@Reef frog - Unfortunately, I can read "government bureaucrat style prose" (I do it for a living - and respond to it as well). Here's the part you should be concerned about; I'll quote it first and then provide a "loose" translation:
//ESA section 9(a)(1) prohibitions are automatically applied to species listed as endangered but not to species listed as threatened. Section 4(d) of the ESA provides that, whenever a species is listed as threatened, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) shall issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. Such regulations may include any or all of the prohibitions in ESA section 9(a)(1) that apply automatically to species listed asendangered. Those section 9(a)(1) prohibitions make it unlawful, with limited specified exceptions, for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to: “(A) Import any such species into, or export any such species from the United States; (B) take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States; (C) take any such species upon the high seas; (D) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of subparagraphs (B) and (C); (E) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any such species; (F) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such species; or (G) violate any regulation pertaining to such species or to any threatened species of fish or wildlife listed pursuant to section 1533 of this title and promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to authority provided by this chapter.” Section 11 of the ESA provides for civil and criminal penalties for violations of section 9 or regulations issued under the ESA.//
What this says is that the Endangered Species Act has built-in actions that must occur if a species is listed as "endangered", but none for a species listed as "threatened" - the Act leaves it to the Secretary of Commerce to "issue such regulations as she deems necessary...for the conservation of the species"; i.e. regulate as she believes best to conserve the species. It continues that "such regulation *may include* "any and all" portions of the "ESA section 9(a)(1) that apply automatically to species listed as endangered". In other words, if she believes it warranted, she can activate *all* of the regulations to protect an "endangered" species contained in the Act for a "threatened" species. She hasn't thus far.
Why would this be important? Verbiage such as "...(A) Import any such species into, or export any such species from the United States; (B) take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States; (C) take any such species upon the high seas; (D) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such species taken in violation of subparagraphs (B) and (C); (E) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity, any such species; (F) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any such species..." makes it very clear that doing pretty much anything with any of the listed species, including having one in your home aquarium or giving one to a friend could be easily found illegal if the Secretary of Commerce deems protection of the threatened species warrants. This is where your question on "kept, propagated, traded or sold" comes into play. And that is *before* it is listed as endangered.
If the species are listed as endangered, the Secretary is taken "out of the loop" at that point, and all of the species listed are simply accorded all of the protections of the ESA, and all of these said activities would simply be illegal, no matter the best of intentions or not. Simply stated, for any species listed as endangered, it would automatically be illegal for them to be "kept, propagated, traded or sold".
So, what is happening now? The linked page at the beginning of this thread has the entire chunk of legislation (as you know), and also is requesting the public to comment on what they think the would be the best course of action. Of course, whether the agency listens to the public comment is completely up to them, but they are requesting it nonetheless. That said, what do you think the agency should do? Now is the time to put your two cents worth in and help them figure this stuff out. It really should be more than "I really like my coral in my aquarium" which falls into the same class as "I really like my Bald Eagle tied in my back yard" (used for example purposes, the Bald Eagle is no longer on the Endangered list
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/BaldEagleDelisting.htm and stands as a symbol of the success of the ESA). But here are a few things to consider commenting on:
Coral growth forms and coloration are highly effected by environmental factors such as lighting and it's relationship to turbidity and depth, nutrition, and current to name a few. How does the agency propose to accurately and scientifically identify said species if this provisions are enacted?
A surprisingly large number of these proposed species are currently in home and public aquariums and are being propagated on a routine basis. Has this been considered in any of the referenced studies and how does the agency plan to take common and frequent current ownership, propagation, and trade into account if these species are listed?
I'm not a lawyer in any sense of the term, I just deal with the government on a routine basis. There may be some ways around this that a good lawyer would be able to find, but remember that the bulk of the legislation that comes out has already been through a large number of lawyers' hands before the public ever sees it.
I hope this helps.
Please go to the referenced page and comment.
Ray