Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing All Chimpanzees as Endangered, 35201-35217 [2013-14007]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules (1) The making of false statements and concealment of any material information regarding the use or disposition, export or re-export of property; and (2) Any use or disposition, export or re-export of property which is not authorized in accordance with the provisions of any transfer, sale or other offering. (b) Contractors seeking guidance on how to comply with export control requirements should review the list of laws, regulations and directives applicable to the export of unclassified information, materials, technology, equipment or software set forth in paragraph (a) above and in clause 970.5225–1. Contractors also may contact the agencies responsible for administration of export laws, regulations or directives applicable to a particular export (e.g., Departments of State, Commerce, Treasury and Energy, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). Questions regarding DOE Directives should be referred to the appropriate DOE program office. (c) It is the Contractor’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items. This responsibility exists independent of, and is not established, or limited by, this subpart. 970.2571–3 Contract clause. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 970.5225–1, Compliance with export control laws, regulations and directives (Export Clause), in any contract that may involve the export of items including but not limited to unclassified information, materials, technology, equipment or software. ■ 7. Section 970.5225–1 is added to read as follows: Subpart 970.52—Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses for Management and Operating Contracts 970.5225–1 Compliance with export control laws, regulations and directives (Export Clause). As prescribed in section 970.2571–3, insert the following clause: ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 COMPLIANCE WITH EXPORT CONTROL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIVES (XXX 20XX) (a) The Contractor shall comply with applicable laws, regulations and directives regarding the export of items including but not limited to unclassified information, VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 materials, technology, equipment or software related to the performance of this contract. The Contractor may be subject to civil or criminal penalties for non-compliance with applicable laws, regulations and directives, as set forth in such laws, regulations and directives, including contract termination, monetary fines and/or imprisonment. (b) The Contractor’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled items exists independent of, and is not established, or limited by, the information provided by this clause. (c) The following Export Restriction Notice shall be included in all transfers, sales or other offerings of unclassified information, materials, technology, equipment or software: [Start of Export Restriction Notice] Export Restriction Notice—The use, disposition, export, and re-export of this property are subject to export control laws, regulations and directives, in effect on the date of contract award and as amended subsequently, that include but are not limited to: the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.); the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.), as continued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Title II of Pub.L. 95–223, 91 Stat. 1626, October 28, 1977; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b) as amended by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961); Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities (10 CFR part 810); Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material (10 CFR part 110); International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR parts 120 through 130); Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 734); regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (31 CFR Subtitle B Chapter V); DOE Order 142.3A, Unclassified Foreign Visits and Assignments Program, October 14, 2010; DOE Order 551.1D, Official Foreign Travel, June 24, 2008; and DOE Order 580.1A, Department of Energy Personal Property Management Program, March 30, 2012; and the Espionage Act (37 U.S.C. 791 et seq.) which among other things, prohibit: (1) The making of false statements and concealment of any material information regarding the use or disposition, export or reexport of the property; and (2) Any use or disposition, export or reexport of the property which is not authorized in accordance with the provisions of this agreement. [End of Export Restriction Notice] (d) Upon a request for guidance by the Contractor, the Contracting Officer should direct the Contractor to the agency responsible for the administration of the export laws, regulations or directives applicable to the Contractor’s question. (e) The Contractor shall obtain the necessary licenses, approvals and relevant PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 35201 documentation to comply with applicable export control laws, regulations and directives. The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer in a timely manner, in writing, of 1) any export control requirements it has determined apply to contract performance, and 2) that it has taken appropriate steps to comply with such requirements. (f) The Contractor’s responsibility to comply with all applicable export control laws, regulations and directives exists independent of, and is not established or limited by this clause. (g) Nothing in the terms of this contract adds to, changes, supersedes, or waives any of the requirements of applicable Federal laws, Executive Orders, and regulations. (h) The Contractor shall include this clause in subcontracts at any tier that involve the transfer, sale or other offering of items including but not limited to unclassified information, materials, technology, equipment, or software. (End of clause) [FR Doc. 2013–13798 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2010–0086; 4500030115] RIN 1018–AZ52 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing All Chimpanzees as Endangered Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month petition finding. AGENCY: SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list all chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are taking this action in response to a petition to list the entire species, whether in the wild or in captivity, as endangered under the Act. This proposal constitutes our 12-month finding on the petition and announces our finding that listing all chimpanzees as endangered is warranted. This document also serves as our 5-year E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 35202 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules review of the species. If we finalize this rule as proposed, we would eliminate the separate classification of captive and wild chimpanzees under the Act and extend the Act’s protections to captive chimpanzees in the United States. In addition, we propose to amend the special rule for primates to remove chimpanzees from the rule. If the listing of all chimpanzees as endangered is finalized, the provisions of the special rule can no longer be applied to captive chimpanzees. We seek comments from the public on this proposed rule. DATES: We will consider comments and information received or postmarked on or before August 12, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by July 29, 2013. ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods: (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS–R9–ES–2010–0086, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ If your comments will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http:// www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–ES–2010– 0086; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http:// www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Information Requested under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 358–2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action We are proposing to list all chimpanzees, whether in the wild or in captivity, as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We have determined that the Act does not allow for captiveheld animals to be assigned separate legal status from their wild counterparts on the basis of their captive state, including through designation as a separate distinct population segment (DPS). It is also not possible to separate out captive-held specimens for different legal status under the Act by other approaches. Therefore, we are proposing to eliminate the separate classification of chimpanzees held in captivity and list the entire species, wherever found, as endangered under the Act. II. Major Provision of the Regulatory Action If adopted as proposed, this action will eliminate separate classifications for wild and captive chimpanzees under the Act. All chimpanzees, whether in the wild or in captivity, will be listed as one entity that is endangered in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h). This action will also remove the chimpanzee and paragraph (c)(3) from the special rule for primates, found at 50 CFR 17.40(c), extending the Act’s protections to all chimpanzees. Background Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition (‘‘12-month finding’’). In this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register. PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 In this document, we announce that listing all chimpanzees, whether in the wild or in captivity, as endangered is warranted, and are proposing to revise the entry of this species in the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Additionally, this action, if finalized as proposed, will eliminate a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act that exempts captive chimpanzees in the United States from the general prohibitions of the Act. Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and addresses of commenters, will become part of the administrative record. Petition History On March 16, 2010, we received a petition dated the same day, from Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal on behalf of The Humane Society of the United States, the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, the Jane Goodall Institute, the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Pan African Sanctuary Alliance, the Fund for Animals, Humane Society International, and the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (hereafter referred to as ‘‘petitioners’’) requesting that captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) be reclassified as endangered under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petition contained information on what the petitioners reported as potential threats to the species from habitat loss, poaching and trafficking, disease, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms. In a September 15, 2010, letter to Katherine Meyer, we responded that we were required to complete a significant number of listing and critical habitat actions, including complying with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, that required nearly all of our listing and critical habitat funding for fiscal year 2010. We also stated that we anticipated making an initial finding during fiscal year 2011, as to whether the petition contained substantial information indicating that the action may be warranted. On October 12, 2010, we received a letter from Anna Frostic, Staff Attorney with the Humane Society of the United States, on behalf of the petitioners clarifying that the March 16, 2010, petition was a petition to list the entire species (Pan troglodytes) as endangered, E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 whether in the wild or in captivity, pursuant to the Act. We acknowledged receipt of this letter in a letter to Ms. Frostic dated October 15, 2010. Previous Federal Actions On October 19, 1976, we published in the Federal Register a rule listing the chimpanzee and 25 other species of primates under the Act (41 FR 45990); the chimpanzee and 13 of the other primate species were listed as threatened. The chimpanzee was found to be threatened based on (1) Commercial logging and clearing of forests for agriculture and the use of arboricides; (2) capture and exportation for use in research labs and zoos; (3) diseases, such as malaria, hepatitis, and tuberculosis contracted from humans; and (4) ineffectiveness of existing regulatory mechanisms. We simultaneously issued a special rule that the general prohibitions provided to the threatened species would apply except for live animals of these species held in captivity in the United States on the effective date of the rulemaking, progeny of such animals, or the progeny of animals legally imported into the United States after the effective date of the rulemaking. On November 4, 1987, we received a petition from the Humane Society of the United States, World Wildlife Fund, and Jane Goodall Institute, requesting that the chimpanzee be reclassified from threatened to endangered. On March 23, 1988 (53 FR 9460), we published in the Federal Register a finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, that the petition had presented substantial information indicating that the requested reclassification may be warranted and initiated a status review. We opened a comment period, which closed July 21, 1988, to allow all interested parties to submit comments and information. On December 28, 1988 (53 FR 52452), we published in the Federal Register a finding that the requested reclassification was warranted with respect to chimpanzees in the wild. This decision was based on the petition and subsequent supporting comments that dealt primarily with the status of the species in the wild and not with the viability of captive populations. We did not propose reclassification of captive chimpanzees. We found that the special rule exempting captive chimpanzees in the United States from the general prohibitions may encourage propagation, providing surplus animals and reducing the incentive to remove animals from the wild. On February 24, 1989 (54 FR 8152), we published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 implement such reclassification. Following publication of the proposed rule, we opened a 60-day comment period to allow all interested parties to submit comments and information. On March 12, 1990, we published in the Federal Register (55 FR 9129) a final rule reclassifying the wild populations of the chimpanzees as endangered. The captive chimpanzees remained classified as threatened, and those within the United States continued to be covered by the special rule allowing activities otherwise prohibited. On September 1, 2011, we published in the Federal Register a finding that the March 16, 2010, petition (discussed above under ‘‘Petition History’’) presented substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted, and we initiated a status review (76 FR 54423). On November 1, 2011, we published in the Federal Register a notice correcting an incorrect Docket Number given under the ADDRESSES section of the September 1, 2011, petition finding. We also gave notice that we were making the large volume of supporting documents submitted with the petition available to the public. To allow the public adequate time to review the supporting documents, we extended the period of time for submitting information to January 30, 2012 (74 FR 67401). 5-Year Review Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. A 5year review is conducted to ensure that the classification of a listed species is appropriate. Section 4(c)(2)(B) requires that we determine on the basis of this review: (1) Whether a species no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened and should be removed from the List (delisted); (2) whether a species more properly meets the definition of threatened and should be reclassified from endangered to threatened; or (3) whether a species more properly meets the definition of endangered and should be reclassified from threatened to endangered. This 12-month finding serves as our 5-year review of this species. Information Requested We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule be based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Therefore, we seek comments and information on this proposed rule, particularly but not limited to: PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 35203 (1) Information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection, diet, and population abundance and trends of this species. (2) Information on the effects of habitat loss and changing land uses on the distribution and abundance of this species and its principal food sources over the short and long term. (3) Information on whether changing climatic conditions are affecting the species, its habitat, or its prey base. (4) Information on the effects of other potential threat factors, including live capture and collection, domestic and international trade, predation by other animals, and diseases of this species. (5) Information on management programs for chimpanzee conservation, including mitigation measures related to conservation programs, and any other private or governmental conservation programs that benefit this species. (6) Information relevant to whether any populations of this species may qualify as distinct population segments. (7) Information on captive breeding and domestic trade of this species in the United States. (8) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (c) Disease or predation; (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as full references) to allow us to verify the information you provide. Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.’’ You may submit your information concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via http:// www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 35204 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules Wildlife Association, Safari Club International, and Safari Club International Foundation, asserted that the treatment by the Service of chimpanzees in 1990 warrants similar treatment now for these antelope species. Because the Service has not formally stated whether the current statute, regulations, and applicable policies provide any discretion to Public Hearing differentiate the listing status of At this time, we do not have a public specimens in captivity from those in the hearing scheduled for this proposed wild, we reviewed the issues raised by rule. The main purpose of most public these petitions to ensure the Act is hearings is to obtain public testimony or implemented appropriately. comment. In most cases, it is sufficient As discussed below, we find that the to submit comments through the Federal Act does not allow for captive-held eRulemaking Portal, described above in animals to be assigned separate legal the ADDRESSES section. If you would like status from their wild counterparts on to request a public hearing for this the basis of their captive state, including proposed rule, you must submit your through designation as a separate request, in writing, to the person listed distinct population segment (DPS).1 It is in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by also not possible to separate out captivethe date specified above in DATES. held specimens for different legal status under the Act by other approaches (see Evaluation of Listable Entities Other Potential Approaches for Under section 3(16) of the Act, we Separate Legal Status). may consider for listing any species, Provisions of the Act which includes subspecies of fish, wildlife, and plants, or any distinct The legal mandate of section 4(a)(1) is population segment (DPS) of vertebrate to determine ‘‘whether any species is an fish or wildlife that interbreeds when endangered species or threatened mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Such species. . . .’’ (emphasis added). In the entities are considered eligible for Act, a ‘‘species’’ is defined to include separate listing status under the Act any subspecies and any DPS of a (and, therefore, referred to as listable vertebrate animal, as well as taxonomic entities) should we determine that they species. Other than a taxonomic species meet the definition of an endangered or subspecies, captive-held specimens species or threatened species. (of a vertebrate animal species) would The Service was petitioned to list all have to qualify as a ‘‘distinct population chimpanzees, whether in the wild or in segment . . . which interbreeds when captivity, as endangered. Essentially, mature’’ to qualify as a separate DPS.2 this request is to eliminate the separate Nothing in the plain language of the classification of captive chimpanzees definitions of ‘‘endangered species,’’ from chimpanzees located in the wild. ‘‘threatened species,’’ or ‘‘species’’ This petition raised questions regarding expressly indicates that captive-held whether the Service has any discretion animals can or cannot have separate to differentiate the listing status of status under the Act on the basis of their specimens in captivity from those in the state of captivity. However, certain wild. The Service has not had an absolute 1 As compared to populations that exist in the policy or practice with respect to this wild, ‘‘captivity’’ is defined as ‘‘living wildlife . . . held in a controlled environment that is intensively issue, but generally has included wild manipulated by man for the purpose of producing and captive animals together when it wildlife of the selected species, and that has has listed species. The example set by boundaries designed to prevent animal [sic], eggs or the separate chimpanzee listings was gametes of the selected species from entering or leaving the controlled environment. General used as support for two petitions the characteristics of captivity may include but are not Service received in 2010 to delist U.S. limited to artificial housing, waste removal, health captive and U.S. captive-bred members care, protection from predators, and artificially of three antelope species in the United supplied food’’ (50 CFR 17.3). 2 The analysis in this document addresses only States. In the 2005 listing determination situations where it is not disputed that the for the scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx members of a wildlife species. This dammah), dama gazelle (Gazella dama), specimens arenot address situations where members analysis does and addax (Addax nasomaculatus) (70 of a species have been held in captivity for a sufficiently long period that they have developed FR 52310, September 2, 2005), the into a separate domesticated form of the species, Service found that a differentiation in domesticated form is the listing status of captive specimens of including where theto be considered a separate sufficiently distinct these antelopes in the United States was taxonomic species or subspecies (e.g., domesticated donkey vs. the African wild ass). not appropriate. The petitioners, Exotic ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 made via hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal identifying information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 language in the Act is inconsistent with a determination of separate legal status for captive-held animals. Under section 4(c)(1), the agency is to specify for each species listed ‘‘over what portion of its range’’ it is endangered or threatened.3 ‘‘Range,’’ while not defined in the Act, consistently has been interpreted as that general geographical area where the species is found in the wild. Thus, a group of animals held solely in captivity and analyzed as a separate listable entity has no ‘‘range’’ separate from that of the species to which it belongs, at least as that term has been applied under the Act. The Service has consistently interpreted ‘‘range’’ in the Act as a geographical area where the species is found in the wild. As demonstrated in various species’ listings at 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, information in the ‘‘Historic Range’’ column is the range of the species in the wild. For none of these species does the ‘‘range’’ information include countries or geographic areas on the basis of where specimens are held in captivity, even though the Service knows that specimens of many of these species have long been held in facilities outside their native range, including in the United States. Also, in analyzing the ‘‘present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of [a species’] habitat or range’’ (emphasis added) (see section 4(a)(1)(A) of the Act), the Service has traditionally analyzed habitat threats in the native range of wild specimens and not included other geographic areas where specimens have been moved to and are being held in captivity. We are not aware of any Service listing decision where analysis of threats to the ‘‘range’’ has included geographic areas outside the native range where specimens are held in captivity. In analyzing other threats to a species (see sections 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(1)(C), 4(a)(1)(D), and 4(a)(1)(E) of the Act), the Service has also limited its analysis to threats acting upon wild specimens within the native range of the species, and has not included analysis of ‘‘threats’’ to animals held in captivity except as those threats impact the potential for the captive population to contribute to recovery of the species in the geographic area where wild specimens are native. Finally, the Service’s 2011 draft policy on the meaning of the phrase 3 Even though the Service has taken the position in its draft SPR policy (76 FR 76987) that the range information called for under section 4(c)(1) is for information purposes, this statutory language still informs the question of Congress’ intent under the statute. E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ (SPR) (76 FR 76987; December 9, 2011) defines ‘‘range’’ as the ‘‘general geographic area within which that species can be found at the time the Service or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) makes any particular status determination. This range includes those areas used throughout all or part of the species’ life cycle, even if they are not used regularly (e.g., seasonal habitat). Lost historical range in relevant to the analysis of the status of the species, but it cannot consitutute a significant portion of a species’ range. The ‘‘general geographic area within which the species can be found’’ is broad enough to include geographic areas where animals have been moved by humans and are being held in captivity. However, the Service has not applied the definition in this manner in the past and does not intend to do so in the future. SPR analyses have been and will be limited to geographic areas where specimens are found in the wild. In addition to the use of ‘‘range’’ in sections 4(a)(1) and 4(c)(1), the definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened species,’’ found in section 3 of the Act, also discuss the role of the species range in listing determinations. The Act defines an endangered species as ‘‘any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,’’ and a threatened species as ‘‘any species which is likely to become an endangered species . . . throughout all or a significant portion of its range.’’ As noted above, ‘‘range’’ has consistently been interpreted by the Service as being the natural range of the species in the wild.4 For all the reasons discussed above, a group of animals held in captivity could not have separate legal status under the Act because they have no ‘‘range,’’ that is separate from the range of the species in the wild to which they belong as that term is used in the Act. 4 See also Endangered Species Act: Hearings on H.R. 37, H.R. 470, H.R. 471, H.R. 1461, H.R. 1511, H.R. 2669, H.R. 2735, H.R. 3310, H.R. 3696, H.R. 3795, H.R. 4755, H.R. 2169 and H.R. 4758 Before the House Subcomm. on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 93d Cong. 198 (1973) (hereinafter 1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and others) (Letter from S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary of Smithsonian Institute, to Chairman, House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, April 23, 1973 (lauding H.R. 4758, the Administration’s legislative proposal that contained a definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ substantially similar to the statutory definition eventually adopted by Congress in the 1973 Act: ‘‘In effect the bill offers a great deal of flexibility by providing that a species may be placed on the list if the Secretary determines that it is presently threatened with extinction, not only in all of its natural range, but in a significant part thereof, as well.’’) (emphasis added)). VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 Certain provisions in sections 9 and 10 of the Act show that what Congress intended was that captive-held animals would generally have the same legal status as their wild counterparts by providing certain exceptions for animals held in captivity. Section 9(b)(1) of the Act provides an exemption from certain section 9(a)(1) prohibitions for listed animals held in captivity or in a controlled environment as of the date of the species listing (or enactment of the Act), provided the holding in captivity and any subsequent use is not in the course of a commercial activity. Section 9(b)(2) of the Act provides an exemption from all section 9(a)(1) prohibitions for raptors held in captivity or in a controlled environment as of 1978 and their progeny. Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act allows permits to ‘‘enhance the propagation or survival’’ of the species (emphasis added). This demonstrates that Congress recognized the value of captive-holding and propagation of listed specimens held in captivity, but intended that such specimens would be protected under the Act, with these activities generally regulated by permit.5 If captive-held specimens could simply be excluded through the listing process, none of these exceptions and permits would have been needed. Purpose of the Act Meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act The full purposes of the Act, stated in section 2(b), are ‘‘to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved [hereafter referred to as the first purpose], to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species [hereafter referred to as the second purpose], and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section [hereafter referred to as the third purpose]’’. It has been stated, without explanation, that the language of section 2(b) of the Act supports protecting only specimens that occur in the wild. However, the purposes listed in section 5 See Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1972: Hearing on S. 249, S. 3199 and S. 3818 Before the Senate Subcomm. on the Environment, Senate Comm. on Commerce, 92nd Cong. 211–12 (1972) (statement of Deborah Appel, Assistant to the Director for Public Information, National Audubon Society) (endorsing S. 3199, a bill considered by the Senate that contained similar language eventually adopted by Congress in the purpose section of the 1973 Act, but advising against a specific mandate requiring captive propagation because‘‘the capture of specimens for experiment in captive propagation may in itself endanger the chances of some rare species for survival in the wild.’’). PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 35205 2(b) indicate that the three provisions are intended to have independent meaning, with little to indicate that Congress’ intent was to protect only specimens of endangered or threatened species found in the wild. The treaties and conventions under the third purpose are expressly those listed in section 2(a)(4) of the Act, all of which are for the protection of wildlife and plants, and none of which are limited to protection of endangered or threatened specimens in the wild.6 The first purpose calls for conservation of ecosystems, independent of conservation of species themselves (which is separately listed as the second purpose). This does focus on protection of native habitats (those inhabited by the species in the wild in its native range), as it is generally the ecosystems or habitats within which a species has evolved that are those upon which it ‘‘depends.’’ However, the phrase ‘‘upon which endangered species and threatened species depend’’ indicates only that ecosystem (i.e., habitat) protection should be focused on that used by endangered and threatened species, and does not indicate that the sole focus of the Act is conservation of species within their native ecosystems. Several provisions in the Act provide authority to protect habitat, independent of authorities applicable to protection and regulation of specimens of listed species themselves. See, for example, section 5 (Land Acquisition), section 6 (Cooperation With the States), section 7 (Interagency Cooperation), and section 8 (International Cooperation). It is the second purpose under section 2(b) of the Act that speaks to the conservation of species themselves that are endangered or threatened. However, nothing in the language of the second purpose indicates that conservation programs should be limited to specimens located in the wild. The plain language of section 2(b) refers to ‘‘species,’’ with no distinction between wild specimens of the species as compared to captive-held specimens of the species. Thus, nothing in the plain language indicates that captive-held specimens should be excluded from the Act’s processes and protections that would contribute to recovery (i.e., ‘‘conservation’’) of the entire taxonomic species. It is true that the phrasing of the second purpose (‘‘to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species’’ (emphasis added)) links the second purpose of species recovery to the first 6 Nor are these treaties and conventions limited to protection of species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act. E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 35206 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules purpose of ecosystem (i.e., native habitat) protection, thus making the goal of the statute recovery of endangered and threatened species in their natural ecosystems. But there is nothing in the phrasing to indicate that the specific provisions of the statute for meeting this goal should be limited to specimens of the species located within the ecosystems upon which they depend. Separate Legal Status Is Inconsistent With Section 2(b) ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 The potential consequences of captive-held specimens being given separate legal status under the Act on the basis of their captive state, particularly where captive-held specimens would have no legal protection while wild specimens are listed as endangered or threatened,7 indicate that such separate legal status is not consistent with the section 2(b) purpose of conserving endangered and threatened species. Congress specifically recognized ‘‘overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes’’ as a potential threat that contributes to the risk of extinction for many species. If captiveheld specimens could have separate legal status under the Act, the threat of overutilization would likely increase. For example, the taxonomic species would potentially be subject to increased take and trade in ‘‘laundered’’ wild-caught specimens to feed U.S. or foreign market demand because protected wild specimens would be generally indistinguishable from unprotected captive-held specimens. Because there would be no restriction or regulation on the taking, sale, import, export, or transport in the course of commercial activities in interstate or foreign commerce of captive specimens by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, there would be a potential legal U.S. market in captive-held endangered or threatened specimens and their progeny operating parallel to any illegal U.S. market (or U.S. citizen participation in illegal foreign markets) in wild specimens. With the difficulty of distinguishing captive-held from wild specimens, especially when they are broken down into their parts and products, illegal wild specimens of commercial value could likely easily be 7 If it were determined that captive-held animals can have separate legal status on the basis of their captive state, proponents of separate legal status could argue that these captive specimens do not qualify as endangered or threatened species because they do not face ‘‘threats’’ that create a substantial risk of extinction to the captive specimens such as those faced by the wild population (see Section 4: Listing Captive-held Specimens). VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 passed off as legal captive specimens and thus be traded as legal specimens. If captive-held specimens could have separate legal status under the Act, the taxonomic species would potentially be subject to increased take of animals from the wild and illegal transfer of wild specimens into captivity. The United States is one of the world’s largest markets for wildlife and wildlife products.8 Poachers and smugglers would have increased incentive to remove animals from the wild and smuggle them into captive-holding facilities in the United States for captive propagation or subsequent commercial use of either live or dead specimens, because once in captivity there would be no Act restrictions on use of the captive-held specimens or their offspring. This would be a particular issue for foreign species where States regulate native wildlife (and therefore captive-held domestic endangered or threatened specimens would continue to be regulated under State law), but often do not regulate use of nonnative wildlife. This could be a particularly lucrative trade for poachers and smugglers because many endangered and threatened species (particularly foreign species) are at risk of extinction because of their high commercial value in trade (as trophies or pets, or for their furs, horns, ivory, shells, or medicinal or decorative use). Congress included the similarity-ofappearance provision in section 4(e) to allow the Service to regulate species under the Act where one species so closely resembles an endangered or threatened species that enforcement cannot distinguish between the protected and unprotected species and this difficulty is a threat to the species. The Service’s only option in the cases of ‘‘take’’ described above would be to complete separate similarity-ofappearance listings for captive-held animals. A similarity-of-appearance listing under the Act for captive-held specimens would make captive specimens subject to the same restrictions as listed wild specimens. Operation of Key Provisions of the Act As described in the following subsections, operation of key provisions in sections 4 and 7 of the Act also indicate that it would not be consistent with Congressional intent or the purpose of the Act to treat groups of captive-held specimens as separate listable entities on the basis of their captive state. 8 See USFWS Office of Law Enforcement Annual Report for FY 2009 p. 7. PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Section 4: Listing Captive-Held Specimens The section 4 listing process is not well suited to analyzing threats to an entirely captive-held group of specimens that are maintained under controlled, artificial conditions. If wild populations and captive-held specimens could qualify as separate listable entities, and it was determined that captive-held specimens do not qualify as endangered or threatened, captive-held specimens would receive no assistance or protection under the Act even in cases where wild populations continue to decline, even to the point of the species being extirpated in the wild, with the specimens in captivity being the only remaining members of the species and survival of the species being dependent on the survival of the captive-held specimens. This would not be consistent with the purposes of the Act. Groupings of captive-held specimens might not meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the statutory factors because the scope of the section 4 analysis for a captivespecimen listing would be the conditions under which the captiveheld specimen exists, not the conditions of the members of the species in the wild, as the captive-held members of the species and wild members of the species would be under separate consideration for listing under the Act and therefore under separate 5-factor analyses. Groupings of solely captive-held specimens might not meet the definition of endangered (in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range) or threatened (likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future) when the conditions for individual specimens’ survival are carefully controlled under human management, especially for species that readily breed in captivity, where breeding has resulted in large numbers of genetically diverse specimens, or where there are no known uncontrollable threats such as disease. The majority of the section 4(a)(1) factors would be difficult to apply to captive-held specimens with a range independent of wild specimens because they are not readily suited to evaluating specimens held in captivity or might contribute to a determination that the entity under consideration (separate groupings of captive-held specimens) does not qualify as endangered or threatened. There may be situations where only disease threats (factor C) and other natural or manmade factors (factor E) would be applicable to consideration of purely captive-held groups of E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules specimens. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range (factor A) may not be a threat for a listable entity consisting solely of captive-held specimens, because the physical environment under which captive specimens are held is generally readily controllable and, in many cases, optimized to ensure the physical health of the animal. Overutilization (factor B) is unlikely to be a factor threatening the continued existence of groups of captive-held specimens where both breeding and culling are managed to ensure the continuation of stock at a desired level based on ownership interest and market demand. Predation (factor C) may rarely be a factor for captive-held specimens because predators may be more readily controlled. Human management may provide for all essential life functions, thereby eliminating selection or competition for mates, food, water resources, and shelter. It is unclear how the ‘‘inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms’’ (factor D) would apply to captive-held specimens with a range independent of wild specimens because this factor generally applies in relationship to threats identified under the other factors. Regulatory mechanisms applicable to wild specimens usually include measures to protect natural habitat and laws that regulate activities such as take, sale, and import and export. However, there might be no regulatory mechanisms applicable when the group of specimens under consideration is in captivity (except perhaps general humane treatment or animal health laws). That the section 4 process is not well suited to listings of entirely captive specimens is demonstrated by the previous listing action for the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee was originally listed in its entirety as a threatened species (41 FR 45990; Oct. 19, 1976). On March 12, 1990 (55 FR 9129), the Service reclassified wild populations of chimpanzees as a separate endangered species, noting that wild populations had declined due to massive habitat destruction, excessive hunting and capture by people, and lack of effective national and international controls. But the final reclassification rule never analyzed whether the newly designated DPS consisting of chimpanzees ‘‘wherever found in captivity’’ separately met the definition of a threatened species based on the five factors found in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Instead, the rule discussed estimated numbers of animals in captivity and known captive-breeding VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 programs, stating in response to a comment that some chimpanzee breeding groups were being managed in the United States with the objective of achieving self-sustainability. The fivefactor analysis in both the proposed and final listing rules considered only information applicable to wild populations and within the taxanomic species’ native range. Section 4: Delisting Captive-Held Specimens If wild populations and groups of captive-held specimens could qualify as separate listable entities, and because groupings of captive-held specimens may not meet the definitions of endangered or threatened under the statutory factors (as discussed above), captive-held specimens currently listed as endangered or threatened (because they were originally listed along with wild specimens as a single listed entity) could be petitioned for, and might qualify for, delisting. These specimens would therefore lose any legal protections of the Act, even as wild populations continue to decline, including to the point of extirpation in the wild. This likewise would not be consistent with the purpose of the Act. Section 4: Listing Effects on Wild Populations If wild specimen populations and groups of captive-held specimens could qualify as separate listable entities, and because the analysis for determining legal status of wild populations would be separate from the analysis for determining legal status of captive specimens, the wild population would likely qualify for delisting in the event that all specimens are lost from the wild (in other words, if they became extinct in the wild), thereby removing both incentives and protections for conservation of the species in the wild and the conservation of its ecosystem. Under the Service’s standard section 4 process, both captive-held and wild specimens of the species are members of the listed entity and have legal status as endangered or threatened. In situations where all specimens in the wild are gone, either because they are extirpated due to threats or because, as a last conservation resort, the remaining wild specimens are captured and moved into captivity, the species remains listed until specimens from captivity can be reintroduced to the wild and wild populations are recovered. However, if captive specimens and wild populations could have separate legal status, once all members of the wild population were gone from the wild, the wild population could be petitioned for and would likely PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 35207 qualify for delisting under 50 CFR 424.11(d)(1) as a ‘‘species’’ that is now extinct. As shown above, the separate captive-held members of the taxonomic species might not qualify for legal status as endangered or threatened, due to the lack of ‘‘threats’’ that create a risk of extinction to the viability of a sustainable, well-managed pool of captive animals. With no listed entities and therefore no authority to use funding or other provisions of the Act for the species, the Service would lose valuable tools for recovery of the species to the wild. This would clearly not be consistent with the purpose of the Act. Section 7: Consultation All Federal agencies have a legal obligation to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species. This means that for separately listed captive-held endangered or threatened specimens, any Federal agency that is taking an action within the United States or on the high seas that may affect the captiveheld listed species arguably would have a legal duty to consult with the Service. However, the section 7 consultation process is not well suited to analysis of adverse impacts posed to a purely captive-held group of specimens given that such specimens are maintained under controlled, artificial conditions. Section 4: Designation of Critical Habitat For any listed entity located within the United States or on the high seas, we have a section 4 duty to designate critical habitat unless such habitat is not prudent.9 Although it is appropriate not to designate critical habitat for foreign species or to limit a critical habitat designation to natural habitats for U.S. species when a listing is focused on the species in the wild (even when some members of the species may be held in captivity within the United States), it is not clear how the Service would support not designating critical habitat when the listed entity would consist entirely of captive-held specimens (when the focus of captivity is within the United States). As with the consultation process, the critical habitat designation duty is not well suited for listings that consist entirely of captiveheld specimens, especially given the anomaly of identifying the physical and biological features that would be essential to the conservation of a species 9 Making a not determinable finding is also an option under section 4(b)(6) of the statute, but only delays the requirement to designate such critical habitat. E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 35208 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 consisting entirely of captive animals in an artificial environment. These complexities related to section 7 consultations and designation of critical habitat indicate that Congress did not intend the Service to treat groups of captive-held specimens as separate listable entities on the basis of their captive state. Legislative History Legislative history surrounding the 1978 amendment of the definition of ‘‘species’’ in the Act indicates that Congress intended designation of a DPS to be used for wild vertebrate populations, not separation of captiveheld specimens from wild members of the same taxonomic species. The original (1973) definition of species was ‘‘any subspecies . . . and any other group of fish or wildlife of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature’’ (Pub. L. 93–205). In 1978, Congress amended the Act to the Act’s current definition of species, substituting ‘‘distinct population segment’’ for ‘‘any other group’’ and ‘‘common spatial distribution’’ following testimony on the inadequacy of the original definition, such as the exclusion of one category of populations commonly recognized by biologists: disjunct allopatric populations that are separated by geographic barriers from other populations of the same species and are consequently reproductively isolated from them physically (See Endangered Species Act Oversight: Hearing Before Senate Subcommittee on Resource Protection, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 95th Cong. 50 (July 7, 1977) (here after 1977 Oversight Hearing) (letter from Tom Cade, Program Director, The Peregrine Fund, to Director of the Service). Although there was discussion regarding population stocks and reproductive isolation generally, particularly in association with development of the 1973 definition,10 discussions that provide additional context on the scope of the definition of ‘‘species’’ show that Congress thought of the population-based listing authority as appropriate for populations that are distinct for natural and evolutionary reasons. For example, one witness discussed ‘‘species’’ as associated with the concept of geographic reproductive isolation and including characteristics of a population’s ability or inability to freely exchange genes in nature (See 10 See 1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and others p. 286 (statement of John Grandy, National Parks and Conservation Assoc.) p. 307 (statement of Stephen Seater, Defenders of Wildlife), and pp. 299–300 (statement of Tom Garrett, Friends of the Earth). VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 1977 Oversight Hearing at 50 (Cade letter)). There is no evidence that Congress intended for the agency to use the authority to separately list groups of animals that have been artificially separated from other members of the species through human removal from the wild and maintenance in a controlled environment. Examples in testimony for which population-based listing authority would be appropriately used were all for wild populations (See 1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and others at 307 (statement of Stephen Seater, Defenders of Wildlife); Endangered Species Act of 1973: Hearings on S. 1592 and S. 1983 Before the Senate Subcomm. on Environment, Senate Comm. on Commerce, 93d Cong. 98 (1973) (statement of John Grandy, National Parks and Conservation Assoc.); Endangered Species Authorization: Hearings on H.R. 10883 Before the House Subcomm. on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 95th Cong. 560 (1978) (statement of Michael Bean, Environmental Defense Fund)). No examples were given suggesting designation of captive-held vertebrates as a DPS. Other Potential Approaches for Separate Legal Status In addition to separate designation as ‘‘species,’’ there are two other approaches under which it could be argued that captive-held specimens could be given separate legal status from their wild counterparts: (1) Simply excluding captive-held members of the taxonomic species, subspecies, or DPS from the Act’s protections, or (2) designating only wild members of the taxonomic species as a DPS, with captive-held specimens not included in the DPS. However, neither approach would be consistent with Congress’ intent for the Act. One court already determined that captive-held specimens of a listable entity cannot simply be excluded when they are members of the listable entity and the Service agrees with the court’s reasoning in this case. The Service cannot exclude captive-held animals from a listing once these animals are determined to be part of the species. This case—Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans—involved the listing of coho salmon by the NMFS. NMFS’s 1993 Hatchery Policy (58 FR 17573; April 5, 1993) stated that hatchery populations could be included in the listing of wild members of the same evolutionary significant unit (equivalent to a DPS), but only if the hatchery fish were ‘‘essential to recovery.’’ In 1998, NMFS PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 listed only ‘‘naturally spawned’’ specimens when it listed an evolutionary significant unit (ESU) of coho salmon (63 FR 42587; August 10, 1998). This decision was challenged in court, and the Court found NMFS’s listing decision invalid because it excluded hatchery populations (which are fish held in captivity) even though they were part of the same DPS (or ESU) Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001). The Court held that ‘‘Congress expressly limited the Secretary’s ability to make listing distinctions below that of subspecies or a DPS of a species,’’ which was the practical result of excluding all hatchery specimens. NMFS subsequently changed its Hatchery Policy in 2005, stating that all hatchery fish that qualify as members of the ESU would be considered part of the ESU, would be considered in determining whether the ESU should be listed as endangered or threatened, and would be included in any listing under the Act (70 FR 37204; June 28, 2005). NMFS’s 2005 Hatchery Policy was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court in Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, 559 F. 3d 946 (2009). For the same reasons as discussed earlier in this document, the Service also cannot simply designate wild members of the taxonomic species as a DPS, leaving all captive-held animals unlisted. Although this would avoid designating captive-held animals as a separate DPS and would not technically be excluding animals that otherwise have been found to be members of a DPS (and thereby avoid the error the court found in the Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans decision), the result would be separate legal status and no legal protections for captive-held specimens, and many of the same legal and conservation consequences discussed above would occur. For these reasons, we also find this outcome to be inconsistent with Congress’ intent for the Act, primarily as inconsistent with the purposes of the Act. Now that we have determined that all chimpanzees, including captive and wild animals, should be considered as a single listable entity under the Act, we will next assess the status of the species and determine if the species meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act. In 1990, we determined that chimpanzees in the wild are endangered. This analysis considers new information in light of that previous determination and includes the extent to which captive-held chimpanzees create or contribute to threats to the species or remove or reduce threats to the species by E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules contributing to the conservation of the species. Species Information ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Taxonomy and Species Description In 1990, when the wild populations of chimpanzees were reclassified to endangered, only three subspecies were recognized. Since that time, the correct taxonomic labeling for chimpanzees has been debated and includes the use of a two-subspecies system, a foursubspecies system, and the use of the species level without subspecific designations (Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5; Morgan et al. 2011, p. 7; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Ghobrial et al. 2010, p. 2; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated). Today, four subspecies are commonly recognized and include the Central African chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes), East African chimpanzee (P. t. schweinfurthii), West African chimpanzee (P. t. verus), and Nigeria– Cameroon chimpanzee (P. t. ellioti) (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 7; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated). Characteristics of the chimpanzee include an opposable thumb and prominent mouth. The skin on a chimpanzee’s face, ears, palms, and soles of the feet are bare, whereas the rest of the body is covered with brown to black hair. Arms extend beyond the knees. This species walks ‘‘on all four’’ but are able to walk on just their legs for more than a kilometer (0.6 miles (mi)) (WWF n.d., unpaginated). The male stands over 1.2 meters (m) (4 feet (ft)) tall and weighs 59 kilograms (kg) (130 pounds (lb)); the female is closer to 0.9 m (3 ft) tall and weighs under 45 kg (100 lb) (AZA 2000, p. 1). Chimpanzees live in social communities that range from 5 to 150 individuals (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated). A male dominance hierarchy forms the core of the community. Males work together to defend a home range and will occasionally attack and kill individuals from another community (Lonsdorf 2007, pp. 72, 74). These communities do not move around in a group like gorillas or monkeys, but rather spend most of their time in subgroups called parties (Pusey et al. 2007, p. 626; Plumptre et al. 2003, p. 9). Members of a community may join, or leave, at any time and parties may change frequently in size and composition depending on presence VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 35209 of receptive females, food availability, and activity of the party (Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72; Lehmann and Boesch 2004, p. 207; Humle 2003, p. 17; Plumptre et al. 2003, p. 9). Males remain in the community in which they were born; however, once females become sexually mature, between the ages of 9 and 13, they leave the community to join a new one (Humle 2003, p. 16). Chimpanzees are slow breeders; females do not give birth until they are 12 years of age or older and only have one infant every five or six years. Infants are weaned around four years old, and stay with their mothers until they are about eight to ten years old (Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72; Kormos 2003, p. 1; Plumptre et al. 2003, pp. 8, 10, 13). The relationship between the mother and her offspring is critical; young may not survive being orphaned, even after they are weaned (Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72). of solid side branches, bending, breaking, and interweaving side branches crosswise, then bending smaller twigs in a circle around the rim. Chimpanzees exhibit strong preferences for certain tree species for nesting, independent of their availability in the habitat. Choice of nesting sites is variable across populations and communities of chimpanzees and is dependent on habitat structure, resource distribution, predation levels, and human disturbance. Chimps can be deterred from nesting in certain areas where human habitation is concentrated. As a result, human presence influences nesting behavior and can put chimpanzees at risk of predators, since habitats where they relocate nests to avoid humans may not provide sufficient protection (Humle 2003, pp. 15–16). Essential Needs of the Species The chimpanzee lives in a variety of moist and dry forest habitats including savanna woodlands, mosaic grassland forests, and tropical moist forests (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Pusey et al. 2007, p. 626; GRASP 2005a, p. 6; Butynski 2003, p. 6). In general, chimpanzees need large areas to provide sufficient resources for feeding, nesting, and shelter (Carter 2003b, p. 158). However, home ranges may vary depending on the quality of habitat and community size; competition for food and predation risk may also play a role. Home ranges average 12.5 km2 (8 mi2), but can range from 5–400 km2 (3–249 mi2) (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Humle 2003, pp. 17–18). Chimpanzees are omnivores; half their diet is ripe fruit, but they also feed on leaves, bark, stems, insects, and mammals, including red colobus (Procolobus spp.), black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza) and redtailed guenons (Cephalophus monticola). Diets vary seasonally and between populations, depending on food availability and habitat type (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Pusey et al. 2007, p. 626; Humle 2003, pp. 13–14; Watts and Mitani 2002, p. 7). Chimpanzees build arboreal nests in which they sleep at night and may rest during the day (Plumptre et al. 2003, p. 10; Humle 2003, p. 15). Nests are constructed by preparing a foundation Historically, this species may have spanned most of Equatorial Africa, from Senegal to southwest Tanzania, ranging over 25 countries (Butynski 2003, p. 6). Today, the chimpanzee has been lost from Benin, Togo, and Burkina Faso. The species now occurs in a wide but discontinuous distribution over 22 countries in an area approximately 2,342,000 square kilometers (km2) (904,000 square miles (mi2)) (Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 1; Butynski 2003, p. 6). Chimpanzees are thought to have numbered in the millions at the beginning of the 20th Century, although there are no hard data to support this. Chimpanzee populations are believed to have declined by 66 percent, from 600,000 to 200,000 individuals before the 1980s (Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 1). Since the 1980s, estimates for the chimpanzee have varied, but in general have increased over the past three decades (See Table 1) (Oates 2006, pp. 102–104; Butynski 2003, p. 10). Using the latest population estimates for each subspecies, the chimpanzee, today, totals between 294,800 and 431,100 individuals; although we note that this estimate does not factor in a recent 90 percent decline in the chimpanzee ˆ population of Cote d’Ivoire (see below). The range countries and most recent population estimates for each subspecies are outlined in Table 2. PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Range and Population E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 The increase in the chimpanzee population estimates is believed to be a result of the difficulty in producing accurate estimates and the availability of new information, rather than an actual increase in chimpanzee numbers (Oates 2006, p. 104). Accurate data is lacking for most of the chimpanzee populations. Few areas have been adequately surveyed; some chimpanzee populations survive at densities too low for accurate detection; survey methods lack precision to enable extrapolation to large areas of potential habitat; some surveys are outdated; and in many cases estimates are simply best guesses (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 9; Plumptre et al. 2010, pp. 5, 7, 9, 31, 41; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 904; Oates 2006, p. 102; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 6; GRASP 2005a, p. 7; Butynski 2003, p. 5; Kormos and Bakarr 2003, p. 29;). Despite the appearance of an increase in chimpanzee numbers, experts agree that chimpanzee populations are VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 declining (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 1; Greengrass 2009, pp. 77, 80–82; Kabasawa 2009, p. 37; Campbell et al. 2008, pp. 903–904; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Oates 2006, p. 110; Tutin 2005, p. 2; GRASP 2005a, p. 3; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 2; Butynski 2003, p. 11; Nishida et al. 2001, pp. 45–46). Data to support a declining trend comes ˆ from nationwide surveys of Gabon, Cote d’Ivoire, and Tanzania, data from longterm chimpanzee research sites, a questionnaire survey of great ape field researchers, and the expansion and increasing intensity of threats (Junker et al. 2012, p. 3; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 8; Oates 2006, pp. 105–106; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 45; Campbell et al. 2008, pp. 903–904; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 32). One of the greatest documented losses of chimpanzees comes from a 2007 survey ˆ of Cote d’Ivoire which found a 90 percent decline in chimpanzees since the last survey conducted in 1989–1990, indicating a significant loss of PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 chimpanzees from a country once thought to be one of the final strongholds of the western chimpanzee (Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903). Many remaining populations are now small, isolated, and face serious threats (Oates 2006, pp. 104, 110). Furthermore, the chimpanzee has already been extirpated from three countries. Due to the high risk of extinction for populations under 600 individuals (Oates 2006, p. 108), the chimpanzee could be extirpated from an additional four countries: Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, and Guinea–Bissau (Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5; Butynski 2003, p. 11; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 3). In addition to wild populations, chimpanzees are held in captivity in several countries around the world, including African countries and the United States. We do not have detailed information on the number, subspecies, or the location of captive chimpanzees. However, we did find information indicating that 70 chimpanzees are E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 EP12JN13.003</GPH> Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules EP12JN13.002</GPH> ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 35210 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 living in sanctuaries in Cameroon and Nigeria (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 9). Approximately 171 chimpanzees are living in sanctuaries throughout West Africa; another 478 chimpanzees in the region are known to be held outside of sanctuaries (e.g., homes or hotels) (Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4). Within the United States, approximately 2,000 chimpanzees are in captivity (ChimpCare 2013, unpaginated; Ross et al. 2008, p. 1,487). Summary of Threats Threats to the chimpanzee have intensified and expanded since 1990, when wild populations of the chimpanzee were listed as endangered. Across its range, high deforestation rates are destroying, degrading, and fragmenting forests the chimpanzee needs to support viable populations and provide food and shelter. Widespread poaching, capture for the pet trade, and outbreaks of disease are removing individuals needed to sustain viable populations; recovery from the loss of individuals is more difficult given the slow reproductive rates of chimpanzees. These actions are exacerbated by an increasing human population, the expansion of settlements, and increasing pressure on natural resources to meet the needs of the growing population (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 10; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Kabasawa 2009, p. 37; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Bennett 2006, p. 885; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 1; GRASP 2005a, p. 3; Kormos 2003, pp. ix, 1; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 97; Walsh et al. 2003, pp. 611–612; Carter et al. 2003, p. 38). Deforestation, with consequent access and disturbance by humans, remains a major factor in the decline of chimpanzee populations across their range. Although some large forest blocks remain, commercial logging and the conversion of forests to agricultural land continue to severely reduce and fragment chimpanzee habitat (Morgan et al. 2011, pp. 12, 18, 19, 26, 31; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5; CBFP 2006, p. 16; Fa et al. 2006, p. 498; Tutin et al. 2005, pp. 1, 2, 10, 12, 14–17, 21–23; Humle 2003, p. 150; Carter et al. 2003, p. 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; Gippoliti et al. 2003, p. 57; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 83; Herbinger et al. 2003, pp. 106, 109; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 71; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 151; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Nisbett et al. 2003, pp. 95, 97; Oates et al. 2003, p. 129; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 613; Parren and Byler 2003, p. 135). As the human population and VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 economic development have increased, pressure on forest resources has also increased. This increasing pressure has led to uncontrolled legal and illegal forest conversion within and outside of protected areas (e.g., national parks and forest reserves), leaving them destroyed and fragmented (Greengrass 2009, pp. 77, 80; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; CBFP 2006, pp. 16, 33; Nasi et al. 2006, p. 14; Carter et al. 2003, p. 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 109; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Oates et al. 2003, p. 129; Parren and Byler 2003, pp. 135, 137). The natural protection once afforded to chimpanzees by large blocks of suitable habitat, isolated from human activities, is disappearing due to logging activity. Much of the chimpanzee’s range is already allocated to logging concessions, and logging operations, both legal and illegal, are expanding (Morgan et al. 2011, pp. 12, 26; Laporte et al. 2007, p. 1451; Morgan and Sanz 2007, pp. 3, 5; CBFP 2006, p. 29; Hewitt 2006, p. 43; Nasi et al. 2006, p. 14; Tutin 2005, pp. 2, 4, 12, 30, 32; Kormos et al. 2003a, p. 29). Heavy pressures on timber resources have led to cutting cycles that occur too frequently in an area to allow for proper regrowth, resulting in rapid degradation of forests (Parren and Byler 2003, p. 135). In addition to clearing forests, logging operations often create a network of roads for transporting timber. These roads provide greater access to forests that were once inaccessible, facilitate the establishment of human settlements, and are accompanied by further deforestation from the conversion of forests to agriculture (Junker et al. 2012, p. 7; Morgan et al., 2011, p. 12; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Greengrass 2009, p. 80; Laporte et al. 2007, p. 1451; Hewitt 2006, p. 44; Duvall 2003, p. 143; Oates et al. 2003, p. 129; Parren and Byler 2003, pp. 133, 137–138). Human population growth and agricultural expansion have destroyed and fragmented forests across the range of the chimpanzee and are two of the greatest threats to chimpanzee survival. Plantations and farms have been established in suitable chimpanzee habitat, including within protected areas (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 9; Greengrass 2009, p. 80; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 20; Duvall 2003, p. 143; Gippoliti et al. 2003, pp. 55, 57; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 83; Humle 2003, p. 147; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 63; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Parren and Byler 2003, p. 138). In West Africa, most unreserved forests have been converted to cultivation (Parren and Byler 2003, p. 138). Agricultural practices are largely PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 35211 unsustainable and are encroaching into additional forested areas (Parren and Byler 2003, p. 133). Chimpanzees are highly adaptive and occur in a variety of habitats, including primary, secondary, and regenerating forests, logged forests, and plantations; they have even been found living in close proximity to humans. However, the loss, or even the degradation, of the chimpanzee’s traditional habitat can affect their survival by impacting its food resources, behavior, susceptibility to disease, and abundance and distribution, (Morgan and Sanz 2007, p. 1; Carter et al. 2003, p. 36; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 83; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 18; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 97; Parren and Byler 2003, p. 137). Although chimpanzees feed on a wide variety of foods, their energy requirements, as large primates with large home ranges, predispose them to a reliance on high-energy fruits (Greengrass 2009, p. 81). Removal, or lowering the quality, of habitat through logging activity or establishment of agricultural lands destroys the structure and composition of the forest, eliminating essential food sources, which can affect sociability, condition of individuals, and female reproductive success, and increase vulnerability to diseases or parasites and infant and juvenile mortality (Greengrass 2009, pp. 81–82). Even in areas with lower levels of logging where essential food sources were unaffected, chimpanzee densities have declined significantly and remained low for years. Clear-cutting results in total habitat loss, and because of severe soil erosion, the potential for future forest regeneration is also lost (Parren and Byler 2003, pp. 137–138). The loss or reduction of food sources and the noise and disturbance from logging activity can cause chimpanzee communities to abandon their home range to find a new home range with sufficient resources and less human activity. These chimpanzees may enter another community’s territory which can lead to further competition for resources and conflict that can lead to death. As habitat is lost or fragmented and chimpanzee populations are forced into smaller forest fragments, lethal interactions with other chimpanzees may increase. Furthermore, chimpanzees may be cautious about reinhabiting previous home ranges where they were displaced by humans (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 12; Lonsdorf 2007, p. 74; Carter et al. 2003, p. 36; Parren and Byler 2003, pp. 137–138). If the displacement of chimpanzees forces them into suboptimal habitat, they may not have sufficient protection from E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 35212 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules predators, especially at night (Humle 2003, pp. 15–16). The loss or reduction of food sources due to expanding logging, agriculture, and human settlements into chimpanzee habitat has also resulted in increased conflicts between humans and chimpanzees (Tacugama Sanctuary 2013, unpaginated; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Tweheyo et al. 2005, pp. 237–238, 244; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 106; Humle 2003, p. 147; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 71; Naughton-Treves et al. 1998, pp. 597, 600). Lack of sufficient wild food and an increase in farming and human presence have increased the occurrence of crop raiding to supplement their diet. Crop raiding can cause substantial losses to farmers, reduce the tolerance of humans to chimpanzee presence, and increase killing chimpanzees to protect valuable crops or in retaliation for the destruction of crops (Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary 2013, unpaginated; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Bennett et al. 2006, p. 885; Tweheyo et al. 2005, p. 245; Duvall 2003, p. 144; Carter et al. 2003, p. 36; Gippoliti et al. 2003, p. 57; Humle 2003, pp. 147, 150; Parren and Byler 2003, p. 138; Naughton-Treves 1998, p. 597). Unsustainable hunting for the bushmeat trade is one of the major causes of the decline in chimpanzees, and continues to be a major threat to the survival of chimpanzees in protected and unprotected areas (Ghobrial et al. 2011, pp. 1, 2, 11; Morgan et al. 2011, p. 10; Hicks et al. 2010, pp. 1, 3, 6, 11; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Kabasawa 2009, p. 37; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Lonsdorf 2007, p. 74; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Tutin et al. 2005, pp. 1, 10–23, 27–28; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 109; Humle 2003, p. 17; Kormos and Boesch 2003, pp. 2, 14, 16, 19; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 63; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 151; Magnuson et al. 2003, pp. 111, 113; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Oates et al. 2003, pp. 123, 129; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 12). Growth in the human population in Africa has increased the demand for wild animal meat, or bushmeat. Expansion of logging activities, including the construction of logging roads, has facilitated a significant market, much of it illegal, for commercial bushmeat to meet this demand (Amati et al. 2009, p. 6; Kabasawa 2009, pp. 50–51; AV Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Fa et al. 2006, pp. 503, 506; Magazine 2003, p. 7; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 151; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 613; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, pp. 1, 11). Logging roads and vehicles provide access to the forests and a means to export meat to markets and cities. Logging operations VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 are accompanied by an onslaught of workers who are encouraged to hunt to provide for their own needs and commercial hunters who operate in forests to supply the needs of forestry workers and to trade outside of the forested areas (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 151; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 613; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 47; BowenJones 1998, p. 1). Furthermore, bushmeat trade is also an important livelihood and the primary source of protein for humans in much of the chimpanzee’s range (Abwe and Morgan 2008, p. 26; Fa et al. 2006, p. 507; Bennett et al. 2006, p. 885; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 155; Wilkie and Carpenter 1999, p. 927). The intensity of hunting chimpanzees varies by country and region (Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151–152). Religious, traditional, and familial taboos against the killing of chimpanzees and the consumption of their meat exist in many areas (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 9; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Greengrass 2009, p. 81; Kabasawa 2009, p. 51; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Carter et al. 2003, pp. 31, 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; Gippoliti et al. 2003, pp. 55, 57; Humle 2003, p. 18; Kormos and Boesch 2003, pp. 10, 13; Kormos et al. 2003b, pp. 63, 71; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 152, 154; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Oates et al. 2003, p. 129; Waller and Reynolds 2001, p. 135; Bowen-Jones 1998, pp. 19, 27). However, these areas may be hunted by people from surrounding areas where there is demand for chimpanzee meat (Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72). Furthermore, these traditions and beliefs are not necessarily being passed down to younger generations and cannot be relied on to protect chimpanzees in the future (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 9; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Oates et al. 2003, p. 129). Despite the high demand for bushmeat, primates do not represent the majority of animals killed for the bushmeat trade (AV Magazine 2003, p. 7; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 613; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 1). In fact, studies have found that chimpanzee meat makes up only a small fraction of the meat found in markets; estimates from different regions have ranged from 0.01 to 3 percent (Kabasawa 2009, p. 38; Fa et al. 2006, p. 502; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 106; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 2; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151–152). However, because the sale of ape meat is often hidden and the meat may be eaten in villages and never make it to markets, the proportion of chimpanzee meat in bushmeat markets could be greater than reported (Kabasawa 2009, p. 38; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151–152; PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Bowen-Jones 1998, pp. 21–11). Hunting pressure even at a low level is enough to result in the local extirpation of large chimpanzee populations. Low population densities and slow reproductive rates prevent chimpanzees from recovering easily from the loss of several individuals (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Fa et al. 2006, p. 503; AV Magazine 2003, p. 7; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 106; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 2; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151, 153; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 13). Threats to the chimpanzee from habitat loss and commercial hunting have been exacerbated by civil unrest that has occurred in several chimpanzee range countries (Plumptre et al. 2010, pp. 4–5; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; CBFP 2006, p. 16; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 85; Nisbett et al. 2003, pp. 89, 95; Draulans and Van Krunkelsven 2002, pp. 35–36). During civil conflict, many people, including refugees, military groups, and rebels take shelter in interior forests and protected areas (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 4; CBFP 2006, p. 16). The presence of soldiers and displaced refugees increases the number of people that rely on bushmeat for protein. Not only do soldiers hunt, but they also supply locals with weapons and ammunition to hunt them (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 5; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 85; Draulans and Van Krunkelsven 2002, pp. 35–36;). Civil unrest has contributed to a significant loss of wildlife, including chimpanzees (Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; HansonAlp et al. 2003, p. 85). Capture of live chimpanzees for the international pet trade has been one of the major causes of the decline in chimpanzees. Today, illegal capture and smuggling of chimpanzees continue for the pet trade across Africa and, to some extent, the international market (Ghobrial et al. 2010, pp. 1, 2, 11; Kabasawa 2009, pp. 37, 48–49; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95). A recent increase in orphaned chimpanzees has been attributed to the growing bushmeat crisis. Killing a mother with an infant earns twice the income for the hunter; the mother’s body is sold in the bushmeat trade while the infant enters the pet trade (Kabasawa 2009, p. 50; Carter 2003b, p. 157). Furthermore, hunters have found a lucrative market for pet chimpanzees with military personnel, police, government officials, and traditional chiefs (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 8; Draulans and Van Krunkelsven 2002, pp. 35–36). The intensity of trade differs among countries, but is E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules reportedly a substantial problem in The ˆ Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Guinea (Hicks et al. 2010, pp. 3, 6, 11; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Unit 2007, p. 5; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 84; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 106; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113). It is not possible to determine how many wild chimpanzees are captured for the pet trade, but the number of chimpanzees in sanctuaries indicates it is a significant problem. Since 2000, the number of chimpanzees in African sanctuaries has increased 59 percent (Kabasawa 2009, pp. 37, 50). The petitioners assert that the exploitation of chimpanzees in the United States’ entertainment and pet industries is seen around the world and misleads the public into believing chimpanzees are well protected in the wild and make good pets, further fueling the demand for chimpanzees. Studies suggest a link between seeing chimpanzees portrayed in the media and misperceptions about the species’ status in the wild. This misperception may also affect conservation efforts (Ross et al. 2011, pp. 1, 4–5; Schroepfer et al. 2011, pp. 6–7; Ross 2008a, pp. 25– 26; Ross et al. 2008b, p. 1487). However, we did not find evidence that this situation was a significant driver in the status of the species. The effects of the pet trade are particularly devastating to wild populations because the mother and other family members may be killed to capture an infant. Researchers estimate that as many as 10 chimpanzees may be killed for every infant that enters the pet trade. Furthermore, the infant is likely to die of malnutrition, disease, or injury (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 8; Kabasawa 2009, p. 49; Lonsdorf 2007, p. 74; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 84; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4). The loss of even just a few individuals from a population can have devastating effects due to the slow reproductive rate of chimpanzees. Because so many chimpanzees may be killed to secure an infant, the pet trade has a significant draining effect on remaining populations, and threatens the survival of wild chimpanzees (Kabasawa 2009, p. 49; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113). Historically, wild chimpanzees were captured and exported to meet a significant demand for chimpanzees in biomedical research in countries around the world, significantly impacting chimpanzee distribution and abundance (Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72). A substantial number of countries do not VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 permit or conduct research on chimpanzees and the international research community is no longer seeking access to wild chimpanzees (Hicks 2011, pers. comm.; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5). Although some biomedical research on captive chimpanzees continues in the United States and Gabon, in the United States, there is a decreasing scientific need for chimpanzee studies due to the emergence of non-chimpanzee models and technologies (Institute of Medicine 2011, pp. 5, 66–67). As previously stated, chimpanzees are held in captivity in several countries around the world, including African countries and the United States. Chimpanzees in captivity are bred and sold as pets, used in the entertainment industry (e.g., movies, television, and advertisements), exhibited in hotels and roadside shows, used as party entertainment or animal encounters, displayed in zoos, and used for biomedical research. It is thought that self-sustaining breeding groups of captive chimpanzees provide surplus animals for research and other purposes, thereby reducing the demand for wild individuals. Given that threats to the chimpanzee have expanded and intensified, and capture for the illegal pet trade continues to be a major threat to remaining chimpanzee populations, it does not appear that the availability of captive chimpanzees has reduced any threats to the species. National laws exist within all range countries to protect chimpanzees. In general, hunting, capture, possession, and commercial trade of chimpanzees are prohibited. Laws also protect chimpanzee habitat, including the establishment of protected areas, in many of the range countries. However, as evidenced by the continuing and increasing habitat destruction and hunting and trading of this species, even within protected areas, these laws are not often enforced. A lack of resources, limited training, limited personnel, lack of basic logistical support, corrupt officials, and weak legislation prevent government agencies charged with the protection of wildlife and forest management from providing effective protection. Furthermore, penalties for violations are not adequate to serve as a deterrent (Ghobrial et al. 2010, pp. 1, 2, 11; Hicks et al. 2010, pp. 8–9; Kabsawa 2009, p. 39; Laporte et al. 2009, p. 1451; Unti 2007a, pp. 4, 6, 8, 10–11; Unti 2007b, pp. 6–10; Bennett et al. 2006, p. 885; AV Magazine 2003, p. 7; Carter 2003a, p. 52; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Carter et al. 2003, pp. 31, 32, 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 79, 87; Herbinger et al. 2003, PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 35213 pp. 100, 106; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 6; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 64; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 155; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 112; Nisbett et al. 2003, pp. 90, 95; Oates et al. 2003, pp. 123, 125). The chimpanzee is also protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), an international agreement between governments to ensure that the international trade of CITES-listed plant and animal species does not threaten species’ survival in the wild. Under this treaty, CITES Parties (member countries or signatories) regulate the import, export, and reexport of specimens, parts, and products of CITES-listed plant and animal species. Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Management Authority of each CITES Party. With the exception of Angola, all chimpanzee range countries are Parties to CITES. The chimpanzee is listed in Appendix I of CITES. An Appendix-I listing includes species threatened with extinction whose trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade. The import of an Appendix-I species generally requires the issuance of both an import and export permit. Import permits for Appendix-I species are issued only if findings are made that the import would be for purposes that are not detrimental to the survival of the species and that the specimen will not be used for primarily commercial purposes (CITES Article III(3)). Export permits for Appendix-I species are issued only if findings are made that the specimen was legally acquired and trade is not detrimental to the survival of the species, and if the issuing authority is satisfied that an import permit has been granted for the specimen (CITES Article III(2)). Based on CITES trade data from 1990– 2011, obtained from United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP–WCMC) CITES Trade Database, there has been significant legal trade of chimpanzees and their parts, and products worldwide. However, legal trade in wild specimens, including live animals, bones, scientific specimens, and hair has been limited. Trade of these wild specimens for commercial purposes was reported for 14 live specimens, 121 scientific specimens, and 10 skulls. From 2002–2011, exports and re-exports of wild specimens from the United States have numbered 8 scientific specimens for scientific purposes. Imports of wild specimens into the United States have been limited E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 35214 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules and have included hairs, scientific specimens, a skull, and one unspecified specimen for personal, scientific, educational, and medical purposes. As human settlements expand and populations of chimpanzees and their habitat are reduced, interactions between chimpanzees and humans or human waste increases, leading to greater risks of disease transmission. A close genetic relationship allows for easy transmission of infectious diseases between chimpanzees and humans (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Lonsdorf 2007, p. 73; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 29; Formenty et al. 2003, p. 169; Huijbregts et al. 2003, p. 437). Rural communities that share the same habitat as chimpanzees have no access to health care and are not vaccinated against diseases that can spread through ape populations and result in high mortality rates. Additionally, exposure to humans through conservation and research activities, such as habituation, ecotourism, and reintroductions can also increase the risk of disease transmission (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; ¨ Kondgen et al. 2008, p. 260; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 29; Huijbregts et al. 2003, p. 437; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 48). Disease transmission is a major threat to remaining populations of the central and eastern chimpanzees (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 10; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; GRASP 2005a, p. 7; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 2; Leendertz et al. 2004, p. 451; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 612). Repeated epidemics of Ebola virus have resulted in dramatic ˆ declines in ape populations in Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Republic of Congo ¨ (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Kondgen et al. 2008, p. 261; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 29; Leendertz et al. 2004, p. 451; Huijbregts et al. 2003, pp. 437, 441; Walsh et al. 2003, pp. 612–613; Formenty et al. 2003, pp. 169–172). Other infectious diseases have resulted in the death of ¨ chimpanzees at Gombe, Mahale, and Taı national parks (Rudicell et al. 2010, pp. 1, 10; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; ¨ Kondgen et al. 2008, pp. 260–262; Williams et al. 2008, pp. 766, 768–770; Leendertz et al. 2004, pp. 451–452; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 48). Once a chimpanzee population has been reduced, whether by hunting, capture for the pet trade, or disease, its ability to recover is limited due to very slow reproductive rates and complex social behavior (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 1; Kabasawa 2009, p. 49; Bennett et al. 2006, p. 885; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 32; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151, 155; Wilkie and Carpenter 1999, p. 927;). VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 Even low levels of hunting can have a devastating effect on the population. The loss of reproductive-age female chimpanzees can be particularly devastating, further reducing the population’s ability to recover from the loss (Carter 2003b, p. 157; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72). The occurrence of chimpanzees at low densities coupled with slow reproductive rates can lead to the rapid extinction of even large populations (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 2). The current threats to the chimpanzee, as described above, are not likely to improve in the future, resulting in a continuing decline of chimpanzee populations. Threats to this species are driven by the needs of an expanding human population. Within the range countries of the chimpanzee, the human population is expected to continue to increase and will inevitably increase the pressures on natural resources. Therefore, impacts to remaining populations of chimpanzees, as described above, from deforestation, hunting, commercial trade, and disease are likely to continue or even intensify (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 10 Plumptre et al. 2010, pp. 50, 71; Fitzherbert et al. 2008, pp. 538–539, 544; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; CBFP 2006, p. 33; Fa et al. 2006, p. 506; Hewitt 2006, pp. 44, 48–49; Nasi et al. 2006, p. 14; Carter et al. 2003, p. 38; Duvall 2003, p. 145; Parren and Byler 2003, p. 137; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 45; Wilkie and Carpenter 1999, pp. 927–928). Continuing threats acting on chimpanzee populations, coupled with the species’ inability to recover from population reductions, will likely lead to the loss of additional populations. Chimpanzees could be lost from an additional three countries due to threats acting on populations that fall below what is considered the minimum for a viable population (Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5; Butynski 2003, p. 11; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 3). Many remaining populations are small and isolated, putting them at an increased risk of extinction (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 12). Many management plans have been developed to conserve the chimpanzee (e.g., Morgan et al. 2011; Plumptre et al. 2010; GRASP 2005a; GRASP 2005b; Tutin et al. 2005; Kormos and Boesch 2003; Kormos et al. 2003). These plans lay out goals and research needs to address the threats faced by chimpanzees. Development of forest management plans with the goal of sustainable forestry practices has increased (Hewitt 2006, p. 43; Nasi et al. 2006, pp. 17–19). However, implementation of these management PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 plans faces challenges, and the effect of these plans has yet to be determined. There is no evidence that management plans have reduced threats to the species. Chimpanzees are found in numerous protected areas. In some cases, these areas provide adequate protection and support substantial populations of chimpanzees. Unfortunately, many protected areas have weak or nonexistent management with poor law enforcement and are illegally logged, converted to agricultural lands, and hunted (Campbell et al. 2011, p. 1). Furthermore, we have no evidence that enforcement of legislation to protect chimpanzees and their habitat, including protected areas, will improve. Finding Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of the five factors, we look beyond the species’ exposure to a potential threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that causes actual impact to the species. The identification of threats that might impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include evidence indicating that the threats are operative and, either singly or in aggregation, affect the status of the species. Threats are significant if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of the species, such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened, as those terms are defined in the Act. As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the chimpanzee is in danger of E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the chimpanzee. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information. We find that the chimpanzee is endangered by all five factors. In 1990, wild chimpanzees were listed as endangered due to habitat loss, excessive hunting, capture for the pet trade, disease, and lack of effective national and international laws. Since then, threats to the chimpanzee have only expanded and intensified. Habitat that is needed to support viable populations is being lost to logging operations and conversion to agriculture. Individuals needed to maintain viable populations are being lost to hunting for the bushmeat trade, trade in pet chimpanzees, disease, and conflicts with humans. Chimpanzees need large areas to provide sufficient resources for feeding, nesting, and shelter. Although some large forest blocks remain, logging and agricultural expansion have destroyed and fragmented much of the chimpanzee’s habitat. The loss of suitable habitat is driving chimpanzees into smaller fragments of habitat closer to human settlements and creating competition for resources, increasing conflicts with humans, and increasing the risk of disease transmission. Human population growth and expansion of human activities have created a lucrative market for bushmeat and trade in live chimpanzees. Although chimpanzee meat constitutes only a small fraction of bushmeat found in markets, and the exact number of chimpanzees captured for the trade is unknown, these actions have drained chimpanzee populations. They are especially devastating because chimpanzees have slow reproductive rates and cannot easily recover from the loss of individuals. Laws exist throughout the range countries and internationally to protect the chimpanzee, but enforcement of national laws is lacking. Many populations are now small and isolated, putting them at a greater risk of extinction. Impacts to the chimpanzee are expected to continue into the future as the human population continues to expand and pressures on natural resources to meet the demands of the human population increase. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 The status of the chimpanzee has not improved since the wild population of the species was reclassified from threatened to endangered in 1990. Threats to the species have intensified and expanded across its range. Therefore, we find that endangered is the correct status for the chimpanzee throughout its range. We also examined the chimpanzee to analyze if any other listable entity under the definition of ‘‘species,’’ such as subspecies or distinct population segments, may qualify for a different status. However, because of the magnitude and uniformity of the threats throughout its range, we find that there are no other listable entities that may warrant a different determination of status. Since threats extend throughout the entire range, it is unnecessary to determine if the chimpanzee is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we have determined that the chimpanzee meets the definition of an endangered species under the Act. Consequently, we propose to revise the listing of chimpanzees under the Act so that all chimpanzees, wherever found, are listed as endangered. Special Rule For threatened species, section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service discretion to specify the prohibitions and any exceptions to those prohibitions that are appropriate for the species, as well as include provisions that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. A special rule allows us to develop regulatory provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of the threatened species and which may be more or less restrictive than the general provisions for threatened species at 50 CFR 17.31. Currently, the captive chimpanzees in the United States, classified as threatened, are exempt from the general prohibitions for threatened species at 50 CFR 17.31 under a special rule for primates found at 50 CFR 17.40(c). Because special rules can be applied only to threatened species, the special rule for captive chimpanzees will no longer be available if the proposed revision to the classification of all chimpanzees to endangered is finalized. Therefore, we also propose to remove the chimpanzee, including a provision specific to the chimpanzee, from the special rule. Available Conservation Measures Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 35215 threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results in conservation actions by Federal and state governments, private agencies and groups, and individuals. Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated. However, given that the chimpanzee is not native to the United States, we are not designating critical habitat for this species under section 4 of the Act. Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited financial assistance for the development and management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage conservation programs for foreign endangered species and to provide assistance for such programs in the form of personnel and the training of personnel. In 2000, the United States Congress passed the Great Ape Conservation Act to protect and conserve the great ape species, including the chimpanzee, listed under both the Endangered Species Act and CITES. The Great Ape Conservation Act granted the Service the authority to establish the Great Ape Conservation Fund to provide funding for projects that aim to conserve great apes through law enforcement training, community initiatives, and other conservation efforts. The Service’s Wildlife Without Borders program, through the Great Ape Conservation Fund, is supporting efforts to fight poaching and trafficking in great apes; to increase habitat protection by creating national parks and protected areas; and to engage the community through local initiatives to conserve the most threatened great ape species. The Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to ‘‘take’’ (take includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt any E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1 35216 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules of these) within the United States or upon the high seas; import or export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered or threatened wildlife species. To possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation of the Act is also illegal. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered species and 17.32 for threatened species. For endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, a permit may be issued for the same activities, as well as zoological exhibition, education, and special purposes consistent with the Act. Peer Review In accordance with our policy, ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,’’ that was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions and the data that are the basis for our conclusions regarding the proposal to list all chimpanzees as endangered under the Act. We will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final rulemaking. Accordingly, our final decision may differ from this proposal. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Required Determinations References Cited Clarity of Rule We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must: (a) Be logically organized; (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly; (c) Use clear language rather than jargon; (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible. If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the names of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc. A list of all references cited in this document is available at http:// www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2010–0086, or upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations adopted under section 4(a) of the Act for the listing, delisting, or reclassification of species. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain any new information collections or recordkeeping requirements for which Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is required under the Species Historic range ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Common name Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened * Africa ...................... * Entire ...................... Scientific name Authors The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. Proposed Regulation Promulgation Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 17—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. 2. Amend § 17.11(h) in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by: ■ a. Revising the entry for ‘‘Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)’’ (‘‘Wherever found in the wild’’); and ■ b. Removing the entry for ‘‘Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)’’ (‘‘Wherever found in captivity’’). The revision reads as follows: ■ § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. * * * (h) * * * Status * When listed * Critical habitat Special rules MAMMALS * Chimpanzee ............. * VerDate Mar<15>2010 * Pan troglodytes ...... * 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 * Jkt 229001 PO 00000 * Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 * E * 16, 376 * Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM * 12JNP1 * NA NA * Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules ■ ■ ■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by: a. Revising paragraph (c)(1); and b. Removing paragraph (c)(3). The revision reads as follows: § 17.40 Special rules—mammals. (c) * * * (1) Except as noted in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, all provisions of § 17.31 apply to the lesser slow loris (Nycticebus pygmaeus); Philippine tarsier (Tarsius syrichta); white-footed tamarin (Saguinus leucopus); black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra); stumptailed macaque (Macaca arctoides); gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada); Formosan rock macaque (Macaca cyclopis); Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata); Toque macaque (Macaca sinica); long-tailed langur (Presbytis potenziani); purple-faced langur (Presbytis senex); and Tonkin snubnosed langur (Pygathrix [Rhinopithecus] avunculus). * * * * * Dated: May 31, 2013. Daniel M. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2013–14007 Filed 6–11–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 697 [Docket No. 080219213–3470–01] RIN 0648–AT31 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 AGENCY: SUMMARY: NMFS proposes new Federal American lobster regulations that would control lobster trap fishing effort by limiting access into the lobster trap fishery in Lobster Conservation Management Area 2 (Federal nearshore waters in Southern New England; Area 2), and in the Outer Cape Cod Lobster Conservation Management Area (Federal nearshore waters east of Cape Cod, MA; Outer Cape Area). Additionally, this action would implement an individual transferable trap program for Area 2, the Outer Cape Area, and Lobster Conservation Management Area 3 (Federal offshore VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:54 Jun 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 waters; Area 3). The proposed trap transfer program would allow Federal lobster permit holders to buy and sell all or part of a permit’s trap allocation, subject to the restrictions set forth in the proposed rule. DATES: We must receive your comments no later than July 29, 2013. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA– NMFS–2012–0244, by any of the following methods: • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20120244, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. • Mail: Submit written comments to: Peter Burns, Fishery Policy Analyst, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: ‘‘Comments on Lobster Transferable Trap Proposed Rule.’’ • Fax: (978) 281–9135; Attn: Peter Burns. Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ A’’ in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. You may obtain copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), including the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), prepared for this action at the mailing address specified above; telephone (978) 281– 9180. The documents are also available online at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/ lobster. You may submit written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in this proposed rule to the mailing address listed above and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395–7285. PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 35217 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Burns, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone (978) 281–9144, fax (978) 281– 9135. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory Authority These proposed regulations would modify Federal lobster fishery management measures in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under the authority of section 803(b) of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act) 16 U.S.C 5101 et seq., which states that in the absence of an approved and implemented Fishery Management Plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and after consultation with the appropriate Fishery Management Council(s), the Secretary of Commerce may implement regulations to govern fishing in the EEZ, i.e., from 3 to 200 nautical miles (nm) offshore. The regulations must be (1) compatible with the effective implementation of an Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) developed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and (2) consistent with the national standards set forth in section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Purpose and Need for Management The purpose of these proposed measures is to manage the American lobster fishery in a manner that maximizes resource sustainability, recognizing that Federal management occurs in consort with state management. To achieve this purpose, NMFS must act in response to the Commission’s recommendations in several addenda to the Commission’s ISFMP for American Lobster (Plan, Lobster Plan) to control lobster trap fishing effort in a manner consistent with effort control measures already implemented by the states. The proposed measures seek to (1) promote economic efficiency within the fishery while maintaining existing social and cultural features of the industry where possible, and (2) realize conservation benefits that will contribute to the prevention of overfishing of American lobster stocks. Background The American lobster resource and fishery is managed by the states and Federal government within the framework of the Commission. The role of the Commission is to facilitate cooperative management of interjurisdictional fish stocks, such as E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35201-35217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14007]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0086; 4500030115]
RIN 1018-AZ52


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing All 
Chimpanzees as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list all 
chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) as endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are taking this action in 
response to a petition to list the entire species, whether in the wild 
or in captivity, as endangered under the Act. This proposal constitutes 
our 12-month finding on the petition and announces our finding that 
listing all chimpanzees as endangered is warranted. This document also 
serves as our 5-year

[[Page 35202]]

review of the species. If we finalize this rule as proposed, we would 
eliminate the separate classification of captive and wild chimpanzees 
under the Act and extend the Act's protections to captive chimpanzees 
in the United States. In addition, we propose to amend the special rule 
for primates to remove chimpanzees from the rule. If the listing of all 
chimpanzees as endangered is finalized, the provisions of the special 
rule can no longer be applied to captive chimpanzees. We seek comments 
from the public on this proposed rule.

DATES: We will consider comments and information received or postmarked 
on or before August 12, 2013. Comments submitted electronically using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received 
by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
    We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the 
address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by July 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R9-ES-2010-0086, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a 
comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!'' If your comments will fit in 
the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review 
procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our 
preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple 
comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet 
in Microsoft Excel.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9-ES-2010-0086; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more 
information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; 
telephone 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    We are proposing to list all chimpanzees, whether in the wild or in 
captivity, as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). We have determined that the Act does not allow for 
captive-held animals to be assigned separate legal status from their 
wild counterparts on the basis of their captive state, including 
through designation as a separate distinct population segment (DPS). It 
is also not possible to separate out captive-held specimens for 
different legal status under the Act by other approaches. Therefore, we 
are proposing to eliminate the separate classification of chimpanzees 
held in captivity and list the entire species, wherever found, as 
endangered under the Act.

II. Major Provision of the Regulatory Action

    If adopted as proposed, this action will eliminate separate 
classifications for wild and captive chimpanzees under the Act. All 
chimpanzees, whether in the wild or in captivity, will be listed as one 
entity that is endangered in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h). This action will also remove the 
chimpanzee and paragraph (c)(3) from the special rule for primates, 
found at 50 CFR 17.40(c), extending the Act's protections to all 
chimpanzees.

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains 
substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the 
species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the 
date of receipt of the petition (``12-month finding''). In this 
finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not 
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a 
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other 
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or 
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove 
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. We must publish these 12-month findings in the 
Federal Register.
    In this document, we announce that listing all chimpanzees, whether 
in the wild or in captivity, as endangered is warranted, and are 
proposing to revise the entry of this species in the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Additionally, this action, if 
finalized as proposed, will eliminate a special rule under section 4(d) 
of the Act that exempts captive chimpanzees in the United States from 
the general prohibitions of the Act.
    Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take 
into consideration all comments and any additional information we 
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from 
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and 
addresses of commenters, will become part of the administrative record.

Petition History

    On March 16, 2010, we received a petition dated the same day, from 
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal on behalf of The Humane Society of the 
United States, the American Association of Zoological Parks and 
Aquariums, the Jane Goodall Institute, the Wildlife Conservation 
Society, the Pan African Sanctuary Alliance, the Fund for Animals, 
Humane Society International, and the New England Anti-Vivisection 
Society (hereafter referred to as ``petitioners'') requesting that 
captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) be reclassified as endangered 
under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and 
included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, 
as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petition contained information on 
what the petitioners reported as potential threats to the species from 
habitat loss, poaching and trafficking, disease, and inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms. In a September 15, 2010, letter to Katherine 
Meyer, we responded that we were required to complete a significant 
number of listing and critical habitat actions, including complying 
with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, that 
required nearly all of our listing and critical habitat funding for 
fiscal year 2010. We also stated that we anticipated making an initial 
finding during fiscal year 2011, as to whether the petition contained 
substantial information indicating that the action may be warranted.
    On October 12, 2010, we received a letter from Anna Frostic, Staff 
Attorney with the Humane Society of the United States, on behalf of the 
petitioners clarifying that the March 16, 2010, petition was a petition 
to list the entire species (Pan troglodytes) as endangered,

[[Page 35203]]

whether in the wild or in captivity, pursuant to the Act. We 
acknowledged receipt of this letter in a letter to Ms. Frostic dated 
October 15, 2010.

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 19, 1976, we published in the Federal Register a rule 
listing the chimpanzee and 25 other species of primates under the Act 
(41 FR 45990); the chimpanzee and 13 of the other primate species were 
listed as threatened. The chimpanzee was found to be threatened based 
on (1) Commercial logging and clearing of forests for agriculture and 
the use of arboricides; (2) capture and exportation for use in research 
labs and zoos; (3) diseases, such as malaria, hepatitis, and 
tuberculosis contracted from humans; and (4) ineffectiveness of 
existing regulatory mechanisms. We simultaneously issued a special rule 
that the general prohibitions provided to the threatened species would 
apply except for live animals of these species held in captivity in the 
United States on the effective date of the rulemaking, progeny of such 
animals, or the progeny of animals legally imported into the United 
States after the effective date of the rulemaking.
    On November 4, 1987, we received a petition from the Humane Society 
of the United States, World Wildlife Fund, and Jane Goodall Institute, 
requesting that the chimpanzee be reclassified from threatened to 
endangered. On March 23, 1988 (53 FR 9460), we published in the Federal 
Register a finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 
that the petition had presented substantial information indicating that 
the requested reclassification may be warranted and initiated a status 
review. We opened a comment period, which closed July 21, 1988, to 
allow all interested parties to submit comments and information.
    On December 28, 1988 (53 FR 52452), we published in the Federal 
Register a finding that the requested reclassification was warranted 
with respect to chimpanzees in the wild. This decision was based on the 
petition and subsequent supporting comments that dealt primarily with 
the status of the species in the wild and not with the viability of 
captive populations. We did not propose reclassification of captive 
chimpanzees. We found that the special rule exempting captive 
chimpanzees in the United States from the general prohibitions may 
encourage propagation, providing surplus animals and reducing the 
incentive to remove animals from the wild. On February 24, 1989 (54 FR 
8152), we published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to 
implement such reclassification. Following publication of the proposed 
rule, we opened a 60-day comment period to allow all interested parties 
to submit comments and information.
    On March 12, 1990, we published in the Federal Register (55 FR 
9129) a final rule reclassifying the wild populations of the 
chimpanzees as endangered. The captive chimpanzees remained classified 
as threatened, and those within the United States continued to be 
covered by the special rule allowing activities otherwise prohibited.
    On September 1, 2011, we published in the Federal Register a 
finding that the March 16, 2010, petition (discussed above under 
``Petition History'') presented substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the requested action may be warranted, and 
we initiated a status review (76 FR 54423).
    On November 1, 2011, we published in the Federal Register a notice 
correcting an incorrect Docket Number given under the ADDRESSES section 
of the September 1, 2011, petition finding. We also gave notice that we 
were making the large volume of supporting documents submitted with the 
petition available to the public. To allow the public adequate time to 
review the supporting documents, we extended the period of time for 
submitting information to January 30, 2012 (74 FR 67401).

5-Year Review

    Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of 
listed species at least once every 5 years. A 5-year review is 
conducted to ensure that the classification of a listed species is 
appropriate. Section 4(c)(2)(B) requires that we determine on the basis 
of this review: (1) Whether a species no longer meets the definition of 
endangered or threatened and should be removed from the List 
(delisted); (2) whether a species more properly meets the definition of 
threatened and should be reclassified from endangered to threatened; or 
(3) whether a species more properly meets the definition of endangered 
and should be reclassified from threatened to endangered. This 12-month 
finding serves as our 5-year review of this species.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
be based on the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Therefore, we seek comments and information on this proposed rule, 
particularly but not limited to:
    (1) Information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection, diet, 
and population abundance and trends of this species.
    (2) Information on the effects of habitat loss and changing land 
uses on the distribution and abundance of this species and its 
principal food sources over the short and long term.
    (3) Information on whether changing climatic conditions are 
affecting the species, its habitat, or its prey base.
    (4) Information on the effects of other potential threat factors, 
including live capture and collection, domestic and international 
trade, predation by other animals, and diseases of this species.
    (5) Information on management programs for chimpanzee conservation, 
including mitigation measures related to conservation programs, and any 
other private or governmental conservation programs that benefit this 
species.
    (6) Information relevant to whether any populations of this species 
may qualify as distinct population segments.
    (7) Information on captive breeding and domestic trade of this 
species in the United States.
    (8) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which 
are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
full references) to allow us to verify the information you provide. 
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action 
under consideration without providing supporting information, although 
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any 
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your information concerning this proposed rule by 
one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit information via 
http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--including any 
personal identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. If 
your submission is

[[Page 35204]]

made via hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you 
may request at the top of your document that we withhold this personal 
identifying information from public review. However, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy 
submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

Public Hearing

    At this time, we do not have a public hearing scheduled for this 
proposed rule. The main purpose of most public hearings is to obtain 
public testimony or comment. In most cases, it is sufficient to submit 
comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, described above in the 
ADDRESSES section. If you would like to request a public hearing for 
this proposed rule, you must submit your request, in writing, to the 
person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the date specified 
above in DATES.

Evaluation of Listable Entities

    Under section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider for listing any 
species, which includes subspecies of fish, wildlife, and plants, or 
any distinct population segment (DPS) of vertebrate fish or wildlife 
that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Such entities are 
considered eligible for separate listing status under the Act (and, 
therefore, referred to as listable entities) should we determine that 
they meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened 
species.
    The Service was petitioned to list all chimpanzees, whether in the 
wild or in captivity, as endangered. Essentially, this request is to 
eliminate the separate classification of captive chimpanzees from 
chimpanzees located in the wild. This petition raised questions 
regarding whether the Service has any discretion to differentiate the 
listing status of specimens in captivity from those in the wild.
    The Service has not had an absolute policy or practice with respect 
to this issue, but generally has included wild and captive animals 
together when it has listed species. The example set by the separate 
chimpanzee listings was used as support for two petitions the Service 
received in 2010 to delist U.S. captive and U.S. captive-bred members 
of three antelope species in the United States. In the 2005 listing 
determination for the scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah), dama gazelle 
(Gazella dama), and addax (Addax nasomaculatus) (70 FR 52310, September 
2, 2005), the Service found that a differentiation in the listing 
status of captive specimens of these antelopes in the United States was 
not appropriate. The petitioners, Exotic Wildlife Association, Safari 
Club International, and Safari Club International Foundation, asserted 
that the treatment by the Service of chimpanzees in 1990 warrants 
similar treatment now for these antelope species. Because the Service 
has not formally stated whether the current statute, regulations, and 
applicable policies provide any discretion to differentiate the listing 
status of specimens in captivity from those in the wild, we reviewed 
the issues raised by these petitions to ensure the Act is implemented 
appropriately.
    As discussed below, we find that the Act does not allow for 
captive[hyphen]held animals to be assigned separate legal status from 
their wild counterparts on the basis of their captive state, including 
through designation as a separate distinct population segment (DPS).\1\ 
It is also not possible to separate out captive-held specimens for 
different legal status under the Act by other approaches (see Other 
Potential Approaches for Separate Legal Status).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As compared to populations that exist in the wild, 
``captivity'' is defined as ``living wildlife . . . held in a 
controlled environment that is intensively manipulated by man for 
the purpose of producing wildlife of the selected species, and that 
has boundaries designed to prevent animal [sic], eggs or gametes of 
the selected species from entering or leaving the controlled 
environment. General characteristics of captivity may include but 
are not limited to artificial housing, waste removal, health care, 
protection from predators, and artificially supplied food'' (50 CFR 
17.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provisions of the Act

    The legal mandate of section 4(a)(1) is to determine ``whether any 
species is an endangered species or threatened species. . . .'' 
(emphasis added). In the Act, a ``species'' is defined to include any 
subspecies and any DPS of a vertebrate animal, as well as taxonomic 
species. Other than a taxonomic species or subspecies, captive-held 
specimens (of a vertebrate animal species) would have to qualify as a 
``distinct population segment . . . which interbreeds when mature'' to 
qualify as a separate DPS.\2\ Nothing in the plain language of the 
definitions of ``endangered species,'' ``threatened species,'' or 
``species'' expressly indicates that captive-held animals can or cannot 
have separate status under the Act on the basis of their state of 
captivity. However, certain language in the Act is inconsistent with a 
determination of separate legal status for captive-held animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The analysis in this document addresses only situations 
where it is not disputed that the specimens are members of a 
wildlife species. This analysis does not address situations where 
members of a species have been held in captivity for a sufficiently 
long period that they have developed into a separate domesticated 
form of the species, including where the domesticated form is 
sufficiently distinct to be considered a separate taxonomic species 
or subspecies (e.g., domesticated donkey vs. the African wild ass).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 4(c)(1), the agency is to specify for each species 
listed ``over what portion of its range'' it is endangered or 
threatened.\3\ ``Range,'' while not defined in the Act, consistently 
has been interpreted as that general geographical area where the 
species is found in the wild. Thus, a group of animals held solely in 
captivity and analyzed as a separate listable entity has no ``range'' 
separate from that of the species to which it belongs, at least as that 
term has been applied under the Act. The Service has consistently 
interpreted ``range'' in the Act as a geographical area where the 
species is found in the wild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Even though the Service has taken the position in its draft 
SPR policy (76 FR 76987) that the range information called for under 
section 4(c)(1) is for information purposes, this statutory language 
still informs the question of Congress' intent under the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As demonstrated in various species' listings at 50 CFR 17.11 and 
17.12, information in the ``Historic Range'' column is the range of the 
species in the wild. For none of these species does the ``range'' 
information include countries or geographic areas on the basis of where 
specimens are held in captivity, even though the Service knows that 
specimens of many of these species have long been held in facilities 
outside their native range, including in the United States.
    Also, in analyzing the ``present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of [a species'] habitat or range'' 
(emphasis added) (see section 4(a)(1)(A) of the Act), the Service has 
traditionally analyzed habitat threats in the native range of wild 
specimens and not included other geographic areas where specimens have 
been moved to and are being held in captivity. We are not aware of any 
Service listing decision where analysis of threats to the ``range'' has 
included geographic areas outside the native range where specimens are 
held in captivity.
    In analyzing other threats to a species (see sections 4(a)(1)(B), 
4(a)(1)(C), 4(a)(1)(D), and 4(a)(1)(E) of the Act), the Service has 
also limited its analysis to threats acting upon wild specimens within 
the native range of the species, and has not included analysis of 
``threats'' to animals held in captivity except as those threats impact 
the potential for the captive population to contribute to recovery of 
the species in the geographic area where wild specimens are native.
    Finally, the Service's 2011 draft policy on the meaning of the 
phrase

[[Page 35205]]

``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) (76 FR 76987; December 9, 
2011) defines ``range'' as the ``general geographic area within which 
that species can be found at the time the Service or National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) makes any particular status determination. 
This range includes those areas used throughout all or part of the 
species' life cycle, even if they are not used regularly (e.g., 
seasonal habitat). Lost historical range in relevant to the analysis of 
the status of the species, but it cannot consitutute a significant 
portion of a species' range. The ``general geographic area within which 
the species can be found'' is broad enough to include geographic areas 
where animals have been moved by humans and are being held in 
captivity. However, the Service has not applied the definition in this 
manner in the past and does not intend to do so in the future. SPR 
analyses have been and will be limited to geographic areas where 
specimens are found in the wild.
    In addition to the use of ``range'' in sections 4(a)(1) and 
4(c)(1), the definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened 
species,'' found in section 3 of the Act, also discuss the role of the 
species range in listing determinations. The Act defines an endangered 
species as ``any species which is in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range,'' and a threatened species 
as ``any species which is likely to become an endangered species . . . 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' As noted above, 
``range'' has consistently been interpreted by the Service as being the 
natural range of the species in the wild.\4\ For all the reasons 
discussed above, a group of animals held in captivity could not have 
separate legal status under the Act because they have no ``range,'' 
that is separate from the range of the species in the wild to which 
they belong as that term is used in the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See also Endangered Species Act: Hearings on H.R. 37, H.R. 
470, H.R. 471, H.R. 1461, H.R. 1511, H.R. 2669, H.R. 2735, H.R. 
3310, H.R. 3696, H.R. 3795, H.R. 4755, H.R. 2169 and H.R. 4758 
Before the House Subcomm. on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and 
the Environment, House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 93d 
Cong. 198 (1973) (hereinafter 1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and others) 
(Letter from S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary of Smithsonian Institute, 
to Chairman, House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, April 23, 
1973 (lauding H.R. 4758, the Administration's legislative proposal 
that contained a definition of ``endangered species'' substantially 
similar to the statutory definition eventually adopted by Congress 
in the 1973 Act: ``In effect the bill offers a great deal of 
flexibility by providing that a species may be placed on the list if 
the Secretary determines that it is presently threatened with 
extinction, not only in all of its natural range, but in a 
significant part thereof, as well.'') (emphasis added)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain provisions in sections 9 and 10 of the Act show that what 
Congress intended was that captive-held animals would generally have 
the same legal status as their wild counterparts by providing certain 
exceptions for animals held in captivity. Section 9(b)(1) of the Act 
provides an exemption from certain section 9(a)(1) prohibitions for 
listed animals held in captivity or in a controlled environment as of 
the date of the species listing (or enactment of the Act), provided the 
holding in captivity and any subsequent use is not in the course of a 
commercial activity. Section 9(b)(2) of the Act provides an exemption 
from all section 9(a)(1) prohibitions for raptors held in captivity or 
in a controlled environment as of 1978 and their progeny. Section 
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act allows permits to ``enhance the propagation or 
survival'' of the species (emphasis added). This demonstrates that 
Congress recognized the value of captive-holding and propagation of 
listed specimens held in captivity, but intended that such specimens 
would be protected under the Act, with these activities generally 
regulated by permit.\5\ If captive-held specimens could simply be 
excluded through the listing process, none of these exceptions and 
permits would have been needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1972: Hearing on 
S. 249, S. 3199 and S. 3818 Before the Senate Subcomm. on the 
Environment, Senate Comm. on Commerce, 92nd Cong. 211-12 (1972) 
(statement of Deborah Appel, Assistant to the Director for Public 
Information, National Audubon Society) (endorsing S. 3199, a bill 
considered by the Senate that contained similar language eventually 
adopted by Congress in the purpose section of the 1973 Act, but 
advising against a specific mandate requiring captive propagation 
because``the capture of specimens for experiment in captive 
propagation may in itself endanger the chances of some rare species 
for survival in the wild.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose of the Act

Meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act

    The full purposes of the Act, stated in section 2(b), are ``to 
provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species 
and threatened species depend may be conserved [hereafter referred to 
as the first purpose], to provide a program for the conservation of 
such endangered species and threatened species [hereafter referred to 
as the second purpose], and to take such steps as may be appropriate to 
achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in 
subsection (a) of this section [hereafter referred to as the third 
purpose]''. It has been stated, without explanation, that the language 
of section 2(b) of the Act supports protecting only specimens that 
occur in the wild. However, the purposes listed in section 2(b) 
indicate that the three provisions are intended to have independent 
meaning, with little to indicate that Congress' intent was to protect 
only specimens of endangered or threatened species found in the wild. 
The treaties and conventions under the third purpose are expressly 
those listed in section 2(a)(4) of the Act, all of which are for the 
protection of wildlife and plants, and none of which are limited to 
protection of endangered or threatened specimens in the wild.\6\ The 
first purpose calls for conservation of ecosystems, independent of 
conservation of species themselves (which is separately listed as the 
second purpose). This does focus on protection of native habitats 
(those inhabited by the species in the wild in its native range), as it 
is generally the ecosystems or habitats within which a species has 
evolved that are those upon which it ``depends.'' However, the phrase 
``upon which endangered species and threatened species depend'' 
indicates only that ecosystem (i.e., habitat) protection should be 
focused on that used by endangered and threatened species, and does not 
indicate that the sole focus of the Act is conservation of species 
within their native ecosystems. Several provisions in the Act provide 
authority to protect habitat, independent of authorities applicable to 
protection and regulation of specimens of listed species themselves. 
See, for example, section 5 (Land Acquisition), section 6 (Cooperation 
With the States), section 7 (Interagency Cooperation), and section 8 
(International Cooperation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nor are these treaties and conventions limited to protection 
of species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is the second purpose under section 2(b) of the Act that speaks 
to the conservation of species themselves that are endangered or 
threatened. However, nothing in the language of the second purpose 
indicates that conservation programs should be limited to specimens 
located in the wild. The plain language of section 2(b) refers to 
``species,'' with no distinction between wild specimens of the species 
as compared to captive-held specimens of the species. Thus, nothing in 
the plain language indicates that captive-held specimens should be 
excluded from the Act's processes and protections that would contribute 
to recovery (i.e., ``conservation'') of the entire taxonomic species. 
It is true that the phrasing of the second purpose (``to provide a 
program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened 
species'' (emphasis added)) links the second purpose of species 
recovery to the first

[[Page 35206]]

purpose of ecosystem (i.e., native habitat) protection, thus making the 
goal of the statute recovery of endangered and threatened species in 
their natural ecosystems. But there is nothing in the phrasing to 
indicate that the specific provisions of the statute for meeting this 
goal should be limited to specimens of the species located within the 
ecosystems upon which they depend.

Separate Legal Status Is Inconsistent With Section 2(b)

    The potential consequences of captive-held specimens being given 
separate legal status under the Act on the basis of their captive 
state, particularly where captive-held specimens would have no legal 
protection while wild specimens are listed as endangered or 
threatened,\7\ indicate that such separate legal status is not 
consistent with the section 2(b) purpose of conserving endangered and 
threatened species. Congress specifically recognized ``overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes'' as 
a potential threat that contributes to the risk of extinction for many 
species. If captive-held specimens could have separate legal status 
under the Act, the threat of overutilization would likely increase. For 
example, the taxonomic species would potentially be subject to 
increased take and trade in ``laundered'' wild-caught specimens to feed 
U.S. or foreign market demand because protected wild specimens would be 
generally indistinguishable from unprotected captive-held specimens. 
Because there would be no restriction or regulation on the taking, 
sale, import, export, or transport in the course of commercial 
activities in interstate or foreign commerce of captive specimens by 
persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, there would be a potential legal 
U.S. market in captive-held endangered or threatened specimens and 
their progeny operating parallel to any illegal U.S. market (or U.S. 
citizen participation in illegal foreign markets) in wild specimens. 
With the difficulty of distinguishing captive-held from wild specimens, 
especially when they are broken down into their parts and products, 
illegal wild specimens of commercial value could likely easily be 
passed off as legal captive specimens and thus be traded as legal 
specimens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If it were determined that captive-held animals can have 
separate legal status on the basis of their captive state, 
proponents of separate legal status could argue that these captive 
specimens do not qualify as endangered or threatened species because 
they do not face ``threats'' that create a substantial risk of 
extinction to the captive specimens such as those faced by the wild 
population (see Section 4: Listing Captive-held Specimens).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If captive-held specimens could have separate legal status under 
the Act, the taxonomic species would potentially be subject to 
increased take of animals from the wild and illegal transfer of wild 
specimens into captivity. The United States is one of the world's 
largest markets for wildlife and wildlife products.\8\ Poachers and 
smugglers would have increased incentive to remove animals from the 
wild and smuggle them into captive-holding facilities in the United 
States for captive propagation or subsequent commercial use of either 
live or dead specimens, because once in captivity there would be no Act 
restrictions on use of the captive-held specimens or their offspring. 
This would be a particular issue for foreign species where States 
regulate native wildlife (and therefore captive-held domestic 
endangered or threatened specimens would continue to be regulated under 
State law), but often do not regulate use of nonnative wildlife. This 
could be a particularly lucrative trade for poachers and smugglers 
because many endangered and threatened species (particularly foreign 
species) are at risk of extinction because of their high commercial 
value in trade (as trophies or pets, or for their furs, horns, ivory, 
shells, or medicinal or decorative use).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See USFWS Office of Law Enforcement Annual Report for FY 
2009 p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress included the similarity-of-appearance provision in section 
4(e) to allow the Service to regulate species under the Act where one 
species so closely resembles an endangered or threatened species that 
enforcement cannot distinguish between the protected and unprotected 
species and this difficulty is a threat to the species. The Service's 
only option in the cases of ``take'' described above would be to 
complete separate similarity-of-appearance listings for captive-held 
animals. A similarity-of-appearance listing under the Act for captive-
held specimens would make captive specimens subject to the same 
restrictions as listed wild specimens.

Operation of Key Provisions of the Act

    As described in the following subsections, operation of key 
provisions in sections 4 and 7 of the Act also indicate that it would 
not be consistent with Congressional intent or the purpose of the Act 
to treat groups of captive-held specimens as separate listable entities 
on the basis of their captive state.

Section 4: Listing Captive-Held Specimens

    The section 4 listing process is not well suited to analyzing 
threats to an entirely captive-held group of specimens that are 
maintained under controlled, artificial conditions.
    If wild populations and captive-held specimens could qualify as 
separate listable entities, and it was determined that captive-held 
specimens do not qualify as endangered or threatened, captive-held 
specimens would receive no assistance or protection under the Act even 
in cases where wild populations continue to decline, even to the point 
of the species being extirpated in the wild, with the specimens in 
captivity being the only remaining members of the species and survival 
of the species being dependent on the survival of the captive-held 
specimens. This would not be consistent with the purposes of the Act.
    Groupings of captive-held specimens might not meet the definition 
of endangered or threatened under the statutory factors because the 
scope of the section 4 analysis for a captive-specimen listing would be 
the conditions under which the captive-held specimen exists, not the 
conditions of the members of the species in the wild, as the captive-
held members of the species and wild members of the species would be 
under separate consideration for listing under the Act and therefore 
under separate 5-factor analyses. Groupings of solely captive-held 
specimens might not meet the definition of endangered (in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range) or 
threatened (likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future) 
when the conditions for individual specimens' survival are carefully 
controlled under human management, especially for species that readily 
breed in captivity, where breeding has resulted in large numbers of 
genetically diverse specimens, or where there are no known 
uncontrollable threats such as disease.
    The majority of the section 4(a)(1) factors would be difficult to 
apply to captive-held specimens with a range independent of wild 
specimens because they are not readily suited to evaluating specimens 
held in captivity or might contribute to a determination that the 
entity under consideration (separate groupings of captive-held 
specimens) does not qualify as endangered or threatened. There may be 
situations where only disease threats (factor C) and other natural or 
manmade factors (factor E) would be applicable to consideration of 
purely captive-held groups of

[[Page 35207]]

specimens. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of habitat or range (factor A) may not be a threat for a 
listable entity consisting solely of captive-held specimens, because 
the physical environment under which captive specimens are held is 
generally readily controllable and, in many cases, optimized to ensure 
the physical health of the animal. Overutilization (factor B) is 
unlikely to be a factor threatening the continued existence of groups 
of captive-held specimens where both breeding and culling are managed 
to ensure the continuation of stock at a desired level based on 
ownership interest and market demand. Predation (factor C) may rarely 
be a factor for captive-held specimens because predators may be more 
readily controlled. Human management may provide for all essential life 
functions, thereby eliminating selection or competition for mates, 
food, water resources, and shelter.
    It is unclear how the ``inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms'' (factor D) would apply to captive-held specimens with a 
range independent of wild specimens because this factor generally 
applies in relationship to threats identified under the other factors. 
Regulatory mechanisms applicable to wild specimens usually include 
measures to protect natural habitat and laws that regulate activities 
such as take, sale, and import and export. However, there might be no 
regulatory mechanisms applicable when the group of specimens under 
consideration is in captivity (except perhaps general humane treatment 
or animal health laws).
    That the section 4 process is not well suited to listings of 
entirely captive specimens is demonstrated by the previous listing 
action for the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee was originally listed in its 
entirety as a threatened species (41 FR 45990; Oct. 19, 1976). On March 
12, 1990 (55 FR 9129), the Service reclassified wild populations of 
chimpanzees as a separate endangered species, noting that wild 
populations had declined due to massive habitat destruction, excessive 
hunting and capture by people, and lack of effective national and 
international controls. But the final reclassification rule never 
analyzed whether the newly designated DPS consisting of chimpanzees 
``wherever found in captivity'' separately met the definition of a 
threatened species based on the five factors found in section 4(a)(1) 
of the Act. Instead, the rule discussed estimated numbers of animals in 
captivity and known captive-breeding programs, stating in response to a 
comment that some chimpanzee breeding groups were being managed in the 
United States with the objective of achieving self-sustainability. The 
five-factor analysis in both the proposed and final listing rules 
considered only information applicable to wild populations and within 
the taxanomic species' native range.

Section 4: Delisting Captive-Held Specimens

    If wild populations and groups of captive-held specimens could 
qualify as separate listable entities, and because groupings of 
captive-held specimens may not meet the definitions of endangered or 
threatened under the statutory factors (as discussed above), captive-
held specimens currently listed as endangered or threatened (because 
they were originally listed along with wild specimens as a single 
listed entity) could be petitioned for, and might qualify for, 
delisting. These specimens would therefore lose any legal protections 
of the Act, even as wild populations continue to decline, including to 
the point of extirpation in the wild. This likewise would not be 
consistent with the purpose of the Act.

Section 4: Listing Effects on Wild Populations

    If wild specimen populations and groups of captive-held specimens 
could qualify as separate listable entities, and because the analysis 
for determining legal status of wild populations would be separate from 
the analysis for determining legal status of captive specimens, the 
wild population would likely qualify for delisting in the event that 
all specimens are lost from the wild (in other words, if they became 
extinct in the wild), thereby removing both incentives and protections 
for conservation of the species in the wild and the conservation of its 
ecosystem.
    Under the Service's standard section 4 process, both captive-held 
and wild specimens of the species are members of the listed entity and 
have legal status as endangered or threatened. In situations where all 
specimens in the wild are gone, either because they are extirpated due 
to threats or because, as a last conservation resort, the remaining 
wild specimens are captured and moved into captivity, the species 
remains listed until specimens from captivity can be reintroduced to 
the wild and wild populations are recovered. However, if captive 
specimens and wild populations could have separate legal status, once 
all members of the wild population were gone from the wild, the wild 
population could be petitioned for and would likely qualify for 
delisting under 50 CFR 424.11(d)(1) as a ``species'' that is now 
extinct. As shown above, the separate captive-held members of the 
taxonomic species might not qualify for legal status as endangered or 
threatened, due to the lack of ``threats'' that create a risk of 
extinction to the viability of a sustainable, well-managed pool of 
captive animals. With no listed entities and therefore no authority to 
use funding or other provisions of the Act for the species, the Service 
would lose valuable tools for recovery of the species to the wild. This 
would clearly not be consistent with the purpose of the Act.

Section 7: Consultation

    All Federal agencies have a legal obligation to ensure that their 
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
endangered and threatened species. This means that for separately 
listed captive-held endangered or threatened specimens, any Federal 
agency that is taking an action within the United States or on the high 
seas that may affect the captive-held listed species arguably would 
have a legal duty to consult with the Service. However, the section 7 
consultation process is not well suited to analysis of adverse impacts 
posed to a purely captive-held group of specimens given that such 
specimens are maintained under controlled, artificial conditions.

Section 4: Designation of Critical Habitat

    For any listed entity located within the United States or on the 
high seas, we have a section 4 duty to designate critical habitat 
unless such habitat is not prudent.\9\ Although it is appropriate not 
to designate critical habitat for foreign species or to limit a 
critical habitat designation to natural habitats for U.S. species when 
a listing is focused on the species in the wild (even when some members 
of the species may be held in captivity within the United States), it 
is not clear how the Service would support not designating critical 
habitat when the listed entity would consist entirely of captive-held 
specimens (when the focus of captivity is within the United States). As 
with the consultation process, the critical habitat designation duty is 
not well suited for listings that consist entirely of captive-held 
specimens, especially given the anomaly of identifying the physical and 
biological features that would be essential to the conservation of a 
species

[[Page 35208]]

consisting entirely of captive animals in an artificial environment. 
These complexities related to section 7 consultations and designation 
of critical habitat indicate that Congress did not intend the Service 
to treat groups of captive-held specimens as separate listable entities 
on the basis of their captive state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Making a not determinable finding is also an option under 
section 4(b)(6) of the statute, but only delays the requirement to 
designate such critical habitat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislative History

    Legislative history surrounding the 1978 amendment of the 
definition of ``species'' in the Act indicates that Congress intended 
designation of a DPS to be used for wild vertebrate populations, not 
separation of captive-held specimens from wild members of the same 
taxonomic species. The original (1973) definition of species was ``any 
subspecies . . . and any other group of fish or wildlife of the same 
species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed 
when mature'' (Pub. L. 93-205). In 1978, Congress amended the Act to 
the Act's current definition of species, substituting ``distinct 
population segment'' for ``any other group'' and ``common spatial 
distribution'' following testimony on the inadequacy of the original 
definition, such as the exclusion of one category of populations 
commonly recognized by biologists: disjunct allopatric populations that 
are separated by geographic barriers from other populations of the same 
species and are consequently reproductively isolated from them 
physically (See Endangered Species Act Oversight: Hearing Before Senate 
Subcommittee on Resource Protection, Senate Committee on Environment 
and Public Works, 95th Cong. 50 (July 7, 1977) (here after 1977 
Oversight Hearing) (letter from Tom Cade, Program Director, The 
Peregrine Fund, to Director of the Service). Although there was 
discussion regarding population stocks and reproductive isolation 
generally, particularly in association with development of the 1973 
definition,\10\ discussions that provide additional context on the 
scope of the definition of ``species'' show that Congress thought of 
the population-based listing authority as appropriate for populations 
that are distinct for natural and evolutionary reasons. For example, 
one witness discussed ``species'' as associated with the concept of 
geographic reproductive isolation and including characteristics of a 
population's ability or inability to freely exchange genes in nature 
(See 1977 Oversight Hearing at 50 (Cade letter)). There is no evidence 
that Congress intended for the agency to use the authority to 
separately list groups of animals that have been artificially separated 
from other members of the species through human removal from the wild 
and maintenance in a controlled environment. Examples in testimony for 
which population-based listing authority would be appropriately used 
were all for wild populations (See 1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and others 
at 307 (statement of Stephen Seater, Defenders of Wildlife); Endangered 
Species Act of 1973: Hearings on S. 1592 and S. 1983 Before the Senate 
Subcomm. on Environment, Senate Comm. on Commerce, 93d Cong. 98 (1973) 
(statement of John Grandy, National Parks and Conservation Assoc.); 
Endangered Species Authorization: Hearings on H.R. 10883 Before the 
House Subcomm. on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the 
Environment, House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 95th Cong. 
560 (1978) (statement of Michael Bean, Environmental Defense Fund)). No 
examples were given suggesting designation of captive-held vertebrates 
as a DPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and others p. 286 (statement of 
John Grandy, National Parks and Conservation Assoc.) p. 307 
(statement of Stephen Seater, Defenders of Wildlife), and pp. 299-
300 (statement of Tom Garrett, Friends of the Earth).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Potential Approaches for Separate Legal Status

    In addition to separate designation as ``species,'' there are two 
other approaches under which it could be argued that captive-held 
specimens could be given separate legal status from their wild 
counterparts: (1) Simply excluding captive-held members of the 
taxonomic species, subspecies, or DPS from the Act's protections, or 
(2) designating only wild members of the taxonomic species as a DPS, 
with captive-held specimens not included in the DPS. However, neither 
approach would be consistent with Congress' intent for the Act.
    One court already determined that captive-held specimens of a 
listable entity cannot simply be excluded when they are members of the 
listable entity and the Service agrees with the court's reasoning in 
this case. The Service cannot exclude captive-held animals from a 
listing once these animals are determined to be part of the species. 
This case--Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans--involved the listing of coho 
salmon by the NMFS. NMFS's 1993 Hatchery Policy (58 FR 17573; April 5, 
1993) stated that hatchery populations could be included in the listing 
of wild members of the same evolutionary significant unit (equivalent 
to a DPS), but only if the hatchery fish were ``essential to 
recovery.'' In 1998, NMFS listed only ``naturally spawned'' specimens 
when it listed an evolutionary significant unit (ESU) of coho salmon 
(63 FR 42587; August 10, 1998). This decision was challenged in court, 
and the Court found NMFS's listing decision invalid because it excluded 
hatchery populations (which are fish held in captivity) even though 
they were part of the same DPS (or ESU) Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 
161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001). The Court held that ``Congress 
expressly limited the Secretary's ability to make listing distinctions 
below that of subspecies or a DPS of a species,'' which was the 
practical result of excluding all hatchery specimens. NMFS subsequently 
changed its Hatchery Policy in 2005, stating that all hatchery fish 
that qualify as members of the ESU would be considered part of the ESU, 
would be considered in determining whether the ESU should be listed as 
endangered or threatened, and would be included in any listing under 
the Act (70 FR 37204; June 28, 2005). NMFS's 2005 Hatchery Policy was 
upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court in Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, 559 F. 3d 
946 (2009).
    For the same reasons as discussed earlier in this document, the 
Service also cannot simply designate wild members of the taxonomic 
species as a DPS, leaving all captive[hyphen]held animals unlisted. 
Although this would avoid designating captive[hyphen]held animals as a 
separate DPS and would not technically be excluding animals that 
otherwise have been found to be members of a DPS (and thereby avoid the 
error the court found in the Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans decision), 
the result would be separate legal status and no legal protections for 
captive-held specimens, and many of the same legal and conservation 
consequences discussed above would occur. For these reasons, we also 
find this outcome to be inconsistent with Congress' intent for the Act, 
primarily as inconsistent with the purposes of the Act.
    Now that we have determined that all chimpanzees, including captive 
and wild animals, should be considered as a single listable entity 
under the Act, we will next assess the status of the species and 
determine if the species meets the definition of endangered or 
threatened under the Act. In 1990, we determined that chimpanzees in 
the wild are endangered. This analysis considers new information in 
light of that previous determination and includes the extent to which 
captive-held chimpanzees create or contribute to threats to the species 
or remove or reduce threats to the species by

[[Page 35209]]

contributing to the conservation of the species.

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description

    In 1990, when the wild populations of chimpanzees were reclassified 
to endangered, only three subspecies were recognized. Since that time, 
the correct taxonomic labeling for chimpanzees has been debated and 
includes the use of a two-subspecies system, a four-subspecies system, 
and the use of the species level without subspecific designations 
(Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5; Morgan et al. 2011, p. 7; Plumptre et al. 
2010, p. 2; Ghobrial et al. 2010, p. 2; Oates et al. 2008, 
unpaginated). Today, four subspecies are commonly recognized and 
include the Central African chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes), 
East African chimpanzee (P. t. schweinfurthii), West African chimpanzee 
(P. t. verus), and Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee (P. t. ellioti) (Morgan 
et al. 2011, p. 7; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated).
    Characteristics of the chimpanzee include an opposable thumb and 
prominent mouth. The skin on a chimpanzee's face, ears, palms, and 
soles of the feet are bare, whereas the rest of the body is covered 
with brown to black hair. Arms extend beyond the knees. This species 
walks ``on all four'' but are able to walk on just their legs for more 
than a kilometer (0.6 miles (mi)) (WWF n.d., unpaginated). The male 
stands over 1.2 meters (m) (4 feet (ft)) tall and weighs 59 kilograms 
(kg) (130 pounds (lb)); the female is closer to 0.9 m (3 ft) tall and 
weighs under 45 kg (100 lb) (AZA 2000, p. 1).
    Chimpanzees live in social communities that range from 5 to 150 
individuals (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated). A male dominance 
hierarchy forms the core of the community. Males work together to 
defend a home range and will occasionally attack and kill individuals 
from another community (Lonsdorf 2007, pp. 72, 74). These communities 
do not move around in a group like gorillas or monkeys, but rather 
spend most of their time in subgroups called parties (Pusey et al. 
2007, p. 626; Plumptre et al. 2003, p. 9). Members of a community may 
join, or leave, at any time and parties may change frequently in size 
and composition depending on presence of receptive females, food 
availability, and activity of the party (Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72; Lehmann 
and Boesch 2004, p. 207; Humle 2003, p. 17; Plumptre et al. 2003, p. 
9).
    Males remain in the community in which they were born; however, 
once females become sexually mature, between the ages of 9 and 13, they 
leave the community to join a new one (Humle 2003, p. 16). Chimpanzees 
are slow breeders; females do not give birth until they are 12 years of 
age or older and only have one infant every five or six years. Infants 
are weaned around four years old, and stay with their mothers until 
they are about eight to ten years old (Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72; Kormos 
2003, p. 1; Plumptre et al. 2003, pp. 8, 10, 13). The relationship 
between the mother and her offspring is critical; young may not survive 
being orphaned, even after they are weaned (Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72).

Essential Needs of the Species

    The chimpanzee lives in a variety of moist and dry forest habitats 
including savanna woodlands, mosaic grassland forests, and tropical 
moist forests (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Pusey et al. 2007, p. 
626; GRASP 2005a, p. 6; Butynski 2003, p. 6). In general, chimpanzees 
need large areas to provide sufficient resources for feeding, nesting, 
and shelter (Carter 2003b, p. 158). However, home ranges may vary 
depending on the quality of habitat and community size; competition for 
food and predation risk may also play a role. Home ranges average 12.5 
km\2\ (8 mi\2\), but can range from 5-400 km\2\ (3-249 mi\2\) (Oates et 
al. 2008, unpaginated; Humle 2003, pp. 17-18).
    Chimpanzees are omnivores; half their diet is ripe fruit, but they 
also feed on leaves, bark, stems, insects, and mammals, including red 
colobus (Procolobus spp.), black-and-white colobus (Colobus guereza) 
and red-tailed guenons (Cephalophus monticola). Diets vary seasonally 
and between populations, depending on food availability and habitat 
type (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Pusey et al. 2007, p. 626; Humle 
2003, pp. 13-14; Watts and Mitani 2002, p. 7).
    Chimpanzees build arboreal nests in which they sleep at night and 
may rest during the day (Plumptre et al. 2003, p. 10; Humle 2003, p. 
15). Nests are constructed by preparing a foundation of solid side 
branches, bending, breaking, and interweaving side branches crosswise, 
then bending smaller twigs in a circle around the rim. Chimpanzees 
exhibit strong preferences for certain tree species for nesting, 
independent of their availability in the habitat. Choice of nesting 
sites is variable across populations and communities of chimpanzees and 
is dependent on habitat structure, resource distribution, predation 
levels, and human disturbance. Chimps can be deterred from nesting in 
certain areas where human habitation is concentrated. As a result, 
human presence influences nesting behavior and can put chimpanzees at 
risk of predators, since habitats where they relocate nests to avoid 
humans may not provide sufficient protection (Humle 2003, pp. 15-16).

Range and Population

    Historically, this species may have spanned most of Equatorial 
Africa, from Senegal to southwest Tanzania, ranging over 25 countries 
(Butynski 2003, p. 6). Today, the chimpanzee has been lost from Benin, 
Togo, and Burkina Faso. The species now occurs in a wide but 
discontinuous distribution over 22 countries in an area approximately 
2,342,000 square kilometers (km\2\) (904,000 square miles (mi\2\)) 
(Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Kormos and 
Boesch 2003, p. 1; Butynski 2003, p. 6).
    Chimpanzees are thought to have numbered in the millions at the 
beginning of the 20th Century, although there are no hard data to 
support this. Chimpanzee populations are believed to have declined by 
66 percent, from 600,000 to 200,000 individuals before the 1980s 
(Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 1). Since the 1980s, estimates for the 
chimpanzee have varied, but in general have increased over the past 
three decades (See Table 1) (Oates 2006, pp. 102-104; Butynski 2003, p. 
10). Using the latest population estimates for each subspecies, the 
chimpanzee, today, totals between 294,800 and 431,100 individuals; 
although we note that this estimate does not factor in a recent 90 
percent decline in the chimpanzee population of C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire 
(see below). The range countries and most recent population estimates 
for each subspecies are outlined in Table 2.

[[Page 35210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12JN13.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12JN13.003

    The increase in the chimpanzee population estimates is believed to 
be a result of the difficulty in producing accurate estimates and the 
availability of new information, rather than an actual increase in 
chimpanzee numbers (Oates 2006, p. 104). Accurate data is lacking for 
most of the chimpanzee populations. Few areas have been adequately 
surveyed; some chimpanzee populations survive at densities too low for 
accurate detection; survey methods lack precision to enable 
extrapolation to large areas of potential habitat; some surveys are 
outdated; and in many cases estimates are simply best guesses (Morgan 
et al. 2011, p. 9; Plumptre et al. 2010, pp. 5, 7, 9, 31, 41; Campbell 
et al. 2008, p. 904; Oates 2006, p. 102; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 6; GRASP 
2005a, p. 7; Butynski 2003, p. 5; Kormos and Bakarr 2003, p. 29;).
    Despite the appearance of an increase in chimpanzee numbers, 
experts agree that chimpanzee populations are declining (Plumptre et 
al. 2010, p. 1; Greengrass 2009, pp. 77, 80-82; Kabasawa 2009, p. 37; 
Campbell et al. 2008, pp. 903-904; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; 
Oates 2006, p. 110; Tutin 2005, p. 2; GRASP 2005a, p. 3; Kormos and 
Boesch 2003, p. 2; Butynski 2003, p. 11; Nishida et al. 2001, pp. 45-
46). Data to support a declining trend comes from nationwide surveys of 
Gabon, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, and Tanzania, data from long-term 
chimpanzee research sites, a questionnaire survey of great ape field 
researchers, and the expansion and increasing intensity of threats 
(Junker et al. 2012, p. 3; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 8; Oates 2006, pp. 
105-106; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 45; Campbell et al. 2008, pp. 903-904; 
Tutin et al. 2005, p. 32). One of the greatest documented losses of 
chimpanzees comes from a 2007 survey of C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire which found 
a 90 percent decline in chimpanzees since the last survey conducted in 
1989-1990, indicating a significant loss of chimpanzees from a country 
once thought to be one of the final strongholds of the western 
chimpanzee (Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903). Many remaining populations 
are now small, isolated, and face serious threats (Oates 2006, pp. 104, 
110). Furthermore, the chimpanzee has already been extirpated from 
three countries. Due to the high risk of extinction for populations 
under 600 individuals (Oates 2006, p. 108), the chimpanzee could be 
extirpated from an additional four countries: Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, 
and Guinea-Bissau (Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5; Butynski 2003, p. 11; 
Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 3).
    In addition to wild populations, chimpanzees are held in captivity 
in several countries around the world, including African countries and 
the United States. We do not have detailed information on the number, 
subspecies, or the location of captive chimpanzees. However, we did 
find information indicating that 70 chimpanzees are

[[Page 35211]]

living in sanctuaries in Cameroon and Nigeria (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 
9). Approximately 171 chimpanzees are living in sanctuaries throughout 
West Africa; another 478 chimpanzees in the region are known to be held 
outside of sanctuaries (e.g., homes or hotels) (Kormos and Boesch 2003, 
p. 4). Within the United States, approximately 2,000 chimpanzees are in 
captivity (ChimpCare 2013, unpaginated; Ross et al. 2008, p. 1,487).

Summary of Threats

    Threats to the chimpanzee have intensified and expanded since 1990, 
when wild populations of the chimpanzee were listed as endangered. 
Across its range, high deforestation rates are destroying, degrading, 
and fragmenting forests the chimpanzee needs to support viable 
populations and provide food and shelter. Widespread poaching, capture 
for the pet trade, and outbreaks of disease are removing individuals 
needed to sustain viable populations; recovery from the loss of 
individuals is more difficult given the slow reproductive rates of 
chimpanzees. These actions are exacerbated by an increasing human 
population, the expansion of settlements, and increasing pressure on 
natural resources to meet the needs of the growing population (Morgan 
et al. 2011, p. 10; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Kabasawa 2009, p. 37; 
Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72; Unti 2007a, p. 4; 
Unti 2007b, p. 5; Bennett 2006, p. 885; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 1; GRASP 
2005a, p. 3; Kormos 2003, pp. ix, 1; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4; 
Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 97; Walsh et al. 2003, pp. 611-612; Carter et 
al. 2003, p. 38).
    Deforestation, with consequent access and disturbance by humans, 
remains a major factor in the decline of chimpanzee populations across 
their range. Although some large forest blocks remain, commercial 
logging and the conversion of forests to agricultural land continue to 
severely reduce and fragment chimpanzee habitat (Morgan et al. 2011, 
pp. 12, 18, 19, 26, 31; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Oates et al. 2008, 
unpaginated; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5; CBFP 2006, p. 16; Fa 
et al. 2006, p. 498; Tutin et al. 2005, pp. 1, 2, 10, 12, 14-17, 21-23; 
Humle 2003, p. 150; Carter et al. 2003, p. 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 
47; Gippoliti et al. 2003, p. 57; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 83; 
Herbinger et al. 2003, pp. 106, 109; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 71; Kormos 
et al. 2003c, p. 151; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Nisbett et al. 
2003, pp. 95, 97; Oates et al. 2003, p. 129; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 613; 
Parren and Byler 2003, p. 135). As the human population and economic 
development have increased, pressure on forest resources has also 
increased. This increasing pressure has led to uncontrolled legal and 
illegal forest conversion within and outside of protected areas (e.g., 
national parks and forest reserves), leaving them destroyed and 
fragmented (Greengrass 2009, pp. 77, 80; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; 
CBFP 2006, pp. 16, 33; Nasi et al. 2006, p. 14; Carter et al. 2003, p. 
38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 109; Magnuson 
et al. 2003, p. 113; Oates et al. 2003, p. 129; Parren and Byler 2003, 
pp. 135, 137).
    The natural protection once afforded to chimpanzees by large blocks 
of suitable habitat, isolated from human activities, is disappearing 
due to logging activity. Much of the chimpanzee's range is already 
allocated to logging concessions, and logging operations, both legal 
and illegal, are expanding (Morgan et al. 2011, pp. 12, 26; Laporte et 
al. 2007, p. 1451; Morgan and Sanz 2007, pp. 3, 5; CBFP 2006, p. 29; 
Hewitt 2006, p. 43; Nasi et al. 2006, p. 14; Tutin 2005, pp. 2, 4, 12, 
30, 32; Kormos et al. 2003a, p. 29). Heavy pressures on timber 
resources have led to cutting cycles that occur too frequently in an 
area to allow for proper regrowth, resulting in rapid degradation of 
forests (Parren and Byler 2003, p. 135). In addition to clearing 
forests, logging operations often create a network of roads for 
transporting timber. These roads provide greater access to forests that 
were once inaccessible, facilitate the establishment of human 
settlements, and are accompanied by further deforestation from the 
conversion of forests to agriculture (Junker et al. 2012, p. 7; Morgan 
et al., 2011, p. 12; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Greengrass 2009, p. 
80; Laporte et al. 2007, p. 1451; Hewitt 2006, p. 44; Duvall 2003, p. 
143; Oates et al. 2003, p. 129; Parren and Byler 2003, pp. 133, 137-
138).
    Human population growth and agricultural expansion have destroyed 
and fragmented forests across the range of the chimpanzee and are two 
of the greatest threats to chimpanzee survival. Plantations and farms 
have been established in suitable chimpanzee habitat, including within 
protected areas (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 9; Greengrass 2009, p. 80; 
Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 20; Duvall 
2003, p. 143; Gippoliti et al. 2003, pp. 55, 57; Hanson-Alp et al. 
2003, p. 83; Humle 2003, p. 147; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 63; Magnuson 
et al. 2003, p. 113; Parren and Byler 2003, p. 138). In West Africa, 
most unreserved forests have been converted to cultivation (Parren and 
Byler 2003, p. 138). Agricultural practices are largely unsustainable 
and are encroaching into additional forested areas (Parren and Byler 
2003, p. 133).
    Chimpanzees are highly adaptive and occur in a variety of habitats, 
including primary, secondary, and regenerating forests, logged forests, 
and plantations; they have even been found living in close proximity to 
humans. However, the loss, or even the degradation, of the chimpanzee's 
traditional habitat can affect their survival by impacting its food 
resources, behavior, susceptibility to disease, and abundance and 
distribution, (Morgan and Sanz 2007, p. 1; Carter et al. 2003, p. 36; 
Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 83; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 18; Nisbett 
et al. 2003, p. 97; Parren and Byler 2003, p. 137).
    Although chimpanzees feed on a wide variety of foods, their energy 
requirements, as large primates with large home ranges, predispose them 
to a reliance on high-energy fruits (Greengrass 2009, p. 81). Removal, 
or lowering the quality, of habitat through logging activity or 
establishment of agricultural lands destroys the structure and 
composition of the forest, eliminating essential food sources, which 
can affect sociability, condition of individuals, and female 
reproductive success, and increase vulnerability to diseases or 
parasites and infant and juvenile mortality (Greengrass 2009, pp. 81-
82). Even in areas with lower levels of logging where essential food 
sources were unaffected, chimpanzee densities have declined 
significantly and remained low for years. Clear-cutting results in 
total habitat loss, and because of severe soil erosion, the potential 
for future forest regeneration is also lost (Parren and Byler 2003, pp. 
137-138).
    The loss or reduction of food sources and the noise and disturbance 
from logging activity can cause chimpanzee communities to abandon their 
home range to find a new home range with sufficient resources and less 
human activity. These chimpanzees may enter another community's 
territory which can lead to further competition for resources and 
conflict that can lead to death. As habitat is lost or fragmented and 
chimpanzee populations are forced into smaller forest fragments, lethal 
interactions with other chimpanzees may increase. Furthermore, 
chimpanzees may be cautious about reinhabiting previous home ranges 
where they were displaced by humans (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 12; 
Lonsdorf 2007, p. 74; Carter et al. 2003, p. 36; Parren and Byler 2003, 
pp. 137-138). If the displacement of chimpanzees forces them into 
suboptimal habitat, they may not have sufficient protection from

[[Page 35212]]

predators, especially at night (Humle 2003, pp. 15-16).
    The loss or reduction of food sources due to expanding logging, 
agriculture, and human settlements into chimpanzee habitat has also 
resulted in increased conflicts between humans and chimpanzees 
(Tacugama Sanctuary 2013, unpaginated; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Tweheyo et al. 
2005, pp. 237-238, 244; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 106; Humle 2003, p. 
147; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 71; Naughton-Treves et al. 1998, pp. 597, 
600). Lack of sufficient wild food and an increase in farming and human 
presence have increased the occurrence of crop raiding to supplement 
their diet. Crop raiding can cause substantial losses to farmers, 
reduce the tolerance of humans to chimpanzee presence, and increase 
killing chimpanzees to protect valuable crops or in retaliation for the 
destruction of crops (Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary 2013, unpaginated; 
Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Bennett et al. 2006, p. 885; Tweheyo et 
al. 2005, p. 245; Duvall 2003, p. 144; Carter et al. 2003, p. 36; 
Gippoliti et al. 2003, p. 57; Humle 2003, pp. 147, 150; Parren and 
Byler 2003, p. 138; Naughton-Treves 1998, p. 597).
    Unsustainable hunting for the bushmeat trade is one of the major 
causes of the decline in chimpanzees, and continues to be a major 
threat to the survival of chimpanzees in protected and unprotected 
areas (Ghobrial et al. 2011, pp. 1, 2, 11; Morgan et al. 2011, p. 10; 
Hicks et al. 2010, pp. 1, 3, 6, 11; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; 
Kabasawa 2009, p. 37; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; Oates et al. 2008, 
unpaginated; Lonsdorf 2007, p. 74; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Tutin et al. 2005, 
pp. 1, 10-23, 27-28; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 109; Humle 2003, p. 17; 
Kormos and Boesch 2003, pp. 2, 14, 16, 19; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 63; 
Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 151; Magnuson et al. 2003, pp. 111, 113; 
Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Oates et al. 2003, pp. 123, 129; Nishida et 
al. 2001, p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 12). Growth in the human 
population in Africa has increased the demand for wild animal meat, or 
bushmeat. Expansion of logging activities, including the construction 
of logging roads, has facilitated a significant market, much of it 
illegal, for commercial bushmeat to meet this demand (Amati et al. 
2009, p. 6; Kabasawa 2009, pp. 50-51; AV Oates et al. 2008, 
unpaginated; Fa et al. 2006, pp. 503, 506; Magazine 2003, p. 7; Kormos 
et al. 2003c, p. 151; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 613; Nishida et al. 2001, 
p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, pp. 1, 11). Logging roads and vehicles provide 
access to the forests and a means to export meat to markets and cities. 
Logging operations are accompanied by an onslaught of workers who are 
encouraged to hunt to provide for their own needs and commercial 
hunters who operate in forests to supply the needs of forestry workers 
and to trade outside of the forested areas (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; 
Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 151; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Walsh et al. 
2003, p. 613; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 1). 
Furthermore, bushmeat trade is also an important livelihood and the 
primary source of protein for humans in much of the chimpanzee's range 
(Abwe and Morgan 2008, p. 26; Fa et al. 2006, p. 507; Bennett et al. 
2006, p. 885; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 155; Wilkie and Carpenter 1999, 
p. 927).
    The intensity of hunting chimpanzees varies by country and region 
(Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151-152). Religious, traditional, and 
familial taboos against the killing of chimpanzees and the consumption 
of their meat exist in many areas (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 9; Plumptre et 
al. 2010, p. 2; Greengrass 2009, p. 81; Kabasawa 2009, p. 51; Unti 
2007a, p. 4; Carter et al. 2003, pp. 31, 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; 
Gippoliti et al. 2003, pp. 55, 57; Humle 2003, p. 18; Kormos and Boesch 
2003, pp. 10, 13; Kormos et al. 2003b, pp. 63, 71; Kormos et al. 2003c, 
pp. 152, 154; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Oates et al. 2003, p. 129; 
Waller and Reynolds 2001, p. 135; Bowen-Jones 1998, pp. 19, 27). 
However, these areas may be hunted by people from surrounding areas 
where there is demand for chimpanzee meat (Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72). 
Furthermore, these traditions and beliefs are not necessarily being 
passed down to younger generations and cannot be relied on to protect 
chimpanzees in the future (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 9; Unti 2007a, p. 4; 
Oates et al. 2003, p. 129).
    Despite the high demand for bushmeat, primates do not represent the 
majority of animals killed for the bushmeat trade (AV Magazine 2003, p. 
7; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 613; Nishida et 
al. 2001, p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 1). In fact, studies have found 
that chimpanzee meat makes up only a small fraction of the meat found 
in markets; estimates from different regions have ranged from 0.01 to 3 
percent (Kabasawa 2009, p. 38; Fa et al. 2006, p. 502; Herbinger et al. 
2003, p. 106; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 2; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 
151-152). However, because the sale of ape meat is often hidden and the 
meat may be eaten in villages and never make it to markets, the 
proportion of chimpanzee meat in bushmeat markets could be greater than 
reported (Kabasawa 2009, p. 38; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151-152; 
Bowen-Jones 1998, pp. 21-11). Hunting pressure even at a low level is 
enough to result in the local extirpation of large chimpanzee 
populations. Low population densities and slow reproductive rates 
prevent chimpanzees from recovering easily from the loss of several 
individuals (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Fa et al. 2006, p. 503; AV 
Magazine 2003, p. 7; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; Herbinger et al. 2003, 
p. 106; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 2; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151, 
153; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Bowen-
Jones 1998, p. 13).
    Threats to the chimpanzee from habitat loss and commercial hunting 
have been exacerbated by civil unrest that has occurred in several 
chimpanzee range countries (Plumptre et al. 2010, pp. 4-5; Campbell et 
al. 2008, p. 903; CBFP 2006, p. 16; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 85; 
Nisbett et al. 2003, pp. 89, 95; Draulans and Van Krunkelsven 2002, pp. 
35-36). During civil conflict, many people, including refugees, 
military groups, and rebels take shelter in interior forests and 
protected areas (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 4; CBFP 2006, p. 16). The 
presence of soldiers and displaced refugees increases the number of 
people that rely on bushmeat for protein. Not only do soldiers hunt, 
but they also supply locals with weapons and ammunition to hunt them 
(Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 5; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 85; Draulans 
and Van Krunkelsven 2002, pp. 35-36;). Civil unrest has contributed to 
a significant loss of wildlife, including chimpanzees (Campbell et al. 
2008, p. 903; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 85).
    Capture of live chimpanzees for the international pet trade has 
been one of the major causes of the decline in chimpanzees. Today, 
illegal capture and smuggling of chimpanzees continue for the pet trade 
across Africa and, to some extent, the international market (Ghobrial 
et al. 2010, pp. 1, 2, 11; Kabasawa 2009, pp. 37, 48-49; Oates et al. 
2008, unpaginated; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4; 
Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95). A recent increase in orphaned chimpanzees 
has been attributed to the growing bushmeat crisis. Killing a mother 
with an infant earns twice the income for the hunter; the mother's body 
is sold in the bushmeat trade while the infant enters the pet trade 
(Kabasawa 2009, p. 50; Carter 2003b, p. 157). Furthermore, hunters have 
found a lucrative market for pet chimpanzees with military personnel, 
police, government officials, and traditional chiefs (Hicks et al. 
2010, p. 8; Draulans and Van Krunkelsven 2002, pp. 35-36). The 
intensity of trade differs among countries, but is

[[Page 35213]]

reportedly a substantial problem in The Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Guinea (Hicks et 
al. 2010, pp. 3, 6, 11; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Unit 2007, p. 5; 
Unti 2007a, p. 4; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 84; Herbinger et al. 2003, 
p. 106; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113). It 
is not possible to determine how many wild chimpanzees are captured for 
the pet trade, but the number of chimpanzees in sanctuaries indicates 
it is a significant problem. Since 2000, the number of chimpanzees in 
African sanctuaries has increased 59 percent (Kabasawa 2009, pp. 37, 
50).
    The petitioners assert that the exploitation of chimpanzees in the 
United States' entertainment and pet industries is seen around the 
world and misleads the public into believing chimpanzees are well 
protected in the wild and make good pets, further fueling the demand 
for chimpanzees. Studies suggest a link between seeing chimpanzees 
portrayed in the media and misperceptions about the species' status in 
the wild. This misperception may also affect conservation efforts (Ross 
et al. 2011, pp. 1, 4-5; Schroepfer et al. 2011, pp. 6-7; Ross 2008a, 
pp. 25-26; Ross et al. 2008b, p. 1487). However, we did not find 
evidence that this situation was a significant driver in the status of 
the species.
    The effects of the pet trade are particularly devastating to wild 
populations because the mother and other family members may be killed 
to capture an infant. Researchers estimate that as many as 10 
chimpanzees may be killed for every infant that enters the pet trade. 
Furthermore, the infant is likely to die of malnutrition, disease, or 
injury (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 8; Kabasawa 2009, p. 49; Lonsdorf 2007, 
p. 74; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 84; Kormos and 
Boesch 2003, p. 4). The loss of even just a few individuals from a 
population can have devastating effects due to the slow reproductive 
rate of chimpanzees. Because so many chimpanzees may be killed to 
secure an infant, the pet trade has a significant draining effect on 
remaining populations, and threatens the survival of wild chimpanzees 
(Kabasawa 2009, p. 49; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 
113).
    Historically, wild chimpanzees were captured and exported to meet a 
significant demand for chimpanzees in biomedical research in countries 
around the world, significantly impacting chimpanzee distribution and 
abundance (Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 
72). A substantial number of countries do not permit or conduct 
research on chimpanzees and the international research community is no 
longer seeking access to wild chimpanzees (Hicks 2011, pers. comm.; 
Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5). Although some biomedical research 
on captive chimpanzees continues in the United States and Gabon, in the 
United States, there is a decreasing scientific need for chimpanzee 
studies due to the emergence of non-chimpanzee models and technologies 
(Institute of Medicine 2011, pp. 5, 66-67).
    As previously stated, chimpanzees are held in captivity in several 
countries around the world, including African countries and the United 
States. Chimpanzees in captivity are bred and sold as pets, used in the 
entertainment industry (e.g., movies, television, and advertisements), 
exhibited in hotels and roadside shows, used as party entertainment or 
animal encounters, displayed in zoos, and used for biomedical research. 
It is thought that self-sustaining breeding groups of captive 
chimpanzees provide surplus animals for research and other purposes, 
thereby reducing the demand for wild individuals. Given that threats to 
the chimpanzee have expanded and intensified, and capture for the 
illegal pet trade continues to be a major threat to remaining 
chimpanzee populations, it does not appear that the availability of 
captive chimpanzees has reduced any threats to the species.
    National laws exist within all range countries to protect 
chimpanzees. In general, hunting, capture, possession, and commercial 
trade of chimpanzees are prohibited. Laws also protect chimpanzee 
habitat, including the establishment of protected areas, in many of the 
range countries. However, as evidenced by the continuing and increasing 
habitat destruction and hunting and trading of this species, even 
within protected areas, these laws are not often enforced. A lack of 
resources, limited training, limited personnel, lack of basic 
logistical support, corrupt officials, and weak legislation prevent 
government agencies charged with the protection of wildlife and forest 
management from providing effective protection. Furthermore, penalties 
for violations are not adequate to serve as a deterrent (Ghobrial et 
al. 2010, pp. 1, 2, 11; Hicks et al. 2010, pp. 8-9; Kabsawa 2009, p. 
39; Laporte et al. 2009, p. 1451; Unti 2007a, pp. 4, 6, 8, 10-11; Unti 
2007b, pp. 6-10; Bennett et al. 2006, p. 885; AV Magazine 2003, p. 7; 
Carter 2003a, p. 52; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Carter et al. 2003, pp. 31, 
32, 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 79, 87; 
Herbinger et al. 2003, pp. 100, 106; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 6; 
Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 64; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 155; Magnuson et 
al. 2003, p. 112; Nisbett et al. 2003, pp. 90, 95; Oates et al. 2003, 
pp. 123, 125).
    The chimpanzee is also protected under the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES), an international agreement between governments to ensure that 
the international trade of CITES-listed plant and animal species does 
not threaten species' survival in the wild. Under this treaty, CITES 
Parties (member countries or signatories) regulate the import, export, 
and reexport of specimens, parts, and products of CITES-listed plant 
and animal species. Trade must be authorized through a system of 
permits and certificates that are provided by the designated CITES 
Management Authority of each CITES Party. With the exception of Angola, 
all chimpanzee range countries are Parties to CITES.
    The chimpanzee is listed in Appendix I of CITES. An Appendix-I 
listing includes species threatened with extinction whose trade is 
permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally 
precludes commercial trade. The import of an Appendix-I species 
generally requires the issuance of both an import and export permit. 
Import permits for Appendix-I species are issued only if findings are 
made that the import would be for purposes that are not detrimental to 
the survival of the species and that the specimen will not be used for 
primarily commercial purposes (CITES Article III(3)). Export permits 
for Appendix-I species are issued only if findings are made that the 
specimen was legally acquired and trade is not detrimental to the 
survival of the species, and if the issuing authority is satisfied that 
an import permit has been granted for the specimen (CITES Article 
III(2)).
    Based on CITES trade data from 1990-2011, obtained from United 
Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Center 
(UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade Database, there has been significant legal 
trade of chimpanzees and their parts, and products worldwide. However, 
legal trade in wild specimens, including live animals, bones, 
scientific specimens, and hair has been limited. Trade of these wild 
specimens for commercial purposes was reported for 14 live specimens, 
121 scientific specimens, and 10 skulls. From 2002-2011, exports and 
re-exports of wild specimens from the United States have numbered 8 
scientific specimens for scientific purposes. Imports of wild specimens 
into the United States have been limited

[[Page 35214]]

and have included hairs, scientific specimens, a skull, and one 
unspecified specimen for personal, scientific, educational, and medical 
purposes.
    As human settlements expand and populations of chimpanzees and 
their habitat are reduced, interactions between chimpanzees and humans 
or human waste increases, leading to greater risks of disease 
transmission. A close genetic relationship allows for easy transmission 
of infectious diseases between chimpanzees and humans (Plumptre et al. 
2010, p. 2; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Lonsdorf 2007, p. 73; Tutin 
et al. 2005, p. 29; Formenty et al. 2003, p. 169; Huijbregts et al. 
2003, p. 437). Rural communities that share the same habitat as 
chimpanzees have no access to health care and are not vaccinated 
against diseases that can spread through ape populations and result in 
high mortality rates. Additionally, exposure to humans through 
conservation and research activities, such as habituation, ecotourism, 
and reintroductions can also increase the risk of disease transmission 
(Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; K[ouml]ndgen et al. 2008, p. 260; Oates et 
al. 2008, unpaginated; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 29; Huijbregts et al. 
2003, p. 437; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 48).
    Disease transmission is a major threat to remaining populations of 
the central and eastern chimpanzees (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 10; 
Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; GRASP 2005a, p. 7; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 2; 
Leendertz et al. 2004, p. 451; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 612). Repeated 
epidemics of Ebola virus have resulted in dramatic declines in ape 
populations in C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, and the Republic of Congo (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; 
K[ouml]ndgen et al. 2008, p. 261; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Tutin 
et al. 2005, p. 29; Leendertz et al. 2004, p. 451; Huijbregts et al. 
2003, pp. 437, 441; Walsh et al. 2003, pp. 612-613; Formenty et al. 
2003, pp. 169-172). Other infectious diseases have resulted in the 
death of chimpanzees at Gombe, Mahale, and Ta[iuml] national parks 
(Rudicell et al. 2010, pp. 1, 10; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; 
K[ouml]ndgen et al. 2008, pp. 260-262; Williams et al. 2008, pp. 766, 
768-770; Leendertz et al. 2004, pp. 451-452; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 
48).
    Once a chimpanzee population has been reduced, whether by hunting, 
capture for the pet trade, or disease, its ability to recover is 
limited due to very slow reproductive rates and complex social behavior 
(Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 1; Kabasawa 2009, p. 49; Bennett et al. 2006, 
p. 885; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 32; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151, 155; 
Wilkie and Carpenter 1999, p. 927;). Even low levels of hunting can 
have a devastating effect on the population. The loss of reproductive-
age female chimpanzees can be particularly devastating, further 
reducing the population's ability to recover from the loss (Carter 
2003b, p. 157; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72). The occurrence of 
chimpanzees at low densities coupled with slow reproductive rates can 
lead to the rapid extinction of even large populations (Oates et al. 
2008, unpaginated; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 2).
    The current threats to the chimpanzee, as described above, are not 
likely to improve in the future, resulting in a continuing decline of 
chimpanzee populations. Threats to this species are driven by the needs 
of an expanding human population. Within the range countries of the 
chimpanzee, the human population is expected to continue to increase 
and will inevitably increase the pressures on natural resources. 
Therefore, impacts to remaining populations of chimpanzees, as 
described above, from deforestation, hunting, commercial trade, and 
disease are likely to continue or even intensify (Morgan et al. 2011, 
p. 10 Plumptre et al. 2010, pp. 50, 71; Fitzherbert et al. 2008, pp. 
538-539, 544; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; CBFP 2006, p. 33; Fa et 
al. 2006, p. 506; Hewitt 2006, pp. 44, 48-49; Nasi et al. 2006, p. 14; 
Carter et al. 2003, p. 38; Duvall 2003, p. 145; Parren and Byler 2003, 
p. 137; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 45; Wilkie and Carpenter 1999, pp. 927-
928).
    Continuing threats acting on chimpanzee populations, coupled with 
the species' inability to recover from population reductions, will 
likely lead to the loss of additional populations. Chimpanzees could be 
lost from an additional three countries due to threats acting on 
populations that fall below what is considered the minimum for a viable 
population (Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5; Butynski 2003, p. 11; Kormos and 
Boesch 2003, p. 3). Many remaining populations are small and isolated, 
putting them at an increased risk of extinction (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 
12).
    Many management plans have been developed to conserve the 
chimpanzee (e.g., Morgan et al. 2011; Plumptre et al. 2010; GRASP 
2005a; GRASP 2005b; Tutin et al. 2005; Kormos and Boesch 2003; Kormos 
et al. 2003). These plans lay out goals and research needs to address 
the threats faced by chimpanzees. Development of forest management 
plans with the goal of sustainable forestry practices has increased 
(Hewitt 2006, p. 43; Nasi et al. 2006, pp. 17-19). However, 
implementation of these management plans faces challenges, and the 
effect of these plans has yet to be determined. There is no evidence 
that management plans have reduced threats to the species. Chimpanzees 
are found in numerous protected areas. In some cases, these areas 
provide adequate protection and support substantial populations of 
chimpanzees. Unfortunately, many protected areas have weak or 
nonexistent management with poor law enforcement and are illegally 
logged, converted to agricultural lands, and hunted (Campbell et al. 
2011, p. 1). Furthermore, we have no evidence that enforcement of 
legislation to protect chimpanzees and their habitat, including 
protected areas, will improve.

Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened 
based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of 
the five factors, we look beyond the species' exposure to a potential 
threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate 
whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that 
causes actual impact to the species. The identification of threats that 
might impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a 
finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include 
evidence indicating that the threats are operative and, either singly 
or in aggregation, affect the status of the species. Threats are 
significant if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of 
the species, such that the species warrants listing as endangered or 
threatened, as those terms are defined in the Act.
    As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the 
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the 
chimpanzee is in danger of

[[Page 35215]]

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. We examined the best 
scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, 
present, and future threats faced by the chimpanzee. We reviewed the 
petition, information available in our files, and other available 
published and unpublished information. We find that the chimpanzee is 
endangered by all five factors.
    In 1990, wild chimpanzees were listed as endangered due to habitat 
loss, excessive hunting, capture for the pet trade, disease, and lack 
of effective national and international laws. Since then, threats to 
the chimpanzee have only expanded and intensified. Habitat that is 
needed to support viable populations is being lost to logging 
operations and conversion to agriculture. Individuals needed to 
maintain viable populations are being lost to hunting for the bushmeat 
trade, trade in pet chimpanzees, disease, and conflicts with humans.
    Chimpanzees need large areas to provide sufficient resources for 
feeding, nesting, and shelter. Although some large forest blocks 
remain, logging and agricultural expansion have destroyed and 
fragmented much of the chimpanzee's habitat. The loss of suitable 
habitat is driving chimpanzees into smaller fragments of habitat closer 
to human settlements and creating competition for resources, increasing 
conflicts with humans, and increasing the risk of disease transmission. 
Human population growth and expansion of human activities have created 
a lucrative market for bushmeat and trade in live chimpanzees. Although 
chimpanzee meat constitutes only a small fraction of bushmeat found in 
markets, and the exact number of chimpanzees captured for the trade is 
unknown, these actions have drained chimpanzee populations. They are 
especially devastating because chimpanzees have slow reproductive rates 
and cannot easily recover from the loss of individuals. Laws exist 
throughout the range countries and internationally to protect the 
chimpanzee, but enforcement of national laws is lacking. Many 
populations are now small and isolated, putting them at a greater risk 
of extinction. Impacts to the chimpanzee are expected to continue into 
the future as the human population continues to expand and pressures on 
natural resources to meet the demands of the human population increase.
    The status of the chimpanzee has not improved since the wild 
population of the species was reclassified from threatened to 
endangered in 1990. Threats to the species have intensified and 
expanded across its range. Therefore, we find that endangered is the 
correct status for the chimpanzee throughout its range. We also 
examined the chimpanzee to analyze if any other listable entity under 
the definition of ``species,'' such as subspecies or distinct 
population segments, may qualify for a different status. However, 
because of the magnitude and uniformity of the threats throughout its 
range, we find that there are no other listable entities that may 
warrant a different determination of status. Since threats extend 
throughout the entire range, it is unnecessary to determine if the 
chimpanzee is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion 
of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific 
and commercial information, we have determined that the chimpanzee 
meets the definition of an endangered species under the Act. 
Consequently, we propose to revise the listing of chimpanzees under the 
Act so that all chimpanzees, wherever found, are listed as endangered.

Special Rule

    For threatened species, section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service 
discretion to specify the prohibitions and any exceptions to those 
prohibitions that are appropriate for the species, as well as include 
provisions that are necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the species. A special rule allows us to develop 
regulatory provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation 
needs of the threatened species and which may be more or less 
restrictive than the general provisions for threatened species at 50 
CFR 17.31.
    Currently, the captive chimpanzees in the United States, classified 
as threatened, are exempt from the general prohibitions for threatened 
species at 50 CFR 17.31 under a special rule for primates found at 50 
CFR 17.40(c). Because special rules can be applied only to threatened 
species, the special rule for captive chimpanzees will no longer be 
available if the proposed revision to the classification of all 
chimpanzees to endangered is finalized. Therefore, we also propose to 
remove the chimpanzee, including a provision specific to the 
chimpanzee, from the special rule.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal 
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition 
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results 
in conservation actions by Federal and state governments, private 
agencies and groups, and individuals.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate 
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect 
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened 
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated. 
However, given that the chimpanzee is not native to the United States, 
we are not designating critical habitat for this species under section 
4 of the Act.
    Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited 
financial assistance for the development and management of programs 
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful 
for the conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign 
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to 
encourage conservation programs for foreign endangered species and to 
provide assistance for such programs in the form of personnel and the 
training of personnel.
    In 2000, the United States Congress passed the Great Ape 
Conservation Act to protect and conserve the great ape species, 
including the chimpanzee, listed under both the Endangered Species Act 
and CITES. The Great Ape Conservation Act granted the Service the 
authority to establish the Great Ape Conservation Fund to provide 
funding for projects that aim to conserve great apes through law 
enforcement training, community initiatives, and other conservation 
efforts. The Service's Wildlife Without Borders program, through the 
Great Ape Conservation Fund, is supporting efforts to fight poaching 
and trafficking in great apes; to increase habitat protection by 
creating national parks and protected areas; and to engage the 
community through local initiatives to conserve the most threatened 
great ape species.
    The Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations set 
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered and threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR 17.21 
and 17.31, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to ``take'' (take includes harass, 
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to 
attempt any

[[Page 35216]]

of these) within the United States or upon the high seas; import or 
export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or 
foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer 
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered or threatened 
wildlife species. To possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship 
any such wildlife that has been taken in violation of the Act is also 
illegal. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species and 17.32 for threatened species. For 
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes, to 
enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental 
take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. For threatened 
species, a permit may be issued for the same activities, as well as 
zoological exhibition, education, and special purposes consistent with 
the Act.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative 
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' that was 
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding 
this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure listing 
decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analysis. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer 
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We 
will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment 
period, on the specific assumptions and the data that are the basis for 
our conclusions regarding the proposal to list all chimpanzees as 
endangered under the Act.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final 
rulemaking. Accordingly, our final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Required Determinations

Clarity of Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the names of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental 
assessment, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations 
adopted under section 4(a) of the Act for the listing, delisting, or 
reclassification of species. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any new information collections or 
recordkeeping requirements for which Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

References Cited

    A list of all references cited in this document is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0086, or upon 
request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species 
Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the 
Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife by:
0
a. Revising the entry for ``Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)'' (``Wherever 
found in the wild''); and
0
b. Removing the entry for ``Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)'' (``Wherever 
found in captivity'').
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Chimpanzee.......................  Pan troglodytes.....  Africa.............  Entire.............  E                   16, 376           NA           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 35217]]

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.40 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(1); and
0
b. Removing paragraph (c)(3).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  17.40  Special rules--mammals.

    (c) * * *
    (1) Except as noted in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, all 
provisions of Sec.  17.31 apply to the lesser slow loris (Nycticebus 
pygmaeus); Philippine tarsier (Tarsius syrichta); white-footed tamarin 
(Saguinus leucopus); black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra); stump-tailed 
macaque (Macaca arctoides); gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada); 
Formosan rock macaque (Macaca cyclopis); Japanese macaque (Macaca 
fuscata); Toque macaque (Macaca sinica); long-tailed langur (Presbytis 
potenziani); purple-faced langur (Presbytis senex); and Tonkin snub-
nosed langur (Pygathrix [Rhinopithecus] avunculus).
* * * * *

    Dated: May 31, 2013.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-14007 Filed 6-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P