Revision of Regulations Implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 48402-48494 [07-3960]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 163 (Thursday, August 23, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48402-48494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3960]



[[Page 48401]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Parts 10, 13, 17, and 23



Revision of Regulations for the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 163 / Thursday, August 23, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 48402]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 10, 13, 17, and 23

RIN 1018-AD87


Revision of Regulations Implementing the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this final rule, we, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 
revise the regulations that implement the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a treaty 
that regulates international trade in certain protected species. CITES 
uses a system of permits and certificates to help ensure that 
international trade is legal and does not threaten the survival of 
wildlife or plant species in the wild. In this final rule, we have 
retained most of the general information in the current 50 CFR part 23, 
but reorganized the sections and added provisions from certain 
applicable resolutions and decisions adopted by the CITES Conference of 
the Parties (CoP) at its second through thirteenth meetings (CoP2 - 
CoP13). The revised regulations will help us more effectively promote 
species conservation, continue to fulfill our responsibilities under 
the Treaty, and help those affected by CITES to understand how to 
conduct lawful international trade in CITES species.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 24, 2007. Incorporation 
by reference of CITES's Guidelines for transport and preparation for 
shipment of live wild animals and plants and the International Air 
Transport Association Live Animals Regulations listed in this rule is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 24, 
2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Division of Management 
Authority, Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 
700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; telephone, (703) 358-2093; fax, (703) 
358-2280; or email, managementauthority@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Acronyms and Abbreviations Are Used in This Rule?

AECA African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201-4245)
APHIS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service
ATA A combination of the French and English words ``Admission 
temporaire/Temporary Admission'' used in the name of a type of 
international customs document, the ATA carnet
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 
Wild Fauna and Flora, also referred to as the Convention or Treaty
CBP Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CoP Conference of the Parties or a meeting of the Conference of the 
Parties
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.)
FOIA Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552)
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
IATA LAR International Air Transport Association Live Animals 
Regulations
ISO International Organization for Standardization
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
WBCA Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.)

Background

    CITES was negotiated in 1973 in Washington, DC, at a conference 
attended by delegations from 80 countries. The United States ratified 
the Treaty on September 13, 1973, and it entered into force on July 1, 
1975, after the required 10 countries had ratified it. Section 8A of 
the ESA, as amended in 1982, designates the Secretary of the Interior 
as the U.S. Management Authority and U.S. Scientific Authority for 
CITES. These authorities have been delegated to the FWS. The U.S. 
regulations implementing CITES took effect on May 23, 1977 (42 FR 
10465, February 22, 1977), after the first CoP was held. The CoP meets 
every 2 to 3 years to vote on proposed resolutions and decisions that 
interpret and implement the text of the Treaty and on amendments to the 
listing of species in the CITES Appendices. Currently 171 countries 
have ratified, accepted, approved, or acceded to CITES; these countries 
are known as Parties.
    Proposed rule and comments received: We published a proposed rule 
on April 19, 2006 (71 FR 20167), to revise the regulations that 
implement CITES. We accepted public comments on the proposed rule for 
60 days, until June 19, 2006. In response to several requests from the 
public, we reopened the public comment period for an additional 30 days 
on June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36742). The 2006 proposed rule was a reproposal 
of revisions proposed on May 8, 2000 (65 FR 26664), which were not 
finalized. We summarized and addressed comments received on the 2000 
proposal in the 2006 proposed rule. Please refer to the preamble to the 
April 19, 2006, proposed rule for a discussion of those comments.
    We received 344 letters in response to the 2006 proposed rule (71 
FR 20167). We received comments from individuals, organizations, and 
State natural resource agencies. Of the comments we received, 240 
letters were from Bengal cat enthusiasts and breeders, 33 were from 
State natural resource agencies and regional associations, 21 were from 
falconers and falconer organizations, and 13 were from fur trapper 
organizations.
    Resolution consolidation and incorporation: Since 1976, the Parties 
have adopted 256 resolutions or revisions to resolutions. In 1994, the 
Parties began an effort to consolidate some of these resolutions. Some 
resolutions were no longer relevant, and others needed to be combined 
because several resolutions were adopted at different CoPs on the same 
or similar subjects. As a result of this process, there are currently 
78 resolutions in effect. This rule incorporates certain of these 
consolidated resolutions, as appropriate and relevant to U.S. 
implementation of the Treaty. We cite the current numbers of 
resolutions since previous resolutions have been renumbered. This 
allows the reader to easily access the documents currently in effect on 
the CITES website (https://www.cites.org).
    Stricter national measures: Article XIV of the Treaty explicitly 
recognizes the rights of Parties to adopt stricter national measures to 
restrict or prohibit trade, taking, possession, or transport of any 
wildlife or plant species. Resolution Conf. 11.3 (Rev. CoP13) 
recommends that Parties make use of stricter national measures if they 
have determined ``that an Appendix-II or -III species is being traded 
in a manner detrimental to the survival of that species'' or is being 
``traded in contravention of the laws of any country involved in the 
transaction.'' The United States has adopted stricter national 
measures, such as the ESA, Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 
1361-1407), and Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371-3378).
    As outlined in the preamble to CITES, ``peoples and States are and 
should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora.'' 
CITES recognizes the sovereign right of a country to regulate trade by 
passing stricter national measures to help in the conservation of 
species. Under CITES, an exporting country does not have a sovereign 
right to override an importing country's laws. When a Party sends 
information to the Secretariat on how its stricter national measures 
will affect trade in CITES

[[Page 48403]]

species, the Secretariat provides that information to other Parties 
through a notification. These notifications are available to the public 
on the CITES website (see Sec.  23.7).
    Plain language: We used plain language in writing these regulations 
to make them clearer and easier to use. We believe the regulations use 
an appropriate level of language to lay out the technical requirements 
of a multilateral treaty.
    General comments: A number of commenters commended us for revising 
the U.S. CITES implementing regulations and also provided comments on 
specific sections of the 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 20167). We have 
addressed comments specific to a particular section in the appropriate 
section of this preamble. One State agricultural agency noted that, for 
the aquaculture industry in that State, our changes will help simplify 
and clarify the documentation process for dealing with CITES species.
    One commenter expressed general opposition to international trade 
in wildlife. We appreciate the comment, but we will not address it here 
as it is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    Another commenter suggested changes to specific clearance 
procedures at a port of entry. Those comments were outside the scope of 
this rule, and we encourage the commenter to provide input when the FWS 
proposes changes to 50 CFR part 14, which includes the specific 
clearance procedures pertaining to the import, export, and transport of 
wildlife.
    One commenter asked that we establish a ``compliance service'' 
where individuals could receive assistance in filling out and filing 
the required forms and documents. The commenter noted that the IRS 
provides such a service and that we should do the same. We believe that 
such assistance already exists on our website, where we provide 
information to guide applicants through the required agency permits, 
answer frequently asked questions, and direct them to the relevant 
offices for specific information. In addition, applicants can request 
information and permit application forms from the U.S. Management 
Authority and wildlife inspection offices. See Sec.  23.7 for contact 
information.
    One commenter argued that all applications for trade in Appendix-I 
and -II species should be subject to public notice and review. We 
disagree. Most of the applications we receive involve commonly traded 
Appendix-II species. As outlined in this rule, the FWS has established 
specific procedures for making the required determinations under CITES. 
We do not believe that requesting public comments on all applications 
involving CITES species would provide a greater level of insight or 
provide information that is not already available to us.
    One commenter recommended adding a provision that would allow for 
disclosures to be made without penalty and offered the example of 
identifying merchandise that should have been declared but was not 
discovered until after the shipment was imported. We did not accept 
this recommendation because we believe such a provision would undermine 
our enforcement efforts and our obligations under CITES. We treat 
specimens traded contrary to CITES the same as other forms of illegally 
acquired goods. A specimen that has been traded contrary to CITES 
becomes contraband at the time it enters the jurisdiction of the United 
States.
    One commenter argued that the regulations should allow for 
electronic submission of CITES information and payment of permitting 
fees. We recognize the need to keep pace with technology and are 
actively pursuing an electronic interface in partnership with other 
Federal agencies to streamline CITES procedures for the trade 
community. We are also working on an electronic permitting system that 
would allow submission of applications for CITES documents and 
applicable fees. Nothing in these regulations would prevent us from 
allowing electronic submission when we have the technology in place.

Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following parts of the preamble explain the final rule, discuss 
the substantive issues of sections for which we received comments, 
outline significant changes from the 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 20167), 
and provide responses to public comments.

What Are the Changes to 50 CFR Parts 10, 13, and 17?

    Definitions (Sec.  10.12): We provide a definition of the United 
States to correctly reflect areas under U.S. jurisdiction. One 
commenter suggested that the term United States be replaced with 
regulated territory because of potential confusion due to more common 
meanings of the term. United States is the term consistently used in 
conservation statutes administered by the FWS to define the 
jurisdictional scope of the statute. We believe that consistency 
between the term used in these regulations and the term used by 
Congress will reduce, not increase, confusion.
    Application procedures (Sec.  13.11): As noted in our final rule on 
FWS permit fees (70 FR 18311), we will not charge a fee to any Federal, 
tribal, State, or local government agency. Therefore, we will not 
charge a fee to a State or Tribe seeking to gain approval of a CITES 
export program. We also will not charge a fee to add an institution to 
the Plant Rescue Center Program because this is a voluntary program 
designed to place live plant specimens that have been confiscated upon 
import or export, and thereby helps the United States fulfill its CITES 
implementing responsibilities.
    Thirty-five commenters, representing individual State natural 
resource agencies, State natural resource agency organizations, and 
trapper organizations, supported not requiring application fees to 
establish a CITES export program. One commenter opposed our decision 
not to charge a fee to government agencies seeking approval of a CITES 
export program. It is our longstanding policy not to charge a fee to 
Federal, tribal, State, or local governments. Another commenter stated 
that fees should be raised to reflect the actual value of the wildlife 
specimen in trade and that no applicant should be exempt from paying an 
application fee. Thirteen trapper organizations did not agree that 
small-scale trappers should be charged permit application fees. In 
addition, one commenter argued that publicly supported, nonprofit 
conservation organizations should be exempt from any application fees. 
The FWS fee structure is based on the nature of the activities being 
permitted, as well as the level of complexity and the time required to 
process applications and maintain active permit files. For further 
discussion of our application fees see 70 FR 18311, April 11, 2005.
    U.S. address for permit applicants (Sec.  13.12): This section 
requires an applicant to provide an address within the United States 
when applying for a permit. In a number of situations, a business or an 
individual in a foreign country may request a CITES document from us 
for a shipment the entity owns but is shipping out of the United 
States. We cannot issue the CITES document showing the exporter's 
foreign address for items that are leaving the United States. Foreign 
visitors who are requesting a CITES document may provide a temporary 
address, such as a hotel, since they do not permanently reside within 
the United States.
    For commercial activities conducted by applicants who reside or are 
located outside of the United States, the name and address of the 
commercial entity's agent in the United States must be included. We 
consider any transaction

[[Page 48404]]

involving a seller and a buyer, or any retail or wholesale transaction 
that provides a valuable consideration in exchange for the transfer of 
a wildlife or plant specimen as a commercial activity. However, we do 
not consider a hunter who exports his or her personal sport-hunted 
trophy to be involved in a commercial activity under this section.
    Two commenters agreed with these requirements, but one of them 
suggested that, for non-resident applicants who could only provide a 
temporary address, we should also require their permanent address in 
their country of residence, as well as a permanent U.S. address of an 
agent or attorney. We require a permanent U.S. address for the 
applicant's agent for commercial transactions. We do not require a 
foreign address for noncommercial transactions. However, most 
noncommercial transactions carried out by non-U.S. residents consist of 
personal effects or personally hunted trophies that are being sent to 
the individual's home, and the applicant's foreign address is typically 
included on the application.
    One commenter asked that we clarify that the U.S. address does not 
need to be a domiciliary address or residence. For U.S. residents who 
are applying as individual applicants, the address they provide must be 
the physical address of their residence. In some cases, however, for 
permits for personal or household effects being held in the United 
States pending issuance of a permit, the U.S. address may be a 
relative, the storage facility, or the agent. For organizations or 
companies applying for a permit, we require the company's physical 
address where the records regarding the application are maintained.
    One commenter recommended that the requirements of 50 CFR 13.12 be 
brought into compliance with CBP's Filing Identification Number (FIN) 
(19 CFR 24.5). We did not accept this suggestion. The CBP Filing 
Identification Number is associated with account-based import 
activities specific to the importing requirements of CBP. The 
application process carried out by the FWS is a transactional-based 
activity that requires the identification of both companies and 
individuals. In addition, we do not have access to CBP's database that 
contains the FIN data, and therefore we could not utilize the system on 
a daily basis, as would be required to carry out our permitting 
process.
    Continuation of permitted activity during renewal (Sec.  13.22(c)): 
This paragraph sets out the general permit procedures that allow 
continuation of the permitted activity after the submission of an 
application for renewal. The regulations in 50 CFR part 13 follow the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 558(c)). We received one comment 
suggesting that all businesses should be required to renew permits 
before they expire. For an activity of a continuing nature, when a 
permittee has made timely and sufficient application for renewal of a 
permit, the permit does not expire until the agency has made a final 
determination on the application.
    CITES documents, however, do not cover an activity of a continuing 
nature and are considered void upon expiration. This section clarifies 
that a permittee may not use a CITES document once it has expired. For 
other permits of a continuing nature, however, we have retained the 
process that allows the permittee to conduct permitted activities 
during renewal if the conditions outlined in 50 CFR part 13 are met. 
One commenter supported this approach. Another commenter thought we 
should allow an extension of the period of validity of CITES documents 
after they have expired, while the renewal process is underway. The 
commenter did not believe that the Treaty or current resolutions 
support our policy not to allow extensions. We disagree. Article VI of 
the Treaty and Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP13) provide specific 
periods of validity for most permits and certificates. In addition, 
Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP13) states that, once a CITES document 
has expired, the permit or certificate is void. While the resolution 
does not address a period of validity for all of the certificates 
discussed, for consistency, we have established specific periods of 
validity for each type of CITES document (see Sec.  23.54). CITES 
documents that have not been used may be reissued. However, permittees 
must contact us prior to the expiration date, return the unused permit, 
and give us sufficient time to review the reissuance request and issue 
a new permit or certificate.
    Maintenance of records (Sec.  13.46): Permittees are required to 
maintain records. However, our authority to inspect records is limited 
to areas within the United States. Therefore, to ensure that we are 
able to carry out our responsibility to inspect records when necessary, 
Sec.  13.46 outlines the requirement that permittees who reside or are 
located in the United States, as well as permittees who reside or are 
located outside the United States but are conducting commercial 
activities within the United States, maintain records in this country. 
We received 31 comments in support of this change. One of these 
commenters also recommended that we establish a timeframe during which 
permittees must maintain records. A timeframe of 5 years is already 
codified in Sec.  13.46. However, as discussed under Sec.  23.34, since 
we must make specific findings based on information provided primarily 
by an applicant, it may be advisable to maintain records for longer 
than 5 years in some cases (see discussion on Sec.  23.34).
    Import exemption for threatened, Appendix-II wildlife (Sec.  17.8): 
This section puts into regulation the exemption under the ESA, section 
9(c)(2), for import of CITES Appendix-II wildlife that is also 
classified as threatened under the ESA, when the taking and export meet 
the provisions of CITES and the import is not made in the course of a 
commercial activity. This ESA provision only exempts the import 
prohibitions; it does not exempt acquisition in foreign commerce in the 
course of a commercial activity. Therefore, we require both the 
acquisition and import to be noncommercial because we consider any 
transfer of a specimen in pursuit of gain or profit to be a commercial 
activity. Thus, a person who is importing a specimen under this 
provision must provide documentation to the FWS at the time of import 
that shows the specimen was not acquired in foreign commerce in the 
course of a commercial activity. This exemption does not apply to 
species that have a special rule in 50 CFR part 17.
    Two commenters voiced their support for this section. Another 
commenter argued that the exemption for certain threatened species that 
are also listed in Appendix II is inconsistent with the ESA. As we 
discussed in the 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 20167), Congress provided 
this exemption, and we believe that this section accurately implements 
it.
    One commenter suggested that we add a definition of ``in the course 
of a commercial activity.'' As noted by the commenter, commercial 
activity is defined in section 3 of the ESA. Therefore, we do not 
believe it is necessary to define the full term ``in the course of a 
commercial activity.''
    This same commenter suggested that a purchase for scientific use, 
such as an acquisition by a museum, should be covered by the exemption 
under 17.8(b) and that the exemption should apply to any specimen used 
for science as long as the collection and sale are legal in the country 
of origin. We disagree. The exemption under section 9(c)(2) of the ESA 
applies only if the importation is not made in the course of a 
commercial activity, regardless of who is commercializing the specimen. 
Many imports for scientific use are likely to meet the exemption, but 
the purchase of

[[Page 48405]]

a specimen for scientific use is likely to qualify as commercial and 
thus require issuance of an ESA permit prior to importation.
    Two commenters asserted that the requirement for documentation is 
overly broad and suggested that the FWS describe the type of 
documentation that would be acceptable. Because of the wide variety of 
imports that may qualify, and to provide flexibility to the importer, 
we did not list what form of documentation would be required. We will 
accept any documentation from the importer regarding the acquisition of 
the specimen that shows that it was not acquired in foreign commerce in 
the course of commercial activity. Such documentation may include, for 
example: proof of a personal sport hunt, documents related to museum or 
zoological exchange, inheritance documents, or scientific collecting 
permits.
    One commenter stated that requiring such documentation violates the 
exemption under section 9(c)(2) of the ESA. We agree that the exemption 
allows a qualifying specimen to be imported into the United States 
without first having obtained an ESA import permit, but it remains the 
burden of the importers to show that they qualify for the exemption, 
including by obtaining and presenting all required CITES documentation, 
fulfilling all document requirements under section 9(d), (e), and (f), 
and showing that the importation is not being made in the course of a 
commercial activity.
    One commenter argued that the exemption should only apply when the 
importer can prove that both the acquisition of the specimen and the 
importation are noncommercial. We agree, and we require the importer to 
meet both criteria in Sec.  17.8(b)(1). In Sec.  17.8(b)(5), we 
specifically require documentation showing that the specimen was not 
acquired in foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity. 
Importers of any wildlife specimens, whether CITES specimens or not, 
must show the purpose of import under general government importation 
requirements. We are able to determine from this documentation whether 
the import is in the course of a commercial activity. However, 
documentation showing the specimen was not acquired in foreign commerce 
does not typically accompany a shipment. Therefore, we specifically 
require that such documentation be provided to us.
    Special rule for threatened crocodilians (Sec.  17.42(c)): In 
accordance with this special rule, we allow meat of saltwater 
crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) originating in Australia and of 
Appendix-II Nile crocodiles (C. niloticus) to be traded without tags, 
and we clarify that this includes all forms of meat. We do not believe 
that international trade in crocodilian meat poses a significant 
conservation risk, but we note that CITES documents still would be 
required for any meat shipments. The special rule prohibits import into 
the United States of live specimens and viable eggs of any threatened 
crocodilians without an ESA import permit.
    One commenter disagreed with our assertion that international trade 
in meat of saltwater crocodiles originating in Australia and Appendix-
II Nile crocodiles poses no significant conservation risk and could 
therefore be traded without tags. We note that the crocodilian product 
most common in international trade is skin and U.S. import data for 
2002 - 2005 show no imports of saltwater or Nile crocodile meat. 
Therefore, we continue to believe that this type of trade does not pose 
a significant conservation threat. In addition, there is no CITES 
requirement for tagging of crocodilian meat.
    The special rule includes reporting requirements for range 
countries. In our final yacare caiman (Caiman yacare) rule published on 
May 4, 2000 (65 FR 25867), we noted that the FWS depends primarily on 
range countries to monitor yacare caiman. To assist us in monitoring 
the status of yacare caiman, we require that the governments of range 
countries wishing to export specimens to the United States for 
commercial purposes provide a report every 2 years that includes the 
most recent information available on the status of the species. This 
information assists us in determining the current conservation status 
of the species and is used to determine if the species is recovering 
and may warrant delisting. We also have a section describing conditions 
under which trade restrictions can be applied to the import of yacare 
caiman from range countries, including the failure to submit the 
reports or failure to respond to requests for additional information.
    Three commenters supported amendments to the special rule regarding 
reporting requirements for range countries of the yacare caiman in 
Sec.  17.42(c). They urged us to include similar reporting requirements 
if additional crocodilian species are reclassified as threatened under 
the ESA and are included in the special rule. We will consider 
monitoring and reporting requirements for other crocodilians on a case-
by-case basis, because the conservation needs may vary by species or 
population.
    One commenter argued that we should require yacare caiman 
monitoring data to be submitted annually instead of biennially and 
should expand the list of the types of monitoring data required. We 
believe that the final rule to reclassify the yacare caiman (65 FR 
25867, May 4, 2000) adequately justifies reporting requirements for 
range countries of the species.

What Are the Changes to Subpart A of 50 CFR Part 23--Introduction?

    This subpart describes our responsibilities under CITES.
    Scope (Sec.  23.2): This section consists of a table with a series 
of questions and answers to help people determine if CITES regulations 
apply to their proposed activities. Decisions involve whether a 
specimen is listed under CITES, is exempt from CITES, is involved in a 
type of international trade regulated by CITES, and was illegally 
acquired or traded in contravention of CITES.
    The possession and domestic trade of legal specimens are not 
regulated by CITES unless the specimens had been traded internationally 
under specific conditions of a CITES document and the conditions still 
apply. The possession and domestic or international trade of illegally 
imported specimens, however, are prohibited. Further, any possession of 
offspring of illegal specimens is also considered illegal. A specimen 
that has been traded contrary to CITES becomes contraband at the time 
it enters the jurisdiction of the United States. If such a specimen 
makes its way into the United States, the individual or business 
holding or having control of the specimen has no custodial or property 
rights to the specimen and, therefore, no right to possess, transfer, 
breed, or propagate such specimens. Further, we clarify that intrastate 
or interstate movement of specimens traded contrary to CITES involves 
possession of unlawfully traded specimens and is, therefore, 
prohibited. We note that these prohibitions are not new with this final 
rule. The regulatory requirements for CITES specimens, including 
possession, have been in place since 1977, and the statutory 
prohibition has been in effect since July 1975.
    More than 25 State fish and wildlife resource management agencies 
and regional fish and wildlife agency associations endorsed our 
inclusion of a series of questions to assist the regulated community in 
determining when CITES applies to a proposed activity and our 
clarification regarding intrastate and

[[Page 48406]]

interstate movement of specimens traded contrary to CITES.
    One commenter expressed support for the provision making the 
possession of and trade in illegally acquired specimens and their 
offspring illegal and encouraged us to specify that requirement in more 
detail in the regulation. However, another commenter expressed concern 
regarding our position on the possession of and trade in offspring of 
illegally imported specimens. The commenter also was concerned about 
the possible harm to offspring caused by shipping them back to the 
country of origin. We continue to maintain that any possession of 
offspring of illegal specimens is considered illegal, and we will take 
appropriate action when we become aware of such situations. However, we 
consider the health and well being of a live specimen that has been 
confiscated or forfeited to us in determining whether to place it in a 
facility in the United States or return it to the country of origin.
    Other applicable regulations (Sec.  23.3): In this section we 
reference applicable regulations in other parts of subchapter B and 
title 50, since many CITES species are covered by one or more other 
laws. We also notify the public about the possible application of 
State, tribal, and local regulations. More than 25 State fish and 
wildlife resource management agencies and regional fish and wildlife 
agency associations endorsed the addition of a new paragraph notifying 
the regulated community of the additional requirement for complying 
with State, tribal, and local requirements when engaging in activities 
with CITES species.
    Under Article XIV(1)(a) of the Treaty, each Party retains the right 
to adopt stricter national measures that regulate or prohibit the 
import, export, taking, possession, or transport of CITES species. More 
restrictive State or local laws that regulate or prohibit the import, 
export, or re-export of such species, or their parts, products, or 
derivatives, must be observed for CITES species that are not listed 
under the ESA. See H.J. Justin & Sons, Inc. v. Deukmejian, 702 F.2d 758 
(9th Cir. 1983), cert denied, 464 U.S. 823. However, in instances where 
a CITES species is also listed as endangered or threatened under the 
ESA, any State or local law that would effectively prohibit the import 
or export of, or interstate or foreign commerce in, specimens of such 
species is void to the extent that such trade is authorized under the 
ESA, its implementing regulations, or any ESA permit or exemption. See 
16 U.S.C. 1535(f); Man Hing Ivory & Imports, Inc. v. Deukmejian, 702 
F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1983). One commenter disagreed with this assertion 
and stated that it is contrary to the standard rules regarding the 
relationship between State and Federal laws. Our statement reflects the 
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 
the referenced case, which held that section 6(f) of the ESA, together 
with an FWS regulation on African elephants (Loxodonta africana), 
preempted a State prohibition on trade in African elephant products by 
a trader who had secured all necessary Federal permits.
    Definitions (Sec.  23.5): Whenever possible we define terms using 
the wording of the Treaty and the resolutions. Most defined terms are 
included in this section, but some less frequently used terms are 
defined in the section in which they are used.
    Definition of ``applicant'': Although one commenter believed that 
we should define the term applicant here to be only a person who owns 
the specimen(s) subject to trade, we have not defined applicant in this 
part because the general permit regulations in 50 CFR 13.1 provide 
sufficient guidance. An applicant must have a valid connection to the 
transaction and be the person who is responsible for meeting the terms 
and conditions of the permit. When a broker, attorney, taxidermist, or 
other person applies for a permit on behalf of the owner of the 
specimen, he or she must establish a connection to the transaction 
through a contract or power of attorney and, along with the person 
represented, becomes the party responsible for meeting the terms and 
conditions of the permit.
    Definitions of ``bred for commercial purposes'' and ``bred for 
noncommercial purposes'': We defined these two terms as they relate to 
the export and re-export of Appendix-I wildlife specimens. These 
definitions are the result of in-depth discussions by the Parties over 
the registration of commercial breeding facilities, which resulted in 
the adoption of Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP13). The Treaty 
provides in Article VII(4) that specimens of Appendix-I species bred in 
captivity for commercial purposes shall be deemed to be specimens of 
species included in Appendix II (see Sec.  23.46). It also provides in 
Article VII(5) that specimens that are bred in captivity may be issued 
an exemption certificate (see Sec.  23.41). Although the Treaty does 
not use the term ``bred for noncommercial purposes'' in paragraph 5, 
the Parties have agreed to use this term as the intended meaning of 
Article VII(5) because Article VII(4) addresses bred for commercial 
purposes. In Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP13), the Parties agreed to 
strict definitions for these two terms. Facilities that are breeding 
for commercial purposes must be registered to export specimens. 
Facilities that are breeding for noncommercial purposes must be 
participating in a cooperative conservation program with one or more of 
the range countries for the species.
    One commenter sought clarification on whether an Appendix-I animal 
bred and raised on a U.S. game ranch, where efforts are being made to 
conserve the species, would constitute a specimen bred for commercial 
purposes. If the game ranch was conducting activities that would 
categorize the facility as commercial (e.g., sale, purchase, or 
exchange of animals resulting in an economic gain), then the animals 
bred on the ranch would be considered bred for commercial purposes. 
This would apply even if the game ranch were carrying out activities 
that benefited the species within its natural range, such as 
participation in a cooperative conservation program.
    One commenter did not understand how any facility breeding 
Appendix-I species could engage in noncommercial breeding activities. 
The commenter believed that, due to the difficulty of distinguishing 
between commercial breeding and noncommercial breeding, the FWS should 
combine the two activities under a single bred-in-captivity definition 
and require that all facilities breeding Appendix-I or -II species 
become registered. We disagree. Since the Treaty does not prohibit or 
control the commercial breeding of Appendix-II species, there is no 
reason to establish a registration process for facilities breeding 
Appendix-II species. We are confident that the application review 
process established for the export of Appendix-II specimens is adequate 
to provide the necessary oversight and control of commercial breeding 
facilities for Appendix-II species. For Appendix-I species, the Treaty 
makes a distinction between commercial and noncommercial breeding, and 
the Parties have enacted resolutions to implement this distinction. 
Consequently, these regulations outline the criteria for determining 
when a breeding activity is commercial versus noncommercial, and 
provide a mechanism to register commercial breeding operations with the 
Secretariat. To eliminate any confusion and underscore the distinction 
between commercial and noncommercial breeding, we have added a sentence 
to the definition of ``bred for commercial purposes'' to clarify that 
any captive-bred Appendix-

[[Page 48407]]

I specimen that does not meet the definition of ``bred for 
noncommercial purposes'' is considered to be bred for commercial 
purposes. For the same reason, we have made a minor amendment to the 
definition of ``bred for noncommercial purposes'' to make it clear that 
to qualify as noncommercial each donation, exchange, or loan of the 
specimen must be noncommercial.
    Definition of ``commercial'': Three commenters argued that the 
definition of commercial is too broad and that it is inconsistent with 
the definition of commercial activity in the ESA, which implements the 
Convention. We disagree. The new regulatory definition is consistent 
with the term defined in the ESA. The Convention regulates trade in 
listed species, and commercial activity under the ESA relates to ``all 
activities of industry and trade, including, but not limited to, the 
buying or selling of commodities and activities conducted for the 
purpose of facilitating such buying and selling.'' The definition of 
commercial in Sec.  23.5 is also consistent with CITES Resolution Conf. 
5.10, which explains that an activity should be considered commercial 
if its purpose is to obtain an economic benefit, including profit, and 
is directed toward resale, exchange, provision of a service, or other 
form of economic use or benefit. The definition is also consistent with 
the use of the term in Resolution Conf. 12.10. All CITES resolutions 
that address commercializing a specimen focus on use of the specimen in 
a manner that results in economic benefit.
    A number of commenters provided specific examples of transactions 
that they thought should qualify as noncommercial, such as purchase of 
a specimen for scientific purposes at a yard sale or estate sale; 
purchase from a person who is not a collector; or sale by a museum. 
Determination of whether a specific use qualifies as commercial or 
noncommercial must be made on a case-by-case basis taking into 
consideration all of the facts and circumstances. However, we note 
that, consistent with Resolution Conf. 5.10, the determination is 
focused on the use of the specimen, not the nature of the transaction. 
Trade may involve the exchange of some funds to compensate a party for 
costs such as care and maintenance of a specimen, storage costs, or 
taxidermy work, which themselves do not necessarily make the trade 
commercial.
    One commenter argued that for trade to be commercial, both parties 
must have commercial interests. We disagree. Economic enrichment can 
result when just the importer or just the exporter is obtaining an 
economic gain or benefit from the trade. The definitions of commercial 
and noncommercial in this part are used to distinguish trade and uses 
of specimens for which commercial uses must be limited from those for 
which commercial uses are not limited. The FWS cannot fulfill its 
treaty responsibilities unless it examines all ways in which a specimen 
can be commercialized.
    One commenter argued that including a donation that is used as a 
tax deduction as commercial in essence amends the Internal Revenue Code 
and asserted that whether something is eligible for a tax deduction is 
not a matter for the FWS to decide. We are not interpreting or amending 
the Internal Revenue Code. We are not describing what may or may not be 
eligible as a charitable contribution, but rather, we are fulfilling 
our responsibility not to authorize uses of certain CITES specimens 
that are primarily commercial in nature. Although we believe that in 
some cases a tax deduction may qualify as an economic gain or benefit, 
we have removed the phrase, ``or tax benefits'' from this definition, 
to eliminate confusion. See also our responses to comments received on 
Sec.  23.55.
    One commenter also challenged that part of the definition that 
applies to the intended, as well as the actual, use of the specimen. 
Determinations under CITES cannot be limited to the current, immediate 
action being taken with the specimen, but may also require 
consideration of subsequent actions that the person intends to take at 
the time of the determination. For example, a person may be personally 
importing a specimen in a manner that at first appears to be 
noncommercial, but if there is evidence to show that the person intends 
to sell the specimen and obtain a profit once the specimen is located 
within the United States,then the purpose is commercial. The definition 
is written to make clear that the FWS looks at all actions that the 
person intends to take involving the specimen, not simply the current, 
most immediate action.
    Definitions of ``household effects'' and ``personal effects'': One 
commenter supported our definitions of household effect and personal 
effect to mean only dead wildlife or plant specimens.
    Definition of ``introduction from the sea'': We define this term 
with the language in Article I(e) of the Treaty. Over the last few 
years, a number of important events have occurred related to 
introduction from the sea. At CoP11 and CoP13, the Parties considered 
proposed resolutions on introduction from the sea and were unable to 
reach consensus on a definition. At CoP12, the Parties agreed to look 
at marine issues, including introduction from the sea, in consultation 
with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 
In May and June of 2004, FAO convened two Expert Consultations to 
consider introduction from the sea and other issues related to marine 
species covered by CITES. At CoP13, the Parties agreed to convene a 
workshop on introduction from the sea, taking into account the work 
done through FAO and the relevant documents and discussions from 
previous CoPs. The workshop was held in November - December 2005. The 
CITES Secretariat has prepared a document on introduction from the sea, 
based on discussions at the workshop, for consideration by the Parties 
at CoP14, to be held in June 2007. We recognize that the Parties may 
decide on an interpretation of introduction from the sea in the future, 
but in the meantime the regulations clarify when the prohibition 
applies, and when and what types of CITES documents are needed for 
international trade.
    One commenter suggested that we adopt the definition of ``the 
marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State'' agreed by 
the 2005 workshop. This definition, although agreed by the workshop, is 
still under discussion in CITES and will be considered by the Parties 
at CoP14. We believe it is likely that changes will be made to the 
definition at the CoP and that it would be premature for us to adopt a 
definition before it has been accepted by the Parties.
    Definition of ``parental stock'': Based on the language in 
Resolution Conf. 9.19 (Rev. CoP13) on nursery registration and 
Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP13) on registration of operations that 
breed Appendix-I wildlife for commercial purposes, we use the term 
``parental stock'' to mean the original breeding or propagating 
specimens that produced subsequent generations of captive or cultivated 
specimens. Two commenters supported our definition.
    Definition of ``precautionary measures'': When there is uncertainty 
regarding the status of a species or the impact of trade on the 
conservation of a species we are cautious and act in the best interest 
of the conservation of the species in making decisions on CITES 
listings and permit findings. We define and use the term 
``precautionary measures'' to describe this approach. While the 
definition is taken from the concept described in Annex 4 of Resolution 
Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13), we use it in these regulations because it 
describes the way we have always

[[Page 48408]]

approached non-detriment findings and species listing decisions when 
there is uncertainty regarding the status of a species or the impact of 
trade on the conservation of a species. The use of precautionary 
measures in these instances is consistent with the intent of the 
Treaty, which is to protect species against over-exploitation. Several 
commenters supported our definition of precautionary measures. One 
asked that we provide additional clarification on what information we 
will use to determine whether or not to issue a permit. Section 23.33 
addresses the process we use when evaluating an application. In 
addition, Sec. Sec.  23.60, 23.61, and 23.62 address the processes for 
making the required findings under CITES. We direct the commenters to 
those sections for more detailed discussion on how we implement the use 
of precautionary measures.
    Definition of ``ranching'': We have not defined this term. At 
CoP13, the Animals and Plants Committees (committees established by the 
Parties to provide technical support to the Parties and to the 
Secretariat) were tasked with looking at production systems, including 
the consideration of source codes, which include ``R'' for ranching. 
This work is still ongoing. One commenter suggested that we develop a 
working definition of ranching until the Parties come to an agreed 
definition. We believe that it would be premature, and result in 
additional confusion, to adopt a definition before the production 
systems discussions are concluded.
    Definition of ``readily recognizable'': We base our definition of 
readily recognizable on Resolution Conf. 9.6 (Rev.). Two commenters 
supported our definition.
    Definition of ``sustainable use'': We define this term as the use 
of a species in a manner and at a level that maintains wild populations 
at biologically viable levels for the long term. It is essentially the 
same definition used in 50 CFR part 15 to implement the WBCA. The 
wording has been slightly edited to be consistent with language used in 
these regulations.
    We believe that sustainable use is the essence of a CITES non-
detriment finding, and these regulations provide a clear, 
scientifically based definition of the term. An exporting country can 
make a finding of non-detriment only if it can show that a given level 
of harvest is consistent with the long-term viability of the species. 
This finding must be based on professionally recognized management 
practices and the best available biological information. The Parties 
adopted Resolution Conf. 12.8 (Rev. CoP13), which provides for review 
of significantly traded species, to ensure that countries exporting 
those species have made the appropriate findings and the export levels 
are sustainable. Countries with species subject to this review must 
demonstrate the scientific basis for the quantity of exports they are 
allowing. (See preamble discussion on non-detriment findings (Sec.  
23.61)). Three commenters supported our definition of sustainable use.
    One commenter believed that it was unnecessary for us to state in 
the preamble to the 2006 proposed rule (71 FR 20167) that sustainable 
use can include adaptive management but that, ``adaptive management 
does not...imply that when there are gaps in information the assumption 
would be that trade would be sustainable.'' Our intent is not to 
minimize the value of adaptive management. However, adaptive management 
is not the only information considered when determining if trade would 
be sustainable. When making non-detriment findings, we will consider 
all relevant biological and trade information (see Sec.  23.61).
    One commenter agreed with us that sustainable use is the essence of 
a CITES non-detriment finding. However, the commenter noted that not 
all permit applications are for activities that have an impact on wild 
populations. We agree and take this into consideration when making non-
detriment findings. Even if a specimen is considered captive bred under 
the Treaty, certain conditions must be met, including that the founder 
stock was acquired legally and in a manner non-detrimental to the 
survival of the species (see Sec. Sec.  23.46, 23.63).
    One commenter stated that certain phrases in our definition could 
be interpreted in multiple ways, and asked us to provide additional 
discussion of several phrases, including ``biologically viable,'' 
``long term,'' and ``role or function in its ecosystem.'' We do not 
believe that these phrases require additional clarification because 
they are concepts that are inherent to conservation and wildlife 
management. Furthermore, they are not defined in the Treaty or in 
resolutions agreed by the Parties. We use these concepts for guidance 
in making non-detriment findings.
    Definition of ``traveling exhibition'': We revised the definition 
of traveling exhibition for clarity, in response to comments received 
(see preamble discussion for Sec.  23.49).
    Management and Scientific Authorities (Sec.  23.6): Under Article 
IX of the Treaty, each Party must designate at least one Management 
Authority and one Scientific Authority. In the United States, the 
Secretary of the Interior is designated as the CITES Management 
Authority and Scientific Authority, and these authorities have been 
delegated by the Secretary and the Director of the FWS to different 
offices within the FWS. This section summarizes the major roles of 
these authorities in the United States. The roles include a wide range 
of activities, such as the issuance and denial of permits; making 
scientific and management findings; monitoring of trade and trade 
impacts; communication with the Secretariat and other countries on 
scientific, administrative, and enforcement issues; and evaluation of 
species' status and trade. Another role is to provide training and 
technical assistance to countries when possible (Resolution Conf. 3.4). 
Although other Federal agencies, as part of a larger federal 
involvement in international affairs, also play a role in CITES 
efforts, for example in communicating with the Secretariat and 
representing the United States at CITES meetings, they are not part of 
the Management Authority or the Scientific Authority for the United 
States.
    A number of State fish and wildlife resource management agencies 
noted that the inclusion of this section summarizing the major roles of 
the Management and Scientific Authorities was very useful to the 
regulated community. Additionally, some of these commenters remarked on 
the need to clarify the process by which a non-Party designates 
competent authorities to fulfill the role of a Management and 
Scientific Authority to engage in international trade in CITES species. 
We decline to make a change in response to this comment because this 
section is intended to outline the roles of a Management Authority and 
a Scientific Authority rather than outline the process by which they 
are designated.
    Contact information (Sec.  23.7): The table in this section 
outlines the type of information available from the U.S. Management 
Authority, U.S. Scientific Authority, the FWS Office of Law 
Enforcement, APHIS, CBP, and the Secretariat, and the different ways 
you can contact each office. APHIS is the contact office for 
information on plant clearance procedures even though the formation of 
CBP split CITES responsibilities for import and export of plants. CBP 
inspects and clears shipments of dead CITES plant materials being 
imported into the United States and live plants being imported from 
Canada at a designated border port. CBP also identifies and regulates 
CITES materials in passenger baggage, including live plants. APHIS

[[Page 48409]]

continues to inspect and clear shipments for the export and re-export 
of live and dead plants, and the import of live plants, except for live 
plants being imported from Canada at a designated border port.
    One commenter noted the absence in this section of the contact 
information for the appropriate office in the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture for live animal clearance procedures. Another commenter 
suggested that we include contact information in this section for APHIS 
Veterinary Services, National Center for Import and Export (NCIE), and 
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) because imports of live wildlife 
and wildlife products may also be regulated by these offices. The 
commenter pointed out that this information would be useful to the 
large number of pet bird owners who travel into and out of the United 
States with their pet birds. Since neither NCIE nor the CDC has direct 
responsibility for the inspection or clearance of shipments of live 
CITES specimens, we have declined to include their contact information 
in this section.
    Information collection (Sec.  23.8): Each information collection, 
including each application form, that we use must be reviewed and 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections 
undergo review every 3 years. This process gives the public an 
opportunity to provide input concerning the amount of time it takes to 
complete the forms and reports and to prepare the information 
requested. One commenter mistakenly thought that our estimate for the 
amount of time it takes to complete an application was an estimate of 
the length of time it takes to obtain a permit.

What Are the Changes to Subpart B of 50 CFR Part 23--Prohibitions, 
Exemptions, and Requirements?

    In this subpart, we detail the activities that are prohibited, 
circumstances when exemptions may apply, and requirements for 
international movement of specimens. CITES uses a system of documents 
to ensure that trade in protected species is legal and does not 
threaten the survival of wildlife or plant species in the wild. The 
Treaty outlines standardized information that must be included on these 
documents, and based on experience in inspecting shipments and 
enforcing CITES, the Parties have adopted a number of resolutions to 
refine the types of information that need to be included on documents 
for Parties and non-Parties.
    Prohibitions (Sec.  23.13): This section implements the 
international trade prohibitions under CITES. We list introduction from 
the sea separately from import to clarify that CITES treats these 
activities differently. We include the phrase ``engage in international 
trade'' in the list of prohibitions to clarify that international trade 
in specimens in violation of these regulations by any person subject to 
U.S. jurisdiction is prohibited even if specimens are not actually 
imported into or exported from the United States.
    The regulatory language is derived from the language in section 
9(c)(1) of the ESA, which makes it unlawful for any person subject to 
the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in trade contrary to 
the provisions of CITES. The ESA does not limit this prohibition to 
import into or export from the United States, but further requires U.S. 
citizens, and others subject to U.S. jurisdiction, engaging in trade 
outside of the United States to abide by CITES requirements as a matter 
of U.S. law. Although this activity may be difficult to detect, we will 
take enforcement action when appropriate.
    Three commenters expressed their support for the clarification in 
Sec.  23.13 that trade in violation of the regulations by a person 
subject to U.S. jurisdiction is prohibited even if the specimen is not 
imported into or exported from the United States. They noted that this 
will ensure that actions by U.S. citizens do not undermine the purposes 
of CITES outside the United States. One commenter opposed this part of 
the section, stating that it was contrary to elemental principles of 
national jurisdiction to hold a U.S. citizen legally responsible for 
conducting an activity outside the United States that is a violation of 
U.S. law when the activity is consistent with the law of the foreign 
country.
    As long as a U.S. citizen engages in trade in a CITES specimen 
outside the United States consistent with all the requirements of CITES 
and the foreign countries' domestic laws implementing CITES, it would 
not be a violation of U.S. law. Section 9 of the ESA makes clear that 
citizens of the United States have a responsibility to comply with all 
applicable CITES procedures when they engage in trade in CITES 
specimens outside the United States. Given that 171 countries are 
parties to CITES, a U.S. citizen trading a CITES specimen between two 
foreign countries is likely to need CITES documentation from one or 
both of those countries. Failure to obtain and present the required 
CITES documentation would be a violation of the ESA.
    One commenter was concerned with our response in the 2006 proposed 
rule (71 FR 20167) to a previous comment that an applicant's failure to 
provide adequate documentation showing legality of a specimen, while 
not necessarily evidence that the specimen was traded contrary to 
CITES, might prevent us from making the required findings or being able 
to issue the necessary CITES documents for subsequent import, export, 
or re-export. The commenter suggested that the FWS establish procedures 
or describe the kinds of evidence we will accept in lieu of positive 
documentation.
    We have not specified the type of documentation that an applicant 
must present in order for us to make necessary findings and issue the 
required documents because it is not possible to describe the full 
variety of information that could be used to show that a proposed 
activity is consistent with CITES requirements. In each case, the 
applicant must present enough information to allow the FWS to make the 
required determination, but the source of this information and the 
level of detail needed to make the finding will vary. See Sec.  23.34 
for more detail.
    Personal and household effects (Sec.  23.15): Article VII(3) of the 
Treaty provides for the import, export, or re-export of specimens that 
are personal or household effects without CITES documents under certain 
circumstances. We clarified the current regulations (Sec.  23.13(d)) 
based on our experience in administering the Convention and Resolution 
Conf. 13.7. This section details the circumstances under which a person 
may travel with personal items of CITES wildlife and plants worn as 
clothing or accessories, or contained in accompanying luggage without 
CITES documents. It also details how a person may move personal items 
of CITES wildlife and plants from one country to another as part of a 
change of residence. We defined personal effect and household effect in 
Sec.  23.5. We clarified that we consider qualifying tourist souvenirs 
to be personal effects.
    Six commenters supported, in general, the clarification regarding 
personal and household effects, and several of those commenters 
supported specific provisions regarding Appendix-I and live specimens. 
They believed the clarification would help prevent abuses of the 
personal and household effects exemption. Three commenters, however, 
urged us to ease restrictions on individuals traveling with legally 
acquired CITES species. Although the commenters did not provide 
specific suggestions, we note that these regulations already provide an

[[Page 48410]]

exemption from CITES documentation for many individuals traveling with 
legally acquired CITES specimens. Another commenter believed that the 
trade in specimens under the exemption for personal and household 
effects creates a loophole that may adversely impact imperiled species. 
We disagree that this exemption has an adverse effect on listed taxa. 
As noted above, Article VII(3) provides for this exemption under 
certain circumstances, and the Parties have adopted additional 
guidelines through resolution.
    In Resolution Conf. 13.7, the Parties agreed not to require CITES 
documents for personal or household effects of dead specimens, parts, 
products, or derivatives of Appendix-II species unless a Party requires 
a CITES document. Parties are to notify the Secretariat if they require 
CITES documents for personal and household effects, and the Secretariat 
will maintain a list on the CITES website (see Sec.  23.7). Importing 
countries would generally assume that an export permit is not required 
if the exporting country had not notified the Secretariat otherwise. 
For species covered by the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, however, the 
United States requires an export permit if such a permit is required by 
the other Party involved in the trade, even if the Party had not 
notified the Secretariat of the requirement. It is the responsibility 
of the importer to consult with the exporting country to determine 
whether an export permit is needed in such instances. One commenter 
believed the United States should impose stricter measures and require 
CITES documents for all personal and household effects. Such a 
requirement would be burdensome and provide little conservation value 
in most cases. Therefore, we declined to make a change based on this 
suggestion. However, these regulations allow for stricter measures 
under other U.S. laws (e.g., the ESA) for those species that warrant 
greater scrutiny. We believe this will allow for greater oversight when 
there appears to be a conservation value in doing so.
    One commenter requested that we provide clarification regarding the 
restrictions imposed by the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and notify 
other CITES Parties of this requirement. The commenter also argued that 
the Lacey Act covered all foreign CITES species. We state in Sec.  
23.15(b) that the personal and household effects exemption does not 
apply if the country prohibits or restricts the import, export, or re-
export of the item. In addition, we state that a personal or household 
effects shipment must be accompanied by any document required by a 
country under its stricter national measures. Both ofthese restrictions 
are imposed upon shipments because of our obligations under the Lacey 
Act Amendments of 1981 to provide support for other countries' stricter 
measures, and actions may be taken based upon information received from 
those countries about such restrictions.
    For certain species, the Parties also agreed to numerical limits of 
specific types of specimens that qualify as personal and household 
effects. These specimens include sturgeon caviar, seahorses, 
crocodilian products, giant clam and queen conch shells, and cactus 
rai