32356 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) does not

automatically stay the exemption.

(d) Applicant must preserve intact all

sites and structures more than 50 years

old until compliance with the

requirements of section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act, 16

U.S.C. 470f, is achieved.

§ 1150.43 Information to be contained in

notice for small line acquisitions.

(a) The full name and address of the

Class III rail carrier applicant;

(b) The name, address, and telephone

number of the representative of the

applicant who should receive

correspondence;

(c) A statement that an agreement has

been reached or details about when an

agreement will be reached;

(d) The operator of the property;

(e) A brief summary of the proposed

transaction, including:

(1) The name and address of the

railroad transferring the subject property

to the Class III rail carrier applicant;

(2) The proposed time schedule for

consummation of the transaction;

(3) The mileposts of the subject

property, including any branch lines;

and

(4) The total route miles being

acquired;

(f) A map that clearly indicates the

area to be served, including origins,

termini, stations, cities, counties, and

states; and

(g) A certificate that applicant’s

projected revenues as a result of the

transaction will not result in the

creation of a Class II or Class I rail

carrier so as to require processing under

§ 1150.45.

§ 1150.44 Caption summary.

The caption summary must be in the

following form. The information

symbolized by numbers is identified in

the key as follows:

Surface Transportation Board; Notice of

Exemption; STB Finance Docket No. (1)—

Exemption (2)–(3)

(1) Has filed a notice of exemption to (2)

(3)’s line between (4). Comments must be

filed with the Board and served on (5). (6).

Key to symbols:

(1) Name of carrier acquiring or operating

the line.

(2) The type of transaction, e.g., to acquire

or operate.

(3) The transferor.

(4) Describe the line.

(5) Petitioner’s representative, address, and

telephone number.

(6) Cross reference to other class

exemptions being used.

The notice is filed under 49 CFR 1150.41.

If the notice contains false or misleading

information, the exemption is void ab initio.

The filing of a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

§ 1150.45 Procedures and relevant dates—

transactions under section 10902 that

involve creation of Class I or Class II rail

carriers.

(a) To qualify for this exemption,

applicant must serve a notice of intent

to file a notice of exemption no later

than 14 days before the notice of

exemption is filed with the Board.

(b) The notice of intent must contain

all the information required in § 1150.43

plus:

(1) A general statement of service

intentions; and

(2) A general statement of labor

impacts.

(c) The notice of intent must be served

on:

(1) The Governor of each state in

which track is to be sold;

(2) The state(s) Department of

Transportation or equivalent agency;

(3) The national offices of the labor

unions with employees on the affected

line(s); and

(4) Shippers representing at least 50

percent of the volume of local traffic

and traffic originating or terminating on

the line(s) in the most recent 12 months

for which data are available (beginning

with the largest shipper and working

down).

(d) Applicant must also file a verified

notice of exemption conforming to the

requirements of paragraph (b) of this

section and of § 1150.44, and certify

compliance with paragraphs (a), (b), and

(c) of this section, attaching a copy of

the notice of intent. In addition to the

written submission, the notice must be

submitted on a 3.5-inch diskette

formatted for WordPerfect 5.1.

(e) The exemption will be effective 21

days after the notice is filed. The Board,

through the Director of the Office of

Proceedings, will publish a notice in the

Federal Register within 30 days of the

filing.

(f) If the notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. A petition to revoke

under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) does not

automatically stay the transaction. Stay

petitions must be filed within 7 days of

the filing of the notice of exemption.

Replies will be due 7 days thereafter. To

be considered, stay petitions must be

timely served on the applicant.

(g) Applicant must preserve intact all

sites and structures more than 50 years

old until compliance with the

requirements of section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act, 16

U.S.C. 470f, is achieved.

[FR Doc. 96–15895 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018 AC30

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reclassification of

Saltwater Crocodile Population in

Australia From Endangered to

Threatened With Special Rule for the

Saltwater and Nile Crocodiles

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The saltwater crocodile

(Crocodylus porosus) in Australia is

reclassified from endangered to

threatened under the provisions of the

U.S. Endangered Species Act (Act) of

1973. The saltwater crocodile had been

listed as endangered throughout its

range since 1979, except the Papua New

Guinea population, which has never

been listed. A special rule, included

herein, allows for the importation into

the United States of certain specimens

of saltwater crocodiles from Australia

and Nile crocodiles from those countries

in which this latter species is listed in

Appendix II of the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES). Such imports must be

consistent with the requirements of

CITES and certain other provisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 1996. However,

compliance with § 17.42(c)(3)(i)(A) is

not required until July 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments, information,

and questions should be submitted to

the Chief, Office of Scientific Authority;

room 725, Arlington Square; 4401 N.

Fairfax Drive, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service; Arlington, Virginia 22203. Fax

number (703) 358–2276. Express and

messenger delivered mail should be

addressed to the Office of Scientific

Authority; room 750, 4401 N. Fairfax

Drive; Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Comments and other information

received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, from 8 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

Arlington, Virginia address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Charles W. Dane, Chief, Office of

Scientific Authority, at the above

address, or by phone at (703) 358–1708.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The saltwater or estuarine crocodile

(Crocodylus porosus) ranges from

southwest India and along its eastern
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32357

coast, throughout Southeast Asia and

through the Pacific Islands as far east as

Fiji and south to the northern coast of

Australia. The majority of populations

have been reported from the following

countries: Australia, Bangladesh,

Myanmar, Cambodia, India, Indonesia,

Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka,

Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

It is the largest crocodilian species,

reaching lengths well over 20 feet (6.1

meters). The species inhabits estuaries,

mangrove swamps, and tidal reaches of

rivers (The World Conservation Union

(IUCN) 1975).

At the 1979 meeting of the Parties to

CITES, the saltwater crocodile was

transferred from Appendix II to

Appendix I, except for the population in

Papua New Guinea which was retained

on Appendix II. On December 16, 1979

(44 FR 75074), the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) listed all

saltwater crocodile populations outside

of Papua New Guinea as endangered.

Both of these actions were taken

because the species had suffered serious

losses of habitat throughout most of its

range and it had been subject to

extensive poaching for its hide. At their

1985 meeting, the CITES Parties voted

to transfer the Australian population

from Appendix I to Appendix II of

CITES pursuant to resolution Conf. 3.15

(ranching). Under Australian law, the

effect of this action was to allow trade

in captive-bred specimens and

specimens taken from approved

crocodile farm operations based on

controlled collecting of eggs or

hatchlings or nuisance animals from the

wild.

In June 1990, the Service received a

petition from the Australian National

Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS)

requesting the reclassification of the

captive (i.e., captive-bred and ranched)

populations of saltwater crocodile in

Australia from endangered to

threatened. The petition contained

information on the management of wild

and captive populations, populations

surveys, and legal status. The Service

had previously reviewed almost the

same information, which was

considered substantial, and the Service

was in the process of preparing a

proposed rule based on the earlier

information when the petition was

received. On September 27, 1990, the

Service, acting on this assessment but

without issuing a formal finding on the

petition, published a proposed rule (55

FR 39489) to reclassify the Australian

population of the saltwater crocodile to

threatened status.

The proposed rule included a special

rule which would have allowed for the

commercial import of parts and

products of ranched saltwater crocodiles

from Australia directly into the United

States, or through a third party if that

country was a CITES member, had not

taken a reservation on saltwater

crocodiles, had filed annual CITES trade

reports, and the specimens were traded

in accordance with Australian laws and

CITES requirements. In the absence of a

required universal tagging system for

crocodilian skins, however, trade

controls were considered insufficient to

justify uncontrolled trade through third

parties.

The Service delayed publication of

the final rule to reclassify the Australian

populations of the saltwater crocodile

beyond the 12 months normally allowed

because of concerns about allowing

trade in products of one crocodilian

species without adequate control of

trade in other crocodilians and pending

acceptance of universal tagging

procedures for crocodilian skins in

international trade. Resolution Conf.

8.14 adopted at the 1992 Meeting of the

Conference of the Parties in Kyoto,

Japan, established a new marking

system that was to provide for strict

regulation of trade in all crocodilian

skins. This system was to have been

effective after adoption of additional

procedures by the CITES Animals

Committee, with concurrence from the

CITES Standing Committee. However,

because the issues were too substantial

to resolve at the committee level a

revised resolution on universal tagging

procedures was presented to the 1994

Meeting of the Conference of the Parties

in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. After further

modification the Parties adopted this

new resolution. The special rule

presented in this notice is consistent

with the newly adopted resolution.

Summary of Comments on Proposed

Reclassification

Comment: African Resources Trust,

Crocodile Farmers Association of

Zimbabwe, the Crocodile Specialist

Group of the World Conservation Union

(IUCN), the Governments of Brazil,

Paraguay, and Gambia, and Safari Club

International supported the proposed

reclassification of the Australian

population of saltwater crocodile from

endangered to threatened.

Response: The Service continues to

believe that this reclassification is

warranted.

Comment: Dr. Wayne King and IUCN

believed that the Australian population

had recovered sufficiently and was

adequately protected so as to warrant

removal from the list of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife Species.

Response: The Service notes that

some portions of the Australian

population of the saltwater crocodile

may not have recovered and that other

populations of the species remain

endangered, and therefore, believes that

threatened classification is appropriate.

Comment: The Environmental Centre

N.T. Inc. (ECNT) believed the Australian

population of the saltwater crocodile

was relatively low, that population

estimates were based on limited

surveys, and that the annual State

reports are not available to the public.

Response: The Service believes that

the surveys are adequate to document

the recovery of this population and that

this population continues to increase as

documented in the proposal presented

to the ninth meeting of the CITES

Parties.

Comment: The ECNT was concerned

that the proposed reclassification would

lead to an expanded crocodile trade

industry, and that the Northern

Territory government had too few staff

to regulate commercial trade in

crocodile specimens.

Response: The Service believes that

the regulation and management by the

Australian State and Federal

governments is adequate to control

crocodile trade and protect the wild

population.

Comment: The ECNT stated that the

claim that the provision for legal harvest

provided an incentive for conservation

was unsubstantiated and that the

ranching and egg harvesting operation

provided no demonstrable contribution

to the conservation of the species.

Response: Regardless of whether a

direct linkage between the harvest

operation and conservation benefits to

the species can be demonstrated, the

Service believes the Australian

population of saltwater crocodile has

recovered sufficiently to warrant

reclassification of the species.

Comment: The ECNT noted that only

a small number of coastal or marine

conservation reserves occur within the

range of the saltwater crocodile in

Australia.

Response: The Service believes that

based on population increases and

management programs that adequate

habitat exists for the saltwater crocodile

in Australia to warrant reclassification

of the species.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Australian Population of Saltwater

Crocodile

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

1531 et seq.) and regulations

promulgated to implement the listing

provisions of the Act (50 CFR Part 424)

set forth five factors to be used in

determining whether to add, reclassify,

or remove a species from the list of
32358 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

endangered and threatened species.

These factors and their applicability to

populations of the saltwater crocodile in

Australia are as follows:

1. The present or threatened

destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. The

saltwater crocodile occupies a variety of

tidal and non-tidal habitats across

northern Australia from Maryborough

on the Queensland east coast to Broome

on the Western Australian west coast.

The Northern Territory has more

extensive areas of prime saltwater

crocodile habitat than either

Queensland or Western Australia (report

from the ANPWS 1990, titled,

‘‘Evidence in Support of a Petition by

Australia to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service to Remove Captive Populations

of the Saltwater Crocodile, Crocodylus

porosus, in Australia from the

Endangered Species List under the U.S.

Endangered Species Act 1973’’—copy

on file with the Office of Scientific

Authority). Exploitation of crocodiles in

Australia began on a large scale in the

late 1940’s and extended into the early

1970’s. During this time, populations in

the rivers along the north coast were

nearly extirpated with only small

scattered populations remaining (King

et al. 1979). Export of saltwater

crocodiles and their parts from Australia

was prohibited in 1972. Today, the

habitats are largely intact across the

whole of northern Australia, and the

species occupies the whole of its known

historical range within the country. The

species is protected in the three states

where it occurs (the Northern Territory,

Queensland, and Western Australia).

Management programs allowing limited

utilization of wild stocks for crocodile

farm operations have been implemented

by the states in light of the crocodile’s

increasing population size.

According to the ANPWS (ANPWS

1990, op cit.), the Northern Territory

population of saltwater crocodiles has

undergone significant recovery since

protection from hunting in 1972.

Analysis of all available monitoring

results from 1975 to 1987 shows that the

density of wild saltwater crocodiles in

tidal rivers has tripled since surveying

began. In 1984, Webb et al. (1989)

estimated the total Northern Territory

population of the saltwater crocodile to

be at least 40,000 individuals. Between

1984 and 1987, monitoring results

indicated that the tidal population

increased by 16.5 percent. Assuming

that this rate of increase can be applied

to the population as a whole, the

minimum estimate for 1989 would be

46,000 crocodiles in the Northern

Territory.

Extensive helicopter surveys across

the entire range of habitat types present

in Cape York Peninsula, Queensland,

resulted in the sighting of some 2,400

crocodiles. Actual population numbers

are likely to be considerably higher. It

is not possible to derive an estimate of

absolute numbers for Queensland, but

sampling of potentially suitable habitats

yielded an average density index of 0.77

crocodile/km of waterway. Surveys in

1977–78 resulted in a population

estimate of about 2,000 crocodiles

beyond the hatchling stage for Western

Australia. The population was estimated

at 2,500 crocodiles beyond the hatchling

stage when it was resurveyed in 1986.

A proposal was submitted by

Australia to the ninth meeting of the

Conference of the Parties to CITES in Ft.

Lauderdale in November 1994 to retain

the Australian population of the

saltwater crocodile in Appendix II

pursuant to resolution Conf. 1.2 instead

of resolution Conf. 3.15 under ranching

provisions. The proposal reported that

saltwater crocodile populations in the

Northern Territories had increased by

50 percent since ranching was

introduced in 1984, and that the 1993

population estimate ‘‘scaled from the

1984 estimate’’ of 40,000 was around

60,000 individuals. Furthermore, the

Western Australia population of

saltwater crocodiles was reported to be

stable or increasing and estimated to be

about 3,000 individuals excluding

young of the year. The results of the

1987 survey in Queensland reportedly

indicated a slow recovery from the 1979

population of 3,000 although the

number in the populated and

agricultural areas particularly along the

east coast may still be decreasing.

2. Over-utilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes. Population estimates of

saltwater crocodiles in Australia were

not made prior to 1970. Overexploitation for the skin trade and

persecution as undesirable wildlife

began in the late 1940’s and did not

subside until hunting was banned in

1972. The export of saltwater crocodiles

and their parts from Australia was

prohibited in 1972 by an amendment of

the customs regulations. By that time,

many accessible populations had

become seriously threatened with

extirpation. With the enactment of state

and territorial protection laws [Wildlife

Conservation and Control Ordinance

(1962)—Northern Territory; the Fauna

Conservation Act (1974)—Queensland;

and the Wildlife Conservation Act

(1950)—Western Australia], the

populations showed an immediate

response and have tripled in numbers

since surveying began in the late 1970’s

(ANPWS 1990, op. cit.).

At the 1985 meeting of the Conference

of the Parties to CITES, the Australian

saltwater crocodile population was

transferred from Appendix I to

Appendix II, pursuant to resolution

Conf. 3.15 on ranching. This provided

for trade in saltwater crocodiles bred-incaptivity or raised on farms under

approved management plans. The

transfer was recommended by the

Australian Council of Nature

Conservation Ministers and IUCN

Crocodile Specialist Group. The

Australian CITES proposal to transfer

the Australian population of saltwater

crocodile to Appendix II to allow trade

under the ranching provision was based

on a series of experimental egg harvests

and quantification of the impacts of

those harvests. No discernible impact of

this egg harvest has been detected on

the number of crocodiles in subsequent

age classes. Australia allows a regulated

annual harvest of crocodile eggs for farm

operations under approved management

plans. The effects of the egg harvests are

quantified and assessed through

monitoring programs in the harvested

areas. Approval to harvest eggs

incorporates a commitment that if any

decline in the wild population were to

occur, a larger number of 1-year-old

crocodiles would be returned to the

wild than would have survived had no

eggs or hatchlings been removed from

the wild. In 1994, only the Northern

Territory and Western Australia had

approved management plans under

which the harvest of eggs is allowed for

ranching operations.

According to information provided by

the Australian National Parks and

Wildlife Service (ANPWS 1990, op. cit.),

the capture and relocation of nuisance

crocodiles can only be authorized by

State and federal personnel.

In the Northern Territory, nuisance

animals are caught alive and relocated

to farms whenever practical. In other

cases, they are destroyed by Northern

Territory Conservation Commission

personnel. In Western Australia,

problem crocodiles are captured and

removed, or where the level of risk to

humans is unacceptable, permission to

kill the crocodile may be given. In both

States, those problem animals relocated

to farms are individually marked and, if

not required for captive breeding, are

available for harvest after they have

been maintained in captivity for a

minimum of 30 days. In Queensland,

nuisance animals may be removed to

provide breeding stock for closed-cycle

farms or destroyed where other options

are not available.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32359

Traditional harvest of crocodiles and

crocodile eggs for food by Aborigines of

the Northern Territory is allowed.

However, the low level of traditional

harvests is not considered a threat to the

populations. Traditional use does not

include commercial trade.

Ranched and captive-bred crocodile

parts and products are exported from six

establishments under an approved

management program in the Northern

Territory. A management program that

would allow ranching operations in

Western Australia has also been

developed. Two farms in Queensland

export products derived solely from

captive-bred crocodiles.

The proposal submitted to the 1994

meeting of the CITES Parties reported

that there were 6, 6, and 2 crocodile

farms/ranches in the Northern Territory,

Queensland, and Western Australia,

respectively. Finally, it was noted that

Queensland does not permit the capture

of wild saltwater crocodiles for the

purposes of stocking farms although a

total of 181 problem crocodiles had

been added to the farms between 1984

and 1994.The proposal was adopted by

the CITES Parties.

3. Disease or predation. None known

at this time.

4. The inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms. The saltwater

crocodile is recognized as a valuable

resource in Australia, where laws and

regulations are in place to prevent overexploitation of these animals. Since the

ban on hunting in 1972, saltwater

crocodile populations have substantially

increased in numbers. State wildlife

laws govern the take, possession, and

trade in saltwater crocodiles. Also, the

Commonwealth Wildlife Protection

(Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act

of 1982, administered by the Australian

Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA,

formerly ANPWS) helps to protect

wildlife that might otherwise be

threatened by unregulated export.

Under this Act, export of saltwater

crocodiles, their parts and products

requires an export permit. Permits may

be issued only for scientific purposes, or

for specimens including products

derived from captive-bred animals, or

animals taken under an approved

management program. Maximum

penalties for violations of the Act are a

AUS $100,000 fine and/or 5 years

imprisonment for individuals, and AUS

$200,000 for corporations. The

substantial increase in maximum

penalties for attempting to illegally

export saltwater crocodile skins from

Australia (from $1,000 up to $200,000)

is considered to be an effective

deterrent. In addition to legislation and

policies regulating take within

Australia, export of saltwater crocodiles

is regulated by CITES, to which

Australia is a party.

Regulation of take has been a factor in

the continued improvement of

Australia’s saltwater crocodile

populations in the wild. This significant

improvement has prompted the Service

to reclassify the saltwater crocodile in

Australia from endangered to

threatened.

5. Other natural or manmade factors

affecting its continued existence. A

comprehensive system of nature

conservation reserves has been

developed, so that approximately 40

million hectares of all habitats

throughout Australia, or 5.5 percent of

the total land surface, is reserved under

different categories. Parks, reserves, and

sanctuaries in northern Australia

provide a mosaic of areas in which

crocodiles and their habitats are

protected. Significant areas of crocodile

habitat are contained in at least six

parks or nature reserves. In addition,

nearly 37 million hectares are protected

under various state and national marine

and estuarine protected area categories.

The Cobourg Peninsula Marine

National Park was declared in 1983 to

protect, among other species, the

saltwater crocodile.

The Service has carefully assessed the

best biological and commercial

information with respect to past,

present, and future threats faced by the

species in issuing this rule. Criteria for

reclassification of a threatened or

endangered species (50 CFR 424.ll (c)

and (d)) are the same as for listing a

species as endangered or threatened.

The proposed action is to reclassify

Australia’s saltwater crocodile

populations from endangered to

threatened, based on continuing

recovery of the species. A special rule

amending 50 CFR 17.42 to allow for the

importation of specimens into the

United States under certain

circumstances but without a threatened

species permit is also established. This

reclassification is based on substantial

evidence that Australia’s populations of

the saltwater crocodile have made a

remarkable recovery and are no longer

in danger of extinction in the

foreseeable future.

Surveys conducted in the late 1980’s

indicated populations of at least 50,000.

Populations are estimated to have

increased three-fold between 1975 and

1987. The species is protected in the

three jurisdictions in which it occurs,

and there are closely regulated crocodile

farm operations. In light of increasing

populations, Australia’s strict regulation

of harvest, and the requirement of a

management program prior to approval

of crocodile farm operations, several

threats to the existence of the saltwater

crocodile in Australia have been

ameliorated. Therefore, the Service

believes that reclassification to

threatened best fits the current status of

saltwater crocodile populations in

Australia.

Other populations throughout the

species’ range are still in danger of

extinction, to varying degrees, by taking.

Penalties for illegal exports and

enforcement activities will help ensure

that illegal skins or products do not

enter into commercial trade. Because

crocodiles of the Australian population

cannot be distinguished from saltwater

crocodiles of other populations and

from other endangered crocodilians

once made into manufactured products,

the Service is adopting a special rule to

strengthen the implementation of the

CITES skin-tagging program (see

description presented later in this

notice).

The reclassification to a threatened

status and adoption of a special rule

allowing commercial trade under

certain conditions will not end trade

controls for the species. The species

remains on Appendix II of CITES with

export permits required, and the special

rule will require adherence to the CITES

marking scheme for crocodilian skins,

among other things discussed later in

this document when provisions of the

special rule are described. Trade in

legally harvested saltwater crocodile

skins, meat, and products, when

controlled as specified in the special

rule, will provide an incentive for

conserving the species without posing

significant risks to wild populations.

Proposed Classification of the Papua

New Guinea Population

The Service had proposed the

classification of the Papua New Guinea

population of saltwater crocodile for

reasons of similarity of appearance (59

FR 18652), because this population is

the only saltwater crocodile population

not listed under the Endangered Species

Act, and such a listing would have

imposed the same conditions on all

legally traded saltwater crocodilian

parts and products so as to better

address concerns about commingling of

legal and illegal specimens. However,

such listing action is presently

precluded by a listing moratorium

imposed under U.S. legislation.

African Resources Trust and

Crocodile Farmers Association of

Zimbabwe had commented that such a

listing appeared to be sensible. The

Government of Papua New Guinea

indicated that the crocodile population

in Papua New Guinea was stable and a
32360 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

transfer to Appendix I was not

warranted. Such a transfer was not

proposed, and if it were to occur would

prohibit international trade for

commercial purposes. In addition,

Mainland Holdings Pty Ltd in Papua

New Guinea commented that the

saltwater crocodile population in Papua

New Guinea was not endangered, that

habitat would be left untouched if

landowners can continue to realize cash

income from the harvest of crocodiles,

that recent surveys show that current

regulations preserved habitat, that the

trade was controlled by the Department

of Wildlife and there was no evidence

of any illegal trade in crocodile skins

from Papua New Guinea, and that the

proposed rule was likely to be

detrimental to the crocodile industry in

Papua New Guinea. This organization

apparently did not understand that the

proposed listing would not have

precluded the sale of crocodile skins,

other parts, and products from Papua

New Guinea or the trade of these items

through other countries that were

properly implementing CITES.

Furthermore, the provisions of the

special rule should inhibit competitive

trade in any illegal specimens from

other countries.

The special rule will require tagging

of crocodilian skins imported directly

from Australia into the United States,

and this will be expected under CITES

resolution Conf. 9.22 for skins imported

directly from Papua New Guinea.

Implementation of CITES provisions

and resolutions by Papua New Guinea

has been effective. Furthermore, the

special rule is intended to allow trade

in saltwater crocodile parts and

products through intermediary

countries only if the countries involved

in such trade are effectively

implementing CITES. Intermediary

countries likely to trade in crocodile

specimens from Papua New Guinea are

expected to be the same as those trading

in specimens from Australia. Therefore

effectively implementing the CITES

tagging resolution. Therefore, the

Service believes that the trade in

crocodilian parts and products from

Papua New Guinea can continue

without listing that saltwater population

as threatened by reason of similarity of

appearance, but the Service will take

special care to detect any illegal trade in

skins from the saltwater crocodile

population in Papua New Guinea.

Special Rule for Nile and Saltwater

Crocodiles

1. History of Special Rule

The special rule established in 1987

(52 FR 23148) allowed for the import of

skins and live animals into the United

States direct from Zimbabwe under

certain circumstances. In the September

27, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR

39489), the Service proposed a special

rule along with the proposed

reclassification of the Australian

population of the saltwater crocodile.

The special rule would have allowed

the importation of skins and products

into the United States from ranched

saltwater crocodile populations in

Australia, regardless of whether the

imported products came directly from

Australia or through an intermediary

country. However, concerns were raised

about the provision for commercial

trade in products without adequate

control of trade for all crocodilian skins.

In the August 3, 1992, Federal

Register (57 FR 34095), the Service

proposed a special rule along with the

proposed reclassification of the Nile

crocodile. Concerns were expressed

about the feasibility of the requirement

to relate original tag numbers for all

pieces of skins in products that are reexported, and for the need for a more

effective system to control trade in raw

skins. Furthermore, implementation of

the CITES universal tagging system for

crocodiles had been delayed. Therefore,

the Service reclassified the Nile

crocodile (58 FR 49870, September 23,

1993) without revising the existing

special rule that related only to

specimens from the Zimbabwean

populations, and announced that it

would develop a special rule designed

to complement the CITES universal

tagging system when finalized.

Consequently, on April 19, 1994 (59 FR

18652), the Service reproposed a special

rule for the Nile and saltwater

crocodiles which accompanied the

proposed reclassification and

classification of the Australian

population and Papua New Guinea

population of the saltwater crocodile,

respectively.

Summary of Comments Received on

Proposed Special Rule

Comment: Columbia Impex

Corporation stated that the special rule

should conform with CITES.

Response: The Service has included

in the special rule provisions of the

CITES resolution on ‘‘Universal Tagging

System for the Identification of

Crocodilian Skins’’ (tagging resolution)

adopted at the ninth meeting of the

Conference of the Parties, as well as

provisions that allow only those

countries that are properly

implementing CITES and its tagging

resolutions to import skins and products

into the United States.

Comment: The Government of Gambia

supported the special rule as written.

Response: The Service has retained

the basic concept of the special rule

with regard to effective implementation

of CITES, and implementation of the

tagging resolution, and those essential

provisions to address the commingling

concerns.

Comment: Safari Club International

(SCI) expressed concerns about the

process of documentation.

Response: The Service has included

CITES documentation requirements that

are consistent with the provisions of the

special rule, and in the case of

crocodilian products and pieces of

processed skins the Service has adopted

provisions that complement CITES

requirements and resolutions.

Comment: SCI expressed the concern

that the country approval process will

cause lengthy delays.

Response: The Service has established

criteria which if not met would result in

a Schedule III Notice of Information that

may prohibit or restrict imports of

crocodilian skins, other parts and

products. Removal of the proposed

requirement for information to be

provided by the involved exporting and

intermediary countries will also

expedite appropriate actions when

warranted.

Comment: SCI believed that requiring

the country of origin to certify its

compliance with various practices is

contrary to the spirit of CITES.

Response: The Service does not agree

that asking a country to certify its

compliance with certain internal

practices necessary for effective

implementation of CITES is contrary to

the spirit of CITES. Countries presently

certify that resolution recommendations

are met when issuing certificates or

submitting registration proposals for

bred-in-captivity and artificially

propagated specimens.

Comment: SCI noted that the concerns

about commingling of skins is not

‘‘tied’’ to the biological status of the

species.

Response: The Service is concerned

not only about commingling of skins of

populations listed as threatened but also

of skins of the same species listed as

endangered pursuant to the Act and/or

in CITES Appendix I.

Comment: SCI objected to the United

States dictating controls to other

countries.

Response: The Service has already

noted that the provisions of the special

rule complement the implementation

practices adopted by CITES Parties and

that any additional provisions are

designed to clarify and support aspects

of relevant CITES resolutions or
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32361

requirements. Furthermore, the United

States has or will implement similar

provisions in its internal regulations.

Comment: SCI noted that no tag

appeared to be required for sport-hunted

trophies imported directly from the

country of origin.

Response: The Service, in

implementing the CITES tagging

resolution, will require tags on all

crocodilian skins including trophies

imported, exported, or re-exported from

the United States and has repeated this

requirement in the special rule.

Comment: SCI noted that in addition

to allowing the import of sport-hunted

trophies directly from the country of

origin, the special rule should allow the

import of trophies from intermediary

countries provided that the tag from the

country of origin is attached to the

trophy or just accompanies the

shipment.

Response: The Service recognizes that

trophies may be shipped to third party

countries for preparation by a

taxidermist and acknowledges that this

is a low volume activity. Therefore, the

Service has modified the special rule to

allow these trophy imports from third

party countries provided the original

export tag is attached to unmounted

trophies or accompanies the mounted

trophy and the re-export certificate

contains the original tag and export

permit number and date and re-export

certificate number from the previous

country of re-export.

Comment: Crocodile Farmers

Association of Zimbabwe (CFAZ) and

African Resources Trust noted that the

requirement that all pieces of skin larger

than 9 square inches must bear an intact

tag was discussed in the description of

the special rule but not in the proposed

special rule.

Response: In the discussion of

paragraph (c)(3)(iii) (F1–F3) in the

‘‘Section-by-Section Description’’ of the

proposed special rule on page 18659 of

the April 19, 1994, Federal Register

notice, mention of 9 square inches was

intended to refer only to tracking such

pieces (separate or in products) and was

not included as a tagging requirement

for skin pieces. This situation in which

skins may be imported, processed, and

cut in one country prior to shipment to

another country for manufacture is

believed to involve a small percentage

of the trade. In these situations, the

tagging resolution calls for an

administrative system effectively

matching imports and re-exports. Uncut,

unprocessed or processed whole or

partial skins, flanks, bellies or backs

should retain the original tag through

the intermediary country(s) and on

import into the United States, or should

possess a re-export tag in a limited

number of situations in which the

original tag was lost in reprocessing but

tracked through the administrative

system. However, if the processed skins

have been cut into pieces, in addition to

the administrative tracking system, the

Service believes that precise tracking of

the more valuable larger pieces is

significantly important to the proper

control of trade in legal skins. Therefore,

the Service will require that belly skin

pieces wider than 35 centimeters will

have the original tag number and permit

number and the previous intermediary

country’s re-export certificate number, if

any, recorded on the re-export

certificate.

Comment: The Government of

Paraguay, Dr. Wayne King, CFAZ, and

the African Resources Trust stated that

the tagging of pieces greater than 9

square inches involves unnecessary

work.

Response: The Service agrees, and as

noted in the previous response, the

special rule has been revised.

Comment: IUCN and Dr. Wayne King

believed that most countries would be

unable to comply with provisions

requiring the tracking of pieces larger

than 9 square inches in finished

products to the original tag and permit,

and Dr. King suggested not requiring

documentation for pieces comprising

less than 25 percent of the product.

Response: The Service now believes

that the burden imposed by the tracking

of such small pieces is unnecessary if

provisions of the tagging resolution for

documenting tag and permit numbers

are extended to point of manufacture.

The tagging resolution requires an

administrative system for effective

matching of imports and re-exports of

skins, and for skins being re-exported

the tags should remain attached. To

further enable the intermediary

countries to detect commingling, the

Service will require that the tags should

remain attached to the point of

manufacture. This along with some

monitoring system for quantity of

products produced should obviate the

need for tracking the smaller pieces. The

system suggested by IUCN and Dr. King

for tracking pieces amounting to 25

percent of product could still result in

tracking small pieces. However, the

tracking of most valuable large pieces is

still considered to be warranted, but

precise tracking will only be required

for belly skin pieces wider than 35

centimeters.

Comment: The Government of

Paraguay, Dr. Wayne King, the African

Resources Trust, CFAZ, and IUCN

commented on the need to clarify the

meaning ‘‘physically inspects 40

percent of crocodilian skin and product

shipments.’’ IUCN also considered that

the Service should not require an

inspection rate higher than it conducts.

In addition, the Australian Nature

Conservation Agency felt that requiring

a 40 percent inspection rate imposed an

undue burden and noted that random

inspections of shipments and processing

facilities supported with severe

penalties was a sufficient deterrent.

Response: The Service believes that

its random inspection practices as well

as its efforts to inspect 40 percent of the

crocodilian skin or product shipments

on importation constituted an effective

enforcement level in the United States.

However, the Service recognizes that an

effective enforcement level involves a

combination of inspection rates and

severity of penalties. Therefore, the

Service has not stated an inspection rate

in the special rule but has relied on the

importing, exporting and re-exporting

countries to establish what they believe

to be an effective level of enforcement.

Comment: The Government of Hong

Kong thought that the special rule

should be reconsidered after a revised

tagging resolution was adopted at COP9.

Response: The Service agrees with

this comment and has waited until the

tagging resolution was revised and

readopted by the CITES Parties to make

the provisions of the resolution and this

special rule consistent whenever

possible.

Comment: CFAZ and African

Resources Trust stated that if the listing

of the Papua New Guinea population is

contentious enough to hold up the

special rule for Nile crocodile, they

would request the special rule be

uncoupled from the listing document.

Response: The delay in finalizing

action on the special rule was due to

waiting for the adoption of the tagging

resolution by the CITES Parties, and the

Service is now proceeding with the

special rule without listing the Papua

New Guinea population of the saltwater

crocodile, presently prohibited by a

listing moratorium enacted by U.S.

legislation.

Comment: IUCN and Dr. Wayne King

considered that the proposed 12-month

delay in implementation was

unwarranted.

Response: The 12-month delay

referred to in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) was

not intended to indicate when

commercial shipments of skins would

first be allowed into the United States,

but to establish the date after which

untagged skins and parts from

intermediary countries would no longer

be allowed into the United States. The

Service has reviewed the wording of

this provision in the special rule and
32362 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

because the tagging resolution has been

in effect for 1 year, the Service has made

the tagging requirements effective on the

effective date of this rule. However,

because the specific parts tag

requirements stipulated in this rule

clarify the Service’s perception of the

intent of this requirement in the tagging

resolution, the Service will not require

the parts tag to be on containers until 1

year after the date of publication of this

rule.

Similarly, the 12-month delay referred

to in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) was

intended to establish the date after

which commercial shipments of

products must be accompanied by

copies of CITES documents (or records

of documents) from the country of

origin. This delay has been deleted

because the Service will follow the

guidance on information to be included

on permits and certificates as

recommended in CITES resolution Conf.

9.3 as adopted at the ninth meeting of

the Conference of the Parties in

November 1994.

Comment: CFAZ and Africa

Resources Trust noted that there are no

details by which a country not

originally approved or subsequently

removed from the approved list can be

included or reestablished on the

approved list.

Response: The Service agrees that this

was not addressed and has included a

statement in the preamble portion of the

rule which notes that any import

prohibition or restriction established

with a Schedule III Notice of

Information will be lifted through a

similar Notice of Information when

conditions contributing to the

prohibition or restriction have been

corrected.

Comment: Jon Hutton (pers comm)

noted that the preambular text of

paragraph (c)(3)(iii) (F1–F3) in the

proposed rule indicated that the

provisions would apply to countries of

origin and re-export but that the portion

of the special rule omitted the country

of re-export.

Response: The Service acknowledges

this omission in the special rule

paragraph but notes that it is clear from

the specific requirements of this part of

the proposed special rule that it applies

to re-exporting countries. The special

rule has been revised to state

specifically that the provision for

effective implementation of the tagging

resolution applies to countries of origin

and re-export.

Comment: The Australian Nature

Conservation Agency expressed the

view that random inspection of

premises and records supported by

severe penalties should be sufficient

deterrent to obviate the need to track

pieces of skin greater than 9 square

inches.

Response: The Service generally

agrees with this position and notes that

it has eliminated the requirement for a

specific inspection rate and has

expected the other countries to

determine effective enforcement

practices which might involve higher

inspection rates if penalties and/or

ability to conduct random inspections

do not provide an adequate deterrent.

However, because of the monetary value

of large, unmarred, raw or processed

pieces, the Service is retaining a

requirement for tracking belly skin

pieces wider than 35 centimeters.

Comment: The Australian Nature

Conservation Agency questioned how a

ban by the CITES Parties or Standing

Committee would be applied, e.g. how

would a country be removed from the

approved list?

Response: The Service has established

bases for issuing Schedule III Notices of

Information which would prohibit or

restrict imports. If the Secretariat issues

a notification of a ban based on a

decision of the Parties or Standing

Committee, the Service will publish a

Schedule III Notice of Information. A

similar Notice of Information to lift the

prohibition or restriction will be

published.

3. Description of Special Rule

The United States would allow import

under certain conditions only of those

skins, parts or products from designated

populations of saltwater and Nile

crocodiles. The special rule provides for

import prohibitions or restrictions on

exporting or re-exporting countries if (1)

the country is listed in a Notification to

the Parties by the CITES Secretariat as

lacking designated Management and

Scientific Authorities that issue CITES

documents or their equivalent; (2) the

country is identified in any action

adopted by the Parties to the

Convention, the Convention’s Standing

Committee, or in a Notification issued

by the CITES Secretariat, whereby

Parties are asked to not accept

shipments of specimens of CITES-listed

species from the country in question; or

(3) the Service determines, based on

information from the CITES Secretariat

or other reliable sources that the country

is not effectively implementing the

tagging resolution. Whenever such

evidence becomes available to the

Service, the United States will inform

the CITES Secretariat and the

appropriate CITES Committee so that

the CITES Parties collectively may also

take appropriate actions.

The United States would also allow

imports from non-CITES Parties if the

country was in compliance with all of

the expectations stated above for CITES

Parties and if the country issued CITEScomparable permits/certificates and

tags.

Importation of skin and other parts of

saltwater crocodiles directly from

Australia, or skins and parts of Nile

crocodiles directly from countries with

Appendix II populations would also be

allowed under certain circumstances, if

the country of origin implements

provisions of the universal tagging

system.

a. Marking. International trade in

certain crocodilians has presented

significant problems for the CITES

Parties. Several resolutions have been

adopted at previous meetings of the

Parties in an effort to establish

management regimes to benefit the

conservation of the species. The United

States, in conjunction with Australia,

Italy, and Germany submitted a

resolution to the CITES Secretariat that

was adopted at the eighth meeting of the

Conference of the Parties in Kyoto,

Japan (March 2–13, 1992). This

resolution (Conf. 8.14) called for a

universal tagging system for the

identification of crocodilian skins in

international trade. Furthermore, in

accordance with resolution Conf. 8.14,

the CITES Animals Committee at its July

1992 and September 1993 meetings

adopted resolutions recommending

additional practices for tracking and

monitoring tags. However, concurrence

was not obtained from the CITES

Standing Committee, and a new

resolution was presented at the ninth

meeting of the Conference of the Parties

in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (November 7–

18, 1994). This resolution was further

revised and then adopted at the

November meeting.

Aspects of this resolution dealing

with imports into the United States are

incorporated into this special rule, and

U.S. implementation of this resolution

for import, export, and re-export for all

crocodilian species will be incorporated

into a future revision of 50 CFR part 23.

Adherence to the new marking

requirements should reduce the

potential for substitution of illegal skins

and reduce the trade control problems

with similarity in appearance of skins

and products among the different

species of crocodilians.

Prior to implementation of the CITES

universal tagging resolution certain taxa

listed in Appendix II could be traded

internationally without adequate

assurance of their identification and/or

legal status. The CITES resolution on

the universal tagging system for the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32363

identification of crocodilian skins

requires, in part: (1) the universal

tagging of raw and processed

crocodilian skins with non-reusable tags

for all crocodilian skins entering trade

or being re-exported, unless substantial

processing and manufacturing has taken

place; (2) that such non-reusable tags

include as a minimum the International

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

unique serial identification number, a

species code and the year of production,

and further that such non-reusable tags

have as a minimum the following

characteristics: a self-locking system,

heat resistance, inertia to chemical and

mechanical processing, information that

has been applied by permanent

stamping (tag manufacturers approved

by each country’s CITES Management

Authority must be registered with the

CITES Secretariat and meet certain

conditions); (3) that the same

information as is on the tags (for whole

skins, flanks, bellies, and ‘‘chalecos’’) be

given on the export permit, re-export

certificate or other Convention

document, or on a separate sheet which

shall be considered an integral part of

the permit, certificate or document and

which should be validated by the same

CITES-document issuing authority or by

government authority designated by the

CITES-document issuing authority (for

the purposes of this rule this

requirement applies to all uncut skins

and pieces wider than 35 centimeters);

(4) that each Party in which tags are

applied maintain records accounting for

tags and maintain records that relate

each Convention document number to

the tags of the crocodilian specimens

traded thereunder and vice versa; (5)

that Parties establish, where legally

possible, a system of registration or

licensing, or both, for importers and

exporters of crocodilian skins and parts

thereof; (6) that all countries permitting

the re-export of raw, tanned, and/or

finished crocodilian skins implement an

administrative system for the effective

matching of imports and re-exports; and

(7) that tails, throats, feet, backstrips,

and other parts be exported in

transparent sealed containers clearly

marked with a parts tag together with a

description of the contents and total

weight.

b. Special Rule. This special rule

allows trade through intermediary

countries, i.e., all countries of re-export

by definition, for Nile and saltwater

crocodiles as long as such countries are

effectively implementing CITES and

have adopted certain management

measures to control trade in crocodilian

skins and products. Countries are not

considered as countries of re-export if

the specimen remains in customs

control while transiting or being

transshipped through the country and

the specimen has not entered into the

commerce of that country. The special

rule is intended to complement and

strengthen the universal crocodilian

tagging system as presently envisioned

in the CITES universal tagging

resolution.

The purpose of this special rule is to

require a more accountable system for

the transfer and processing of skins and

products in the commercial crocodilian

trade. The United States is a major

importer of crocodilian products

produced by other countries of reexport. The Service’s inspections of

importations have revealed a continuing

pattern of commingling and

misidentification of crocodilian

leathers. Accompanying CITES

documents have often declared the

merchandise as American alligator

when the product contains some species

of crocodile, or as crocodile, when the

goods are made from American alligator

hide. The new CITES tagging system

will represent a significant step towards

eliminating misidentification of skins as

they leave the country of origin. Since

all American alligator skins are tagged

upon export from the United States, the

problems of commingling of alligator

and crocodile clearly arise during the

tanning and manufacturing process.

In addition, there are several species

of crocodiles throughout Africa and

Asia that remain listed as endangered.

While identification of crocodile versus

alligator can be made consistently in

manufactured products, other species

identification of crocodilian products is

more difficult. Despite these difficulties,

various species of endangered

crocodilians have been identified in

products declared as American alligator

or non-endangered crocodiles.

Since the commingling problems

described above principally arise in the

re-exporting countries, this special rule

is established with the expectation of

adequate control through proper

implementation and enforcement of

CITES in the manufacturing countries to

deter intermingling of the protected

populations of the Nile and saltwater

crocodiles, as well as the endangered

populations of other crocodiles and

alligators without imposing the

overburdensome requirement of

tracking each piece through the

production process, and recording all

incoming tag numbers on the reexporting permit for products. However,

the special rule provides for possible

prohibition of imports from any reexporting country that does not

effectively control trade and adequately

preclude commingling of illegal

crocodilian skins and other parts.

Furthermore, this special rule is

written to allow the Service to respond

quickly to changing situations that may

result in lessened protection to the

crocodilians. Thus, the criteria

described in the special rule establish

bases for determining whether CITES

provisions are being effectively

implemented. Therefore, imports into

the United States can be prohibited after

publication of a Schedule III Notice of

Information on any country that fails to

comply with the requirements of the

special rule. Such prohibitions/

restrictions will be lifted through a

similar Notice of Information when

conditions contributing to the

prohibition or restriction have been

corrected. For those additional

situations outside of the ones set forth

in the special rule which involve a

judgment as to whether necessary trade

controls are being implemented, the

Service will go through a separate

proposed rule and comment process

before reaching a final decision on any

trade bans.

The special rule adopted herein will

require the CITES-approved tags for all

saltwater and Nile crocodile skins or

appropriate tamperproof parts tags with

CITES-required information on

transparent sealed containers of

crocodilian parts being imported into

intermediary countries and CITES tags

for all skins or significant pieces of skin

being exported from any re-exporting

country if the skins or products are

eventually to be imported into the

United States.

The special rule is designed to allow

trade in saltwater and Nile crocodile

skins and products from designated

populations without the need to obtain

a threatened species import permit.

Tagged skins may be imported from the

country of origin or any CITES-member

country of re-export as long as the

involved countries comply with certain

criteria. Crocodilian products may be

imported without individual tags,

provided the involved countries comply

with criteria described for products. The

special rule expects compliance with

the CITES universal tagging resolution

including an administrative system for

the effective matching of imports and reexports of skins. In addition, the

intermediary country will be expected

to have adequate enforcement

authorities to deter the commingling of

illegal skins. If a country fails to meet

the criteria in the special rule, a

Schedule III Notice of Information to

that effect will be published in the

Federal Register, and skins and
32364 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

products from Nile and saltwater

crocodiles will not be able to be

imported into the United States from

that country without the threatened

species import permits required in part

17.

4. Effects of the Special Rule

The degree of endangerment of the

many crocodilian species varies by

species and specific populations. Some

crocodilian species and populations are

listed on Appendix I of CITES, and the

remaining species and populations are

included in Appendix II. Some species

are listed as threatened or endangered

on the U.S. List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife, while other

species are not included. In addition,

actions have been taken by several

countries to protect their wild

populations but allow trade in

specimens bred or raised in captivity

under appropriate management

programs.

Thus, trade in specimens from some

populations is not detrimental to the

wild population, and commercial trade

is allowed under CITES with proper

export permits from certain countries of

origin and re-exporting countries. The

Service’s concern has been that trade in

non-endangered species has in the past

provided the opportunity for specimens

of the endangered or threatened species

or populations to be commingled with

legal trade, especially during the

manufacturing process. Numerous U.S.

law enforcement actions as well as past

actions by the CITES Parties attest to

this concern. The underlying premise

behind this special rule is that under

current management systems, the

Appendix II populations of Nile

crocodile with assigned export quotas

and the Australian populations of

saltwater crocodile are being sufficiently

sustained to support controlled

commercial use; the key risk to these

populations, as well as other similarappearing crocodilians, is inadequate

controls in the countries of re-export,

especially in those countries in which

manufacturing occurs.

The CITES Parties have adopted and

are in the process of implementing

provisions of a universal tagging system

for crocodilian skins, and the Service

supports these efforts. Adherence to the

new marking requirements should

reduce the potential for substitution of

illegal skins and reduce the trade

control problems with the similarity in

appearance of skins and products

among different species of crocodilians.

Further, this special rule contains other

steps designed to ensure that the United

States does not become a market for

illegal trade in crocodilian species and

to encourage other nations to control

illegal trade. With the requirement that

all skins are to be tagged, that

administrative systems for the effective

matching of imported and re-exported

skins exist in intermediary countries,

that all uncut skins are to be tagged up

to the point of manufacture, and that the

valuable belly skin pieces wider than 35

centimeters are to be specifically

tracked, it is expected that there will be

greater accountability and accuracy in

the processing and manufacturing of

crocodilian skins.

In summary, the special rule allowing

limited trade in these saltwater

crocodile and Nile crocodile

populations should provide incentives

to maintain wild populations, as well as

encourage all countries involved in

commerce in crocodilian species to

guard against illegal trade.

1. Saltwater Crocodile. Allowing

import of farm-raised specimens is

expected to benefit the conservation of

wild populations. Under Australia’s

conservation program, eggs or

hatchlings are removed from the wild

for crocodile farm operations under an

approved management program, and

wild populations are carefully

monitored. Should any decline occur in

the wild populations, the program

would return a greater number of 1-yearold captive raised crocodiles to the wild

than would have survived to that age in

the wild had no eggs or hatchlings been

removed. Limited trade with the United

States would provide economic

incentives for conserving wild

populations and their habitats, owing to

the dependence on them as the source

of eggs. Careful regulation of take and

the prescription of specific corrective

actions ensure that crocodile farming

activities will not cause declines of wild

populations, and have the added

potential of reversing declines caused

by other factors.

In addition, under this special rule,

parts or products of the Australian

crocodile populations imported into the

United States must be identified in

accordance with the CITES marking

system for crocodile skins and parts

(refer to section on marking, and

provisions of special rule). These

marking requirements should ensure

that only legally taken specimens are

traded, and thus should also benefit the

conservation of the species.

2. Nile crocodile. The appropriateness

of the original endangered listing under

the Act and the Appendix I listing

under CITES of the Nile crocodile has

been the subject of much international

debate. However, improvements in the

status of Nile crocodile populations and

their management have prompted the

CITES Parties to transfer 11 national

populations to Appendix II. The

downlisting to a threatened status under

the Act does not end trade controls for

the species. The species remains in

Appendix II of CITES with export

permits required. The special rule

should strengthen adherence to the

CITES marking scheme for crocodilian

skins as well as compliance with other

CITES trade control provisions.

Allowing commercial importation into

the United States from CITES-approved

countries is expected to benefit the

species by encouraging proper

conservation practices and by

promoting adherence to the CITES

marking system.

Effects of the Rule

This rule revises § 17.11(h) to

reclassify the Australian population of

the saltwater crocodile from endangered

to threatened, with a special rule stating

that the regulations specifically

pertaining to threatened species (50 CFR

17.31, 17.32) would still apply.

The Australian population and the

unlisted Papua New Guinea populations

are defined by distinct geo-political

boundaries that delineate an area

representing a significant portion of the

range of the species. In addition, both

populations are biologically significant

in maintaining variability of the species

and in preventing the further decline of

the species.

Consistent with the requirements of

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

rule also establishes a special rule by

amending 50 CFR 17.42 to allow the

importation, under certain conditions,

of whole and partial skins, parts, and

finished products thereof of populations

of Nile crocodiles included in CITES

Appendix II which were previously

reclassified as threatened (58 FR 49870),

and saltwater crocodile that originate in

Australia, without a threatened species

import permit for individual shipments

otherwise required by 50 CFR part 17,

if all requirements of the special rule are

met.

Available Conservation Measures for

Nile and Saltwater Crocodiles

Conservation measures provided to

foreign species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include

recognition of degree of endangerment,

requirements for Federal protection, and

prohibitions against certain practices.

Recognition through listing encourages

and results in conservation actions by

governments, private agencies and

groups, and individuals.

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

requires Federal agencies to evaluate

their actions that are to be conducted
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32365

within the United States or on the high

seas, with respect to any species that is

proposed or listed as endangered or

threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is being

designated. Regulations implementing

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part

402.

In general, sections 4(d) and 9 of the

Act, and implementing regulations

found at 50 CFR 17.31 (which

incorporate certain provisions of 50 CFR

17.21), set forth a series of prohibitions

and exceptions that generally apply to

all threatened wildlife. These

prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for

any person subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States to take within the

United States or on the high seas,

import or export, ship in interstate

commerce in the course of a commercial

activity, or sell or offer for sale in

interstate or foreign commerce any

listed species. It also is illegal to

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or

ship any such wildlife that has been

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply

to agents of the Service, the National

Marine Fisheries Service, and State

conservation agencies.

In general, permits may be issued to

carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving threatened wildlife species

under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are

codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to

threatened wildlife, a permit may be

issued for the following purposes:

scientific, enhancement of propagation

or survival, zoological exhibition or

educational purposes, incidental taking,

or special purposes consistent with the

Act. All such permits must also be

consistent with the purposes and policy

of the Act as required by Section 10(d).

Such a permit will be governed by the

provisions of § 17.32 unless a special

rule applicable to the wildlife

(appearing in §§ 17.40 to 17.48)

provides otherwise.

Although threatened species are

generally covered by all prohibitions

applicable to endangered species, under

Section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary

may propose special rules if deemed

necessary and advisable to provide for

the conservation of the species. The rule

included in § 17.42 allows commercial

importation into the United States of

certain farm-raised specimens of

Australia’s saltwater crocodile

population, and certain specimens of

Nile crocodile populations downlisted

to Appendix II by CITES Parties under

ranching or quota provisions as

provided for by CITES.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that

Environmental Assessments and

Environmental Impact Statements, as

defined under the authority of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, need not be prepared in

connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act of

1973, as amended. A notice outlining

the Service’s reasons for this

determination was published in the

Federal Register on October 25, 1983

(48 FR 49244).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Based upon its analysis of the

identified factors, the Service has

determined that:

No individual industries within the United

States will be significantly affected and no

changes in the demography of populations

are anticipated.

Note that some alligator producers,

trappers, and dealers may experience some

increased competition, but the International

Alligator Crocodile Trade Study (1996)

prepared by Ashley Associates, Tallahassee,

Florida projects an increase in alligator skin

trade in 1997, albeit in the projection of total

crocodilian trade, the alligator skin trade

made up a smaller percentage of the total

market. The removal of the threat of possible

retaliatory trade prohibition measures

directed at alligator parts and products by

other countries will at least partially offset

any effects of increased competition.

In addition, the two or three known

operational tanneries and several product

manufacturers in the United States will have

access to a new source of crocodile skins; and

because of this increase in supply, this may

lower prices on legally imported crocodile

skins.

Furthermore, retailers will be able to

legally buy products made from these

previously prohibited species. Consequently,

the U.S. consumer will have a wider

selection of materials and possibly benefit

from lower prices.

To the extent that the total market in

crocodilian products is expanded, the States

may benefit from additional sale tax

collections.

Importers taking advantage of the

possibility of expanded trade will incur the

risk of specimens being seized by U.S.

enforcement agents if the specimens are not

tagged at the time of import in accordance

with the CITES tagging resolution or if

imported from a country not effectively

implementing the CITES tagging resolution.

Note that any such countries will be

identified in Notices of Information

published in the Federal Register with a

current list of such countries available from

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Office of

Management Authority.

This rule will not impose any additional

requirements on U.S. exporters or importers

of crocodilian skins or products provided the

present CITES tagging and permitting

requirements are followed.

The Service, in light of the above

analysis, has determined that the rule

will not have a significant economic

effect on a substantial number of small

entities as defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq. It

has therefore, been determined that a

‘‘small entity flexibility analysis’’ study

is not necessary.

Other Required Determinations

The Service has examined this

regulation under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and has found it

to contain no information collection

requirements.

The Service concludes that the rule is

not a significant regulatory action in the

sense of Executive Order 12886, and

was not subject to review by the Office

of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12886.

This rule will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, in their

relationship between the Federal

Government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this rule does not

have sufficient Federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment. These revisions

to the regulations in 50 CFR 17 are of

a kind consistent with the existing

parameters of established Federal

authority.

The Service has determined and

certifies pursuant to the Unfunded

Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that

this rulemaking will not impose a cost

of $100 million or more in any given

year on local or State governments or

private entities.

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, it has been determined that the

rule has no potential takings of private

property implications as defined by the

Executive Order 12630.

The Service, in promulgating this

rule, has determined that these

regulations meet the applicable

standards provided in Section 3(a) and

(b) of Executive Order 12988.

References Cited

International Union for Conservation of

Nature and Natural Resources. 1975. Red

Data Book: Amphibia and Reptilia.

Morges, Switzerland.

International Union for Conservation of

Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN).

1990. IUCN Red List of Threatened

Animals. IUCN Conservation Monitoring

Center. Cambridge, England.
32366 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

King, F.W., H.W. Campbell, H. Messel, and

R. Whitaker. 1979. Review of the status

of the estuarine or saltwater crocodile,

Crocodylus porosus. Unpub. Report.

33pp.

Webb, G.J.W., M.L. Dillion, G.E. McLean, S.C.

Manolis and B. Ottley. 1989. Monitoring

the recovery of the saltwater crocodile

(Crocodylus porosus) population in the

Northern Territory of Australia. In:

Proceedings of the 9th working meeting

of the Crocodile Specialist Group of the

Species Survival Commission of the

International Union for Conservation of

Nature and Natural Resources. October,

1989. Lae, Papua New Guinea.

Author

The primary author of this rule is Dr.

Charles W. Dane, Office of Scientific

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Rm 725 Arlington Square; 4401 North Fairfax

Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203 (703–358–

1708)

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, and

Transportation.

Regulations Promulgation

Accordingly, part 17 subchapter B of

chapter I, title 50 of the U.S. Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as set

forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by

revising the entry for the ‘‘Crocodile,

saltwater (=estuarine)’’ under ‘‘Reptiles’’

on the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

REPTILES

Crocodile, saltwater

(=estuarine).

Crocodylus porosus South Asia, Australia, Papua New

Guinea, Pacific Islands.

Entire, except

Papua New Guinea and Australia.

E 87ll NA NA

Do...... ...................... ...... do...... ............... ......do...... ................ Australia...... ............ T 87ll NA 17.42(c)

3. Paragraph (c) of § 17.42 is revised

to read as follows:

§ 17.42 Special rules—reptiles.

* * * * *

(c) Threatened crocodilians. This

paragraph applies to the following

species: Saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus

porosus) originating in Australia (also

referred to as Australian saltwater

crocodile) and Nile crocodile

(Crocodylus niloticus) populations

listed in Appendix II of the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES

or Convention).

(1) Definitions of terms for purposes

of this paragraph (c).

(i) Crocodilian skins means whole or

partial skins, flanks, and bellies

(whether salted, crusted, tanned,

partially tanned, or otherwise

processed).

(ii) Crocodilian parts means meat and

body parts with or without skin

attached (including tails, throats, feet,

and backstrips and other parts), except

skulls.

(iii) Country of re-export means those

intermediary countries that import and

re-export crocodilian skins, parts, and/

or products, except that those countries

through which crocodilian skins, parts,

and/or products are transhipped while

remaining under Customs control will

not be considered to be a country of reexport.

(iv) Tagging resolution shall mean the

CITES resolution entitled ‘‘Universal

Tagging System for the Identification of

Crocodilian Skins’’ and numbered Conf.

9.22 and any subsequent revisions.

(2) Prohibitions. All provisions of

§ 17.31 (a) and (b) and § 17.32 apply to

Nile crocodile populations listed in

Appendix I of CITES. The following

prohibitions apply to saltwater

crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus)

originating in Australia and to all Nile

crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus)

populations in Appendix II of CITES:

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

Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3)

of this section, it is unlawful to import,

export, re-export, or present for export

or re-export any Nile crocodile

(Crocodylus niloticus) or Australian

saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus

porosus) or their skins, other parts or

products, without valid permits

required under 50 CFR parts 17 and 23.

(ii) Commercial activity. Except as

provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this

section, it is unlawful, in the course of

a commercial activity, to sell or offer for

sale, deliver, receive, carry, transport, or

ship in interstate or foreign commerce

any Nile or saltwater crocodile,

crocodilian skins, or other parts or

products.

(iii) It is unlawful for any person

subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States to commit, attempt to commit,

solicit to commit, or cause to be

committed any acts described in

paragraphs (c)(2)(i)–(iii) of this section.

(3) Exceptions. The import, export, or

re-export of, or interstate or foreign

commerce in live crocodiles,

crocodilian skins, meat, skulls, and

other parts or products may be allowed

without a threatened species permit

issued pursuant to 50 CFR 17.32 when

the provisions in 50 CFR parts 13, 14,

and 23, and the applicable paragraphs

set out below have been met.

(i) Import, export, or re-export of

crocodilian skins and parts. The import,

export, or re-export into/from the

United States of crocodilian skins and

parts of Nile crocodiles listed in

Appendix II of the Convention, and of

saltwater crocodiles originating in

Australia must meet the following

conditions:

(A) All crocodilian parts must be in a

transparent, sealed container, and each

container imported into or presented for

export or re-export from the United

States after July 24, 1997,

(1) Must have a parts tag attached in

such a way that opening of the container

will preclude reuse of an undamaged

tag,

(2) This parts tag must contain a

description of the contents and total

weight of the container, and

(3) This parts tag must reference the

number of the CITES permit issued to

allow the export or re-export of the

container;

(B) Each crocodilian skin and each

belly skin piece wider than 35 cm.

imported into or presented for export or
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32367

re-export from the United States after

July 24, 1996, must bear: either an

intact, uncut tag from the country of

origin meeting all the requirements of

the CITES tagging resolution, or an

intact, uncut tag from the country of reexport where the original tags have been

lost or removed from raw, tanned, and/

or finished skins. The replacement tags

must meet all the requirements of the

CITES tagging resolution, except

showing the country of re-export in

place of the country of origin, provided

those re-exporting countries have

implemented an administrative system

for the effective matching of imports

and re-exports consistent with the

tagging resolution. Clearance of any

shipment with more than 25 percent

replacement tags requires prior

consultation with the U.S. Office of

Management Authority by the reexporting country to determine whether

the requirements of the tagging

resolution have been observed;

(C) The same information that is on

the tags must be given on the export

permit for all skins or re-export

certificate for whole skins and belly skin

pieces wider than 35 cm or on a

separate sheet, which will be considered

an integral part of the document, carry

the same permit or certificate number,

and be validated by the government

authority designated by the CITESdocument issuing authority;

(D) The Convention permit or

certificate must contain the following

information:

(1) the country of origin, its export

permit number, and date of issuance;

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

of issuance; and

(3) if applicable, the country of last reexport, its certificate number, and date

of issuance;

(E) The country of origin and any

intermediary country(s) must be

effectively implementing the tagging

resolution for this exception to apply. If

the Service receives substantial

evidence from the CITES Secretariat or

other reliable sources that the tagging

resolution is not being effectively

implemented by a specific country, the

Service will prohibit or restrict imports

from such country(s) as appropriate for

the conservation of the species.

(F) At the time of import, for each

shipment covered by this exception, the

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

particular shipment is not subject to a

Schedule III Notice of Information

pertaining to all wildlife or any

members of the Order Crocodylia that

may prohibit or restrict imports. A

listing of all countries that are subject to

such a Schedule III Notice of

Information will be available by writing:

The Office of Management Authority,

ARLSQ Room 430, 4401 N. Fairfax

Drive, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Arlington, Virginia, 22203.

(ii) Import, export or re-export of

crocodilian products. Import, export, or

re-export into or from the United States

of crocodilian products of Nile

crocodiles listed in Appendix II of the

Convention, and saltwater crocodiles

originating in Australia will be allowed

without permits required by 50 CFR part

17 provided the following conditions

are met:

(A) The Convention permit or

certificate must contain the following

information:

(1) the country of origin, its export

permit number, and date of issuance;

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

of issuance; and

(3) if applicable, the country of

previous re-export, its certificate

number, and date of issuance;

(B) The country of origin and any

intermediary country(s) must be

effectively implementing the tagging

resolution for this exception to apply. If

the Service receives substantial

evidence from the CITES Secretariat or

other reliable sources that the tagging

resolution is not being effectively

implemented by a specific country, the

Service will prohibit or restrict imports

from such countries as appropriate for

the conservation of the species.

(C) At the time of import, for each

shipment covered by this exception, the

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

particular shipment is not subject to a

Schedule III Notice of Information

pertaining to all wildlife or any member

of the Order Crocodylia that may

prohibit or restrict imports. A listing of

all countries that are subject to such a

Schedule III Notice of Information will

be available by writing: The Office of

Management Authority, ARLSQ Room

430, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Arlington,

Virginia, 22203.

(iii) Shipments of eggs, skulls, meat,

scientific specimens and live specimens.

The import/re-export into/from the

United States of eggs, skulls, meat,

scientific specimens and live specimens

of Nile crocodile populations listed in

Appendix II of CITES or Australian

saltwater crocodile will be allowed

without permits otherwise required by

50 CFR part 17, provided the

requirements of part 23 are met.

(iv) Noncommercial accompanying

baggage. The conditions of paragraphs

(c)(3)(i) and (ii) for skins tagged in

accordance with the tagging resolution,

skulls, meat, other parts, and products

made of specimens of Nile crocodile

populations on CITES Appendix II or of

Australian saltwater crocodile do not

apply to noncommercial accompanying

personal baggage or household effects.

(v) Personal sport-hunted trophies.

The import of personal sport-hunted

trophies, including skulls, of Nile

crocodile or saltwater crocodile from

Appendix II populations will be

allowed from country of origin and

intermediary countries into the United

States without permits required by 50

CFR part 17, provided that unmounted

skins bear an intact, uncut tag from the

country of origin or such a tag

accompanies mounted specimens in

accordance with the tagging resolution.

(4) Notice of Information. Except in

rare cases involving extenuating

circumstances that do not adversely

affect the conservation of the species,

the Service will issue a Schedule III

Notice of Information banning or

restricting trade in specimens of

crocodilians addressed in this paragraph

(c) if any of the following criteria are

met:

(i) The country is listed in a

Notification to the Parties by the CITES

Secretariat as lacking designated

Management and Scientific Authorities

that issue CITES documents or their

equivalent.

(ii) The country is identified in any

action adopted by the Parties to the

Convention, the Convention’s Standing

Committee, or in a Notification issued

by the CITES Secretariat, whereby

Parties are asked to not accept

shipments of specimens of CITES-listed

Species from the country in question.

(iii) The Service determines, based on

information from the CITES Secretariat

or other reliable sources that the country

is not effectively implementing the

tagging resolution.

Dated: March 18, 1996.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary For Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

[FR Doc. 96–15790 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P