoP15. The United States believes that, 

given the increasing number of listing 

proposals for marine species at recent 

CoPs, continued work on the practical 

implementation of the introduction 

from the sea provision is important, and 

we therefore support the formation of 

such a working group. 

34. Trade in Appendix-I species (Doc. 

34). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Based on the results of the United 

Nations Environment Programme World 

Conservation Monitoring Centre 

(UNEP–WCMC) analysis reported at 

SC54, most trade in Appendix-I species 

reported by the Parties is conducted 

appropriately. However, UNEP–WCMC 

noted that further clarification of the 

purpose of transaction codes would be 

useful, and that countries also need to 

show greater care in applying source 

codes. The United States supports the 

need to clarify further the use of certain 

purpose of transaction and source codes 

so that there is more uniformity in how 

codes are used. As identified in 

Document CoP14 Doc. 38, the Animals 

Committee and Plants Committee were 

unable to make significant progress on 

production systems and source codes 

and have proposed a more narrow scope 

of work to develop a definition of 

ranching for application to CITES for 

CoP15. The United States submitted a 

document (CoP14 Doc. 39) proposing 

refinements to the purpose of 

transaction codes, to eliminate 

duplicities and ensure better usage by 

the Parties. 

35. International expert workshop on 

non-detriment findings (Doc. 35; 

Mexico). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. The Scientific 

Authority of each Party is required to 

make non-detriment findings for species 

listed in Appendix I and Appendix II. 

However, many countries lack financial 

and technical resources and expertise to 

fully meet this obligation. The proposed 

workshop on making CITES nondetriment findings will improve Parties 

abilities to make scientifically sound 

findings, build regional capacity, and 

foster greater cooperation among Parties 

to effectively implement the 

Convention. 

The proposed workshop is an 

initiative that grew out of discussions 

among the three Parties in the North 

American Region of CITES—Canada, 

Mexico, and the United States. The 

United States is fully supportive of this 

workshop. We believe that 

strengthening the capacities of CITES 

Scientific Authorities will help to 

ensure that trade in CITES-listed species 

does not occur at levels that threaten 

their survival. 

36. Management of annual export 

quotas (Doc. 36). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support, provided 

negotiated changes to the text of the 

draft resolution will advance and 

support the establishment, 

implementation, and monitoring of 

nationally established export quotas for 

Appendix-II species. The United States 

initiated discussion of this issue at 

CoP12 and has been an active 

participant in the Standing Committee’s 

Export Quota Working Group (EQWG). 

This document accurately reflects the 

discussions of the EQWG since CoP13, 

which has made significant progress in 

developing a draft resolution and 

amendments to existing resolutions that 

would cover this issue. Although 

substantive issues remain unresolved, as 

reflected in Document CoP14 Doc. 36, 

the United States hopes that, with 

further discussion at CoP14, a final draft 

resolution can be agreed and adopted. 

The United States has participated in 

these deliberations with a goal of 

ensuring that export quotas for CITESlisted species provide a meaningful tool 

for monitoring and controlling trade by 

providing a feedback mechanism for 

importing countries to communicate 

irregularities and potential illegal trade 

to exporting countries. 

37. Appendix-I Species Subject to 

Export Quotas 

37.1 Leopard export quotas for 

Mozambique (Doc. 37.1; Mozambique). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Oppose. In this document, Mozambique 

proposes to increase its export quota for 

leopard hunting trophies and skins for 

personal use from 60 to 120. The United 

States, as reflected in the document we 

submitted for CoP12 on establishing 

scientifically based quotas, and in 

accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.21 

(Rev. CoP13), which calls for 

establishment of a scientific basis for 

proposed quotas, is very interested in 

ensuring that annual export quotas are 

established on strong biological data. 

Mozambique’s request does not provide 

enough biological information about the 

population of leopards or their prey in 

Mozambique to determine whether the 

population can be sustained under the 

proposed quota figure. 

37.2 Black rhinoceros export quotas 

for Namibia and South Africa (Doc. 

37.2; Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided. Kenya is 

proposing to rescind Resolution Conf. 

13.5, which allows Namibia and South 

Africa to export five black rhino sporthunted trophies annually. Kenya has 

provided information about 

management problems in Namibia and 

increased levels of rhino poaching in 

South Africa since the exports were 

approved at CoP13 in 2004. However, 

this information is contradicted by a 

report on the status and trade of rhinos 

produced by the IUCN–SSC’s African 

Rhino Specialist Group (CoP14 Doc. 54), 

which reports an increase in the black 

rhino population in both countries and 

very limited rhino poaching in Namibia 

or South Africa. Although Kenya fails to 

provide information to show that the 

existing quota is biologically 

unsustainable or that range-wide 

poaching of black rhinos has increased 

as a result of the export of sport-hunted 

trophies, their document does raise 

questions that should be addressed by 

Namibia and South Africa prior to the 

United States finalizing its position on 

this document. It should be noted that 

this species is listed as endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act and 

that the import of a black rhinoceros 

sport-hunted trophy into the United 

States must meet additional regulatory 

requirements. 

38. Production systems for specimens 

of CITES-listed species (Doc. 38). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. The United States has been an 

active participant in the discussion of 

production systems and source codes, 

by chairing an intersessional joint 

working group of the Animals and 

Plants Committees on the subject. We 

agree that additional discussions with a 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
30614 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 

narrower focus on ranching are 

warranted, as described in the 

document. 

40. Electronic Permitting 

40.1 Report of the Secretariat (Doc. 

40.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose. The United States 

believes that the majority of Parties do 

not and will not have the technological 

or financial support to fully implement 

an electronic permitting system, now or 

in the near future. Given the complexity 

of this effort and the current state of 

technology, the United States believes 

that this does not represent a highpriority activity at this time, particularly 

given the current budget atmosphere. 

40.2 Report of the Standing 

Committee’s Working Group (Doc. 40.2). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Oppose. See discussion on Document 

CoP14 Doc. 40.1 above. 

41. Transport of live specimens (Doc. 

41). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 41 

(Rev. 1), the Secretariat summarizes 

work done by the Transport Working 

Group and presents a revision of 

Resolution Conf. 10.21 on ‘‘Transport of 

live animals’’ to ‘‘Transport of live 

specimens’’ by including the transport 

of plants. Other changes would limit 

review of shipment mortality to only 

those shipments with high mortality. 

The United States is generally in favor 

of the revisions to Resolution Conf. 

10.21, in particular the inclusion of 

plants, which will result in a more 

comprehensive resolution. While the 

United States continues to be interested 

in all mortality during shipment, we 

realize that this presents a burden on 

already-taxed inspectors and customs 

officials, and agree with the new 

language in the revision that calls for 

the Animals and Plants Committees to 

examine high-mortality shipments of 

live specimens. 

The United States is in favor of efforts 

to provide comprehensive information 

on the best methods for live animal and 

plant transport. The requirements in the 

International Air Transport Association 

(IATA) Live Animals Regulations (LAR), 

while used specifically for air transport, 

are in most cases appropriate for non-air 

transport (road, rail, and sea). The 

World Organisation for Animal Health 

(OIE)’s proposed Web site for non-air 

animal and plant transport methods 

would be useful as a supplement for 

alternative transport methods to those 

described in the IATA–LAR, provided it 

addresses the challenges presented with 

the transport of live captive and wild 

CITES-listed taxa that require special 

attention for non-air transport methods 

(e.g., duration of transit time, 

environmental conditions, and 

conveyance vehicles). 

42. Physical inspection of timber 

shipments (Doc. 42; Germany, on behalf 

of the European Community Member 

States). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. Document CoP14 

Doc. 42 details a number of problems 

faced by CITES inspection officials at 

ports of import and export in inspecting, 

identifying, and measuring the volume 

of CITES timber shipments. Document 

CoP14 Doc. 42 recommends that CITES 

take action to provide guidance to the 

Parties on enforcement of timber listings 

and focuses on identification and the 

development of a methodology for the 

physical inspection of timber 

shipments. The document contains two 

draft decisions in the Annex. The first 

draft decision would direct the 

Secretariat, in consultation with the 

Plants Committee, CITES Parties, and 

relevant organizations, to identify 

existing timber identification tools for 

CITES-listed species and identify ways 

that these tools can be accessed by 

CITES inspection authorities. This 

decision would further direct the 

Secretariat to identify gaps for which 

additional work is needed to develop 

timber identification tools; the 

Secretariat is then to report its findings 

to the Standing Committee. The second 

draft decision would direct the Standing 

Committee, in consultation with the 

Secretariat, range countries, and other 

Parties and relevant organizations, to 

develop guidelines for the enforcement 

of timber listings and to focus on the 

development of a methodology to carry 

out physical inspections of timber 

shipments. 

44. Identification Manual (Doc. 44). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. This document is a report from 

the Secretariat on progress in the 

development of identification materials 

for listed species. We are nearing 

completion of an identification sheet for 

paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) and 

plan to submit the sheet to the CITES 

Secretariat later this year. On December 

16, 2005, we listed the alligator 

snapping turtle (Macroclemys 

temminckii) and all species of map 

turtles (Graptemys spp.) in Appendix III 

of CITES. We are currently working 

with the University of Kansas to draft 

identification sheets for those species. 

We will continue to address the 

remaining CITES-listed species for 

which the United States is responsible 

for providing identification materials. 

Exemptions and Special Trade 

Provisions 

45. Personal and household effects 

(Doc. 45). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. This document 

contains a proposal from the Standing 

Committee’s Personal and Household 

Effects Working Group to amend 

Resolution Conf. 13.7 (on control of 

trade in personal and household effects) 

to facilitate trade in personally owned 

specimens of certain CITES-listed 

species. The United States has been an 

active participant in this working group 

since it was established in 2006. The 

United States believes that the list of 

exempted items is a useful tool in 

implementing the Convention. We also 

believe that, although additions to the 

list may be appropriate in certain 

limited circumstances, any substantial 

increase in the number of items 

included in the list is likely to create 

confusion and enforcement problems. 

The United States supports 

development of a careful and 

deliberative process to amend the list. 

46. Trade in some crocodilian 

specimens (Doc. 46; Germany, on behalf 

of the European Community Member 

States). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Oppose. The basic contention 

of the document is that the 

implementation of Resolution Conf. 

11.12 is working so well that the 

issuance of re-export documents for 

finished crocodilian leather products is 

an expensive, unnecessary redundancy. 

This proposal is inconsistent with 

CITES Article I(b)(ii), which requires 

that readily recognizable parts and 

derivatives of animal species listed in 

Appendices I and II are considered 

specimens that are subject to the 

provisions of the Convention. The 

proponents have not argued or 

presented information to suggest that 

these specimens are not readily 

recognizable. We are unconvinced that 

the issuance of re-export documents for 

finished crocodilian leather products is 

unnecessarily redundant. Furthermore, 

we believe that adoption of such a 

proposal would establish a dangerous 

precedent that some Parties may wish to 

apply to the finished products of other 

CITES-listed species. 

47. Applications to register operations 

that breed Appendix-I animal species in 

captivity for commercial purposes (Doc. 

47). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Oppose. This document refers to 

Notification to the Parties Nos. 2004/054 

and 2005/48, requests by the 

Management Authority of the 

Philippines to register a captivebreeding operation for the following 

birds: Amazona ochrocephala 

auropalliata, Amazona ochrocephala 

oratrix, Amazona viridigenalis, 

Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus, Ara 

militaris, Ara rubrogenys, Cacatua 

goffini, and Propyrrhura maracana. We 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 30615 

are unable to support the approval of 

this operation for these eight species 

because the applications did not 

provide sufficient documentation on 

legal acquisition of the parental stock. 

Although documentation was provided, 

it is not specific to the species involved 

and refers only generically to parrots. 

Further, no documentation is provided 

to show that the parental stock was 

legally exported from range countries. 

Therefore, the captive-breeding 

operation does not meet the bred-incaptivity criteria of Resolution Conf. 

10.16 (Rev.), specifically paragraph 

(b)(ii)A, which requires that the 

breeding stock must have been 

established ‘‘in accordance with CITES 

and relevant national laws.’’ Approval 

of this operation in the absence of 

documentation of legal origin of its 

stock could potentially set a precedent 

for approving other captive-breeding 

operations that similarly lack such 

documentation. 

48. Relationship between ex situ 

production and in situ conservation: 

report of the Standing Committee (Doc. 

48). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Document CoP14 Doc. 48 contains 

recommendations of the Standing 

Committee’s Clearing House. As a 

member of the Clearing House, the 

United States provided technical 

comments on the version of this 

document presented to the Standing 

Committee for SC54. The United States 

agrees with the CITES Secretariat that 

the issues raised by the relationship 

between ex situ production methods 

and in situ conservation efforts (for 

CITES-listed species) are interesting. 

However, we believe that the Parties 

must carefully consider, in light of 

current budgetary constraints, whether 

the recommended study represents a 

high-priority activity and will support 

the core purposes and functions of 

CITES. 

49. Reservations regarding species 

transferred from one Appendix to 

another (Doc. 49). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. The 

Convention provides three provisions 

under which a Party may take a 

reservation: (1) Article XXIII provides 

for a new Party to take a reservation 

with respect to a species listed in 

Appendix I, II, or III, within 90 days 

after the date that the Party deposits its 

instrument of ratification; (2) Article XV 

provides for a Party to take a reservation 

to an adopted amendment to Appendix 

I or II, within 90 days after the CoP at 

which the amendment was adopted; and 

(3) Article XVI provides for a Party to 

take a reservation on a species listed in 

Appendix III, or on any parts or 

derivatives of that species, at any time 

after the listing of the species. With 

Document CoP14 Doc. 49, the 

Secretariat presents a draft revision to 

Resolution Conf. 4.25 to clarify that, in 

cases where a Party holds a reservation 

in relation to a species that is 

subsequently transferred from one 

Appendix to another (or in other words 

deleted from one Appendix and 

simultaneously added to another 

Appendix), the reservation will be 

considered as no longer valid, and the 

Party will need to enter a new 

reservation if it wishes to maintain the 

reservation on the species. In the draft 

revision, the Secretariat also proposes to 

combine the two existing 

recommendations in Resolution Conf. 

4.25 to shorten and simplify the text. 

Species Trade and Conservation Issues 

50. Great apes (Doc. 50). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided 

until certain reports are made available 

to the CITES Secretariat and reviewed. 

In Document CoP14 Doc. 50 the CITES 

Secretariat reviews activities involving 

great apes. 

At SC54, held in October 2006, the 

Secretariat expressed its concern 

regarding a lack of information relating 

to orangutans that had been illegally 

imported into Cambodia and questioned 

whether the Convention was being 

adequately implemented. The Standing 

Committee called upon Cambodia to 

facilitate a mission by the Secretariat to 

assess implementation of the 

Convention, but to date the request has 

not been answered. The Secretariat will 

report on this subject at CoP14 and also 

has expressed its concerns regarding 

illicit trade in great apes by Egypt. The 

Standing Committee requested Egypt to 

prepare a report for CoP14 on its 

enforcement of the Convention, 

particularly with regard to the illicit 

trade in primates. The report has not yet 

been prepared. The Standing Committee 

recommended that the Conference of the 

Parties review the reports concerning 

Cambodia and Egypt and decide 

whether additional measures, including 

non-compliance measures or a 

verification mission by the Secretariat, 

are necessary. 

The United States is unable to 

determine a definite position until the 

reports requested by the Secretariat from 

Cambodia and Egypt concerning reports 

on illegal trade in primates can be 

reviewed. The United States takes noncompliance issues very seriously and 

will look closely at the responses and 

reports requested from Cambodia and 

Egypt. The United States has been 

supportive of past actions recommended 

by the Secretariat in response to noncompliance issues, and unless there are 

circumstances that would warrant 

otherwise, we expect to continue our 

support of the Secretariat’s 

recommendations. 

51. Cetaceans (Doc. 51; Japan). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Oppose. This document contains two 

draft decisions that, if adopted, would 

direct the Animals Committee to 

include in its Review of the Appendices 

all cetaceans in Appendix I that are 

managed by the International Whaling 

Commission (IWC). The second draft 

decision would direct the CITES 

Secretariat to write to the IWC 

Secretariat conveying the concern of the 

Conference of the Parties regarding the 

postponement of the Revised 

Management Scheme discussions. The 

United States believes it is doubtful that 

any new and compelling information 

would be revealed by this review, since 

the whale species most highly traded 

have been carefully reviewed by the 

IWC Scientific Committee and have 

been under almost continuous scrutiny 

by the Parties since CoP9 in 1994. 

52. Asian big cats (Doc. 52). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support. In 

Document CoP14 Doc. 52, the 

Secretariat notes that several countries 

have achieved success in halting the 

downward population trend for wild 

tigers by using well-equipped and 

trained anti-poaching units. However, 

the Secretariat contends that, despite all 

the attention and money that have been 

put towards conserving tigers, wild tiger 

populations are probably at greater risk 

of extinction today than ever before. 

Unless the CoP can identify any new 

approach to the conservation of Asian 

big cat species, the Secretariat sees little 

option other than for the Parties to 

renew their efforts to eliminate illicit 

trade in specimens of these species. 

53. Elephants 

53.1 Trade in elephant specimens 

(Doc. 53.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided, pending the 

outcome of the African elephant range 

States dialogue meeting and discussions 

at SC55. This document was submitted 

by the Secretariat to report on a number 

of items related to both domestic and 

international ivory trade. Specifically, 

the document provides information on 

accomplishments achieved under the 

Action Plan for the control of trade in 

African elephant ivory, adopted at 

CoP13; the Secretariat’s efforts to verify 

if certain conditions have been met to 

allow international trade from 

government-owned ivory stocks for 

certain countries, in line with the 

annotation adopted at CoP12; a review 

of the implementation of ivory trade 

controls in Zimbabwe; and a number of 

recent items related to illegal 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
30616 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 

international trade in ivory. The 

Secretariat will report orally on this 

subject at CoP14 and make specific 

recommendations at that time. The 

United States will formulate its position 

based on the results of the African 

elephant range States dialogue meeting 

and reports expected at SC55 and 

CoP14. 

53.2 Monitoring of illegal trade in 

ivory and other elephant specimens 

(Doc. 53.2). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided. At the time this 

notice was prepared, this document had 

not been posted on the Secretariat’s 

website. 

53.3 Monitoring of illegal hunting in 

elephant range States (Doc. 53.3). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Undecided. This document was 

prepared by the Secretariat to report on 

progress since CoP13 in implementing 

the MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal Killing 

of Elephants) program. At SC54, the 

Committee agreed that MIKE baseline 

information was not yet complete (a 

condition required before the ivory sale 

agreed at CoP12 may take place) and 

that the Secretariat should report on the 

MIKE baseline at SC55. The Secretariat 

notes in Document CoP14 Doc. 53.3 that 

the completed baseline information is 

ready to be presented at SC55. The 

document discusses MIKE activities 

since CoP13 and describes the current 

status of funding for the African and 

Asian MIKE programs. Although 

funding has been secured to support the 

MIKE program in Africa through 2011, 

the Secretariat is seeking $4 million to 

support MIKE activities in Asia for the 

period 2007–2011. The Secretariat will 

report orally on this subject at CoP14, 

including information on the outcomes 

of the baseline discussions at SC54 and 

fund-raising efforts. The United States 

will formulate its position based on the 

results of the African elephant range 

States dialogue meeting and reports 

expected at SC55 and CoP14. 

53.4 Illegal ivory trade and control 

of internal markets (Doc. 53.4; Kenya 

and Mali). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided. This document 

submitted by Kenya and Mali is 

intended to support CoP14 Prop. 6. 

Document CoP14 Doc. 53.4 chronicles 

ivory seizures since CoP13 and provides 

information on domestic ivory markets 

around the world. Kenya and Mali 

propose amendments to Resolution 

Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12), including a 

recommendation that Parties whose 

elephant populations are listed in 

Appendix I not introduce proposals to 

transfer those populations to Appendix 

II for a period of 20 years and a 20-year 

moratorium on ivory trade from 

Appendix-II populations, except for 

non-commercial trade in hunting 

trophies and the sale approved at 

CoP12. The document also includes a 

draft decision urging ivory-importing 

countries and others to provide 

financial and technical support for 

implementation of the Action Plan for 

the control of trade in African elephant 

ivory. We appreciate the position of 

Kenya and Mali relative to conservation 

efforts for African elephants. However, 

we note that a 20-year ban on listing 

proposals may be contrary to Article XV 

of the Treaty, which provides for any 

Party to propose an amendment to 

Appendix I or II at any CoP. The United 

States will formulate its final position 

based on the results of the African 

elephant range States dialogue meeting 

and reports expected at SC55 and 

CoP14. 

54. Rhinoceroses (Doc. 54). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support in 

principle, but financial decisions are 

still undecided. In Document CoP14 

Doc. 54, the Secretariat reports on the 

outcome of the projects undertaken by 

IUCN and TRAFFIC related to the 

conservation of and trade in African and 

Asian rhinoceroses. The Secretariat 

proposes to incorporate the reporting 

role of the IUCN/SSC African and Asian 

Rhino Specialist Groups and TRAFFIC 

into Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP13). 

The Secretariat also proposes two draft 

decisions related to the continued 

illegal trade in rhinoceros horns and one 

draft decision related to site-based 

monitoring of rhinoceros populations. 

The Secretariat notes that there are 

substantial financial implications 

associated with adopting its 

recommendations on this issue. The 

United States applauds the work 

undertaken by IUCN and TRAFFIC and 

supports continued work in combating 

the illegal hunting and trade in 

rhinoceroses. However, with regard to 

the financial implications of adopting 

the recommendations in the document, 

we believe that any items related to 

budgeting and financing activities under 

CITES must be carefully considered by 

the Parties in light of other priorities. 

55. Tibetan antelope (Doc. 55). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. Resolution Conf. 11.8 (Rev. 

CoP13) instructed the Standing 

Committee to undertake a regular 

review of the enforcement measures 

taken by the Parties to eliminate illicit 

trade in Tibetan antelope products on 

the basis of the CITES Secretariat’s 

report, and to report the results at each 

meeting of the Conference of the Parties. 

This document submitted by Secretariat 

summarizes the report. 

56. Saiga antelope (Doc. 56). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Support, with 

additions. This document refers to 

Decisions 13.27 through 13.35 on saiga 

antelope, which were to be 

implemented prior to CoP14. These 

interconnected decisions were directed 

to the range States of the saiga antelope 

(Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the Russian 

Federation, Turkmenistan and 

Uzbekistan, and possibly China), other 

Parties (specifically those that are 

important consumers of and traders in 

saiga products, and those that could act 

as financial donors) and bodies, the 

Standing Committee, and the CITES 

Secretariat to address serious concerns 

over the continuously deteriorating 

conservation status of the saiga 

antelope. This document reports on the 

progress in accomplishing these 

decisions over the past 3 years, and 

recommends additional draft decisions 

to the Parties to ensure the continued 

conservation of saiga antelope. The 

saiga antelope was listed in Appendix II 

in 1995. The most significant threat to 

the species is illegal hunting, primarily 

for the Asian traditional medicine trade. 

In the document, the Secretariat notes 

that anti-poaching efforts have 

intensified in some parts of the saiga’s 

range, and should be extended to its 

entire range. We wish to underscore the 

significance of this statement, because 

poaching continues to impact 

conservation efforts to restore the saiga 

population, which decreased from one 

million to 30,000 animals in the 1990s. 

According to the Secretariat’s 

document, the Russian Federation is the 

only range country that has not signed 

the Memorandum of Understanding 

(MoU) for the Conservation, Restoration 

and Sustainable Use of the Saiga 

Antelope (Saiga tatarica tatarica). The 

MoU contains a Saiga Action Plan that 

calls for measures to restore the habitat 

and populations of the saiga antelope, 

and enhance transboundary and 

international cooperation through, inter 

alia, a regional conservation and 

management strategy. Therefore, the 

Secretariat recommends that the 

Russian Federation sign the MoU as 

soon as possible. The United States has 

provided financial support for the 

conservation and protection of the saiga 

antelope in the wild and for the range 

States workshop on this species in May 

2002 in Kalmykia. We support the 

Secretariat’s recommendations and plan 

to suggest the inclusion of saiga 

antelope on the agenda of the Standing 

Committee meetings between CoP14 

and CoP15. 

57. Tortoises and freshwater turtles 

(Doc. 57). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided. The United States 

has been involved in developing CITES 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 30617 

listing proposals and policy advice on 

the trade in tortoises and turtles for a 

number of years. While we generally do 

not have an objection to the 

amendments suggested by the 

Secretariat—provided they are endorsed 

by consensus by the Asian range and 

trading States—we are concerned that 

the CITES Parties have not paid 

sufficient attention to these trade 

problems after listing a number of Asian 

turtle species in Appendix II at CoPs 12 

and 13. Due to the continuing and 

evolving trade in these species in Asia, 

including farming practices that may 

negatively impact wild populations, the 

United States believes that additional 

study and discussion of these problems 

is needed, and we plan to introduce this 

point at CoP14. 

58. Hawksbill turtle (Doc. 58). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. We agree with the Secretariat 

that no further action is needed. No 

funding was found for the convening of 

a workshop to develop a collaborative 

regional strategy for the conservation of 

hawksbill sea turtles, perhaps because it 

is regulation of international trade and 

not management that is the main 

responsibility of CITES. However, the 

Inter-American Convention for the 

Protection and Conservation of Sea 

Turtles, at its last meeting passed a 

resolution calling for a workshop to 

evaluate the current status of hawksbill 

sea turtle populations in the Wider 

Caribbean and Western Atlantic, and to 

present the best available methods of 

research and conservation for the 

species. The United States will 

announce its support for the IAC 

workshop and recommend that CITES 

collaborate with this and other relevant 

bodies concerning this species such as 

the Caribbean Environment Program. 

59. Sharks 

59.1 Report of the Animals 

Committee (Doc. 59.1). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support with 

exception. The report contains: (1) A 

review of implementation issues related 

to sharks listed in the CITES 

Appendices, to provide assistance to 

Parties in managing the species covered 

by the Convention; (2) information on 

specific cases where trade is having an 

adverse impact on sharks and the key 

species of sharks affected in this way; 

and (3) a listing and analysis of those 

species that are specifically threatened 

by trade. The proposal contains a large 

number of wide-ranging decisions and 

recommendations. As indicated by the 

Secretariat, at CoP14 a working group 

will review and edit the draft decisions; 

prioritize and rationalize the proposed 

measures; minimize overlapping 

instructions; look into reducing and 

simplifying the reporting burden; and 

assess the cost of implementing the draft 

decisions. The United States will work 

to ensure that this work is completed. 

59.2 Additional conservation 

measures (Doc. 59.2; Australia). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. This document states that, 

while the report from the Animals 

Committee to this meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties contains a 

number of useful suggestions for 

consideration to protect and conserve 

sharks, additional measures should be 

considered under the agenda item 

addressing sharks. These measures 

include: (1) That countries with 

National Plans of Action (NPOA–

Sharks) strongly encourage the 

remaining shark-fishing countries to 

develop and implement NPOA–Sharks; 

(2) that regional fishing management 

organizations implement regional plans 

of action; and (3) that Parties greatly 

improve their data collection and 

reporting. The United States is one of 

the 16 countries that have implemented 

a NPOA–Sharks and is a lead country 

for promoting the sustainable use of 

shark resources. 

59.3 Trade measures regarding the 

porbeagle Lamna nasus and the spiny 

dogfish Squalus acanthias (Doc. 59.3; 

Germany, on behalf of the European 

Community Member States). Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. 

This document will be considered if 

proposals for listing porbeagle and 

spiny dogfish in Appendix II are 

adopted. The document contains a draft 

decision that, if adopted, would direct 

the Animals Committee, in consultation 

with the FAO and other relevant 

experts, to examine trade in porbeagles 

and spiny dogfish and report at the 16th 

meeting of the Conference of the Parties. 

The Secretariat believes Resolution 

Conf. 12.6 on Conservation and 

Management of Sharks already directs 

the Animals Committee to make 

species-specific recommendations to the 

Conference of the Parties, if necessary, 

on improving the conservation status of 

sharks and the regulation of 

international trade in these species. 

FAO has been present at each of the 

recent meetings of the Animals 

Committee and has assisted the 

Committee in discussions on marine 

fish species, including sharks. 

60. Sturgeons and Paddlefish 

60.1 Report of the Secretariat (Doc. 

60.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: No position is necessary; the 

CoP is asked to note the report. This 

document was prepared by the 

Secretariat to report on progress made in 

developing a trade database for sturgeon 

specimens subject to annual quotas 

(Decisions 13.44–13.47) and other 

activities related to sturgeon 

conservation. 

60.2 Amendment of Resolution 

Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP13) 

60.2.1 Proposal of the Standing 

Committee’s Working Group on 

Sturgeons (Doc. 60.2.1; Islamic Republic 

of Iran). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support some provisions; 

oppose others. Two documents (CoP14 

Doc. 60.2.1 and CoP14 Doc. 60.2.2) 

contain proposed amendments to the 

resolution on conservation and trade of 

sturgeons and paddlefish (Resolution 

Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP13)) and should be 

considered together. Document CoP14 

Doc. 60.2.1 was submitted by the 

Islamic Republic of Iran, on behalf of 

the Standing Committee’s working 

group on sturgeons, and Document 

CoP14 Doc. 60.2.2 was submitted by the 

Russian Federation. We fully support 

some of the changes proposed, 

including a reduction of the personal 

effects exemption for caviar from 250g 

to 125g, but we have serious concerns 

about others, including the proposed 

extension of the timeframe established 

at CoP13 for export of caviar from 

shared stocks. The United States has 

participated in past working groups on 

this issue, including the group 

established at SC54. Document CoP14 

Doc. 60.2.1 includes text that was not 

agreed to by the working group and will 

require further discussion at the CoP. 

We expect that a working group will be 

established at CoP14, and we plan to 

continue to participate fully on this 

important issue. We will develop a final 

position based on the outcome of 

discussions at CoP14. 

60.2.2 Proposal of the Russian 

Federation (Doc. 60.2.2). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: See discussion on 

Document CoP14 Doc. 60.2.1 above. 

61. Toothfish: report of CCAMLR 

(Doc. 61). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. At CoP12, the Parties 

adopted Resolution Conf. 12.4, 

Cooperation between CITES and the 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

(CCAMLR) regarding trade in toothfish, 

that encouraged CCAMLR to ‘‘maintain 

a permanent flow of information’’ to 

CITES through the Conference of the 

Parties. Document CoP14 Doc. 61 is 

CCAMLR’s report to the CoP and 

contains four recommendations for the 

Conference of the Parties to: (1) request 

four particular CITES Parties that are 

either involved in illegal, unregulated, 

and unreported (IUU) fishing for 

toothfish or engaged in toothfish trade 

without having fully implemented 

CCAMLR conservation measures to 

report their position regarding 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
30618 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 

implementing Resolution Conf. 12.4 for 

consideration at the next CCAMLR 

annual meeting; (2) notify CITES Parties 

whose fishing vessels are engaged in 

IUU fishing for toothfish that their 

actions seriously undermine the 

objectives of CCAMLR; and (3) reinforce 

the provision of Resolution Conf. 12.4 

that recommends that CITES Parties that 

capture or trade in toothfish adhere to 

CCAMLR if they have not already done 

so and, in any case, cooperate 

voluntarily with its conservation 

measures, particularly the catch 

documentation scheme (CDS). 

The United States recognizes the 

threat that IUU fishing poses to 

toothfish populations and fully supports 

adoption of CCAMLR conservation 

measures by all countries involved in 

the toothfish trade. We renew our full 

endorsement and strong support of the 

fundamental principles and language 

adopted in Resolution Conf. 12.4 in 

2002. 

62. Sea cucumbers (Doc. 62). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. This document fulfills the 

decision of the last CoP, that the 

Animals Committee should prepare, for 

consideration at the 14th meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties, a discussion 

paper on the biological and trade status 

of sea cucumbers to provide scientific 

guidance on the actions needed to 

secure their conservation status. The 

United States has actively participated 

in this process and will continue to do 

so. 

63. Trade in traditional medicines 

(Doc. 63; Australia). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. In its 

document, Australia recommends a 

number of revisions to Resolution Conf. 

10.19 (Rev. CoP12) (Traditional 

medicines), primarily aimed at 

encouraging Parties to pursue the 

development and use of alternative 

ingredients in traditional medicines as a 

preferred alternative to breeding 

Appendix-I species in captivity for 

commercial purposes. The United States 

shares Australia’s concerns regarding 

the potential for creating or increasing 

demand for wild Appendix-I species by 

using captive-bred specimens in 

traditional medicines. 

64. Bigleaf mahogany: Report of the 

Working Group (Doc. 64). Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. In 

Document CoP14 Doc. 64, prepared by 

the Chairman of the Plants Committee 

with the assistance of the Chairman of 

the Bigleaf Mahogany Working Group 

(BMWG), the Plants Committee 

recommends adoption of a number of 

new draft decisions related to the 

continuation of the BMWG under the 

Plants Committee and the interpretation 

of the annotations for tree species listed 

in the Appendices. Additionally, the 

Plants Committee recommends a draft 

decision directed to the Plants 

Committee that it review at its 17th 

meeting (anticipated to be held in April 

2008) range State reports on 

implementation of the CITES listing for 

bigleaf mahogany and consider whether 

there is a need to include the species in 

the Review of Significant Trade. The 

United States supports the continuation 

of the BMWG under the Plants 

Committee, but believes that, if by the 

17th meeting of the Plants Committee 

(PC17), sufficient progress has not been 

made in improving the regulation of 

trade, the species should be included in 

the Review of Significant Trade as a 

matter of urgency. 

65. Report of the Central Africa 

Bushmeat Working Group (Doc. 65). 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. Document CoP14 Doc. 65 

presents the Coordinator’s report of the 

Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group 

in fulfillment of Decision 13.102 on 

progress in implementing national 

action plans relating to the trade in 

bushmeat and other initiatives regarding 

this issue. The United States has 

supported the work of the Working 

Group since its inception and applauds 

the progress the group has made in 

supporting the development of national 

strategies and action plans to combat 

international commercial bushmeat 

trade. 

Amendment of the Appendices 

66. Periodic review of the Appendices 

(Doc. 66). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Support. The Review of the 

Appendices is an activity conducted by 

the Animals and Plants Committees to 

ensure that the CITES Appendices 

continue to accurately reflect the 

biological and trade status of species 

included in the Appendices. This 

document recounts efforts by the 

Animals and Plants Committees, with 

the involvement of the Standing 

Committee, to establish an objective and 

efficient process for selecting species for 

review. Although the two technical 

committees, through a working group, 

developed a ‘‘rapid assessment’’

technique for selecting species for 

review, this procedure was 

subsequently determined to not be 

practicable for selecting a workable list 

of species for review. The Animals and 

Plants Committees have suggested that 

further work is needed to develop a 

process for selecting species for review, 

and are proposing that the work done 

thus far should be used as a starting 

point for further refining and finalizing 

these efforts. 

68. Proposals to Amend Appendices I 

and II (Doc. 68) 

Prop. 1. Transfer of Nycticebus spp. 

from Appendix II to Appendix I. 

Proposed by Cambodia. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. Slow 

lorises (Nycticebus spp.) are prosimians, 

an ancient group of primates. The genus 

is widely distributed in at least 14 South 

and Southeast Asian countries. Largescale deforestation has reduced the 

habitat for Nycticebus species, and thus 

it can be inferred that the genus has 

undergone a reduction in overall 

population numbers. In September 

2006, the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist 

Group revised its classification of 

Nycticebus species based on the IUCN 

Red List criteria and recommended that 

all species now be considered 

Vulnerable or Endangered. Recent 

scientific studies have also revealed that 

the genus Nycticebus contains more 

species than previously thought, and 

consequently, the individual species 

may consist of smaller populations. All 

species of Nycticebus have a low 

reproductive rate, making them 

particularly vulnerable to exploitation. 

Therefore, it seems that the biological 

criteria are met for listing in Appendix 

I according to Resolution Conf. 9.24 

(Rev. CoP13). The proposal also 

demonstrates that international trade in 

species of Nycticebus has been, and still 

is taking place, primarily for medicinal 

purposes and for use as pets. Although 

official figures for legal trade are 

relatively low, much of the trade is 

illegal, as evidenced by the number of 

seizures taking place, indicating that the 

real trade volume is likely to be much 

higher. 

Prop. 3. Transfer the Ugandan 

population of leopard (Panthera pardus) 

from Appendix I to Appendix II with an 

annotation that trade is to be allowed for 

the exclusive purpose of sport hunting 

for trophies and skins for personal use, 

to be exported as personal effects; and 

with an annual export quota of 50 

leopards for the whole country. 

Proposed by Uganda. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose transfer to 

Appendix II; oppose the proposed 

export quota of 50 leopards per year. 

The proposal cites both Resolution 

Conf. 10.14 (Rev. CoP13) and Resolution 

Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13) for the approval 

of an annual export quota of 50 

leopards. The proposal is not written in 

accordance with the format for 

proposals to amend the Appendices as 

per Annex 6 to Resolution Conf. 9.24 

(Rev. CoP13). As a result, it does not 

demonstrate that the population in 

Uganda no longer meets the biological 

criteria for inclusion in Appendix I or 

which precautionary measure will be in 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 30619 

place. The CITES Secretariat has 

suggested that Uganda request 

consideration of this proposal under 

agenda item 37 (Appendix-I species 

subject to export quotas) rather than 

item 68 (Proposals to amend the 

Appendices). 

Uganda asserts that the proposed 

export quota of 50 leopards per year is 

a precautionary figure that will account 

for both animal control and sport 

hunting. The United States, as reflected 

in the document we submitted for 

CoP12 on establishing scientifically 

based quotas and in accordance with 

Resolution Conf. 9.21 (Rev. CoP13), 

which calls for establishment of a 

scientific basis for proposed quotas, is 

keen to ensure that annual export quotas 

are established on strong biological data. 

Although a quota of 50 is considered by 

Uganda as precautionary, the proposal 

does not provide any supporting 

biological information for this figure. 

Therefore, it cannot be determined 

whether the population can be 

sustained under the proposed quota 

figure. 

Prop. 4. Maintenance of the African 

elephant (Loxodonta africana) 

populations of Botswana, Namibia, 

South Africa, and Zimbabwe in 

Appendix II in terms of Article II, 

paragraph 2(b), with the replacement of 

all existing annotations with 

annotations on trade, export quotas, and 

proceeds regarding raw ivory. Proposed 

by Botswana and Namibia. Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. 

The proposal would maintain the 

populations of Botswana, Namibia, 

South Africa, and Zimbabwe in 

Appendix II with changes to the 

annotations. The annotations would be 

replaced to allow the establishment of 

annual export quotas for trade in raw 

ivory. The ivory would be sold to 

trading partners that have been certified 

by the Secretariat, in consultation with 

the Standing Committee, and the 

income from the trade in raw ivory 

would be used exclusively for elephant 

conservation and community 

development programs. The United 

States will formulate its position based 

on the results of the African elephant 

range states dialogue meeting and 

reports expected at SC55 and CoP14. 

Prop. 5. Amendment of the annotation 

of the African elephant (Loxodonta 

africana) populations of Botswana. 

Proposed by Botswana. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Undecided. This 

proposal would amend the annotation 

for Botswana’s elephant population 

from the live animal trade condition 

‘‘for in situ conservation programs’’ only 

to ‘‘for commercial purposes.’’ ‘‘Trade in 

leather goods’’ would be changed from 

‘‘non-commercial’’ to ‘‘commercial’’

purposes (as is the case for Namibia and 

South Africa). Trade in registered raw 

ivory could only come from registered 

government-owned stocks originating in 

Botswana and subject to the conditions 

of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12) 

concerning domestic manufacturing and 

trade. A maximum of 40 metric tons of 

ivory could be traded and exported in 

a single shipment under strict 

supervision of the Secretariat. The 

income of the trade would be used 

exclusively for elephant conservation 

and community conservation and 

development programs within or 

adjacent to the elephant range. The 

proposed annotation would allow an 

immediate ‘‘one-off’’ sale and annual 

sales of up to 8 metric tons of registered 

stocks of raw ivory for commercial 

purposes. The United States will 

formulate its position based on the 

results of the African elephant range 

states dialogue meeting and reports 

expected at SC55 and CoP14. 

Prop. 6. Amendment of the annotation 

of the African elephant (Loxodonta 

africana) populations of Botswana, 

Namibia, and South Africa. Proposed by 

Kenya and Mali. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Undecided. This 

proposal would amend the annotations 

of the populations of Botswana, 

Namibia, and South Africa to prohibit 

trade in raw or worked ivory for 20 

years, except for hunting trophies for 

non-commercial purposes, the one-off 

sale agreed upon at CoP12, and 

Namibian ekipas (ivory trinkets) for 

non-commercial purposes. It also 

revokes Zimbabwe’s annotation to sell 

ivory carvings for non-commercial 

purposes. The United States will 

formulate its position based on the 

results of the African Elephant Range 

State Dialogue meeting and reports 

expected at SC55 and CoP14. 

Prop. 8. Amendment of the annotation 

of the vicun ̃ a (Vicugna vicugna) 

population of Bolivia for the exclusive 

purpose of allowing international trade 

in wool sheared from live vicun ̃ as, and 

in cloth and items made thereof, 

including luxury handicrafts and 

knitted articles. Proposed by Bolivia. 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Undecided. In February 2003, Bolivia 

listed its vicun ̃ a population in 

Appendix II for wool and products 

derived from sheared live animals of the 

populations of the Conservation Units of 

Mauri-Desaguadero, Ulla Ulla, and 

Lı ́pez-Chichas; and wool products made 

from sheared live animals of the rest of 

the population of Bolivia. This proposal 

would amend the annotation to include 

the entire Bolivian vicun ̃ a population 

for wool and products. The rest of the 

annotation remains unchanged. 

Although the wild population is 

increasing, we would like an 

explanation for the decrease in the 

population of Lı ́pez-Chichas of over 

2,000 specimens between 2002 and 

2004. 

Prop. 9. Inclusion of Barbary red deer 

(Cervus elaphus barbarus) in Appendix 

I. Proposed by Algeria. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose. The 

Barbary red deer is considered a 

subspecies of red deer (Cervus elaphus) 

and is confined to Tunisia, Algeria, and 

a reintroduced population in Morocco. 

However, recent genetic analysis has 

indicated that these populations in 

North Africa are virtually 

indistinguishable from C. elaphus 

corsicanus in Sardinia, Italy, and the 

reintroduced population in Corsica, 

France. One assessment considers all 

these populations to belong to a separate 

species, Cervus corsicanus. The Barbary 

red deer has been included in Appendix 

III at the request of Tunisia since 1976. 

The subspecies was assessed as ‘‘Lower 

risk/near threatened’’ by IUCN in 1996. 

The wild population is reported to have 

decreased historically, and appears to 

have a restricted area of distribution. 

However, it is unclear if the biological 

criteria are met due to the uncertainty 

of its taxonomy. According to the 

proposal, there is no national 

utilization, no legal or illegal trade, and 

no actual or potential trade impacts. 

Therefore, the trade criteria for an 

Appendix-I listing are not met. Threats 

are reported to include poaching and 

forest fires; listing in Appendix I is not 

likely to benefit the conservation of this 

species. 

Prop. 10. Inclusion of Cuvier’s gazelle 

(Gazella cuvieri) in Appendix I. 

Proposed by Algeria. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose. The 

Cuvier’s gazelle is distributed in 

Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia in small 

scattered populations. The species has 

been included in Appendix III at the 

request of Tunisia since 1976. The 

species was assessed by IUCN as 

‘‘Endangered’’ in 1996, on the basis that 

the population numbered below 2,500 

mature individuals and was declining. 

In 2005–2006, the Algerian population 

was estimated at 500 individuals, and 

populations were reported to be stable. 

According to the proposal, there is no 

national utilization, no legal or illegal 

trade, and no actual or potential trade 

impacts. Therefore, the trade criteria for 

an Appendix-I listing are not met. 

Threats are reported to include 

poaching and forest fires; listing in 

Appendix I is not likely to benefit the 

conservation of this species. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
30620 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 

Prop. 11. Inclusion of Dorcas gazelle 

(Gazella dorcas) in Appendix I. 

Proposed by Algeria. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose. The 

Dorcas gazelle has a patchy distribution 

in at least 19 countries in the arid and 

sub-arid zones of the Sahelo-Saharan 

region and in the Near East. The species 

has been included in Appendix III of 

CITES at the request of Tunisia since 

1976. According to the proposal, the 

species’ population in the wild has 

declined significantly, perhaps by 50% 

within the past half-century, due to 

hunting with motorized vehicles and, to 

a lesser extent, degradation and 

disappearance of habitat. The species 

was assessed as ‘‘Vulnerable’’ by IUCN 

in 2000, and is included in Appendix I 

of the Convention on Migratory Species 

(CMS). The species does not appear to 

meet the biological criteria for inclusion 

in Appendix I, because there is no 

indication that the species’ range is 

restricted in extent or that the overall 

population is small. The proposal does 

not provide any information on trade, 

and although the CITES trade database 

shows very low levels of international 

trade, it is mainly in live specimens, 

and to a lesser extent body parts and 

trophies. Therefore, the trade criteria for 

an Appendix-I listing are not met. 

Threats are reported to include 

poaching and overgrazing by cattle. 

Listing in Appendix I is not likely to 

benefit the conservation of this species. 

Prop. 12. Inclusion of slender-horned 

gazelle (Gazella leptoceros) in Appendix 

I. Proposed by Algeria. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. The 

slender-horned gazelle is distributed 

across eight or nine countries in 

northern Africa. The species has been 

included in Appendix III of CITES at the 

request of Tunisia since 1976. The 

species was assessed as ‘‘Endangered’’

by IUCN in 1996 and appears to meet 

the biological criteria for an AppendixI listing. According to the proposal, 

threats to the species include motorized 

hunting and degradation of vegetation. 

International trade in trophies does 

occur, but is not well documented. 

From a precautionary standpoint this 

species merits inclusion in Appendix I. 

Prop. 13. Transfer of the Brazilian 

population of black caiman 

(Melanosuchus niger) from Appendix I 

to Appendix II. Proposed by Brazil. 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Undecided. Brazil submitted this 

proposal to transfer its population from 

Appendix I to Appendix II. The 

population in Brazil comprises 

approximately 80% of the species’

range, is estimated to comprise 16 

million individuals, and is increasing. 

Brazil proposes to harvest 695 

specimens per year in the Mamirau? 

Sustainable Development Reserve. In 

subsequent years, a harvest quota of 5–

7% of the non-hatchling wild 

population (primarily juvenile males) 

would be in place throughout Brazil. We 

have some concerns about the adequacy 

of safeguards against illegal harvest, 

uncontrolled exports from Brazil, and 

possible effects on the species in 

adjacent range countries. We would also 

like to hear the opinions of the other 

range States (Bolivia, Colombia, 

Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, and Suriname). 

We note that this species is currently 

listed as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act, and as such, 

even if the proposal is adopted, the 

import of specimens into the United 

States for commercial purposes would 

remain prohibited. 

Prop. 14. Transfer Guatemalan beaded 

lizard (Heloderma horridum 

charlesbogerti) from Appendix II to 

Appendix I. Proposed by Guatemala. 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. The Guatemalan beaded lizard 

is one of four subspecies of beaded 

lizard, a large venomous species native 

to Mexico and Guatemala. The 

Guatemalan beaded lizard is endemic to 

the Motagua Valley in eastern 

Guatemala and is considered to be one 

of the most endangered animals in the 

world. This subspecies was formally 

described in 1988, a decade later 

thought to be extinct in the wild, and 

then re-discovered in 2002. There are an 

estimated 170–250 individuals of this 

subspecies; it is believed to have 

declined based on the difficulty of 

locating individuals compared to the 

1980s. The major threats to the 

Guatemalan beaded lizard are habitat 

destruction, over-collection for local 

and foreign use, persecution by locals, 

and effects of hurricanes. Collection and 

trade in this subspecies are illegal in 

Guatemala. However, illegal domestic 

and international trade occur due to the 

high demand for the subspecies by 

collectors. Even a small level of trade in 

this subspecies is significant due to its 

extremely low population numbers. 

Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13) 

states that split-listing a species should 

generally be avoided due to the 

potential enforcement problems it 

creates, and it states that taxonomic 

listings below the species level should 

be avoided unless the taxon in question 

is highly distinctive and the use of the 

name would not give rise to 

enforcement problems. Consultations 

with experts have revealed that 

specimens of this subspecies from one 

year of age to adulthood can be 

distinguished from other subspecies. 

Potential identification difficulties of 

very young animals should not be an 

issue of concern because only adult 

specimens have been found in the wild. 

This subspecies meets the biological 

and trade criteria for an Appendix-I 

listing, and prevention of any level of 

trade in wild specimens of this critically 

endangered subspecies would 

contribute significantly to its 

conservation. 

Prop. 15. Inclusion of porbeagle 

(Lamna nasus) in Appendix II with 

entry into effect of the inclusion to be 

delayed by 18 months to enable Parties 

to resolve the related technical and 

administrative issues. Proposed by 

Germany, on behalf of the European 

Community Member States. Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. 

The proponent has cited that the 

species’ life history, vulnerability to 

overexploitation, inadequate fisheries 

management, and overfishing as 

supporting reasons for the proposal. 

There is not sufficient data in the 

proposal to support the statement that 

international trade is one of the driving 

factors in this species’ overfished status 

or a factor that could prohibit 

populations from rebounding. Both the 

United States and Canada are actively 

managing the species to reduce fishing 

pressure. It is also not clear whether it 

is possible (efficient and enforceable) to 

distinguish porbeagle sharks from other 

species of sharks in trade. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) are studying the proposal and 

consulting with other Parties to develop 

the U.S. position. 

Prop. 16. Inclusion of spiny dogfish 

(Squalus acanthias) in Appendix II with 

entry into effect of the inclusion to be 

delayed by 18 months to enable Parties 

to resolve the related technical and 

administrative issues. Proposed by 

Germany, on behalf of the European 

Community Member States. Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. 

The proponent has cited that the 

species’ life history, vulnerability to 

overexploitation, inadequate fisheries 

management, and overfishing as 

supporting reasons for the proposal. The 

proposal calls for the listing of the 

species throughout its range. The 

Northeast Atlantic stock has suffered a 

large decline, but a number of other 

global stocks are currently stable. There 

are currently both Federal and interstate 

fishery management plans for spiny 

dogfish in the United States. The 

proponent also indicates that 

population declines in several Northern 

Hemisphere stocks, combined with high 

market demand, are driving fishing 

pressure on other stocks that are now 

beginning to supply international 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 30621 

markets. The proposal contains little 

information to support this observation. 

The Service and NMFS are studying the 

proposal and consulting with other 

Parties to develop the U.S. position. 

Prop. 18. Inclusion of European eel 

(Anguilla anguilla) in Appendix II. 

Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the 

European Community Member States. 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Undecided. The European eel occurs in 

coastal areas and freshwater ecosystems 

in Europe, northern Africa, and the 

Mediterranean parts of Asia. The 

proponent has cited that the species’

complex life history in combination 

with heavy exploitation in all of its life 

stages and high fishing mortality, along 

with habitat loss, pollution, climate 

change affecting ocean currents, and 

damming of rivers, as factors that have 

resulted in sharp population declines. 

Poaching and illegal trade in European 

eels is also a concern. However, because 

the fishery is small in scale and 

specialized, bycatch of the species is not 

considered a threat to the species. 

Although there are various regional 

management measures in place, there is 

no regulatory protection mechanism in 

place to regulate international trade in 

the European eel. Due to historical and 

recent declines, as measured from 

harvest data (e.g., an average 95–99% 

decline in harvest in 19 rivers in 12 

countries), the species appears to meet 

the criteria in Resolution Conf. 9.24 

(Rev. CoP13) for inclusion in Appendix 

II. However, the similarity of 

appearance between this species and 

other eels in the genus Anguilla, 

including the American eel (A. rostrata), 

which is also in international trade, 

presents implementation and 

enforcement difficulties for such a 

listing. 

Prop. 20. Inclusion of Brazilian 

populations of spiny lobster (Panulirus 

argus and P. laevicauda) in Appendix 

II. Proposed by Brazil. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose. The 

proponent states that the status of these 

species in Brazilian waters is severely 

overfished and that overfishing is still 

occurring mainly due to take of 

undersized animals. The United States 

feels strongly that, as the world’s largest 

importer of Brazil’s spiny lobsters, we 

should make every effort to support 

Brazil for its efforts to conserve and 

manage spiny lobster in their waters. 

However, this proposal is not 

supportable because it would result in 

a split-listing of the species that would 

not be enforceable. Enforcement 

authorities in importing countries 

would not be able to determine whether 

spiny lobsters entering their countries 

were coming from Brazil, and thus 

required to be accompanied by CITES 

export permits, or whether they had 

originated elsewhere. Inclusion of these 

species in Appendix III throughout their 

ranges would provide greater 

conservation benefit and would track 

the species throughout the Wider 

Caribbean. The Service and NMFS are 

consulting bilaterally with the 

Government of Brazil and multilaterally 

with other governments in the region to 

consider additional tools for the 

conservation of spiny lobster 

populations. 

Prop. 24. Deletion of leaf-bearing cacti 

in the genera Pereskia and Quiabentia 

from Appendix II. Proposed by 

Argentina. Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Undecided. This proposal 

would remove all species of these leafbearing cacti from Appendix II. For 

some of these species, whose status in 

the wild is unclear, we are concerned 

about the impact that unregulated trade 

may have on these species. 

Prop. 25. Deletion of leaf-bearing cacti 

in the genus Pereskiopsis from 

Appendix II. Proposed by Mexico. 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. This proposal would remove 

Pereskiopsis spp. from Appendix II. We 

have evaluated this proposal and 

discussed it directly with the Mexican 

CITES authorities, and have determined 

that the removal of this genus from 

Appendix II should not result in the 

unsustainable use of these species for 

trade or enforcement difficulties for 

regulating trade in other species due to 

similarity of appearance. 

Prop. 26. Merging and amendment of 

annotations #1, #4 and #8 for cacti 

(Cactaceae spp. (#4)) and orchids 

(Orchidaceae spp. (#8)) in Appendix II, 

and all taxa annotated with annotation 

#1. Proposed by Switzerland. Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This 

proposal was produced outside the 

process that was established by the 

Plants Committee, at the direction of the 

Parties, to streamline the annotations for 

CITES-listed medicinal plants. The 

proposed language broadens the 

exemptions as well as the taxa 

exempted, while providing little 

information on the impact of 

unregulated trade on the species. In 

particular, we note that inclusion of 

provisions to exempt leaves did not 

receive support from the Plants 

Committee when discussed at its 15th 

meeting (PC15), and the proposed 

provision to exempt herbarium 

specimens has been previously rejected 

by the Parties as not being consistent 

with the terms of the Convention. 

Prop. 27. Amendment of the 

annotations to Adonis vernalis, 

Guaiacum species, Hydrastis 

canadensis, Nardostachys grandiflora, 

Panax ginseng, Panax quinquefolius, 

Picrorhiza kurrooa, Podophyllum 

hexandrum, Pterocarpus santalinus, 

Rauvolfia serpentina, Taxus chinensis, 

T. fuana, T. cuspidata, T. sumatrana, 

and T. wallichiana, Orchidaceae species 

in Appendix II, and all Appendix-II and 

-III taxa annotated with annotation #1. 

Proposed by Switzerland as the 

Depositary Government, at the request 

of the Plants Committee. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support. This 

document was produced by consensus 

of the Medicinal Plant Annotations 

Working Group (MPAWG) in 

consultation with the Plants Committee, 

under the direction of the Conference of 

the Parties, to assess the effectiveness of 

and streamline the annotations for 

CITES-listed medicinal plants (CoP13: 

Decisions 13.50–13.52). The proposal 

clarifies terms and tracks currently 

exempted material believed to be in 

trade, without expanding upon the 

exemptions for species. 

Prop. 29. Amendment of the 

annotation to Euphorbia species. 

Proposed by Switzerland. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Oppose. As 

currently written, the annotation is 

difficult to understand and may provide 

the opportunity to exclude wildcollected specimens from CITES 

controls. 

Prop. 30. Inclusion of pernambuco 

(Caesalpinia echinata) in Appendix II, 

including all parts and derivatives. 

Proposed by Brazil. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Support on the 

condition that the proposal will be 

amended at the CoP to exempt a limited 

quantity of manufactured musical bows 

for personal use (e.g., by professional 

musicians), or something similar. 

Pernambuco is the primary wood used 

to make fine bows for stringed musical 

instruments, for which there is no other 

comparable wood substitute. 

Pernambuco is a slow-growing 

tropical tree restricted to the Atlantic 

Coastal Forest of Brazil. Since 1992, the 

species has been listed as threatened in 

Brazil, and is categorized as endangered 

by the IUCN. Although Brazil has strict 

national controls in place that regulate 

the use of this species, the species and 

its Atlantic Forest habitat remain poorly 

protected, and enforcement of 

environmental laws is constrained by 

the availability of financial and human 

resources. Conservationists, and bow 

makers and musicians worldwide are 

concerned about the conservation and 

sustainable use of existing stocks of 

pernambuco. Several entities (e.g., the 

International Pernambuco Conservation 

Initiative) are actively working in Brazil 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
30622 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 

to promote conservation and 

reforestation of pernambuco. 

The listing of pernambuco in 

Appendix II would support the efforts 

undertaken by the Brazilian 

Government to ensure that trade is both 

legal and sustainable by requiring 

specimens in trade to have CITES 

permits. However, given the number of 

existing bows worldwide, a listing of the 

species that includes all parts and 

derivatives may be overly burdensome 

on traveling musicians without 

providing substantial conservation 

benefit. We will work with Brazil and 

other Parties on this proposal to 

promote the conservation of this species 

while avoiding unnecessary constraints 

on products already in trade. 

Prop. 31. Inclusion of rosewood or 

cocobola (Dalbergia retusa) in Appendix 

II, and D. granadillo for look-alike 

reasons. Proposed by Germany, on 

behalf of the European Community 

Member States. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Undecided. 

Dalbergia retusa is a slow-growing tree 

of tropical dry forests from Mexico to 

Panama; D. granadillo occurs in El 

Salvador and Mexico. Dalbergia retusa 

has been extensively harvested, and 

some areas are reported to be 

commercially exhausted. The United 

States imports rosewood, which is used 

primarily for the production of musical 

instruments. We are evaluating this 

proposal to determine if it meets the 

requirements for inclusion in Appendix 

II. The positions of range countries on 

this proposal are critical to the 

development of our position, and 

therefore, we are currently consulting 

with them on this proposal to determine 

how we can best work cooperatively for 

the conservation and sustainable use of 

this species. 

Prop. 32. Inclusion of Honduras 

rosewood (Dalbergia stevensonii) in 

Appendix II. Proposed by Germany, on 

behalf of the European Community 

Member States. Tentative U.S. 

negotiating position: Undecided. 

Honduran rosewood is restricted to 

swamp forests of southern Belize, 

northern Guatemala, and southeastern 

Mexico. The United States imports 

rosewood, which is used primarily for 

the production of musical instruments. 

We are evaluating this proposal to 

determine if it meets the requirements 

for inclusion in Appendix II. The 

positions of range countries on this 

proposal are critical to the development 

of our position, and therefore, we are 

currently consulting with them on this 

proposal to determine how we can best 

work cooperatively for the conservation 

and sustainable use of this species. 

Prop. 33. Inclusion of the genus 

Cedrela in Appendix II. Proposed by 

Germany, on behalf of the European 

Community Member States. Tentative 

U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. 

The proposal would include Spanish 

cedar (C. odorata), and all other species 

in the genus Cedrela (an estimated six 

species) for look-alike reasons, in 

Appendix II. Spanish cedar is a wideranging species of lowland forests in the 

Caribbean Islands, Central America, 

Mexico, and South America. In 2001, 

Colombia and Peru included their 

populations of Spanish cedar in 

Appendix III, with annotation #5, which 

designates logs, sawn wood and veneer 

sheets. Since this listing, exports of 

Spanish cedar from Peru to the United 

States have increased. We are consulting 

with the range countries to clarify the 

support for, and the anticipated effects 

of, this proposal. We will work with 

range countries and other Parties on this 

proposal to promote sustainable forest 

management and conservation of this 

species. 

Prop. 34. Amendment of the 

annotation to exempt certain artificially 

propagated hybrids of Orchidaceae 

(interspecific and intergeneric hybrids 

of Cymbidium, Dendrobium, Miltonia, 

Odontoglossum, Oncidium, 

Phalaenopsis and Vanda) included in 

Appendix II. Proposed by Switzerland. 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Oppose. This proposal would merge 

existing taxon-specific exemptions on 

the Orchidaceae family, but more 

importantly would broaden exemptions 

for artificially propagated hybrids to 

include the genera Miltonia, 

Odontoglossum, and Oncidium. There 

are concerns that the exemption of New 

World genera would create enforcement 

problems for range countries, a 

sentiment that was previously raised at 

CoP12 and CoP13. 

Prop. 35. Amendment of the 

annotation to exempt certain artificially 

propagated hybrids of Orchidaceae 

(interspecific and intergeneric hybrids 

of Cymbidium, Dendrobium, 

Phalaenopsis, and Vanda) included in 

Appendix II. Proposed by Switzerland 

as the Depositary Government, at the 

request of the Plants Committee. 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support. This proposal would replace 

confusing language in the existing 

taxon-specific orchid hybrid exemptions 

(referred to as footnote 8) with language 

proposed and agreed upon by consensus 

of the Plants Committee. 

Prop. 37. Deletion of the current 

annotation for Taxus chinensis, T. 

fuana, and T. sumatrana, and adoption 

of a new annotation for T. cuspidata in 

Appendix II. Proposed by Switzerland, 

as Depositary Government, at the 

request of the Standing Committee. 

Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 

Support Part A; oppose Part B of the 

proposal. The adoption of Part A of this 

proposal would delete the annotation to 

exempt labeled, potted artificially 

propagated plants of T. chinensis, T. 

fuana, and T. sumatrana from CITES 

regulations. Adoption of Part B would 

add a new annotation to the listing of T. 

cuspidata to exempt labeled, potted 

artificially propagated plants of hybrids 

and cultivars of the species from CITES 

regulations. This proposal seeks to 

rectify the adoption of an annotation at 

CoP13 for these taxa, which was 

subsequently determined to contravene 

the provisions of the Convention. 

However, it is the opinion of the United 

States that this proposal is similarly 

flawed in that it allows an exemption 

for whole plants or artificially 

propagated hybrids and cultivars of T. 

cuspidata, but does not exempt readily 

recognizable parts and derivatives. 

Conclusion of the Meeting 

69. Determination of the time and 

venue of the next regular meeting of the 

Conference of the Parties (no 

document). Tentative U.S. negotiating 

position: Not applicable. The Secretariat 

does not normally circulate a document 

on the time and venue of the next CoP. 

We anticipate receiving information on 

this at CoP14, at which time the United 

States will develop a negotiating 

position. The United States favors 

holding CoP15 in a country where all 

Parties and observers will be admitted 

without political difficulties, and where 

facilities are available to ensure the safe 

and efficient conduct of the meeting. 

70. Closing Remarks (No document) 

Future Actions 

During our regular public briefings at 

CoP14, we will discuss any changes in 

our negotiating positions. After CoP14, 

we will publish a notice to invite public 

input on whether the United States 

should take a reservation on any of the 

amendments to the CITES Appendices. 

Whereas CITES provides a period of 90 

days from the close of a CoP for any 

Party to enter a reservation with respect 

to an amendment to Appendix I or II, 

the United States has never entered a 

reservation on any CITES listing. As 

discussed in the Federal Register notice 

of November 17, 1987 (52 FR 43924), 

entering a reservation would do very 

little to relieve importers in the United 

States from the need for foreign export 

permits because the Lacey Act 

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

seq.) make it a Federal offense to import 

into the United States any animals 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 105 / Friday, June 1, 2007 / Notices 30623 

taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of foreign conservation laws. If 

the foreign nation has enacted CITES, 

and has not taken a reservation with 

regard to any species, part, or derivative, 

the United States would continue to 

require CITES documents as a condition 

of import. A reservation by the United 

States also would provide exporters in 

this country with little relief from the 

need for U.S. export documents. 

Receiving countries that are party to 

CITES will require CITES-equivalent 

documentation from the United States 

even if it enters a reservation, because 

the Parties have agreed to allow trade 

with non-Parties (including reserving 

countries) only if they issue documents 

containing all of the information 

required on CITES permits and 

certificates, and only if the same 

findings have been made prior to 

issuance of the documents. 

Author: This notice was prepared by 

Clifton A. Horton, Division of Management 

Authority; under the authority of the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

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

Dated: May 24, 2007. 

Kenneth Stansell, 

Acting Director. 

[FR Doc. 07–2714 Filed 5–29–07; 11:34 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[F–72912; AK–964–1410–HY–P] 

Alaska Native Claims Selection 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of decision approving 

lands for conveyance. 

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 

2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an 

appealable decision approving the 

surface and subsurface estates in certain 

lands for conveyance pursuant to the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

will be issued to Bering Straits Native 

Corporation. The lands are in the 

vicinity of Shaktoolik, Alaska, named 

Christmas Mountain, and are located in: 

Kateel River Meridian, Alaska 

T. 10 S., R. 9 W., 

Sec. 31. 

Containing 614.76 acres. 

T. 11 S., R. 9 W., 

Secs. 6 and 7. 

Containing 1,235.56 acres. 

T. 10 S., R. 10 W., 

Secs. 35 and 36. 

Containing 1,280.00 acres. 

T. 11 S., R. 10 W., 

Secs. 1, 2, 11, and 12. 

Containing 2,559.84 acres. 

Aggregating 5,690.16 acres. 

Notice of the decision will also be 

published four times in the Nome 

Nugget. 

DATES: The time limits for filing an 

appeal are: 

1. Any party claiming a property 

interest which is adversely affected by 

the decision shall have until July 2, 

2007 to file an appeal. 

2. Parties receiving service of the 

decision by certified mail shall have 30 

days from the date of receipt to file an 

appeal. 

Parties who do not file an appeal in 

accordance with the requirements of 43 

CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed 

to have waived their rights. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may 

be obtained from: Bureau of Land 

Management, Alaska State Office, 222 

West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, 

Alaska 99513–7504. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Bureau of Land Management by phone 

at 907–271–5960, or by e-mail at 

ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov. Persons 

who use a telecommunication device 

(TTD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a 

week, to contact the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Eileen Ford, 

Land Law Examiner, Branch of Adjudication 

II. 

[FR Doc. E7–10596 Filed 5–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[F–40304; AK–964–1410–HY–P] 

Alaska Native Claims Selection 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of decision approving 

lands for conveyance. 

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 

2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an 

appealable decision approving the 

surface and subsurface estates in certain 

lands for conveyance pursuant to the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

will be issued to Bering Straits Native 

Corporation. The lands are in the 

vicinity of Shaktoolik, Alaska, named 

Reindeer Cove and are located in: 

Kateel River Meridian, Alaska 

T. 12 S., R. 12 W., 

Secs. 6, 7, and 18. 

Containing 1,890.82 acres. 

T. 12 S., R. 13 W., 

Secs. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14. 

Containing 3,465.00 acres. 

Aggregating 5,355.82 acres. 

Notice of the decision will also be 

published four times in the Nome 

Nugget. 

DATES: The time limits for filing an 

appeal are: 

1. Any party claiming a property 

interest which is adversely affected by 

the decision shall have until July 2, 

2007 to file an appeal. 

2. Parties receiving service of the 

decision by certified mail shall have 30 

days from the date of receipt to file an 

appeal. 

Parties who do not file an appeal in 

accordance with the requirements of 43 

CFR part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed 

to have waived their rights. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may 

be obtained from: Bureau of Land 

Management, Alaska State Office, 222 

West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, 

Alaska 99513–7504. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Bureau of Land Management by phone 

at 907–271–5960, or by e-mail at 

ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov. Persons 

who use a telecommunication device 

(TTD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a 

week, to contact the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Eileen Ford, 

Land Law Examiner, Branch of Adjudication 

II. 

[FR Doc. E7–10613 Filed 5–31–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–$$–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[WY–923–1310–FI; WYW161144] 

Wyoming: Notice of Proposed 

Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 

Gas Lease 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed 

Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 

Gas Lease. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 

U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 

3108.2–3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) received a 

petition for reinstatement from 

Anadarko Petroleum Corp., El Paso E&P 

Company, LP, Maar County Line LP, 

Michiwest Energy Inc., Muskegon 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES