Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 73173

www.regulations.gov and follow the on- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR www.regulations.gov, as it is most line instructions provided. compatible with our comment review You may download the comments. Fish and Wildlife Service procedures. If you attach your The comments are imaged documents, comments as a separate document, our in either TIFF or PDF format. Please 50 CFR Part 17 preferred file format is Microsoft Word. note that even after the comment closing [Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2011–0003; If you attach multiple comments (such date, we will continue to file relevant FXES111309F2130–134–FF09E22000] as form letters), our preferred format is information in the Docket as it becomes a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. available. Further, some people may RIN 1018–AY42 (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments submit late comments. Accordingly, we Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–ES–2011– recommend that you periodically search and Plants; Listing the Straight-Horned 0003; Division of Policy and Directives the Docket for new material. Markhor as Threatened With Special Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Rule N. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS The Department of Transportation AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. assigns a regulation identifier number Interior. We request that you send comments (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in ACTION: Proposed rule; revision. only by the methods described above. the Unified Agenda of Federal We will post all comments on http:// Regulations. The Regulatory Information SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and www.regulations.gov. This generally Service Center publishes the Unified Wildlife Service (Service), notify the means that we will post any personal Agenda in April and October of each public that we are making changes to information you provide us (see year. You may use the RIN that appears our proposed rule of August 7, 2012, to Information Requested under in the heading on the first page of this reclassify the straight-horned markhor SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more document to find this action in the (Capra falconeri jerdoni) from information). Unified Agenda. endangered to threatened. We propose FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In consideration of the foregoing, to combine the straight-horned markhor Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part (Capra falconeri jerdoni) and the Kabul Foreign Species, Endangered Species 592 as follows: markhor (Capra falconeri megaceros) Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, into one subspecies, the straight-horned 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 592 markhor (Capra falconeri megaceros), Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor under the Endangered Species Act of 358–2171; facsimile 703–358–1735. If vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping 1973, as amended (Act) due to a change you use a telecommunications device requirements. in taxonomy. We have conducted a for the deaf (TDD), please call the status review of the straight-horned Federal Information Relay Service PART 592—REGISTERED IMPORTERS markhor (C. f. megaceros) and propose (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. OF VEHICLES NOT ORIGINALLY to list this subspecies as threatened SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MANUFACTURED TO CONFORM TO under the Act. We are also proposing a THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE concurrent special rule. The effects of Executive Summary SAFETY STANDARDS these regulations will be to protect and I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action conserve the straight-horned markhor, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 592 while encouraging local communities to We are proposing to combine two continues to read as follows: conserve additional populations of the subspecies of markhor currently listed under the Endangered Species Act of Authority: Pub. L. 100–562, 49 U.S.C. straight-horned markhor through sustainable-use management programs. 1973, as amended (Act), the straight- 322(a), 30117, 30141–30147; delegation of horned markhor (C. f. jerdoni) and authority at 49 CFR 1.50. DATES: We will consider comments and Kabul markhor (Capra falconeri ■ 2. Amend § 592.6 to add information received or postmarked on megaceros), into one subspecies, the subparagraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii): or before February 3, 2014. Comments straight-horned markhor (C. f. submitted electronically using the § 592.6 Duties of a registered importer. megaceros), based on a taxonomic Federal eRulemaking Portal (see change. We conducted a status review of * * * * * ADDRESSES, below) must be received by the newly combined subspecies and are (d) * * * 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing issuing a proposed rule to list the (1) * * * date. straight-horned markhor (C. f. (i) The vehicle is not required to We must receive requests for public megaceros) as threatened under the Act. comply with the parts marking hearings, in writing, at the address We are also proposing a special rule requirements of the theft prevention shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION that would allow for the import of sport- standard (part 541 of this chapter); or CONTACT by January 21, 2014. hunted straight-horned markhor (ii) The vehicle complies with those ADDRESSES: You may submit trophies under certain conditions. This parts marking requirements as information by one of the following regulation would support and encourage manufactured, or as modified prior to methods: conservation actions of the straight- importation. (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal horned markhor. * * * * * eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, II. Major Provision of the Regulatory Issued on November 27, 2013. enter FWS–R9–ES–2011–0003, which is Action Daniel C. Smith, the docket number for this rulemaking. If adopted as proposed, this action Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle You may submit a comment by clicking will eliminate the separate listing of the Safety. on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ If your comments straight-horned markhor and Kabul [FR Doc. 2013–28877 Filed 12–4–13; 8:45 am] will fit in the provided comment box, markhor as endangered and list the BILLING CODE 4910–59–P please use this feature of http:// combined straight-horned markhor

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 73174 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules

subspecies as threatened in the List of Ovis, Wild Sheep Foundation, Jerry (e) Other natural or manmade factors Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at Brenner, Steve Hornaday, Alan affecting its continued existence. 50 CFR 17.11(h), and would allow the Sackman, and Barbara Lee Sackman, (5) Information on the status of habitat import of sport-hunted straight-horned requesting the Service downlist the measures being implemented in the markhor trophies under certain Torghar Hills population of the Torghar Conservation Project. conditions at 50 CFR 17.40. This action Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri (6) Information on whether changing is authorized by the Act. jerdoni or C. f. megaceros), in the climatic conditions are affecting the subspecies or its habitat. Previous Federal Actions Balochistan Province of Pakistan, from endangered to threatened under the Act. Please include sufficient information On June 14, 1976, we published in the On June 2, 2011, we published in the with your submission (such as full Federal Register a rule listing the Federal Register a finding that the references) to allow us to verify straight-horned markhor, or the petition had presented substantial information you provide. Submissions Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri information indicating that the merely stating support for or opposition jerdoni), and the Kabul markhor (C. f. requested reclassification may be to the action under consideration megaceros), as well as 157 other U.S. warranted, and we initiated a status without providing supporting and foreign vertebrates and review (76 FR 31903). We opened a information, although noted, will not be invertebrates, as endangered under the comment period, which closed August considered in making a determination. Act (41 FR 24062). All species were 1, 2011. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that found to have declining numbers due to On February 1, 2012, Conservation determinations as to whether any the present or threatened destruction, Force, Dallas Safari Club, and other species is an endangered or threatened modification, or curtailment of their organizations and individuals filed suit species must be made ‘‘solely on the habitats or ranges; overutilization for against the Service for failure to conduct basis of the best scientific and commercial, sporting, scientific, or a 5-year status review pursuant to commercial data available.’’ educational purposes; the inadequacy of section 4(c)(2)(A) under the Act Prior to issuing a final rule on this existing regulatory mechanisms; or (Conservation Force, et al. v. Salazar, proposed action, we will take into some combination of the three. Case No. 11 CV 02008 D. D. C.). On consideration all information we However, the main concerns were the March 30, 2012, a settlement agreement receive. Such information may lead to a high commercial importance and the was approved by the Court (11–CV– final rule that differs from this proposal. inadequacy of existing regulatory 02008, D. D. C.), in which the Service All comments, including names and mechanisms to control international agreed to submit to the Federal Register addresses of commenters, will become trade. by July 31, 2012, a 12-month finding on part of the administrative record. Later, the Suleiman markhor and the the August 2010 petition. On August 7, Kabul markhor were considered by Public Hearing 2012, the Service published in the some authorities to be the single Federal Register a 12-month finding At this time, we do not have a public subspecies C. f. megaceros (straight- and proposed rule to reclassify the hearing scheduled for this proposed horned markhor). These subspecies straight-horned markhor (C.f. jerdoni) rule. The main purpose of most public currently remain listed as separate from endangered to threatened (77 FR hearings is to obtain public testimony or entities under the Act. comment. In most cases, it is sufficient On March 4, 1999, we received a 47011). to submit comments through the Federal petition from Sardar Naseer A. Tareen, Information Requested eRulemaking Portal, described above in on behalf of the Society for Torghar We intend that any final action the ADDRESSES section. If you would like Environmental Protection and the resulting from this proposed rule will be to request a public hearing for this International Union for Conservation of based on the best scientific and proposed rule, you must submit your Nature (IUCN) Central Asia Sustainable commercial data available. Therefore, request, in writing, to the person listed Use Specialist Group, requesting that we request comments and information in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri from other concerned governmental the date specified above in DATES. jerdoni or C. f. megaceros) population of agencies, the scientific community, and the Torghar Hills region of the any other interested parties concerning Background Balochistan Province, Pakistan, be this proposed rule. We particularly seek Taxonomic Classification reclassified from endangered to clarifying information concerning: The markhor (Capra falconeri) is a threatened under the Act. On September (1) Distribution, habitat selection, species of wild goat belonging to the 23, 1999 (64 FR 51499), we published in diet, and population abundance and Family Bovidae and Subfamily Caprinae the Federal Register a finding, in trends of this subspecies. accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of (3) The effects of habitat loss and (sheep and goats) (Valdez 2008, the Act, that the petition had presented changing land uses on the distribution unpaginated). When the markhor was substantial information indicating that and abundance of this subspecies. first listed under the Act in 1975, seven the requested reclassification may be (4) The factors that are the basis for subspecies of markhor were generally warranted, and we initiated a status making a listing/delisting/downlisting recognized: Capra falconeri jerdoni review. We opened a comment period, determination for a species under (straight-horned or Suleiman markhor), which closed January 21, 2000, to allow section 4(a) of the Act, which are: C. f. megaceros (Kabul markhor), C. f. all interested parties to submit (a) The present or threatened cashmirensis (Kashmir markhor), C. f. comments and information. A 12-month destruction, modification, or falconeri (Astor markhor), C. f. ognevi finding was never completed. curtailment of its habitat or range; (Uzbek markhor), C. f. heptneri (Tajik On August 18, 2010, we received a (b) Overutilization for commercial, markhor), and C. f. chialtanensis petition dated August 17, 2010, from recreational, scientific, or educational (Chiltan markhor) (64 FR 51499, Conservation Force, on behalf of Dallas purposes; September 23, 1999; Roberts 1977, p. Safari Club, Houston Safari Club, (c) Disease or predation; 196). In 1975, Schaller and Khan (1975, African Safari Club of Florida, The (d) The inadequacy of existing pp. 188, 191) recognized 3 subspecies of Conklin Foundation, Grand Slam Club/ regulatory mechanisms; or markhor based on horn shape and body

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 73175

characteristics: C. f. jerdoni and C. f. estimates, or threats to the subspecies; descend to valley bottoms for water, but megaceros were combined into C. f. most information that is available only after darkness (Roberts 1977, p. megaceros (straight-horned markhor); C. predates the onset of hostilities in the 198). f. cashmirensis and C. f. falconeri were region in 1979. However, the Torghar Markhor are gregarious, with females, combined into C. f. falconeri (flare- Hills population of the straight-horned their young, and immature males horned markhor); and C. f. ognevi and markhor has been extensively studied associating in small herds, but C. f. heptneri were combined into C. f. since the mid-1980s due to the competition with domestic goat flocks heptneri (Heptner’s markhor). Many implementation of a conservation plan may drive markhor populations to authorities consider C. f. chialtanensis in this area. Therefore, this status higher terrain and result in larger herds. to be Capra aegagrus chialtanensis review mainly consists of information Adult males live solitary lives, taking (Chiltan wild goat) (64 FR 51500, related to this population. When shelter under rock overhangs or natural September 23, 1999). possible, we have included general caves. They only join the females and In our June 2, 2011, 90-day petition information on the status of the young during the rut, which for the finding, and August 7, 2012, proposed populations outside of the Torghar straight-horned markhor peaks around rule to reclassify the straight-horned Hills. For these particular populations, mid-November and lasts about 2 weeks. markhor (C. f. jerdoni), we requested for which we lack information, we Males may attach themselves to one information on the taxonomy of C. f. request additional information from the particular territory or herd. Fighting jerdoni and C. f. megaceros to determine public during this proposed rule’s between rival males also occurs during if these constitute a single subspecies. comment period (see Information this time. Markhor reach sexual We have reviewed the available Requested, above). maturity around 3 years of age. Females information, including information usually give birth to one young, but submitted by the public. While Species Description twins are not uncommon. A young scientists have not reached a consensus Markhor are sturdy animals with markhor will remain with its mother on the correct classification of markhor strong, relatively short, thick legs and until the rutting season or until the next (Zahler 2013, pers. comm.; Frisina 2012, broad hooves. They are a reddish-grey young is born. After this, the female will pers. comm.), the Integrated Taxonomic color, with more buff tones in the drive the older young away if it Information System (ITIS), International summer and grey in the winter. The legs approaches too closely. In the wild, it is Union for Conservation of Nature and belly are a cream color with a possible that markhor can live up to 18 (IUCN), and the Convention on conspicuous dark brown pattern on the years of age, but perhaps few males live International Trade in Endangered forepart of the shank interrupted by a beyond 11 or 12 years (Ali 2008, p. 16; Species of Wild Fauna and Flora white carpal patch. They also have a Mitchell 1989, p. 9; Roberts 1977, pp. (CITES) all follow Grubb 2005 (p. 701), dark brown mid-dorsal stripe that 198–199). which recognizes three subspecies of extends from the shoulders to the base Range and Population markhor as recommended by Schaller of the tail. The tail is short and sparsely and Khan (1975 pp. 188, 191) (ITIS covered with long black hairs, but is Historically, the straight-horned 2013a, unpaginated; ITIS 2013b, naked underneath. Adult males have an markhor inhabited a wide range in the unpaginated; Smithsonian National extensive black beard followed by a mountains of eastern Afghanistan and Museum of Natural History 2011, shaggy mane of long hairs extending Pakistan. In Afghanistan, it has been unpaginated; CITES Resolution Conf. down the chest and from the fore part reported that this subspecies survives 12.11. (Rev. CoP15) 2010, p. 3; Valdez of the neck. There is also a crest of long only in the Kabul Gorge and the Kohe 2008, unpaginated; CITES 10.84 (Rev.) black and dark brown hairs that hang Safi area of Kapissa Province, and in 1997, p. 894). like a mane down either side of the some isolated pockets in between (Ali Currently, the straight-horned spine from the shoulders to the croup 2008, pp. 17–18; Valdez 2008, markhor (C.f. jerdoni) and Kabul (Roberts 1977, p. 197). Horns are unpaginated; Habibi 1997, p. 208; markhor (C.f. megaceros) are listed as straight with an open, tight spiral Schaller and Khan 1975, pp. 195–196). separate subspecies under the Act. We resembling a corkscrew (Schaller and However, no surveys have been propose to revise the List of Endangered Khan 1975, p. 189). conducted in the area, and it is likely and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR that this subspecies has been extirpated 17.11(h) to maintain consistency with Life History from Afghanistan (Zahler 2013, pers. ITIS, IUCN, and CITES to reflect the Straight-horned markhor are comm.). In Pakistan, the straight-horned current scientifically accepted associated with extremely rugged terrain markhor is found in the mountains of taxonomy and nomenclature. In the with precipitous cliffs, rocky caves, and Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Proposed Regulation Promulgation bare rock surfaces interspersed with provinces. There is one unconfirmed section of this document, we propose patches of arid, steppe vegetation. They report of the subspecies in Punjab the taxonomic change to reflect the can be found from 600 meters (m) (1,969 Province (Valdez 2008, unpaginated; combining of the straight-horned feet (ft)) up to 3,300 m (10,827 ft) in CITES 10.84 (Rev.) 1997, p. 894). markhor (C.f. jerdoni) and Kabul elevation (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 181; Within Baluchistan, the straight- markhor (C.f. megaceros) into one Mitchell 1989, p. 8; Johnson 1994b, p. horned markhor has been reduced to subspecies, the straight-horned markhor 5). small, scattered populations on all the (C.f. megaceros). Markhor are diurnal in feeding mountain ranges immediately to the activity. They are most active in the north and east of Quetta, including Subspecies Information early morning and late evening Murdar, Takhatu, Zarghun, Kaliphat, Due to the proposed taxonomic (Mitchell 1989, p. 8). Wild pistachios Phil Garh, and Suleiman. It is reported change, we have conducted a status are a preferred food for straight-horned that the straight-horned markhor still review of the newly combined straight- markhor (Johnson 1994, p. 12; Roberts survives in the Shingar Range on the horned markhor subspecies. For most of 1977, p. 198), although in general they border of Balochistan and South the straight-horned markhor are known to feed on grasses and leaves, Waziristan. The greatest concentration populations, there is no detailed and twigs of bushes. Markhor seek water is in the Torghar Hills of the Toba Kakar information on distribution, population in the late afternoon; they may need to Range on the border with Afghanistan,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 73176 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules

within a community-based management CITES, Pakistan submits annual surveys in 1988, 1991, and 2000. However, the program, the Torghar Conservation of markhor populations, including ban had little impact on the recovery of Project (Frisina and Tareen 2009, pp. populations within the Torghar wildlife populations (Ahmed et al. 142–143; Johnson 1994b, p. 16; Roberts Conservation Area (Resolution Conf. 2001, p. 5). In 2005, Afghanistan banned 1977, p. 198; Schaller and Khan 1975, 10.15 (Rev. CoP 14); See discussion hunting for 5 years, but there was no p. 196). below under Summary of Threats). enforcement and most Afghans were Within Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Based on surveys conducted from 1985 either unaware of the Decree or ignored subspecies is reported to still survive in through 1988, Mitchell (1989, p. 9) it (Kanderian et al. 2011, p. 291; MAIL the area of Sheikh Buddin, as well as estimated 450 to 600 markhor inhabited 2009, pp. 4, 23, 24). Additionally, the the Sakra Range, Murghazar Hills, the Torghar Hills. Regular surveys of the markhor (Capra falconeri) is a protected Khanori Hills, and Safed Koh Range; managed area have taken place since species under Afghanistan’s however, the occurrence in Safed Koh 1994, when Johnson (1994b, p. 12) Environmental Law of 2007, the has been questioned due to a lack of estimated the population of markhor to Balochistan Wildlife Protection Act of information (Ali 2008, p. 18; Valdez be 695. Later surveys estimated the 1974 (BWPA), and the North-West 2008, unpaginated; Hess et al. 1997, p. population to be 1,296 in 1997; 1,684 in Frontier Province Wild-life (Protection, 255; Roberts 1977, p. 198). 1999; 2,541 in 2005; 3,158 in 2008; and Preservation, Conservation, and Limited information is available for 3,518 in 2011 (Frisina and Rasheed Management) Act (NWFPWA) of 1975, populations throughout most of the 2012, p. 5; Arshad and Khan 2009, p. 9; which extends to all of the Khyber straight-horned markhor’s range. Many Shafique 2006, p. 6; Frisina 2000, p. 8; Pakhtunkhwa Province. Under these historical populations were extirpated Frisina et al. 1998, p. 6). Although most laws, hunting, killing, or capturing of due to over-hunting (Johnson 1994b, p. of the mountain ranges in Balochistan markhor is prohibited (MAIL 2009, p. 5; Johnson 1994, p. 10). In Afghanistan, have not been formally surveyed, 23; Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 58; very few straight-horned markhor Johnson (1994b, p. 16) concluded that Official Gazette No. 912, dated 25 survive; perhaps as few as 50–80 occur Torghar was the last remaining January 2007, Article 49; BWPA 1977, p. in the Kohe Safi region, with few in stronghold for the subspecies. 15; NWFPWA 1975, Third Schedule). other isolated pockets (Valdez 2008, Today, the straight-horned markhor unpaginated; Habibi 1997, pp. 205, 208; Summary of Threats has been extirpated from much of its Schaller and Khan 1975, p. 195). Throughout the range of the straight- former range due to over-hunting, and However, as stated above, this horned markhor, over-hunting, keeping they survive only in the most subspecies may be extirpated from of large herds of livestock for inaccessible regions of its range (Habibi Afghanistan (Zahler 2013, pers. comm.). subsistence, deforestation, and the lack 1997, p. 205; Johnson 1994b, p. 5; In Pakistan, Schaller and Khan (1975, of effective federal and provincial laws Johnson 1994, p. 10), despite laws pp. 195–196) estimated 150 in Takhatu, have devastated populations of straight- intended to provide protection from 20 to 30 in Kalifat, 20 in Zarghum, 20 horned markhor and destroyed vital hunting. We have no information on the in Shinghar, 20 around Sheikh Buddin, habitat (Valdez 2008, unpaginated; extent of poaching currently taking 50 in the Sakra Range, and at least 100 Habibi 1997, pp. 205, 208; Hess et al. place in most of the subspecies’ range, in Safed Koh. Few were estimated to 1997, p. 255). but information suggests that hunting survive in the Murdar Range, and a Small-scale hunting has been a long- remains a threat to most remaining remnant population may have existed standing tradition of the people of populations of this subspecies (UNEP near Loralei in the Gadabar Range. Afghanistan and Pakistan (Zahler 2013, 2009, p. 10; NEPA and UNEP 2008, p. Roberts (1969 in Valdez, 2008, pers. comm.; Kanderian et al. 2011, p. 17; Valdez 2008, unpaginated; CITES unpaginated) believed the number of 283; Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 146; 10.84 (Rev.) 1997, p. 895; Hess et al. markhor in the Toba Kakar range was Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 2). However, prior 1997, p. 255). However, increases in fewer than 500. In 1984, Tareen to the beginning of the Soviet-Afghan populations of ungulates, including estimated fewer than 200 remained in War in 1979, few animals were hunted, markhor, have occurred in conservation the Torghar Hills (Mitchell, 1989, p. 9). as weapons were primitive and areas managed specifically for trophy Overall, Schaller and Khan (1975, pp. ammunition scarce and expensive. After hunting (University of Montana 2013, 195–196) estimated fewer than 2,000 the beginning of the war, there was an unpaginated; Frisina and Rasheed 2012, straight-horned markhor survived influx of more sophisticated weapons, p. 5; WCS 2012, unpaginated; Arshad throughout the subspecies’ range. such as semi- and fully-automatic rifles, and Khan 2009, p. 9; Government of In general, markhor populations are and cheap ammunition was more Pakistan 2009, p. viii; Ali 2008, pp. 21, reported as declining (Kanderian et al. accessible. This proliferation of arms 38, 64; Shafique 2006, p. 6; Frisina 2011, p. 287; Valdez 2008, and increased likelihood of a successful 2000, p. 8; Virk 1999, p. 142; Frisina et unpaginated). Hess et al. (1997, p. 255) kill, combined with millions of al. 1998, p. 6). Currently, only one and Habibi (1997, p. 208) concluded displaced people dependent on wild conservation plan is being implemented that the straight-horned markhor had meat for subsistence, led to excessive for the straight-horned markhor, the likely not increased in recent years. hunting of wildlife and critically low Torghar Conservation Project (TCP) in Current estimates for populations of populations of straight-horned markhor Torghar Hills, Pakistan. straight-horned markhor are lacking, (Zahler 2013, pers. comm.; Kanderian et In the early 1980s, local tribal leaders with the exception of the population in al. 2011, p. 284; Frisina and Tareen became alarmed at the significant the Torghar Hills of the Toba Kakar 2009, p. 145; MAIL 2009, p. 4; decline in the markhor population in Range. This population has been Woodford et al. 2004, p. 181; Ahmed et the Torghar Hills (Frisina and Tareen extensively studied due to the al. 2001, pp. 2, 4; CITES 10.84 (Rev.) 2009, p. 145; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 4; implementation of a community-based 1997, p. 895; Habibi 1997, pp. 205, 208; Johnson 1994b, p. 1). The population management program. In addition, as Hess et al. 1997, p. 255; Johnson 1994b, had reached a critical level, estimated at part of the use of annual export quotas p. 1). fewer than 200 (Ahmed et al. 2001, p. for markhor sport-hunted trophies In an effort to manage diminishing 4; Johnson 1994b, p. 14; Mitchell, 1989, granted to Pakistan at the 10th meeting wildlife populations, national bans on p. 9). The tribal leaders attributed the of the Conference of the Parties to hunting were implemented in Pakistan decline to an increase in poaching due

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 73177

to the significant increase in weapons in As a result of the TCP, poaching has export quota to 12 markhor in 2002, to the area during the Soviet-Afghan War been eliminated in the Torghar Hills further encourage community-based (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 145; (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182; Johnson conservation (Ali 2008, p. 24; Johnson 1994b, p. 1). After unsuccessful 1994b, p. 3). Johnson (1994b, p. 15) Resolution Conf. 10.15 (Rev. CoP 14)). attempts to receive assistance from the attributed the markhor population Furthermore, because the straight- Balochistan Forest Department, they growth to the substantial reduction in horned markhor is listed as an turned to wildlife biologists in the mortality when uncontrolled hunting Appendix-I species under CITES, legal United States, including the U.S. Fish was stopped. international trade is very limited; most and Wildlife Service. Together, they The markhor (Capra falconeri) is of the international trade in straight- developed the TCP, an innovative, protected under CITES, an international horned markhor specimens consists of community-based conservation program agreement between governments to trophies and live animals. Data obtained that allows for limited trophy hunting to ensure that the international trade of from the United Nations Environment conserve local populations of markhor, CITES-listed plant and animal species Programme—World Conservation improve habitat for both markhor and does not threaten species’ survival in Monitoring Center (UNEP–WCMC) domestic livestock, and improve the the wild. Under this treaty, CITES CITES Trade Database show that from economic conditions for local tribes in Parties (member countries or July 1975, when the straight-horned Torghar (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. signatories) regulate the import, export, markhor was listed in Appendix I, 146; Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182; and reexport of specimens, parts, and through 2011, a total of 86 specimens Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 4 Johnson 1994b, products of CITES-listed plant and were reported to UNEP–WCMC as pp. 1–2). animal species. Trade must be (gross) exports. Of those 86 specimens, authorized through a system of permits 40 were trophies, 45 were live animals, In 1985, the TCP was launched and and certificates that are provided by the and 1 was a body. In analyzing these covered most of the Torghar area designated CITES Management data, it appears that one record may be (approximately 1,000 square kilometers Authority of each CITES Party. Both an over-count due to a slight difference (386 square miles)). First, tribal leaders Afghanistan and Pakistan are Parties to in the manner in which the importing implemented a ban on all hunting CITES. and exporting countries reported their activities by tribesmen in the Torghar The straight-horned markhor was trade. It is likely that the actual number Hills. Then, local tribesmen were hired listed in CITES Appendix I, effective of straight-horned markhor specimens as game guards to assist in population July 1, 1975. An Appendix-I listing in international trade during this period surveys and prevent poachers from includes species threatened with was 84, including 40 trophies, 43 live entering the Torghar Hills. Guards were extinction whose trade is permitted only animals, and 1 body. Exports from range placed at points of entry into the under exceptional circumstances, which countries included: 39 trophies from protected area to inform migrating generally precludes commercial trade. Pakistan, 1 trophy from Afghanistan, tribesmen of the hunting ban, who, in The import of an Appendix-I species and 1 body from Afghanistan. It should turn, agreed to the ban so as not to generally requires the issuance of both be noted that the straight-horned jeopardize their passage through the an import and export permit. Import markhor trade data provided above are Torghar Hills. Support for the program, permits for Appendix-I species are based on reported trade to UNEP– including salaries for the game guards, issued only if findings are made that the WCMC in both the subspecies Capra is raised through fees for limited trophy import would be for purposes that are falconeri jerdoni and the subspecies hunting of markhor within the TCP, not detrimental to the survival of the Capra falconeri megaceros. It should mostly by foreign game hunters. species and that the specimen will not also be noted that the markhor at the Currently, markhor fees are $35,000 U.S. be used for primarily commercial species level (Capra falconeri) was dollars, 80 percent of which goes to the purposes (CITES Article III(3)). Export transferred from CITES Appendix II to TCP and the other 20 percent goes to the permits for Appendix-I species are Appendix I in 1992, and since then, Pakistani government. In the beginning, issued only if findings are made that the international trade was likely in some 7 game guards were hired; currently, 82 specimen was legally acquired and trade cases reported to UNEP–WCMC at the game guards are employed. The number is not detrimental to the survival of the species level rather than the subspecies of markhor allowed to be hunted each species, and if the issuing authority is level. Therefore, it is possible that, year is based on surveys conducted by satisfied that an import permit has been between 1992 and 2011, some game guards and wildlife biologists granted for the specimen (CITES Article international trade in Capra falconeri (Frisina and Tareen 2009, pp. 142, 146– III(2)). jerdoni and Capra falconeri megaceros 147; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 5; Johnson Straight-horned markhor in the may have been reported to UNEP– 1994b, p. 3). Numbers of animals taken Torghar Hills, and other subspecies of WCMC at the species level. It was not have ranged from 1 to 5 animals per markhor within community-managed possible to determine whether the trade hunting season, or less than the 2 conservation areas in Pakistan, may be reported at the species level represented percent of the total population legally hunted and exported. In 1997, at trade in straight-horned markhor or recommended by Harris (1993 in the 10th meeting of the Conference of trade in other markhor subspecies. Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182) annually the Parties to CITES, the Government of Because there has been limited trade in for trophy hunting (Frisina and Tareen Pakistan submitted a proposal for straight-horned markhor, totaling 86 2009, pp. 146–147, 149; Ali 2008, p. 20; approval of an annual export quota for specimens over 37 years, we believe that Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182; Johnson sport-hunted markhor trophies to act as international trade controlled via valid 1997, pp. 403–404). Because markhor an incentive to communities to conserve CITES permits is not a threat to the have a polygynous mating system, markhor. During that same meeting, the subspecies. reproduction rates have not been Conference of the Parties approved an Habitat modification has also affected by the removal of a limited annual export quota of 6 sport-hunted contributed to the decline of the number of adult males (Woodford et al. markhor trophies for Pakistan straight-horned markhor. People living 2004, p. 182), as evidenced by the (Resolution Conf. 10.15). Due to the in rural areas heavily depend on natural continuing increase in the Torghar Hills success of conservation programs in resources; habitat throughout the range population. Pakistan, CITES increased the annual of the straight-horned markhor has been

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 73178 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules

negatively impacted by domestic Food to minimize the impact on, and relating to protection, conservation, livestock overgrazing and deforestation optimize use of, vegetation cover. Given management, and sustainable from logging and collection of wood for that overgrazing of livestock is a wide- development of the forests and natural fuel, charcoal, and building materials ranging threat to Afghanistan’s resources of the province. It allows the (Kanderian et al. 2011, pp. 281, 284, environment (UNEP 2009, p. 8; NEPA government to declare forest land as a 287; WWF 2011, unpaginated; MAIL and UNEP 2008, pp. 15–17; Valdez reserved forest (Forest Ordinance 2002, 2009, p. 5; UNEP 2009, p. 6; NEPA and 2008, unpaginated), it appears that the section 4). Within a reserved forest, it is UNEP 2008, p. 15; Valdez 2008, Environmental Law has not yet been illegal for a person to cultivate, clear, unpaginated; WWF 2008, unpaginated; effectively implemented. Also, break up, or occupy any land; construct Hess et al. 1997, p. 255; CITES 10.84 Presidential Decree No. 405 and No. 736 a building, road, enclosure, or any (Rev.) 1997, p. 895). prohibit the cutting of forests to infrastructure, or alter or enlarge any Much of the land where straight- preserve and maintain forests as a such existing structures; trespass, graze, horned markhor occur is owned by local national asset. However, these decrees browse or drive cattle; set fire, cut, fell, tribes whose subsistence is largely are unfamiliar to most Afghans or are uproot, lop, tap, or burn any tree listed dependent on keeping large herds of ignored (MAIL 2009, pp. 5, 23). in Schedule I; quarry stone, burn lime primarily sheep and goats. Livestock In Balochistan, the Forest Act of 1927 or charcoal, or collect or remove forest often exceed the carrying capacity of allows for the creation of various classes produce; pollute; or hunt, shoot, fish, or rangelands, leading to overgrazing, a of forests, the reservation of state-owned set snares or traps (Forest Ordinance halt to natural regeneration, and forest land, and for the provincial 2002, section 26). Given that subsequent desertification of native government to assume control of deforestation is a widespread problem vegetation. Overgrazing and competition privately owned forest land and declare in Pakistan, it appears that this with domestic livestock for forage is government-owned land to be a provincial law has not been effectively known to have resulted in the decline protected area. It also prohibits grazing, implemented. of wild ungulates and pushed their hunting, quarrying, and clearing land Despite federal and provincial laws, occurrence to range edges (WWF 2011, for cultivation; removal of forest declines in markhor populations and unpaginated; Frisina and Tareen 2009, produce; and the felling or lopping of significant degradation of habitat have pp. 145, 154; UNEP 2009, p. 8; NEPA trees and branches in reserved and continued. Enforcement is lacking and and UNEP 2008, pp. 15–17; Valdez protected forests (Aurangzaib and very difficult to achieve due to the 2008, unpaginated; WWF 2008, Pastakia 2008, p. 46). However, this law remoteness of many areas, the political unpaginated; Woodford et al. 2004, p. does not provide for sustainable use, situation in remote areas, conflicting 180; Tareen 1990, p. 4; Mitchell 1989, conservation, or the protection of policies, lack of understanding of the pp. 4–5; Schaller and Khan 1975, p. endangered wildlife within forests. need and importance of conservation, 197). Other legislation related to forests in and economic constraints (MAIL 2009, Throughout the markhor’s range, Balochistan restricts subsistence use, pp. 5, 23; UNEP 2009, pp. 4, 29; millions of displaced people and a high but focuses on maximizing commercial Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, pp. 39, human population growth rate have exploitation. This may be because these 42–43; Hess et al. 1997, p. 243). created a tremendous demand for laws date back to the early 20th century Additionally, many of the areas where natural resources. Straight-horned and reflect priorities of that time. the straight-horned markhor occurs are markhor habitat and food sources are Provincial amendments have done little on tribal lands, which are generally suffering significant declines due to to alter the focus of these laws. governed by tribal law, and Provincially illegal logging and collection of wood Enforcement of forest laws is lacking, Administered Tribal Areas where for building materials, fuel, and and where enforcement is possible, federal and provincial laws do not apply charcoal (Zahler 2013, pers. comm.; penalties are not severe enough to serve (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 144; Smallwood et al. 2011, p. 507; WWF as a deterrent to violators. Furthermore, Ahmed and Khazi 2008, pp. 13, 24; 2011, unpaginated; MAIL 2009, pp. 3, 5; these laws may be overridden by other Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 23; UNEP 2009, p. 6; NEPA and UNEP laws in favor of development and CITES 10.84 (Rev.) 1997, p. 895; 2008, pp. 15–16; Valdez 2008, commercial uses (Aurangzaib and Johnson 1994a, p. 1). In areas where unpaginated; WWF 2008, unpaginated; Pastakia 2008, pp. 42–43). existing laws are applicable, it does not Hess et al. 1997, p. 255; Hasan and Ali The Land Preservation Act of 1900 is appear that they have provided 1992, pp. 8–9, 12–13). a Punjab law that, by default, was adequate protection given the severe Several Afghan and Pakistani laws applied to the Balochistan province declines in straight-horned markhor and protect wildlife and its habitat in these shortly after its establishment in 1970. threats the markhor continues to face countries. Protected areas, such as This law allows the government to from habitat loss and poaching. national parks, sanctuaries, and game prevent soil erosion and conserve sub- Afghanistan and Pakistan are Parties reserves may be designated under soil water. Activities such as clearing, to major multilateral treaties that Afghanistan’s Environmental Law, the breaking up, and cultivating land not address natural resource conservation BWPA, and the NWFPWA (MAIL 2009, ordinarily under cultivation; quarrying and management (MAIL 2009, p. 32; pp. 22–23; Aurangzaib and Pastakia stone and burning lime; cutting trees Ahmed and Khazi 2008, p. 31). Among 2008, pp. 58, 65–67; Environmental Law and removing forest produce; setting fire these are the Convention on Biological 2007, Articles 38, 39, 40, and 41; to trees, timber, and forest produce; and Diversity and the Convention on NWFPWA 1975, sections 15, 16, and herding and pasturing goats and sheep Combating Desertification (MAIL 2009, 17). However, no designated protected are prohibited. However, the p. 34; Ahmed and Khazi 2008, pp. 14, areas contain the straight-horned government may permit inhabitants to 31). In becoming a Party to these markhor. carry out such activities (Aurangzaib treaties, both countries assumed Article 45 of Afghanistan’s and Pastakia 2008, p. 39). obligations to implement the treaties’ Environmental Law dictates that grazing In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the North- provisions, which in many cases require of livestock shall be managed and West Frontier Province Forest, legislation. However, participation in controlled by the Ministry of Ordinance, 2002 (No. XIX of 2002) treaty activities or laws to implement Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and consolidates and amends the laws obligations are lacking (MAIL 2009, pp.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 73179

32–33; Ahmed and Khazi 2008, pp. 14, indigenous trees to meet the fuel wood implemented, and have the potential to 31; Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, pp. and timber requirements of the local result in smaller, healthier domestic 65, 58). Therefore, these treaties do not tribes and develop orchards and livestock herds (Woodford et al. 2004, p. provide adequate protections to croplands. Agriculture is seen as an 185). ameliorate threats faced by the straight- alternative to raising livestock, thus Currently, there is no evidence of horned markhor. reducing grazing pressure (Frisina and disease transmission between livestock Although international, federal, and Tareen 2009, p. 152; Ahmed et al. 2001, and markhor (Woodford et al. 2004, p. provincial laws do not appear to p. 11). The STEP will also train locals 184; Frisina et al. 2002, p. 13). The effectively provide protection to in livestock management and plans developed by STEP to improve markhor habitat from overgrazing and agricultural practices (Frisina and habitat for markhor also lowers the risk deforestation, the TCP has taken steps to Tareen 2009, p. 152). of disease transmission by addressing create better habitat for both markhor Although we do not know the extent livestock management and minimizing and domestic livestock. to which the different stages of the interactions between domestic livestock In our August 7, 2012, proposed rule, management plans described above and wildlife. With these actions, we determined that key areas in the have been implemented, we have coupled with the planned Animal steeper, upland slopes and higher received new information on the Health Service, the risk of diseases elevation of the Torghar Hills are not markhor and its habitat in the TCP. being transferred from domestic easily accessible and, therefore, are not Frisina and Rasheed (2012, p. 8) livestock to markhor is significantly impacted by human settlement or concluded from the 2011 population reduced. Although we do not know the grazing pressure. However, we surveys in the TCP that the markhor status of the habitat management plans expressed concern that grazing pressure population and its habitat are secure or the Animal Health Service, Frisina may increase in these upland areas due under the current management scenario. and Rasheed (2012, p. 8) concluded to a combination of drought conditions Disease transmission was identified as from the 2011 population surveys in the and the tradition of keeping large herds a potential threat to the Torghar Hills TCP that the markhor population and of domestic livestock. The lower slopes straight-horned markhor in our August domestic livestock have minimal range- and valleys have been denuded of trees 7, 2012, proposed rule. The potential for use overlap, and the markhor’s habitat for livestock grazing and collection of disease transmission stems from is secure under the current management fuel wood (Ahmed et al. 2001, pp. 3, 8; livestock-wildlife interactions due to scenario. Therefore, we have no Frisina et al. 1998, pp. 9–10). Demand overgrazing by large herds of livestock, information that indicates that disease on these resources increases during the drought conditions, and the migration of transmission is a current threat to the biannual migration of local and nearby flocks through the Torghar Hills. The Torghar Hills markhor. However, tribes and their herds through the risk of transmission was linked to future because the larger Torghar Hills Torghar Hills (Woodford et al. 2004, p. and continued habitat and livestock population is within an area that 180; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 4). As forage management. The risk of disease heavily relies on domestic livestock for becomes limited in the lower slopes and transmission is particularly severe if subsistence, it is more likely to interact valleys, due to drought conditions and large numbers of domestic livestock are with domestic sheep and goats than the grazing pressure, domestic herds are present during periods of drought. other populations. In the event of a likely to move to higher elevations in During these circumstances, resources disease outbreak, the Torghar Hills search of forage (Frisina et al. 2002, p. are limited and interactions would be population would be particularly 13). more frequent around available water vulnerable. Because the other extant Recognizing that protecting markhor sources and in the vegetated upper populations are critically low, and its habitat can generate greater slopes. Additionally, there were declining, and continue to face threats income for the community than relying concerns that interactions would likely from poaching and habitat loss, the solely on traditional livestock increase in the TCP if domestic single population in the Torghar Hills production, tribesmen of the Torghar livestock herds grew and the markhor will not provide a sufficient enough Hills requested that the Society for population expanded (Woodford et al. margin of safety for the subspecies to Torghar Environmental Protection 2004, p. 183). withstand this type of catastrophic (STEP), the community-based, In addition to implementing measures event. nongovernmental organization to improve habitat conditions at lower In the rest of the straight-horned established to administer the TCP, elevations, eliminating the need for markhor’s range, we have no integrate habitat management measures domestic herds to utilize upper slope information on the occurrence of to protect markhor and create better areas, and thereby, reduce interactions disease or the risk of disease habitat for both markhor and their between domestic livestock and transmission from domestic sheep and domestic animals. markhor around forage and water goats. Overgrazing of domestic livestock A habitat management plan was resources, STEP has discussed the has contributed to habitat loss in other developed in 2001. The plan establishment of a community-based mountain ranges, suggesting large emphasizes range management, Animal Health Service; the herdsmen livestock herds have also been improved agriculture, and water storage within the TCP have agreed to this maintained in these areas, but we do not projects to improve habitat conditions, measure. As it is not feasible to have information on herd size or the and reduce grazing pressure, eliminate vaccinate markhor in mountainous likelihood of livestock-wildlife the need for domestic herds to utilize terrain, STEP will train and equip interactions. Given the extremely small upper slope areas, and, therefore, reduce tribesmen to act as ‘‘barefoot vets’’ with population estimates of straight-horned interactions between domestic livestock the responsibility of vaccinating markhor outside of the Torghar Hills, it and markhor around forage and water domestic sheep and goats, and may be that interactions are rare. resources (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. administering appropriate anthelmintics We found no information indicating 152; Woodford et al. 2004, pp. 180, 184; (drugs that expel parasitic worms) as that the current threats to the straight- Frisina et al. 2002, pp. 3, 8, 16; Ahmed they travel through the TCP. Veterinary horned markhor, as described above, are et al. 2001, pp. 7, 11). Additionally, care will be effective only if range and likely to improve in the future. Threats STEP plans to plant woodlots of livestock management plans are to this subspecies are driven by past and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 73180 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules

current conflict, the needs of millions of B. Overutilization for commercial, conflict and the accompanying influx of displaced people, and an expanding recreational, scientific, or educational sophisticated weapons. Easy access to human population. Current regulatory purposes; accurate weapons and millions of mechanisms in place to protect the C. Disease or predation; displaced people dependent on wild markhor and its habitat are not being D. The inadequacy of existing meat for subsistence led to excessive implemented effectively in most of the regulatory mechanisms; or hunting and the extirpation of straight- range to reduce or remove threats to the E. Other natural or manmade factors horned markhor from much of its former subspecies. With the exception of the affecting its continued existence. range and a severe reduction in Torghar Hills, no other management In considering whether a species may remaining populations. Additionally, plans are in place to specifically address warrant listing under any of the five tremendous pressure has been placed on the straight-horned markhor. Therefore, factors, we look beyond the species’ natural resources from millions of the tremendous pressure put on natural exposure to a potential threat or displaced people and an expanding resources, and the impacts to the aggregation of threats under any of the human population. Deforestation for straight-horned markhor and its habitat, factors, and evaluate whether the livestock grazing, illegal logging, and will likely continue unless the natural species responds to those potential collection of wood for building resources of Afghanistan and Pakistan threats in a way that causes actual materials, fuel, and charcoal, to meet the are effectively protected. impact to the species. The identification needs of the growing population, of threats that might impact a species In the Torghar Hills, the TCP has continues to impact straight-horned negatively may not be sufficient to eliminated poaching of straight-horned markhor habitat. compel a finding that the species Several federal and provincial laws markhor and managed the habitat such warrants listing. The information must that the population has steadily are in place to provide some protection include evidence indicating that the to natural resources, but they are subject increased since the TCP’s inception and threats are operative and, either singly both the population and its habitat are to broad exemptions, allowing for or in aggregation, affect the status of the overriding laws favoring development currently secure. Because the TCP has species. Threats are significant if they incorporated economic incentives for and commercial use, and enforcement is drive, or contribute to, the risk of lacking. However, in the Torghar Hills, the local community and is supported extinction of the species, such that the by the community, we believe the the population of straight-horned species warrants listing as endangered markhor and its habitat have been protections and management provided or threatened, as those terms are defined by the TCP will continue. effectively managed by the TCP such in the Act. that both are secure under the current The narrow geographic range of the As required by the Act, we conducted management scenario. Due to the straight-horned markhor and the small, a review of the status of the subspecies establishment of the TCP, the cessation scattered, and declining populations and considered the five factors in of uncontrolled poaching, and the make this subspecies particularly assessing whether the straight-horned hunting of only a limited number of vulnerable to threats and more markhor is endangered or threatened trophies in the Torghar Hills, the susceptible to extinction. Furthermore, throughout all or a significant portion of population has increased substantially small scattered populations may its range. We examined the best since TCP’s inception in 1985. experience decreased demographic scientific and commercial information Furthermore, due to the TCP, straight- viability and increased susceptibility to available regarding the past, present, horned markhor habitat is secure and is extinction from stochastic and future threats faced by the straight- no longer impacted by overgrazing or environmental factors (e.g., weather horned markhor. We reviewed the 1999 collection of wood. Because the TCP has events, disease) and an increased threat petition submitted by the Society for incorporated economic incentives for of extinction from genetic isolation and Torghar Environmental Protection and the local community and is supported subsequent inbreeding depression and IUCN, the 2010 petition submitted by by the community, we believe the genetic drift. Although the Torghar Hills Conservation Force, information protections and management provided population is subject to a management available in our files, other available by the TCP will continue in the plan, and the protections provided by published and unpublished foreseeable future. We are not aware of that management plan has led to an information, and information received other populations of straight-horned increasing population, a single stable in response to the August 7, 2012, markhor under the same level of population does not provide a sufficient proposed rule. management. Information indicates that margin of safety for the subspecies to Today, the straight-horned markhor hunting and habitat loss remain as withstand effects from catastrophic occurs in small, scattered populations in threats in the rest of the straight-horned events, such as disease. the mountains of Balochistan and markhor’s range; without effective and Finding Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces, enforcement of federal and provincial Pakistan. Although there are reports that laws, we believe these threats will Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) this subspecies survives in Afghanistan, continue into the foreseeable future. and implementing regulations (50 CFR it has likely been extirpated. In general, Section 3 of the Act defines an part 424) set forth procedures for adding markhor populations are reported as ‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species species to, removing species from, or declining and have likely not increased which is in danger of extinction reclassifying species on the Federal since 1975. However, there is one throughout all or a significant portion of Lists of Endangered and Threatened exception to this declining population its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as Wildlife and Plants. Under section trend, the Torghar Hills population in ‘‘any species which is likely to become 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be the Toba Kakar Range. Due to the an endangered species within the determined to be endangered or implementation of a conservation plan, foreseeable future throughout all or a threatened based on any of the the Torghar Hills population has significant portion of its range.’’ Most of following five factors: increased from fewer than 200 in the the straight-horned markhor A. The present or threatened mid-1980s to 3,518 currently. populations are small and declining. destruction, modification, or Straight-horned markhor have been Threats to this subspecies from hunting curtailment of its habitat or range; significantly impacted by years of and habitat loss still exist and will

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 73181

likely continue into the foreseeable classification of a possible distinct other mountain ranges; however, it future. Current regulatory mechanisms population segment (DPS). These appears that they could. Movement may are inadequate to ameliorate the elements, which are applied similarly require markhor to cross unsuitable negative effects of these threats on the for additions to or removals from the habitat (e.g., the TCP is surrounded by subspecies and will likely remain Federal List of Endangered and less severe topography and valleys ineffective until changes in Threatened Wildlife, include: typically not preferred by markhor), but implementation are made. Therefore, we (1) The discreteness of a population in there is no reason that they could not expect that most straight-horned relation to the remainder of the species cross, especially if carrying capacity is populations will continue to decline to which it belongs; met, thereby creating a need to emigrate into the foreseeable future. (2) The significance of the population to other suitable areas in adjacent However, although most remaining segment to the species to which it ranges. Therefore, without evidence of populations of straight-horned markhor belongs; and marked separation, we determine that are critically low, continue to face (3) The population segment’s none of the populations of the straight- threats from overhunting and habitat conservation status in relation to the horned markhor meet the first loss, and will likely continue to decline, Act’s standards for listing, delisting, or discreteness condition of the 1996 DPS implementation of the TCP has reclassification (i.e., is the population policy. eliminated threats from hunting and segment endangered or threatened?). We next evaluated whether any of the habitat loss in the Torghar Hills. This Discreteness straight-horned markhor populations population has continued to increase meet the second discreteness condition since the inception of the TCP and, Under the DPS policy, a population of our 1996 DPS policy. A population today, is the only stronghold of the segment of a vertebrate taxon may be segment may be considered discrete if it species. considered discrete if it satisfies either is delimited by international Furthermore, because of the one of the following conditions: governmental boundaries within which protective measures provided to the (1) It is markedly separated from other differences in control of exploitation, Torghar Hills population by the TCP, we populations of the same taxon as a management of habitat, conservation believe that the threats identified under consequence of physical, physiological, status, or regulatory mechanisms exist Factors A, B, and D are not of sufficient ecological, or behavioral factors. that are significant in light of section imminence, intensity, or magnitude to Quantitative measures of genetic or 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Although the indicate that the subspecies is presently morphological discontinuity may straight-horned markhor is reported to in danger of extinction, and, therefore, provide evidence of this separation. occur in Afghanistan, it has likely been does not meet the definition of (2) It is delimited by international extirpated. Additionally, we found no endangered under the Act. However, the governmental boundaries within which significant differences in control of straight-horned markhor occupies a differences in control of exploitation, exploitation, management of habitat, narrow geographic range and threats management of habitat, conservation conservation status, or regulatory acting on those critically low status, or regulatory mechanisms exist mechanisms in Afghanistan and populations and are likely to continue that are significant in light of section Pakistan; therefore, none of the in the foreseeable future. A single stable 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. populations of the straight-horned population does not provide a sufficient We reviewed available information to markhor meet the second discreteness margin of safety for the subspecies to determine whether any population, condition of the 1996 DPS policy. withstand effects from catastrophic including the Torghar Hills population, We determine, based on a review of events (e.g., disease). These factors of the straight-horned markhor meets the best available information, that none indicate that the straight-horned the first discreteness condition of our of the populations of the straight-horned markhor continues to be at risk of 1996 DPS policy. We found no evidence markhor, including the Torghar Hills extinction and will likely become in that any population was markedly population, meet the discreteness danger of extinction in the foreseeable separated from other markhor conditions of the 1996 DPS policy. future due to those continuing threats. populations as a consequence of Because we found that the straight- Therefore, on the basis of the best physical, physiological, ecological, or horned markhor populations do not scientific and commercial information, behavioral factors. Additionally, we are meet the discreteness element under the we find that the straight-horned not aware of measures of genetic or Service’s DPS policy, we need not markhor meets the definition of a morphological discontinuity that conduct an evaluation of significance ‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act, and provide evidence of marked separation. under that policy. We conclude that we are proposing to list the straight- With respect to Torghar Hills, the none of the straight-horned markhor horned markhor as threatened in its boundaries are unclear and appear to populations qualify as a DPS under the entirety. grade into other ranges within the Toba Act. Kakar Mountains. Additionally, Johnson Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment (1994b, p. 15) noted that, if the Torghar Significant Portion of the Range Section 3(16) of the Act defines Hills population reaches carrying Having determined that the straight- ‘‘species’’ to include any species or capacity, it could become a source of horned markhor meets the definition of subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants, emigrants for other mountain ranges in threatened throughout its range, we and any distinct population segment of the area and that intermountain must next consider whether the straight- any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife movement is probably already taking horned markhor is in danger of which interbreeds when mature (16 place. Since that publication, the extinction within a significant portion U.S.C. 1532(16)). Under the Service’s Torghar Hills population has increased of its range. ‘‘Policy Regarding the Recognition of from 695 markhor to 3,518, indicating a The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments greater likelihood that intermountain as any species which is ‘‘in danger of Under the Endangered Species Act’’ (61 movement of markhor will or is already extinction throughout all or a significant FR 4722, February 7, 1996), three taking place. We currently do not know portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened elements are considered in the decision the extent, if any, that markhor are species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely concerning the establishment and moving from the Torghar Hills into to become an endangered species within

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 73182 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules

the foreseeable future throughout all or biologically based definition of We recognize that this definition of a significant portion of its range.’’ The ‘‘significant’’ best conforms to the ‘‘significant’’ (a portion of the range of phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ purposes of the Act, is consistent with a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its (SPR) is not defined by the statute, and judicial interpretations, and best contribution to the viability of the we have never addressed in our ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for species is so important that without that regulations either: (1) The consequences the purposes of this finding, and as portion, the species would be in danger of a determination that a species is explained further below, a portion of the of extinction) establishes a threshold either endangered or likely to become so range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its that is relatively high. On the one hand, throughout a significant portion of its contribution to the viability of the given that the consequences of finding range, but not throughout all of its species is so important that without that a species to be endangered or threatened range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of portion, the species would be in danger in an SPR would be listing the species a range as ‘‘significant.’’ of extinction. throughout its entire range, it is For the purposes of this finding, we We evaluate biological significance important to use a threshold for interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion based on the principles of conservation ‘‘significant’’ that is robust. It would not of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of biology using the concepts of be meaningful or appropriate to ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened redundancy, resiliency, and establish a very low threshold whereby species’’ to provide an independent representation. Resiliency describes the a portion of the range can be considered basis for listing; thus there are two characteristics of a species and its ‘‘significant’’ even if only a negligible situations (or factual bases) under which habitat that allow it to recover from increase in extinction risk would result a species would qualify for listing: a periodic disturbance. Redundancy from its loss. Because nearly any portion species may be endangered or (having multiple populations of a species’ range can be said to threatened throughout all of its range; or distributed across the landscape) may be contribute some increment to a species’ a species may be endangered or needed to provide a margin of safety for viability, use of such a low threshold threatened in only a significant portion the species to withstand catastrophic would require us to impose restrictions of its range. If a species is in danger of events. Representation (the range of and expend conservation resources extinction throughout an SPR, then that variation found in a species) ensures disproportionately to conservation species is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ The that the species’ adaptive capabilities benefit: listing would be rangewide, same analysis applies to ‘‘threatened are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, even if only a portion of the range of species.’’ Based on this interpretation and representation are not independent minor conservation importance to the and supported by existing case law, the of each other, and some characteristic of species is imperiled. On the other hand, consequence of finding that a species is a species or area may contribute to all it would be inappropriate to establish a endangered or threatened in only a three. For example, distribution across a threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too significant portion of its range is that the wide variety of habitat types is an high. This would be the case if the entire species will be listed as indicator of representation, but it may standard were, for example, that a endangered or threatened, respectively, also indicate a broad geographic portion of the range can be considered and the Act’s protections will be distribution contributing to redundancy ‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that applied across the species’ entire range. portion result in the entire species’ We conclude, for the purposes of this (decreasing the chance that any one being currently endangered or finding, that interpreting the SPR phrase event affects the entire species), and the threatened. Such a high bar would not as providing an independent basis for likelihood that some habitat types are give the SPR phrase independent listing is the best interpretation of the less susceptible to certain threats, meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in Act because it is consistent with the contributing to resiliency (the ability of Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 purposes and the plain meaning of the the species to recover from disturbance). key definitions of the Act; it does not None of these concepts is intended to be F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). conflict with established past agency mutually exclusive, and a portion of a The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in practice, as no consistent, long-term species’ range may be determined to be this finding carefully balances these agency practice has been established; ‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions concerns. By setting a relatively high and it is consistent with the judicial under any one or more of these threshold, we minimize the degree to opinions that have most closely concepts. which restrictions will be imposed or examined this issue. Having concluded For the purposes of this finding, we resources expended that do not that the phrase ‘‘significant portion of determine whether a portion qualifies as contribute substantially to species its range’’ provides an independent ‘‘significant’’ by asking whether without conservation. But we have not set the basis for listing and protecting the entire that portion, the representation, threshold so high that the phrase ‘‘in a species, we next turn to the meaning of redundancy, or resiliency of the species significant portion of its range’’ loses ‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold would be so impaired that the species independent meaning. Specifically, we for when such an independent basis for would have an increased vulnerability have not set the threshold as high as it listing exists. to threats to the point that the overall was under the interpretation presented Although there are potentially many species would be in danger of extinction by the Service in the Defenders ways to determine whether a portion of (i.e., would be ‘‘endangered’’). litigation. Under that interpretation, the a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we Conversely, we would not consider the portion of the range would have to be conclude, for the purposes of this portion of the range at issue to be so important that current imperilment finding, that the significance of the ‘‘significant’’ if there is sufficient there would mean that the species portion of the range should be resiliency, redundancy, and would be currently imperiled determined based on its biological representation elsewhere in the species’ everywhere. Under the definition of contribution to the conservation of the range that the species would not be in ‘‘significant’’ used in this finding, the species. For this reason, we describe the danger of extinction throughout its portion of the range need not rise to threshold for ‘‘significant’’ in terms of range if the population in that portion such an exceptionally high level of an increase in the risk of extinction for of the range in question became biological significance. (We recognize the species. We conclude that a extirpated (extinct locally). that if the species is imperiled in a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 73183

portion that rises to that level of horned markhor, we find that threats private agencies and groups, and biological significance, then we should appear to be affecting the subspecies in individuals. conclude that the species is in fact the portion of the range outside of the Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, imperiled throughout all of its range, Torghar Hills more severely, and as implemented by regulations at 50 and that we would not need to rely on particularly with respect to overhunting. CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies the SPR language for such a listing.) Applying the process described above to evaluate their actions within the Rather, under this interpretation we ask for determining whether this subspecies United States or on the high seas with whether the species would be is endangered in a significant portion of respect to any species that is proposed endangered everywhere without that its range, we consider significance first or listed as endangered or threatened portion, i.e., if that portion were to determine if this portion of the and with respect to its critical habitat, completely extirpated. In other words, straight-horned markhor’s range if any is being designated. However, the portion of the range need not be so warrants further consideration. given that the straight-horned markhor important that even the species being in As stated above, a portion of the range is not native to the United States, we are danger of extinction in that portion of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its not designating critical habitat for this would be sufficient to cause the species contribution to the viability of the species under section 4 of the Act. in the remainder of the range to be species is so important that, without Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited financial assistance endangered; rather, the complete that portion, the species would be in for the development and management of extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of danger of extinction rangewide. We find programs that the Secretary of the the species in that portion would be that if there was a loss of the straight- Interior determines to be necessary or required to cause the species in the horned markhor populations outside of useful for the conservation of remainder of the range to be the Torghar Hills, the remaining endangered and threatened species in endangered. population in the Torghar Hills would foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) The range of a species can not be in danger of extinction. The of the Act authorize the Secretary to theoretically be divided into portions in Torghar Hills population, under the an infinite number of ways. However, encourage conservation programs for management of the TCP, has been there is no purpose to analyzing foreign endangered species and to steadily increasing since the inception portions of the range that have no provide assistance for such programs in of the TCP in 1985. Poaching, the reasonable potential to be significant or the form of personnel and the training greatest cause of substantial markhor to analyzing portions of the range in of personnel. declines, has been virtually eliminated which there is no reasonable potential The Act and its implementing in the Torghar Hills. Furthermore, the for the species to be endangered or regulations set forth a series of general straight-horned markhor and its habitat threatened. To identify only those prohibitions and exceptions that apply are stable under the current portions that warrant further to all endangered and threatened management. Given the level of the consideration, we determine whether wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR there is substantial information abundance and protection within 17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it illegal indicating that: (1) The portions may be Torghar Hills as a result of management for any person subject to the jurisdiction ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) the species may be under the TCP, we find that this of the United States to ‘‘take’’ (take in danger of extinction there or likely to population would continue to persist, includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, become so within the foreseeable future. despite the hypothetical loss of the shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, Depending on the biology of the species, range outside of Torghar Hills. In or to attempt any of these) within the its range, and the threats it faces, it contrast, based on the information United States or upon the high seas; might be more efficient for us to address available, the populations outside of import or export; deliver, receive, carry, the significance question first or the Torghar Hills are small and fragmented. transport, or ship in interstate or foreign status question first. Thus, if we We have no information to suggest that commerce in the course of commercial determine that a portion of the range is habitat for populations outside of activity; or sell or offer for sale in not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to Torghar Hills is optimal, and, instead, interstate or foreign commerce any determine whether the species is the information suggests that these endangered or threatened wildlife endangered or threatened there; if we populations likely exist on lands that species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, determine that the species is not are subject to overgrazing by domestic deliver, carry, transport, or ship any endangered or threatened in a portion of livestock, which is the dominant land such wildlife that has been taken in its range, we do not need to determine use and the primary means of violation of the Act. Certain exceptions if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In subsistence for local tribes. Therefore, apply to agents of the Service and State practice, a key part of the determination the portion of the range outside of the conservation agencies. that a species is in danger of extinction Torghar Hills does not meet the Permits may be issued to carry out in a significant portion of its range is definition of ‘‘significant’’ and does not otherwise prohibited activities whether the threats are geographically warrant further consideration. involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain concentrated in some way. If the threats Available Conservation Measures to the species are essentially uniform circumstances. Regulations governing throughout its range, no portion is likely Conservation measures provided to permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for to warrant further consideration. species listed as endangered or endangered species and 17.32 for Moreover, if any concentration of threatened under the Act include threatened species. For endangered threats to the species occurs only in recognition, requirements for Federal wildlife, a permit may be issued for portions of the species’ range that protection in the United States, and scientific purposes, to enhance the clearly would not meet the biologically prohibitions against certain practices. propagation or survival of the species, based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ such Recognition through listing results in and for incidental take in connection portions will not warrant further public awareness, and encourages and with otherwise lawful activities. For consideration. results in conservation actions by threatened species, a permit may be After reviewing the potential threats Federal and State governments in the issued for the same activities, as well as throughout the range of the straight- United States, foreign governments, zoological exhibition, education, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 73184 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules

special purposes consistent with the be sustainable. Additionally, habitat Authorities in the State of import Act. restoration may also be achieved. approve permits of sport-hunted Incorporating the needs of the local markhor trophies from Pakistan if they Special Rule people creates an incentive to conserve meet the terms of the Resolution. This Section 4(d) of the Act states that the wildlife and ensures the success of the proposed special rule, if made final, Secretary may, by regulation, extend to program (Shackleton 2001, pp. 7, 10). would similarly facilitate support for threatened species prohibitions In recognizing the potential of these conservation programs. Therefore, provided for endangered species under conservation programs, including those we find this special rule would provide section 9 of the Act. Our implementing based on sport hunting, we are necessary and advisable conservation regulations for threatened wildlife (50 proposing a special rule to allow the measures that are needed for this CFR 17.31) incorporate the section 9 import of sport-hunted markhor subspecies. prohibitions for endangered wildlife, trophies taken from established except when a special rule is conservation programs without a Peer Review promulgated. For threatened species, threatened species permit issued under In accordance with our policy, section 4(d) of the Act gives the 50 CFR 17.32, provided that certain ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative Secretary discretion to specify the criteria are met. Importation of a Policy for Peer Review in Endangered prohibitions and any exceptions to personal sport-hunted straight-horned Species Act Activities,’’ that was those prohibitions that are appropriate markhor may be authorized by the published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR for the species, and provisions that are Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 34270), we will seek the expert opinion necessary and advisable to provide for Service (Director) without a threatened of at least three appropriate the conservation of the species. A species permit if the trophy is taken independent specialists regarding this special rule allows us to include from a conservation program that meets proposed rule. The purpose of such provisions that are tailored to the the following criteria: (1) Populations of review is to ensure listing decisions are specific conservation needs of the straight-horned markhor within the based on scientifically sound data, threatened species and which may be conservation program’s areas can be assumptions, and analysis. We will send more or less restrictive than the general shown to be sufficiently large to sustain copies of this proposed rule to the peer provisions at 50 CFR 17.31. sport-hunting and the populations are reviewers immediately following The Service recognizes that there is a stable or increasing; (2) regulating publication in the Federal Register. We reasonable argument for the proposition authorities have the capacity to obtain will invite these peer reviewers to that controlled sport hunting (i.e., sound data on populations; (3) the comment, during the public comment noncommercial) may provide economic conservation program can demonstrate a period, on the specific assumptions and incentives that contribute to the benefit to both the communities the data that are the basis for our conservation of certain wildlife surrounding or within the area managed conclusions regarding the proposal to populations. These incentives may be by the conservation program and the reclassify the straight-horned markhor direct, such as generating funding for species, and the funds derived from as threatened under the Act and to essential conservation measures through sport hunting are applied toward promulgate the proposed special rule. licensing fees. They may also be benefits to the community and the We will consider all comments and indirect, such as focusing governmental species; (4) regulating authorities have information we receive during the attention on the need to protect species the legal and practical capacity to comment period on this proposed rule of economic value. provide for the long-term survival of the during preparation of a final Well-managed conservation programs, populations; (5) regulating authorities including those that incorporate sport rulemaking. Accordingly, our final can determine that the trophies have in decision may differ from this proposal. hunting, can significantly contribute to fact been legally taken from the the conservation of wildlife, improve populations under an established Required Determinations wildlife populations, and greatly conservation program. The Director Clarity of Rule enhance the livelihoods of the local may, consistent with the purposes of the people. The primary objective of a well- Act, authorize by publication of a notice We are required by Executive Orders managed trophy-hunting program is not in the Federal Register the importation 12866 and 12988 and by the hunting, but the conservation of large of personal sport-hunted straight-horned Presidential Memorandum of June 1, mammals (Shackleton 2001, p. 7). The markhor, taken legally from the 1998, to write all rules in plain key lies in ensuring a sufficient number established conservation program after language. This means that each rule we of mature males remain in the the date of such notice, without a publish must: population to maintain normal threatened species permit, provided that (a) Be logically organized; reproduction rates. For species with the applicable provisions of 50 CFR Part (b) Use the active voice to address polygynous mating systems, removing 23 have been met. readers directly; some of the males from a population As discussed above, hunting of (c) Use clear language rather than does not necessarily affect the growth markhor is allowed through a Pakistani jargon; rate of the population. If a fraction of the Government exemption, and export of (d) Be divided into short sections and mature trophy males are removed, markhor in Pakistan is allowed only sentences; and normal reproduction can be maintained from community-managed conservation (e) Use lists and tables wherever and any long-term genetic impacts from areas in accordance with CITES possible. removing ‘‘genetically superior’’ provisions. To encourage communities If you feel that we have not met these individuals from a population can be to conserve populations of markhor, the requirements, send us comments by one minimized (Shackleton 2001, p. 10). Conference of the Parties to CITES of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To Many hunters are willing to pay granted Pakistan an annual export quota better help us revise the rule, your relatively large fees for the privilege to of 12 markhor sport-hunted trophies comments should be as specific as hunt. If the money is used to conserve taken through community-based possible. For example, you should tell the species that is the focus of the programs. CITES Resolution Conf. 10.15 us the names of the sections or conservation program, the program may (Rev. CoP 14) recommends that CITES paragraphs that are unclearly written,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 234 / Thursday, December 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 73185

which sections or sentences are too FWS–R9–ES–2011–0003, or upon I, title 50 of the Code of Federal long, the sections where you feel lists or request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Regulations, as amended at 77 FR 47011 tables would be useful, etc. Service, Endangered Species Program, (August 7, 2012), as set forth below: Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR National Environmental Policy Act PART 17—[AMENDED] (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We have determined that we do not Authors ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 need to prepare an environmental The primary authors of this proposed continues to read as follows: assessment, as defined under the rule are staff members of the Branch of Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– authority of the National Environmental Foreign Species, Endangered Species 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. Policy Act of 1969, in connection with Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. regulations adopted under section 4(a) ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the of the Act. We published a notice List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 entry for ‘‘Markhor, Kabul’’ and revising outlining our reasons for this Endangered and threatened species, the entry for ‘‘Markhor, straight-horned’’ determination in the Federal Register Exports, Imports, Reporting and in the List of Endangered and on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). recordkeeping requirements, Threatened Wildlife to read as follows: Transportation. References Cited § 17.11 Endangered and threatened A list of all references cited in this Proposed Regulation Promulgation wildlife. document is available at http:// Accordingly, we propose to further * * * * * www.regulations.gov at Docket No. amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate population Historic range where endangered Status When Critical Special Common name Scientific name or threatened listed habitat rules

MAMMALS

******* Markhor, straight- Capra falconeri Afghanistan, Pakistan Entire ...... T 15 NA 17.40(a) horned. megaceros.

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by adding a new sufficiently large to sustain sport established conservation program, the paragraph (a) to read as follows: hunting and are stable or increasing; Director may, consistent with the (ii) Regulating authorities have the purposes of the Act, authorize by § 17.40 Special rules—mammals. capacity to obtain sound data on publication of a notice in the Federal (a) Straight-horned markhor (Capra populations; Register the importation of personal falconeri megaceros). (iii) The conservation program can sport-hunted straight-horned markhor, (1) General requirements. Except as demonstrate a benefit to both the taken legally from the established noted in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, communities surrounding or within the program after the date of such notice, all prohibitions of § 17.31 of this part area managed by the conservation without a Threatened Species permit and exemptions of § 17.32 of this part program and the species; and the funds issued under § 17.32 of this part, apply to this subspecies. derived from sport hunting are applied provided that the applicable provisions (2) What are the criteria under which toward benefits to the community and of 50 CFR Part 23 have been met. a personal sport-hunted trophy may the species; * * * * * qualify for import without a permit (iv) Regulating authorities have the under § 17.32 of this part? If, upon legal and practical capacity to provide Dated: November 19, 2013. receiving information on an established for the long-term survival of the Stephen Guertin, conservation program for straight- populations; and Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife horned markhor: (v) Regulating authorities can Service. (i) Populations of straight-horned determine that the sport-hunted [FR Doc. 2013–28879 Filed 12–4–13; 8:45 am] markhor within the conservation trophies have in fact been legally taken BILLING CODE 4310–55–P program’s areas can be shown to be from the populations under an

VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Dec 04, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM 05DEP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1