What concerns me is how the US laws are set up to implement this. In particular, I hope that some means will be found to 'grandfather' existing stocks. We've seen the difficulties that have come out of that lack in the case of Brazilian, where wood that was harvested and in this country long before the listing in 1992 is not fully 'legal' because of a lack of the sort of paperwork that is now required. Some system of registration would facilitate clarity in future enforcement of the law.

So does that mean any EIR laminate guitar that cross a border is going to need a permit?

There are lots of "alternative" woods that make great guitars, but for the small custom builder, the problem is getting their clientele to buy into the non-traditional woods. Alex

I recently talked to my Indian rosewood supplier in Mumbai who knew nothing about this proposal. For him, the supply of Indian rosewood is plentiful and well managed, so he couldn't understand what the fuss was about. If he suddenly has to obtain paperwork to export his material, he will be a very sad camper. Interestingly, this proposal does NOT list India as a state which was consulted during the draft stage, despite their obvious economic interest.

He should read the draft proposal and the reason for the fuss is pretty dang obvious and is likely to put him out of business if passed with no objections from India. While India does not contribute to the problems, this draft applies to all Dalbergia species in all countries, no exceptions, and is supported by a majority of countries consulted, so the likelihood of it being implemented is high. It is interesting that India was not consulted since they are likely to be the only country likely to object. If your Indian rosewood supplier wants to stay in business then he should start kicking up a fuss with the Indian authorities and spread the work among other Indian Rosewood suppliers. Historically, the legal trade of raw products in species listed in Appendix II becomes commercially extinct or at least very much reduced after listing. That after all is the main reason for listing on CITES.

I note that my country (Australia) was consulted but we don't have any native Dalbergia species that are logged commercially so is a bit pointless. Why was India not consulted?

I could be wrong about this, but I believe I remember reading that Indian Law prohibits the export of raw lumber, it must receive some amount of milling in India, by Indian labor, before it can be exported.
Backs and sides are classified as veneers, and fretboard blanks are classified as musical instrument parts. Restricting the trade of rosewood in raw lumber form will not significantly affect India, possibly why they weren't consulted.