Proposed Rule2024-25762
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take of Polar Bears During Specified Activities; North Slope, Alaska
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 7, 2024
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to revise a portion of our regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act pertaining to incidental take of marine mammals. Existing regulations authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take by harassment of small numbers of polar bears from the Southern Beaufort Sea stock and Pacific walruses during year-round oil and gas industry activities in the Beaufort Sea (Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf) and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. Such take may result from oil and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation activities occurring through August 5, 2026. The proposed revisions would authorize incidental take by Level A harassment of polar bears in addition to the incidental Level B harassment of polar bears and Pacific walruses already authorized in the existing regulations. No lethal take is or would be authorized. We request comments on these proposed regulations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 88216-88229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25762]
[[Page 88216]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2024-0140; FXES111607MRG01-245-FF07CAMM00]
RIN 1018-BI09
Marine Mammals; Incidental Take of Polar Bears During Specified
Activities; North Slope, Alaska
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessment;
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to revise a
portion of our regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
pertaining to incidental take of marine mammals. Existing regulations
authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take by harassment
of small numbers of polar bears from the Southern Beaufort Sea stock
and Pacific walruses during year-round oil and gas industry activities
in the Beaufort Sea (Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf) and
adjacent northern coast of Alaska. Such take may result from oil and
gas exploration, development, production, and transportation activities
occurring through August 5, 2026. The proposed revisions would
authorize incidental take by Level A harassment of polar bears in
addition to the incidental Level B harassment of polar bears and
Pacific walruses already authorized in the existing regulations. No
lethal take is or would be authorized. We request comments on these
proposed regulations.
DATES: Comments on these proposed revisions to our incidental take
regulations and the accompanying draft supplemental environmental
assessment will be accepted on or before December 9, 2024.
Information Collection Requirements: If you wish to comment on the
information collection requirements in this proposed rule, please note
that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to make a
decision concerning the collection of information contained in this
proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this proposed
rule in the Federal Register. Therefore, comments should be submitted
to OMB by January 6, 2025.
ADDRESSES:
Document availability: You may view this proposed rule, the
associated draft supplemental environmental assessment, comments
received, and other supporting material at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2024-0140, or these documents may be
requested as described under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comment submission: You may submit comments on this proposed rule
and draft supplemental environmental assessment by one of the following
methods:
<bullet> Electronic submission: Federal eRulemaking Portal at:
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments to Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2024-0140. Comments submitted
electronically must be received by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the
closing date.
<bullet> U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No.
FWS-R7-ES-2024-0140, Policy and Regulations Branch, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church,
VA 22041-3803.
We will post all comments at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. You may
request that we withhold personal identifying information from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. See
Request for Public Comments for more information.
Information collection requirements: Send your comments on the
information collection request to the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ade4c3cbc2f2eec2c1c1edcbdade83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d34131b12223e1211113d1b0a0e531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>; or by mail to 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W),
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. Please include ``1018-0070'' in the
subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Burgess, Marine Mammals
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS-
341, Anchorage, AK 99503, Telephone 907-786-3844, or email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfed88d2d2d2cddad8cad3decbd0cdc6ffd9c8cc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5f792c8c8c8d7c0c2d0c9c4d1cad7dce5c3d2d68bc2cad3">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services
offered within their country to make international calls to the point
of contact in the United States. Please see Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2024-
0140 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> for a document that summarizes this
proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as
amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1371 et seq.), and its implementing
regulations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) finalized
incidental take regulations in 2021 (2021-ITRs) in response to a
request from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA). The request was
for regulations to provide for the issuance of letters of authorization
(LOA) for incidental take of small numbers of Pacific walruses and
Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bears during specified oil and gas
industry (``Industry'') activities in the Beaufort Sea and adjacent
northern coast of Alaska over a 5-year period (86 FR 42982, August 5,
2021). The regulations were added to title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) in part 18 at subpart J and expire August 5, 2026.
The 2021-ITRs authorize, via Service-issued LOAs, the incidental Level
B harassment of up to 15 Pacific walruses and 92 SBS polar bears each
year. The 2021-ITRs do not authorize (or facilitate the authorization
of) any incidental Level A harassment or lethal take of any marine
mammals during specified Industry activities, and any such take remains
prohibited by the MMPA.
The term ``take'' as defined by the MMPA, means to harass, hunt,
capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any
marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362(13)). Harassment, as defined by the MMPA,
for activities other than military readiness activities or scientific
research conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Government, means
``any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential
to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild'' (the
MMPA defines this as Level A harassment); or ``(ii) has the potential
to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by
causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited
to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering''
(the MMPA defines this as Level B harassment) (16 U.S.C. 1362(18)).
The 2021-ITRs, along with the accompanying National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment and Endangered Species Act
(ESA) biological opinion, were challenged in litigation that commenced
in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska
(District Court). On March 30, 2023, the District Court issued summary
judgment in favor of the Service upholding the 2021-ITRs. Portions of
this ruling were appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Appellate Court). On March 19, 2024, a three-judge panel
of
[[Page 88217]]
the Appellate Court issued an order that affirmed in part, and reversed
in part, the District Court ruling. The Appellate Court panel declined
to vacate the 2021-ITRs but issued a remand that requires the Service
to conduct additional analysis and, depending on the results,
potentially take regulatory action. In their remand order, specific
only to polar bears, the Court directed (omitting internal references):
``We . . . remand to the Service to offer a fuller explanation for its
determination that no Level A incidents are expected during the period
covered by the 2021 ITR. . . . In assessing the `negligible impact'
prong on remand, the Service may, consistent with its expertise,
emphasize certain outputs over others. However, given the MMPA's two-
part conception of take, it must determine whether aggregating serious
and non-serious Level A take yields a `reasonably likely' result. . . .
If so (as the 75 percent figure proffered by Plaintiffs suggests), the
Service will then need to determine (i) whether any Level A take
predicted will affect only `small numbers' of bears and have a
`negligible impact' on the subpopulation and, if so, (ii) whether to
issue an updated ITR covering Level A take or no ITR at all.''
The Court further stated, ``Hence, we . . . remand to the Service
so that it may (i) aggregate serious and non-serious Level A take
together . . . and (ii) determine whether the five-year risk of such
take of a denning cub is `reasonably likely'. . . . To the extent that
it is, the Service must then evaluate whether the five-year impacts of
Level A take is `negligible' and whether such take will be of `small
numbers' of bears and possibly amend or reverse the 2021 ITR.''
Accordingly, the Service has conducted additional analysis
consistent with the Appellate Court's direction. As discussed below,
this new analysis has resulted in preliminary determinations that,
while no lethal take is predicted to occur, it is likely that Level A
harassments of polar bears will occur, and that authorizing such take
is consistent with MMPA standards. Therefore, this proposed rule, if
finalized, would amend the 2021-ITRs to allow the issuance of LOAs
authorizing take by Level A harassment of polar bears that may result
from Industry activities.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA gives the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) the authority to allow the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, in response to
requests by U.S. citizens (as defined in 50 CFR 18.27(c)) engaged in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographic region. The Secretary has delegated authority for
implementation of the MMPA to the Service. According to the MMPA, the
Service shall allow this incidental taking if we find the total of such
taking for a 5-year period or less:
(1) will affect only small numbers of marine mammals of a species
or population stock;
(2) will have no more than a negligible impact on such species or
stocks;
(3) will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence use by Alaska
Natives; and
(4) we issue regulations that set forth:
(a) permissible methods of taking;
(b) other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact
on the species or stock and its habitat, and on the availability of
such species or stock for subsistence uses; and
(c) requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking.
If final regulations allowing such incidental taking are issued, we
may then subsequently issue LOAs, upon request, to authorize incidental
take during the specified activities.
The terms ``negligible impact'' and ``unmitigable adverse impact''
are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (the Service's regulations governing small
takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities).
``Negligible impact'' is an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival. ``Unmitigable adverse impact''
means an impact resulting from the specified activity (1) that is
likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly
displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) that
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The term ``small numbers'' is also defined in Sec. 18.27. However,
we do not rely on that definition here as it conflates ``small
numbers'' with ``negligible impacts.'' We recognize ``small numbers''
and ``negligible impacts'' as two separate and distinct requirements
for promulgating incidental take regulations (ITRs) under the MMPA (see
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1025
(N.D. Cal. 2003)). Instead, for our small numbers determination, we
estimate the likely number of takes of marine mammals and evaluate if
that take is small relative to the size of the species or stock.
The term ``least practicable adverse impact'' is not defined in the
MMPA or its enacting regulations. The Service ensures the least
practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures that are
effective in reducing the impact of Industry activities but are not so
restrictive as to make Industry activities unduly burdensome or
impossible to undertake and complete.
The MMPA does not require Industry to obtain an incidental take
authorization; however, any taking that occurs without authorization is
a violation of the MMPA. Since 1993, the oil and gas industry operating
in the Beaufort Sea and the adjacent northern coast of Alaska has
requested, and we have issued, ITRs for the incidental take of Pacific
walruses and polar bears within a specified geographic region during
specified activities. For a detailed history of our current and past
Beaufort Sea ITRs, refer to the Federal Register at 81 FR 52276, August
5, 2016; 76 FR 47010, August 3, 2011; 71 FR 43926, August 2, 2006; and
68 FR 66744, November 28, 2003. The current regulations are codified at
50 CFR part 18, subpart J (Sec. Sec. 18.121 through 18.129), and were
published in the Federal Register on August 5, 2021 (86 FR 42982).
Proposed Changes to 50 CFR Part 18, Subpart J
Our reanalysis, as discussed in detail below, indicates that Level
A harassment of polar bears is reasonably likely to occur during the 5-
year effective period of the 2021-ITRs. Therefore, we are proposing
revisions to our regulations that, if finalized, would allow the
Service to authorize take by both Level A and Level B harassment of
polar bears. The lethal incidental take of polar bears would continue
to be prohibited under this proposed revision, as would any Level A
harassment or lethal take of Pacific walrus.
New Information and Analysis
Aggregated Level A Harassment Across 5-Year Period
In conducting the additional analysis required by the Court's
remand, the Service utilized best available scientific evidence. New
information has been acquired and several advancements in the Service's
analytical methods have been made subsequent to the promulgation of the
2021-ITRs. Many of
[[Page 88218]]
these advancements were recently described and considered in an
incidental harassment authorization that was issued by the Service to
the Bureau of Land Management (88 FR 88943, December 26, 2023).
Specifically, the denning analysis described in the 2021-ITRs was
conducted using the simulation of annual land-based maternal polar bear
dens, spatially and temporally explicit descriptions of Industry
activity, and predictions of polar bear response rooted in
distributions established from den disturbance case studies (see 86 FR
42982, August 5, 2021). For each of the five winter seasons analyzed in
the 2021-ITRs, a series of dens were simulated by assigning each a
location on the landscape, the sow's entrance date, the number of cubs
she bore, the cub(s)' birthdate, den emergence date, and den departure
date. We then overlaid the season's Industry activity across the same
landscape and simulated whether polar bears within maternal dens that
fell within a mile of activity responded to Industry-caused
disturbances, and if so, how. Potential responses include disturbance
of the sow inside the den, den abandonment, early emergence from the
den, and early departure from the den site. Polar bear disturbance
responses that occurred during the den establishment period were
estimated to result in Level B harassment of the sow (no cubs are
present during this period). Responses that occurred during the early
denning period were estimated to result in Level B harassment of the
sow and lethal take of the cub(s). Responses that occurred during the
late denning period were estimated to result in Level B harassment of
the sow and ``serious Level A harassment'' (i.e., likely to result in
cub mortality) of the cub(s). Responses during the post-emergence
period were estimated to result in Level B harassment of the sow and
``non-serious Level A harassment'' (i.e., not likely to result in cub
mortality) of the cub(s).
The denning model was created to assess individual denning seasons
and has included several levels of assumptions that generate an
estimate of the potential annual impacts to denning polar bears that is
somewhat conservative in that it is more likely to overstate, rather
than understate, potential impacts. Use of this methodology achieved
the objective of ensuring that actual impacts would not exceed what was
contemplated in the incidental take authorization and would remain
consistent with applicable MMPA thresholds. However, when applied to
activities spanning a 5-year period, conservative aspects of certain
model assumptions are amplified in a manner that risks unduly
overstating projected aggregate impacts, raising the possibility that
incidental take resulting from specified activities with acceptable
levels of impacts could not be authorized, a scenario that would be
inconsistent with the intent of section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. Thus,
in complying with the remand's direction to aggregate Level A
harassment estimates over a 5-year period, we reexamined the denning
model to incorporate newly available scientific evidence and further
refine certain model assumptions where appropriate to achieve greater
accuracy.
Since 2021, LOA applicants have annually provided the Service with
revised project descriptions and geospatial files that more precisely
reflected the scope of their planned activities to be conducted during
the ensuing (1-year) LOA period, as compared with the descriptions of
specified activities provided during development of the 5-year ITRs. We
used the revised files in the present analysis as they constitute the
best available information concerning the scope of Industry's specified
activities. We also account for AOGA's clarification that no onshore
terrestrial seismic surveys will occur during the winter of 2024-2025.
Potential seismic surveys in the winter of 2025-2026 remain within the
scope of AOGA's specified activities and were analyzed during our re-
analysis.
As a condition of their authorizations, LOA holders also submit
records of all polar bear encounters during their activities. Using
this information, and records from separate activities that were not
operating under the 2021-ITRs, we incorporated data from recently
observed dens into our disturbance probabilities and litter size
distributions, modified the model to incorporate newly published data
that describes the relationship between den emergence date, den
departure time, and litter survival (Andersen et al. 2024), and updated
the simulation of dens across the landscape to now include several
previously unidentified areas that may sustain polar bear dens.
Four known dens (monitored in 2022 and 2023) have occurred near
human activity since the promulgation of the 2021-ITRs. Of the four
newly observed dens, three were extremely close to human activity (<50
meters), yet the sows remained in their dens until the late denning
period. We updated polar bear disturbance probabilities and litter size
distributions with the information from these dens, then reexamined the
historic dens that were used to create disturbance probabilities. We
found that the distances between human activity and polar bear dens
that experienced an observed disturbance response during the early
denning period were considerably closer than those dens that experience
an observed disturbance response during other denning periods.
Specifically, of the 15 dens within the case studies that were exposed
to human activity during the early denning period, only 1 was
potentially disturbed at a distance greater than 800 meters. This
single den record also had imprecise information on the distance to
human activity, so activity was assumed to occur within 1,610 meters of
the den and was likely closer.
The historic dens analyzed during the den establishment, late
denning, and post-emergence periods did not follow this pattern. For
those dens, disturbance distances commonly exceeded 805 meters.
Evidence derived from dens exposed to human activity during the early
denning period, including both new den records and historic dens,
illustrates the reluctance of sows to abandon their maternal den/cubs
in response to exposure to stimuli from nearby activity and support the
concept that sows may be more risk tolerant during the early denning
period. Additionally, sows may be less affected by sound from outside
activities during the early denning period because dens are typically
closed during that time, which can reduce propagation of noise into the
den (Owen et al. 2021). Given this evidence, we modified the denning
analysis model to adjust the impact area for the early denning period
to range from 0 to 805 meters. As a result, dens that were simulated to
be within 805 meters of human activity could be disturbed during all
denning periods, while dens between 806-1,610 meters of human activity
could be disturbed only during the den establishment, late denning, and
post-emergence periods.
Finally, the method for categorizing certain disturbance responses
was modified to comply with the Court's direction to provide aggregated
estimates of Level A harassment and to better align the model results
with the categories of ``take'' defined in the MMPA. In the preamble to
the 2021-ITRs, we drew a distinction between ``serious Level A'' and
``non-serious Level A'' harassment and largely addressed these
categories separately. If a sow and cub(s) emerged early (i.e., during
the late denning period), the litter was assigned serious Level A
harassment(s). If the sow and cub(s) departed the den site early (i.e.,
during the post-emergence period), the litter
[[Page 88219]]
was assigned non-serious Level A harassment(s). These categories were
based on the historic den disturbance case studies. Now we omit the
``serious''/``non-serious'' dichotomy and instead report results that
aggregate all estimated Level A harassments. If an exposure resulted in
disturbance during either of these periods, we assigned a Level A
harassment to each cub in the litter (table 1).
Table 1--Probability of Simulated Exposures Resulting in Disturbance Response to Denning Polar Bears
[MMPA Level A and Level B harassment and lethal take]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None (sow or Level B Level A
Denning period cub(s)) Level B (sow) (cub(s)) (cub(s)) Lethal cub(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Den establishment.............. 0.750 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000
Early denning.................. 0.870 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.130
Late denning................... 0.510 0.490 0.000 0.490 0.000
Post emergence--previously 0.000 1.000 0.200 0.800 0.000
undisturbed den...............
Post emergence--previously 0.000 1.000 0.474 0.526 0.000
disturbed den.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also use newly described relationships between den emergence
date, den departure time, and litter survival (Andersen et al. 2024) to
assign litter survival rates to simulated dens that experienced Level A
harassment, a method used in recent polar bear take authorizations (88
FR 88943, December 26, 2023). If an exposure resulted in a disturbance
response during the late denning period, we first assigned that den a
new random earlier emergence date. We then simulated whether that den
was disturbed during the post-emergence period. Dens that were
disturbed during the post-emergence period were also assigned a new
random earlier den departure date. We relied on estimates of litter
survival derived from empirical data from approximately 100 days post
emergence (Andersen et al. 2024) to determine the fitness consequence
of the Level A harassment, and we consider this information below when
addressing the MMPA's negligible impact standard. This revised
methodology provides a clearer and more in-depth understanding of the
potential fitness consequence of polar bear disturbance.
As in the existing 2021-ITRs, some concepts and mitigation measures
could potentially reduce impacts to polar bears, but they are not
reflected in our take estimates because their mitigative benefit is not
quantifiable. For example, LOA holders must train their staff to
identify the characteristics of a polar bear den, and if a suspected
den is identified, they must cease operations and notify the Service.
However, the efficacy of this technique cannot be quantified and could
not be accounted for in the model results. Consideration of the
conservative nature of certain model assumptions along with qualitative
factors suggests that if the actual number of Level A harassment events
does not align with the median model output, the actual number of Level
A harassment events would be fewer than modeled. However, we
preliminarily find, based on best professional judgment, that Level A
harassment is reasonably likely to occur, and is anticipated, during
the 5-year period of the 2021-ITRs (table 2).
Table 2--Anticipated Level A Harassment Over the 5-Year Period of the 2021-ITRs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of take Probability Mean Median 95% CI *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment.......................... 0.93 5.04 5 0-13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Confidence interval (CI).
We base this conclusion on the strength of the modeled probability
of Level A harassment (0.93), the estimated median number of
harassments (5), and denning observations that have occurred within the
area of the 2021-ITRs subsequent to the promulgation of the regulations
in 2021. Of the four dens that have been observed within 1 mile of the
human activity since 2021, two polar bear family groups appear to have
spent less time at the den site during the post emergence period than
average. Following the relationship between den emergence date and den
departure date described by Andersen et al. (2024), the cubs in the
early departing family groups may have experienced a reduction in
fitness and, as a result, a temporary decrease in their probability of
survival. The Service considers such reductions in fitness as
``injuries'' for the purposes of interpreting the MMPA's definition of
Level A harassment.
Updated and Revised Findings
Our reanalysis has led to the conclusion that Level A harassment of
polar bears is reasonably likely to occur during the 5-year effective
period of the 2021-ITRs. Due to this conclusion, and in light of the
Court's remand, we propose to revise aspects of the 2021-ITRs that
pertain to polar bears (but not Pacific walruses).
Updated ``Small Numbers'' and ``Negligible Impact'' Determinations
In conducting analysis for this proposed revision to the 2021-ITRs,
we began by focusing on the impact of AOGA's specified activities that
may occur during the 2 remaining years of the 2021-ITRs (which expire
August 5, 2026), i.e., the activities to which revised regulations
would apply. Using the updated information and denning model
methodology described above, we estimated the potential Level B
harassment, Level A harassment, and lethal take of denning polar bears
that may occur as a result of these specified activities (table 3).
[[Page 88220]]
Table 3--Annual and Aggregate Estimates of MMPA Take of Denning Polar Bears Under the 2021-ITRs August 6, 2024,
Through August 5, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of take Probability Mean Median 95% CI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B harassment: 2-year...................... 0.97 4.27 4 0-10
Level B harassment: 1-year...................... 0.86 2.45 2 0-7
Level A harassment: 2-year...................... 0.71 2.31 2 0-8
Level A harassment: 1-year...................... 0.49 1.27 0 0-6
Lethal take: 2-year............................. 0.45 1.05 0 0-5
Lethal take: 1-year............................. 0.31 0.65 0 0-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Numbers
We propose a determination that AOGA's specified activities between
December 1, 2024, and August 5, 2026, would incidentally take small
numbers of SBS polar bears. For this determination, we consider whether
the estimated number of marine mammals to be subjected to incidental
take is small relative to the population size of the species or stock.
1. Within the specified geographical region, the area of Industry
activity is expected to be small relative to the range of polar bears.
SBS polar bears range well beyond the boundaries of the Beaufort Sea
2021-ITRs region. As such, the region represents only a subset of the
potential area in which SBS polar bears may occur. Further, only seven
percent of the 2021-ITRs area (518,800 ha of 7.9 million ha) is
estimated to be impacted by Industry activities, even accounting for a
disturbance zone surrounding industrial facility and transit routes.
Thus, the area of Industry activity will be relatively small compared
to the range of polar bears.
We expect that only small numbers of the SBS polar bear stock would
be taken by the Industry activities specified in the 2021-ITRs because
SBS polar bears are widely distributed throughout their expansive
range, which encompasses areas beyond the Beaufort Sea 2021-ITRs
region, meaning only a small proportion of the SBS polar bear stock
will occur in the areas where Industry activities will occur, and the
estimated number of polar bears that could be impacted by the specified
activities is small relative to the size of the stock.
2. The estimated number of polar bears that will be harassed by
Industry activity is small relative to the number of animals in their
stocks. The Beaufort Sea 2021-ITRs region is completely within the
range of the SBS stock of polar bears, and during some portions of the
year polar bears can be frequently encountered by Industry. From 2014
through 2018, Industry made 1,166 polar bear reports comprising 1,698
bears. However, when we evaluated the effects upon the 1,698 bears
observed, we found that 84 percent (1,434) did not experience take.
Over those 5 years, Level B harassments of polar bears totaled 264,
approximately 15.5 percent of the observed bears. No other forms of
take or harassment were observed. Annually an average of 340 polar
bears were observed during Industry activities. The number of observed
Level B harassment events averaged 53 per year from 2014 to 2018. We
conclude that over the remaining 2 years of the 2021-ITRs, Industry
activities will result in a similarly small number of incidental
harassments of polar bears.
Based on this information derived from Industry observations, along
with the results of the Service's own predictive modeling analysis
described above, we estimate that no more than 184 Level B harassment
takes and 2 Level A harassment takes of polar bears will occur during
the remaining 2 years of the 2021-ITRs, with no more than 92 Level B
and 2 Level A harassment takes occurring within a single year.
Conservatively assuming that, in a given year, each estimated take will
accrue to a different individual polar bear, we note that take of 94
animals is 10.36 percent of the best available estimate of the current
stock size of 907 animals in the SBS stock (Bromaghin et al. 2015,
Atwood et al. 2020) ((94 / 907) x 100 [ap] 10.36), and we propose a
finding that this proportion represents a ``small number'' of polar
bears of that stock. While we do not have data to estimate the
frequency of repeated Level B harassments to the same polar bear in
different years, polar bears exhibiting terrestrial habitat preferences
may be harassed repeatedly. Thus, it is highly probable that the number
of individuals experiencing Level B harassment over the 2024-2026
period is less than 184.
While the Service does not propose to retroactively authorize any
incidental take, we also address the remand directive to ``evaluate the
five-year impacts of Level A take'' and determine whether that take
``will be of `small numbers' of bears.'' Once again conservatively
assuming that each estimated take over the 5-year period accrues to a
different individual polar bear, we note that take is not anticipated
to exceed 94 animals in any of the 5 years and take of 94 animals is
10.36 percent of the best available estimate of the current stock size
of 907 animals in the SBS stock. This proportion represents a ``small
number'' of polar bears of that stock. We conservatively base this
preliminary determination on all the specified activities originally
described in AOGA's request, i.e., without discounting the estimated
take associated with specified activities that were planned for the
initial 3 years of the 2021-ITR but did not actually occur.
Negligible Impact
We proposed a determination that AOGA's specific activities would
result in a negligible impact to the SBS stock of polar bears. For our
negligible impact determination finding, we consider the following:
1. The number of polar bears that use the terrestrial habitat of
the North Slope is small in relation to the entire SBS stock. The
distribution and habitat use patterns of polar bears indicate that
relatively few polar bears will occur in the specified areas of
activity at any particular time and, therefore, few polar bears are
likely to be affected.
2. Mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts. If this
proposed rule is finalized, the applicant will be required to adopt
monitoring requirements and mitigation measures designed to reduce the
potential impacts of their operations on polar bears. Den detection
surveys for polar bears and adaptive mitigation and management
responses based on real-time monitoring information (described in this
proposed rule) will be used to avoid or minimize interactions with
polar bears and, therefore, limit potential disturbance of these
animals.
3. The majority of human-polar bear interactions will result in no
effect or short-term, temporary behavioral changes. When developing
estimates for Level B harassment, we have determined that there is a 99
percent chance that at least 81 percent of encounters with bears on the
surface in the open water season and 63 percent of encounters with
bears on the surface in
[[Page 88221]]
the ice season are expected to result in no significant change in a
biologically important behavior. The remainder of encounters are
anticipated to result in short-term, temporary changes in behavior.
4. Few dens would occur in proximity to Industry activities. Our
denning simulations show that on average six dens are estimated to
occur within 1 mile of the specified activities during each of the next
two denning seasons (2024-2025 and 2025-2026). This number represents
roughly 5 percent of the approximately 120 SBS polar bear dens that are
established each year. The mitigation measures required by the 2021-
ITRs reduce the estimated number of Level A disturbed dens to 1.8
percent of the land-based dens and 0.9 percent of all dens in the SBS
stock (figure 1).
Figure 1--Proportion of SBS land-based dens that are estimated to
experience Level A disturbance each year. Land-based dens represent
roughly half of the SBS maternal polar bear dens established each year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO24.084
5. Anticipated Level A harassments will not alter the distribution
of cub survival probabilities for the SBS stock. We anticipate two
Level A harassment events may occur as a result of the specified
activities over a period of 2 years. The updated denning analysis model
allows us to examine the simulated dens to estimate the probability of
litter survival to 100 days using both their undisturbed and disturbed
(if applicable) emergence and departure dates. With this information,
we can determine the average decrease in survival probability that can
be attributed to potential Industry disturbance. Only 0.9 percent of
dens within the SBS stock are anticipated to experience Level A
harassment annually. For those dens that experience harassment, the
mean probability of litter survival before disturbance was 87.3
percent. After simulating disturbance, the mean probability of litter
survival was 72.8 percent, a decrease of 14 percent. However, given the
low percentage of SBS dens that are anticipated to experience Level A
harassment, the 14 percent decrease does not alter or shift the overall
survival probability distribution for the SBS stock (figure 2).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
Figure 2--Litter survival probability distributions for the annual
land-based dens of the SBS polar bear stock (Graph A: Survival
probabilities simulated with no disturbance from Industry; Graph B:
Survival probabilities simulated with estimated Level A harassment from
Industry activities).
[[Page 88222]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07NO24.085
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
6. Lethal take via den abandonment is rare within the Southern
Beaufort Sea stock. Records of den abandonment in the oilfield are
rare--we have only 2 accounts of potential den abandonment within the
15 case studies used to develop early denning period disturbance rates.
Applying the denning model, the greatest annual probability of lethal
take in the final 2 years of the 2021-ITRs is 0.31. The aggregated
probability of lethal take over a 2-year period is 0.45, indicating
lethal take due to sow abandonment of the den and litter during the
early denning period is unlikely. We do not believe the estimate of
lethal take is inaccurate; however, it is potentially conservative.
7. We do not anticipate that loss of a cub or litter will adversely
affect annual recruitment rates at the population level. If a den is
disturbed and the disturbance resulted in cub mortality, such take
would not be authorized under the revised 2021-ITRs. Any Level A
harassment would be limited to only cubs during the denning period.
Impacts to denning females, the demographic group most important to
annual recruitment, would be limited to take by Level B harassment.
Therefore, the immediate number of potentially available reproductive
females that would contribute to recruitment for the SBS stock would
remain unaffected if a den disturbance were to result in the mortality
of the cubs. If a den disturbance were to result in the mortality of
the entire litter, the female would be available to breed during the
next mating season and produce another litter during the next denning
season.
Cubs inherently cannot contribute to annual rates of recruitment
until they have reached sexual maturity. Further, while adult male
bears would contribute to the overall number of individuals in the
population, they do not contribute significantly to annual rates of
recruitment. While a very small decrease in the number of males in a
breeding population may be a concern if the stock was at risk of
inbreeding depression or allee effects, this is not the case in the SBS
stock. Female cubs have the opportunity to reach sexual maturity and
contribute to annual recruitment; however, natural rates of survival
fluctuate in the SBS stock. As such, death of less than one female cub
per year is within the natural variability found within the SBS stock
and cannot be reasonably expected to cause an adverse impact on annual
rates of recruitment.
Based on the low percentage of SBS stock polar bears potentially
being removed from the stock if den disturbance were to result in the
mortality of the cubs, and the expectation that the number of
potentially available reproductive females that would contribute to
recruitment would be unaffected by den disturbance, the Service does
not anticipate that the loss of a cub or litter would adversely affect
annual recruitment rates at the population level for the SBS stock of
polar bears.
We reviewed the effects of Industry activities on polar bears,
including impacts from surface interactions, aircraft overflights,
marine vessel traffic, and den disturbance. Based on our
[[Page 88223]]
review of these potential impacts, past monitoring reports, and the
biology and natural history of polar bears, we conclude that any
incidental take reasonably likely to occur as a result of specified
activities would be limited to short-term behavioral disturbances and
temporary reductions in fitness that would not affect the rates of
recruitment or survival for the SBS stock of polar bears.
We have analyzed the potential impact of the proposed taking in
light of other factors affecting SBS polar bears, including subsistence
harvest and other human-caused removals as well as climate change.
Climate change is a global phenomenon and was considered as the overall
driver of effects that could alter polar bear habitat and behavior. The
Service is currently involved in research to understand how climate
change may affect polar bears. As we gain a better understanding of
climate change effects, we will incorporate the information in future
authorizations. While climate change and other ongoing factors pose
significant challenges to SBS polar bears, we do not expect them to
influence the degree of impacts (i.e., short-term behavioral responses
and temporary reductions in fitness) resulting from the specified
activities or incidental harassment to be authorized under a revised
ITR.
Our analysis indicates that the impacts of these specified
activities over the remaining 2 years addressed by the 2021-ITRs cannot
be reasonably expected to, and are not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the SBS stock of polar bears through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival. We therefore propose a determination that the
total of the taking estimated above and to be authorized via the
revised 2021-ITRs will have no more than a negligible impact on the SBS
stock of polar bears.
While the Service does not propose to retroactively authorize any
incidental take, we also address the remand directive to ``evaluate
whether the five-year impacts of Level A take is `negligible.' ''
Because we do not anticipate adverse effects to the SBS stock through
effects on annual rates or recruitment or survival over the remaining 2
years, and because the scope of specified activities and the extent of
estimated impacts is largely consistent across each year of the 5-year
period, we propose a determination that the total of the taking
estimated above over the 5-year period cannot be reasonably expected
to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the SBS stock of
polar bears through effect on annual rates or recruitment or survival,
and thus will have no more than a negligible impact on the SBS stock of
polar bears. We conservatively base this preliminary determination on
all the specified activities originally described in AOGA's request,
i.e., without discounting the estimated impacts of specified activities
that were planned for the initial 3 years of the 2021-ITR but did not
actually occur.
Reevaluation of Other ITR Provisions
We have not identified any means through which the Level A
harassment described above, in combination with the Level B harassment
already contemplated in the 2021-ITRs, is likely to reduce the
availability of SBS polar bears to a level insufficient for harvest to
meet subsistence needs. Thus, we preliminarily reaffirm our finding
that the total taking will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of SBS polar bears or Pacific walruses for taking for
subsistence uses.
We have not identified any additional (i.e., not already
incorporated into the 2021-ITRs) mitigation measures that are effective
in reducing the impact of Industry activities but are not so
restrictive as to make Industry activities unduly burdensome or
impossible to undertake and complete. Thus, we preliminarily reaffirm
our finding that the mitigation measures required by the 2021-ITRs will
ensure the least practicable adverse impacts on SBS polar bears and
Pacific walruses.
We have not identified any additional (i.e., not already
incorporated into the 2021-ITRs) monitoring or reporting requirements
to better assess the effects of industrial activities, ensure that the
number of takes and the effects of taking are consistent with that
anticipated in the ITR, or detect any unanticipated effects on SBS
polar bears or Pacific walruses.
Administrative Updates
In addition to proposing amendments to the regulations in 50 CFR
part 18 to accomplish the regulatory revisions described above, we also
propose regulatory revisions to update our regulations that carry out
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The proposed
revisions to Sec. Sec. 18.4, 18.129, and 18.152 that are set forth in
the rule portion of this document are administrative and
nonsubstantive. These proposed changes would serve only to update and
streamline the regulatory text that ensures our regulations in 50 CFR
part 18 are in compliance with the PRA.
Request for Public Comments
If you wish to comment on this proposed rule or the associated
draft environmental assessment, you may submit your comments by any of
the methods described in ADDRESSES. Please identify if you are
commenting on the proposed regulations, draft environmental assessment,
or both, make your comments as specific as possible, confine them to
issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason
for any changes you recommend. Where possible, your comments should
reference the specific section or paragraph that you are addressing. We
will consider all comments that are received by the close of the
comment period (see DATES).
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will
become part of the administrative record. Before including your
address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment,
including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly
available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to
withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
We have prepared a draft supplemental environmental assessment in
accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We have preliminarily
concluded that the proposed revisions to additionally authorize two
takes by Level A harassment of polar bears during the remaining 2 years
of the 2021-ITRs would not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment and, thus, preparation of an environmental impact
statement for this proposed rule is not required by section 102(2) of
NEPA or its implementing regulations. We are accepting comments on the
draft environmental assessment as specified above in DATES and
ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Under the ESA, all Federal agencies are required to ensure the
actions they authorize are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The polar bear
is listed as a threatened species under the ESA at 50 CFR 17.11(h) with
provisions
[[Page 88224]]
issued under section 4(d) of the ESA at 50 CFR 17.40(q) and designated
critical habitat for polar bear subpopulations in the United States at
50 CFR 17.95(a). On August 3, 2021, the Service issued a biological
opinion on the 2021-ITRs, concluding that, ``[Issuance of the 2021-
ITRs] is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of polar
bears by appreciably reducing the likelihood of both survival and
recovery of the species in the wild by reducing its reproduction,
numbers, or distribution.'' Because this proposed regulation change, if
finalized, would allow both Level A and B taking of polar bears,
whereas the 2021-ITRs provide for only Level B taking of polar bears,
our Marine Mammal Management Office has re-initiated intra-Service ESA
section 7 consultation regarding the effects of these proposed
regulations with our Fairbanks' Ecological Services Field Office. We
would complete the consultation prior to finalizing these proposed
regulation revisions.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14904)
Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 amends and reaffirms the principles of
E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should
facilitate agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public
interest, advance statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O.
12866 and E.O. 13563, and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20,
2021 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as
practicable and appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and
equity, to the extent permitted by law. Executive Order 13563
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public
participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this
proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
We have determined that this proposed rule is not a major rule
under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act. This proposed rule is not likely to result in a major
increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, or
government agencies or have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in
domestic or export markets.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have also determined that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Oil
companies and their contractors conducting exploration, development,
and production activities in Alaska have been identified as the only
likely applicants under the regulations, and these potential applicants
have not been identified as small businesses. Therefore, neither a
regulatory flexibility analysis nor a small entity compliance guide is
required.
Takings Implications
This proposed rule does not have takings implications under
Executive Order 12630 because it authorizes the nonlethal, incidental,
but not intentional, take of polar bears by Industry and thereby,
exempts these companies from civil and criminal liability as long as
they operate in compliance with the terms of their LOAs. Therefore, a
takings implications assessment is not required.
Federalism Effects
This proposed rule does not contain policies with federalism
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism
assessment under Executive Order 13132. The MMPA gives the Service the
authority and responsibility to protect polar bears.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), this proposed rule would not ``significantly or uniquely''
affect small governments. A small government agency plan is not
required. The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that this rulemaking would not impose a
cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State
governments or private entities. Therefore, this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Government-to-Government Coordination
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a
government-to-government basis with federally recognized Alaska Native
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We seek their
full and meaningful participation in evaluating and addressing
conservation concerns for protected species. It is our goal to remain
sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information available
to Alaska Tribal organizations and communities. Our efforts are guided
by the following policies and directives:
(1) The Native American Policy of the Service (January 20, 2016);
(2) The Alaska Native Relations Policy (currently in draft form;
see 87 FR 66255, November 3, 2022);
(3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 2000);
(4) Department of the Interior Secretary's Orders 3206 (June 5,
1997), 3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), 3342 (October
21, 2016), and 3403 (November 15, 2021) as well as Director's Order 227
(September 8, 2022);
(5) The Alaska Government-to-Government Policy (a departmental
memorandum issued January 18, 2001); and
(6) the Department of the Interior's policies on consultation with
Alaska Native Tribes and organizations.
We have evaluated possible effects of the proposed rule on
federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and ANCSA (Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act) Corporations. The Service has determined that
authorizing two takes by Level A harassment of polar bears during the
remaining 2 years of the 2021-ITRs, with no more than two Level A
harassment takes occurring within a single year from the SBS stock of
polar bears, would not have any Tribal implications or ANCSA
Corporation implications and, therefore, government-to-government
consultation or Government-to-ANCSA Corporation consultation is not
necessary. However, we invite continued discussion through the public
comment process.
Civil Justice Reform
The Department's Office of the Solicitor has determined that these
proposed regulations do not unduly burden the judicial system and meet
the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule requests a revision to an existing information
collection. All information collections (ICs) require approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may
not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB previously reviewed and approved the
information collection requirements associated with incidental take of
marine mammals in 50 CFR part 18, subparts J and L, and assigned OMB
[[Page 88225]]
Control Number 1018-0070 (expires July 31, 2026).
In accordance with the PRA and its implementing regulations at 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal
agencies with an opportunity to comment on our proposal to revise OMB
Control Number 1018-0070 and on our request for a new control number as
described below. This input will help us assess the impact of our
information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting
burden. It will also help the public understand our information
collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired
format.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we invite the
public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of this
proposed information collection, including:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection
of information, including the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of response.
Comments that you submit in response to this proposed rulemaking
are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other personal identifying information in
your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including
your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available
at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your
personal identifying information from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This is a nonform collection. Respondents must comply with the
regulations at 50 CFR part 18, which outline the procedures and
requirements for submitting a request. Specific regulations governing
authorized incidental take of marine mammal activities are contained in
50 CFR part 18, subparts J (incidental take of polar bears and Pacific
walruses in the Beaufort Sea) and L (incidental take of northern sea
otters in the Gulf of Alaska). These regulations provide the applicant
with a detailed description of information that we need to evaluate the
proposed activity and determine if it is appropriate to issue specific
regulations and, subsequently, LOAs. We use the information to verify
the findings required to issue incidental take regulations, to decide
if we should issue an LOA, and (if an LOA is issued) what conditions
should be included in the LOA. In addition, we analyze the information
to determine impacts to polar bears, Pacific walruses, northern sea
otters, and the availability of those marine mammals for subsistence
purposes of Alaska Natives.
In conjunction with this rulemaking, we propose the following
revisions for OMB approval:
(1) Revise and renew OMB Control No. 1018-0070 to retain the
currently approved ICs and burden estimates associated with 50 CFR part
18, subpart J--Beaufort Sea--This ITR in subpart J, issued to the
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) is effective August 5, 2021,
through August 5, 2026. It authorizes the nonlethal incidental, but not
intentional, take of small numbers of polar bear and Pacific walrus for
oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities in the
Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. Unless a new ITR is
issued for subpart J, we will discontinue OMB Control No. 1018-0070
when the ITR expires in 2026.
We request OMB approval to renew the following ICs and to adjust
the currently approved burden associated with the ICs in subpart J that
will remain in OMB Control No. 1018-0070:
(A) Incidental Take of Marine Mammals--Application for
Regulations--Regulations at 50 CFR part 18 require the applicant to
provide information on the activity as a whole, which includes, but is
not limited to, an assessment of total impacts by all persons
conducting the activity. Applicants can find specific requirements in
50 CFR part 18, subpart J. These regulations provide the applicant with
a detailed description of information that we need to evaluate the
proposed activity and determine whether to issue specific regulations
and, subsequently, LOAs. The required information includes:
1. A description of the specific activity or class of activities
that can be expected to result in incidental taking of marine mammals.
2. The dates and duration of such activity and the specific
geographical region where it will occur.
3. Based on the best available scientific information, each
applicant must also provide:
a. An estimate of the species and numbers of marine mammals likely
to be taken by age, sex, and reproductive conditions;
b. The type of taking (e.g., disturbance by sound, injury or death
resulting from collision, etc.) and the number of times such taking is
likely to occur;
c. A description of the status, distribution, and seasonal
distribution (when applicable) of the affected species or stocks likely
to be affected by such activities;
d. The anticipated impact of the activity upon the species or
stocks; and
e. The anticipated impact of the activity on the availability of
the species or stocks for subsistence uses.
4. The anticipated impact of the activity upon the habitat of the
marine mammal populations and the likelihood of restoration of the
affected habitat.
5. The availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of
equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the
affected species or stocks, their habitat, and, where relevant, on
their availability for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. (The
applicant and those conducting the specified activity and the affected
subsistence users are encouraged to develop mutually agreeable
mitigating measures that will meet the needs of subsistence users.)
6. Suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and
reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species
through an analysis of the level of taking or impacts and suggested
means of minimizing burdens by coordinating such reporting requirements
with other schemes already applicable to persons conducting such
activity.
7. Suggested means of learning of, encouraging, and coordinating
research opportunities, plans, and activities relating to reducing such
incidental taking from such specified activities, and evaluating its
effects.
8. Applicants must develop and implement a site-specific (or
umbrella plan addressing site-specific considerations), Service-
approved marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor and
evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures and the effects of
activities on marine
[[Page 88226]]
mammals and the subsistence use of these species.
9. Applicants must also provide trained, qualified, and Service-
approved onsite observers to carry out monitoring and mitigation
activities identified in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation
plan.
This information is necessary for the Service to anticipate the
impact of the activity on the species or stocks and on the availability
of the species or stocks for Alaska Native subsistence uses. Under
requirements of the MMPA, we cannot authorize a take unless the total
of all takes will have a negligible impact on the species or stocks
and, where appropriate, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of the species or stocks for subsistence uses. These
requirements ensure that applicants are aware of related monitoring and
research efforts they can apply to their situation, and that the
monitoring and reporting that we impose are the least burdensome to the
applicant.
(B) Incidental Take of Marine Mammals--Requests for LOA--LOAs,
which may be issued only to U.S. citizens, are required to conduct
activities pursuant to any specific regulations established. Once
specific regulations are effective, the Service will, to the maximum
extent possible, process subsequent requests for LOAs within 30 days
after receipt of the request by the Service. All LOAs will specify the
period of validity and any additional terms and conditions appropriate
for the specific request. Issuance of LOAs will be based on a
determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the
findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific
regulations.
(C) Incidental Take of Marine Mammals--Final Monitoring Report--The
results of monitoring and mitigation efforts identified in the marine
mammal monitoring and mitigation plan must be submitted to the Service
for review within 90 days of the expiration of an LOA. Upon request,
final report data must be provided in a common electronic format (to be
specified by the Service). Information in the final (or annual) report
must include, but is not limited to:
1. Copies of all observation reports submitted under the LOA;
2. A summary of the observation reports;
3. A summary of monitoring and mitigation efforts including areas,
total hours, total distances, and distribution;
4. Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability
of walruses and polar bears during monitoring;
5. Analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
6. Analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of
walruses and/or polar bears observed; and
7. Estimates of take in relation to the specified activities.
(D) Polar Bear Den Detection Report--Holders of an LOA seeking to
carry out onshore activities in known or suspected polar bear denning
habitat during the denning season must make efforts to locate occupied
polar bear dens within and near proposed areas of operation. They may
use any appropriate tool, such as forward-looking infrared imagery and/
or polar bear scent-trained dogs, in concert with denning habitat maps
along the Alaskan coast.
1. In accordance with 50 CFR 18.128(b)(1) and (2), LOA holders must
report all observed or suspected polar bear dens to us prior to the
initiation of activities. We use this information to determine the
appropriate terms and conditions in an individual LOA in order to
minimize potential impacts and disturbance to polar bears.
2. Holders of an LOA seeking to carry out onshore activities during
the denning season (November-April) must conduct two separate surveys
for occupied polar bear dens in all denning habitat within 1.6 km (1
mi) of proposed activities using aerial infrared (AIR) imagery.
Further, all denning habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of areas of proposed
seismic surveys must be surveyed three separate times with AIR
technology.
3. Flight crews will record and report environmental parameters
including air temperature, dew point, wind speed and direction, cloud
ceiling, and percent humidity, and a flight log will be provided to the
Service within 48 hours of the flight.
(E) In-Season Monitoring--Activity Progress Reports--Holders of an
LOA must:
1. Notify the Service at least 48 hours prior to the onset of
activities;
2. Provide the Service weekly progress reports of any significant
changes in activities and/or locations; and
3. Notify the Service within 48 hours after ending of activities.
(F) In-season Monitoring--Observation Reports--Holders of an LOA
must report, within 48 hours, all observations of polar bears and
potential polar bear dens, during any industry activity. Upon request,
monitoring report data must be provided in a common electronic format
(to be specified by the Service). Information in the observation report
must include, but is not limited to:
1. Date, time, and location of observation;
2. Number of bears;
3. Sex and age of bears (if known);
4. Observer name and contact information;
5. Weather, visibility, sea state, and sea-ice conditions at the
time of observation;
6. Estimated closest distance of bears from personnel and
facilities;
7. Industry activity at time of sighting;
8. Possible attractants present;
9. Bear behavior;
10. Description of the encounter;
11. Duration of the encounter; and
12. Mitigation actions taken.
(G) Notification of LOA Incident Report--Holders of an LOA must
report, as soon as possible, but within 48 hours, all LOA incidents
during any Industry activity. An LOA incident is any situation when
specified activities exceed the authority of an LOA, when a mitigation
measure was required but not enacted, or when injury or death of a
marine mammal occurs. Reports must include:
1. All information specified for an observation report;
2. A complete detailed description of the incident; and
3. Any other actions taken.
(H) Mitigation--Interaction Plan--All holders of an LOA must have
an approved polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction plan on file
with the Service's Marine Mammals Management Office and onsite and
provide polar bear awareness training to certain personnel. Interaction
plans must include:
1. The type of activity and where and when the activity will occur
(i.e., a summary of the plan of operation);
2. A food, waste, and other ``bear attractants'' management plan;
3. Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
4. Site-specific walrus and bear interaction risk evaluation and
mitigation measures;
5. Bear avoidance and encounter procedures; and
6. Bear observation and reporting procedures.
(I) Mitigation--3rd Party Notifications--All applicants for an LOA
must contact affected Alaska Native subsistence communities and hunter
organizations to discuss potential conflicts caused by the activities
and provide the Service documentation of communications.
(J) Mitigation--Requests for Exemption Waivers--Exemption waivers
to the operating conditions in 50 CFR 18.126(c) may be issued by the
[[Page 88227]]
Service on a case-by-case basis, based upon a review of seasonal ice
conditions and available information on walrus and polar bear
distributions in the area of interest.
(K) Mitigation--Plan of Cooperation--When appropriate, a holder of
an LOA will be required to develop and implement a Service-approved
plan of cooperation (POC).
1. The POC must include a description of the procedures by which
the holder of the LOA will work and consult with potentially affected
Alaska Native subsistence hunters and a description of specific
measures that have been or will be taken to avoid or minimize
interference with subsistence hunting of otters, walruses, and polar
bears and to ensure continued availability of the species for
subsistence use.
2. The Service will review the POC to ensure that any potential
adverse effects on the availability of the animals are minimized. The
Service will reject POCs if they do not provide adequate safeguards to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the availability of
walruses and polar bears for subsistence use.
(2) Revise OMB Control No. 1018-0070 to remove references to, and
all burden associated with, information collections (ICs) in 50 CFR
part 18, subpart K--Cook Inlet, to include updating the title of this
collection--The ITR in subpart K, issued to Hilcorp Alaska, LLC,
Harvest Alaska, LLC, and the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation on
August 1, 2019, authorized the nonlethal, incidental, but not
intentional, take of small numbers of northern sea otters (Enhydra
lutris kenyoni) for activities associated with or in support of oil and
gas exploration, development, production, and transportation in Cook
Inlet, Alaska. This ITR expired on August 1, 2024, and is no longer
active; therefore, we are removing the reference to the ICR, along with
the associated burden, from OMB Control No. 1018-0070.
(3) Request a new control number for the currently approved ICs and
burden estimates associated with 50 CFR part 18, subpart L--U.S. Coast
Guard--We will submit a separate information collection request to OMB
for approval that will contain the applicable ICs and associated burden
for subpart L previously approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 1018-
0070. The ITR in subpart L, effective May 19, 2023, authorizes the
nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take by harassment of small
numbers of northern sea otters (otters; Enhydra lutris kenyoni) while
engaged in activities associated with or in support of marine
construction activities in the Gulf of Alaska. Unless a new ITR is
issued for subpart L, we will discontinue the newly assigned control
number when the ITR expires on May 19, 2028.
We propose to transfer the following currently approved ICs from
OMB Control No. 1018-0070 into a new control number:
(A) Incidental Take of Marine Mammals--Application for
Regulations--Regulations at 50 CFR part 18 require the applicant to
provide information on the activity as a whole, which includes, but is
not limited to, an assessment of total impacts by all persons
conducting the activity. Applicants can find specific requirements in
50 CFR part 18, subpart J. These regulations provide the applicant with
a detailed description of information that we need to evaluate the
proposed activity and determine whether to issue specific regulations
and, subsequently, LOAs. The required information includes:
1. A description of the specific activity or class of activities
that can be expected to result in incidental taking of marine mammals.
2. The dates and duration of such activity and the specific
geographical region where it will occur.
3. Based on the best available scientific information, each
applicant must also provide:
a. An estimate of the species and numbers of marine mammals likely
to be taken by age, sex, and reproductive conditions;
b. The type of taking (e.g., disturbance by sound, injury or death
resulting from collision, etc.) and the number of times such taking is
likely to occur;
c. A description of the status, distribution, and seasonal
distribution (when applicable) of the affected species or stocks likely
to be affected by such activities;
d. The anticipated impact of the activity upon the species or
stocks; and
e. The anticipated impact of the activity on the availability of
the species or stocks for subsistence uses.
4. The anticipated impact of the activity upon the habitat of the
marine mammal populations and the likelihood of restoration of the
affected habitat.
5. The availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of
equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the
affected species or stocks, their habitat, and, where relevant, on
their availability for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. (The
applicant and those conducting the specified activity and the affected
subsistence users are encouraged to develop mutually agreeable
mitigating measures that will meet the needs of subsistence users.)
6. Suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and
reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species
through an analysis of the level of taking or impacts and suggested
means of minimizing burdens by coordinating such reporting requirements
with other schemes already applicable to persons conducting such
activity.
7. Suggested means of learning of, encouraging, and coordinating
research opportunities, plans, and activities relating to reducing such
incidental taking from such specified activities, and evaluating its
effects.
8. Applicants must develop and implement a site-specific (or
umbrella plan addressing site-specific considerations), Service-
approved marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor and
evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures and the effects of
activities on marine mammals and the subsistence use of these species.
9. Applicants must also provide trained, qualified, and Service-
approved onsite observers to carry out monitoring and mitigation
activities identified in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation
plan.
This information is necessary for the Service to anticipate the
impact of the activity on the species or stocks and on the availability
of the species or stocks for Alaska Native subsistence uses. Under
requirements of the MMPA, we cannot authorize a take unless the total
of all takes will have a negligible impact on the species or stocks
and, where appropriate, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of the species or stocks for subsistence uses. These
requirements ensure that applicants are aware of related monitoring and
research efforts they can apply to their situation, and that the
monitoring and reporting requirements that we impose are the least
burdensome to the applicant.
(B) Incidental Take of Marine Mammals--Requests for LOA--LOAs,
which may be issued only to U.S. citizens, are required to conduct
activities pursuant to any specific regulations established. Once
specific regulations are effective, the Service will, to the maximum
extent possible, process subsequent requests for LOAs within 30 days
after receipt of the request by the Service. All LOAs will
[[Page 88228]]
specify the period of validity and any additional terms and conditions
appropriate for the specific request. Issuance of LOAs will be based on
a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the
findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific
regulations.
(C) Incidental Take of Marine Mammals--Final Monitoring Report--The
results of monitoring and mitigation efforts identified in the marine
mammal monitoring and mitigation plan must be submitted to the Service
for review within 90 days of the expiration of an LOA. Upon request,
final report data must be provided in a common electronic format (to be
specified by the Service). Information in the final (or annual) report
must include, but is not limited to:
1. A summary of monitoring efforts (hours of monitoring, activities
monitored, number of protected species observers (PSOs), and, if
requested by the Service, the daily monitoring logs).
2. A description of all project activities, along with any
additional work yet to be done. Factors influencing visibility and
detectability of otters (e.g., sea state, number of observers, and fog
and glare) will be discussed.
3. A description of the factors affecting the presence and
distribution of sea otters (e.g., weather, sea state, and project
activities). An estimate will be included of the number of sea otters
exposed to noise at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dBRMS
re: 1 [micro]Pa (decibels root-mean squared referenced to 1
microPascal) (based on visual observation).
4. A description of changes in sea otter behavior resulting from
project activities and any specific behaviors of interest.
5. A discussion of the mitigation measures implemented during
project activities and their observed effectiveness for minimizing
impacts to sea otters. Sea otter observation records will be provided
to the Service in the form of electronic database or spreadsheet files.
(D) In-Season Monitoring--Activity Progress Reports--Holders of an
LOA must:
1. Notify the Service at least 48 hours prior to the onset of
activities;
2. Provide the Service weekly progress reports of any significant
changes in activities and/or locations;
3. Injured, dead, or distressed sea otters that are not associated
with project activities (e.g., animals known to be from outside the
project area, previously wounded animals, or carcasses with moderate to
advanced decomposition or scavenger damage) must be reported to the
Service within 24 hours of the discovery to either the Service MMM (1-
800-362-5148, business hours); or the Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward
(1-888-774-7325, 24 hours a day); or both. Photographs, video, location
information, or any other available documentation must be provided to
the Service.
4. Notify the Service within 48 hours after ending of activities.
(E) In-season Monitoring--Observation Reports--Holders of an LOA
must report, within 48 hours, all observations of polar bears and
potential polar bear dens, during any Industry activity. Upon request,
monitoring report data must be provided in a common electronic format
(to be specified by the Service). Information in the observation report
must include, but is not limited to:
1. Date, time; the observer's locations, heading, and speed (if
moving); weather; visibility; number of animals; group size and
composition (adults/juveniles); and the location of the animals (or
distance and direction from the observer);
2. Initial behaviors of the sea otters, descriptions of project
activities and underwater sound levels being generated, the position of
sea otters relative to applicable monitoring and mitigation zones, any
mitigation measures applied, and any apparent reactions to the project
activities before and after mitigation;
3. Distance from the vessel to the sea otter upon initial
observation, the duration of the encounter, and the distance at last
observation in order to monitor cumulative sound exposures; and
4. Any instances of animals lingering close to or traveling with
vessels for prolonged periods of time.
(F) Notification of LOA Incident Report--Holders of an LOA must
report, as soon as possible, but within 48 hours, all LOA incidents
during any Industry activity. An LOA incident is any situation when
specified activities exceed the authority of an LOA, when a mitigation
measure was required but not enacted, or when injury or death of a
marine mammal occurs. Reports must include:
1. All information specified for an observation report;
2. A complete detailed description of the incident; and
3. Any other actions taken.
(G) Mitigation--Interaction Plan--All holders of an LOA must have
an approved polar bear safety, awareness, and interaction plan on file
with the Service's Marine Mammals Management Office and onsite and
provide polar bear awareness training to certain personnel. Interaction
plans must include:
1. The type of activity and where and when the activity will occur
(i.e., a summary of the plan of operation);
2. Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
3. Site-specific sea otter interaction risk evaluation and
mitigation measures;
4. Sea otter avoidance and encounter procedures; and
5. Sea otter observation and reporting procedures.
(H) Mitigation--3rd Party Notifications--All applicants for an LOA
must contact affected Alaska Native subsistence communities and hunter
organizations to discuss potential conflicts caused by the activities
and provide the Service documentation of communications.
(I) Mitigation--Requests for Exemption Waivers--Exemption waivers
to the operating conditions in 50 CFR 18.126(c) may be issued by the
Service on a case-by-case basis, based upon a review of seasonal ice
conditions and available information on marine mammal distributions in
the area of interest.
(J) Mitigation--Plan of Cooperation--When appropriate, a holder of
an LOA will be required to develop and implement a Service-approved
plan of cooperation (POC).
1. The POC must include a description of the procedures by which
the holder of the LOA will work and consult with potentially affected
subsistence hunters and a description of specific measures that have
been or will be taken to avoid or minimize interference with
subsistence hunting of marine mammals and to ensure continued
availability of the species for subsistence use.
2. The Service will review the POC to ensure that any potential
adverse effects on the availability of the animals are minimized. The
Service will reject POCs if they do not provide adequate safeguards to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the availability of
marine mammals for subsistence use.
Title of Collection: Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During
Specified Activities, 50 CFR 18.27 and 50 CFR part 18, subpart J.
OMB Control Number: 1018-0070.
Form Numbers: None.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents/Affected Public: Oil and gas industry representatives,
including applicants for ITRs and LOAs, operations managers, and
environmental compliance personnel.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 61.
[[Page 88229]]
Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 201.
Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 1.25 hours to
150 hours, depending on activity.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,426.
Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $350,000.
Title of Collection: Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During
Specified Activities, 50 CFR 18.27 and 50 CFR part 18, subpart L.
OMB Control Number: 1018-New.
Form Numbers: None.
Type of Review: New.
Respondents/Affected Public: Federal Government--U.S. Coast Guard.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 10.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 22.
Estimated Completion Time per Response: Varies from 1.25 hours to
150 hours, depending on activity.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 325.
Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection
by the date indicated in DATES to the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike,
MS: PRB (JAO/3W), Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5fcdbd3daeaf6dad9d9f5d3c2c69bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c55727a73435f7370705c7a6b6f327b736a">[email protected]</span></a> (email). Please reference OMB Control Number 1018-
New/0070 in the subject line of your comments.
Energy Effects
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of
energy effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule
provides exceptions from the MMPA's taking prohibitions for Industry
engaged in specified oil and gas activities in the specified geographic
region. By providing certainty regarding compliance with the MMPA, this
proposed rule would have a positive effect on Industry and its
activities. Therefore, this proposed rule is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use and does not
constitute a significant energy action. No statement of energy effects
is required.
References
For a list of the references cited in this proposed rule, see
Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2024-0140, available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Service proposes to
amend part 18, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 18--MARINE MAMMALS
0
1. The authority citation of part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
Sec. 18.4 [Removed]
0
2. Remove Sec. 18.4.
0
3. Revise Sec. 18.124 to read as follows:
Sec. 18.124 Authorized take allowed under a Letter of Authorization
(LOA).
(a) An LOA allows for the nonlethal, non-injurious, incidental, but
not intentional take by Level B harassment, as defined in Sec. 18.3
and under section 3 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
1362), of Pacific walruses while conducting oil and gas industry
exploration, development, and production within the Beaufort Sea ITR
region described in Sec. 18.120.
(b) An LOA allows for the nonlethal, incidental, but not
intentional take by Level A harassment and Level B harassment, as
defined in Sec. 18.3 and under section 3 of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1362), of polar bears while conducting oil
and gas industry exploration, development, and production within the
Beaufort Sea ITR region described in Sec. 18.120.
(c) Each LOA will identify terms and conditions for each activity
and location.
0
4. Revise Sec. 18.125 to read as follows:
Sec. 18.125 Prohibited take under a Letter of Authorization (LOA).
Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, prohibited taking is
described in Sec. 18.11 as well as:
(a) Level A harassment, as defined in section 3 of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1362), of Pacific walruses and
intentional take and lethal incidental take of polar bears or Pacific
walruses; and
(b) Any take that fails to comply with this subpart or with the
terms and conditions of an LOA.
0
5. Revise Sec. 18.129 to read as follows:
Sec. 18.129 Information collection requirements.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this subpart and
assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0070. Federal agencies 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.
Direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
the information collection to the Service's Information Collection
Clearance Officer at the address provided at 50 CFR 2.1(b).
Sec. 18.152 [Amended]
0
6. Amend Sec. 18.152 by removing the words, ``contained in this part
and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0070'' and adding in their place
the words, ``contained in this subpart and assigned OMB Control Number
1018-New''.
Shannon A. Estenoz,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2024-25762 Filed 11-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 7, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.