29418 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Notices

New York District recently completed a

pilot program in which importers of

seafood products were allowed to

choose between having their products

sampled and tested by FDA or by a

private laboratory at their own expense.

A similar pilot program was conducted

in Boston District. The New York and

Boston pilot programs are currently

being evaluated to see if further pilot

studies can be developed to make better

use of non-FDA laboratories for

monitoring imported products.

Our intention is to improve our

current policy and program regarding

the use of data from private laboratories.

The existing mechanism for the

assessment of private laboratories and

review of analytical packages may be

adequate for our current needs as we

move to enhance our use of the private

sector for analytical testing, however,

we will likely find the need for a more

streamlined and effective approach to

assessing the competency of a private

laboratory and the validity of its test

results.

Enhancing FDA’s use of private

laboratories may also be dependent on

the private sector’s ability to comply

with international standards. As a

result, another potential issue for

discussion includes the standards for

analytical laboratories being developed

by the joint Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations and

World Health Organization’s Codex

Alimentarius Commission. At the 20th

Session of the Codex Committee on

Methods of Analysis and Sampling (the

Committee), the Committee agreed that

certain criteria for quality assurance be

adopted by laboratories involved in the

official import and export control of

foods. The Committee recommendations

include compliance with the general

criteria for testing laboratories laid

down in ISO/IEC Guide 25:1990,

‘‘General Requirements for the

Competence of Calibration and Testing

Laboratories,’’ participation in

appropriate proficiency testing schemes,

the use validated analytical methods,

and the application of internal quality

control procedures. These criteria have

been referred to the Codex Committee

on Food Import and Export Inspection

and Certification Systems for

consideration and review to be used for

the development of objective criteria for

assessing the competency of laboratories

involved in the testing of foods at the

international level. FDA is committed to

using international standards whenever

appropriate, and to working with

international standards organizations

like Codex to develop and adopt

international standards that provide

adequate health protection.

Because of the agency’s commitment

to international harmonization efforts,

the fact that the Committee has made

these recommendations is significant to

FDA. Successful application of these

criteria may be viewed as providing a

sound basis for judging the level of

quality of both public and private

laboratories. Discussion of how (and if)

FDA should implement these criteria in

evaluating the competency of private

laboratories may be included during this

workshop.

Attachment—Proposal for the Development

of a National Data base on Private

Laboratories

An internal FDA-wide private laboratory

inventory will be established. This data base

is envisioned as being a repository of basic

information on private laboratories that

routinely submit analytical packages to the

agency. The data base will be simple in

design serving mainly to foster

communication between the Districts.

The following guidance will be issued

related to the use of the private laboratory

inventory (PLI):

This data base contains information on

certain private laboratories that submit

analytical results for review to the agency.

Private laboratories that do not routinely

submit analytical packages to the agency do

not appear on this list, since creating a

directory of all private laboratories capable of

analyzing regulated products, including

those laboratories that are associated with

regulated industry, or laboratories that have

not submitted analytical data for agency

review, is not our intention.

The information provided in the PLI is to

be used only as a tool to help District

personnel make appropriate individual

product compliance decisions. The

information is not intended to be used as a

final evaluation of the acceptability of results

for the noted types of analyses from a given

private laboratory. As always, Districts

should make individual product compliance

decisions based on all information available

regarding whether or not private laboratory

analyses are sufficient to demonstrate

product compliance.

This data base may not be treated as an all

inclusive listing of private laboratories that

are capable of submitting high quality data

or analytical results on regulated products to

the agency.

The following information will be included

in the data base:

Private Laboratory Data

Private Laboratory Name

Private Laboratory Contact/Phone

Complete Mailing Address

Home District Contact/Phone

Submission Data

Type(s) of analytical packages submitted

(Chemistry, Micro, Filth, etc)

Date and type of analytical package

submission (Date, product, analysis type)

Analysis results

Audit sample results

Narrative describing the audit sample results

Analytical package review (Accepted,

accepted with Comment, Unacceptable)

Analytical package review comments

Private Laboratory Assessment Data

Status of initial assessment records on file

per analysis type (complete, in process)

Date of most recent on-site assessment visit

per analysis type (month/year)

Narrative results of assessment visit(s) per

analysis type.

Dated: May 30, 1996.

William K. Hubbard,

Associate Commissioner for Policy

Coordination.

[FR Doc. 96–14586 Filed 6–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

Health Care Financing Administration

[MB–098–CN]

RIN 0938–AH30

Medicaid Program; Limitations on

Aggregate Payments to

Disproportionate Share Hospitals:

Federal Fiscal Year 1996; Correction

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Correction notice.

SUMMARY: In the May 9, 1996 issue of

the Federal Register (61 FR 21195), we

announced the preliminary Federal

fiscal year (FFY) 1996 national target

and individual State allotments for

Medicaid payment adjustments made to

hospitals that serve a disproportionate

number of Medicaid recipients and lowincome patients with special needs. In

that notice, we inadvertently omitted

the chart that contained the listing of

the individual State allotments and the

regulation identification number (RIN)

in the heading of the notice. In addition,

only a portion of the Catalog of Federal

Domestic Assistance identification at

the end of the document prior to the

signatures was included. For the benefit

of the readers, we are reprinting the

entire notice. The corrected notice reads

as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

[MB–098–N]

RIN 0938–AH30

Medicaid Program; Limitations on

Aggregate Payments to

Disproportionate Share Hospitals:

Federal Fiscal Year 1996

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

preliminary Federal fiscal year (FFY)

1996 national target and individual
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Notices 29419

State allotments for Medicaid payment

adjustments made to hospitals that serve

a disproportionate number of Medicaid

recipients and low-income patients with

special needs. We are publishing this

notice in accordance with the

provisions of section 1923(f)(1)(C) of the

Social Security Act and implementing

regulations at 42 CFR 447.297 through

447.299. The preliminary FFY 1996

State disproportionate share hospital

(DSH) allotments published in this

notice will be superseded by final FFY

1996 DSH allotments to be published in

the Federal Register subsequent to the

publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The preliminary DSH

payment adjustment expenditure limits

included in this notice apply to

Medicaid DSH payment adjustments

that are applicable to FFY 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Strauss, (410) 786–2019

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 1902(a)(13)(A) of the Social

Security Act (the Act) requires States to

ensure that their Medicaid payment

rates include payment adjustments for

Medicaid-participating hospitals that

serve a large number of Medicaid

recipients and other low-income

individuals with special needs (referred

to as disproportionate share hospitals

(DSHs)). The payment adjustments are

calculated on the basis of formulas

specified in section 1923 of the Act.

Section 1923(f) of the Act and

implementing Medicaid regulations at

42 CFR 447.297 through 447.299 require

us to estimate and publish in the

Federal Register the national target and

each State’s allotment for DSH

payments for each Federal fiscal year

(FFY). The implementing regulations

provide that the national aggregate DSH

limit for a FFY specified in the Act is

a target rather than an absolute cap

when determining the amount that can

be allocated for DSH payments. The

national DSH target is 12 percent of the

total amount of medical assistance

expenditures (excluding total

administrative costs) that are projected

to be made under approved Medicaid

State plans during the FFY. (Note:

Whenever the phrases ‘‘total medical

assistance expenditures’’ or ‘‘total

administrative costs’’ are used in this

notice, they mean both the State and

Federal share of expenditures or costs.)

In addition to the national DSH target,

there is a specific State DSH limit for

each State for each FFY. The State DSH

limit is a specified amount of DSH

payment adjustments applicable to a

FFY above which FFP will not be

available. This is called the ‘‘State DSH

allotment’’.

Each State’s DSH allotment for FFY

1996 is calculated by first determining

whether the State is a ‘‘high-DSH State,’’

or a ‘‘low-DSH State.’’ This is

determined by using the State’s ‘‘base

allotment.’’ A State’s base allotment is

the greater of the following amounts: (1)

the total amount of the State’s actual

and projected DSH payment

adjustments made under the State’s

approved State plan applicable to FFY

1992, as adjusted by HCFA; or (2)

$1,000,000.

A State whose base allotment exceeds

12 percent of the State’s total medical

assistance expenditures (excluding

administrative costs) projected to be

made in FFY 1996 is referred to as a

‘‘high-DSH State.’’ The FFY 1996 State

DSH allotment for a high-DSH State is

limited to the State’s base allotment.

A State whose base allotment is equal

to or less than 12 percent of the State’s

total medical assistance expenditures

(excluding administrative costs)

projected to be made in FFY 1996 is

referred to as a ‘‘low-DSH State.’’ The

FFY 1996 State DSH allotment for a

low-DSH State is equal to the State’s

DSH allotment for FFY 1995 increased

by growth amounts and supplemental

amounts, if any. However, the FFY 1996

DSH allotment for a low-DSH State

cannot exceed 12 percent of the State’s

total medical assistance expenditures

for FFY 1996 (excluding administrative

costs).

A State that is classified as a highDSH State for one year, because its base

allotment exceeds 12 percent of its total

medical assistance expenditures for that

year, may not continue to meet the highDSH State definition in other years.

That is, if the State’s base allotment for

another year is equal to or less than 12

percent of its total medical assistance

for that year, the State would be

classified as a low-DSH State for that

year. As a low-DSH State, the State

could potentially receive growth for that

year.

The growth amount for FFY 1996 is

equal to the projected percentage

increase (the growth factor) in a lowDSH State’s total Medicaid program

expenditures between FFY 1995 and

FFY 1996 multiplied by the State’s final

DSH allotment for FFY 1995. Because

the national DSH limit is considered a

target, low-DSH States whose programs

grow from one year to the next can

receive a growth amount that would not

be permitted if the national limit was

viewed as an absolute cap.

There is no growth factor and no

growth amount for any low-DSH State

whose Medicaid program does not grow

(that is, stayed the same or declined)

between FFY 1995 and FFY 1996.

Furthermore, because a low-DSH State’s

FFY 1996 DSH allotment cannot exceed

12 percent of the State’s total medical

assistance expenditures, it is possible

for its FFY 1996 DSH allotment to be

lower than its FFY 1995 DSH allotment.

For example, this occurs when the State

experiences a decrease in its program

expenditures between FFY 1995 and

FFY 1996 and its 1995 FFY DSH

allotment is greater than 12 percent of

the total projected medical assistance

expenditures for the current FFY. This

is the case for the State of Rhode Island

for FFY 1996.

There is no supplemental amount

available for redistribution for FFY

1996. The supplemental amount, if any,

is equal to a low-DSH State’s

proportional share of a pool of funds

(the redistribution pool). The

redistribution pool is equal to the

national 12-percent DSH target reduced

by the total of the base allotments for

high-DSH States, the total of the State

DSH allotments for the previous FFY for

low-DSH States, and the total of the

low-DSH State growth amounts. Since

the sum of these amounts is above the

projected FFY 1996 national 12-percent

DSH target, there is no redistribution

pool and, therefore, no supplemental

amounts for FFY 1996.

As prescribed in the law and

regulations, no State’s DSH allotment

will be below a minimum of $1,000,000.

As an exception to the above

requirements, under section

1923(f)(1)(A)(I)(II) of the Act and

regulations at 42 CFR 447.296(b)(5) and

447.298(f), a State may make DSH

payments for a FFY in accordance with

the minimum payment adjustments

required by Medicare methodology

described in section 1923(c)(1) of the

Act. The State of Nebraska’s preliminary

State DSH allotment has been

determined in accordance with this

exception.

We are publishing in this notice the

preliminary FFY 1996 national DSH

target and State DSH allotments based

on the best available data we received

from the States’ August 1995

submissions of the Medicaid budget

report (Form HCFA–37), as adjusted by

HCFA. We intend to publish the final

FFY 1996 DSH allotments in the

Federal Register subsequent to the

publication of this notice.

The final allotments are calculated

using actual Medicaid expenditures for

FFY 1995 as reported to HCFA on

States’ quarterly expenditure reports

(Form HCFA–64) for FFY 1995 and

estimates of Medicaid expenditures for

FFY 1996 as reported to HCFA on
29420 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Notices

States’ Form HCFA–37 February 1996

submissions.

II. Calculations of the Preliminary FFY

1996 DSH Limits

The total of the preliminary State DSH

allotments for FFY 1996 is equal to the

sum of the base allotments for all highDSH States, the FFY 1995 State DSH

allotments for all low-DSH States, and

the growth amounts for all low-DSH

States. A State-by-State breakdown is

presented in section III of this notice.

We classified States as high-DSH or

low-DSH States. If a State’s base

allotment exceeded 12 percent of its

total unadjusted medical assistance

expenditures (excluding administrative

costs) projected to be made under the

State’s approved plan under title XIX of

the Act in FFY 1996, we classified that

State as a ‘‘high-DSH’’ State. If a State’s

base allotment was 12 percent or less of

its total unadjusted medical assistance

expenditures projected to be made

under the State’s approved plan under

title XIX of the Act in FFY 1996, we

classified that State as a ‘‘low-DSH’’

State. Based on this classification, there

are 36 low-DSH States and 14 high-DSH

States for FFY 1996.

Using the most recent data from the

States’ August 1995 budget projections

(Form HCFA–37), we estimate the

States’ FFY 1996 national total medical

assistance expenditures to be

$160,184,881,000. Thus, the overall

preliminary national FFY 1996 DSH

expenditure target is $19,222,186,000

(12 percent of $160,184,881,000).

In the preliminary FFY 1996 State

DSH allotments, we provide a total of

$519,764,000 ($310,963,000 Federal

share) in growth amounts for the 36

low-DSH States. The growth factor

percentage for each of the low-DSH

States was determined by calculating

the Medicaid program growth

percentage for each low-DSH State

between FFY 1995 and FFY 1996. To

compute this percentage, we first

ascertained each low-DSH State’s total

FFY 1995 medical assistance and

administrative expenditures as reported

on the State’s August 15, 1995,

submission of the Medicaid Budget

Report (Form HCFA–37) through the

‘‘cutoff’’ date of September 8, 1995. The

cutoff date is the date through which the

August 1995 Medicaid budget report

submission estimates are accepted and

applied in preparing the States’

Medicaid grant award for the upcoming

quarter (October through December

1995). Next, we compared those

estimates to each low-DSH State’s total

estimated unadjusted FFY 1996 medical

assistance and administrative

expenditures as reported to HCFA on

the States’ August 1995 Form HCFA–37

submission.

The growth factor percentage was

multiplied by the low-DSH States’ final

FFY 1995 DSH allotment amount to

establish the States’ preliminary growth

amount for FFY 1996.

Since the sum of the total of the base

allotments for high-DSH States, the total

of the State DSH allotments for the

previous FFY for low-DSH States, and

the growth for low-DSH States

($19,602,716,000) is greater than the

preliminary FFY 1996 national target

($19,222,186,000), there is no

preliminary FFY 1996 redistribution

pool.

The low-DSH States’ growth amount

was then added to the low-DSH States’

final FFY 1995 DSH allotment amount

to establish the preliminary total lowDSH State DSH allotment for FFY 1996.

If a State’s growth amount, when added

to its final FFY 1995 DSH allotment

amount, exceeds 12 percent of its FFY

1996 estimated medical assistance

expenditures, the State only receives a

partial growth amount that, when added

to its final FFY 1995 allotment, limits its

total State DSH allotment for FFY 1996

to 12 percent of its estimated FFY 1996

medical assistance expenditures. For

this reason, six of the low-DSH States

received partial growth amounts.

As explained above, Rhode Island’s

preliminary FFY 1996 DSH allotment is

lower than its final FFY 1995 DSH

allotment. Also, in accordance with the

minimum payment adjustments

required by Medicare methodology,

Nebraska’s FFY 1996 State DSH

allotment is $11,000,000.

In summary, the total of all

preliminary State DSH allotments for

FFY 1996 is $19,602,716,000

($11,137,851,000 Federal share). This

total is composed of the prior FFY’s

final State DSH allotments

($19,084,239,000) plus growth amounts

for all low-DSH States ($519,764,000),

minus the amount of reduction in

Rhode Island’s FFY 1996 DSH allotment

($1,286,000), plus supplemental

amounts for low-DSH States ($0). The

total of all preliminary FFY 1996 State

DSH allotments is 12.2 percent of the

total medical assistance expenditures

(excluding administrative costs)

projected to be made by these States in

FFY 1996. The total of all preliminary

DSH allotments for FFY 1996 is

$380,531,000 over the FFY 1996

national target amount of

$19,222,186,000.

Each State should monitor and make

any necessary adjustments to its DSH

spending during FFY 1996 to ensure

that its actual FFY 1996 DSH payment

adjustment expenditures do not exceed

its preliminary State DSH allotment for

FFY 1996 published in this notice. As

the ongoing reconciliation between

actual FFY 1996 DSH payment

adjustment expenditures and the FFY

1996 DSH allotments takes place, each

State should amend its plan as may be

necessary to make any adjustments to its

FFY 1996 DSH payment adjustment

expenditure patterns so that the State

will not exceed its FFY 1996 DSH

allotment.

The FFY 1996 reconciliation of DSH

allotments to actual expenditures will

take place on an ongoing basis as States

file expenditure reports with HCFA for

DSH payment adjustment expenditures

applicable to FFY 1996. Additional DSH

payment adjustment expenditures made

in succeeding FFYs that are applicable

to FFY 1996 will continue to be

reconciled with each State’s FFY 1996

DSH allotment as additional

expenditure reports are submitted to

ensure that the FFY 1996 DSH allotment

is not exceeded. As a result, any DSH

payment adjustment expenditures for

FFY 1996 in excess of the FFY 1996

DSH allotment will be disallowed; and

therefore, subject to the normal

Medicaid disallowance procedures.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Notices 29421

III. Preliminary FFY 1996 DSH Allotments Under Public Law 102–234

KEY TO CHART

Column Description

Column A ............................. = Name of State.

Column B ............................. = Final FFY 1995 DSH Allotments for All States. For a high-DSH State, this is the State’s base allotment,

which is the greater of the State’s FFY 1992 allowable DSH payment adjustment expenditures applicable to FFY 1992, or $1,000,000. For a low-DSH State, this is equal to the final DSH allotment for FFY

1995, which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on September 8, 1995.

Column C ............................. = Growth Amounts for Low-DSH States. This is an increase in a low-DSH State’s final FFY 1995 DSH allotment to the extent that the State’s Medicaid program grew between FFY 1995 and FFY 1996.

Column D ............................. = Preliminary FFY 1996 State DSH Allotments. For high-DSH States, this is equal to the base allotment from

column B. For low-DSH States, this is equal to the final State DSH allotments for FFY 1995 from column B plus the growth amounts from column C.

Column ................................. E = High or Low DSH State Designation for FFY 1996. ‘‘High’’ indicates the State is a high-, DSH State and

‘‘Low’’ indicates the State is a low-DSH State.

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
29422 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Notices

BILLING CODE 4120–01–C
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / Notices 29423

IV. Regulatory Impact Statement

We generally prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis that is consistent

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 through 612), unless

we certify that a notice would not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. For

purposes of the RFA, States and

individuals are not considered small

entities. However, providers are

considered small entities. Additionally,

section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to

prepare a regulatory impact analysis if

a notice may have a significant impact

on the operations of a substantial

number of small rural hospitals. Such

an analysis must conform to the

provisions of section 604 of the RFA.

For purposes of section 1102(b) of the

Act, we define a small rural hospital as

a hospital that is located outside of a

Metropolitan Statistical Area and has

fewer than 50 beds.

This notice sets forth no changes in

our regulations; rather, it reflects the

DSH allotments for each State as

determined in accordance with

§§ 447.297 through 447.299.

We have discussed the method of

calculating the preliminary FFY 1996

national aggregate DSH target and the

preliminary FFY 1996 individual State

DSH allotments in the previous sections

of this notice. These calculations should

have a positive impact on payments to

DSHs. Allotments will not be reduced

for high-DSH States since we interpret

the 12-percent limit as a target. LowDSH States will get their prior FFY DSH

allotments plus their growth amounts.

In accordance with the provisions

with Executive Order 12886, this notice

was reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

(Catalog of Federal Assistance Program No.

93.778, Medical Assistance Program)

Dated: February 21, 1996.

Bruce C. Vladeck,

Administrator, Health Care Financing

Administration.

Dated: April 5, 1996.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary.

(Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act; 42

U.S.C. 1302)

Dated: June 4, 1996.

Neil J. Stillman,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 96–14595 Filed 6–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Request for Information Relevant to

the Issuance of Import Permits for

Argali Sheep From Mongolia,

Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) has been notified that

Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan

have established export quotas for sporthunted trophies of argali sheep (Ovis

ammon ammon, Ovis ammon darwini,

and Ovis ammon polii). The Service

requests information on argali

population status and management in

these three countries to be considered in

processing permit applications.

DATES: Information from all interested

parties must be received by August 9,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments, information,

and questions should be addressed to

the Chief, Office of Management

Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,

Room 430, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Fax Number (703) 358–2280. Comments

and other information received will be

available for public inspection, by

appointment from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

Arlington, Virginia address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Stansell, Chief, Office of

Management Authority, at the above

address or by phone at (703) 358–2093.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) classified the argali sheep

(Ovis ammon) populations as

endangered pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended,

effective January 1, 1993, except for the

populations in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia,

and Tajikistan (57 FR 28014). At the

same time, populations in these three

countries were listed as threatened with

a special rule that allows for the

issuance of threatened species permits

for the import of sport-hunted trophies.

The special rule also establishes criteria

which, if met, would result in the

removal of this permit requirement, thus

allowing imports in accordance with

Sec. 9(c)(2) of the Act.

During the time that this special rule

was under legal challenge, the Service

proposed reclassifying the argali

population in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia,

and Tajikistan from threatened to

endangered on April 27, 1993, (58 FR

25595) because of concern about the

removal of controls on imports into the

United States and the potential for an

unlimited number of imports.

After the special rule was sustained

by the court, the Service began issuing

a limited number of import permits for

sport-hunted trophies of argali from

Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia, countries

with management programs deemed to

be sufficient to be able to make the

required findings for permit issuance.

No permits have been issued for the

import of trophies from Tajikistan and

the permits for argali from Kyrgyzstan

have been limited to those trophies

taken in areas believed to be outside the

range of Ovis ammon karelini.

In 1993, the Service supported a study

to obtain additional information on the

status and management of argali and

enforcement capabilities for this species

in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan.

This study was conducted and a report

prepared by Drs. Anna Luschekina and

A. Fedosenko, and availability of the

report was announced in the March 12,

1994, Federal Register notice (59 FR

13302).

In 1994, Mongolia imposed export

quotas of 5 and 10 argali trophies from

southeastern and western portions of

Mongolia, respectively, representing the

range of Ovis ammon darwini and Ovis

ammon ammon. The quotas were

increased to 10 animals in each area in

1995 and again in 1996. A portion of the

licensing fees have gone toward

activities contributing to enhancement

of management and conservation of the

argali, including population surveys and

waterhole construction.

Kyrgyzstan imposed an export quota

of 16 argali trophies in 1995 from

hunting area(s) in the Naryn area, the

range of Ovis ammon polii. The quota

was increased to 20 for 1996. A portion

of the licensing fees have gone toward

the management of argali. The

Government of Kyrgyzstan, having

already established reserves for Ovis

ammon karelini, is committed to

establishing reserves for Ovis ammon

polii.

The Service has received information

from a hunting outfitter indicating that

Tajikistan has established a hunting

quota of 20 argali trophies for 1996. The

Service is currently seeking

confirmation of this information with

the Ministry of Nature Conservation in

Tajikistan. A survey of argali in the

eastern Pamirs region of Tajikistan by

A.K. Fedosenko, has been recently

received by the Service and is available

upon request. This report indicates

there was a quota of 12–15 argali

trophies in previous hunting seasons.

With the retention of import controls

established in the special rule and

without evidence that the status or