96-15790. 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

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32356-32367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15790]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
Sec. 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 [phone]. 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 32358]]

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. Over-exploitation 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-in-captivity 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.

[[Page 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 over-exploitation 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

[[Page 32360]]

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 re-exported, 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 32362]]

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 CITES-comparable 
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

[[Page 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 two-letter 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 re-export. 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 re-exporting permit for products. However, 
the special rule provides for possible prohibition of imports from any 
re-exporting 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 re-exports 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

[[Page 32364]]

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 similar-appearing 
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-year-old 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 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 Sec. 17.32 unless a special rule applicable to the 
wildlife (appearing in Secs. 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 Sec. 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.

[[Page 32366]]

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:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                     Vertebrate                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------                         population where                                 Critical     Special  
                                                            Historic range        endangered or         Status     When listed    habitat       rules   
           Common name                Scientific name                               threatened                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Reptiles                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
Crocodile, saltwater (=estuarine)  Crocodylus porosus..  South Asia,           Entire, except       E                   87____           NA           NA
                                                          Australia, Papua      Papua New Guinea                                                        
                                                          New Guinea, Pacific   and Australia.                                                          
                                                          Islands.                                                                                      
Do...............................  ...... do...........  ......do............  Australia..........  T                   87____           NA     17.42(c)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Paragraph (c) of Sec. 17.42 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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 re-export.
    (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 Sec. 17.31 (a) and (b) and 
Sec. 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

[[Page 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 re-export 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 re-
exporting 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 CITES-document 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 re-export, its certificate number, 
and date of issuance; and
    (3) if applicable, the country of last re-export, 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 re-export 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 re-export, 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 re-export 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