Vol. 77 Monday, No. 175 September 10, 2012
Pages 55411–55680
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER
VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:06 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\10SEWS.LOC 10SEWS mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with FEDREGWS II Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012
The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 202–741–6005 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005 Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents FEDERAL REGISTER WORKSHOP currently on file for public inspection, see www.ofr.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration THE FEDERAL REGISTER: WHAT IT IS AND HOW TO USE IT authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication FOR: Any person who uses the Federal Register and Code of established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, Federal Regulations. the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. WHO: Sponsored by the Office of the Federal Register. It is also available online at no charge at www.fdsys.gov, a service WHAT: Free public briefings (approximately 3 hours) to present: of the U.S. Government Printing Office. 1. The regulatory process, with a focus on the Federal The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the Register system and the public’s role in the develop- authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions ment of regulations. (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6:00 a.m. each 2. The relationship between the Federal Register and day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and Code of Federal Regulations. graphics from Volume 59, 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. 3. The important elements of typical Federal Register doc- Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800 or 866-512-1800 uments. (toll free). E-mail, [email protected]. 4. An introduction to the finding aids of the FR/CFR sys- The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper tem. edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined WHY: To provide the public with access to information nec- Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal essary to research Federal agency regulations which di- Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, rectly affect them. There will be no discussion of spe- plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half cific agency regulations. the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to llllllllllllllllll orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, WHEN: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing 9 a.m.–12:30 p.m. less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues WHERE: Office of the Federal Register of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, Conference Room, Suite 700 including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO 800 North Capitol Street, NW. Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Washington, DC 20002 Discover. Mail to: U.S. Government Printing Office—New Orders, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000; or call toll free 1- RESERVATIONS: (202) 741–6008 866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 77 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.
.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:06 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\10SEWS.LOC 10SEWS mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with FEDREGWS III
Contents Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 175
Monday, September 10, 2012
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Special Local Regulations: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Partnership in Education, Dragon Boat race, Maumee Submissions, and Approvals, 55475–55477 River, Toledo, OH, 55436–55439 Meetings: Vessel Traffic Service; Updates: Healthcare Research and Quality Special Emphasis Panel, Vessel Traffic Service Requirements Establishment, Port 55477–55478 Arthur, TX, and VTS Special Operating Area Expansion, Puget Sound, 55439–55448 NOTICES Agricultural Research Service Workshops: NOTICES Marine Technology and Standards, 55482–55484 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 55451–55452 Commerce Department See Foreign-Trade Zones Board Agriculture Department See International Trade Administration See Agricultural Research Service See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Forest Service NOTICES Commission of Fine Arts Determination of Total Amounts of Fiscal Year 2013 Tariff- NOTICES Rate Quotas for Raw Cane Sugar and Certain Sugars, Meetings: Syrups and Molasses; and the Fiscal Year 2013 Overall Commission of Fine Arts, 55465 Allotment Quantity under the Sugar Marketing Allotment Program, 55451 Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Air Force Department Meetings; Sunshine Act, 55465 NOTICES Defense Department Issuances of Exclusive Patent Licenses, 55465–55466 See Air Force Department See Army Department Army Department NOTICES NOTICES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Agency Information Collection Activities; Permits, Short Range-Projects and Update of Real Property Master Authorities, or Franchises, 55475 Plan for Fort Belvoir, VA, 55466 Drug Enforcement Administration Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES NOTICES Controlled Substances: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Final Adjusted Aggregate Production Quotas for 2012, Submissions, and Approvals, 55478–55479 55500–55503 Final Adjusted Assessment of Annual Needs: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and NOTICES Phenylpropanolamine for 2012, 55503 Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP Programs: Importers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: Research and Analysis on Impact of Programs on Indian Cambrex Charles City, Inc., 55503–55504 Health Care System, 55479–55480 Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: Alltech Associates, Inc., 55504–55505 AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC, 55505 Civil Rights Commission Noramco, Inc., 55504 NOTICES Research Triangle Institute, 55504 Meetings: North Dakota Advisory Committee, 55454 Energy Department See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Coast Guard RULES Environmental Protection Agency Drawbridge Operations: RULES Inside Thoroughfare, New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Approvals and Promulgations of Air Quality Atlantic City, NJ, 55416 Implementation Plans: Long Island, New York Inland Waterway from East Delaware; Infrastructure Requirements for 2008 Lead Rockaway Inlet to Shinnecock Canal, NY, 55416– National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 55419– 55417 55420 Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water West Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for 2008 Lead Discharged in U.S. Waters: National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 55417– Information Collection Approval; Correction, 55417 55419
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\10SECN.SGM 10SECN srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS IV Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Contents
NOTICES Withdrawal of Approvals of New Animal Drug Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Applications: Submissions, and Approvals: Chorionic Gonadotropin; Naloxone; Oxymorphone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of the HCFC Oxytocin, 55481–55482 Allowance System, 55470–55472 Foreign-Trade Zones Board Export-Import Bank NOTICES NOTICES Approvals for Manufacturing Authority: Meetings; Sunshine Act, 55472 Foreign-Trade Zone 72, Wind Turbine Gear Boxes; Brevini Wind USA, Inc., Yorktown, IN, 55455 Farm Credit Administration Authorizations of Production Activity: NOTICES Foreign-Trade Zone 235, Fragrance Bottling; Cosmetic Meetings; Sunshine Act, 55472–55473 Essence Innovations, LLC, Holmdel, NJ, 55455
Federal Aviation Administration Forest Service RULES NOTICES Airworthiness Directives: Meetings: Glasflugel Gliders, 55411–55413 Butte County Resource Advisory Committee, 55453– Federal Communications Commission 55454 NOTICES Juneau Resource Advisory Committee, 55453 Meetings: Lynn Canal–Icy Strait Resource Advisory Committee, Emergency Access Advisory Committee, 55473 55452–55453 Plumas County Resource Advisory Committee, 55454 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES General Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Acquisition Regulations: Basel II Recordkeeping and Disclosures, 55473–55474 Agency Information Collection Activities; Permits, Terminations of Receiverships: Authorities, or Franchises, 55475 Access Bank, Champlin, MN, 55474 Health and Human Services Department Federal Energy Regulatory Commission See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Applications: See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Barren River Lake Hydro LLC, 55466–55467 See Food and Drug Administration Oliver Hydro LLC, 55468–55469 See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Placer County Water Agency, 55467–55468 Administration Filings: Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline LLC, 55469 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 55469– See Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 55470 Homeland Security Department Federal Maritime Commission See Coast Guard NOTICES See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Meetings; Sunshine Act, 55474 See U.S. Customs and Border Protection See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Fine Arts Commission See Commission of Fine Arts Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Fish and Wildlife Service Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, RULES Submissions, and Approvals: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Fair Housing Initiatives Program Grant Application and Removal of Gray Wolf in Wyoming from Federal List of Monitoring Reports, 55491–55492 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Removal of Funding Availability for OneCPD Technical Assistance Wyoming Wolf Populations Status as Experimental and Capacity Building Program, 55489–55490 Population, 55530–55604 Neighborhood Stabilization Program Tracking Study, 55490–55491 Food and Drug Administration Study of Public Housing Agencies’ Engagement with RULES Homeless Households, 55488–55489 New Animal Drugs: Funding for Tenant-Protection Vouchers for Certain At-Risk Chorionic Gonadotropin; Naloxone; Oxymorphone; Households in Low-Vacancy Areas; Availability, 55492 Oxytocin, 55413–55414 Mortgagee Review Board: Enrofloxacin; Tylvalosin, 55414–55415 Administrative Actions, 55492–55495 NOTICES Draft Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 690.150: Interior Department Labeling and Marketing of Nutritional Products Intended See Fish and Wildlife Service for Use to Diagnose, Cure, Mitigate, Treat, or Prevent See Land Management Bureau Disease in Dogs and Cats, 55480–55481 See Reclamation Bureau
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\10SECN.SGM 10SECN srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Contents V
See Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Internal Revenue Service Federal Acquisition Regulations: NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Permits, Meetings: Authorities, or Franchises, 55475 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Bankruptcy Compliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Project Committee, 55525 PROPOSED RULES Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Face-to-Face Service Methods Early Warning Reporting, Foreign Defect Reporting, and Project Committee, 55525 Motor Vehicle and Equipment Recall, 55606–55644 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee, 55526 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Refund Processing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Communications Project Committee, 55526 RULES Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Return Processing Delays Fisheries Off West Coast States: Project Committee, 55525–55526 Modifications of West Coast Commercial and Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business / Self- Recreational Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Actions Nos. Employed Decreasing Non-Filers Project Committee, 4 through 14, 55426–55428 55527 PROPOSED RULES Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Project Committee, 55526–55527 Atlantic: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Burden Reduction Snapper–Grouper Fishery off Southern Atlantic States; Project Committee, 55525 Transferability of Black Sea Bass Pot Endorsements, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Project Committee, 55448–55450 55526 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction and International Trade Administration Operation of a Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port NOTICES in the Gulf of Mexico, 55646–55679 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; Results, NOTICES Extensions, Amendments, etc.: Applications: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey, Marine Mammals; File No. 17410, 55456–55457 55455–55456 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions: Horseshoe Crabs; Application for Exempted Fishing International Trade Commission Permit, 2012, 55457–55458 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Investigations; Determinations, Results, etc.: 90-Day Finding on Petition to Delist the Southern Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, 55498–55499 Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Significant Unit of Coho Salmon under the Same, 55499 Endangered Species Act, 55458–55459 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Justice Department Activities: See Drug Enforcement Administration Piling and Fill Removal in Woodard Bay Natural NOTICES Resources Conservation Area, WA, 55459–55463 Lodgings of Consent Decrees: Workshops: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, Atlantic Shark Identification and Protected Species Safe and Liability Act, 55499–55500 Handling, Release, and Identification, 55464–55465
Labor Department Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES PROPOSED RULES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Fitness-for-Duty Programs, 55429–55430 Submissions, and Approvals: NOTICES Department of Labor Generic Solution for Customer Approvals of Transfers of Early Site Permits and Satisfaction Surveys and Conference Evaluations, Conforming Amendments: 55506–55507 Virginia Electric and Power Co.; North Anna Site, 55507– Department of Labor Generic Solution for Solicitation for 55509 Exemption: Grant Applications, 55505–55506 Indiana Michigan Power Company, 55509–55510 Guidance on Performing a Seismic Margin Assessment, Land Management Bureau 55510–55512 RULES Minerals Management: Reclamation Bureau Adjustment of Cost Recovery Fees, 55420–55425 NOTICES NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Realty Actions: Paradox Valley Unit, Montrose County, CO, 55497–55498 Application for Conveyance of Federally Owned Mineral Interests in Maricopa County, AZ, 55495–55496 Securities and Exchange Commission Temporary Closures of Public Lands: NOTICES Eastern Lassen County, CA and Western Washoe County, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NV, 55496–55497 Submissions, and Approvals, 55512–55513
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\10SECN.SGM 10SECN srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS VI Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Contents
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, 55515– Submissions, and Approvals; Correction, 55486 55517 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 55517– U.S. Customs and Border Protection 55523 NOTICES NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, 55513–55514 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Small Business Administration Importer ID Input Record, 55486–55487 NOTICES Voluntary Customer Survey, 55487 Disaster Declarations: New Mexico, 55523 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement State Department NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Submissions, and Approvals: Designation of Attorney in Fact, 55488 Application for Employment as a Locally Employed Staff or Family Member, 55523–55524 Separate Parts In This Issue Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Part II NOTICES Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 55530– Meetings: 55604 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 55482 Part III Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office Transportation Department, National Highway Traffic PROPOSED RULES Safety Administration, 55606–55644 Arkansas Regulatory Program and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan, 55430–55435 Part IV Transportation Department Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric See Federal Aviation Administration Administration, 55646–55679 See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Treasury Department Reader Aids See Internal Revenue Service Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for NOTICES phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, and notice of recently enacted public laws. Submissions, and Approvals, 55524 To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// NOTICES listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change Submissions, and Approvals, 55484–55486 settings); then follow the instructions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\10SECN.SGM 10SECN srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Contents VII
CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE
A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.
10 CFR Proposed Rules: 26...... 55429 14 CFR 39...... 55411 21 CFR 510...... 55413 520...... 55414 522 (2 documents) ...... 55413, 55414 556...... 55414 30 CFR Proposed Rules: 904...... 55430 33 CFR 117 (2 documents) ...... 55416 151...... 55417 Proposed Rules: 100...... 55436 161...... 55439 40 CFR 52 (2 documents) ...... 55417, 55419 43 CFR 3000...... 55420 46 CFR 162...... 55417 49 CFR Proposed Rules: 573...... 55606 577...... 55606 579...... 55606 50 CFR 17...... 55530 660...... 55426 Proposed Rules: 217...... 55646 622...... 55448
VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:11 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\10SELS.LOC 10SELS mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with FEDREGLS 55411
Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 175
Monday, September 10, 2012
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER We must receive any comments on expressed confusion as to whether this contains regulatory documents having general this AD by October 25, 2012. drain hole would cause the new rod to applicability and legal effect, most of which ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD not be in compliance since there was no are keyed to and codified in the Code of docket on the Internet at http://www. clarification of ‘‘on the side.’’ Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. regulations.gov or in person at Relevant Service Information Document Management Facility, U.S. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by Department of Transportation, Docket Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service GmbH has the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of Operations, M–30, West Building issued Technical Note TN 201–40, TN new books are listed in the first FEDERAL Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 205–27, TN 206–26, TN 303–25, TN REGISTER issue of each week. New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 304–12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, and TN DC 20590. 604–11, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 For service information identified in (EASA translation approval dated DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION this AD, contact Glasfaser Flugzeug- September 9, 2011). The actions Service Hansjo¨rg Streifeneder GmbH, D– described in this service information are Federal Aviation Administration 72582 Grabenstetten, Germany; phone: intended to correct the unsafe condition +49(0)73821032, fax: +49(0)73821629; identified in the MCAI. 14 CFR Part 39 email: [email protected]; Internet: FAA’s Determination [Docket No. FAA–2012–0046; Directorate www.streifly.de/. You may review Identifier 2011–CE–040–AD; Amendment copies of the referenced service We are issuing this AD because we 39–17186; AD 2012–15–07 R1] information at the FAA, Small Airplane evaluated all the relevant information Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, and determined the unsafe condition RIN 2120–AA64 Missouri 64106. For information on the described previously is likely to exist or availability of this material at the FAA, develop in other products of the same Airworthiness Directives; Glasflugel type design. Gliders call (816) 329–4148. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim AD Requirements AGENCY: Federal Aviation Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, This AD retains the actions from AD Administration (FAA), Department of Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 2012–15–07 but adds the language of Transportation (DOT). Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; ‘‘on the side’’ to assure that the ACTION: Final rule; request for telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) replacement control rod, which has an comments. 329–4090; email: jim.rutherford@faa. additional drain hole at the rod bottom gov. SUMMARY: We are revising an existing between the forks, is an acceptable airworthiness directive (AD) for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: configuration for compliance. Glasflugel Models Standard Libelle- Discussion FAA’s Justification and Determination 201B, Club Libelle 205, Mosquito, and On July 18, 2012, we issued AD 2012– of the Effective Date Kestrel gliders. That AD currently 15–07, amendment 39–17136 (77 FR This action incorporates clarification requires actions to address the unsafe 46940, August 7, 2012) for Glasflugel that the additional drain hole at the rod condition on these products. This new Models Standard Libelle-201B, Club bottom between the forks on the AD includes clarification that the Libelle 205, Mosquito, and Kestrel replacement control rods is the replacement control rod has an gliders. That AD resulted from acceptable configuration for compliance additional drain hole at the rod bottom mandatory continuing airworthiness and does not require any additional between the forks and is the acceptable information (MCAI) issued by an work for those airplanes. Therefore, we configuration for compliance. This AD aviation authority of another country to find that notice and opportunity for results from mandatory continuing identify and correct an unsafe condition prior public comment are unnecessary airworthiness information (MCAI) on an aviation product. We issued that and that good cause exists for making issued by an aviation authority of AD to require actions to address the this amendment effective in less than 30 another country to identify and correct unsafe condition on these products. days. an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe Actions Since AD Was Issued Comments Invited condition as corrosion damage to the Since we issued AD 2012–15–07, This AD is a final rule that involves elevator control rod that could lead to amendment 39–17136 (77 FR 46940, requirements affecting flight safety, and failure of the elevator control rod, August 7, 2012), compliance with the we did not provide you with notice and possibly resulting in loss of control of existing AD required operators to not an opportunity to provide your the glider. We are issuing this AD to install an elevator control rod with a comments before it becomes effective. require actions to address the unsafe control bore hole. An operator reported However, we invite you to send any condition on these products. that the improved replacement rods, as written data, views, or arguments about DATES: This AD is effective September expected, have no control bore hole on this AD. Send your comments to an 25, 2012. the side at the top of the rod where there address listed under the ADDRESSES The Director of the Federal Register had previously been a hole. However, section. Include the docket number approved the incorporation by reference the improved replacement rods do have FAA–2012–0046 and directorate of a certain publication listed in the AD a new drain hole at the bottom of the identifier 2011–CE–040–AD at the as of September 11, 2012. rod between the forks. The operator beginning of your comments. We
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 55412 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
specifically invite comments on the Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, (e) Reason overall regulatory, economic, 1979), This AD was prompted by mandatory environmental, and energy aspects of (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) this AD. We will consider all comments in Alaska, and originated by an aviation authority of another received by the closing date and may (4) Will not have a significant country to identify and correct an unsafe amend this AD because of those economic impact, positive or negative, condition on an aviation product. The MCAI comments. on a substantial number of small entities describes the unsafe condition as corrosion under the criteria of the Regulatory damage to the elevator control rod that could We will post all comments we lead to failure of the elevator control rod, receive, without change, to http://www. Flexibility Act. possibly resulting in loss of control of the regulations.gov, including any personal Examining the AD Docket glider. We are issuing this AD to require information you provide. We will also actions to address the unsafe condition on post a report summarizing each You may examine the AD docket on these products. the Internet at http://www.regulations. substantive verbal contact we receive (f) Actions and Compliance about this AD. gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. Unless already done, do the following Costs of Compliance and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, actions: except Federal holidays. The AD docket (1) Within 30 days after September 11, We estimate that this AD will affect 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012–15–07), 54 products of U.S. registry. We also contains the NPRM, the regulatory inspect the elevator control rod in the estimate that it would take about 6 evaluation, any comments received, and vertical fin following Glasfaser Flugzeug- work-hours per product to comply with other information. The street address for Service GmbH Technical Note TN 201–40, the basic requirements of this AD. The the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647– TN 205–27, TN 206–26, TN 303–25, TN 304– average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. 5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. 12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, and TN 604–11, Required parts would cost about $333 Comments will be available in the AD Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 (EASA per product. docket shortly after receipt. translation approval dated September 9, 2011), as applicable to glider model. Based on these figures, we estimate List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 (2) If you find any discrepancy in the the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this be $45,522, or $843 per product. AD, before further flight, replace the elevator safety, Incorporation by reference, Authority for This Rulemaking control rod with an elevator control rod that Safety. does not have a control bore hole on the side Title 49 of the United States Code Adoption of the Amendment following Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service GmbH specifies the FAA’s authority to issue Technical Note TN 201–40, TN 205–27, TN rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Accordingly, under the authority 206–26, TN 303–25, TN 304–12, TN 401–30, section 106, describes the authority of delegated to me by the Administrator, TN 501–10, and TN 604–11, Revision 1, the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as dated July 14, 2011 (EASA translation follows: approval dated September 9, 2011), as Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more applicable to glider model. detail the scope of the Agency’s PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS (3) Within 9 months after September 11, authority. DIRECTIVES 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012–15–07), We are issuing this rulemaking under unless already done as required by paragraph the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 (f)(2) of this AD, replace the elevator control Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: continues to read as follows: rod in the vertical fin with an elevator General requirements.’’ Under that control rod that does not have a control bore section, Congress charges the FAA with Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. hole on the side following Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service GmbH Technical Note TN promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in § 39.13 [Amended] 201–40, TN 205–27, TN 206–26, TN 303–25, air commerce by prescribing regulations ■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding TN 304–12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, and TN for practices, methods, and procedures the following new AD: 604–11, Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 the Administrator finds necessary for (EASA translation approval dated September safety in air commerce. This regulation 2012–15–07 R1 Glasflugel: Amendment 39– 9, 2011), as applicable to glider model. is within the scope of that authority 17186; Docket No. FAA–2012–0046; (4) As of September 11, 2012 (the effective because it addresses an unsafe condition Directorate Identifier 2011–CE–040–AD. date of AD 2012–15–07), do not install an that is likely to exist or develop on (a) Effective Date elevator control rod with a control bore hole on the side. products identified in this rulemaking This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes action. effective September 25, 2012. Note to paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4) of this AD: The replacement control rod has Regulatory Findings (b) Affected ADs an additional drain hole at the rod bottom This AD revises AD 2012–15–07, between the forks and is an acceptable We determined that this AD will not configuration for compliance. have federalism implications under amendment 39–17136 (77 FR 46940, August 7, 2012). (5) The actions mandated by this AD may Executive Order 13132. This AD will be accomplished by persons authorized to not have a substantial direct effect on (c) Applicability perform maintenance in accordance with 14 the States, on the relationship between This AD applies to the following Glasflugel CFR 43.3 and by persons authorized to the national government and the States, models and serial number (S/N) gliders, approve aircraft for return to service after or on the distribution of power and certificated in any category: maintenance in accordance with 14 CFR responsibilities among the various (1) Club Libelle 205, all S/Ns. 43.7. (2) Kestrel, all S/Ns, except S/N 85, 110, levels of government. (g) Other FAA AD Provisions For the reasons discussed above, I and 125. (3) Mosquito, all S/Ns. The following provisions also apply to this certify this AD: (4) Standard Libelle-201B, S/N 169. AD: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance action’’ under Executive Order 12866, (d) Subject (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, (2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Air Transport Association of America FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs the DOT Regulatory Policies and (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls. for this AD, if requested using the procedures
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55413
found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 2011), for related information. For service Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, information related to this AD, contact 31, 2012. FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Glasfaser Flugzeug-Service Hansjo¨rg Earl Lawrence, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; Streifeneder GmbH, D–72582 Grabenstetten, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329– Germany; phone: +49(0)73821032, fax: Certification Service. 4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane +49(0)73821629; email: [email protected]; [FR Doc. 2012–22039 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] to which the AMOC applies, notify your Internet: www.streifly.de/. You may review BILLING CODE 4910–13–P appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the copies of the referenced service information FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement information on the availability of this DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND in this AD to obtain corrective actions from material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. HUMAN SERVICES a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective (i) Material Incorporated by Reference Food and Drug Administration actions are considered FAA-approved if they (1) The Director of the Federal Register are approved by the State of Design Authority approved the incorporation by reference 21 CFR Parts 510 and 522 (or their delegated agent). You are required (IBR) of the service information listed in this to assure the product is airworthy before it [Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0902] is returned to service. paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR (3) Reporting Requirements: For any part 51. New Animal Drugs; Chorionic reporting requirement in this AD, a federal (2) You must use this service information Gonadotropin; Naloxone; agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a as applicable to do the actions required by Oxymorphone; Oxytocin person is not required to respond to, nor this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. shall a person be subject to a penalty for (3) The following information was AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, failure to comply with a collection of approved for IBR on September 11, 2012. HHS. information subject to the requirements of (i) Glasfaser Flugzeug Service GmbH the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that ACTION: Final rule. collection of information displays a current Technical Note TN 201–40, TN 205–27, TN valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 206–26, TN 303–25, TN 304–12, TN 401–30, SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Control Number for this information TN 501–10, and TN 604–11, Revision 1, Administration (FDA) is amending the collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for dated July 14, 2011. animal drug regulations to reflect the this collection of information is estimated to (ii) Reserved. withdrawal of approval of four new be approximately 5 minutes per response, (4) For Glasflugel service information animal drug applications (NADAs) at including the time for reviewing instructions, identified in this AD, contact Glasfaser the sponsor’s request because the completing and reviewing the collection of Flugzeug-Service Hansjo¨rg Streifeneder products are no longer manufactured or information. All responses to this collection GmbH, D–72582 Grabenstetten, Germany; marketed. of information are mandatory. Comments phone: +49(0)73821032, fax: +49(0)73821629; concerning the accuracy of this burden and DATES: This rule is effective September suggestions for reducing the burden should email: [email protected]; Internet: www.streifly. 20, 2012. de/. be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (5) You may view this service information Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: David Alterman, Center for Veterinary Information Collection Clearance Officer, at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 AES–200. Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For Medicine (HFV–212), Food and Drug information on the availability of this Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., (h) Related Information material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. Rockville, MD 20855; 240–453–6843; Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety (6) You may view this service information email: [email protected]. Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2011–0213R1, dated that is incorporated by reference at the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The November 8, 2011; and Glasfaser Flugzeug- sponsors of the four approved NADAs Service GmbH Technical Note TN 201–40, National Archives and Records TN 205–27, TN 206–26, TN 303–25, TN 304– Administration (NARA). For information on listed in table 1 of this document have 12, TN 401–30, TN 501–10, and TN 604–11, the availability of this material at NARA, call requested that FDA withdraw approval Revision 1, dated July 14, 2011 (EASA 202–741–6030, or go to: http://www.archives. because the products are no longer translation approval dated September 9, gov/federal-register/cfr/index.html. manufactured or marketed:
TABLE 1—WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL REQUESTS
NADA No. Trade name (drug) Applicant Citation in 21 CFR
030–525 ...... NUMORPHAN (oxymorphone hy- Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., 100 Painters Dr., Chadds Ford, PA 522.1642 drochloride) Injection. 19317. 035–825 ...... NARCAN (naloxone hydro- Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., 100 Painters Dr., Chadds Ford, PA 522.1462 chloride) Injection. 19317. 046–822 ...... VETOCIN (oxytocin) Injection ...... United Vaccines, A Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc., Co., P.O. Box 522.1680 4220, Madison, WI 53711. 103–090 ...... CHORTROPIN (chorionic United Vaccines, A Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc., Co., P.O. Box 522.1081 gonadotropin) Injection. 4220, Madison, WI 53711.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal provided in the regulatory text of this and United Vaccines, A Harlan Sprague Register, FDA gave notice that approval document, the animal drug regulations Dawley, Inc., Co., will no longer be the of NADAs 030–525, 035–825, 046–822, are amended to reflect these voluntary sponsor of an approved application. and 103–090, and all supplements and withdrawals of approval. Accordingly, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amendments thereto, is withdrawn, Following these withdrawals of amended to remove the entries for these effective September 20, 2012. As approval, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. firms.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 55414 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
This rule does not meet the definition PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR animal drug regulations to reflect of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW approval actions for new animal drug it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’ ANIMAL DRUGS applications (NADAs) and abbreviated Therefore, it is not subject to the new animal drug applications congressional review requirements in 5 ■ 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR (ANADAs) during July 2012. FDA is U.S.C. 801–808. part 522 continues to read as follows: also informing the public of the Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. availability of summaries of the basis of List of Subjects approval and of environmental review § 522.1081 [Amended] 21 CFR Part 510 documents, where applicable. ■ 4. In § 522.1081, remove and reserve DATES: This rule is effective September Administrative practice and paragraph (b)(2). 10, 2012. procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, § 522.1462 [Removed] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reporting and recordkeeping ■ George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary requirements. 5. Remove § 522.1462. Medicine (HFV–6), Food and Drug 21 CFR Part 522 § 522.1642 [Removed] Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–9019, ■ 6. Remove § 522.1642. Animal drugs. [email protected]. § 522.1680 [Amended] Therefore, under the Federal Food, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the ■ 7. In § 522.1680, in paragraph (b), amending the animal drug regulations to authority delegated to the Commissioner remove ‘‘058639,’’. reflect original and supplemental of Food and Drugs and redelegated to Dated: September 5, 2012. approval actions during July 2012, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 Bernadette Dunham, informing the public of the availability, CFR parts 510 and 522 are amended as Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. follows: where applicable, of documentation of [FR Doc. 2012–22196 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] environmental review required under PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS BILLING CODE 4160–01–P the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, ■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND summaries of the basis of approval (FOI part 510 continues to read as follows: HUMAN SERVICES Summaries) under the Freedom of Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, Food and Drug Administration Information Act (FOIA). These public 353, 360b, 371, 379e. documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA–305), § 510.600 [Amended] 21 CFR Parts 520, 522, and 556 Food and Drug Administration, 5630 ■ 2. In § 510.600, in the table in [Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0002] Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD paragraph (c)(1), remove the entries for 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., New Animal Drugs; Enrofloxacin; Monday through Friday. Persons with ‘‘Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.’’ and Tylvalosin ‘‘United Vaccines, A Harlan Sprague access to the Internet may obtain these Dawley, Inc., Co.’’; and in the table in AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, documents at the Center for Veterinary paragraph (c)(2), remove the entries for HHS. Medicine FOIA Electronic Reading ‘‘058639’’ and ‘‘060951’’. ACTION: Final rule. Room: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CVM/ SUMMARY: The Food and Drug CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/ Administration (FDA) is amending the default.htm.
TABLE 1—ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL NADAS AND ANADAS APPROVED DURING JULY 2012
New animal NADA/ANADA Sponsor drug product Action 21 CFR section FOIA NEPA name summary review
141–336 ...... ECO LLC, 8209 AIVLOSIN Original approval for control of 520.2645 yes ...... CE 1 Hollister (tylvalosin porcine proliferative 556.748 Ave., Las tartrate) enteropathy (PPE) associ- Vegas, NV Water Solu- ated with Lawsonia 89131. ble Granules. intracellularis infection in groups of swine in buildings experiencing an outbreak of PPE. 141–068 ...... Bayer BAYTRIL 100 Supplement adding control of 522.812 yes ...... CE 1 HealthCare (enrofloxacin) bovine respiratory disease LLC, Animal Injectable So- (BRD) in beef and non-lac- Health Divi- lution. tating dairy cattle at high risk sion, P.O. of developing BRD associ- Box 390, ated with Mannheimia Shawnee haemolytica, Pasteurella Mission, KS multocida, Histophilus somni 66201. and Mycoplasma bovis; and revising a food safety warn- ing statement.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55415
TABLE 1—ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL NADAS AND ANADAS APPROVED DURING JULY 2012—Continued
New animal NADA/ANADA Sponsor drug product Action 21 CFR section FOIA NEPA name summary review
200–482 ...... Cross AMPROMED Original approval as a generic 520.100 yes ...... CE 1 VetPharm for Calves copy of NADA 13–149. Group, Ltd., (amprolium) Broomhill 9.6% Oral Rd., Tallaght, Solution. Dublin 24, Ireland. 1 The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.33 that this action is categorically excluded (CE) from the requirement to submit an environ- mental assessment or an environmental impact statement because it is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant ef- fect on the human environment.
This rule does not meet the definition million tylvalosin in drinking water for non-lactating dairy cattle at high risk of of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because 5 consecutive days. developing BRD associated with M. it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’ (2) Indications for use. For the control haemolytica, P. multocida, H. somni Therefore, it is not subject to the of porcine proliferative enteropathy and M. bovis. (PPE) associated with Lawsonia congressional review requirements in 5 * * * * * U.S.C. 801–808. intracellularis infection in groups of swine in buildings experiencing an (iii) Limitations. Animals intended for List of Subjects outbreak of PPE. human consumption must not be 21 CFR Parts 520 and 522 (3) Limitations. Federal law restricts slaughtered within 28 days from the last Animal drugs. this drug to use by or on the order of treatment. This product is not approved a licensed veterinarian. for female dairy cattle 20 months of age 21 CFR Part 556 or older, including dry dairy cows. Use Animal drugs, Food. PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR in these cattle may cause drug residues INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW in milk and/or in calves born to these Therefore, under the Federal Food, ANIMAL DRUGS Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under cows. A withdrawal period has not been authority delegated to the Commissioner ■ 4. The authority citation for 21 CFR established for this product in of Food and Drugs and redelegated to part 522 continues to read as follows: preruminating calves. Do not use in the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 calves to be processed for veal. Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. CFR parts 520, 522, and 556 are * * * * * amended as follows: ■ 5. In 522.812, revise paragraphs (e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(ii)(A), and (e)(2)(iii) to PART 556—TOLERANCES FOR PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM read as follows: RESIDUES OF NEW ANIMAL DRUGS NEW ANIMAL DRUGS § 522.812 Enrofloxacin. IN FOOD ■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR * * * * * ■ part 520 continues to read as follows: (e) * * * 6. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 556 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. (2) * * * (i) Amount—(A) Single-dose therapy: ■ Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342, 360b, 371. 2. In § 520.100, revise paragraph (b)(4) For treatment of bovine respiratory to read as follows: disease (BRD), administer 7.5 to 12.5 ■ 7. Add § 556.748 to read as follows: § 520.100 Amprolium. mg/kg of body weight (3.4 to 5.7 mL per § 556.748 Tylvalosin. * * * * * 100 pounds (/100 lb)) once by (b) * * * subcutaneous injection. For control of (a) Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). The (4) No. 061623 for use of product BRD, administer 7.5 mg/kg of body ADI for total residues of tylvalosin is described in paragraph (a)(1) of this weight (3.4 mL/100 lb) once by 47.7 micrograms per kilogram of body section as in paragraph (d)(2); and for subcutaneous injection. weight per day. use of product described in paragraph (B) Multiple-day therapy: For (b) Tolerances. A tolerance for (a)(2) of this section as in paragraphs treatment of BRD, administer 2.5 to 5.0 tylvalosin in edible tissues of swine is mg/kg of body weight (1.1 to 2.3 mL/100 (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section. not required. * * * * * lb) by subcutaneous injection. Treatment should be repeated at 24- (c) Related conditions of use. See ■ 3. Add § 520.2645 to read as follows: hour intervals for 3 days. Additional § 520.2645 of this chapter. § 520.2645 Tylvalosin. treatments may be given on days 4 and Dated: September 5, 2012. (a) Specifications. Granules 5 to animals that have shown clinical Bernadette Dunham, improvement but not total recovery. containing 62.5 percent tylvalosin (w/w) Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. as tylvalosin tartrate. (ii) Indications for use—(A) Single- (b) Sponsor. See No. 066916 in dose therapy: For the treatment of BRD [FR Doc. 2012–22194 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] § 510.600(c) of this chapter. associated with Mannheimia BILLING CODE 4160–01–P (c) Related tolerances. See § 556.748 haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, of this chapter. Histophilus somni, and Mycoplasma (d) Conditions of use in swine—(1) bovis in beef and non-lactating dairy Amount. Administer 50 parts per cattle; for the control of BRD in beef and
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 55416 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND The US40–322 (Albany Avenue) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bridge, at NJICW mile 70.0 across Inside SECURITY Thoroughfare in Atlantic City, NJ has a Coast Guard vertical clearance in the closed position Coast Guard to vessels of 10 feet above mean high 33 CFR Part 117 water. 33 CFR Part 117 Under normal operating conditions [Docket No. USCG–2012–0829] [Docket No. USCG–2012–0831] the draw would open on signal, except Drawbridge Operation Regulations; that: Year-round, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Long Island, New York Inland and from November 1 through March 31 Inside Thoroughfare, New Jersey Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW), from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.; the draw need Shinnecock Canal, NY Atlantic City, NJ only open if at least four hours notice is given. From June 1 through AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. September 30, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., the draw need from regulations. from regulations. only open on the hour and half hour and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., the draw SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary Guard District, has issued a temporary need not open; and on the third or fourth Wednesday of August the draw deviation from the regulation governing deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Loop Parkway will open every two hours on the hour the operation of the US40–322 (Albany Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long Creek, and from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. and need not Avenue) Bridge, at NJICW mile 70.0, the Meadowbrook Parkway Bridge, mile across Inside Thoroughfare, in Atlantic open from 4 p.m. until 8 p.m. to 12.8, across Sloop Channel, at City, NJ. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the annual Air Show. Hempstead, New York. This deviation is facilitate the free movement of Under this temporary deviation to necessary to facilitate the 2012 March of contestants over the bridge during the facilitate the free movement of Dimes Motorcycle Run. The deviation 2012 Atlantic City Triathlon. This contestants during the 2012 Atlantic allows the two bridges listed above to deviation allows the draw span of the City Triathlon, the drawbridge will be remain in the closed position during bridge to remain closed-to-navigation closed to vessels requiring an opening this public event. during the event. from 8 a.m. until 12 p.m. (noon) on DATES: This deviation is effective from DATES: This deviation is effective from Saturday, September 15, 2012. 11 a.m. through 1 p.m. on September 15, 8 a.m. until 12 p.m. on September 15, The drawbridge will be able to open 2012. 2012. in the event of an emergency. Vessels ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in that can pass under the bridge without this preamble as being available in the this preamble as being available in the a bridge opening may do so at all times. docket are part of docket USCG–2012– docket are part of docket USCG–2012– Vessels with heights greater than 10 feet 0829 and are available online at 0831 and are available online by going would have to use an alternate route. www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting One alternate route is by way of the 2012–0829 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box and USCG–2012–0831 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ Atlantic Ocean. then clicking ‘‘Search’’. This material is box and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. This also available for inspection or copying material is also available for inspection The Coast Guard will inform the users at the Docket Management Facility (M– or copying at the Docket Management of the waterway through our Local and 30), U.S. Department of Transportation, Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the West Building Ground Floor, Room Transportation, West Building Ground closure periods for the bridge so that W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey vessels can arrange their transits to Washington, DC, 20590, between 9 a.m. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, minimize any impact caused by the and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday temporary deviation. except Federal holidays. through Friday, except Federal holidays. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If the drawbridge must return to its regular you have questions on this rule, call or you have questions on this rule, call or operating schedule immediately at the email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project email Terrance Knowles, Environmental end of the designated time period. This Officer, First Coast Guard District, Protection Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard deviation from the operating regulations telephone (212) 668–7165, judy.k.leung- District; telephone 757–398–6587, email is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. [email protected]. If you have questions on [email protected]. If you viewing the docket, call Renee V. have questions on viewing the docket, Dated: August 28, 2012. Wright, Program Manager, Docket call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, G.D. Case, Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Fifth Coast Guard SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Loop 9826. District. Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New [FR Doc. 2012–22158 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Creek has a vertical clearance in the Jersey Department of Transportation BILLING CODE 9110–04–P closed position of 21 feet at mean high owns and operates this bascule-type water and 25 feet at mean low water. drawbridge and has requested a The existing drawbridge operation temporary deviation from the current regulations are listed at 33 CFR operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.799(f). 117.733(f) to facilitate the free The Meadowbrook Parkway Bridge, movement of contestants over the bridge mile 12.8, across Sloop Channel has a during the 2012 Atlantic City Triathlon. vertical clearance in the closed position
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55417
of 22 feet at mean high water and 25 feet and their potential requests for an ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION at mean low water. The existing extension of the compliance date if they AGENCY drawbridge operation regulations are cannot practicably comply with the listed at 33 CFR 117.799(h). Long Creek compliance date otherwise applicable to 40 CFR Part 52 and Sloop Channel both are transited by their vessels. The June 13, 2012, [EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0436; FRL–9725–1] commercial fishing and recreational document announced that the request to vessel traffic. revise the existing collection of Approval and Promulgation of Air The owner of the two bridges, the information to add the new request for Quality Implementation Plans; West State of New York Department of an extension provision was approved by Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) Transportation, requested bridge the Office of Management and Budget Infrastructure Requirements for the closures to facilitate a public event, the (OMB) and may now be enforced. The 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 2012 March of Dimes Motorcycle Run. OMB control number is 1625–0069. The Standards Under this temporary deviation the Loop Parkway Bridge and the approval for this collection of AGENCY: Environmental Protection Meadowbrook Parkway Bridge may information expires on May 31, 2015. Agency (EPA). remain in the closed position between In the June 13, 2012, document, the ACTION: Final rule. 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on September 15, Coast Guard inadvertently failed to 2012, to facilitate a public event, the indicate that we received public SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 2012 March of Dimes Motorcycle Run. submissions to the BWDS Final Rule (77 Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. There are no alternate routes for FR 17254). The Coast Guard is now This SIP revision addresses the vessel traffic; however, vessels that can publishing a document to advise the pass under the closed draws during this infrastructure program elements public that we received four public specified in Clean Air Act (CAA) section closure may do so at any time. The submissions to this collection of bridges may be opened in the event of 110(a)(2) necessary to implement, information. As the four public maintain, and enforce the 2008 lead an emergency. submissions were not collection of In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), national ambient air quality standards information-related, we did not revise (NAAQS). the bridge must return to its regular our collection of information estimates. operating schedule immediately at the DATES: This final rule is effective on You may view copies of the public end of the designated time period. This October 10, 2012. submissions and the Coast Guard deviation from the operating regulations ADDRESSES: EPA has established a is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. responses to them in the BWDS docket online by going to http:// docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0436. All Dated: August 23, 2012. www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– documents in the docket are listed in Gary Kassof, 2001–10486 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard the www.regulations.gov Web site. then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ A corrected Although listed in the electronic docket, District. information collection request package [FR Doc. 2012–22162 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] some information is not publicly has been submitted to OMB for their available, i.e., confidential business BILLING CODE 9110–04–P review. The current 1625–0069 approval information (CBI) or other information by OMB is still effective. If OMB whose disclosure is restricted by statute. decides to amend the current 1625–0069 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Certain other material, such as SECURITY approval, a copy of that decision will be copyrighted material, is not placed on placed in the docket. the Internet and will be publicly Coast Guard FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If available only in hard copy form. you have questions about this Publicly available docket materials are 33 CFR Part 151 document, call or email Mr. John available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for Morris, Project Manager, U.S. Coast 46 CFR Part 162 public inspection during normal Guard; telephone 202–372–1402, email business hours at the Air Protection [Docket No. USCG–2001–10486] [email protected]. If Division, U.S. Environmental Protection RIN 1625–AA32 you have questions about viewing the Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, docket (USCG–2001–10486), call Ms. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Standards for Living Organisms in Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Copies of the State submittal are Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– available at the West Virginia U.S. Waters 9826. Department of Environmental AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Dated: September 4, 2012. Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, West ACTION: Rule; information collection Kathryn A. Sinniger, Virginia 25304. approval; Correction. Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUMMARY ´ : On June 13, 2012, the Coast [FR Doc. 2012–22240 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Emlyn Velez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or Guard published in the Federal Register by email at [email protected]. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P an announcement of effective date that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: announced an information collection Throughout this document, whenever approval for the Standards for Living ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water EPA. Discharged in U.S. Waters (BWDS) Final Rule (77 FR 35268). The rulemaking I. Background triggered new information collection Section 110(a) of the CAA requires requirements affecting vessel owners states to submit SIP revisions that
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 55418 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
provide for the implementation, to part C of Title I of the CAA, including not approved to apply in Indian country maintenance, and enforcement of new section 110(a)(2)(C), (D) and (J) of the located in the state, and EPA notes that or revised NAAQS within three years CAA. See 77 FR 45302 (July 31, 2012). it will not impose substantial direct following the promulgation of such costs on tribal governments or preempt IV. Statutory and Executive Order NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA tribal law. Reviews directs all states to develop and maintain an air quality management A. General Requirements B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General infrastructure that includes enforceable Under the CAA, the Administrator is emission limitations, an ambient required to approve a SIP submission The Congressional Review Act, 5 monitoring program, an enforcement that complies with the provisions of the U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small program, air quality modeling CAA and applicable Federal regulations. Business Regulatory Enforcement capabilities, and adequate personnel, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides resources, and legal authority. On July 3, 2012 (77 FR 39458), EPA Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, that before a rule may take effect, the published a notice of proposed EPA’s role is to approve state choices, agency promulgating the rule must rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West provided that they meet the criteria of submit a rule report, which includes a Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed the CAA. Accordingly, this action copy of the rule, to each House of the approval of West Virginia’s submittal merely approves state law as meeting Congress and to the Comptroller General which provides the basic program Federal requirements and does not of the United States. EPA will submit a elements specified in CAA section impose additional requirements beyond report containing this action and other 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), those imposed by state law. For that required information to the U.S. Senate, reason, this action: the U.S. House of Representatives, and (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions • thereof, necessary to implement, Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory the Comptroller General of the United maintain, and enforce the 2008 lead action’’ subject to review by the Office States prior to publication of the rule in NAAQS. The formal SIP revision was of Management and Budget under the Federal Register. A major rule submitted by West Virginia on October Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, cannot take effect until 60 days after it October 4, 1993); is published in the Federal Register. 26, 2011. • Does not impose an information This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as II. Summary of SIP Revision collection burden under the provisions defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The SIP revision addresses the of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 infrastructure elements specified in U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); C. Petitions for Judicial Review CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, for the implementation, maintenance petitions for judicial review of this and enforcement of the 2008 lead substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 action must be filed in the United States NAAQS in West Virginia. Specifically, Court of Appeals for the appropriate West Virginia’s submittal addressed the U.S.C. 601 et seq.); circuit by November 9, 2012. Filing a following infrastructure elements in • Does not contain any unfunded petition for reconsideration by the CAA section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D), mandate or significantly or uniquely Administrator of this final rule does not (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). affect small governments, as described affect the finality of this action for the Specific requirements of section in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act purposes of judicial review nor does it 110(a)(2) as well as the rationale of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • extend the time within which a petition supporting EPA’s proposed action are Does not have Federalism for judicial review may be filed, and explained in the NPR and the technical implications as specified in Executive shall not postpone the effectiveness of support document and will not be Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, such rule or action. This action, which restated here. No public comments were 1999); • received on the NPR. Is not an economically significant approves the CAA section 110(a)(2) regulatory action based on health or infrastructure requirements of West III. Final Action safety risks subject to Executive Order Virginia for the 2008 lead NAAQS, may EPA is approving West Virginia’s SIP 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); not be challenged later in proceedings to revision regarding the infrastructure • Is not a significant regulatory action enforce its requirements. (See section program elements specified in CAA subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 307(b)(2).) 28355, May 22, 2001); section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52 (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or • Is not subject to requirements of portions thereof, necessary to Section 12(d) of the National Environmental protection, Air implement, maintain, and enforce the Technology Transfer and Advancement pollution control, Incorporation by 2008 lead NAAQS. This action does not Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because reference, Reporting and recordkeeping include approval of portions of CAA application of those requirements would requirements. section 110(a)(2)(C), and 110(a)(2)(I) in be inconsistent with the CAA; and its entirety, which pertain to the • Does not provide EPA with the Dated: August 23, 2012. nonattainment requirements of part D, discretionary authority to address, as W.C. Early, Title I of the CAA. These two elements, appropriate, disproportionate human Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. and portions thereof, are not required to health or environmental effects, using be submitted by the 3-year submission practicable and legally permissible 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1), and methods, under Executive Order 12898 PART 52—[AMENDED] thus will be addressed in a separate (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). process. Additionally, EPA is taking In addition, this rule does not have ■ separate action on the portions of CAA tribal implications as specified by 1. The authority citation for part 52 section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, continues to read as follows: for the 2008 lead NAAQS as they relate November 9, 2000), because the SIP is Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55419
Subpart XX—West Virginia end of the table for Section 110(a)(2) § 52.2520 Identification of plan. Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 * * * * * ■ 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph Lead NAAQS to read as follows: (e) is amended by adding entries at the (e) * * *
Applicable geographic or State Name of non-regulatory SIP revision nonattainment submittal EPA approval date Additional explanation area date
******* Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Re- Statewide ...... 10/26/11 .. 9/10/12 [Insert Federal Register This action addresses the following quirements for the 2008 Lead page number where the docu- CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), NAAQS. ment begins and date]. (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof.
[FR Doc. 2012–22084 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] business hours at the Air Protection III. Final Action BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Division, U.S. Environmental Protection EPA is approving Delaware’s Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, submittal which provides the basic Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. program elements specified in section ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Copies of the State submittal are 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), AGENCY available at the Delaware Department of (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA, or Natural Resources and Environmental 40 CFR Part 52 portions thereof, necessary to Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box implement, maintain, and enforce the [EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0376; FRL–9725–3] 1401, Dover, Delaware 19903. 2008 lead NAAQS, as a revision to the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Delaware SIP. This action is being taken Approval and Promulgation of Air under section 110 of the CAA. This Quality Implementation Plans; Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at [email protected]. action does not include the sections, or Delaware; Section 110(a)(2) portions thereof, of 110(a)(2)(C) and Infrastructure Requirements for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertain to 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality the nonattainment requirements of part I. Background Standards D, Title I of the CAA, since these two AGENCY: Environmental Protection Throughout this document, whenever elements are not required to be Agency (EPA). ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean submitted by the 3-year submission ACTION: Final rule. EPA. On July 3, 2012 (77 FR 39456), deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1), and EPA published a notice of proposed will be addressed in a separate process. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Additionally, EPA is taking separate Implementation Plan (SIP) revision Delaware. The NPR proposed approval action on the portions of CAA section submitted by the State of Delaware. The of Delaware’s submittal that provides 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the SIP revision addresses the infrastructure the basic elements specified in section 2008 lead NAAQS as they relate to elements specified in section 110(a)(2) 110(a)(2) of the CAA, or portions Delaware’s Prevention of Significant of the Clean Air Act (CAA), necessary to thereof, necessary to implement, Deterioration (PSD) program, as implement, maintain, and enforce the maintain, and enforce the 2008 lead required by part C of Title I of the CAA 2008 lead national ambient air quality NAAQS. which include the following standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving infrastructure elements: CAA section this SIP revision in accordance with the II. Summary of SIP Revision 110(a)(2)(C), (D) and (J). See 77 FR requirements of the CAA. 45527 (August 1, 2012). On October 17, 2011, the Delaware DATES: This final rule is effective on IV. Statutory and Executive Order October 10, 2012. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control submitted a SIP Reviews ADDRESSES: EPA has established a revision that addresses the docket for this action under Docket ID A. General Requirements infrastructure elements specified in Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0376. All Under the CAA, the Administrator is section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, necessary documents in the docket are listed in required to approve a SIP submission to implement, maintain and enforce the the www.regulations.gov Web site. that complies with the provisions of the 2008 lead NAAQS. This submittal Although listed in the electronic docket, CAA and applicable Federal regulations. addressed the following infrastructure some information is not publicly 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), available, i.e., confidential business Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L), information (CBI) or other information EPA’s role is to approve state choices, and (M). whose disclosure is restricted by statute. provided that they meet the criteria of Certain other material, such as Specific requirements of section the CAA. Accordingly, this action copyrighted material, is not placed on 110(a)(2) of the CAA and the rationale merely approves state law as meeting the Internet and will be publicly for EPA’s proposed action to approve Federal requirements and does not available only in hard copy form. the SIP submittal are explained in the impose additional requirements beyond Publicly available docket materials are NPR and the technical support those imposed by state law. For that available either electronically through document (TSD) and will not be restated reason, this action: www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for here. No public comments were • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory public inspection during normal received on the NPR. action’’ subject to review by the Office
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 55420 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
of Management and Budget under In addition, this rule does not have affect the finality of this action for the Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, tribal implications as specified by purposes of judicial review nor does it October 4, 1993); Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, extend the time within which a petition • Does not impose an information November 9, 2000), because the SIP is for judicial review may be filed, and collection burden under the provisions not approved to apply in Indian country shall not postpone the effectiveness of of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 located in the state, and EPA notes that such rule or action. U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); it will not impose substantial direct This action pertaining to Delaware’s • Is certified as not having a costs on tribal governments or preempt section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements significant economic impact on a tribal law. for the 2008 lead NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to substantial number of small entities B. Submission to Congress and the enforce its requirements. (See section under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Comptroller General U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 307(b)(2).) • Does not contain any unfunded The Congressional Review Act, 5 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 mandate or significantly or uniquely U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small affect small governments, as described Business Regulatory Enforcement Environmental protection, Air in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides pollution control, Incorporation by of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); that before a rule may take effect, the reference, Lead, Reporting and • Does not have Federalism agency promulgating the rule must recordkeeping requirements. implications as specified in Executive submit a rule report, which includes a Dated: August 23, 2012. Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, copy of the rule, to each House of the W. C. Early, 1999); Congress and to the Comptroller General Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. • Is not an economically significant of the United States. EPA will submit a regulatory action based on health or report containing this action and other 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: safety risks subject to Executive Order required information to the U.S. Senate, PART 52—[AMENDED] 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); the U.S. House of Representatives, and • Is not a significant regulatory action the Comptroller General of the United ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR States prior to publication of the rule in continues to read as follows: 28355, May 22, 2001); the Federal Register. A major rule • Is not subject to requirements of cannot take effect until 60 days after it Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. is published in the Federal Register. Section 12(d) of the National Subpart I—Delaware Technology Transfer and Advancement This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). ■ 2. In § 52.420, the table in paragraph application of those requirements would C. Petitions for Judicial Review (e) is amended by adding an entry at the be inconsistent with the CAA; and end of the table for Delaware’s Section • Does not provide EPA with the Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements discretionary authority to address, as petitions for judicial review of this for the 2008 Lead NAAQS to read as appropriate, disproportionate human action must be filed in the United States follows: health or environmental effects, using Court of Appeals for the appropriate practicable and legally permissible circuit by November 9, 2012. Filing a § 52.420 Identification of plan. methods, under Executive Order 12898 petition for reconsideration by the * * * * * (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Administrator of this final rule does not (e) * * *
Applicable geo- Name of non-regulatory SIP graphic or non- State submittal EPA approval date Additional explanation revision attainment area date
******* Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Statewide ...... 10/17/12 9/10/12 [Insert Federal Register This action addresses the fol- Requirements for the 2008 Lead page number where the docu- lowing CAA elements: NAAQS.. ment begins and date]. 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) or portions thereof.
[FR Doc. 2012–22086 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ACTION: Final rule. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Bureau of Land Management SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 43 CFR Part 3000 mineral resources regulations to update some fees that cover the BLM’s cost of [L13100000 PP0000 LLWO310000; L1990000 PO0000 LLWO320000] processing certain documents relating to its minerals programs and some filing RIN 1004–AE29 fees for mineral-related documents. These updated fees include those for Minerals Management: Adjustment of actions such as lease renewals and Cost Recovery Fees mineral patent adjudications. AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, DATES: This final rule is effective Interior. October 1, 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55421
ADDRESSES: You may send inquiries or adjust fees established in Subchapter C from the 4th Quarter of one calendar suggestions to Director (630), Bureau of according to changes in the Implicit year to the 4th Quarter of the following Land Management, 2134LM, 1849 C Price Deflator for Gross Domestic calendar year. This fee update rule is Street NW., Washington, DC, 20240; Product (IPD–GDP), which is published based on the change in the IPD–GDP Attention: RIN 1004–AE29. quarterly by the U.S. Department of from the 4th Quarter of 2010 to the 4th FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commerce. See also 43 CFR 3000.10. Quarter of 2011, thus reflecting the rate Steven Wells, Chief, Division of Fluid This final rule will allow the BLM to of inflation over four calendar quarters. update these fees and service charges by Minerals, 202–912–7143, or Faith The fee is calculated by applying the Bremner, Regulatory Affairs Analyst, October 1 of this year, as required by the IPD–GDP to the base value from the 202–912–7441. Persons who use a 2005 regulation. The fee recalculations previous year’s rule, also known as the telecommunications device for the deaf are based on a mathematical formula. (TDD) may leave a message for these The public had an opportunity to ‘‘existing value.’’ This calculation individuals with the Federal comment on this procedure during the results in an updated base value. The Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– comment period on the original cost updated base value is then rounded to 800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days recovery rule, and this new rule simply the closest multiple of $5, or to the a week. administers the procedure set forth in nearest cent for fees under $1, to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: those regulations. Therefore, the BLM establish the new fee. has changed the fees in this final rule Under this rule, 31 fees will remain I. Background without providing opportunity for the same and 17 fees will increase. The BLM has specific authority to additional notice and comment. The Seven of the fee increases will amount charge fees for processing applications Department of the Interior, therefore, for to $5 each. The largest increase, $65, and other documents relating to public good cause finds under 5 U.S.C. will be applied to the fee for lands under Section 304 of the Federal 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) that notice and adjudicating a mineral patent Land Policy and Management Act of public comment procedures are application containing more than 10 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1734. In 2005, unnecessary and that the rule may be claims, which will increase from $2,875 the BLM published a final cost recovery effective less than 30 days after to $2,940. The fee for adjudicating a rule (70 FR 58854) establishing or publication. patent application containing 10 or revising certain fees and service charges, fewer claims will increase by $30—from and establishing the method it would II. Discussion of Final Rule $1,440 to $1,470. use to adjust those fees and service The BLM publishes a fee update rule charges on an annual basis. each year, which becomes effective on The calculations that resulted in the At 43 CFR 3000.12(a), the regulations October 1 of that year. The fee updates new fees are included in the table provide that the BLM will annually are based on the change in the IPD–GDP below:
FIXED COST RECOVERY FEES FY13
Existing IPD–GDP Document/Action Existing fee 1 New value 4 New fee 5 value 2 increase 3
Oil & Gas (parts 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, 3150)
Noncompetitive lease application ...... $380 $382.32 $8.33 $390.65 $390 Competitive lease application ...... 150 148.37 3.23 151.60 150 Assignment and transfer of record title or operating rights 85 85.59 1.87 87.46 85 Overriding royalty transfer, payment out of production ...... 10 11.41 0.25 11.66 10 Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devi- see ...... 200 199.71 4.35 204.06 205 Lease consolidation ...... 420 422.25 9.21 431.46 430 Lease renewal or exchange ...... 380 382.32 8.33 390.65 390 Lease reinstatement, Class I ...... 75 74.17 1.62 75.79 75 Leasing under right-of-way ...... 380 382.32 8.33 390.65 390 Geophysical exploration permit application—Alaska ...... 25 ...... 6 25 Renewal of exploration permit—Alaska ...... 25 ...... 7 25
Geothermal (part 3200)
Noncompetitive lease application ...... 380 382.32 8.33 390.65 390 Competitive lease application ...... 150 148.37 3.23 151.60 150 Assignment and transfer of record title or operating rights 85 85.59 1.87 87.46 85 Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devi- see ...... 200 199.71 4.35 204.06 205 Lease consolidation ...... 420 422.25 9.21 431.46 430 Lease reinstatement ...... 75 74.17 1.62 75.79 75 Nomination of lands ...... 105 106.82 2.33 109.15 110 plus per acre nomination fee ...... 0.11 0.10682 0.00233 0.10915 0.11 Site license application ...... 55 57.06 1.24 58.30 60 Assignment or transfer of site license ...... 55 57.06 1.24 58.30 60
Coal (parts 3400, 3470)
License to mine application ...... 10 11.41 0.25 11.66 10 Exploration license application ...... 315 313.84 6.84 320.68 320
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 55422 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
FIXED COST RECOVERY FEES FY13—Continued
Existing IPD–GDP Document/Action Existing fee 1 New value 4 New fee 5 value 2 increase 3
Lease or lease interest transfer ...... 65 62.78 1.37 64.15 65
Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale (parts 3500, 3580)
Applications other than those listed below ...... 35 34.24 0.75 34.99 35 Prospecting permit application amendment ...... 65 62.78 1.37 64.15 65 Extension of prospecting permit ...... 105 102.71 2.24 104.95 105 Lease modification or fringe acreage lease ...... 30 28.54 0.62 29.16 30 Lease renewal ...... 490 490.74 10.70 501.44 500 Assignment, sublease, or transfer of operating rights ...... 30 28.54 0.62 29.16 30 Transfer of overriding royalty ...... 30 28.54 0.62 29.16 30 Use permit ...... 30 28.54 0.62 29.16 30 Shasta and Trinity hardrock mineral lease ...... 30 28.54 0.62 29.16 30 Renewal of existing sand and gravel lease in Nevada ...... 30 28.54 0.62 29.16 30
Multiple Use; Mining (part 3700)
Notice of protest of placer mining operations ...... 10 11.41 0.25 11.66 10
Mining Law Administration (parts 3800, 3810, 3830, 3850, 3860, 3870)
Application to open lands to location ...... 10 11.41 0.25 11.66 10 Notice of location ...... 15 17.11 0.37 17.48 15 Amendment of location ...... 10 11.41 0.25 11.66 10 Transfer of mining claim/site ...... 10 11.41 0.25 11.66 10 Recording an annual FLPMA filing ...... 10 11.41 0.25 11.66 10 Deferment of assessment work ...... 105 102.71 2.24 104.95 105 Recording a notice of intent to locate mining claims on Stockraising Homestead Act lands ...... 30 28.54 0.62 29.16 30 Mineral patent adjudication (more than 10 claims) ...... 2,875 2,875.95 62.70 2,938.65 2,940 (10 or fewer claims) ...... 1,440 1,437.96 31.35 1,469.31 1,470 Adverse claim ...... 105 102.71 2.24 104.95 105 Protest ...... 65 62.78 1.37 64.15 65
Oil Shale Management (parts 3900, 3910, 3930)
Exploration license application ...... 300 301.02 6.56 307.58 310 Application for assignment or sublease of record title or overriding royalty ...... 60 61.23 1.33 62.56 65 1 The Existing Fee was established by the 2011 (Fiscal Year 2012) cost recovery fee update rule published September 23, 2011 (76 FR 59058), effective October 1, 2011. 2 The Existing Value is the figure from the New Value column in the previous year’s rule. 3 From 4th Quarter 2010 to 4th Quarter 2011, the IPD–GDP increased by 2.18 percent. The value in the IPD–GDP Increase column is 2.18 percent of the Existing Value. 4 The sum of the Existing Value and the IPD–GDP Increase is the New Value. 5 The New Fee for Fiscal Year 2013 is the New Value rounded to the nearest $5 for values equal to or greater than $1, or to the nearest penny for values under $1. 6 Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–58) directed in subsection (i) that ‘‘the Secretary shall not implement a rulemaking that would enable an increase in fees to recover additional costs related to processing drilling-related permit applications and use authorizations.’’ In the 2005 cost recovery rule, the BLM interpreted this prohibition to apply to geophysical exploration permits. 70 FR 58854–58855. While the $25 fees for geophysical exploration permit applications for Alaska and renewals of exploration permits for Alaska pre-dated the 2005 cost recov- ery rule and were not affected by the Energy Policy Act prohibition, the BLM interprets the Energy Policy Act provision as prohibiting it from in- creasing this $25 fee. 7 The BLM interprets the Energy Policy Act prohibition discussed in footnote 6, above, as prohibiting it from increasing this $25 fee, as well. Source for Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product data: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (April 27, 2012).
III. How Fees Are Adjusted year, the Existing Value is the same as the New Value for this year, which is the Existing Fee. Because the new fees then rounded to the nearest $5 or the Each year, the figures in the Existing are derived from the new values— nearest penny for fees under $1, to Value column in the table above (not rounded to the nearest $5 or the nearest establish the New Fee. those in the Existing Fee column) are penny for fees under $1—adjustments used as the basis for calculating the based on the figures in the Existing Fee IV. Procedural Matters adjustment to these fees. The Existing column would lead to significantly Regulatory Planning and Review Value is the figure from the New Value over- or under-valued fees over time. (Executive Order 12866) column in the previous year’s rule. In Accordingly, fee adjustments are made the case of fees that were not in the table by multiplying the annual change in the This document is not a significant the previous year, or that had no figure IPD–GDP by the figure in the Existing rule and the Office of Management and in the New Value column the previous Value column. This calculation defines
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55423
Budget has not reviewed this rule under employees. The SBA defines a small Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 12866. entity differently, however, for leasing The BLM has determined that the rule Federal land for coal mining. A coal This final rule will not have a will not have an annual effect on the lessee is a small entity if it employs not substantial direct effect on the States, on economy of $100 million or more. It will more than 250 people, including people the relationship between the national not adversely affect in a material way working for its affiliates. government and the States, or on the the economy, a sector of the economy, distribution of power and The SBA would consider many, if not productivity, competition, jobs, the responsibilities among the various most, of the operators the BLM works environment, public health or safety, or levels of government. In accordance with in the onshore minerals programs State, local, or tribal governments or with Executive Order 13132, therefore, communities. The changes in today’s to be small entities. The BLM notes that we find that the final rule does not have rule are much smaller than those in the this final rule does not affect service significant federalism effects. A 2005 final rule, which did not approach industries, for which the SBA has a federalism assessment is not required. different definition of ‘‘small entity.’’ the threshold in Executive Order 12866. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 For instructions on how to view a copy The final rule may affect a large of the analysis prepared in conjunction number of small entities since 17 fees These regulations contain information with the 2005 final rule, please contact for activities on public lands will be collection requirements. As required by one of the persons listed in the FOR increased. However, the BLM has the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section concluded that the effects will not be (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the BLM above. significant. Most of the fixed fee submitted a copy of the proposed This rule will not create increases will be less than 3 percent as information collection requirements to inconsistencies or otherwise interfere a result of this final rule. The the Office of Management and Budget with an action taken or planned by adjustments result in no increase in the (OMB) for review. The OMB approved another agency. This rule does not fee for the processing of 31 documents the information collection requirements change the relationships of the onshore relating to the BLM’s minerals under the following Control Numbers: minerals programs with other agencies’ programs. The highest adjustment, in Oil and Gas actions. These relationships are dollar terms, is for adjudications of included in agreements and memoranda mineral patent applications involving (1) 1004–0034 which expires July 31, of understanding that would not change more than 10 mining claims, which will 2015; with this rule. be increased by $65. For the 2005 final (2) 1004–0137 which expires October In addition, this final rule does not rule, the BLM completed a threshold 31, 2014; materially affect the budgetary impact of analysis, which is available for public entitlements, grants, or loan programs, (3) 1004–0162 which expires July 31, review in the administrative record for 2015; or the rights and obligations of their that rule. For instructions on how to recipients. This rule does apply an view a copy of that analysis, please (4) 1004–0185 which expires inflation factor that increases some contact one of the persons listed in the November 30, 2012; existing user fees for processing FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Geothermal documents associated with the onshore section above. The analysis for the 2005 minerals programs. However, most of rule concluded that the fees would not (5) 1004–0132 which expires these fee increases are less than 3 have a significant economic effect on a December 31, 2013; percent and none of the increases substantial number of small entities. Coal materially affect the budgetary impact of The fee increases implemented in user fees. today’s rule are substantially smaller (6) 1004–0073 which expires June 30, Finally, this rule will not raise novel than those provided for in the 2005 rule. 2013; legal issues. As explained above, this rule simply implements an annual The Small Business Regulatory Mining Claims process to account for inflation that was Enforcement Fairness Act (7) 1004–0025 which expires March adopted by and explained in the 2005 31, 2013; cost recovery rule. This final rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final (8) 1004–0114 which expires August The Regulatory Flexibility Act rule will not have an annual effect on 31, 2013; and This final rule will not have a the economy greater than $100 million; Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than significant economic effect on a it will not result in major cost or price Oil Shale substantial number of small entities as increases for consumers, industries, defined under the Regulatory Flexibility government agencies, or regions; and it (9) 1004–0121 which expires February Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A Regulatory will not have significant adverse effects 28, 2013. Flexibility Analysis is not required. on competition, employment, Takings Implication Assessment Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance investment, productivity, innovation, or (Executive Order 12630) Guide is not required. For the purposes the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to of this section, a small entity is defined compete with foreign-based enterprises. As required by Executive Order by the Small Business Administration For the 2005 final rule, which 12630, the BLM has determined that (SBA) for mining (broadly inclusive of established the fee adjustment this rule will not cause a taking of metal mining, coal mining, oil and gas procedure that this rule implements, the private property. No private property extraction, and the mining and BLM completed a threshold analysis, rights will be affected by a rule that quarrying of nonmetallic minerals) as an which is available for public review in merely updates fees. The BLM therefore individual, limited partnership, or small the administrative record for that rule. certifies that this final rule does not company considered to be at arm’s The fee increases implemented in represent a governmental action capable length from the control of any parent today’s rule are substantially smaller of interference with constitutionally companies, with fewer than 500 than those provided for in the 2005 rule. protected property rights.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 55424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Land 12988) 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., because it Management. will not result in State, local, private In accordance with Executive Order List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3000 12988, the BLM finds that this final rule sector, or tribal government will not unduly burden the judicial expenditures of $100 million or more in Public lands—mineral resources, system and meets the requirements of any one year, 2 U.S.C. 1532. This rule Reporting and recordkeeping sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive will not significantly or uniquely affect requirements. Order. small governments. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement Marcilynn A. Burke, The National Environmental Policy Act containing the information required by Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and (NEPA) the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Minerals Management. The BLM has determined that this Consultation and Coordination With final rule is administrative and involves For reasons stated in the preamble, Indian Tribal Governments (Executive only procedural changes addressing fee the Bureau of Land Management Order 13175) requirements. In promulgating this rule, amends 43 CFR Chapter II as follows: the government is conducting routine In accordance with Executive Order and continuing government business of 13175, the BLM has determined that PART 3000—MINERALS an administrative nature having limited this final rule does not include policies MANAGEMENT: GENERAL context and intensity. Therefore, it is that have tribal implications. A key categorically excluded from factor is whether the rule would have ■ 1. The authority citation for part 3000 environmental review under section substantial direct effects on one or more continues to read as follows: 102(2)(C) of NEPA, pursuant to 43 CFR Indian tribes. The BLM has not found Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 46.205 and 46.210(c) and (i). The final any substantial direct effects. U.S.C. 181 et seq., 301–306, 351–359, and rule does not meet any of the 12 criteria Consequently, the BLM did not utilize 601 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 40 U.S.C. 471 et for exceptions to categorical exclusions the consultation process set forth in seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6508; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; listed at 43 CFR 46.215. Section 5 of the Executive Order. and Pub. L. 97–35, 95 Stat. 357. Pursuant to Council on Information Quality Act Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation Subpart 3000—General and the environmental policies and In developing this rule, the BLM did procedures of the Department of the not conduct or use a study, experiment, ■ 2. Amend § 3000.12 by revising Interior, the term ‘‘categorical or survey requiring peer review under paragraph (a) to read as follows: exclusions’’ means categories of actions the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. ‘‘which do not individually or 106–554). § 3000.12 What is the fee schedule for cumulatively have a significant effect on fixed fees? Effects on the Nation’s Energy Supply the human environment and which (Executive Order 13211) (a) The table in this section shows the have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal In accordance with Executive Order fixed fees that you must pay to the BLM agency in implementation of [CEQ] 13211, the BLM has determined that for the services listed for Fiscal Year regulations (§ 1507.3) and for which, this final rule is not likely to have a 2013. These fees are nonrefundable and therefore, neither an environmental significant adverse effect on the supply, must be included with documents you assessment nor an environmental distribution, or use of energy. The file under this chapter. Fees will be impact statement is required.’’ 40 CFR distribution of or use of energy would adjusted annually according to the 1508.4; see also BLM National not be unduly affected by this final rule. change in the Implicit Price Deflator for Environmental Policy Act Handbook H– It merely adjusts certain administrative Gross Domestic Product (IPD–GDP) by 1790–1, Ch. 4, at 17 (Jan. 2008). cost recovery fees to account for way of publication of a final rule in the inflation. Federal Register and will subsequently The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of be posted on the BLM Web site 1995 Author (http://www.blm.gov) before October 1 The BLM has determined that this The principal author of this rule is each year. Revised fees are effective final rule is not significant under the Faith Bremner of the Division of each year on October 1.
FY 2013 PROCESSING AND FILING FEE TABLE
Document/action FY 2013 fee
Oil & Gas (parts 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, 3150)
Noncompetitive lease application ...... $390 Competitive lease application ...... 150 Assignment and transfer of record title or operating rights ...... 85 Overriding royalty transfer, payment out of production ...... 10 Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devisee ...... 205 Lease consolidation ...... 430 Lease renewal or exchange ...... 390 Lease reinstatement, Class I ...... 75 Leasing under right-of-way ...... 390 Geophysical exploration permit application—Alaska ...... 25 Renewal of exploration permit—Alaska ...... 25
VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:46 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55425
FY 2013 PROCESSING AND FILING FEE TABLE—Continued
Document/action FY 2013 fee
Geothermal (part 3200)
Noncompetitive lease application ...... 390 Competitive lease application ...... 150 Assignment and transfer of record title or operating rights ...... 85 Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devisee ...... 205 Lease consolidation ...... 430 Lease reinstatement ...... 75 Nomination of lands ...... 110 plus per acre nomination fee ...... 0.11 Site license application ...... 60 Assignment or transfer of site license ...... 60
Coal (parts 3400, 3470)
License to mine application ...... 10 Exploration license application ...... 320 Lease or lease interest transfer ...... 65
Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale (parts 3500, 3580)
Applications other than those listed below ...... 35 Prospecting permit application amendment ...... 65 Extension of prospecting permit ...... 105 Lease modification or fringe acreage lease ...... 30 Lease renewal ...... 500 Assignment, sublease, or transfer of operating rights ...... 30 Transfer of overriding royalty ...... 30 Use permit ...... 30 Shasta and Trinity hardrock mineral lease ...... 30 Renewal of existing sand and gravel lease in Nevada ...... 30
Multiple Use; Mining (part 3730)
Notice of protest of placer mining operations ...... 10
Mining Law Administration (parts 3800, 3810, 3830, 3850, 3860, 3870)
Application to open lands to location ...... 10 Notice of location * ...... 15 Amendment of location ...... 10 Transfer of mining claim/site ...... 10 Recording an annual FLPMA filing ...... 10 Deferment of assessment work ...... 105 Recording a notice of intent to locate mining claims on Stockraising Homestead Act lands ...... 30 Mineral patent adjudication ...... 2,940 (more than 10 claims) 1,470 (10 or fewer claims) Adverse claim ...... 105 Protest ...... 65
Oil Shale Management (parts 3900, 3910, 3930)
Exploration license application ...... 310 Application for assignment or sublease of record title or overriding royalty ...... 65 * To record a mining claim or site location, you must pay this processing fee along with the initial maintenance fee and the one-time location fee required by statute. 43 CFR part 3833.
* * * * * [FR Doc. 2012–22217 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:54 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 55426 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Electronic Submissions: Submit all comments will be accepted in Microsoft electronic public comments via the Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// PDF file formats only. Administration www.regulations.gov. To submit FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, Peggy Mundy at 206–526–4323. 50 CFR Part 660 first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: then enter NOAA–NMFS–2012–0079 in [Docket No. 120424023–1023–01] the keyword search. Locate the Background document you wish to comment on In the 2012 annual management RIN 0648–XC121 from the resulting list and click on the measures for ocean salmon fisheries (77 ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right Fisheries Off West Coast States; of that line. FR 25915, May 2, 2012), NMFS Modifications of the West Coast • Mail: William W. Stelle, Jr., announced the commercial and Commercial and Recreational Salmon Regional Administrator, Northwest recreational fisheries in the area from Fisheries; Inseason Actions #4 Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way the U.S./Canada Border to the U.S./ through #14 NE., Seattle, WA, 98115–6349. Mexico Border, beginning May 1, 2012, • Fax: 206–526–6736, Attn: Peggy and 2013 salmon seasons opening AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Mundy. earlier than May 1, 2013. Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Instructions: Comments must be NMFS is authorized to implement Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), submitted by one of the above methods inseason management actions to modify Commerce. to ensure that the comments are fishing seasons and quotas as necessary ACTION: Modification of fishing seasons received, documented, and considered to provide fishing opportunity while and landing and possession limits; by NMFS. Comments sent by any other meeting management objectives for the request for comments. method, to any other address or affected species (50 CFR 660.409). Prior individual, or received after the end of to taking inseason action, the Regional SUMMARY: NOAA Fisheries announces the comment period, may not be Administrator (RA) consults with the 11 inseason actions in the ocean salmon considered. All comments received are Chairman of the Pacific Fishery fisheries. These inseason actions a part of the public record and will Management Council (Council) and the modified the commercial and generally be posted for public viewing appropriate State Directors (50 CFR recreational fisheries in the area from on http://www.regulations.gov without 660.409(b)(1)). the U.S./Canada Border to the Oregon/ change. All personal identifying Management of the salmon fisheries is California Border. information (e.g., name, address, etc.) generally divided into two geographic DATES: The effective dates for the submitted voluntarily by the sender will areas: north of Cape Falcon (U.S./ inseason action are set out in this be publicly accessible. Do not submit Canada Border to Cape Falcon, Oregon) document under the heading Inseason confidential business information or and south of Cape Falcon (Cape Falcon, Actions. Comments will be accepted otherwise sensitive or protected Oregon to the U.S./Mexico Border). through September 25, 2012. information. NMFS will accept Inseason Actions ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, anonymous comments (enter N/A in the identified by NOAA–NMFS–2012–0079, required fields if you wish to remain The table below lists the inseason by any one of the following methods: anonymous). Attachments to electronic actions announced in this document.
Inseason action number Effective date Salmon fishery affected
4 ...... June 20, 2012 ...... Commercial fishery from U.S./Canada Border to Cape Falcon, Oregon. 5 ...... July 16, 2012 ...... Recreational fishery from U.S./Canada Border to Cape Alava, Washington (Neah Bay subarea). 6 ...... July 20, 2012 ...... Commercial fishery from U.S./Canada Border to Cape Falcon, Oregon. 7 ...... August 3, 2012 ...... Recreational fishery from Queets River, Washington to Leadbetter Point, Washington (Westport subarea). 8 ...... July 27, 2012 ...... Commercial fishery from U.S./Canada Border to Cape Falcon, Oregon. 9 ...... August 3, 2012 ...... Commercial fishery from U.S./Canada Border to Cape Falcon, Oregon. 10 ...... August 6, 2012 ...... Commercial fishery from Humbug Mountain, Oregon to Oregon/California Bor- der (Oregon Klamath Management Zone—KMZ). 11 ...... August 17, 2012 ...... Commercial fishery from U.S./Canada Border to Cape Falcon, Oregon. 12 ...... August 24, 2012 ...... Commercial fishery from U.S./Canada Border to Cape Falcon, Oregon. 13 ...... August 17, 2012 ...... Recreational fishery from Queets River, Washington to Leadbetter Point, Washington (Westport subarea) and from U.S./Canada Border to Cape Alava (Neah Bay subarea). 14 ...... August 27, 2012 ...... Recreational fishery from Leadbetter Point, Washington to Cape Falcon, Or- egon (Columbia River subarea).
Inseason Action #4 information considered during this Oregon at 11:59 p.m. (midnight) on June consultation related to catch and effort 20, 2012 with a requirement that all The RA consulted with to date in the commercial salmon salmon be landed within 24 hours of the representatives of the Council, fishery north of Cape Falcon. closure. The fishery reopened for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Oregon Inseason action #4 closed the period June 22, 2012 through June 29, Department of Fish and Wildlife commercial salmon fishery from the 2012, with a landing limit of 35 Chinook (ODFW) on June 19, 2012. The U.S./Canada Border to Cape Falcon, salmon per vessel for that period and a
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:54 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55427
requirement that all salmon be landed Council staff were not available to effect on August 17, 2012. Modification within 24 hours of the closure. This participate in the consultation, but of recreational bag limits is authorized action was taken to prevent exceeding NMFS subsequently consulted with by 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(iii). the Chinook salmon quota in the them and they agreed with the action Inseason Actions #6, #8, #9, and #11 commercial fishery north of Cape taken. ODFW did not participate in the Falcon for the May/June season. On consultation as the action did not affect The RA consulted with June 19, 2012, the states recommended Oregon fisheries. representatives of the Council, WDFW, this action and the RA concurred; Inseason action #5 adjusted the daily and ODFW on July 18, July 25, August inseason action #4 took effect on June bag limit for the recreational salmon 1, and August 15, 2012. The information 20, 2012 and remained in effect until fishery from U.S./Canada Border to considered during these consultations July 1, 2012, when the 2012 Cape Alava (Neah Bay subarea). The related to catch and effort to date in the management measures for the 2012 July daily bag limit, which had been set commercial salmon fishery north of through September season took effect. preseason at two fish per day, was Cape Falcon. Inseason modification of quotas and/or changed to two fish per day only one of These inseason actions made fishing seasons is authorized by 50 CFR which can be a Chinook salmon. This incremental adjustments to the landing 660.409(b)(1)(i). action was taken to conserve available limit in the commercial salmon fishery Chinook salmon and to extend the from the U.S./Canada Border to Cape Inseason Action #5 season as planned preseason by slowing Falcon, Oregon for the July 6 through The RA consulted with the catch rate of Chinook salmon. On August 17, 2012 season. The landing representatives of WDFW on July, 12, July 12, 2012, the state of Washington limit established preseason was 40 2012. The information considered recommended this action and the RA Chinook salmon and 35 coho per vessel during this consultation related to catch concurred; inseason action #5 took per open period. The specific landing and effort to date in the recreational effect on July 16, 2012, and remained in limit adjustments are shown in the salmon fishery north of Cape Falcon. effect until inseason action #13 took following table:
Inseason action number Effective dates Adopted landing limit
6 ...... July 20, 2012 through July 24, 2012 ...... 50 Chinook salmon and 35 coho. 8 ...... July 27, 2012 through July 31, 2012 ...... 60 Chinook salmon and 35 coho. 9 ...... August 3, 2012 through August 14, 2012 ...... 90 Chinook salmon and 35 coho. 11 ...... August 17, 2012 through August 21, 2012 ...... 120 Chinook salmon and 40 coho.
These actions were taken to allow week is authorized by 50 CFR to date in the commercial salmon access to under-utilized Chinook 660.409(b)(1)(iii). fishery north of Cape Falcon. salmon and coho quotas. At each Inseason action #12 modified the Inseason Action #10 consultation listed above, the states landing and possession limit and recommended the action and the RA The RA consulted with landing periods for the commercial concurred. Modification of landing representatives of the Council, ODFW, salmon fishery from the U.S./Canada limits inseason is authorized by 50 CFR and California Department of Fish and Border to Cape Falcon, Oregon for the 660.409(b)(1)(ii). Game on August 6, 2012. The August 24 through September 17, 2012 season. Preseason, this fishery was Inseason Action #7 information considered during this consultation related to catch and effort scheduled to be open Friday through Monday with a landing and possession The RA consulted with to date in the commercial salmon limit of 20 Chinook salmon and 40 coho representatives of the Council, WDFW, fishery south of Cape Falcon. per vessel per open period. Inseason and ODFW on July 25, 2012. The Inseason action #10 closed the action #12 changed the openings to information considered during this commercial salmon fishery from Friday through Tuesday with a landing consultation related to catch and effort Humbug Mountain, Oregon to the and possession limit of 120 Chinook to date in the recreational salmon Oregon/California Border (Oregon salmon and 40 coho per vessel per open fishery north of Cape Falcon. KMZ). This action was taken due to period. This action was taken to allow Inseason action #7 removed the 5 day projected attainment of the August greater access to under-utilized Chinook per week restriction established quota of Chinook salmon within the salmon and coho quota. On August 15, preseason for recreational fishing from management area. On August 6, 2012, 2012, the state of Washington Queets River, Washington, to Leadbetter the state of Oregon recommended this recommended this action and the RA Point, Washington (Westport subarea) action and the RA concurred; inseason concurred; inseason action #12 took and opened recreational salmon fishing action #10 took effect at 11:59 p.m. effect on August 24, 2012, and remains in this area 7 days per week. This action (midnight), August 3, 2012, and remains in effect until subsequent inseason was taken to allow greater access to in effect until September 5, 2012. action or the end of the fishing season available Chinook salmon. On July 25, Closure of a fishing season for projected as described in the annual management 2012, the state of Washington attainment of quota is authorized by 50 measures for 2012. Inseason recommended this action and the RA CFR 660.409(a)(1). modification of quotas and/or fishing concurred; inseason action #7 took Inseason Action #12 seasons is authorized by 50 CFR effect on August 3, 2012, and remains in 660.409(b)(1)(i). effect until subsequent inseason action The RA consulted with or the end of the fishing season as representatives of the Council, WDFW, Inseason Action #13 described in the annual management and ODFW on August 15, 2012. The The RA consulted with measures for 2012. Modification of information considered during this representatives of the Council, WDFW, recreational fishing days per calendar consultation related to catch and effort and ODFW on August 15. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:54 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 55428 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
information considered during this preseason at two fish per day, no more notification would be impracticable. As consultation related to catch and effort than one of which can be a Chinook. previously noted, actual notice of the to date in the recreational salmon Inseason action #14 changed the bag regulatory actions was provided to fishery north of Cape Falcon. limit in the Columbia River subarea to fishers through telephone hotline and Inseason action #13 changed the daily two fish per day, both of which can be radio notification. These actions comply bag limit in the recreational salmon Chinook salmon. This action was taken with the requirements of the annual fisheries from Queets River, Washington to allow greater access to available management measures for ocean salmon to Leadbetter Point, Washington Chinook salmon. On August 22, 2012, fisheries (77 FR 25915, May 2, 2012), (Westport subarea) and from the U.S./ the state of Washington recommended the West Coast Salmon Plan, and Canada Border to Cape Alava (Neah Bay this action and the RA concurred; regulations implementing the West subarea). The bag limit in the Westport inseason action #14 took effect on Coast Salmon Plan (50 CFR 660.409 and subarea was set preseason at two fish August 27, 2012, and remains in effect 660.411). Prior notice and opportunity per day, no more than one of which can until subsequent inseason action or the for public comment was impracticable be a Chinook. The bag limit in the Neah end of the fishing season as described in because NMFS and the state agencies Bay subarea was set preseason at two the annual management measures for had insufficient time to provide for fish per day was modified by Inseason 2012. Modification of recreational bag prior notice and the opportunity for action #5 to two fish per day, only one limits is authorized by 50 CFR public comment between the time the of which can be a Chinook salmon. 660.409(b)(1)(iii). Inseason action #13 changed the bag All other restrictions and regulations fishery catch and effort data were limit in Westport and Neah Bay remain in effect as announced for the collected to determine the extent of the subareas to two fish per day, both of 2012 Ocean Salmon Fisheries and 2013 fisheries, and the time the fishery which can be Chinook salmon. This fisheries opening prior to May 1, 2013 modifications had to be implemented in action was taken to allow greater access (77 FR 25915, May 2, 2012). order to ensure that fisheries are to available Chinook salmon. On August The RA determined that the best managed based on the best available 15, 2012, the state of Washington available information indicated that the scientific information, thus allowing recommended this action and the RA stock abundance, and catch and effort fishers access to the available fish at the concurred; inseason action #13 took projections supported the above time the fish were available while effect on August 17, 2012, and remains inseason actions recommended by the ensuring that quotas are not exceeded. in effect until subsequent inseason states. The states manage the fisheries in The AA also finds good cause to waive action or the end of the fishing season state waters adjacent to the areas of the the 30-day delay in effectiveness as described in the annual management U.S. exclusive economic zone in required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), as a measures for 2012. Modification of accordance with these Federal actions. delay in effectiveness of these actions recreational bag limits is authorized by As provided by the inseason notice would allow fishing at levels 50 CFR 660.409(b)(1)(iii). procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual inconsistent with the goals of the notice of the described regulatory Salmon Fishery Management Plan and Inseason Action #14 actions was given, prior to the date the the current management measures. The RA consulted with action was effective, by telephone These actions are authorized by 50 representatives of the Council, WDFW, hotline number 206–526–6667 and 800– CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and are and ODFW on August 22. The 662–9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard exempt from review under Executive information considered during this Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Order 12866. consultation related to catch and effort Channel 16 VHF–FM and 2182 kHz. to date in the recreational salmon Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Classification fishery north of Cape Falcon. Dated: September 4, 2012. Inseason action #14 changed the daily The Assistant Administrator for bag limit in the recreational salmon Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good Lindsay Fullenkamp, fisheries from Leadbetter Point, cause exists for this notification to be Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Washington to Cape Falcon, Oregon issued without affording prior notice Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. (Columbia River subarea). The bag limit and opportunity for public comment [FR Doc. 2012–22236 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] in the Columbia River subarea was set under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because such BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:54 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SER1.SGM 10SER1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES 55429
Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 175
Monday, September 10, 2012
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to II. Petitions for Rulemaking contains notices to the public of the proposed http://www.regulations.gov and search A discussion of a September 28, 1999, issuance of rules and regulations. The for Docket ID NRC–2009–0090. petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM– purpose of these notices is to give interested • persons an opportunity to participate in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents 26–2 (64 FR 67205; December 1, 1999), rule making prior to the adoption of the final Access and Management System is included in the Regulatory Basis for rules. (ADAMS): You may access publicly this proposed rulemaking. This PRM available documents online in the NRC was partially considered in the March Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- 31, 2008 (73 FR 16965), Fitness for Duty NUCLEAR REGULATORY rm/adams.html. To begin the search, Programs final rule. In this proposed COMMISSION select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and rulemaking, the NRC is considering then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS PRM–26–3 (76 FR 28192; May 16, 2011), 10 CFR Part 26 Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, PRM–26–5 (76 FR 28192; May 16, 2011), please contact the NRC’s Public and PRM–26–6 (76 FR 28191; May 16, [NRC–2009–0090] Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 2011). 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by III. Publicly Available Documents RIN 3150–AI58 email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each The NRC has posted for public Fitness-for-Duty Programs availability on www.regulations.gov, the document referenced in this document regulatory basis for requiring personnel AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory (if that document is available in performing certain quality control and Commission. ADAMS) is provided the first time that quality verification (QC/QV) duties to a document is referenced. ACTION: Regulatory basis and comply with the work hour provisions preliminary proposed rule language. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and of 10 CFR part 26, subpart I. This purchase copies of public documents at regulatory basis was completed in 2010 SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One Commission (NRC or the Commission) and documents the reasons why the White Flint North, 11555 Rockville will periodically make publicly NRC determined rulemaking was the Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. available a series of documents related appropriate course of action to remedy a regulatory shortcoming. to the ongoing proposed rulemaking FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: When the regulatory basis was effort to amend its regulations regarding Scott C. Sloan, Office of Nuclear Reactor completed, the NRC had not yet begun Fitness-for-Duty Programs. The NRC Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory the rulemaking that provides a does not plan to institute a public Commission, Washington, DC 20555– voluntary alternative to the Minimum comment period for these materials 0001; telephone: 301–415–1619; email: Days Off (MDO) requirements found in when making them publicly available. [email protected]. § 26.205(d)(3). That alternative became This document announces the effective on August 11, 2011 (76 FR availability of two rulemaking SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 43534). However, initial technical documents: The regulatory basis and I. Background analysis indicates that the alternative to preliminary proposed rule language for the MDO requirements does not change requiring personnel performing certain As the NRC continues its ongoing the basis for this rulemaking. quality control and quality verification proposed rulemaking effort to amend In addition, the NRC has posted (QC/QV) duties to comply with the portions of part 26 of Title 10 of the preliminary proposed rule language work hour provisions. The availability Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), related to these QC/QV personnel on of these documents provides increased ‘‘Fitness-for-Duty Programs,’’ subpart I, www.regulations.gov. This preliminary awareness to interested stakeholders ‘‘Managing Fatigue,’’ the NRC will proposed rule language contains one and provides preparatory material for periodically make preliminary portion of the NRC’s planned proposed future public meetings. documents publicly available on the changes. This language does not DATES: At this time, the NRC is not Federal rulemaking Web site, represent a final NRC staff position, nor soliciting formal public comments on www.regulations.gov, under Docket ID has it been reviewed by the the materials identified in this NRC–2009–0090. By making these Commission. Therefore, the preliminary document. There will be an opportunity documents publicly available, the NRC proposed rule language may undergo for formal public comment on the seeks to inform stakeholders of the significant revision during the proposed rule when it is published in current status of the NRC’s rulemaking rulemaking process. the Federal Register. development activities and provide The NRC is not requesting formal ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID preparatory material for future public public comments on the regulatory basis NRC–2009–0090 when contacting the meetings. The NRC is not instituting a or the preliminary proposed rule NRC about the availability of public comment period on these language. The NRC may post additional information for this document. You may materials, but the public is encouraged materials, including other preliminary access information and comment to participate in related public meetings. rule language, to the Federal rulemaking submittals related to this document, In addition, the public will be given Web site at https://www.regulations.gov, which the NRC possesses and are opportunity to provide comments on the under Docket ID NRC–2009–0090. The publicly available, by any of the proposed rule upon its publication in Federal rulemaking Web site allows you following methods: the Federal Register. to receive alerts when changes or
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
additions occur in a docket folder. To reclamation plan, make grammatical address listed below during normal subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket changes, correct punctuation, revise business hours, Monday through Friday, folder (NRC–2009–0090); (2) click the dates, and delete and add citations. The excluding holidays. You may receive ‘‘Email Alert’’ link; and (3) enter your proposed amendment consists of one free copy of the amendment by email address and select how frequently substantive changes to Arkansas’s contacting OSM’s Tulsa Field Office, or you would like to receive emails (daily, regulations regarding: Subchapter A— the full text of the program amendment weekly, or monthly). General; Subchapter F—Areas available for you to read at Unsuitable for Mining; Subchapter G— www.regulations.gov. IV. Plain Writing Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Alfred L. Clayborne, Director, Tulsa The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. Operations Permits and Coal Field Office, Office of Surface Mining L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to Exploration Procedures Systems; Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645 write documents in a clear, concise, Subchapter J—Bond and Insurance South 101st East Avenue, Suite 145, well-organized manner that also follows Requirements for Surface Coal Mining Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128–4629, other best practices appropriate to the and Reclamation Operations; Telephone: (918) 581–6430 . subject or field and the intended Subchapter K—State Program In addition, you may review a copy of audience. Although regulations are Performance Standards; Subchapter L— the amendment during regular business exempt under the Act, the NRC is State Program Inspection and hours at the following location: applying the same principles to its Enforcement Procedures; Subchapter Arkansas Department of Environmental rulemaking documents. Therefore, the M—Training Programs for Blasters and Quality, 5301 Northshore Drive, North NRC has written this document, Members of Blasting Crews, and Little Rock, Arkansas 72118–5317, including the preliminary proposed rule Certification Programs for Blasters; and Telephone: (501) 682–0744. language, to be consistent with the Plain Subchapter R—Abandoned Mine Land FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Writing Act. There will be an Reclamation. Alfred L. Clayborne, Director, Tulsa opportunity for formal public comment This document provides the times Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581– on the use of plain language when the and locations that the Arkansas 6430. Email: [email protected]. proposed rule is published in the program, Arkansas plan, and this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Register. proposed amendment are available for I. Background on the Arkansas Program Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this August your review; the comment period during which you may submit written II. Description of the Proposed Amendment 22, 2012. III. Public Comment Procedures For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. comments on the amendment; and the IV. Procedural Determinations Sher Bahadur, procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested. I. Background on the Arkansas Deputy Director, Division of Policy and Program Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor DATES: We will accept written Regulation. comments on this amendment until 4:00 Section 503(a) of the Act permits a [FR Doc. 2012–22185 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] p.m., c.d.t., October 10, 2012. If State to assume primacy for the BILLING CODE 7590–01–P requested, we will hold a public hearing regulation of surface coal mining and on the amendment on October 5, 2012. reclamation operations on non-Federal We will accept requests to speak at a and non-Indian lands within its borders DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR hearing until 4:00 p.m., c.d.t. on by demonstrating that its program September 25, 2012. includes, among other things, ‘‘a State Office of Surface Mining Reclamation ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, law which provides for the regulation of and Enforcement identified by SATS No. AR–040–FOR, surface coal mining and reclamation by any of the following methods: operations in accordance with the 30 CFR Part 904 • Mail/Hand Delivery: Alfred L. requirements of this Act * * *; and Clayborne, Director, Tulsa Field Office, rules and regulations consistent with [SATS No. AR–040–FOR; Docket ID OSM– Office of Surface Mining Reclamation regulations issued by the Secretary 2012–0017] and Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C. Arkansas Regulatory Program and Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these 74128–4629. criteria, the Secretary of the Interior Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation • Plan Fax: (918) 581–6419. (Secretary) conditionally approved the • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Arkansas program effective November AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining www.regulations.gov. Follow the 21, 1980. You can find background Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. instructions for submitting comments. information on the Arkansas program, ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment Instructions: All submissions received including the Secretary’s findings, the period on proposed amendment. must include the agency name and disposition of comments, and the docket number for this rulemaking. For conditions of approval of the Arkansas SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface detailed instructions on submitting program in the November 21, 1980, Mining Reclamation and Enforcement comments and additional information Federal Register (45 FR 77003). You can (OSM), are announcing receipt of a on the rulemaking process, see the find later actions on the Arkansas proposed amendment to the Arkansas ‘‘Public Comment Procedures’’ heading program at 30 CFR 904.10, 904.12, and regulatory program (Arkansas program) of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 904.15. and the Arkansas abandoned mine land section of this document. The Abandoned Mine Land reclamation plan (Arkansas plan) under Docket: For access to the docket to Reclamation Program was established the Surface Mining Control and review copies of the Arkansas by Title IV of the Act in response to Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the regulations, this amendment, a listing of concerns over extensive environmental Act). Arkansas proposes to revise any scheduled public hearings, and all damage caused by past coal mining substantial portions of its regulatory written comments received in response activities. The program is funded by a program and abandoned mine land to this document, you must go to the reclamation fee collected on each ton of
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55431
coal that is produced. The money You can find later actions concerning program amendment is available for you collected is used to finance the the Arkansas plan at 30 CFR 904.25 and to read at the locations listed above reclamation of abandoned coal mines 904.26. under ADDRESSES. and for other authorized activities. Arkansas proposes to revise II. Description of the Proposed Section 405 of the Act allows States and substantial portions of its regulatory Amendment Indian Tribes to assume exclusive program and abandoned mine land responsibility for reclamation activity By letter dated June 25, 2012 reclamation plan, make grammatical within the State or on Indian lands if (Administrative Record No. AR–572), changes, correct punctuation, revise they develop and submit to the Arkansas submitted a proposed dates, update addresses, and delete and Secretary of the Interior for approval, a amendment to its program and plan add citations. Arkansas proposes to program (often referred to as a plan) for pursuant to SMCRA. Arkansas revise every section title throughout its the reclamation of abandoned coal submitted the amendment in response regulations by replacing ‘‘Section’’ with mines. On the basis of these criteria, the to a September 30, 2009, letter ‘‘Reg.20.’’ and by deleting the title dates. Secretary of the Interior approved the (Administrative Record No. AR–571) Arkansas also proposes to replace the Arkansas plan on May 2, 1983. You can from OSM in accordance with 30 CFR word ‘‘Director’’ with ‘‘Department’’ and find background information on the 732.17(c). Arkansas is also making replace the word ‘‘Chapter’’ with Arkansas plan, including the Secretary’s substantial changes to other sections of ‘‘Code’’ throughout its entire findings, the disposition of comments, its regulatory program and its regulations. The Arkansas regulations and the approval of the plan in the May abandoned mine land reclamation plan that contain substantive changes are 2, 1983, Federal Register (48 FR 19710). on its own initiative. The full text of the listed in the table below.
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TABLE
ARKANSAS REG.20. SECTIONS TITLE
SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL PART 700—GENERAL
700.11, 700.12, and 700.16 ...... Rulemaking Initiated by the Commission; Petitions to Initiate Rulemaking; and Employee Pro- tection.
PART 701 STATE PROGRAM
701.5 ...... Definitions.
PART 702 EXEMPTION FOR COAL EXTRACTION INCIDENTAL TO THE EXTRACTION OF OTHER MINERALS
702.13 ...... Public Availability of Information.
PART 705—RESTRICTIONS ON FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL
705.1 and 705.13 ...... Scope and When to File.
SUBCHAPTER F—AREAS UNSUITABLE FOR MINING PART 762—CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATING AREAS AS UNSUITABLE FOR SURFACE COAL MINING OPERATIONS
762.5 ...... Definitions.
SUBCHAPTER G—SURFACE COAL MINING AND RECLAMATION OPERATIONS PERMITS AND COAL EXPLORATION PROCEDURES SYSTEMS PART 770—GENERAL
770.5 ...... Definitions.
PART 771—GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS
771.25 ...... Permit Fees.
PART 776—GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COAL EXPLORATION OPERATIONS
776.17 ...... Public Availability of Information.
PART 778—SURFACE MINING PERMIT APPLICATIONS—MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LEGAL, FINANCIAL, COMPLIANCE AND RELATED INFORMATION
778.1, 778.2, 778.4, 778.6, 778.9, 778.11, Scope; Objectives; Responsibility; Applicability, Certifying and Updating Existing Permit Appli- 778.12, 778.13, 778.14, 778.15, 778.16, cation Information; Applicant and Operator Information; Permit History Information; Property 778.17, 778.20, 778.21, and 778.22. Interest Information; Violation Information; Right of Entry Information; Status of Unsuitability Claims; Permit Term Information; Identification of Location of Public Office for Filing of Appli- cation; Newspaper Advertisement and Proof of Publication; and Facilities or Structures Used in Common.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55432 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TABLE—Continued
ARKANSAS REG.20. SECTIONS TITLE
PART 779—SURFACE MINING PERMIT APPLICATIONS—MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
779.21 ...... Analysis of Selected Overburden or Topsoil Mixtures.
PART 780—SURFACE MINING PERMIT APPLICATION—MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR RECLAMATION AND OPERATION PLAN
780.11, 780.13, 780.15, 780.16, 780.18, Operation Plan: General Requirements; Operation Plan: Blasting; Air Pollution Control Plan; 780.21, 780.23, 780.25, 780.28, 780.29, Fish and Wildlife Plan; Reclamation Plan: General Requirements; Reclamation Plan: Hydro- 780.35, 780.37, and 780.38. logic Information; Reclamation Plan: Postmining Land Uses; Reclamation Plan: Siltation Structures, Impoundments, Banks, Dams, and Embankments; Activities In or Adjacent to Perennial or Intermittent Streams; Diversions; Disposal of Excess Spoil; Road Systems; and Support Facilities.
PART 782—UNDERGROUND MINING PERMIT APPLICATIONS—MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LEGAL, FINANCIAL, COMPLIANCE, AND RELATED INFORMATION
782.1–782.21 ...... Scope; Objectives; Responsibilities; Applicability; Identification of Interests; Compliance Infor- mation; Right of Entry and Operation Information; Relationship to Areas Designated Unsuit- able For Mining; Permit Term Information; Personal Injury and Property Damage Insurance Information; Identification of Other Licenses and Permits; Identification of Location of Public Office for Filing of Application; and Newspaper Advertisement and Proof of Publication.
PART 784—UNDERGROUND MINING PERMIT APPLICATIONS—MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RECLAMATION AND OPERATION PLAN
784.14, 784.19, 784.20, and 784.28 ...... Reclamation Plan: Hydrologic Information; Underground Development Waste; Subsidence Control Plan; and Surface Activities in or Adjacent to Perennial or Intermittent Streams.
PART 785—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS FOR SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF MINING
785.13, 785.14, 785.15, 785.16, 785.18, Experimental Practices Mining; Mountaintop Removal Mining; Steep Slope Mining; Permits In- 785.22, and 785.25. corporating Variances from Approximate Original Contour Restoration Requirements for Steep Slope Mining; Variances for Delay in Contemporaneous Reclamation Requirements in Combined Surface and Underground Mining Operations; In Situ Processing Activities; and Lands Eligible for Remining.
PART 786—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS AND PERMIT PROCESSING
786.1, and 786.3–786.31 ...... Scope; Responsibilities; Pre-Application Conference; Regulatory Coordination with Require- ments under Other Laws; Public Participation in Permit Processing; Review of Permit Appli- cations; General Provisions for Review of Permit Application Information and Entry of Infor- mation into AVS; Review of Applicant, Operator, and Ownership and Control Information; Review of Permit History; Review of Compliance History; Permit Eligibility Determination; Unanticipated Events or Conditions at Remining Sites; Eligibility for Provisionally Issued Per- mits; Written Findings for Permit Application Approval; Performance Bond Submittal; Permit Conditions; Permit Issuance and Right of Renewal; Initial Review and Finding Requirements for Improvidently Issued Permits; Notice Requirements for Improvidently Issued Permits; Suspension or Rescission Requirements for Improvidently Issued Permits; Eligibility to Chal- lenge Ownership or Control Listings and Findings; Procedures for Challenging an Ownership or Control Listing or Finding; Burden of Proof for Ownership or Control Challenges; Written Decision on Challenges to Ownership or Control Listings or Findings; Conditions of Permits: Environment, Public Health, and Safety; Improvidently Issued Permits: General Procedures; and Improvidently Issued Permits: Recision Procedures.
PART 787—ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS
787.12 ...... Judicial Review.
PART 788—REVISION; RENEWAL; TRANSFER, ASSIGNMENT, OR SALE OF PERMIT RIGHTS; POST–PERMIT ISSUANCE REQUIREMENTS; AND OTHER ACTIONS BASED ON OWNERSHIP, CONTROL, AND VIOLATION INFORMATION
788.5, 788.9, 788.10, 788.11, 788.13, 788.14, Definitions; Post-Permit Issuance Requirements and Other Actions Based on Ownership, Con- 788.15, 788.16, 788.17, 788.18, and 788.19. trol, and Violation Information; Post-Permit Issuance Requirements for Permittees; Review of Permits; Permit Renewals: General Requirements; Permit Renewals: Completed Applica- tions; Permit Renewals: Terms; Permit Renewals: Approval or Denial; Transfer, Assignment, or Sale of Permit Rights: General Requirements; Transfer, Assignments, or Sale of Permit Rights: Obtaining Approval; and Requirements for New Permits for Persons Succeeding to Rights Granted Under a Permit.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55433
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TABLE—Continued
ARKANSAS REG.20. SECTIONS TITLE
SUBCHAPTER J—BOND AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE COAL MINING AND RECLAMATION OPERATIONS PART 800—BONDS AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE COAL MINING AND RECLAMATION OPERATIONS UNDER THE STATE PROGRAM
800.23 and 800.40 ...... Self-bonding; and Requirement to Release Performance Bonds.
SUBCHAPTER K—STATE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PART 810—STATE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS GENERAL PROVISIONS
810.11 ...... Applicability.
PART 816—PERMANENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—SURFACE MINING ACTIVITIES
816.11, 816.13, 816.14, 816.15, 816.22, Signs and Markers; Casing and Sealing of Drilled Holes: General Requirements; Casing and 816.41, 816.42, 816.43, 816.44, 816.45, Sealing of Drilled Holes: Temporary; Casing and Sealing of Drilled Holes: Permanent; Top- 816.46, 816.48, 816.49, 816.50–S, 816.50–U, soil and Subsoil; Hydrologic Balance: Protection; Hydrologic Balance: Water Quality Stand- 816.51–S, 816.52–S, 816.53, 816.54, 816.55, ards and Effluent Limitations; Hydrologic Balance: Diversions; Hydrologic Balance: Stream 816.56, 816.57; 816.61–U, 816.64–U, 816.68, Channel Diversions; Hydrologic Balance: Sediment Control Measures; Hydrologic Balance: 816.71, 816.100, 816.101–S, 816.101–U, Siltation Structures; Hydrologic Balance: Acid-forming and Toxic-forming Spoil; Impound- 816.102, 816.106, 816.107, 816.113, ments, Hydrologic Balance: Ground Water Protection; Hydrologic Balance: Underground 816.114, 816.116, 816.121–U, 816.122–U, Mine Entry and Access Discharges; Hydrologic Balance: Protection of Groundwater Re- 816.133, 816.151, 816.180, and 816.181. charge Capacity; Hydrologic Balance: Surface And Groundwater Monitoring; Hydrologic Bal- ance: Transfer Of Wells; Hydrologic Balance: Water Rights and Replacement; Hydrologic Balance: Discharge of Water into an Underground Mine; Hydrologic Balance: Postmining Rehabilitation of Sedimentation Ponds, Diversions, Impoundments, and Treatment Facilities; Hydrologic Balance: Activities in or Adjacent to Perennial or Intermittent Streams; Use of Ex- plosives: General Requirements; Use of Explosives: Public Notice of Blasting Schedule; Use of Explosives: Records of Blasting Operations; Disposal of Excess Spoil: General Require- ments; Contemporaneous Reclamation; Backfilling and Grading: Time and Distance Re- quirements; Backfilling and Grading: General Requirements; Backfilling and Grading: Gen- eral Grading Requirements; Backfilling and Grading: Previously Mined Areas; Backfilling and Grading: Steep Slopes; Revegetation: Timing; Revegetation: Mulching and Other Soil Stabi- lizing Practices; Revegetation: Standards for Success; Subsidence Control: General Re- quirements; Subsidence Control: Public Notice; Postmining Land Use; Roads: Primary Roads; Utility Installations; and Support Facilities.
PART 817—PERMANENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND MINING ACTIVITIES
817.1–817.181 ...... Scope; Objectives; Signs and Markers; Casing and Sealing of Exposed Underground Open- ings: General Requirements; Casing and Sealing of Underground Openings: Temporary; Casing and Sealing of Underground Openings: Permanent; Topsoil and Subsoil; Hydrologic Balance: Protection; Hydrologic Balance: Water Quality Standards and Effluent Limitations; Hydrologic Balance: Diversions; Hydrologic Balance: Sediment Control Measures; Hydro- logic Balance: Siltation Structures; Hydrologic Balance: Discharge Structures; Impound- ments; Hydrologic Balance: Postmining Rehabilitation of Sedimentation Ponds, Diversions, Impoundments, and Treatment Facilities; Hydrologic Balance: Surface Activities in or Adja- cent to Perennial or Intermittent Streams; Coal Recovery; Use of Explosives: General Re- quirements; Use of Explosives: Pre-blasting Survey; Use of Explosives: Public Notice of Blasting Schedule; Use of Explosives: Blasting Signs, Warnings, and Access Control; Use of Explosives: Control of Adverse Effects; Use of Explosives: Seismographic Measurements; Use of Explosives: Records of Blasting Operations; Disposal of Excess Spoil: General Re- quirements; Disposal of Excess Spoil: Valley Fills/Head-of Hollow Fills; Disposal of Excess Spoil: Durable Rock Fills; Disposal of Excess Spoil: Pre-Existing Benches; Coal Mine Waste: General Requirements; Coal Mine Waste: Refuse Piles; Coal Mine Waste: Impound- ing Structures; Coal Mine Waste: Burning and Burned Waste Utilization; Disposal of Noncoal Mine Wastes; Stabilization of Surface Areas; Protection of Fish, Wildlife, and Re- lated Environmental Values; Slides and Other Damage; Contemporaneous Reclamation; Backfilling and Grading: General Requirements; Backfilling and Grading: Previously Mined Areas; Backfilling and Grading: Steep Slopes; Revegetation: General Requirements; Re- vegetation: Timing; Revegetation: Mulching and Other Soil Stabilizing Practices; Revegeta- tion: Standards for Success; Subsidence Control: General Requirements; Subsidence Con- trol: Public Notice; Cessation of Operations: Temporary; Cessation of Operations: Perma- nent; Postmining Land Use; Roads: General; Roads: Primary Roads; Utility Installations; and Support Facilities.
PART 818—SPECIAL STATE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—CONCURRENT SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND MINING
818.1–818.15 ...... Scope; Objective; Responsibilities; Applicability; Compliance with Variance; and Additional Per- formance Standards.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55434 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TABLE—Continued
ARKANSAS REG.20. SECTIONS TITLE
PART 819—SPECIAL STATE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—AUGER MINING
819.11, 819.13, 819.15, 819.17, 819.19, and Auger Mining: General; Auger Mining: Coal Recovery; Auger Mining: Hydrologic Balance; 819.21. Auger Mining: Subsidence Protection; Auger Mining: Backfilling and Grading; and Auger Mining: Protection of Underground Mining.
PART 823—SPECIAL STATE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—OPERATIONS ON PRIME FARMLAND
823.15 ...... Revegetation and Restoration of Soil Productivity.
PART 827—SPECIAL STATE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS COAL PROCESSING PLANTS AND SUPPORT FACILITIES NOT LOCATED AT OR NEAR THE MINE SITE OR NOT WITHIN THE PERMIT AREA FOR A MINE
827.12 ...... Coal Processing Plants: Performance Standards.
SUBCHAPTER L—STATE PROGRAM INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES PART 842—INSPECTIONS
842.11 and 842.15 ...... Inspections and Review of Decision Not to Inspect or Enforce.
PART 843—ENFORCEMENT
843.11, 843.15, and 843.16 ...... Cessation Orders; Informal Public Hearing; and Formal Review of Citations.
PART 845—CIVIL PENALTIES
845.12, 845.13, 845.14, 845.15, 845.17, When Penalty Will Be Assessed; Point System for Penalties; Determination of Amount of Pen- 845.18, 845.19, and 845.20. alty; Assessment of Separate Violations for Each Day; Procedures for Assessment of Civil Penalties; Procedures for Assessment Conference; Request for Adjudicatory Public Hearing; and Final Assessment and Payment of Penalty.
PART 846—INDIVIDUAL CIVIL PENALTIES
846.5, 846.14, 846.17, and 846.18 ...... Definitions; Amount of Individual Civil Penalty; Procedure for Assessment of Individual Civil Penalty; and Payment of Penalty.
PART 847—ALTERNATIVE ENFORCEMENT
847.1–847.16 ...... Scope; General Provisions; Criminal Penalties; and Civil Actions for Relief.
SUBCHAPTER M—TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR BLASTERS AND MEMBERS OF BLASTING CREWS, AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS FOR BLASTERS PART 850—PROGRAMS
850.16 ...... Reciprocity.
SUBCHAPTER R—ABANDONED MINE LAND RECLAMATION PART 874—GENERAL RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS
874.12, 874.13, and 874.16 ...... Eligible Lands and Water; Reclamation Objectives and Priorities; and Contractor Eligibility.
PART 877—RIGHTS OF ENTRY
877.11, 877.12, 877.13, and 877.14 ...... Consent to Entry; Entry for Studies or Exploration; Entry and Consent to Reclaim; and Entry for Emergency Reclamation.
PART 879—ACQUISITION, MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION OF LANDS AND WATER
879.11, 879.12, 879.13, and 879.15 ...... Land Eligible for Acquisition; Procedures for Acquisition; Acceptance of Gifts of Land; and Dis- position of Reclaimed Lands.
PART 882—RECLAMATION ON PRIVATE LAND
882.13 ...... Liens.
PART 900—PROCEDURES FOR HEARING AND APPEALS
900.2, 900.3, 900.4, 900.5, 900.6, 900.7, 900.9, Filing of Documents; Form of Documents; Service and Proof of Service; Intervention, Vol- and 900.12. untary Dismissal; Motions; Advancement of Proceedings, and Other Procedures.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55435
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TABLE—Continued
ARKANSAS REG.20. SECTIONS TITLE
PART—920 ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS
920.1, 920.2, 920.3, 920.7, and 920.8 ...... Presiding Officers; Powers of Presiding Officers; Notice of Hearing; Initial Orders and Deci- sions; and Effect of Initial Order or Decision.
PART 930—DISCOVERY
930.1 ...... Discovery.
PART 940—TEMPORARY AND EXPEDITED REVIEW
940.3 ...... Procedures for Expedited Review.
PART 960—APPEALS
960.2–960.7 ...... Appeals: How Taken; Answer; Stay Pending Appeal; Certified Transcript; Record on Appeal; and Extended Time for Appeals.
III. Public Comment Procedures be made publicly available at any time. notices of meetings at the locations Under the provisions of 30 CFR While you can ask us in your comment listed under ADDRESSES. We will make 732.17(h), we are seeking your to withhold your personal identifying a written summary of each meeting a comments on whether Arkansas’s information from public review, we part of the administrative record. cannot guarantee that we will be able to proposed amendment satisfies the IV. Procedural Determinations applicable program approval criteria of do so. 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the Public Hearing Executive Order 12866—Regulatory amendment, it will become part of the If you wish to speak at the public Planning and Review Arkansas State program. hearing, contact the person listed under This rule is exempted from review by Under the provisions of 30 CFR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 884.15(a), we are requesting comments the Office of Management and Budget 4:00 p.m., c.d.t. on September 25, 2012. (OMB) under Executive Order 12866. on whether the amendment satisfies the If you are disabled and need reasonable applicable State reclamation plan accommodations to attend a public Other Laws and Executive Orders approval criteria of 30 CFR 884.14. If we hearing, contact the person listed under Affecting Rulemaking approve the amendment, it will become FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We part of the Arkansas plan. will arrange the location and time of the When a State submits a program Electronic or Written Comments hearing with those persons requesting amendment to OSM for review, our the hearing. If no one requests an regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require If you submit written comments, they opportunity to speak, we will not hold us to publish a notice in the Federal should be specific, confined to issues a hearing. Register indicating receipt of the pertinent to the proposed regulations, To assist the transcriber and ensure an proposed amendment, its text or a and explain the reason for any accurate record, we request, if possible, summary of its terms, and an recommended change(s). We appreciate that each person who speaks at the opportunity for public comment. We any and all comments, but those most public hearing provide us with a written conclude our review of the proposed useful and likely to influence decisions copy of his or her comments. The public amendment after the close of the public on the final regulations will be those hearing will continue on the specified that either involve personal experience comment period and determine whether date until everyone scheduled to speak the amendment should be approved, or include citations to and analyses of has been given an opportunity to be approved in part, or not approved. At SMCRA, its legislative history, its heard. If you are in the audience and that time, we will also make the implementing regulations, case law, have not been scheduled to speak and other pertinent State or Federal laws or wish to do so, you will be allowed to determinations and certifications regulations, technical literature, or other speak after those who have been required by the various laws and relevant publications. scheduled. We will end the hearing after executive orders governing the We cannot ensure that comments everyone scheduled to speak and others rulemaking process and include them in received after the close of the comment present in the audience who wish to the final rule. period (see DATES) or sent to an address speak, have been heard. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 904 other than those listed (see ADDRESSES) Public Meeting will be included in the docket for this Intergovernmental relations, Surface rulemaking and considered. If only one person requests an mining, Underground mining. opportunity to speak, we may hold a Public Availability of Comments public meeting rather than a public Dated: July 18, 2012. Before including your address, phone hearing. If you wish to meet with us to Ervin J. Barchenger, number, email address, or other discuss the amendment, please request Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. personal identifying information in your a meeting by contacting the person [FR Doc. 2012–22233 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION comment, you should be aware that listed under BILLING CODE 4310–05–P your entire comment—including your CONTACT. All such meetings are open to personal identifying information—may the public and, if possible, we will post
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55436 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND A. Public Participation and Request for may also visit the Docket Management SECURITY Comments Facility in Room W12–140 on the We encourage you to participate in ground floor of the Department of Coast Guard this rulemaking by submitting Transportation West Building, 1200 comments and related materials. All New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 33 CFR Part 100 comments received will be posted DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., [Docket No. USCG–2012–0714] without change to http:// Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. RIN 1625–AA08 www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have 3. Privacy Act Special Local Regulation; Partnership provided. Anyone can search the electronic in Education, Dragon Boat Race; 1. Submitting comments form of comments received into any of Maumee River, Toledo, OH our dockets by the name of the If you submit a comment, please individual submitting the comment (or AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. include the docket number for this signing the comment, if submitted on ACTION: rulemaking, indicate the specific section Notice of proposed rulemaking. behalf of an association, business, labor of this document to which each union, etc.). You may review a Privacy SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes comment applies, and provide a reason Act notice regarding our public dockets establishing a permanent Special Local for each suggestion or recommendation. in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Regulation on the Maumee River, You may submit your comments and Federal Register (73 FR 3316). Toledo, Ohio. This regulation is material online (via http:// intended to regulate vessel movement in www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 4. Public meeting portions of the Maumee River during hand delivery, but please use only one We do not now plan to hold a public the annual Dragon Boat Races. This of these means. If you submit a meeting. You may submit a request for special local regulated area is necessary comment online via one using one of the four methods to protect race participants from other www.regulations.gov, it will be specified under ADDRESSES. Please vessel traffic. considered received by the Coast Guard explain why you believe a public DATES: Comments and related material when the comment is successfully meeting would be beneficial. If we must be received by the Coast Guard on transmitted; a comment submitted via determine that one would aid this or before October 10, 2012. fax, hand delivery, or mail, will be rulemaking, we will hold one at a time ADDRESSES: You may submit comments considered as having been received by and place announced by a later notice identified by docket number USCG– the Coast Guard when the comment is in the Federal Register. 2012–0714 using any one of the received at the Docket Management following methods: Facility. We recommend that you B. Regulatory History and Information Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// include your name and a mailing On May 11, 2011, the Coast Guard www.regulations.gov. address, an email address, or a published a notice of proposed Fax: 202–493–2251. telephone number in the body of your rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Mail or Delivery: Docket Management document so that we can contact you if Local Regulation; Partnership in Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of we have questions regarding your Education Dragon Boat Race, Maumee Transportation, West Building Ground submission. River Toledo, OH in the Federal Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey To submit your comment online, go to Register (Docket Number USCG–2011– Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– http://www.regulations.gov, type the 0211, 76 FR 27284). No public 0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box comments were received; a public a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Submit meeting was not requested, and no Friday, except federal holidays. The a Comment’’ on the line associated with public meetings were held. However, telephone number is 202–366–9329. this rulemaking. the Coast Guard elected not to publish See the ‘‘Public Participation and If you submit your comments by mail a final rule (FR) following that 2011 Request for Comments’’ portion of the or hand delivery, submit them in an NPRM. Given the length of time since SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section unbound format, no larger than 8c by 11 the 2011 NPRM comment period ended, below for instructions on submitting inches, suitable for copying and the Coast Guard has decided to again comments. To avoid duplication, please electronic filing. If you submit solicit public comments for this annual use only one of these four methods. comments by mail and would like to event. In addition to the 2011 NPRM, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If know that they reached the Facility, the Coast Guard established a temporary you have questions on this proposed please enclose a stamped, self-addressed final rule (TFR) earlier this year to rule, call or email LTJG Benjamin postcard or envelope. We will consider establish Special Local Regulations for Nessia, Response Department, MSU all comments and material received the 2012 occurrence of this event (full Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419) during the comment period and may text not published in the Federal 418–6040, email change the rule based on your Register). Because of the application [email protected]. If you comments. submission by the sponsoring have questions on viewing or submitting 2. Viewing comments and documents organization was delayed in 2012, the material to the docket, call Renee V. Coast Guard used the ‘‘Good Cause’’ Wright, Program Manager, Docket To view comments, as well as exception to the Notice & Comment Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. documents mentioned in this preamble requirement of the Administrative as being available in the docket, go to Procedure Act. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: http://www.regulations.gov, type the Table of Acronyms docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box C. Basis and Purpose DHS Department of Homeland Security and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘OPEN Each year, an organized racing event FR Federal Register DOCKET FOLDER’’ on the line takes place on the Maumee River in NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking associated with this rulemaking. You which participants paddle Hong Kong
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55437
style Dragon Boats from International Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and Local number of small entities for the Park to Owens Corning on the Maumee Notice to Mariners. following reasons: This rule will be River in Toledo, OH. This recurring enforced for approximately twelve E. Regulatory Analyses event is known as the Dragon Boat hours the day of its effective period. In races. The Captain of the Port Detroit We developed this proposed rule after addition, on-scene representatives will has determined that this dragon boat considering numerous statutes and allow vessels to transit along the race in close proximity to other executive orders related to rulemaking. Western side of the river at a slow no watercraft and in the shipping channel Below we summarize our analyses wake speed. The race committee will poses a significant risk to public safety based on these statutes or executive stop the races for any oncoming and property. Thus, the Captain of the orders. commercial traffic. Port Detroit has determined it necessary 1. Regulatory Planning and Review If you think that your business, to establish a permanent Special Local organization, or governmental Regulation around the location of the This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity race’s course to ensure the safety of and that this proposed rule would have persons and property at this annual Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not a significant economic impact on it, event and help minimize the associated please submit a comment (see risks. require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it D. Discussion of Proposed Rule Order. The Office of Management and qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. As suggested above, this proposed Budget has not reviewed it under that rule is intended to ensure safety of the Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the 3. Assistance for Small Entities public and vessels during the Dragon regulatory policies and procedures of Under section 213(a) of the Small Boat Races. This proposed rule will the Department of Homeland Security Business Regulatory Enforcement become effective 30 days after the final (DHS). We conclude that this proposed rule is published in the Federal rule is not a significant regulatory action Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104– Register. However, the Special Local because we anticipate that it will have 121), we want to assist small entities in Regulation will only be enforced minimal impact on the economy, will understanding this proposed rule so that annually on the third or fourth Saturday not interfere with other agencies, will they can better evaluate its effects on in July from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. not adversely alter the budget of any them and participate in the rulemaking Vessel traffic may proceed down the grant or loan recipients, and will not process. If this proposed rule would West side of the river at a no wake raise any novel legal or policy issues. affect your small business, organization, speed during racing. The races will stop The Special Local Regulation will be or governmental jurisdiction and you for oncoming freighter or commercial relatively small and be enforced for a have questions concerning its traffic. The on-scene representative may relatively short time. Thus, restrictions provisions or options for compliance, be present on any Coast Guard, state or on vessel movement within that please contact LTJG Benjamin Nessia, local law enforcement, or sponsor particular area are expected to be Response Department, MSU Toledo, provided vessel assigned to patrol the minimal. Under certain conditions, Coast Guard; telephone (419) 418–6040, event. The on-scene representatives may moreover, vessels may still transit email [email protected]. The permit vessels to transit the area when through the area when permitted by the Coast Guard will not retaliate against no race activity is occurring. Coast Captain of the Port. small entities that question or complain Guard proposes that all vessels about this proposed rule or any policy transiting the area shall proceed at a no- 2. Impact on Small Entities or action of the Coast Guard. wake speed and maintain extra Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 4. Collection of Information vigilance at all times. (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered This Special Local Regulation will whether this proposed rule would have This proposed rule would call for no encompass all navigable waters of the a significant economic impact on a new collection of information under the United States on the Maumee River, substantial number of small entities. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Toledo, OH, bound by a line extending The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises U.S.C. 3501–3520). from a point on land just north of the small businesses, not-for-profit 5. Federalism Cherry Street Bridge at position organizations that are independently 41°39′5.27″ N; 083°31′34.01″ W straight owned and operated and are not A rule has implications for federalism across the river along the Cherry Street dominant in their fields, and under Executive Order 13132, bridge to position 41°39′12.83″ N; governmental jurisdictions with Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 083°31′42.58″ W and a line extending populations of less than 50,000. effect on State or local governments and from a point of land just south of The Coast Guard certifies under 5 would either preempt State law or International Park at position 41°38′ U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule impose a substantial direct cost of 46.62″ N; 083°31′50.54″ W straight would not have a significant economic compliance on them. We have analyzed across the river to the shore adjacent to impact on a substantial number of small this proposed rule under that Order and the Owens Corning building at position entities. This proposed rule will affect have determined that it does not have 41°38′47.37″ N; 083°32′2.05″ W. These the following entities, some of which implications for federalism. coordinates are North American Datum might be small entities: the owners or 6. Protest Activities of 1983 (NAD 83). operators of vessels intending to transit The Captain of the Port will notify the or anchor in the portion of the Maumee The Coast Guard respects the First affected segments of the public of the River discussed above annually on the Amendment rights of protesters. enforcement of this Special Local third or fourth Saturday of July from Protesters are asked to contact the Regulation by all appropriate means. 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. person listed in the FOR FURTHER Means of notification may include This proposed Special Local INFORMATION CONTACT section to publication of Notice of Enforcement Regulation will not have a significant coordinate protest activities so that your (NOE) in the Federal Register, economic impact on a substantial message can be received without
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55438 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
jeopardizing the safety or security of under Executive Order 12866 and is not For the reasons discussed in the people, places or vessels. likely to have a significant adverse effect preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to on the supply, distribution, or use of amend 33 CFR Part 100 as follows: 7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act energy. The Administrator of the Office The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Information and Regulatory Affairs PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires has not designated it as a significant NAVIGABLE WATERS Federal agencies to assess the effects of energy action. Therefore, it does not their discretionary regulatory actions. In require a Statement of Energy Effects 1. The authority citation for part 100 particular, the Act addresses actions under Executive Order 13211. continues to read as follows: that may result in the expenditure by a Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 13. Technical Standards State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of The National Technology Transfer 2. Add § 100.921 to read as follows: $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 § 100.921 Special Local Regulations, more in any one year. Though this U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use Partnership in Education, Dragon Boat proposed rule would not result in such voluntary consensus standards in their Festival, Toledo, OH. an expenditure, we do discuss the regulatory activities unless the agency (a) Regulated Area. The regulated area effects of this proposed rule elsewhere provides Congress, through the Office of includes all U.S. navigable waters of the in this preamble. Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these Maumee river, Toledo, OH, bound by a 8. Taking of Private Property standards would be inconsistent with line extending from a point on land just applicable law or otherwise impractical. north of the Cherry Street Bridge at This proposed rule would not cause a ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ taking of private property or otherwise Voluntary consensus standards are position 41 39 5.27 N; 083 31 34.01 W technical standards (e.g., specifications straight across the river along the Cherry have taking implications under ° ′ ″ of materials, performance, design, or Street bridge to position 41 39 12.83 N; Executive Order 12630, Governmental ° ′ ″ Actions and Interference with operation; test methods; sampling 083 31 42.58 W and a line extending Constitutionally Protected Property procedures; and related management from a point of land just south of systems practices) that are developed or International Park at position Rights. ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ adopted by voluntary consensus 41 38 46.62 N; 083 31 50.54 W 9. Civil Justice Reform standards bodies. straight across the river to the shore This proposed rule will meet This proposed rule does not use adjacent to the Owens Corning building applicable standards in sections 3(a) technical standards. Therefore, we did at position ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, not consider the use of voluntary 41 38 47.37 N; 083 32 2.05 W. These Civil Justice Reform, to minimize consensus standards. coordinates are North American Datum litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and of 1983 (DATUM: NAD 83). 14. Environment reduce burden. (b) Enforcement Period. These Special We have analyzed this proposed rule Local Regulations will be enforced 10. Protection of Children under Department of Homeland annually on the third or fourth Saturday We have analyzed this proposed rule Security Management Directive 023–01 of July from 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. under Executive Order 13045, and Commandant Instruction The exact dates and times will be Protection of Children from M16475.lD, which guide the Coast determined annually and published Environmental Health Risks and Safety Guard in complying with the National annually in the Federal Register via a Risks. This proposed rule is not an Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Notice of Enforcement. economically significant rule and would (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and (c) Special Local Regulations. not create an environmental risk to have made a preliminary determination (1) In accordance with the general health or risk to safety that might that this action is one of a category of regulations in section § 100.901 of this disproportionately affect children. actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on part, vessels transiting within the 11. Indian Tribal Governments the human environment. This proposed regulated area shall travel at a no-wake This proposed rule does not have rule involves the establishment of a speed and remain vigilant for vessels tribal implications under Executive Special Local Regulation and is participating in the event. Additionally, Order 13175, Consultation and therefore categorically excluded under vessels shall yield right-of-way for event Coordination with Indian Tribal figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h), of the participants and event safety craft and Governments, because it would not have Instruction. During the annual shall follow directions given by the a substantial direct effect on one or permitting process for this Dragon Boat Coast Guard’s on-scene representative or more Indian tribes, on the relationship Race event an environmental analysis by event representatives during the between the Federal Government and will be conducted, and thus, no event. Indian tribes, or on the distribution of preliminary environmental analysis (2) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of power and responsibilities between the checklist or Categorical Exclusion the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit is Federal Government and Indian tribes. Determination (CED) will be required any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been 12. Energy Effects for this rulemaking action. We seek any comments or information that may lead designated by the Captain of the Port, We have analyzed this proposed rule to the discovery of a significant Sector Detroit to act on his behalf. The under Executive Order 13211, Actions environmental impact from this on-scene representative of the Captain Concerning Regulations That proposed rule. of the Port, Sector Detroit will be aboard Significantly Affect Energy Supply, either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Distribution, or Use. We have List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the determined that it is not a ‘‘significant Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Port, Sector Detroit or his designated on energy action’’ under that order because Reporting and record keeping scene representative may be contacted it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ requirements, Waterways. via VHF Channel 16.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55439
Dated: August 6, 2012. Federal holidays. The telephone number indicate the specific section of this J.E. Ogden, is 202–366–9329. document to which each comment Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the To avoid duplication, please use only applies, and provide a reason for each Port, Sector Detroit. one of these four methods. See the suggestion or recommendation. You [FR Doc. 2012–22153 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] ‘‘Public Participation and Request for may submit your comments and BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Comments’’ portion of the material online or by fax, mail, or hand SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section delivery, but please use only one of below for instructions on submitting these means. We recommend that you DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND comments. include your name and a mailing SECURITY address, an email address, or a phone FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If number in the body of your document Coast Guard you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Lieutenant so that we can contact you if we have Commander Patricia Springer, Office of questions regarding your submission. 33 CFR Part 161 To submit your comment online, go to Shore Forces (CG–7413), Coast Guard; http://www.regulations.gov and insert telephone 202–372–2576, email [Docket No. USCG–2011–1024] ‘‘USCG–2011–1024’’ in the ‘‘Search’’ [email protected]. If you have box. Click on ‘‘Submit a comment’’ in RIN 1625–AB81 questions on viewing or submitting the ‘‘Actions’’ column. If you submit material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. your comments by mail or hand Vessel Traffic Service Updates, Wright, Program Manager, Docket delivery, submit them in an unbound Including Establishment of Vessel Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. Traffic Service Requirements for Port format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Arthur, TX and Expansion of VTS suitable for copying and electronic Special Operating Area in Puget Sound Table of Contents for Preamble filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. I. Public Participation and Request for reached the Facility, please enclose a Comments ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. A. Submitting Comments stamped, self-addressed postcard or B. Viewing Comments and Documents envelope. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to C. Privacy Act We will consider all comments and revise and update the Vessel Traffic D. Public Meeting material received during the comment Service (VTS) regulations in 33 CFR part II. Abbreviations period and may change this proposed 161. The revision would require III. Background rule based on your comments. participation in the VTS in Port Arthur, IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule Texas, which is now voluntary; A. § 161.12 Vessel Operating B. Viewing Comments and Documents consolidate and expand a VTS Special Requirements To view comments, as well as Area in Puget Sound, Washington; B. § 161.19 Sailing Plan documents mentioned in this preamble update the designated frequencies for C. § 161.55 Vessel Traffic Service Puget as being available in the docket, go to the Maritime Mobile Service Identifiers Sound and the Cooperative Vessel http://www.regulations.gov, insert Traffic Service for the Juan de Fuca (MMSI) for Louisville and Los Angeles/ Region ‘‘USCG–2011–1024’’ and click Long Beach; and update the definitions D. § 161.70 Vessel Traffic Service Port ‘‘Search.’’ Click the ‘‘Open Docket and references in Sailing Plan Arthur Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. If you requirements. The changes made by this V. Regulatory Analyses do not have access to the Internet, you proposed rule are intended to align A. Regulatory Planning and Review may view the docket by visiting the regulations with the current operating B. Small Entities Docket Management Facility in Room procedures of the VTSs affected, with C. Assistance for Small Entities W12–140 on the ground floor of the the benefit of creating regulatory D. Collection of Information Department of Transportation West efficiency. E. Federalism Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act DATES: Comments and related material G. Taking of Private Property Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. must either be submitted to our online H. Civil Justice Reform and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, docket via http://www.regulations.gov I. Protection of Children except Federal holidays. We have an on or before December 10, 2012 or reach J. Indian Tribal Governments agreement with the Department of the Docket Management Facility by that K. Energy Effects Transportation to use the Docket L. Technical Standards Management Facility. date. M. Environment ADDRESSES: You may submit comments C. Privacy Act I. Public Participation and Request for identified by docket number USCG– Anyone can search the electronic Comments 2011–1024 using any one of the form of comments received into any of following methods: We encourage you to participate in our dockets by the name of the (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: this rulemaking by submitting individual submitting the comment (or http://www.regulations.gov. comments and related materials. All signing the comment, if submitted on (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. comments received will be posted behalf of an association, business, labor (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility without change to http://www. union, etc.). You may review a Privacy (M–30), U.S. Department of regulations.gov and will include any Act notice regarding our public dockets Transportation, West Building Ground personal information you have in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey provided. Federal Register (73 FR 3316). Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 0001. A. Submitting Comments D. Public Meeting (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail If you submit a comment, please We do not now plan to hold a public address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 include the docket number for this meeting. But you may submit a request p.m., Monday through Friday, except rulemaking (USCG–2011–1024), for one to the docket using one of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55440 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
methods specified under ADDRESSES. In the Coast Guard includes non-maritime determined that changing VTS Port your request, explain why you believe a industry stakeholders in the process to Arthur to a mandatory VTS should not public meeting would be beneficial. If ensure that important environmental, alter current vessel operations or impose we determine that one would aid this public safety, and economic new costs on either the industry or the rulemaking, we will hold one at a time considerations are given appropriate Coast Guard. and place announced by a later notice attention as risk-mitigation measures are This proposed rule would also in the Federal Register. selected. expand the currently voluntary Port The Coast Guard has conducted 47 Arthur VTS area to include Lake II. Abbreviations PAWSA workshops in U.S. ports since Charles, Louisiana. The 2000 Lake AIS Automatic Identification System the PAWSA process was developed in Charles PAWSA study supported the CDC Certain Dangerous Cargos 1999, including one in Port Arthur, establishment of a VTS in Lake Charles. MMSI Maritime Mobile Service Identifier Texas, on September 21–23, 1999 and Coast Guard data pertaining to MTSA Maritime Transportation Security one in Lake Charles, Louisiana, on April commercial vessel activities indicate Act of 2002 25–26, 2000. The Port Arthur, TX and that commercial vessels that transit the NDG National Dialogue Group Lake Charles, Louisiana PAWSA reports proposed expansion area of Lake NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Charles satisfy the AIS carriage PAWSA Port and Waterway Safety are publicly available on the NAVCEN Assessment Web site at http://www.navcen.uscg. requirements established under 33 CFR PAWSS Port and Waterways Safety System gov/?pageName=pawsaFinalReports 164.46(3). Therefore, the Coast Guard PWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Act and in the docket for this rulemaking does not believe that expanding Port SOLAS International Convention for the (USCG–2011–1024); see the ‘‘Viewing Arthur VTS to include Lake Charles, Safety of Life at Sea Comments and Documents’’ section of LA, would alter current vessel U.S.C. United States Code this proposed rule for more information. operations or impose new costs on VTM Vessel Traffic Management Based upon the mitigation industry or the Coast Guard. VTS Vessel Traffic Service recommendations contained in these In addition to making participation in III. Background PAWSA reports as well as resource the Port Arthur VTS mandatory, this availability and the existence of port proposed rule would consolidate and In the late 1990s, the Coast Guard infrastructure to support VTS efforts, expand the two VTS Special Areas in convened a national dialogue group the Coast Guard determined that Port Puget Sound. A VTS Special Area is (NDG) comprised of maritime and Arthur, Texas and Lake Charles, defined in 33 CFR 161.2 as ‘‘a waterway waterway community stakeholders to Louisiana have a valid need for a Coast within a VTS area in which special identify the needs of waterway users Guard-operated VTS. operating requirements apply.’’ The with respect to Vessel Traffic As a result of the Port Arthur PAWSA Coast Guard institutes a VTS Special Management (VTM) and Vessel Traffic workshop, which determined that a VTS Area when geographic or other Service (VTS) systems. Those would provide the greatest potential to conditions, such as concentration of stakeholders, representing port mitigate risk in the port, the Coast vessels or vessels carrying particular authorities, pilots, environmental Guard added Port Arthur to the Port and hazards, make a portion of the waterway conservationists, the Coast Guard, and Waterways Safety System (PAWSS) an inherently dangerous navigational all major sectors of the U.S. and foreign- acquisition project. The PAWSS area. flag shipping industry were tasked to project’s goal was to install a computer- When the federal regulations for identify the information needs of based VTM system in VTS ports. The vessel traffic systems were first waterway users to help ensure safe installation of the VTS system in Port implemented in 1994 (59 FR 36316, July passage, assist in establishing a process Arthur began in 2004 with voluntary 15, 1994), the Coast Guard instituted to identify candidate waterways for operations slated to begin in September two VTS Special Areas within the VTS VTM improvements and VTS 2005. Due to disruptions from Hurricane Puget Sound. These VTS Special Areas installations, and identify the basic Rita, VTS Port Arthur provided limited serve to avoid having large vessels elements of a VTS. The intent of the services from September 2005 until impeding, meeting, overtaking or NDG was to provide the foundation for February 2006 when the VTS attained crossing with each other’s intended an approach to VTM that would meet full operational capability. track in the constricted waters between the stakeholders’ shared objective of Although this proposed rule would the San Juan Islands in Puget Sound. improving vessel traffic safety in U.S. change VTS Port Arthur from a In addition to the two existing VTS ports and waterways in a voluntary system to a system of Special Areas in Puget Sound, special technologically sound and cost-effective mandatory compliance for vessels operating requirements have way. transiting VTS Port Arthur, the Coast traditionally been issued in the The major outcome of the NDG was Guard does not believe it would alter proposed expansion area by VTS Puget the development of the Port and vessel operations or impose new costs Sound due to the relatively restricted Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA) on industry or the Coast Guard. The nature of these waters. The proposed process, which the Coast Guard Coast Guard makes this determination rule would incorporate into a single established to open a dialogue with because, under 33 CFR 164.46(3), all consolidated VTS Special Area the waterway users and port stakeholders to vessels which would be affected by waters of the two existing VTS Special help identify needed VTM changing VTS Port Arthur to a Areas and the waters currently covered improvements and to determine mandatory VTS system are already by these special operating requirements. candidate VTS waterways. PAWSA equipped with Automatic Identification Because this rule would simply provides a formal structure for Systems (AIS). Because AIS carriage consolidate existing vessel operating identifying risk factors and evaluating requirements are the sole cost item for procedures within VTS Puget Sound, potential mitigation measures. The vessels to comply with VTS the Coast Guard does not anticipate that process requires the participation of requirements, have been in force since the expansion of this VTS Special Area experienced waterway users having December 31, 2004, and currently would alter current vessel operations or local expertise in navigation, waterway include the VTS Port Arthur area under impose new regulatory costs on conditions, and port safety. In addition, 33 CFR Table 161.12(c), we have industry. This codification simplifies
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55441
compliance with these traffic C. § 161.55 Vessel Traffic Service A. Regulatory Planning and Review management requirements. Puget Sound and the Cooperative Vessel Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory Finally, this proposed rule would Traffic Service for the Juan de Fuca Planning and Review’’) and 13563 make two minor updates to the VTS Region (‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory regulations. The first change adds This rulemaking would modify 33 Review’’) direct agencies to assess the Maritime Mobile Service Identifier CFR 161.55 by consolidating the two costs and benefits of available regulatory (MMSI) numbers, which are required for existing VTS Special Areas that are alternatives and, if regulation is any AIS equipment installation, to the located within the Vessel Traffic Service necessary, to select regulatory table in 33 CFR 161.12 as a result of the Puget Sound Area. In addition to approaches that maximize net benefits installment of Automatic Identification consolidating two VTS Special Areas (including potential economic, System (AIS) base stations in the into one, this rulemaking would expand environmental, public health and safety Louisville, KY, VTS Area and Los the consolidated VTS Special Area to effects, distributive impacts, and Angeles/Long Beach Vessel Movement encompass an additional area of equity). Executive Order 13563 Reporting System area. The second navigational concern that has emphasizes the importance of change removes an outdated reference traditionally been subject to special quantifying both costs and benefits, of to Dangerous Cargo, and adds an operating requirements. The existing reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, updated reference to Certain Dangerous VTS Special Areas include the waters of and of promoting flexibility. This notice Cargo in 33 CFR 160.204. Rosario Strait and Guemes Channel. The of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) has not consolidated VTS Special Area would been designated a ‘‘significant IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule be slightly expanded to add the nearby regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, This proposed rule would revise waters of Bellingham Bay, western Padilla Bay and the Saddlebag route that the NPRM has not been reviewed by the regulations in 33 CFR part 161 as Office of Management and Budget. follows: is located east of Guemes Island, in the vicinity of Vendovi Island. This single A draft Regulatory Assessment A. § 161.12 Vessel Operating consolidated VTS Special Area would follows: Requirements promote maritime safety by applying the This proposed rule would establish VTS Special Operating requirements of mandatory participation for the VTS We propose to revise Table 161.12(c) 33 CFR 161.13 to certain classes of area in Port Arthur, Texas and would in order to include the MMSI vessels, defined in 33 CFR 161.16 and consolidate and expand the VTS Special information for two ports and to include 161.55, while transiting the VTS Special Areas in the Puget Sound Area to updated information pertaining to VTS Area and by prohibiting those classes of include Bellingham Channel, western Port Arthur. First, this rulemaking vessels from impeding, meeting, Padilla Bay and the Saddlebag route east would update the entry for Louisville overtaking, crossing, or operating within of Guemes Island. and Los Angeles/Long Beach by adding 2,000 yards of each other (except when The VTS system in Port Arthur was each VTS’s MMSI to the table. Second, crossing astern) while transiting within installed in 2004 and became fully this rulemaking would update the entry this VTS Special Area. This proposed operational in February 2006. Currently for Port Arthur by adding the designated rulemaking is in line with current Port Arthur operates as a voluntary frequencies and updating its monitoring practice and should not result in system. The proposed rule would make areas. Finally, this rulemaking would changes to scheduling, queueing or participation in the VTS mandatory for change the entry for Port Arthur from transit times. Additionally, this all vessels that are required to carry AIS ‘‘Sabine Traffic’’ to ‘‘Port Arthur proposed rulemaking would make equipment. Traffic’’ to more accurately reflect the permanent the special operating In 2003, the Coast Guard published a nature of the VTS and add a note to the requirements that VTS Puget Sound has final rule (68 FR 60569, October 22, table that the third monitoring sector for imposed within these areas since the 2003) that harmonized the AIS carriage Port Arthur will have limited services original rules in 33 CFR 161.55 were and standardization requirements until the Coast Guard has the capability established in 1994. contained in MTSA with the to provide full services. This rulemaking requirements of SOLAS. That prior rule would not make any other changes to D. § 161.70 Vessel Traffic Service Port established AIS carriage requirements table 161.12(c). Arthur for commercial vessels (33 CFR 164.46). As a result of this prior regulation, all B. § 161.19 Sailing Plan We propose to add a new section that U.S.-flagged commercial vessels that are describes the Port Arthur Vessel Traffic required to carry AIS equipment for This rulemaking would amend 33 Service area. The VTS area consists of operation in the VTS under this rule ° ′ CFR 161.19(f) by changing the reference the navigable waters south of 30 10 N, have been in compliance since 2004. ° ′ ° ′ from ‘‘Dangerous Cargo as defined in 33 east of 94 20 W, west of 93 22 W, and, Similarly, foreign-flagged vessels have ° ′ CFR 160.203’’ to ‘‘Certain Dangerous north of 29 10 N. This proposed change been required to carry AIS equipment Cargo (CDC) as defined in 33 CFR would establish mandatory under the SOLAS Convention since 160.204.’’ In 2003, 33 CFR Subpart C participation in the VTS for all 2004. Because AIS carriage is required was revised and the definitions were applicable vessels. by regulation under 33 CFR 164.46 for moved from 33 CFR 160.203 to 33 CFR VI. Regulatory Analyses commercial vessels, including those 160.204 (68 FR 9544, February 28, vessels that would be affected by this 2003). This rulemaking would also We developed this proposed rule after rule, we expect that there would not be remove the references to § 160.211 and considering numerous statutes and additional costs to either industry or § 160.213 because these sections no executive orders related to rulemaking. government resulting from this rule. A longer exist in the CFR. These are Below we summarize our analyses list of the categories of commercial administrative changes with no cost based on several of these statutes or vessels and the dates of compliance for impact. executive orders. AIS carriage are shown in Table 1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55442 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—COMMERCIAL VESSELS: AIS CARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS
Class of vessel AIS currently required Compliance date
Self-propelled vessels 65 feet or more in length in commercial service and on an inter- Yes ...... December 31, 2004. national voyage (excludes passenger and fishing vessels). Passenger vessels of 150 gross tons or more on an international voyage ...... Yes ...... July 1, 2003. Tankers on international voyages, regardless of tonnage ...... Yes ...... July 1, 2003. Vessels of 50,000 gross tons or more, other than tankers or passenger ships, on inter- Yes ...... July 1, 2004. national voyages. Vessels of 300 gross tons or more but less than 50,000 gross tons, other than tankers Yes ...... December 31, 2004. or passenger ships. Self-propelled vessels of 65 feet or more in length in commercial service (excludes fish- Yes, when operating in a VTS December 31, 2004. ing vessels and passenger vessels certificated to carry less than 151 passengers for or VMRS. hire). Towing vessels 26 feet or more in length and more than 600 horsepower in commercial Yes, when operating in a VTS December 31, 2004. service. or VMRS. Passenger vessels certificated to carry more than 150 passengers for hire ...... Yes, when operating in a VTS December 31, 2004. or VMRS. Fishing vessels ...... No.
The principal benefits of changing Other minor administrative changes Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies VTS participation from voluntary to include updating the MMSI for under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed mandatory would be to codify current Louisville and Los Angeles/Long Beach rule, if promulgated, will not have a practices and to provide VTS Port in Table 33 CFR 161.12(c). The significant economic impact on a Arthur with full VTS authorities to proposed rule would amend 33 CFR substantial number of small entities. If direct and manage traffic in order to 161.19(f) by changing the reference from you think that your business, better prevent maritime accidents. ‘‘Dangerous Cargo as defined in 33 CFR organization, or governmental The proposed rule would also 160.203’’ to ‘‘Certain Dangerous Cargo jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity consolidate and slightly expand the (CDC) as defined in 33 CFR 160.204.’’ and that this rule would have a current VTS Special Area in the VTS This rulemaking would also remove the significant economic impact on it, Puget Sound area. This requirement references to § 160.211 and § 160.213 please submit a comment to the Docket expands the zone in which entry into because these sections no longer exist in Management Facility at the address and movement within the special area is the CFR. We expect these administrative under ADDRESSES. In your comment, controlled by the VTS. These controls, changes to result in no additional costs explain why you think it qualifies and designed principally for collision to the public or industry. how and to what degree this rule would avoidance, are expected to expedite economically affect it. traffic movement within the special B. Small Entities area. The VTS has put operating C. Assistance for Small Entities conditions in place in the proposed Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act Under section 213(a) of the Small consolidated VTS Special Area since the (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered Business Regulatory Enforcement VTS national regulations were whether this proposed rule would have Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), established in 1994. The proposed rule a significant economic impact on a we want to assist small entities in would align the regulations with current substantial number of small entities. understanding this proposed rule so that practices already in place in the The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises they can better evaluate its effects on consolidated VTS Special Area and small businesses, not-for-profit them and participate in the rulemaking. would not result in additional organizations that are independently If the proposed rule would affect your requirements placed upon vessels. owned and operated and are not small business, organization, or Due to the constricted waters within dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdiction and you have the San Juan Islands, special operating governmental jurisdictions with questions concerning its provisions or requirements have been instituted since populations of less than 50,000. options for compliance, please consult the National VTS Regulations were first As previously discussed, the AIS LCDR Patricia Springer at 202–372– implemented in 1994 to avoid the risk carriage requirements were 2576, email of large vessels meeting, overtaking or implemented by a prior regulation in 33 [email protected]. The Coast crossing in this inherently dangerous CFR 164.46, and all vessels which Guard will not retaliate against small navigational area. Vessel Traffic Service would be required to participate in the entities that question or complain about Puget Sound has consistently issued VTS are currently equipped to follow this rule or any policy or action of the measures or directions to enhance the regulations of their individual VTS Coast Guard. navigation and vessel safety by areas. In addition, the consolidation and Small businesses may send comments imposing special operating slight expansion of the VTS Special on the actions of Federal employees requirements for vessels operating in Area in Puget Sound merely codifies who enforce, or otherwise determine Bellingham Channel, western Padilla current operational practices, and compliance with, Federal regulations to Bay, and the Saddlebag route east of would result in no additional the Small Business and Agriculture Guemes Island and in the vicinity of equipment requirements. As a result, we Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman Vendovi Island due to the comparable expect that this proposed rule would and the Regional Small Business restricted nature of these waters. not impose additional costs on vessel Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Therefore, it is not anticipated that the owners and operators transiting within Ombudsman evaluates these actions expansion of this VTS Special Area either the Port Arthur or Puget Sound annually and rates each agency’s would alter vessel operations. VTS areas. responsiveness to small business. If you
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55443
wish to comment on actions by Congress intended the Coast Guard to be eliminate ambiguity, and reduce employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– the sole source of a vessel’s obligations, burden. 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). the Coast Guard recognizes the key role I. Protection of Children that State and local governments may D. Collection of Information have in making regulatory We have analyzed this proposed rule This proposed rule would call for no determinations. Additionally, Sections 4 under Executive Order 13045, new collection of information under the and 6 of Executive Order 13132 require Protection of Children from Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 that for any rules with preemptive Environmental Health Risks and Safety U.S.C. 3501–3520). Vessels affected by effect, the Coast Guard will provide Risks. This rule is not an economically this rule would already be covered elected officials of affected State and significant rule and would not create an under OMB collection of information local governments and their environmental risk to health or risk to 1625–0112. representative national organizations, safety that might disproportionately E. Federalism notice and opportunity for appropriate affect children. participation in any rulemaking J. Indian Tribal Governments A rule has implications for federalism proceedings, and to consult with such under Executive Order 13132, officials early in the rulemaking process. This proposed rule does not have Federalism, if it has a substantial direct Therefore, the Coast Guard invites tribal implications under Executive effect on the States, on the relationship affected State and local governments Order 13175, Consultation and between the national government and and their representative national Coordination with Indian Tribal the States, or on the distribution of organizations to indicate their desire for Governments, because it would not have power and responsibilities among the participation and consultation in this a substantial direct effect on one or various levels of government. rulemaking process by submitting more Indian tribes, on the relationship We have analyzed this proposed rule comments to this NPRM. In accordance between the Federal Government and under that Order and have determined with Executive Order 13132, the Coast Indian tribes, or on the distribution of that it has implications for federalism. A Guard will provide a federalism impact power and responsibilities between the summary of the impact of federalism in statement to document: (1) The extent of Federal Government and Indian tribes. this rule follows. the Coast Guard’s consultation with K. Energy Effects Title I of the Ports and Waterways State and local officials who submit Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1221 et. comments to this proposed rule; (2) a We have analyzed this proposed rule seq.) authorizes the Secretary to issue summary of the nature of any concerns under Executive Order 13211, Actions regulations to establish and maintain raised by State or local governments and Concerning Regulations That vessel traffic services consisting of the Coast Guard’s position thereon; and Significantly Affect Energy Supply, measures for controlling or supervising (3) a statement of the extent to which Distribution, or Use. We have vessel traffic to protect the marine the concerns of State and local officials determined that it is not a ‘‘significant environment. In enacting the PWSA in have been met. We will also report to energy action’’ under that order because 1972, Congress declared that advance the Office of Management and Budget it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ planning and consultation with the any written communications with the under Executive Order 12866 and is not affected States and other stakeholders is States. likely to have a significant adverse effect necessary when developing measures on the supply, distribution, or use of for the control or supervision of vessel F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act energy. traffic or for protecting navigation or the The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act L. Technical Standards marine environment. Throughout the of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires development of each of the subject VTSs Federal agencies to assess the effects of The National Technology Transfer the Coast Guard has consulted with the their discretionary regulatory actions. In and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 pertinent state and/or local government particular, the Act addresses actions U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use entities as well as the affected pilot’s that may result in the expenditure by a voluntary consensus standards in their associations, vessel operators, VTS State, local, or tribal government, in the regulatory activities unless the agency users, and all affected stakeholders. This aggregate, or by the private sector of provides Congress, through the Office of interaction is more fully described $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or Management and Budget, with an elsewhere in this document. more in any one year. Though this explanation of why using these The Coast Guard has determined, after proposed rule would not result in such standards would be inconsistent with considering the factors developed by the an expenditure, we do discuss the applicable law or otherwise impractical. Supreme Court in the consolidated effects of this rule elsewhere in this Voluntary consensus standards are cases of United States v. Locke and preamble. technical standards (e.g., specifications Intertanko v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 120 of materials, performance, design, or S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000), that by G. Taking of Private Property operation; test methods; sampling enacting Chapter 25 of the Ports and This proposed rule would not cause a procedures; and related management Waterways Safety Act, Congress taking of private property or otherwise systems practices) that are developed or intended to preempt the field of vessel have taking implications under adopted by voluntary consensus traffic services in United States ports Executive Order 12630, Governmental standards bodies. and waterways. Therefore, the Actions and Interference with This proposed rule does not use regulations proposed in this rulemaking Constitutionally Protected Property technical standards. Therefore, we did have preemptive impact over any State Rights. not consider the use of voluntary laws or regulations that may be enacted consensus standards. on the same subject matter. The H. Civil Justice Reform preemptive impact of this rule is This proposed rule meets applicable M. Environment codified in 33 CFR 161.6. standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of We have analyzed this proposed rule While it is well settled that States may Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice under Department of Homeland not regulate in categories in which Reform, to minimize litigation, Security Management Directive 023–01
VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:35 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55444 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
and Commandant Instruction 1, paragraphs 34(a) and (i) of the PART 161—VESSEL TRAFFIC M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Instruction. This rule involves MANAGEMENT Guard in complying with the National administrative changes, changing Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 regulations in aid of navigation, and 1. The authority citation for part 161 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a updating vessel traffic services. We seek continues to read as follows: preliminary determination that this any comments or information that may Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 46 U.S.C. action is one of a category of actions lead to the discovery of a significant 70114, 70119; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. which do not individually or environmental impact from this 2064; Department of Homeland Security cumulatively have a significant effect on proposed rule. Delegation No. 0170.1. the human environment. A preliminary List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 161 environmental analysis checklist 2. In § 161.12, revise Table 161.12(c) supporting this determination is Harbors, Navigation (water), to read as follows: available in the docket where indicated Reporting and recordkeeping under the ‘‘Public Participation and requirements, Vessels, Waterways. § 161.12 Vessel operating requirements. Request for Comments’’ section of this For the reasons discussed in the * * * * * preamble. This rule is categorically preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to excluded under section 2.B.2., figure 2– amend 33 CFR part 161 as follows:
TABLE 161.12(c)—VTS AND VMRS CENTERS, CALL SIGNS/MMSI, DESIGNATED FREQUENCIES, AND MONITORING AREAS
Designated frequency Center MMSI 1 call sign (channel designation)— Monitoring area 3,4 purpose 2
Berwick Bay—003669950: Berwick Traffic ...... 156.550 MHz (Ch. 11) ...... The waters south of 29°45′ N., west of 91°10′ W., north of 29°37′ N., and east of 91°18′ W. Buzzards Bay: Buzzards Bay Control 5 156.600 MHz (Ch. 12) ...... The waters east and north of a line drawn from the southern tangent of Sakonnet Point, Rhode Island, in approximate position latitude 41°27.2′ N., longitude 70°11.7′ W., to the Buzzards Bay Entrance Light in approximate position latitude 41°23.5′ N., longitude 71°02.0′ W., and then to the southwestern tangent of Cuttyhunk Island, Massachusetts, at approximate position latitude 41°24.6′ N., longitude 70°57.0′ W., and including all of the Cape Cod Canal to its eastern en- trance, except that the area of New Bedford harbor within the confines (north of) the hurricane barrier, and the passages through the Elizabeth Islands, is not con- sidered to be ‘‘Buzzards Bay’’. Houston-Galveston— ...... The navigable waters north of 29° N., west of 94°20′ W., south of 29°49′ N., and 003669954. east of 95°20′ W. Houston Traffic ...... 156.550 MHz (Ch. 11) ...... The navigable waters north of a line extending due west from the southernmost 156.250 MHz (Ch. 5A) end of Exxon Dock #1 (20°43.37′ N., 95°01.27′ W.). —For Sailing Plans only Houston Traffic ...... 156.600 MHz (Ch. 12) ...... The navigable waters south of a line extending due west from the southernmost 156.250 MHz (Ch. 5A) end of Exxon Dock #1 (29°43.37′ N., 95°01.27′ W.). —For Sailing Plans only Los Angeles-Long Beach— 03660465: San Pedro Traffic ...... 156.700 MHz (Ch. 14) ...... Vessel Movement Reporting System Area: The navigable waters within a 25 nau- tical mile radius of Point Fermin Light (33°42.3′ N., 118°17.6′ W.). Louisville—003669732: Louisville Traffic ...... 156.650 MHz (Ch. 13) ...... The waters of the Ohio River between McAlpine Locks (Mile 606) and Twelve Mile Island (Mile 593), only when the McAlpine upper pool gauge is at approximately 13.0 feet or above. Lower Mississippi River— 0036699952: New Orleans Traffic ...... 156.550 MHz (Ch. 11) ...... The navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River below 29°55.3′ N., 089°55.6′ W. (Saxonholm Light) at 86.0 miles Above Head of Passes (AHP), extending down river to Southwest Pass, and, within a 12 nautical mile radius around 28°54.3′ N. 089°25.7′ W. (Southwest Pass Entrance Light at 20.1 miles Below Head of Passes. New Orleans Traffic ...... 156.600 MHz (Ch.12) ...... The navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River bounded on the north by a line drawn perpendicular on the river at 29°55′30″ N., and 090°12′46″ W. (Upper Twelve Mile Point) at 109.0 miles AHP and on the south by a line drawn per- pendicularly at 29°55.3′ N. 089°55.6′ W. (Saxonholm Light) at 86.0 miles AHP. New Orleans Traffic ...... 156.250 MHz (Ch. 05A) ..... The navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River below 30°38.7′ N. 091°17.5′ W. (Port Hudson Light) at 254.5 miles AHP bounded on the south by a line drawn perpendicular on the river at 29°55′30″ N., and 090°12′46″ W., (Upper Twelve Mile Point) at 109.0 miles AHP. New York—003669951:
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:02 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55445
TABLE 161.12(c)—VTS AND VMRS CENTERS, CALL SIGNS/MMSI, DESIGNATED FREQUENCIES, AND MONITORING AREAS—Continued
Designated frequency Center MMSI 1 call sign (channel designation)— Monitoring area 3,4 purpose 2
New York Traffic ...... 156.550 MHz (Ch. 11) ...... The area consists of the navigable waters of the Lower New York Bay bounded on —For Sailing Plans the east by a line drawn from Norton Point to Breezy Point; on the south by a only line connecting the entrance buoys at the Ambrose Channel, Swash Channel, 156.600 MHz (Ch. 12) ...... and Sandy Hook Channel to Sandy Hook Point; and on the southeast including —For vessels at an- the waters of Sandy Hook Bay south to a line drawn at latitude 40°25′ N.; then chor west in the Raritan Bay to the Raritan River Railroad Bridge, then north into waters of the Arthur Kill and Newark Bay to the Lehigh Valley Draw Bridge at latitude 40°41.9′ N.; and then east including the waters of the Kill Van Kull and the Upper New York Bay north to a line drawn east-west from the Holland Tun- nel ventilator shaft at latitude 40°43.7′ N., longitude 74°01.6′ W., in the Hudson River; and then continuing east including the waters of the East River to the Throgs Neck Bridge, excluding the Harlem River. New York Traffic ...... 156.700 MHz (Ch. 14) ...... The navigable waters of the Lower New York Bay west of a line drawn from Norton Point to Breezy Point; and north of a line connecting the entrance buoys of Am- brose Channel, Swash Channel, and Sandy Hook Channel, to Sandy Hook Point; on the southeast including the waters of the Sandy Hook Bay south to a line drawn at latitude 40°25′ N.; then west into the waters of Raritan Bay East Reach to a line drawn from Great Kills Light south through Raritan Bay East Reach LGB #14 to Comfort PT, NJ; then north including the waters of the Upper New York Bay south of 40°42.40′ N. (Brooklyn Bridge) and 40°43.70′ N. (Holland Tunnel Ventilator Shaft); west through the KVK into the Arthur Kill north of 40°38.25′ N. (Arthur Kill Railroad Bridge); then north into the waters of the Newark Bay, south of 40°41.95′ N. (Lehigh Valley Draw Bridge). New York Traffic ...... 156.600 MHz (Ch. 12) ...... The navigable waters of the Raritan Bay south to a line drawn at latitude 40°26′ N.; then west of a line drawn from Great Kills Light south through the Raritan Bay East Reach LGB #14 to Point Comfort, NJ; then west to the Raritan River Rail- road Bridge; and north including the waters of the Arthur Kill to 40°28.25′ N. (Ar- thur Kill Railroad Bridge); including the waters of the East River north of 40°42.40′ N. (Brooklyn Bridge) to the Throgs Neck Bridge, excluding the Harlem River. Port Arthur—003669955: Port Arthur Traffic ...... 156.050 MHz (Ch. 01A) ..... The navigable waters of the Sabine-Neches Canal south of 29°52.7′ N.; Port Arthur Canal; Sabine Pass Channel; Sabine Bank Channel; Sabine Outer Bar Channel; the offshore safety fairway; and the ICW from High Island to its intersection with the Sabine-Neches Canal. Port Arthur Traffic ...... 156.275 MHz (Ch. 65A) ..... The navigable waters of the Neches River; Sabine River; and Sabine-Neches Wa- terway north of 29°52.7′ N.; and the ICW from its intersection with the Sabine River to MM 260. Port Arthur Traffic ...... 156.675 MHz (Ch. 73) 6 ..... The navigable waters of the Calcasieu Channel; Calcasieu River Channel; and the ICW from MM 260 to MM 191. Prince William Sound— 003669958: Valdez Traffic ...... 156.650 MHz (CH. 13) ...... The navigable waters south of 61°05′ N., east of 147°20′ W., north of 60° N., and west of 146°30′ W.; and, all navigable waters in Port Valdez. Puget Sound: 7 Seattle Traffic— 156.700 MHz (Ch. 14) ...... The waters of Puget Sound, Hood Canal and adjacent waters south of a line con- 003669957. necting Nodule Point and Bush Point in Admiralty Inlet and south of a line drawn due east from the southernmost tip of Possession Point on Whidbey Island to the shoreline. Seattle Traffic— 156.250 MHz (Ch. 5A) ...... The waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca east of 124°40′ W. excluding the waters 003669957. in the central portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca north and east of Race Rocks; the navigable waters of the Strait of Georgia east of 122°52′ W.; the San Juan Island Archipelago, Rosario Strait, Bellingham Bay; Admiralty Inlet north of a line connecting Nodule Point and Bush Point and all waters east of Whidbey Island North of a line drawn due east from the southernmost tip of Possession Point on Whidbey Island to the shoreline. Tofino Traffic— 156.725 MHz (Ch. 74) ...... The waters west of 124°40′ W. within 50 nautical miles of the coast of Vancouver 003160012. Island including the waters north of 48° N., and east of 127° W. Victoria Traffic— 156.550 MHz (Ch. 11) ...... The waters of the Strait of Georgia west of 122°52′ W., the navigable waters of the 003160010. central Strait of Juan de Fuca north and east of Race Rocks, including the Gulf Island Archipelago, Boundary Pass and Haro Strait. San Francisco—003669956: San Francisco Traffic .... 156.700 MHz (Ch. 14) ...... The navigable waters of the San Francisco Offshore Precautionary Area, the navi- gable waters shoreward of the San Francisco Offshore Precautionary Area east of 122°42.0′ W. and north of 37°40.0′ N. extending eastward through the Golden Gate, and the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay and as far east as the port of Stockton on the San Joaquin River, as far north as the port of Sacramento on the Sacramento River.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:02 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55446 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 161.12(c)—VTS AND VMRS CENTERS, CALL SIGNS/MMSI, DESIGNATED FREQUENCIES, AND MONITORING AREAS—Continued
Designated frequency Center MMSI 1 call sign (channel designation)— Monitoring area 3,4 purpose 2
San Francisco Traffic .... 156.600 MHz (Ch. 12) ...... The navigable waters within a 38 nautical mile radius of Mount Tamalpais (37°55.8′ N., 122°34.6′ W.) west of 122°42.0′ W. and south of 37°40.0′ N. and excluding the San Francisco Offshore Precautionary Area. St. Marys River— 003669953: Soo Traffic ...... 156.600 MHz (Ch. 12) ...... The waters of the St. Marys River between 45°57′ N. (De Tour Reef Light) and 46°38.7′ N. (lle Parisienne Light), except the St. Marys Falls Canal and those navigable waters east of a line from 46°04.16′ N. and 46°01.57′ N. (La Pointe to Sims Point in Potagannissing Bay and Worsley Bay). Notes: 1 Maritime Mobile Service Identifier (MMSI) is a unique nine-digit number assigned that identifies ship stations, ship earth stations, coast sta- tions, coast earth stations, and group calls for use by a digital selective calling (DSC) radio, an INMARSAT ship earth station or AIS. AIS require- ments are set forth in §§ 161.21 and 164.46 of this subchapter. The requirements set forth in §§ 161.21 and 164.46 of this subchapter apply in those areas denoted with an MMSI number. 2 In the event of a communication failure, difficulties or other safety factors, the Center may direct or permit a user to monitor and report on any other designated monitoring frequency or the bridge-to-bridge navigational frequency, 156.650 MHz (Channel 13) or 156.375 MHz (Channel 67), to the extent that doing so provides a level of safety beyond that provided by other means. The bridge-to-bridge navigational frequency, 156.650 MHz (Ch. 13) is used in certain monitoring areas where the level of reporting does not warrant a designated frequency. 3 All geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) are expressed in North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 4 Some monitoring areas extend beyond navigable waters. Although not required, users are strongly encouraged to maintain a listening watch on the designated monitoring frequency in these areas. Otherwise, they are required to maintain watch as stated in 47 CFR 80.148. 5 In addition to the vessels denoted in Section 161.16 of this chapter, requirements set forth in subpart B of 33 CFR part 161 also apply to any vessel transiting VMRS Buzzards Bay required to carry a bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone by part 26 of this chapter. 6 Until otherwise directed, full VTS services will not be available in the Calcasieu Channel, Calcasieu River Channel, and the ICW from MM 260 to MM 191. Vessels may contact Port Arthur Traffic on the designated VTS frequency to request advisories, but are not required to monitor the VTS frequency in this sector. 7 A Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service was established by the United States and Canada within adjoining waters. The appropriate Center ad- ministers the rules issued by both nations; however, enforces only its own set of rules within its jurisdiction. Note, the bridge-to-bridge naviga- tional frequency, 156.650 MHz (Ch. 13), is not so designated in Canadian waters, therefore users are encouraged and permitted to make pass- ing arrangements on the designated monitoring frequencies.
* * * * * Precautionary Area ‘‘RB’’) extending § 161.70 Vessel Traffic Service Port Arthur. 3. In § 161.19, revise paragraph (f) to from Lopez Island to Fidalgo Island, and (a) The VTS area consists of the read as follows: to the north by latitude 48°40′34″ N. (the navigable waters of the U.S. to the limits center of the Precautionary Area ‘‘C’’) § 161.19 Sailing Plan (SP). of the territorial seas bound by the extending from Orcas Island to Lummi * * * * * following points: 30°10′ N. 92°37′ W., Island; Guemes Channel; Bellingham ° ′ ° ′ (f) Certain dangerous cargo on board Channel; Padilla Bay and southern then south to 29 10 N. 92 37 W., then or in its tow, as defined in § 160.204 of west to 29°10 N. 93°52′15″ W., then Bellingham Bay (Samish Bay) south of ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ this chapter. latitude 48°38′25″ N. northwest to 29 33 42 N. 94 21 15 W., 4. In § 161.55, revise paragraph (b) then north to 30°10′ N. 94°21′15″ W. and paragraph (c) introductory text to Note: The center of precautionary area then east along the 30°10′ E. latitude to read as follows: ‘‘R.B.’’ is not marked by a buoy. All precautionary areas are depicted on National the origination point. § 161.55 Vessel Traffic Service Puget Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Note: Although mandatory participation in Sound and the Cooperative Vessel Traffic (NOAA) nautical charts. VTS Port Arthur is limited to the area within Service for the Juan de Fuca Region. (c) Additional VTS Special Area the navigable waters of the United States, * * * * * prospective users are encouraged to report at (b) VTS Special Area: The Eastern San Operating Requirements. The following additional requirements are applicable the safe water marks in order to facilitate Juan Island Archipelago VTS Special vessel traffic management in the VTS Area Area consists of all waters of the eastern in the Eastern San Juan Island Archipelago VTS Special Area: and to receive advisories or navigational San Juan Island Archipelago including: assistance. Rosario Strait bounded to the south by * * * * * latitude 48°26′24″ N. (the center of the 5. Add § 161.70 to read as follows: (b) Precautionary areas.
TABLE 161.70(b)—VTS PORT ARTHUR PRECAUTIONARY AREAS
Center point Center point Precautionary area name Radius latitude longitude
Petco Bend 1 ...... 2,000 30°00.80′ N...... 093°57.60′ W. Black Bayou 1 ...... 2,000 30°00.00′ N...... 093°46.20′ W. Orange Cut 1 ...... 2,000 30°03.25′ N...... 093°43.20′ W. Neches River Intersection 1 ...... 2,000 29°58.10′ N...... 093°51.25′ W. Texaco Island Intersection 1 ...... 2,000 29°49.40′ N...... 094°57.55′ W.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55447
TABLE 161.70(b)—VTS PORT ARTHUR PRECAUTIONARY AREAS—Continued
Center point Center point Precautionary area name Radius latitude longitude
Sabine-Neches Waterway ...... N/A All waters of the Sabine-Neches Waterway between the Texaco Island Precautionary Area and the Humble Island Precautionary Area. 1 Precautionary Area encompasses a circular area of the radius denoted around the center point with the exception of the Sabine-Neches Waterway.
(c) Reporting points (Inbound).
TABLE 161.70(c)—INBOUND
Designator Geographic name Geographic description Latitude/Longitude Notes
1 ...... Sabine Bank Channel ‘‘SB’’ Buoy .... Sabine Bank Sea Buoy ...... 29°25.00′ N., 093°40.00′ W. Sailing Plan Report. 2 ...... Sabine Pass Buoys ‘‘29/30’’ ...... Sabine Pass Buoys ‘‘29/30’’ ...... 29°35.90′ N., 093°48.20′ W. 3 ...... Port Arthur Canal Light ‘‘43’’ ...... Keith Lake ...... 29°46.50′ N., 093°56.47′ W. 4 ...... North Forty GIWW Mile 279 ...... North Forty ...... 29°56.40′ N., 093°52.10′ W. 5 ...... FINA Highline Neches River Light FINA Highline ...... 29°59.10′ N., 093°54.30′ W. ‘‘19’’. 6 ...... Ready Reserve Fleet Highline ...... Channel at Cove Mid-Point ...... 30°00.80′ N., 093°59.90′ W. 7 ...... Sabine River MM 268 ...... 268 Highline ...... 30°02.20′ N., 093°44.30′ W.
(d) Reporting points (Outbound).
TABLE 161.70(d)—OUTBOUND
Designator Geographic name Geographic description Latitude/Longitude Notes
1 ...... Sabine River Light ‘‘2’’ ...... Black Bayou ...... 30°00.00′ N., 093°46.25′ W. 2 ...... Ready Reserve Fleet Highline ...... Channel at Cove Mid-Point ...... 30°00.80′ N., 093°59.90′ W. 3 ...... FINA Highline Neches River Light FINA Highline ...... 29°59.09′ N., 093°54.30′ W. ‘‘19’’. 4 ...... GIWW Mile 285 ...... The School House ...... 29°52.70′ N., 093°55.55′ W. Sector Shift. 5 ...... Port Arthur Canal Light ‘‘43’’ ...... Keith Lake ...... 29°46.50′ N., 093°56.47′ W. 6 ...... Sabine Pass Buoys ‘‘29/30’’ ...... Sabine Pass Buoys ‘‘29/30’’ ...... 29°35.90′ N., 093°48.20′ W. 7 ...... Sabine Bank Channel ‘‘SB’’ Buoy .... Sabine Bank Sea Buoy ...... 29°25.00′ N., 093°40.00′ W. Final Report.
(e) Reporting points (Eastbound).
TABLE 161.70(e)—EASTBOUND (ICW)
Designator Geographic name Geographic description Latitude/Longitude Notes
1 ...... GIWW Mile 295 ...... ICW MM 295 ...... 29°47.25′ N., 094°01.10′ W. Sailing Plan Report. 2 ...... North Forty GIWW Mile 279 ...... North Forty ...... 29°56.40′ N., 093°52.10′ W. 3 ...... Sabine River MM 268 ...... 268 Highline ...... 30°02.20′ N., 093°44.30′ W. 4 ...... GIWW Mile 260 ...... 260 Highline ...... 30°03.50′ N., 093°37.50′ W. Final Report.
(f) Reporting points (Westbound).
TABLE 161.70(f)—WESTBOUND (ICW)
Designator Geographic name Geographic description Latitude/Longitude Notes
1 ...... GIWW Mile 260 ...... 260 Highline ...... 30°03.50′ N., 093°37.50′ W. Sailing Plan Report. 2 ...... Sabine River Light ‘‘2’’ ...... Black Bayou ...... 30°00.03′ N., 093°46.18′ W. 3 ...... GIWW Mile 285 ...... The School House ...... 29°52.71′ N., 093°55.55′ W. Sector Shift. 4 ...... GIWW Mile 295 ...... ICW MM 295 ...... 29°46.20′ N., 094°02.60′ W. Final Report.
(g) Reporting points (Offshore Safety Fairway).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55448 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 161.70(g)—OFFSHORE SAFETY FAIRWAY
Designator Geographic name Geographic description Latitude/Longitude Notes
1 ...... Sabine Pass Safety Fairway—East .. East Dogleg ...... 29°35.00′ N., 093°28.00′ W. 2 ...... Sabine Pass Safety Fairway—West West Dogleg ...... 29°28.00′ N., 093°58.00′ W.
Dated: September 4, 2012. • Mail: Kate Michie, Southeast Background Mark E. Butt, Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Amendment 18A, implemented Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. through final rulemaking on July 1, Commandant for Capability. Instructions: All comments received 2012, (77 FR 32408, June 1, 2012), [FR Doc. 2012–22164 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] are a part of the public record and will includes a provision to limit BILLING CODE 9110–04–P generally be posted to http:// participation in the black sea bass pot www.regulations.gov without change. segment of the snapper-grouper fishery All Personal Identifying Information (for through the establishment of an example, name, address, etc.) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE endorsement program. In order to voluntarily submitted by the commenter qualify for a black sea bass pot may be publicly accessible. Do not National Oceanic and Atmospheric endorsement, an entity must have held submit Confidential Business Administration a valid South Atlantic snapper-grouper Information or otherwise sensitive or unlimited permit on the effective date of protected information. 50 CFR Part 622 the final rule implementing Amendment To submit comments through the 18A (or July 1, 2012). In addition to this Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// [Docket No. 120718253–2367–01] requirement, qualifying permit holders www.regulations.gov, enter ‘‘NOAA– must have had average annual black sea RIN 0648–BC30 NMFS–2012–0128’’ in the search field bass landings of at least 2,500 lb (1,134 and click on ‘‘search’’. After you located kg), round weight, using black sea bass Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of the proposed rule, click on ‘‘Submit a pot gear between January 1, 1999 and Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper- Comment’’ link in that row. This will December 31, 2010. Those permit Grouper Fishery off the Southern display the comment web form. You can holders with no reported commercial Atlantic States; Transferability of Black enter your submitter information (unless landings of black sea bass using black Sea Bass Pot Endorsements you prefer to remain anonymous), and sea bass pot gear between January 1, type your comment on the web form. 2008, and December 31, 2010, did not AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries You can also attach additional files (up Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and qualify for an endorsement. The number to 10MB) in Microsoft Word, Excel, of South Atlantic snapper-grouper Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats Commerce. unlimited permit holders that meet only. these criteria as of September 10, 2012 ACTION: Proposed rule; request for Comments received through means is 32, and more endorsements could be comments. not specified in this rule will not be issued after the appeals process considered. finalizes. Only those vessels associated SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to For further assistance with submitting implement a revision of a disapproved with a valid endorsement can legally a comment, see the ‘‘Commenting’’ fish for black sea bass in the South action from Amendment 18A (the section at http://www.regulations.gov/ Resubmittal) to the Fishery Management Atlantic using black sea bass pot gear. #!faqs or the Help section at http:// Amendment 18A also contained an Plan (FMP) for the Snapper-Grouper www.regulations.gov. Fishery of the South Atlantic Region action to allow for the transfer of black Electronic copies of Amendment 18A sea bass pot endorsements. However, (Amendment 18A), as prepared and and the Resubmittal may be obtained submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery NMFS disapproved this action because from the Southeast Regional Office Web Amendment 18A and the supporting Management Council (Council). If site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/ implemented, this rule would allow EIS incorrectly described the preferred SASnapperGrouperHomepage.htm. alternative as allowing transfer of black sea bass pot endorsements to be Amendment 18A includes an transferred under specific conditions. landings history without transfer of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), permit. However, the following analysis The intent of this rule is to implement an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act the transferability action originally of alternatives applied a correct Analysis (IRFA), a Regulatory Impact understanding of what the preferred submitted in Amendment 18A, as Review, and a Fishery Impact clarified in the Resubmittal. alternative was, i.e. that landings history Statement. The Resubmittal includes a would not be transferred independently DATES: Written comments must be RIR and a FIS. of the permit. Therefore, NMFS received on or before September 25, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate disapproved that measure, and the 2012. Michie, 727–824–5305. Council revised and resubmitted the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The action addressing transferability of black on the proposed rule identified by snapper-grouper fishery of the South sea bass pot endorsements in an ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2012–0128’’ by any of Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The amendment (the Resubmittal). All the following methods: FMP was prepared by the Council and reasonable alternatives for the • Electronic Submissions: Submit is implemented through regulations at transferability action were correctly electronic comments via the Federal e- 50 CFR Part 622 under the authority of characterized in the supporting analysis Rulemaking Portal: http:// the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery in Amendment 18A pursuant to the www.regulations.gov. Follow the Conservation and Management Act National Environmental Policy Act, instructions for submitting comments. (Magnuson-Stevens Act). including biological, economic, social,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55449
administrative, and cumulative impacts inadvertently not removed in the final No other small entities that would be of the action, and that analysis was rule implementing the Comprehensive expected to be directly affected by this incorporated by reference in the Ecosystem-Based Amendment 2 for the proposed rule have been identified. Resubmittal. The only possible impact South Atlantic (76 FR 82183, December The Small Business Administration not discussed was any economic impact 30, 2011). That rule established an has established size criteria for all major that could result from assigning annual catch limit of zero for South industry sectors in the U.S. including landings history to the endorsement or Atlantic octocorals, thereby, eliminating fish harvesters. A business involved in to the permit. However, the only the quota from the regulations and the fish harvesting is classified as a small condition under which the assignment need for quota closure provisions. The business if it is independently owned of landings history would make a quota closure provisions, however, were and operated, is not dominant in its difference is if permit/endorsement inadvertently not removed in that final field of operation (including its holders and potential buyers of rule; therefore, this rule removes the affiliates), and has combined annual endorsements/permits expect the obsolete quota closure provisions. receipts not in excess of $4.0 million endorsement system to be converted to (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for Classification a catch share program. Amendment 18A all its affiliated operations worldwide. did not consider a catch share program Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Based on the average revenue estimates and it is too speculative to consider the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS provided above, all commercial vessels economic effects of a catch share Assistant Administrator has determined expected to be directly affected by this program at this time. that this proposed rule is consistent proposed rule are determined, for the This rule would allow transfer of a with the FMP, the Resubmitted purpose of this analysis, to be small black sea bass pot endorsement to an Amendment 18A Action Amendment, business entities. individual or entity that holds or other provisions of the Magnuson- The proposed action is expected to simultaneously obtains a valid South Stevens Act, and other applicable law, increase individual profitability of those Atlantic snapper-grouper unlimited subject to further consideration after owning the endorsement because of the permit. In order to be transferred, a public comment. increased value of an endorsement once black sea bass pot endorsement must be This proposed rule has been it becomes transferable. Also, industry valid or renewable. Black sea bass pot determined to be not significant for profitability is expected to increase as endorsements may be transferred purposes of Executive Order 12866. more efficient operators enter the black independently from the South Atlantic The Chief Counsel for Regulation of sea bass commercial harvesting sector. snapper-grouper unlimited permit with the Department of Commerce certified Thirty-two endorsements have been which it is associated. Landings history to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the issued as of September 10, 2012. would not be transferred with the Small Business Administration that this Although more could be issued after the endorsement. NMFS will attribute black proposed rule, if adopted, would not appeals process finalizes, there will be sea bass landings to the associated have a significant economic impact on a limited number of endorsements. South Atlantic snapper-grouper a substantial number of small entities. Thus, the overall profit increase would unlimited permit regardless of whether The factual basis for this determination not be significant relative to the size of the landings occurred before or after the is as follows: the black sea bass commercial sector endorsement was issued. Black sea bass and the entire commercial sector of the pot endorsements would not be The purpose of this proposed rule is snapper-grouper fishery. renewed automatically with the South to allow black sea bass pot Atlantic snapper-grouper permit with endorsements, created through Because this proposed rule, if which it is associated. The endorsement Amendment 18A, to be transferred implemented, would not be expected to must be renewed separately from the among South Atlantic snapper-grouper have a significant economic impact on permit on the Federal Permit unlimited permit holders. The any small entities, an initial regulatory Application for Vessels Fishing in the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the flexibility analysis is not required and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). statutory basis for this proposed rule. none has been prepared. NMFS expects this rule, if List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 Other Changes to Codified Text implemented, to directly affect This rule also proposes to revise commercial vessels that landed black Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, codified text in § 622.40, regarding sea bass because snapper-grouper Reporting and recordkeeping issuance of the identification tags for permit holders that have fished for black requirements, Virgin Islands. black sea bass pots. In the final rule for sea bass in the past are the most likely Dated: September 5, 2012. Amendment 18A (77 FR 32408, June 1, candidates to have an endorsement Alan D. Risenhoover, 2012), the regulations incorrectly stated transferred to them. During 2005–2010, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, that NMFS would issue the an annual average of 247 vessels with performing the functions and duties of the identification tags for black sea bass valid South Atlantic commercial Deputy Assistant Administrator for pots and new identification tags would snapper-grouper unlimited permits Regulatory Programs, National Marine be issued each year. Endorsement landed black sea bass, generating Fisheries Service. holders order identification tags through dockside revenues of approximately For the reasons set out in the NMFS, however, a supplier actually $1.103 million (2010 dollars). Each preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed issues the identification tags. vessel, therefore, generated an average to be amended as follows: Endorsement holders must apply for of approximately $4,465 in gross new tags each permit year at the same revenues from black sea bass. Vessels PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE time they renew their permit and that operate in the black sea bass CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH endorsement. The regulations would be segment of the snapper-grouper fishery ATLANTIC revised to clarify these points. may also operate in other segments of This rule would also remove and the snapper-grouper fishery, the 1. The authority citation for part 622 reserve paragraph (a)(2) in § 622.43, revenues of which are not reflected in continues to read as follows: because this paragraph was these totals. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55450 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
2. In § 622.4, the introductory (D) Transferability. A valid or Atlantic snapper-grouper, in § 622.19(b) paragraph in paragraph (a)(2)(xv) is renewable black sea bass pot for a commercial vessel permit for South revised, paragraph (a)(2)(xv)(D) is endorsement may be transferred Atlantic rock shrimp, in added, and the first sentence in between any two entities that hold, or § 622.4(a)(2)(xiv)(D) for an eastern Gulf paragraph (g)(1) is revised to read as simultaneously obtain a valid South reef fish bottom longline endorsement, follows: Atlantic snapper-grouper unlimited and in § 622.4(a)(2)(xv)(D) for a South permit. Endorsements may be Atlantic black sea bass pot endorsement. § 622.4 Permits and fees. transferred independently from the *** (a) * * * South Atlantic snapper-grouper * * * * * unlimited permit. NMFS will attribute (2) * * * 3. In § 622.40, paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) is black sea bass landings to the associated revised to read as follows: (xv) South Atlantic black sea bass pot South Atlantic snapper-grouper endorsement. For a person aboard a unlimited permit regardless of whether § 622.40 Limitations on traps and pots. vessel, for which a commercial vessel the landings occurred before or after the * * * * * permit for South Atlantic snapper- endorsement was issued. Only legal (d) * * * grouper unlimited has been issued, to landings reported in compliance with (1) * * * use a black sea bass pot in the South applicable state and Federal regulations (i) * * * Atlantic EEZ, a South Atlantic black sea are acceptable. (D) A vessel that has on board a valid bass pot endorsement must have been * * * * * Federal commercial permit for South issued to the vessel and it must be valid (g) * * * Atlantic snapper-grouper and a South and on board the vessel, and the (1) * * * A vessel permit, license, or Atlantic black sea bass pot endorsement commercial vessel permit for South endorsement or a dealer permit or that fishes in the South Atlantic EEZ on Atlantic snapper-grouper unlimited endorsement issued under this section a trip with black sea bass pots, may must be valid and on board the vessel. is not transferable or assignable, except possess only 35 black sea bass pots per A permit or endorsement that has as provided in paragraph (m) of this vessel per permit year. Each black sea expired is not valid. This endorsement section for a commercial vessel permit bass pot in the water or onboard a vessel must be renewed annually and may for Gulf reef fish, in paragraph (o) of this in the South Atlantic EEZ, must have a only be renewed if the associated vessel section for a king mackerel gillnet valid identification tag attached. has a valid commercial vessel permit for permit, in paragraph (q) of this section Endorsement holders must apply for South Atlantic snapper-grouper for a commercial vessel permit for king new tags each permit year through unlimited or if the endorsement and mackerel, in paragraph (r) of this section NMFS to replace the tags from the associated permit are being concurrently for a charter vessel/headboat permit for previous year. renewed. The RA will not reissue this Gulf coastal migratory pelagic fish or * * * * * endorsement if the endorsement is Gulf reef fish, in paragraph (s) of this revoked or if the RA does not receive a section for a commercial vessel § 622.43 [Amended] complete application for renewal of the moratorium permit for Gulf shrimp, in 4. In § 622.43, paragraph (a)(2) is endorsement within 1 year after the § 622.17(c) for a commercial vessel removed and reserved. endorsement’s expiration date. permit for golden crab, in § 622.18(b) for [FR Doc. 2012–22221 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] * * * * * a commercial vessel permit for South BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEP1.SGM 10SEP1 wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 55451
Notices Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 175
Monday, September 10, 2012
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Export Reporting Division, Foreign The FY 2013 specialty sugar TRQ will contains documents other than rules or Agricultural Service, Department of be opened in five tranches. The first proposed rules that are applicable to the Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue tranche, totaling 1,656 MTRV, will open public. Notices of hearings and investigations, SW., AgStop 1021, Washington, DC October 12, 2012. All specialty sugars committee meetings, agency decisions and 20250–1021; by telephone (202) 720– are eligible for entry under this tranche. rulings, delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 2916; by fax (202) 720–0876; or by email The second tranche will open on statements of organization and functions are [email protected]. October 26, 2012, and be equal to 35,245 examples of documents appearing in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MTRV. The remaining tranches will section. provisions of paragraph (a)(i) of the each be equal to 20,003 MTRV, with the Additional U.S. Note 5, Chapter 17 in third opening on January 11, 2013; the the HTS authorize the Secretary of fourth, on April 11, 2013; and the fifth, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agriculture to establish the in-quota on July 11, 2013. The second, third, TRQ amounts (expressed in terms of fourth, and fifth tranches will be Office of the Secretary raw value) for imports of raw cane sugar reserved for organic sugar and other specialty sugars not currently produced Determination of Total Amounts of and certain sugars, syrups, and molasses that may be entered under the commercially in the United States or Fiscal Year 2013 Tariff-Rate Quotas for reasonably available from domestic Raw Cane Sugar and Certain Sugars, subheadings of the HTS subject to the lower tier of duties of the TRQs for entry sources. Syrups and Molasses; and the Fiscal Section 359c of the Agricultural Year 2013 Overall Allotment Quantity during each fiscal year. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, Under the Sugar Marketing Allotment requires that the OAQ be established at Program responsible for the allocation of these quantities among supplying countries not less than 85 percent of the estimated AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA. and areas. quantity of sugar for domestic human ACTION: Notice. Section 359(k) of the Agricultural consumption for the crop year, and that Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, fixed percentages of the OAQ be SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of requires that at the beginning of the assigned to the beet sector and cane the Department of Agriculture quota year the Secretary of Agriculture sector. The OAQ for FY 2013 is being announces the establishment of the establish the TRQs for raw cane sugar established at the minimum quantity of Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (October 1, 2012– and refined sugars at the minimum 9,711,250 STRV. Based on the required September 30, 2013) in-quota aggregate levels necessary to comply with beet sector and cane sector percentages quantity of the raw, as well as, refined obligations under international trade of 54.35 and 46.65 respectively, the and specialty sugar Tariff-Rate Quotas agreements, with the exception of sugar beet sector is allotted 5,278,064 (TRQ). The FY 2013 raw cane sugar specialty sugar. STRV and cane sector is allotted TRQ is established at 1,117,195 metric Notice is hereby given that I have 4,433,186 STRV for FY 2013. tons raw value (MTRV). In addition, the determined, in accordance with The cane sector allotment is allocated in-quota aggregate quantity of the paragraph (a)(i) of the Additional U.S. to the sugarcane States according to refined and specialty sugar TRQ is Note 5, Chapter 17 in the HTS and provisions in the sugar program, as established at 117,254 MTRV for certain section 359(k) of the 1938 Act, that an follows: Hawaii—245,499 STRV; sugars, syrups, and molasses aggregate quantity of up to 1,117,195 Florida—2,250,786 STRV; Louisiana— (collectively referred to as refined sugar) MTRV of raw cane sugar may be entered 1,741,236 and Texas—195,665 STRV. that may be entered during FY 2013. or withdrawn from warehouse for Company allocations will be announced The Office of the Secretary of the consumption during FY 2013. This is in a press release before September 30, Department of Agriculture also the minimum amount to which the 2012. announces the establishment of the FY United States is committed under the * Conversion factor: 1 metric ton = 2013 Overall Allotment Quantity (OAQ) WTO Uruguay Round Agreements. I 1.10231125 short tons. at 9,711,250 short tons, raw value have further determined that an Dated: August 24, 2012. (STRV). As required by the Agricultural aggregate quantity of 117,254 MTRV of Michael T. Scuse, Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, sugars, syrups, and molasses may be the sugar beet sector was allotted Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign entered or withdrawn from warehouse Agricultural Services. 5,278,064 STRV (54.35 percent of the for consumption during FY 2013. Of [FR Doc. 2012–22134 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] OAQ), and the cane sugar sector was allotted 4,433,186 STRV (45.65 percent this quantity of 117,254 MTRV, the BILLING CODE 3410–01–P of the OAQ). CCC will distribute the quantity of 96,910 MTRV is reserved for sector allotments among domestic sugar the importation of specialty sugars as DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE beet and sugarcane processors according defined by the USTR. The total of 117,254 MTRV includes the 22,000 to the regulations in 7 CFR part 1435 in Agricultural Research Service a press release before September 30, MTRV minimum level necessary to 2012. comply with U.S. WTO Uruguay Round Notice of Intent To Request an commitments, of which 1,656 MTRV is DATES: Effective Date: September 10, Extension of a Currently Approved reserved for specialty sugar. Because the Information Collection 2012. specialty sugar TRQ is first-come, first- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: served, tranches are needed to allow for AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, Souleymane Diaby, Import Policies and orderly marketing throughout the year. USDA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55452 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
ACTION: Notice and request for Estimate of Burden: Public reporting Secure Rural Schools and Community comments. burden for this collection of information Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 112– is estimated to average 3 hours per 141) (the Act) and operates in SUMMARY: In accordance with the response. compliance with the Federal Advisory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this Description of Respondents: Committee Act. The purpose of the notice announces the Agricultural Businesses or other for profit committee is to improve collaborative Research Service’s (ARS) intention to individuals. relationships and to provide advice and request an extension of a currently Estimated Number of Respondents: recommendations to the Forest Service approved information collection, Form 75. concerning projects and funding AD–761, USDA Patent License Frequency of Responses: One time per consistent with the Title II of the Act. Application for Government Invention invention. The meeting is open to the public. The that expires February 28, 2013. Estimated Total Annual Burden on purpose of the meeting is to review and DATES: Comments must be received on Respondents: 225 hours. recommend project proposals that will or before November 9, 2012. This data will be collected under the meet the purposes of improving or ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to authority of 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). maintaining existing infrastructure June Blalock, USDA, ARS, Office of Copies of this information collection (roads & trails), implementing Technology Transfer, 5601 Sunnyside and related instructions can be obtained stewardship objectives that enhance Avenue, Room 4–1174, Beltsville, without charge from June Blalock, forested ecosystems, and/or restoring Maryland 20705–5131; Telephone USDA, ARS, Office of Technology and improving land health and water Number 301–504–5989. Transfer by calling 301–504–5989. quality on National Forest System lands. Comments are invited on (a) whether FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June DATES: The meeting will be held the proposed collection of information Blalock, USDA, ARS, Office of September 20, 2012, 9 a.m. is necessary for the proper performance Technology Transfer, 301–504–5989. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in of the functions of the agency, including SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the upper conference room, Admirality whether the information will have National Monument Office, 8510 Title: USDA Patent License practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Application for Government Invention. Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau, AK agency’s estimate of the burden of the 99801. The public may attend the OMB Number: 0518–0003. proposed collection of information Expiration Date of Approval: February meeting via Video Teleconference (VTC) including the validity of the at the Hoonah Ranger District office, 28, 2013. methodology and assumptions used; (c) Type of Request: To extend a 430A Airport Road, Hoonah, AK 99829. ways to enhance the quality, utility, and Written comments may be submitted as currently approved information clarity of the information to be collection. described under Supplementary collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Information. All comments, including Abstract: The USDA patent licensing burden of the collection of information program grants patent licenses to names and addresses when provided, on those who are to respond, such as are placed in the record and are qualified businesses and individuals through the use of appropriate who wish to commercialize inventions available for public inspection and automated, electronic, mechanical, or copying. The public may inspect arising from federally supported other technological collection research. The objective of the program is comments received at the Admirality techniques or other forms of information National Monument Office, 8510 to use the patent system to promote the technology, e.g. permitting electronic utilization of inventions arising from Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau, AK submission of responses. 99801. Please call ahead to (907) 586– such research. The licensing of federally Comments may be sent to USDA, owned inventions must be done in 8800 to facilitate entry into the building ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, to view comments. accordance with the terms, conditions 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Room 4–1174, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and procedures prescribed under 37 Beltsville, Maryland 20705–5131. All Shane King, RAC Coordinator, 8510 CFR part 404. Application for a license responses to this notice will be Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau, AK must be addressed to the Federal agency summarized and included in the request 99801; (907) 789–6286; email having custody of the invention. for OMB approval. All comments will [email protected]. Individuals who Licenses may be granted only if the also become a matter of public record. license applicant has supplied the use telecommunication devices for the Federal agency with a satisfactory plan Richard J. Brenner, deaf (TDD) may call the Federal for the development and marketing of Assistant Administrator. Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– the invention and with information [FR Doc. 2012–22201 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] 800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 about the applicant’s capability to fulfill BILLING CODE 3410–03–P p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday the plan. 37 CFR 404.8 sets forth the through Friday. information which must be provided by SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The a license applicant. For the convenience DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE following business will be conducted: of the applicant, USDA has itemized the review and status updates on Title II information needed on Form AD–761, Forest Service projects, review the status of funds to be and instructions for completing the form allocated, discuss acquisition are provided to the applicant. The Lynn Canal-Icy Strait Resource management instruments for information submitted is used to Advisory Committee implementation of projects, review determine whether the applicant has AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. monitoring report, review and approve both a complete and sufficient plan for ACTION: Notice of meeting. administrative costs, provide developing and marketing the invention opportunity for proponents to present and the necessary manufacturing, SUMMARY: The Lynn Canal-Icy Strait proposals (5 minutes each), provide LC– marketing, technical, and financial Resource Advisory Committee (LC–IS IS RAC members an opportunity to ask resources to carry out the submitted RAC) will meet in Juneau, AK. The questions about proposals (3 minutes plan. committee is authorized under the each), review the proposal
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55453
recommendation process, review and infrastructure (roads & trails), Dated: August 28, 2012. rank project proposals by Category implementing stewardship objectives Marti M. Marshall, Groups, provide recommendations for that enhance forested ecosystems, and/ Designated Federal Official. funding to the Designated Federal or restoring and improving land health [FR Doc. 2012–22032 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Official and provide for public and water quality on National Forest BILLING CODE 3410–11–M comment. Further information can be System lands. found at http://goo.gl/tnSEV. Anyone DATES: The meeting will be held who would like to bring related matters September 25, 2012, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE to the attention of the committee may ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at file written statements with the Forest Service Juneau Ranger District, 8510 committee staff before the meeting. The Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau, AK agenda will include time for people to Butte County Resource Advisory 99801. make oral statements of three minutes or Committee Written comments may be submitted less. Individuals wishing to make an AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. oral statement should request in writing as described under Supplementary ACTION: Notice of meeting. by September 19, 2012 to be scheduled Information. All comments, including on the agenda. Written comments and names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are SUMMARY: The Butte County Resource requests for time for oral comments Advisory Committee will meet in must be sent to Shane King, RAC available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect Oroville, California. The committee is Coordinator, 8510 Mendenhall Loop authorized under the Secure Rural Road, Juneau, AK 99801, or by email to comments received at Juneau Ranger District. Please call ahead to (907) 586– Schools and Community Self- [email protected], or via facsimile to Determination Act (Pub. L. 112–141) (907) 586–8808. A summary of the 8800 to facilitate entry into the building to view comments. (the Act) and operates in compliance meeting will be posted at http://goo.gl/ with the Federal Advisory Committee tnSEV within 21 days of the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Act. The purpose of the committee is to Meeting Accommodations: If you Marti Marshall, Designated Federal improve collaborative relationships and require sign language interpreting, Official, Juneau Ranger District, (907) to provide advice and recommendations assistive listening devices or other 586–8800, [email protected]. to the Forest Service concerning projects reasonable accommodation please Individuals who use and funding consistent with the title II request this in advance of the meeting telecommunication devices for the deaf of the Act. The meeting is open to the by contacting the person listed in the (TDD) may call the Federal Information public. The purpose of the meeting is to section titled For Further Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 review and recommend projects Contact. All reasonable accommodation between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern authorized under title II of the Act. requests are managed on a case by case Standard Time, Monday through Friday. DATES: The meeting will be held basis. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The September 26, 2012 from 5:30–9:30 p.m. Dated: August 17, 2012. following business will be conducted: ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at (1) Review of project proposals for Chad VanOrmer, the Feather River Ranger District recommendation to Forest Supervisor. Monument Ranger. Conference Room at 875 Mitchell Anyone who would like to bring related [FR Doc. 2012–22011 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Avenue, Oroville, CA 95965. Written matters to the attention of the committee BILLING CODE 3410–11–M comments may be submitted as may file written statements with the described under Supplementary committee staff before the meeting. The Information. All comments, including agenda will include time for people to DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE names and addresses when provided, make oral statements of three minutes or are placed in the record and are Forest Service less. Individuals wishing to make an available for public inspection and oral statement should request in writing copying. The public may inspect Juneau Resource Advisory Committee by September 10, 2012 to be scheduled comments received at the Plumas on the agenda. Written comments and AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. National Forest Supervisors Office, 159 requests for time for oral comments ACTION: Notice of meeting. Lawrence Street, Quincy, CA 95971. must be sent to 8510 Mendenhall Loop Please call ahead to Lee Anne Schramel SUMMARY Road, Juneau, AK 99801, or by email to : The Juneau Resource Taylor at (530) 283–7850 to facilitate [email protected], or via facsimile Advisory Committee will meet in entry into the building to view to (907) 586–8808. A summary of the Juneau, AK. The committee is comments. authorized under the Secure Rural meeting will be posted at https:// Schools and Community Self- fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/wo/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Determination Act (Pub. L. 112–141) secure_rural_schools.nsf/RAC/ Anne Schramel Taylor, RAC (the Act) and operates in compliance Juneau?OpenDocument within 21 days Coordinator, Plumas National Forest, with the Federal Advisory Committee of the meeting. (530) 283–7850, TTY 711, eataylor@fs. Act. The purpose of the committee is to Meeting Accommodations: If you fed.us. Individuals who use improve collaborative relationships and require sign language interpreting, telecommunication devices for the deaf to provide advice and recommendations assistive listening devices or other (TDD) may call the Federal Information to the Forest Service concerning projects reasonable accommodation please Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 and funding consistent with the title II request this in advance of the meeting between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., of the Act. The meeting is open to the by contacting the person listed in the Eastern Standard Time, Monday public. The purpose of the meeting is to section titled For Further Information through Friday. review and recommend project Contact. All reasonable accommodation SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposals that will meet the purposes of requests are managed on a case by case following business will be conducted: improving or maintaining existing basis. review and recommend projects
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55454 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
authorized under title II of the Act. An copying. The public may inspect Fargo, 200 N. 3rd Street, Fargo, ND agenda will be posted at http://www.fs. comments received at the Plumas 58102. fed.us/srs at least one week prior to the National Forest Supervisors Office, 159 The purpose of the briefing and meeting. Anyone who would like to Lawrence Street, Quincy, CA 95971. listening meeting is to hear civil and bring related matters to the attention of Please call ahead to Lee Anne Schramel human rights issues of concern by the committee may file written Taylor at (530) 283–7850 to facilitate citizens of the state and a briefing by a statements with the committee staff entry into the building to view before or after the meeting. A summary comments. state human rights coalition. Members of the public are entitled to of the meeting will be posted at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee http://www.fs.usda.gov/srs within 21 Anne Schramel Taylor, RAC submit written comments; the days of the meeting. Coordinator, Plumas National Forest, comments must be received in the Meeting Accommodations: If you are (530) 283–7850, TTY 711, eataylor@fs. regional office within 30 days of the a person requiring resonable fed.us. Individuals who use meeting. Written comments may be accomodation, please make requests in telecommunication devices for the deaf mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional advance for sign language interpreting, (TDD) may call the Federal Information Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, assistive listening devices or other Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 999 18th Street, Suite 1380 South, reasonable accomodation for access to between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Denver, CO 80202. They may be faxed the facility or procedings by contacting Eastern Standard Time, Monday to (303) 866–1050 or emailed to the person listed under For FURTHER through Friday. [email protected]. Persons who desire INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The additional information may contact accommodation requests are managed following business will be conducted: Malee V. Craft, Regional Director, Rocky on a case by case basis. review and recommend projects Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866– Dated: August 31, 2012. authorized under title II of the Act. An 1040. Earl Ford, agenda will be posted at http://www.fs. Records generated from this meeting Forest Supervisor. fed.us/srs at least one week prior to the may be inspected and reproduced at the [FR Doc. 2012–22177 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] meeting. Anyone who would like to Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as BILLING CODE 3410–11–P bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written they become available, both before and statements with the committee staff after the meeting. Persons interested in DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE before or after the meeting. A summary the work of this advisory committee are of the meeting will be posted at http:// advised to go to the Commission’s Web Forest Service www.fs.usda.gov/srs within 21 days of site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the Plumas County Resource Advisory the meeting. Meeting Accommodations: If you are above email, street address, or telephone Committee a person requiring resonable number. AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. accomodation, please make requests in Deaf or hearing-impaired persons who ACTION: Notice of meeting. advance for sign language interpreting, will attend the meeting and require the assistive listening devices or other services of a sign language interpreter SUMMARY: The Plumas County Resource reasonable accomodation for access to should contact the Rocky Mountain Advisory Committee will meet in the facility or procedings by contacting Quincy, California. The committee is Regional Office at least ten (10) working the person listed under For Further days before the scheduled date of the authorized under the Secure Rural Information Contact. All reasonable meeting. Schools and Community Self- accommodation requests are managed Determination Act (Pub. L. 112–141) on a case by case basis. To ensure that the Commission (the Act) and operates in compliance secures an appropriate number of Dated: August 31, 2012. with the Federal Advisory Committee telephone lines for the public, persons Earl Ford, Act. The purpose of the committee is to are asked to contact the Rocky Mountain Forest Supervisor. improve collaborative relationships and Regional Office 10 days before the to provide advice and recommendations [FR Doc. 2012–22182 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] meeting date either by email at to the Forest Service concerning projects BILLING CODE 3410–11–P [email protected] or by phone. and funding consistent with the title II The meeting will be conducted of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS pursuant to the provisions of the rules review and recommend projects and regulations of the Commission and authorized under title II of the Act. Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting FACA. of the North Dakota Advisory DATES: The meeting will be held Dated in Washington, DC, on September 5, Committee to the U.S. Commission on September 21, 2012 from 9:00 a.m.–2:00 2012. Civil Rights p.m. Peter Minarik, ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Acting Chief, Regional Programs the Plumas Sierra County Fair Mineral the provisions of the rules and Coordination Unit. Building at 207 Fairgrounds Road in regulations of the U.S. Commission on [FR Doc. 2012–22193 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Civil Rights, and the Federal Advisory Quincy, CA. BILLING CODE 6335–01–P Written comments may be submitted Committee Act (FACA), that a Briefing as described under Supplementary and Listening Meeting of the North Information. All comments, including Dakota Advisory Committee to the names and addresses when provided, Commission will convene at 9 a.m. are placed in the record and are (CDT) on Monday, September 24, 2012, available for public inspection and at the City Commission Room, City of
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55455
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE remain unchanged from our Preliminary Results. The final results are listed in Foreign-Trade Zones Board Foreign-Trade Zones Board the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of [B–31–2012] Review’’ below. [Order No. 1849] DATES: Effective September 10, 2012. Foreign-Trade Zone 235—Lakewood, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Approval for Manufacturing Authority NJ, Authorization of Production Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Foreign-Trade Zone 72, Brevini Wind Activity, Cosmetic Essence Operations Office 7, Import USA, Inc., (Wind Turbine Gear Boxes), Innovations, LLC, (Fragrance Bottling), Administration, International Trade Yorktown, IN Holmdel, NJ Administration, U.S. Department of Cosmetic Essence Innovations, LLC Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign- Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as (CEI) submitted a notification of telephone: (202) 482–6312 or (202) 482– amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign- proposed production activity to the 0649, respectively. Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for following Order: their facility located in Holmdel, New SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Jersey, within Site 8 of FTZ 235. Background Whereas, the Indianapolis Airport The notification was processed in Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade accordance with the regulations of the On June 6, 2012, the Department Zone 72, has requested manufacturing FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including published the preliminary results of this authority on behalf of Brevini Wind notice in the Federal Register inviting review in the Federal Register. See USA, Inc., within FTZ 72 in Yorktown, public comment (77 FR 26737, 5/7/ Preliminary Results. We invited parties Indiana (FTZ Docket 54–2011, filed 8– 2012). The FTZ Board has determined to comment on the Preliminary Results. 11–2011); that no further review of the activity is As stated above, Noksel submitted warranted at this time. The production comments on July 6, 2012, but withdrew Whereas, notice inviting public activity described in the notification is them on July 9, 2012. No party comment has been given in the Federal authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and requested a hearing. Register (76 FR 51349–51350, 8–18– the Board’s regulations, including Scope of the Order 2011) and the application has been Section 400.14. processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and The merchandise subject to this order the Board’s regulations; and, Dated: September 4, 2012. is certain welded carbon-quality light- Andrew McGilvray, Whereas, the Board adopts the walled steel pipe and tube, of Executive Secretary. findings and recommendations of the rectangular (including square) cross [FR Doc. 2012–22248 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] examiner’s report, and finds that the section, having a wall thickness of less requirements of the FTZ Act and BILLING CODE P than 4 mm. The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and Board’s regulations are satisfied, and alloy steel which contains only small that the proposal is in the public DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE amounts of alloying elements. interest; Specifically, the term carbon-quality Now, therefore, the Board hereby International Trade Administration includes products in which none of the orders: [A–489–815] elements listed below exceeds the The application for manufacturing quantity by weight respectively Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and authority under zone procedures within indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or Tube From Turkey: Notice of Final FTZ 72 on behalf of Brevini Wind USA, 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent Results of Antidumping Duty Inc., as described in the application and of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, Administrative Review Federal Register notice, is approved, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of subject to the FTZ Act and the Board’s AGENCY: Import Administration, lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 regulations, including Section 400.13. International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of SUMMARY: On June 6, 2012, the August 2012. niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or Department of Commerce (the Paul Piquado, 0.15 percent of zirconium. The Department) published the preliminary description of carbon-quality is Assistant Secretary for Import results of the administrative review of intended to identify carbon-quality Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign- the antidumping duty order on light- products within the scope. Trade Zones Board. walled rectangular pipe and tube from The welded carbon-quality Attest: Turkey.1 The review covers one rectangular pipe and tube subject to this Andrew McGilvray, producer/exporter, Noksel Celik Boru order is currently classified under the Sanayi A.S., (Noksel). The period of Executive Secretary. Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the review (POR) is May 1, 2010, through [FR Doc. 2012–22249 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] United States (HTSUS) subheadings April 30, 2011. We invited interested BILLING CODE P 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While parties to comment on our Preliminary HTSUS subheadings are provided for Results. Noksel submitted comments on convenience and CBP’s customs July 6, 2012, but withdrew them on July purposes, our written description of the 9, 2012. Therefore, our final results scope of the order is dispositive. 1 See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube Final Results of Review from Turkey: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR As noted above, the Department has 33395 (June 6, 2012) (Preliminary Results). no comments concerning the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55456 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
Preliminary Results on the record of this instances, we will instruct CBP to disclosed under APO in accordance segment of the proceeding. As there are liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all- with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely no changes from, or comments upon, others rate established in the less-than- written notification of return/ the Preliminary Results on the record, fair-value (LTFV) investigation if there destruction of APO materials or there is no decision memorandum is no rate for the intermediate conversion to judicial protective order is accompanying this Federal Register company(ies) involved in the hereby requested. Failure to comply notice. For further details of the issues transaction. See Assessment Policy with the regulations and the terms of an addressed in this proceeding, see Notice. APO is a sanctionable violation. Preliminary Results. The final weighted- This administrative review and notice Cash Deposit Requirements average dumping margin for the period are issued and published in accordance May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011, is The following deposit rates will be with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of as follows: effective upon publication of the final the Act. results of this administrative review for Dated: August 30, 2012. Weighted-average all shipments of light-walled rectangular Producer/Exporter margin Paul Piquado, (percentage) pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Noksel Celik Boru consumption on or after the publication [FR Doc. 2012–22238 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Sanayi A.S...... 0.00 date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For companies covered by BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P Assessment this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rates listed above; (2) for previously The Department shall determine, and DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Customs and Border Protection reviewed or investigated companies not (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties listed above, the cash deposit rate will National Oceanic and Atmospheric on all appropriate entries, in accordance continue to be the company-specific rate Administration published for the most recent final with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The RIN 0648–XC210 Department intends to issue appropriate results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter assessment instructions for the Marine Mammals; File No. 17410 companies subject to this review to CBP is not a firm covered in this review, a 15 days after the date of publication of prior review, or the original LTFV AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries these final results. investigation, but the producer is, the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Noksel reported that it was the cash deposit rate will be the rate Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), importer of record for all of its U.S. sales established for the most recent final Commerce. of subject merchandise. Pursuant to 19 results for the manufacturer of the ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated merchandise; and (4) if neither the an importer-specific assessment rate exporter nor the producer is a firm SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that based on the ratio of the total amount of covered in this or any previous review the Alaska Department of Fish and antidumping duties calculated for the conducted by the Department, the cash Game (ADF&G; Responsible Party: examined sales to the total entered deposit rate will be 27.04 percent ad Robert Small), 1255 West 8th Street, value of those sales. valorem, the ‘‘all others’’ rate Juneau, AK 99811, has applied in due To determine whether the duty established in the LTFV investigation.3 form for a permit to import, export, assessment rates were de minimis (i.e., These cash deposit requirements, when collect, and receive marine mammal less than 0.50 percent) in accordance imposed, shall remain in effect until parts for scientific research. with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR further notice. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or email 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer- Notification to Importers comments must be received on or before specific ad valorem rates based on October 10, 2012. This notice serves as a final reminder reported and estimated entered values ADDRESSES: The application and related to importers of their responsibility (when no entered value was reported). documents are available for review by under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a Where the assessment rate is above de selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public certificate regarding the reimbursement minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess Comment’’ from the Features box on the of antidumping duties prior to duties on all entries of subject Applications and Permits for Protected liquidation of the relevant entries merchandise by that importer. Pursuant Species (APPS) home page, https:// during this review period. Failure to to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting comply with this requirement could CBP to liquidate without regard to File No. 17410 from the list of available result in the Secretary’s presumption antidumping duties any entries for applications. that reimbursement of antidumping which the assessment rate is de These documents are also available duties occurred and the subsequent minimis. upon written request or by appointment The Department clarified its assessment of double antidumping in the following offices: ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on duties. Permits and Conservation Division, May 6, 2003.2 This clarification will Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, apply to entries of subject merchandise Notification to Interested Parties 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, during the POR produced by companies This notice serves as the only Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) included in these final results of review reminder to parties subject to 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376; and for which the reviewed companies did administrative protective order (APO) of Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box not know their merchandise was their responsibility concerning the 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668; phone destined for the United States. In such disposition of proprietary information (907) 586–7221; fax (907) 586–7249. Written comments on this application 2 See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 3 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Light- Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey, 73 should be submitted to the Chief, FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). FR 31065 (May 30, 2008). Permits and Conservation Division, at
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55457
the address listed above. Comments may Commission and its Committee of notification to provide interested parties also be submitted by facsimile to (301) Scientific Advisors. the opportunity to comment on 713–0376, or by email to Dated: September 4, 2012. applications for proposed EFPs. [email protected]. Please P. Michael Payne, DATES: Written comments on this action include the File No. in the subject line Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, must be received on or before of the email comment. Office of Protected Resources, National September 25, 2012. Those individuals requesting a public Marine Fisheries Service. ADDRESSES: Written comments should hearing should submit a written request [FR Doc. 2012–22214 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] be sent to Emily Menashes, Deputy to the Chief, Permits and Conservation BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Division at the address listed above. The NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room request should set forth the specific 13362, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Mark reasons why a hearing on these DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE the outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments applications would be appropriate. on Horseshoe Crab EFP Proposal.’’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments may also be sent via fax to Administration Laura Morse or Amy Sloan, (301) 427– (301) 713–0596. Comments on this 8401. RIN 0648–XC220 notice may also be submitted by email to: [email protected]. Include in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative subject line of the email comment the subject permit is requested under the Management Act Provisions; following document identifier: authority of the Marine Mammal Horseshoe Crabs; Application for ‘‘Horseshoe Crab EFP Proposal Protection Act of 1972, as amended Exempted Fishing Permit, 2012 Comments.’’ (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: importing of marine mammals (50 CFR Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Derek Orner, Office of Sustainable part 216), the Endangered Species Act of Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Fisheries, (301) 427–8567. 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 Commerce. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: et seq.), the regulations governing the ACTION: Notification of a proposal to Background taking, importing, and exporting of conduct exempted fishing; request for endangered and threatened species (50 comments. Limuli Laboratories submitted an CFR 222–226), and the Fur Seal Act of application for an EFP on June 19, 2012, 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et SUMMARY: The Deputy Director, Office of to collect up to 10,000 horseshoe crabs seq.). Sustainable Fisheries, has made a for biomedical and data collection preliminary determination that the purposes from the Reserve. The The objectives of the proposed subject exempted fishing permit (EFP) applicant has applied for, and received, research are to obtain information on application submitted by Limuli a similar EFP every year from 2001– population status and distribution, stock Laboratories of Cape May Court House, 2011. The current EFP application structure, age distribution, mortality NJ, contains all the required information specifies that: (1) The same methods rates, productivity, feeding habits, and and warrants further consideration. The would be used in 2012 that were used health status of twenty-six species of proposed EFP would allow the harvest in years 2001–2011, (2) at least 15 pinnipeds (excluding walrus) and of up to 10,000 horseshoe crabs from the percent of the bled horseshoe crabs cetaceans found in Alaskan waters; such Carl N. Shuster Jr. Horseshoe Crab would be tagged, and (3) there had not data would be used for conservation and Reserve (Reserve) for biomedical been any sighting or capture of marine management purposes. The applicant is purposes and require, as a condition of mammals or endangered species in the requesting authorization to collect, the EFP, the collection of data related to trawling nets of fishing vessels engaged receive, import, and export marine the status of horseshoe crabs within the in the collection of horseshoe crabs mammal parts from legal foreign (Russia reserve. The Deputy Director has also since 1993. The project submitted by and Canada) and domestic subsistence- made a preliminary determination that Limuli Laboratories would provide hunts; scientists in academic, federal, the activities authorized under the EFP morphological data on horseshoe crab and state institutions involved in legally would be consistent with the goals and catch, would tag a portion of the caught authorized marine mammal research; objectives of the Atlantic States Marine horseshoe crabs, and would use the dead beach-cast species; and incidental Fisheries Commission’s (Commission) blood from the caught horseshoe crabs commercial fisheries bycatch. Import/ Horseshoe Crab Interstate Fisheries to manufacture Limulus Amebocyte export activities would occur world- Management Plan (FMP). However, Lysate (LAL), an important health and wide. No live animal takes are being further review and consultation may be safety product used for the detection of requested under this permit. The necessary before a final determination is endotoxins. The LAL assay is used by requested duration of the permit is five made to issue the EFP. Therefore, NMFS medical professionals, drug companies, years. announces that the Deputy Director and pharmacies to detect endotoxins in In compliance with the National proposes to recommend that an EFP be intravenous pharmaceuticals and Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 issued that would allow up to two medical devices that come into contact U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial commercial fishing vessels to conduct with human blood or spinal fluid. determination has been made that the fishing operations that are otherwise activities proposed are categorically restricted by the regulations Results of 2011 EFP excluded from the requirement to promulgated under the Atlantic Coastal During the 2011 season, a total of prepare an environmental assessment or Fisheries Cooperative Management Act 3,500 horseshoe crabs were gathered environmental impact statement. (Atlantic Coastal Act). The EFP would over a period of seven days, from the Concurrent with the publication of allow for an exemption from the Carl N. Schuster Jr. Horseshoe Crab this notice in the Federal Register, Reserve. Reserve (Reserve) for the manufacture of NMFS is forwarding a copy of the Regulations under the Atlantic LAL. After transportation to the application to the Marine Mammal Coastal Act require publication of this laboratory, the horseshoe crabs were
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55458 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
inspected for size, injuries, and the consistency in the way horseshoe SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 90- responsiveness. The injured horseshoe crabs are harvested for data collection; day finding on a petition to delist the crabs numbered 310, or 8.86% of the 4. Limiting trawl tow times to 30 Southern Oregon/Northern California total, while 71, or 2.03%, were noted as minutes as a conservation measure to Coast (SONCC) Evolutionarily slow moving. An additional 16, or protect sea turtles, which are expected Significant Unit (ESU) of coho salmon 4.06% were deemed mortal. In addition, to be migrating through the area during (Oncorhynchus kisutch) under the six horseshoe crabs were rejected due to the collection period, and are vulnerable Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find small size. Overall, 3,097 horseshoe to bottom trawling; that the petition does not present crabs were used (bled) in the 5. Requiring that the collected substantial scientific or commercial manufacture of a LAL. horseshoe crabs be picked up from the information indicating that the Two hundred of the bled horseshoe fishing vessels at docks in the Cape May petitioned action may be warranted. crabs were randomly selected for Area and transported to local ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition are activity, morphometric and aging laboratories, bled for LAL, and released available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ studies. The activity level for all 200 alive the following morning into the pr/or upon request from the Assistant animals was categorized as ‘‘active’’. Lower Delaware Bay; and Regional Administrator, Protected Morphometric studies noted that 6. Requiring that any turtle take be Resources Division, NMFS, Southwest average inter-ocular distances, prosoma reported to NMFS, Northeast Region, Regional Office, 501 West Ocean Blvd., widths and weights of these 200 Assistant Regional Administrator of Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. horseshoe crabs were comparable to Protected Resources Division, within 24 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: previous years (2001–2010). Of the 200 hours of returning from the trip in horseshoe crabs examined in 2011, a Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest Region which the incidental take occurred. Office, (562) 980–4021; or Dwayne little more than half (52%) were As part of the terms and conditions of Meadows, Office of Protected Resources categorized as medium aged followed by the EFP, for all horseshoe crabs bled for (301) 427–8403. young (31%). Older animals were LAL, NMFS would require that the EFP greater in number (17%) than most of holder provide data on sex ratio and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the other years with the exception of the daily harvest. Also, the EFP holder Background 2004 year (19%) and the 2010 year would be required to examine at least Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) (26%). 200 horseshoe crabs for morphometric contains provisions allowing interested The 200 studied horseshoe crabs and data. Terms and conditions may be persons to petition the Secretary of 325 additional bled horseshoe crabs added or amended prior to the issuance Commerce (Secretary) to add a species were tagged and released into the of the EFP. to or remove a species from the List of Delaware Bay. To date, the tagging of The proposed EFP would exempt two Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 4,938 horseshoe crabs during 2001–2011 commercial vessels from regulations at and to designate critical habitat for any have resulted in 104 live recaptures. 50 CFR 697.7(e) and 697.23(f), which endangered or threatened species. The The observed horseshoe crabs were prohibit the harvest and possession of Secretary has delegated the authority for found 1 to 8 years after release, horseshoe crabs from the Reserve on a these actions to the NOAA Assistant primarily along the Delaware Bay shores vessel with a trawl or dredge gear Administrator for Fisheries. during their spawning season. aboard. On July 3, 2012, we received a Proposed 2012 EFP Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. petition from the Siskiyou County Water Limuli Laboratories proposes to Dated: September 5, 2012. Users Association and Dr. Richard conduct an exempted fishery operation Lindsay Fullenkamp, Gierak (the petitioners) requesting that using the same means, methods, and Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable we delist the SONCC ESU of coho seasons proposed/utilized during the Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. salmon under the ESA. The petitioners EFPs in 2001–2011. Limuli proposes to [FR Doc. 2012–22223 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] previously submitted four petitions requesting that we delist coho salmon. continue to tag at least 15 percent of the BILLING CODE 3510–22–P bled horseshoe crabs as they did in We analyzed those petitions and found 2011. NMFS would require that the that they did not present substantial following terms and conditions be met DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE scientific or commercial information for issuance and continuation of the EFP indicating the petitioned action may be for 2012: National Oceanic and Atmospheric warranted. One negative 90-day finding 1. Limiting the number of horseshoe Administration notice for three of these petitions was published on October 7, 2011 (76 FR crabs collected in the Reserve to no [Docket No. 120807314–2314–01] more than 500 crabs per day and to a 62375) and a second negative 90-day total of no more than 10,000 crabs per RIN 0648–XC155 finding for the fourth petition was year; published on January 11, 2012 (77 FR 2. Requiring collections to take place Endangered and Threatened Species; 1668). The new petition largely over a total of approximately 20 days 90-Day Finding on Petition To Delist reiterates the petitioners’ previous during the months of July, August, the Southern Oregon/Northern arguments, including that the species is September, October, and November. California Coast Evolutionarily not native to northern California (Horseshoe crabs are readily available in Significant Unit of Coho Salmon Under watersheds, including the Klamath harvestable concentrations nearshore the Endangered Species Act River, the species abundance has earlier in the year, and offshore in the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries increased since the early 1960s and is in Reserve from July through November.); Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and good condition overall, and that non- 1 3. Requiring that a 5 ⁄2 inch (14.0 cm) Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), man-made factors (e.g., ocean flounder net be used by the vessel to Commerce. conditions, floods, fires, and drought) collect the horseshoe crabs. This rather than man-made factors are ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition condition would allow for continuation responsible for the decline in coho finding. of traditional harvest gear and adds to salmon abundance. These arguments
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55459
were addressed in our responses to the implementing regulations state that a harassment authorization (IHA) to the previous petitions and therefore not species may be delisted only if the best Washington State Department of Natural repeated here. scientific and commercial data available Resources (DNR) to incidentally harass, In the current petition, the petitioners substantiate that it is neither by Level B harassment only, harbor have specified their request to delist the endangered nor threatened for one or seals during restoration activities within SONCC coho salmon ESU, reiterated more of the following reasons: The the Woodard Bay Natural Resources many of their previous arguments, and species is extinct; the species is Conservation Area (NRCA). presented some additional information recovered; or subsequent investigations DATES: This authorization is effective regarding coho and Chinook salmon show the best scientific or commercial from November 1, 2012, through March fishing seasons in Oregon streams, data available when the species was 15, 2013. Yukon River salmon run predictions, listed, or the interpretation of such data, ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and changes in salmon landings over the were in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)). related documents are available by past 1–2 decades, and increases in Petition Finding writing to Michael Payne, Chief, Permits Pacific Ocean water temperature. We and Conservation Division, Office of carefully analyzed this additional As discussed above, this subject Protected Resources, National Marine information and found that it is: Not petition does not present any additional Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West relevant to the petitioned action (e.g., substantial scientific or commercial Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. the Oregon and Yukon fisheries are information related to whether the A copy of the application, including different ESUs from the petitioned SONCC ESU of coho salmon is references used in this document, may species); not supported by literature recovered, extinct, or that the best be obtained by visiting the Internet at: citations or other references in the scientific or commercial data available http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ petition (e.g., historical landings and when the species was listed, or the incidental.htm. For those members of ocean temperature information), and interpretation of such data, were in the public unable to view these therefore constitutes unsupported error. Therefore, we find that the documents on the Internet, a copy may assertions; or it simply does not support petition does not present substantial be obtained by writing to the address the petitioned action (e.g., information scientific or commercial information specified above or telephoning the about coho and Chinook salmon fishing indicating that the petitioned action contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER seasons in Oregon streams that are not may be warranted. INFORMATION CONTACT). Associated within the range of this ESU). As a documents prepared pursuant to the result of these deficiencies, the petition References Cited National Environmental Policy Act does not present any additional A complete list of the references used substantial scientific or commercial in this finding is available upon request (NEPA) are also available at the same site. Documents cited in this notice may information that indicates the petitioned (see ADDRESSES). also be viewed, by appointment, during action may be warranted. Moreover, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. none of this additional information regular business hours, at the modifies the underlying scientific basis Dated: September 4, 2012. aforementioned address. for our original determination to list the Alan D. Risenhoover, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben SONCC coho salmon ESU or causes us Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Laws, Office of Protected Resources, to re-evaluate our analysis of delisting performing the functions and duties of the NMFS, (301) 427–8401. petitions that were previously submitted Deputy Assistant Administrator for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Programs, National Marine by the petitioners. Fisheries Service. Background ESA Statutory and Regulatory [FR Doc. 2012–22209 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the Provisions and Evaluation Framework BILLING CODE 3510–22–P MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 the Secretary of Commerce to allow, U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we upon request, the incidental, but not make a finding as to whether a petition DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE intentional, taking of small numbers of to list, delist, or reclassify a species National Oceanic and Atmospheric marine mammals by U.S. citizens who presents substantial scientific or Administration engage in a specified activity (other than commercial information indicating the commercial fishing) within a specified petitioned action may be warranted. RIN 0648–XC107 geographical region if certain findings ESA implementing regulations define are made and either regulations are ‘‘substantial information’’ as the Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to issued or, if the taking is limited to ‘‘amount of information that would lead Specified Activities; Piling and Fill harassment, a notice of a proposed a reasonable person to believe that the Removal in Woodard Bay Natural authorization is published in the measure proposed in the petition may Resources Conservation Area, Federal Register to provide public be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). In Washington notice and initiate a 30-day comment determining whether a petition presents AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries period. substantial scientific or commercial Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Authorization for incidental takings information to list or delist a species, we Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), shall be granted if NMFS finds that the take into account information submitted Commerce. taking will have a negligible impact on with, and referenced in, the petition and ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental the species or stock(s), will not have an all other information readily available in harassment authorization. unmitigable adverse impact on the our files. To the maximum extent availability of the species or stock(s) for practicable, this finding is to be made SUMMARY: In accordance with the subsistence uses (where relevant), and if within 90 days of the receipt of the regulations implementing the Marine the permissible methods of taking and petition, followed by prompt Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as requirements pertaining to the publication in the Federal Register (16 amended, notification is hereby given mitigation, monitoring and reporting of U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). ESA that we have issued an incidental such takings are set forth. NMFS has
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55460 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
defined ‘negligible impact’ in 50 CFR expected to require a maximum total of placed on a barge. For direct pull, a 216.103 as ‘‘* * * an impact resulting approximately 70 days. cable is set around the piling to grip and from the specified activity that cannot lift the pile from the sediment. The Description of the Specified Activity be reasonably expected to, and is not superstructure materials will be reasonably likely to, adversely affect the In accordance with regulations removed by excavator and/or cables species or stock through effects on implementing the MMPA, we published suspended from a barge-mounted crane. annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ notice of the proposed IHA in the Approximately 500 12- to 24-in Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA Federal Register on July 30, 2012 (77 FR diameter pilings, along with associated established an expedited process by 44583). A complete description of the pier superstructure, will be removed which citizens of the United States can action was included in that notice and near but not directly adjacent to haul- apply for an authorization to will not be reproduced here. outs. After vibration, a choker is used to incidentally take small numbers of The restoration activities planned lift the pile out of the water where it is marine mammals by Level B harassment under the IHA include all or part of the placed on the barge for transport to an as defined below. Section 101(a)(5)(D) following: approved disposal site. Pilings that establishes a 45-day time limit for 1. Fill Removal cannot be removed by hammer or cable, NMFS review of an application or that break during extraction, will be • Remove 13,000 yd3 of fill from followed by a 30-day public notice and recorded via GPS for divers to relocate Woodard Bay at the final phase of project activities. comment period on any proposed • Remove 325 yd3 of fill from Chapman authorizations for the incidental The divers will then cut the pilings at Bay or below the mudline using underwater harassment of marine mammals. Within • Remove associated creosoted timber, 45 days of the close of the comment chainsaws. Operations will begin on the pilings, metal scraps and concrete pilings and structures that are furthest period, NMFS must either issue or deny abutment the authorization. If authorized, the IHA from the seal haul-out so that there is an may be effective for a period of one year. 2. Piling and Structure Removal opportunity for the seals to adjust to the presence of the contractors and their Except with respect to certain • Remove 10,000 ft2 of pier equipment. Vibratory extraction activities not pertinent here, the MMPA superstructure and 470 pilings from operations may occur between defines ‘harassment’ as: ‘‘any act of Chapman Bay Pier November 1 and January 15 and are • Remove 30 anchor piles from pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) expected to occur for approximately 20 Chapman Bay has the potential to injure a marine days over the course of this work mammal or marine mammal stock in the Fill removal from Woodard and window. Other work days will be spent wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has Chapman Bays will be accomplished removing pier superstructure, which the potential to disturb a marine from the uplands by heavy equipment does not involve vibratory extraction, mammal or marine mammal stock in the and haul trucks. The creosoted pilings but has the potential to result in wild by causing disruption of behavioral in the fill will be removed from the behavioral harassment due to the patterns, including, but not limited to, uplands by a crane-mounted vibratory proximity to working crew. The portion migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, hammer. This portion of the project is of the Chapman Bay Pier that will be feeding, or sheltering [Level B estimated to take approximately 12–14 removed is approximately 100 m from harassment].’’ weeks to complete. The majority of fill the south haul-out area and 250 m from Summary of Request removal work is located in Woodard the north haul out. Bay, which is separated from the harbor On May 18, 2012, we received an seal haul-out areas (located in Chapman Comments and Responses application from the DNR for an IHA for Bay) by land. This work will likely On July 30, 2012, we published a the taking, by Level B harassment only, result in less disturbance of harbor seals notice of proposed IHA (77 FR 44583) of small numbers of harbor seals (Phoca than will the work located in Chapman in response to DNR’s request to take vitulina) incidental to activities Bay. In addition, the material to be marine mammals incidental to conducted in association with an removed will be hauled offsite by the restoration activities and requested ongoing habitat restoration project contractor via Whitham Road, which is comments and information concerning within the Woodard Bay NRCA, the main road into the NRCA and which that request. During the 30-day public Washington. DNR was first issued an leads away from the haul-out area (see comment period, we received comments IHA that was valid from November 1, Figure 4 of DNR’s application). Fill from the Marine Mammal Commission 2010, through February 28, 2011 (75 FR removal will largely occur above the (Commission) on the proposed IHA. No 67951), and was subsequently issued a Ordinary High Water Mark. Fill removal other comments were received from the second IHA that was valid from activities may occur between November public. November 1, 2011, through February 28, 1 and March 15. Chapman Bay fill The Commission provided two 2012 (76 FR 67419). Restoration activity removal is roughly 250 m from the recommendations that it has provided planned for 2012–13 includes removal south haul-out and 975 m from the for each of the past two IHAs issued to of fill and associated materials in north haul-out. DNR for substantially similar work. The Woodard Bay and Chapman Bay and Piling and structure removal work Commission recommends that we (1) removal of creosote pilings and will be accomplished by barge and require the DNR to monitor for the structure in Chapman Bay. Pilings will skiffs. The pilings will be removed by presence of and to characterize behavior be removed by vibratory hammer vibratory hammer or by direct pull with of marine mammals during all proposed extraction methods or by direct pull cables; both methods are suspended in-water activities; and (2) that we with cables. The superstructure from a barge-mounted crane. The require monitoring before, during, and materials will be removed by excavator vibratory hammer is a large steel device after all soft starts of pile removal and/or cables suspended from a barge- lowered on top of the pile, which then activities to gather the data needed to mounted crane. The specified activities grips and vibrates the pile until it is determine the effectiveness of this will occur only between November 1 loosened from the sediment. The pile is technique as a mitigation measure. We through March 15 (2012–13), and are then pulled up by the hammer and disagree with these recommendations,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55461
and the Commission has not provided considered as ‘harassed’; therefore, any resulting from physical disturbance. It is any information that would lead us to harassment resulting from exposure to anticipated that seals would be initially offer different responses from those sound pressure levels above the 120 dB disturbed by the presence of crew and offered in the past. Therefore, those criterion for behavioral harassment vessels associated with the habitat responses, which may be found in past would not be considered additional. restoration project. Seals entering the Federal Register notices (75 FR 67951, The airborne sound disturbance water following such disturbance could 76 FR 67419), are not repeated here. criteria currently used for Level B also be exposed to underwater SPLs harassment is 90 dB rms re: 20 mPa for greater than 120 dB (i.e., constituting Description of Marine Mammals in the harbor seals. Based on information on harassment); however, given the short Area of the Specified Activity airborne source levels measured for pile duration and low energy of vibratory The only marine mammal species that driving with vibratory hammer, removal extraction of 12–24 in timber piles, PTS may be harassed incidental to DNR’s of wood piles is unlikely to exceed 90 will not occur and TTS is not likely. restoration activities is the harbor seal. dB; further, the vibratory hammer will Alternatively, the presence of work Harbor seals are not listed as threatened be outfitted with a muffling device crews and vessels, or the introduction of or endangered under the ESA, nor are ensuring that airborne SPLs are no sound into the water, could result in they categorized as depleted under the higher than 80 dB. short-term avoidance of the area by seals MMPA. We presented a more detailed Potential effects of sound produced by seeking to use the haul-out. discussion of the status of the the action on harbor seals were detailed Abandonment of any portion of the Washington inland waters stock of in the notice of the proposed IHA (77 FR haul-out is not expected, as harbor seals harbor seals and its occurrence in the 44583; July 30, 2012). In short, while it have been documented as quickly action area in the notice of the proposed may be inferred that temporary hearing becoming accustomed to the presence of IHA (77 FR 44583; July 30, 2012). impairment (temporary threshold shift; work crews. During similar activities TTS) could theoretically result from the Potential Effects on Marine Mammals carried out under the previous IHAs, DNR project, it is highly unlikely, due seals showed no signs of abandonment Potential effects of DNR’s activities to the source levels and duration of or of using the haul-outs to a lesser are likely to be limited to behavioral exposure possible. It is expected that degree. disturbance of seals at the two log boom elevated sound will have only a haul-outs located in the action area. negligible probability of causing TTS in Anticipated Effects on Habitat Other potential disturbance could result individual seals. Further, seals are likely We provided a detailed discussion of from the introduction of sound into the to be disturbed via the approach of work the potential effects of this action on environment as a result of pile removal crews and vessels long before the marine mammal habitat in the notice of activities; however, this is unlikely to beginning of any pile removal the proposed IHA (77 FR 44583; July 30, cause an appreciably greater amount of operations and would be apprised of the 2012). While marine mammal habitat harassment in either numbers or degree, advent of increased underwater sound will be temporarily ensonified by low in part because it is anticipated that via the soft start of the vibratory sound levels resulting from habitat most seals will be disturbed initially by hammer. It is not expected that airborne restoration effort, no impacts to the physical presence of crews and vessels sound levels will induce any form of physical availability of haul-out habitat or by sound from vessels. behavioral harassment, much less TTS will occur. It is expected that, at most, There is a general paucity of data on in individual pinnipeds. temporary disturbance of habitat sound levels produced by vibratory The DNR and other organizations, potentially utilized by harbor seal prey extraction of timber piles; however, it is such as the Cascadia Research species may occur as piles are removed. reasonable to assume that extraction Collective, have been monitoring the The DNR’s restoration activities will will not result in higher sound pressure behavior of harbor seals present within result in a long-term net positive gain levels (SPLs) than vibratory installation the NRCA since 1977. Past disturbance for marine mammal habitat, compared of piles. As such, we assume that source observations at Woodard Bay NRCA with minimal short-term, temporary levels from the specified activity will have shown that seal harassment results impacts. not be as high as average source levels from the presence of non-motorized for vibratory installation of 12–24 in vessels (e.g., recreational kayaks and Summary of Previous Monitoring steel piles (155–165 dB; Caltrans, 2009). canoes), motorized vessels (e.g., fishing Please see the notice of the proposed Our general in-water harassment boats), and people (Calambokidis and IHA (77 FR 44583; July 30, 2012) for a thresholds for pinnipeds exposed to Leathery, 1991; Buettner et al., 2008). summary of previous monitoring. continuous noise, such as that produced Results of these studies are described in by vibratory pile extraction, are 190 dB the proposed IHA notice for this action. Mitigation root mean square (rms) re: 1 mPa as the Based on these studies, we anticipate In order to issue an IHA under potential onset of Level A (injurious) that the presence of work crews and Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, harassment and 120 dB RMS re: 1 mPa vessels will result in behavioral NMFS must set forth the permissible as the potential onset of Level B harassment, primarily by flushing seals methods of taking pursuant to such (behavioral) harassment. off log booms, or by causing short-term activity, and other means of effecting Vibratory extraction will not result in avoidance of the area or similar short- the least practicable adverse impact on sound levels near 190 dB; therefore, term behavioral disturbance. such species or stock and its habitat, injury will not occur. However, noise In summary, based on the preceding paying particular attention to rookeries, from vibratory extraction will likely discussion and on observations of mating grounds, and areas of similar exceed 120 dB near the source and may harbor seals during past management significance, and on the availability of induce responses in-water such as activities in Woodard Bay, we have such species or stock for taking for avoidance or other alteration of behavior determined that impacts to harbor seals certain subsistence uses. at time of exposure. However, seals during restoration activities will be The DNR will continue certain flushing from haul-outs in response to limited to behavioral harassment of mitigation measures stipulated in the small vessel activity and the presence of limited duration and limited intensity previous IHAs, designed to minimize work crews would already be (i.e., temporary flushing at most) disturbance to harbor seals within the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55462 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
action area in consideration of timing, unlikely that it will result in injury, and vessel arrival to determine the location, and equipment use. Foremost, serious injury, or mortality, as the number of seals present pre-disturbance; pile, structure, and fill removal will activities will occur outside of the (2) maintain a low profile during this only occur between November and pupping season, and access to the water time to minimize disturbance from March, outside of harbor seal pupping from the haul-outs is relatively easy and monitoring; and (3) conduct monitoring and molting seasons. Therefore, no unimpeded. However, DNR will beginning 30 minutes prior to crew impacts to pups from the specified approach haul-outs gradually from a arrival, during pile removal activities, activity during these sensitive time distance, and will begin daily work at and for 30 minutes after crew leave the periods will occur. In addition, the the farthest distance from the haul-out site. following measures will be in order to eliminate the possibility of The observer will record incidental implemented: such events. During the previous years takes (i.e., numbers of seals flushed • The DNR will approach the action of work under our authorization, from the haul-out). This information area slowly to alert seals to their implementation of similar mitigation will be determined by recording the presence from a distance and will begin measures has resulted in no known number of seals using the haul-out on pulling piles at the farthest location injury, serious injury, or mortality (other each monitoring day prior to the start of from the log booms used as harbor seal than one event considered atypical and restoration activities and recording the haul-out areas; outside the scope of the mitigation number of seals that flush from the • No piles within 30 yd (27 m) of the measures considered in relation to haul-out or, for animals already in the two main haul-out locations identified disturbing seals from the haul-outs). water, display adverse behavioral in the IHA application will be removed; Based upon the DNR’s record of reactions to vibratory extraction. A • The contractor or observer will management in the NRCA, as well as description of the disturbance source, survey the operational area for seals information from monitoring DNR’s the proximity in meters of the before initiating activities and wait until implementation of the improved disturbance source to the disturbed the seals are at a sufficient distance (i.e., mitigation measures as prescribed under animals, and observable behavioral 50 ft [15 m]) from the activity so as to the previous IHAs, we have determined reactions to specific disturbances will minimize the risk of direct injury from that the planned mitigation measures also be noted. In addition, the observer the equipment or from a piling or provide the means of effecting the least will record: structure breaking free; practicable adverse impacts on marine • The number of seals using the haul- • The DNR will require the contractor mammal species or stocks and their out on each monitoring day prior to the to initiate a vibratory hammer soft start habitat. start of restoration activities for that day; at the beginning of each work day; and • Seal behavior before, during and • Monitoring and Reporting The vibratory hammer power pack after pile and structure removal; will be outfitted with a muffler to In order to issue an ITA for an • Monitoring dates, times and reduce in-air noise levels to a maximum activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the conditions; of 80 dB. MMPA states that we must set forth • Dates of all pile and structure The soft start method involves a ‘‘requirements pertaining to the removal activities; and reduced energy vibration from the monitoring and reporting of such • After correcting for observation hammer for the first 15 seconds and taking’’. The MMPA implementing effort, the number of seals taken over then a 30-second waiting period. This regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) the duration of the habitat restoration method will be repeated twice before indicate that requests for IHAs must project. commencing with operations at full include the suggested means of Within 30 days of the completion of power. accomplishing the necessary monitoring the project, DNR will submit a We have carefully evaluated the and reporting that will result in monitoring report that will include a applicant’s mitigation measures as increased knowledge of the species and summary of findings and copies of field proposed and considered their of the level of taking or impacts on data sheets and relevant daily logs from effectiveness in past implementation to populations of marine mammals that are the contractor. determine whether they are likely to expected to be present. effect the least practicable adverse DNR’s monitoring plan adheres to Estimated Take by Incidental impact on the affected marine mammal protocols already established for Harassment species and stocks and their habitat. Our Woodard Bay to the maximum extent We are authorizing DNR to take evaluation of potential measures practical for the specified activity. harbor seals, by Level B harassment includes consideration of the following Monitoring of both the north and south only, incidental to specified restoration factors in relation to one another: (1) haul-outs will occur for a total of 15 activities. These activities, involving The manner in which, and the degree to work days, during the first 5 days of extraction of creosoted timber piles and which, the successful implementation of project activities, when the contractors removal of derelict pier superstructure the measure is expected to minimize are mobilizing and starting use of the and fill, are expected to harass marine adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) vibratory hammer; during 5 days when mammals present in the vicinity of the the proven or likely efficacy of the activities are occurring closest to the project site through behavioral specific measure to minimize adverse haul-out areas; and during 5 additional disturbance only. Estimates of the impacts as planned; (3) the days, to include days when fill removal number of marine mammals that may be practicability of the measure for is occurring in Woodard Bay. It is not harassed by the activities are based applicant implementation, including expected that Woodard Bay fill removal upon actual counts of harbor seals consideration of personnel safety, and will result in seal disturbance; however, harassed during days monitored under practicality of implementation. the stipulation that monitoring be the previous IHAs, and the estimated Injury, serious injury, or mortality to conducted while this activity occurs is total number of working days. pinnipeds could likely only result from intended to ensure that such is the case. Methodology of take estimation was startling animals inhabiting the haul-out Monitoring of both haul-outs will be discussed in detail in our notice of into a stampede reaction. Even in the performed by at least one observer. The proposed IHA (77 FR 44583; July 30, event that such a reaction occurred, it is observer will (1) be on-site prior to crew 2012).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55463
DNR considers that 40 total work days number of individual seals harassed Endangered Species Act (ESA) (as opposed to the total work window, will be lower, with individual seals and not including days spent removing likely harassed multiple times. In There are no ESA-listed marine fill from the Woodard Bay area) may addition, although the estimated take is mammals found in the action area; occur, potentially resulting in incidental based upon the best information therefore, no consultation under the harassment of harbor seals. Using the available, we consider the estimate to be ESA is required. average count from monitoring under highly conservative. For similar National Environmental Policy Act the previous IHAs, the result is an restoration activities in 2010–11, (NEPA) estimated incidental take of 1,680 estimated actual take was much lower × harbor seals (40 days 42 seals per day). (875 seals over 35 work days in 2010 In compliance with the National We consider this to be a highly and 231 seals over 21 work days in Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 conservative estimate in comparison 2011). U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by with the estimated actual take of 875 the regulations published by the seals from 2010 and 231 seals from Mitigation measures will minimize Council on Environmental Quality (40 2011, which is nonetheless based upon onset of sudden and potentially CFR parts 1500–1508), and NOAA the best available information. dangerous reactions and overall Administrative Order 216–6, we disturbance. In addition, restoration prepared an Environmental Assessment Negligible Impact and Small Numbers work is not likely to affect seals at both Analysis and Determination (EA) to consider the direct, indirect and haul-outs simultaneously, based on cumulative effects to the human We have defined ‘negligible impact’ location of the crew and barge. Further, environment resulting from issuance of in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘* * * an impact although seals may initially flush into an IHA to DNR. We signed a Finding of resulting from the specified activity that the water, based on previous No Significant Impact on October 27, cannot be reasonably expected to, and is disturbance studies and maintenance 2010. We have reviewed the application not reasonably likely to, adversely affect activity at the haul-outs, the DNR and determined that there are no the species or stock through effects on expects seals will quickly habituate to substantial changes to the action or new annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ piling and structure removal operations. environmental impacts or concerns. In determining whether or not For these reasons no long term or Therefore, we have determined that a authorized incidental take will have a permanent abandonment of the haul-out new or supplemental EA or negligible impact on affected species is anticipated. Much of the work Environmental Impact Statement is stocks, we consider a number of criteria planned for 2012–13 consists of fill unnecessary. The EA referenced above regarding the impact of the proposed removal, which does not require in- is available for review at http:// action, including the number, nature, water work or vessel support, and is www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ intensity, and duration of Level B largely located in Woodard Bay, which incidental.htm. harassment take that may occur. is shielded from the haul-out locations Although DNR’s restoration activities Determinations by land. The specified activity is not may harass pinnipeds hauled out in Woodard Bay, impacts are occurring to anticipated to result in injury, serious We have determined that the impact a small, localized group of animals. No injury, or mortality to any harbor seal. of conducting the specific activities mortality or injury is anticipated or The DNR will not conduct habitat described in this notice and in the IHA authorized, and the specified activity is restoration operations during the request in Woodard Bay, Washington not expected to result in long-term pupping and molting season; therefore, may result, at worst, in temporary impacts such as permanent no pups will be affected by the specified modifications in behavior (Level B abandonment of the haul-out. Seals will activity and no impacts to any seals will harassment) of small numbers of marine likely become alert or, at most, flush occur as a result of the specified activity mammals. Further, this activity is into the water in reaction to the during these sensitive time periods. expected to result in a negligible impact presence of crews and equipment. Based on the foregoing analysis, on the affected stock of marine However, seals have been observed as behavioral disturbance to pinnipeds in mammals. The provision requiring that becoming habituated to physical Woodard Bay will be of low intensity the activity not have an unmitigable presence of work crews, and quickly re- and limited duration. To ensure impact on the availability of the affected inhabit haul-outs upon cessation of minimal disturbance, DNR will species or stock of marine mammals for stimulus. In addition, the specified implement the mitigation measures subsistence uses is not implicated for restoration actions may provide described previously, which we have this action. improved habitat function for seals, determined will serve as the means for Authorization both indirectly through a healthier prey effecting the least practicable adverse base and directly through restoration effect on marine mammal stocks or As a result of these determinations, and maintenance of man-made haul-out populations and their habitat. We find we have issued an IHA to DNR to habitat. No impacts are expected at the that DNR’s restoration activities will conduct habitat restoration activities in population or stock level. result in the incidental take of small Woodard Bay during the period of No pinniped stocks known from the numbers of marine mammals, and that November 1, 2012, through March 15, action area are listed as threatened or the requested number of takes will have 2013, provided the previously endangered under the ESA or no more than a negligible impact on the mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and determined to be strategic or depleted affected species and stocks. reporting requirements are incorporated. under the MMPA. Recent data suggests Dated: September 4, 2012. that harbor seal populations have Impact on Availability of Affected Helen M. Golde, reached carrying capacity. Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses Although the estimated take of 1,680 Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, is 11 percent of the estimated There are no relevant subsistence uses National Marine Fisheries Service. population of 14,612 for the Washington of marine mammals implicated by this [FR Doc. 2012–22211 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Inland Waters stock of harbor seals, the action. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55464 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE workshops are posted on the Internet at: [email protected] or at (386) 852– http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ 8588. National Oceanic and Atmospheric workshops/. Administration Registration Materials Atlantic Shark Identification To ensure that workshop certificates RIN 0648–XC174 Workshops are linked to the correct permits, Schedules for Atlantic Shark Since January 1, 2008, Atlantic shark participants will need to bring the Identification Workshops and dealers have been prohibited from following specific items to the receiving, purchasing, trading, or workshop: Protected Species Safe Handling, • Release, and Identification Workshops bartering for Atlantic sharks unless a Atlantic shark dealer permit holders valid Atlantic Shark Identification must bring proof that the attendee is an AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Workshop certificate is on the premises owner or agent of the business (such as Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and of each business listed under the shark articles of incorporation), a copy of the Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), dealer permit which first receives applicable permit, and proof of Commerce. Atlantic sharks (71 FR 58057; October 2, identification. • ACTION: Notice of public workshops. 2006). Dealers who attend and Atlantic shark dealer proxies must successfully complete a workshop are bring documentation from the permitted SUMMARY: Free Atlantic Shark issued a certificate for each place of dealer acknowledging that the proxy is Identification Workshops and Protected business that is permitted to receive attending the workshop on behalf of the Species Safe Handling, Release, and sharks. These certificate(s) are valid for permitted Atlantic shark dealer for a Identification Workshops will be held in three years. Approximately 77 free specific business location, a copy of the October, November, and December of Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops appropriate valid permit, and proof of 2012. Certain fishermen and shark have been conducted since January identification. dealers are required to attend a 2007. Workshop Objectives workshop to meet regulatory Currently, permitted dealers may send requirements and maintain valid a proxy to an Atlantic Shark The Atlantic Shark Identification permits. Specifically, the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop. However, if a Workshops are designed to reduce the Identification Workshop is mandatory dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer number of unknown and improperly for all federally permitted Atlantic shark must designate a proxy for each place of identified sharks reported in the dealer dealers. The Protected Species Safe business covered by the dealer’s permit reporting form and increase the Handling, Release, and Identification which first receives Atlantic sharks. accuracy of species-specific dealer- Workshop is mandatory for vessel Only one certificate will be issued to reported information. Reducing the owners and operators who use bottom each proxy. A proxy must be a person number of unknown and improperly longline, pelagic longline, or gillnet who is currently employed by a place of identified sharks will improve quota gear, and who have also been issued business covered by the dealer’s permit; monitoring and the data used in stock shark or swordfish limited access is a primary participant in the assessments. These workshops will train permits. Additional free workshops will identification, weighing, and/or first shark dealer permit holders or their be conducted during 2013 and will be receipt of fish as they are offloaded from proxies to properly identify Atlantic announced in a future notice. a vessel; and who fills out dealer shark carcasses. DATES: The Atlantic Shark Identification reports. Atlantic shark dealers are Protected Species Safe Handling, Workshops will be held October 11, prohibited from renewing a Federal Release, and Identification Workshops shark dealer permit unless a valid November 15, and December 12, 2012. Since January 1, 2007, shark limited- The Protected Species Safe Handling, Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop access and swordfish limited-access Release, and Identification Workshops certificate for each business location permit holders who fish with longline will be held on October 10, October 17, which first receives Atlantic sharks has or gillnet gear have been required to November 7, November 15, December 5, been submitted with the permit renewal submit a copy of their Protected Species and December 12, 2012. application. Additionally, trucks or Safe Handling, Release, and See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for other conveyances that are extensions of Identification Workshop certificate in further details. a dealer’s place of business must order to renew either permit (71 FR possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy ADDRESSES: The Atlantic Shark 58057; October 2, 2006). These Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop Identification Workshops will be held in certificate(s) are valid for three years. As certificate. Somerville, MA; Mount Pleasant, SC; such, vessel owners who have not and Clearwater, FL. Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations already attended a workshop and The Protected Species Safe Handling, received a NMFS certificate, or vessel Release, and Identification Workshops 1. October 11, 2012, 12 p.m.—4 p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 23 Cummings owners whose certificate(s) will expire will be held in Wilmington, NC; Key prior to the next permit renewal, must Largo, FL; Kenner, LA; Boston, MA; Street, Somerville, MA 02145. 2. November 15, 2012, 12 p.m.—4 attend a workshop to fish with, or Daytona Beach, FL; and Ronkonkoma, renew, their swordfish and shark NY. p.m., Hampton Inn & Suites, 1104 Isle of Palms Connector, Mount Pleasant, SC limited-access permits. Additionally, See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for new shark and swordfish limited-access further details on workshop locations. 29464. 3. December 12, 2012, 12 p.m.—4 permit applicants who intend to fish FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: p.m., LaQuinta Inn & Suites, 5000 Lake with longline or gillnet gear must attend Richard A. Pearson by phone: (727) Boulevard, Clearwater, FL 33760. a Protected Species Safe Handling, 824–5399, or by fax: (727) 824–5398. Release, and Identification Workshop SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Registration and submit a copy of their workshop workshop schedules, registration To register for a scheduled Atlantic certificate before either of the permits information, and a list of frequently Shark Identification Workshop, please will be issued. Approximately 136 free asked questions regarding these contact Eric Sander at Protected Species Safe Handling,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55465
Release, and Identification Workshops the business (such as articles of Dated: August 30, 2012 in Washington, DC. have been conducted since 2006. incorporation), a copy of the applicable Thomas Luebke, In addition to certifying vessel swordfish and/or shark permit(s), and Secretary. owners, at least one operator on board proof of identification. [FR Doc. 2012–21938 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] vessels issued a limited-access • Vessel operators must bring proof of BILLING CODE 6331–01–M swordfish or shark permit that uses identification. longline or gillnet gear is required to attend a Protected Species Safe Workshop Objectives COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING Handling, Release, and Identification COMMISSION Workshop and receive a certificate. The Protected Species Safe Handling, Release, and Identification Workshops Vessels that have been issued a limited- Sunshine Act Meeting access swordfish or shark permit and are designed to teach longline and that use longline or gillnet gear may not gillnet fishermen the required The following notice of a scheduled fish unless both the vessel owner and techniques for the safe handling and meeting is published pursuant to the operator have valid workshop release of entangled and/or hooked provisions of the Government in the certificates onboard at all times. Vessel protected species, such as sea turtles, Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, 5 operators who have not already marine mammals, and smalltooth U.S.C. 552b. attended a workshop and received a sawfish. In an effort to improve AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: NMFS certificate, or vessel operators reporting, the proper identification of Commodity Futures Trading whose certificate(s) will expire prior to protected species will also be taught at Commission. these workshops. Additionally, their next fishing trip, must attend a TIMES AND DATES: The Commission has individuals attending these workshops workshop to operate a vessel with scheduled a meeting for the following will gain a better understanding of the swordfish and shark limited-access date: September 12, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. permits that uses longline or gillnet requirements for participating in these PLACE: Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st gear. fisheries. The overall goal of these workshops is to provide participants St. NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level Workshop Dates, Times, and Locations with the skills needed to reduce the Hearing Room (Room 1300). 1. October 10, 2012, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., mortality of protected species, which STATUS: Open. Hilton Garden Inn, 6745 Rock Spring may prevent additional regulations on MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Road, Wilmington, NC 28405. these fisheries in the future. Commission has scheduled this meeting 2. October 17, 2012, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. to consider various rulemaking matters, Holiday Inn, 99701 Overseas Highway, including the issuance of proposed rules Key Largo, FL 33037. Dated: September 4, 2012. and the approval of final rules. The 3. November 7, 2012, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Lindsay Fullenkamp, agenda for this meeting is available to Hilton, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable the public and posted on the 70062. Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. Commission’s Web site at http:// 4. November 15, 2012, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., [FR Doc. 2012–22224 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] www.cftc.gov. In the event that the time Hilton, 1 Hotel Drive, Boston, MA BILLING CODE 3510–22–P or date of the meeting changes, an 02128. announcement of the change, along with 5. December 5, 2012, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., the new time and place of the meeting Holiday Inn Express, 2620 West will be posted on the Commission’s International Speedway Boulevard, COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS Web site. Daytona Beach, FL 32114. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 6. December 12, 2012, 9 a.m.–5 p.m., Notice of Meeting Sauntia S. Warfield, Assistant Secretary Holiday Inn, 3845 Veterans Memorial of the Commission, 202–418–5084. Highway, Ronkonkoma, NY 11779. The next meeting of the U.S. Sauntia S. Warfield, Registration Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 20 September 2012, at 9:00 a.m. in Assistant Secretary of the Commission. To register for a scheduled Protected the Commission offices at the National [FR Doc. 2012–22250 Filed 9–6–12; 11:15 am] Species Safe Handling, Release, and Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary BILLING CODE 6351–01–P Identification Workshop, please contact Square, 401 F Street NW., Washington, Angler Conservation Education at (386) DC 20001–2728. Items of discussion 682–0158. may include buildings, parks, and DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Registration Materials memorials. Department of the Air Force To ensure that workshop certificates Draft agendas and additional are linked to the correct permits, information regarding the Commission US Air Force Exclusive Patent License participants will need to bring the are available on our Web site: following specific items with them to www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the AGENCY: Air Force Research the workshop: agenda and requests to submit written Laboratory Information Directorate, • Individual vessel owners must or oral statements should be addressed Rome, New York, Department of the Air bring a copy of the appropriate to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Force, DOD. swordfish and/or shark permit(s), a copy Commission of Fine Arts, at the above ACTION: Notice of Intent to Issue an of the vessel registration or address; by emailing [email protected]; or by Exclusive Patent License. documentation, and proof of calling 202–504–2200. Individuals SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of identification. requiring sign language interpretation part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal • Representatives of a business- for the hearing impaired should contact Regulations, which implements Public owned or co-owned vessel must bring the Secretary at least 10 days before the Law 96–517, as amended, the proof that the individual is an agent of meeting date. Department of the Air Force announces
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55466 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
its intention to grant Trident Systems, revised RPMP will incorporate the installation for longer range Inc., a corporation of Virginia, having a adjustments to the land use plan in the planning. The EIS will also consider a place of business at 10201 Fairfax Blvd., RPMP that were made in the Final No Action alternative, under which the Suite 300, Fairfax, VA, an exclusive Environmental Impact Statement for approved 1993 Master Plan (as amended license in any right, title and interest the Implementation of Base Realignment in the 2007 BRAC EIS) would remain in United States Air Force has in: U.S. and Closure (BRAC) Recommendations effect. Other reasonable alternatives Patent No. 8,051,475, filed on March 27, and Related Army Actions at Fort identified during the scoping process 2007 and issued on November 1, 2011, Belvoir, VA (2007) and BRAC-related will be considered for evaluation in the entitled ‘‘Collaboration Gateway.’’ changes made since 2007. EIS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An ADDRESSES: Please send written The proposed short-range projects at exclusive license for this patent will be comments to: Fort Belvoir Directorate of Fort Belvoir could have significant granted unless a written objection is Public Works, Environmental and impacts to traffic, air quality, and received within fifteen (15) days from Natural Resources Division (RPMP EIS), natural, cultural, and other resources. the date of publication of this Notice. 9430 Jackson Loop, Suite 200, Fort Long-range development could have Written objections should be sent to: Air Belvoir, VA 22060–5116; or by email to significant impacts to the same Force Research Laboratory, Office of the imcom.fortbelvoir.dpw.environmental@ resources. Mitigation measures will be Staff Judge Advocate, AFRL/RIJ, 26 us.army.mil. identified for adverse impacts. Electronic Parkway, Rome, New York FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fort Scoping and public comments: 13441–4514. Telephone: (315) 330– Belvoir Directorate of Public Works, Federally-recognized Indian tribes, 2087; Facsimile (315) 330–7583. Environmental and Natural Resources federal, state, and local agencies, organizations, and the public are invited Henry Williams Jr, Division at (703) 806–4007 or (703) 806– 3193, during normal working business to be involved in the scoping process for Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison the preparation of this EIS by Officer. hours Monday–Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:00 participating in meetings and/or [FR Doc. 2012–22186 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] p.m.; or by email to imcom.fortbelvoir. [email protected]. submitting written comments. The BILLING CODE 5001–10–P scoping process will help identify SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The possible alternatives, potential analysis will focus on Fort Belvoir’s environmental impacts, and key issues DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Main Post (7,700 acres) and the Fort of concern to be analyzed in the EIS. Belvoir North Area (800 acres, formerly Written comments will be accepted Department of the Army called the Engineer Proving Ground). within 30 days of publication of the NOI The update will not include Fort Belvoir Environmental Impact Statement for in the Federal Register. Meetings will property at Rivanna Station in Short Range-Projects and Update of be held in Alexandria, VA. Notification Charlottesville, VA; the Mark Center in the Real Property Master Plan for Fort of the times and locations for the Alexandria, VA; or the Humphreys Belvoir, VA scoping meetings will be published Engineer Center. locally. AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. The EIS will analyze environmental ACTION: Notice of Intent. impacts of the short-range projects Brenda S. Bowen, currently programmed for construction Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. SUMMARY: The Department of the Army in fiscal years 2013–2017. These [FR Doc. 2012–22225 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] announces its intent to conduct public projects include new office buildings; BILLING CODE 3710–08–P scoping under the National community and recreational facilities; a Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to Fisher House; industrial and gather information to prepare an maintenance facilities; privatization of DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) utilities; long-term lease of additional for proposed short-range improvement land to the privatized housing partner; Federal Energy Regulatory projects and the proposed update of the the National Museum of the U.S. Army; Commission Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) for and roads. If and when these projects Fort Belvoir, VA. The EIS will analyze are completed, approximately 4,800 [Project No. 13022–003] environmental impacts associated with additional employees would be Barren River Lake Hydro LLC; Notice the proposed short-range projects and expected to work at Fort Belvoir. anticipated land uses designated in a The Army is also updating its RPMP Soliciting Scoping Comments revised RPMP. The revised RPMP will for Fort Belvoir by analyzing the on-post Take notice that the following incorporate a short-range component and off-post environmental impacts of hydroelectric application has been filed and a long-range component. The short- reasonably foreseeable future with the Commission and is available range component projects are proposed development and management of real for public inspection. for the next five years, and the long- property (land uses, facilities, resources, a. Type of Application: Original Major range component looks at land uses and infrastructure, and population capacity. License. potential development through 2030. The EIS will assess the potential direct, b. Project No.: P–13022–003. The EIS will assess potential indirect, and cumulative environmental c. Date filed: December 9, 2011 and environmental impacts associated with impacts associated with updating the amended on June 21, 2012. future development and management of RPMP to meet the Army’s current and d. Applicant: Barren River Lake land, facilities, resources and future planning needs. Hydro LLC (Barren River Hydro). infrastructure based on the population A range of reasonable alternatives will e. Name of Project: Barren River Lake capacity identified in the revised RPMP. be analyzed in the EIS. Alternatives will Dam Hydroelectric Project. Additional site-specific NEPA analyses reflect various scenarios for f. Location: At the U.S. Army Corps of will be prepared for future development implementation of the short-range Engineers’ (Corps) Barren River Lake projects identified in the long-range projects, combined with various Dam on the Barren River, in Barren and component of the revised RPMP. The scenarios for land use designations on Allen counties, Kentucky. The project
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55467
would occupy 29.4 acres of United wide powerhouse containing one Dated: September 4, 2012. States lands administered by the Corps’ vertical Kaplan turbine unit with a total Kimberly D. Bose, Louisville District. capacity of 6.8 megawatts (MW); (6) a Secretary. g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power 12-foot-diameter regulating bypass valve [FR Doc. 2012–22180 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)–825(r). connected to the west side of the BILLING CODE 6717–01–P h. Applicant Contact: Brent Smith, powerhouse; (7) a 110-foot-long, 80-foot- Symbiotics LLC, 371 Upper Terrace, wide tailrace; (8) a tailwater aeration Suite 2, Bend, OR 97702; (541) 330– system; (9) a proposed 0.6-mile-long, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 8779; or email at brent.smith@ 12.5 kilovolt (kV) transmission line; (10) symbioticsenergy.com. a switchyard; (11) two access roads Federal Energy Regulatory i. FERC Contact: Allan Creamer at leading to the gatehouse and Commission (202) 502–8365, or via email at allan. powerhouse; and (12) appurtenant [Project No. 14444–000] [email protected]. facilities. The proposed project would j. Deadline for filing scoping have an average annual generation of comments: October 4, 2012. Placer County Water Agency; Notice of All documents may be filed 25.8 GWh, and operate in a run-of- Application Accepted for Filing And electronically via the Internet. See 18 release mode utilizing surplus water Soliciting Comments, Motions To CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the from the Barren River Lake Dam, as Intervene, Protests, instructions on the Commission’s Web directed by the Corps. Recommendations, and Terms and site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ m. A copy of the application is Conditions efiling.asp. Commenters can submit available for review at the Commission Take notice that the following brief comments up to 6,000 characters, in the Public Reference Room or may be hydroelectric application has been filed without prior registration, using the viewed on the Commission’s Web site at with the Commission and is available eComment system at http://www.ferc. http://www.ferc.gov, using the for public inspection: gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket a. Type of Application: Conduit must include your name and contact number, excluding the last three digits Exemption. information at the end of your in the docket number field to access the b. Project No.: 14444–000. comments. For assistance, please document. For assistance, contact FERC c. Date filed: August 8, 2012. contact FERC Online Support at Online Support. A copy is also available d. Applicant: Placer County Water [email protected], or toll for inspection and reproduction at the Agency. free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, address in item h above. e. Name of Project: Lincoln Metering (202) 502–8659. Although the n. You may also register online at Station Small Conduit Hydroelectric Commission strongly encourages http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ Project. electronic filing, documents may also be f. Location: The proposed Lincoln esubscription.asp to be notified via paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an Metering Station Small Conduit email of new filings and issuances original and seven copies to: Kimberly Hydroelectric Project would be located related to this or other pending projects. D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy at the applicant’s Lincoln Metering For assistance, contact FERC Online Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street Station in the town of Lincoln, Placer Support. NE., Washington, DC 20426. County, California. The Lincoln The Commission’s Rules of Practice o. Scoping Process: Metering Station is part of the require all intervenors filing documents The Commission staff intends to applicant’s municipal water supply with the Commission to serve a copy of prepare a single Environmental system. The land on which all the that document on each person on the Assessment (EA) for the Barren River project structures exist is owned by the official service list for the project. Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project in applicant. Further, if an intervenor files comments accordance with the National g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power or documents with the Commission Environmental Policy Act. The EA will Act 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r. relating to the merits of an issue that consider both site-specific and h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brian C. may affect the responsibilities of a cumulative environmental impacts and Martin, Director of Technical Services, particular resource agency, they must reasonable alternatives to the proposed Placer County Water Agency, P.O. Box also serve a copy of the document on action. 6570, Auburn, CA 95604, phone (530) that resource agency. 823–4886. k. This application is not ready for Commission staff does not propose to i. FERC Contact: Kelly Houff, (202) environmental analysis at this time. conduct any on-site scoping meetings at 502–6393, [email protected]. l. The proposed project would utilize this time. Instead, we are soliciting j. Status of Environmental Analysis: the Corps’ existing Barren River Lake comments, recommendations, and This application is ready for Dam, and would consist of the following information, on the Scoping Document environmental analysis at this time, and new facilities: (1) An upper intake (SD) issued on August 31, 2012. the Commission is requesting structure with a center elevation of 533 Copies of the SD outlining the subject comments, reply comments, feet mean sea level (msl) and a lower areas to be addressed in the EA were recommendations, terms and intake structure with a center elevation distributed to the parties on the conditions, and prescriptions. of 507.5 feet msl, each equipped with Commission’s mailing list and the k. Deadline for filing responsive trashracks having 2-inch clear spacing; applicant’s distribution list. Copies of documents: Due to the small size of the (2) two 220-foot-long penstocks, the SD may be viewed on the web at proposed project, as well as the resource connecting the intakes to a 50-foot- http://www.ferc.gov using the agency consultation letters filed with diameter, 100-foot-long gate shaft; (3) a ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket the application, the 60-day timeframe 50-by-60-foot gate house; (4) a 850-foot- number, excluding the last three digits specified in 18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing all long power tunnel and a 14-foot- in the docket number field to access the comments, motions to intervene, diameter, 950-foot-long penstock, document. For assistance, call 1–866– protests, recommendations, terms and leading to; (5) a 100-foot-long, 65-foot- 208–3676 or for TTY, (202) 502–8659. conditions, and prescriptions is
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55468 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
shortened to 30 days from the issuance preliminary permits will not be accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and date of this notice. All reply comments accepted in response to this notice. 385.2010. filed in response to comments o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent Dated: September 4, 2012. submitted by any resource agency, must specify the exact name, business Kimberly D. Bose, Indian tribe, or person, must be filed address, and telephone number of the with the Commission within 45 days prospective applicant, and must include Secretary. from the issuance date of this notice. an unequivocal statement of intent to [FR Doc. 2012–22181 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Comments, protests, and submit a competing development BILLING CODE 6717–01–P interventions may be filed electronically application. A notice of intent must be via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 served on the applicant(s) named in this CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the public notice. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY instructions on the Commission’s Web p. Protests or Motions to Intervene— Federal Energy Regulatory site under http://www.ferc.gov/docs- Anyone may submit a protest or a Commission filing/efiling.asp. The Commission motion to intervene in accordance with strongly encourages electronic filings. the requirements of Rules of Practice [Project No. 13005–003] The Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, and Procedure require all intervenors 385.211, and 385.214. In determining Oliver Hydro LLC; Notice Soliciting filing documents with the Commission the appropriate action to take, the Scoping Comments to serve a copy of that document on Commission will consider all protests Take notice that the following each person on the official service list filed, but only those who file a motion hydroelectric application has been filed for the project. Further, if an intervenor to intervene in accordance with the files comments or documents with the Commission’s Rules may become a with the Commission and is available Commission relating to the merits of an party to the proceeding. Any protests or for public inspection. issue that may affect the responsibilities motions to intervene must be received a. Type of Application: Original Major of a particular resource agency, it must on or before the specified deadline date License. also serve a copy of the document on for the particular application. b. Project No.: P–13005–003. that resource agency. q. All filings must (1) Bear in all c. Date filed: December 14, 2011. l. Description of Project: The Lincoln capital letters the title ‘‘PROTEST’’, d. Applicant: Oliver Hydro LLC. Metering Station Small Conduit ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, ‘‘NOTICE e. Name of Project: William Bacon Hydroelectric Project would consist of: OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING Oliver Lock and Dam Hydroelectric (1) A new powerhouse, approximately APPLICATION’’, ‘‘COMPETING Project 800 square feet, adjacent to the existing APPLICATION’’, ‘‘COMMENTS’’, f. Location: At the U.S. Army Corps of metering facility, containing two ‘‘REPLY COMMENTS,’’ Engineers’ (Corps) William Bacon Oliver generating units with a total installed ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS,’’ ‘‘TERMS Lock and Dam on the Black Warrior capacity of 380 kilowatts; (2) a new AND CONDITIONS,’’ or River, in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. discharge pipe approximately 18 feet in ‘‘PRESCRIPTIONS;’’ (2) set forth in the The project would occupy 8.7 acres of length; and (3) appurtenant facilities. heading the name of the applicant and United States lands administered by the The applicant estimates the project the project number of the application to Corps’ Mobile District. would have an average annual which the filing responds; (3) furnish g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power generation of 1.77 megawatt-hours. the name, address, and telephone Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)–825(r). m. This filing is available for review number of the person protesting or h. Applicant Contact: Brent Smith, and reproduction at the Commission in intervening; and (4) otherwise comply Symbiotics LLC, 371 Upper Terrace, the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, with the requirements of 18 CFR Suite 2, Bend, OR 97702; (541) 330– 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 385.2001 through 385.2005. All 8779; or email at 20426. The filing may also be viewed on comments, recommendations, terms and [email protected]. the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the conditions or prescriptions must set i. FERC Contact: Allan Creamer at ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket forth their evidentiary basis and (202) 502–8365, or via email at number, P–14444, in the docket number otherwise comply with the requirements [email protected]. field to access the document. For of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain j. Deadline for filing scoping assistance, call toll-free 1–866–208– copies of the application directly from comments: October 4, 2012. 3676 or email the applicant. Any of these documents All documents may be filed [email protected]. For TTY, must be filed by providing the original electronically via the Internet. See 18 call (202) 502–8659. A copy is also and seven copies to: The Secretary, CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the available for review and reproduction at Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, instructions on the Commission’s Web the address in item h above. 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ n. Development Application—Any 20426. An additional copy must be sent efiling.asp. Commenters can submit qualified applicant desiring to file a to Director, Division of Hydropower brief comments up to 6,000 characters, competing application must submit to Administration and Compliance, Office without prior registration, using the the Commission, on or before the of Energy Projects, Federal Energy eComment system at http:// specified deadline date for the Regulatory Commission, at the above www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ particular application, a competing address. A copy of any protest or motion ecomment.asp. You must include your development application, or a notice of to intervene must be served upon each name and contact information at the end intent to file such an application. representative of the applicant specified of your comments. For assistance, Submission of a timely notice of intent in the particular application. A copy of please contact FERC Online Support at allows an interested person to file the all other filings in reference to this [email protected], or toll competing development application no application must be accompanied by free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, later than 120 days after the specified proof of service on all persons listed in (202) 502–8659. Although the deadline date for the particular the service list prepared by the Commission strongly encourages application. Applications for Commission in this proceeding, in electronic filing, documents may also be
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55469
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an comments, recommendations, and be filed on or before the date as original and seven copies to: Kimberly information, on the Scoping Document indicated below. Anyone filing an D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy (SD) issued on August 31, 2012. intervention or protest must serve a Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street Copies of the SD outlining the subject copy of that document on the Applicant. NE., Washington, DC 20426. areas to be addressed in the EA were Anyone filing an intervention or protest The Commission’s Rules of Practice distributed to the parties on the on or before the intervention or protest require all intervenors filing documents Commission’s mailing list and the date need not serve motions to intervene with the Commission to serve a copy of applicant’s distribution list. Copies of or protests on persons other than the that document on each person on the the SD may be viewed on the web at Applicant. official service list for the project. http://www.ferc.gov using the The Commission encourages Further, if an intervenor files comments ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket electronic submission of protests and or documents with the Commission number, excluding the last three digits interventions in lieu of paper using the relating to the merits of an issue that in the docket number field to access the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. may affect the responsibilities of a document. For assistance, call 1–866– Persons unable to file electronically particular resource agency, they must 208–3676 or for TTY, (202) 502–8659. should submit an original and 7 copies also serve a copy of the document on Dated: September 4, 2012. of the protest or intervention to the that resource agency. Kimberly D. Bose, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, k. This application is not ready for 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC environmental analysis at this time. Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–22184 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] 20426. l. The proposed project would utilize This filing is accessible on-line at BILLING CODE 6717–01–P the Corps’ existing William Bacon http://www.ferc.gov, using the Oliver Lock and Dam, and would ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for consist of the following new facilities: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY review in the Commission’s Public (1) A forebay; (2) an intake structure; (3) Reference Room in Washington, DC. a powerhouse containing two generating Federal Energy Regulatory There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the units with a total capacity of 11.72 Commission Web site that enables subscribers to megawatts (MW); (4) a 150-foot-long, 68- [Docket No. PR09–33–002] receive email notification when a foot-wide tailrace; (5) a proposed 1.7- document is added to a subscribed mile-long, 25 kilovolt (kV) transmission Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline LLC; docket(s). For assistance with any FERC line; (6) a switchyard; and (7) Online service, please email appurtenant facilities. The proposed Notice of Motion for Extension of Rate Case Filing Deadline [email protected], or call project would have an average annual (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call generation of 42.6 GWh, and operate in Take notice that on August 30, 2012, (202) 502–8659. a run-of-river mode utilizing surplus Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline LLC Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time water from the William Bacon Oliver (KM Border) filed a motion requesting on Monday, September 10, 2012. Lock and Dam, as directed by the Corps. an extension consistent with the Federal m. A copy of the application is Energy Regulatory Commission’s Dated: September 4, 2012. available for review at the Commission (Commission) revised policy of periodic Kimberly D. Bose, in the Public Reference Room or may be review from a triennial to a five year Secretary. viewed on the Commission’s Web site at period. The Commission, in Order No. [FR Doc. 2012–22183 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] http://www.ferc.gov, using the 735, modified its policy concerning BILLING CODE 6717–01–P ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket periodic reviews of rates charges by number, excluding the last three digits section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines to in the docket number field to access the extend the cycle for such reviews from DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY document. For assistance, contact FERC three to five years.1 Therefore, KM Online Support. A copy is also available Border requests that the date for its next Federal Energy Regulatory for inspection and reproduction at the rate filing be extended to September 29, Commission address in item h above. 2014, which is five years from the date n. You may also register online at of KM Border’s most recent rate filing [Docket No. RM98–1–000] http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ with this Commission. Records Governing Off-the-Record esubscription.asp to be notified via Any person desiring to participate in Communications email of new filings and issuances this proceeding must file a motion to related to this or other pending projects. intervene or to protest this filing must Public Notice For assistance, contact FERC Online file in accordance with Rules 211 and Support. 214 of the Commission’s Rules of This constitutes notice, in accordance o. Scoping Process Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt The Commission staff intends to and 385.214). Protests will be of prohibited and exempt off-the-record prepare a single Environmental considered by the Commission in communications. Assessment (EA) for the William Oliver determining the appropriate action to be Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, Bacon Lock and Dam Hydroelectric taken, but will not serve to make September 22, 1999) requires Project in accordance with the National protestants parties to the proceeding. Commission decisional employees, who Environmental Policy Act. The EA will Any person wishing to become a party make or receive a prohibited or exempt consider both site-specific and must file a notice of intervention or off-the-record communication relevant cumulative environmental impacts and motion to intervene, as appropriate. to the merits of a contested proceeding, reasonable alternatives to the proposed Such notices, motions, or protests must to deliver to the Secretary of the action. Commission, a copy of the Commission staff does not propose to 1 Contract Reporting Requirements of Intrastate communication, if written, or a conduct any on-site scoping meetings at Natural Gas Companies, Order No. 735, 131 FERC summary of the substance of any oral this time. Instead, we are soliciting ¶ 61,150 (May 20, 2010). communication.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55470 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
Prohibited communications are Commission will grant such a request received by the Secretary of the included in a public, non-decisional file only when it determines that fairness so Commission. The communications associated with, but not a part of, the requires. Any person identified below as listed are grouped by docket numbers in decisional record of the proceeding. having made a prohibited off-the-record ascending order. These filings are Unless the Commission determines that communication shall serve the available for review at the Commission the prohibited communication and any document on all parties listed on the in the Public Reference Room or may be responses thereto should become a part official service list for the applicable viewed on the Commission’s Web site at of the decisional record, the prohibited proceeding in accordance with Rule http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary off-the-record communication will not 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010. link. Enter the docket number, be considered by the Commission in Exempt off-the-record excluding the last three digits, in the reaching its decision. Parties to a communications are included in the docket number field to access the proceeding may seek the opportunity to decisional record of the proceeding, document. For assistance, please contact respond to any facts or contentions unless the communication was with a FERC, Online Support at made in a prohibited off-the-record cooperating agency as described by 40 communication, and may request that CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR [email protected] or toll the Commission place the prohibited 385.2201(e) (1) (v). free at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY, communication and responses thereto The following is a list of off-the- contact (202) 502–8659. in the decisional record. The record communications recently
Communication Docket No. date Presenter or requester
Prohibited: 1. CP08–6–000 ...... 8–20–12 Richard Kinder 2. CP11–161–000 ...... 8–23–12 Jolie DeFeis 1 Exempt: 1. CP11–515–000 ...... 8–24–12 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Staff 2 1 Email record. 2 Email record.
Dated: September 4, 2012. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, protected through www.regulations.gov Kimberly D. Bose, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– or email. The www.regulations.gov Web Secretary. OAR–2003–0039 by one of the following site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, [FR Doc. 2012–22179 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] methods: which means EPA will not know your • www.regulations.gov: Follow the BILLING CODE 6717–01–P identity or contact information unless on-line instructions for submitting you provide it in the body of your comments. comment. If you send an email • Email: [email protected]. comment directly to EPA without going ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION • Fax: 202–566–1741. AGENCY • through www.regulations.gov your email Mail: Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR– address will be automatically captured [FRL–9725–8; EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0039] 2003–0039, Air and Radiation Docket and included as part of the comment and Information Center, U.S. that is placed in the public docket and Agency Information Collection Environmental Protection Agency, made available on the Internet. If you Activities; Proposed Collection; Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania submit an electronic comment, EPA Comment Request; Reporting and Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. recommends that you include your • Hand Delivery: Docket # EPA–HQ– Recordkeeping Requirements of the name and other contact information in OAR–2003–0039, Air and Radiation HCFC Allowance System; EPA ICR No. the body of your comment and with any Docket and Information Center at EPA 2014.04 disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., cannot read your comment due to AGENCY: Environmental Protection Room 3334, Washington, DC 20460. technical difficulties and cannot contact Agency. Such deliveries are only accepted ACTION: Notice. during the Docket’s normal hours of you for clarification, EPA may not be operation, and special arrangements able to consider your comment. SUMMARY: In compliance with the should be made for deliveries of boxed Electronic files should avoid the use of Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 information. special characters, any form of U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the U.S. Instructions: Direct your comments to encryption, and be free of any defects or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– viruses. For additional information is planning to submit a request to renew 0039. EPA’s policy is that all comments about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA an existing approved Information received will be included in the public Docket Center homepage at http:// Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of docket without change and may be www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Management and Budget (OMB). This made available online at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ICR will expire on 02/28/2013. Before www.regulations.gov, including any Robert Burchard, Stratospheric submitting the ICR to OMB for review personal information provided, unless Protection Division, Office of and approval, EPA is soliciting the comment includes information Atmospheric Programs, 6205J, comments on specific aspects of the claimed to be Confidential Business Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 proposed information collection as Information (CBI) or other information Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, described below. whose disclosure is restricted by statute. DC 20460; telephone number: (202) DATES: Comments must be submitted on Do not submit information that you 343–9126; fax number: (202) 343–2338; or before November 9, 2012. consider to be CBI or otherwise email address: [email protected].
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55471
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: What should I consider when I prepare controlled substances (e.g., my comments for EPA? chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs) with How can I access the docket and/or exemptions for essential uses, critical submit comments? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your uses, previously-used material, and EPA has established a public docket comments: material that is transformed, destroyed, for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA– 1. Explain your views as clearly as or exported to developing countries. HQ–OAR–2003–0039, which is possible and provide specific examples. The Protocol also establishes limits and available for online viewing at 2. Describe any assumptions that you reduction schedules leading to the eventual phaseout of class II controlled www.regulations.gov, or in person at the used. substances (i.e., Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA 3. Provide copies of any technical hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFCs). Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, information and/or data you used that The U.S. is obligated to limit HCFC Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. support your views. consumption (defined by the Protocol as NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 4. If you estimate potential burden or production plus imports, minus Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 costs, explain how you arrived at the exports). The schedule called for a 35 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through estimate that you provide. percent reduction on January 1, 2004, Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 5. Offer alternative ways to improve followed by a 75 percent reduction on telephone number for the Reading Room the collection activity. January 1, 2010, a 90 percent reduction is 202–566–1744, and the telephone 6. Make sure to submit your on January 1, 2015, a 99.5 percent number for the Air and Radiation comments by the deadline identified reduction on January 1, 2020, and a total Docket is 202–566–1742. under DATES. phaseout on January 1, 2030. EPA is Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, responsible for administering the copy of the draft collection of be sure to identify the docket ID number phaseout. information, submit or view public assigned to this action in the subject To ensure U.S. compliance with these comments, access the index listing the line on the first page of your response. limits and restrictions, EPA established contents of the docket, and to access You may also provide the name, date, an allowance system to control U.S. those documents in the public docket and Federal Register citation. production and import of HCFCs by that are available electronically. Once in What information collection activity or granting control measures referred to as the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in ICR does this apply to? baseline and calendar-year allowances. the docket ID number identified in this Baseline allowances are based on the document. Docket ID No.: EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– historical activity of individual 0039. companies. Calendar-year allowances What information is EPA particularly Affected entities: Entities potentially allow holders to produce and/or import interested in? affected by this action are producers, controlled substances in a given year importers, exporters, transformers, and and are allocated as a percentage of Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of destroyers of HCFCs. the PRA, EPA specifically solicits baseline. There are two types of baseline Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping and calendar-year allowances: comments and information to enable it Requirements of the HCFC Allowance to: consumption and production System ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. allowances. Since each allowance is (i) Evaluate whether the proposed 2014.04, OMB Control No. 2060–0498. equal to 1 kilogram of HCFC, EPA is collection of information is necessary ICR status: This ICR will expire on able to monitor the quantity of HCFCs for the proper performance of the 02/28/2013. An agency may not conduct being produced, imported and exported. functions of the agency, including or sponsor, and a person is not required Transfers of production and whether the information will have to respond to, a collection of consumption allowances among practical utility; information, unless it displays a producers and importers are allowed (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the currently valid OMB control number. and are tracked by EPA. agency’s estimate of the burden of the The OMB control numbers for EPA’s The above-described limits and proposed collection of information, regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after restrictions are monitored by EPA including the validity of the appearing in the Federal Register when through the recordkeeping and reporting methodology and assumptions used; approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, requirements established in the are displayed either by publication in regulations in 40 CFR part 82, subpart (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and the Federal Register or by other A. To submit required information, clarity of the information to be appropriate means, such as on the regulated entities can download collected; and related collection instrument or form, if reporting forms from EPA’s Web site (iv) Minimize the burden of the applicable. The display of OMB control (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/record), collection of information on those who numbers in certain EPA regulations is complete them, and send them to EPA are to respond, including through the consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. electronically, via mail, courier, or fax. use of appropriate automated electronic, Abstract: The international treaty The Upon receipt of the reports, the data mechanical, or other technological Montreal Protocol on Substances that is entered into the ODS Tracking collection techniques or other forms of Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) and System. The ODS Tracking System is a information technology, e.g., electronic Title VI of the Clean Air Act secure database that maintains the data submission of responses. In particular, Amendments (CAAA) established limits submitted to EPA and helps the agency: EPA is requesting comments from very on total U.S. production, import, and (1) Maintain oversight over total small businesses (those that employ less export of class I and class II controlled production and consumption of than 25) on examples of specific ozone depleting substances (referred to controlled substances; (2) monitor additional efforts that EPA could make hereinafter as ‘‘controlled substances’’). compliance with limits and restrictions to reduce the paperwork burden for very Under its Protocol commitments, the on production, imports, and trades and small businesses affected by this United States was obligated to cease specific exemptions from the phaseout collection. production and import of class I for individual U.S. companies; and (3)
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55472 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
assess, and report on, compliance with Are there changes in the estimates from before or after the meeting. If any person U.S. obligations under the Montreal the last approval? wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign Protocol. There is a decrease of 259 hours in the language interpreter) or other special EPA has implemented an electronic total estimated respondent burden accommodations, please contact, prior reporting system that allows regulated compared with that identified in the ICR to September 25, 2012, Richard Thelen, entities to prepare and submit data currently approved by OMB. This 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, electronically. Coupled with the decrease reflects the expansion of the DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565–3515 or widespread use of the standardized electronic reporting program. TDD (202) 565–3377. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For forms, electronic reporting has What is the next step in the process for further information, contact Richard improved data quality and made the this ICR? reporting process efficient for both Thelen, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., reporting companies and EPA. Most EPA will consider the comments Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565–3515. reporting is done electronically. received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will Sharon A. Whitt, Pursuant to regulations in 40 CFR part then be submitted to OMB for review Agency Clearance Officer. 2, subpart B, reporting businesses are and approval pursuant to 5 CFR [FR Doc. 2012–22349 Filed 9–6–12; 4:15 pm] entitled to assert a business 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue BILLING CODE 6690–01–P confidentiality claim covering any part another Federal Register notice of the submitted business information as pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to defined in 40 CFR 2.201(c). EPA’s announce the submission of the ICR to FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION practice is to manage the reported OMB and the opportunity to submit information as confidential business additional comments to OMB. If you Farm Credit Administration Board; information. have any questions about this ICR or the Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting Burden Statement: The annual public approval process, please contact Robert reporting and recordkeeping burden for Burchard at [email protected]. AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. this collection of information is Dated: September 4, 2012. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, estimated to average 1,601 hours and Drusilla Hufford, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of $161,793. Burden means the total time, Director, Stratospheric Protection Division. the regular meeting of the Farm Credit effort, or financial resources expended [FR Doc. 2012–22206 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] by persons to generate, maintain, retain, Administration Board (Board). BILLING CODE 6560–50–P or disclose or provide information to or DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of for a Federal agency. This includes the the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in time needed to review instructions; EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE McLean, Virginia, on September 13, develop, acquire, install, and utilize UNITED STATES technology and systems for the purposes 2012, from 9 a.m. until such time as the of collecting, validating, and verifying Sunshine Act Meeting Board concludes its business. information, processing and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale maintaining information, and disclosing ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting of the L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm and providing information; adjust the Advisory Committee of the Export- Credit Administration Board, (703) 883– existing ways to comply with any Import Bank of the United States 4009, TTY (703) 883–4056. previously applicable instructions and (Export-Import Bank). ADDRESSES: Farm Credit requirements which have subsequently Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, TIME AND PLACE: September 25, 2012 changed; train personnel to be able to McLean, Virginia 22102–5090. respond to a collection of information; from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of search data sources; complete and meeting will be held at the Export- this meeting of the Board will be open review the collection of information; Import Bank in Room 326, 811 Vermont to the public (limited space available) and transmit or otherwise disclose the Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571. and parts will be closed to the public. information. SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established November 30, 1983, to In order to increase the accessibility to The ICR provides a detailed advise the Export-Import Bank on its Board meetings, persons requiring explanation of the agency’s estimate, programs and to provide comments for assistance should make arrangements in which is only briefly summarized here: inclusion in the reports of the Export- advance. The matters to be considered Estimated total number of potential Import Bank of the United States to at the meeting are: respondents: 49. Congress. Open Session Frequency of response: Annually, AGENDA: Presentations by Export-Import quarterly, or as needed (depending on Bank staff on its priority congressional A. Approval of Minutes the report). mandates on Sub-Saharan Africa, • August 9, 2012. renewable energy and small business; Estimated total average number of an update by the Export Import Bank on B. New Business responses for each respondent: 7. its fiscal year-end business portfolio; • Senior Officer Compensation Estimated total annual burden hours: and discussion led by the Advisory Disclosures and Related Topics—Final 1,601. Committee on its recommendations for Rule. Estimated total annual costs: the Export-Import Bank’s programs. • System Audit Committee—Final $161,793. This includes an estimated PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting will Rule. burden cost of $160,428 and an be open to public participation, and the C. Reports estimated cost of $1,365 for capital last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral investment or maintenance and questions or comments. Members of the • Quarterly Report on Farm Credit operational costs. public may also file written statement(s) System Condition.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55473
Closed Session * Accessibility Act (CVAA), Public Law FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE • Office of Examination Supervisory 11–260, for the purpose of achieving CORPORATION and Oversight Activities Report. equal access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities as part of Agency Information Collection Dated: September 6, 2012. our nation’s migration to a national Activities; Renewal of a Currently Dale L. Aultman, Internet protocol-enabled emergency Approved Collection; Comment Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. network, also known as the next Request; Basel II Recordkeeping and [FR Doc. 2012–22342 Filed 9–6–12; 4:15 pm] generation 9–1–1 system (NG9–1–1). Disclosures BILLING CODE 6705–01–P The purpose of the EAAC is to AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance determine the most effective and Corporation (FDIC). efficient technologies and methods by ACTION: Notice and request for FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS which to enable access to Next comments. COMMISSION Generation 911 (NG 9–1–1) emergency SUMMARY: [DA 12–1372] services by individuals with disabilities, The FDIC, as part of its and to make recommendations to the continuing effort to reduce paperwork Emergency Access Advisory Commission on how to achieve those and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Committee; Announcement of Date of effective and efficient technologies and agencies to take this opportunity to Next Meeting methods. During the spring of 2011, the comment on information collections, as AGENCY: Federal Communications EAAC conducted a nationwide survey required by the Paperwork Reduction Commission. of individuals with disabilities and Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 ACTION: Notice. released a report on that survey on June U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). The FDIC is 21, 2011. Following release of the soliciting comments concerning the SUMMARY: This document announces the survey report, the EAAC developed currently approved Basel II— date of the Emergency Access Advisory recommendations, which it submitted to Recordkeeping and Disclosures Committee’s (Committee or EAAC) next the Commission on December 7, 2011, information collection, which is being meeting. The September meeting will as required by the CVAA. At the renewed without change pending OMB receive reports from seven September 2012 EAAC meeting, the review and action on proposed changes subcommittees continuing work from seven subcommittees of the EAAC will to the collection arising from proposed 2011, and will consider activities for present reports and consider activities rules published in the Federal Register 2012. The seven subcommittees cover: for 2012. on August 30, 2012, and entitled Text-to-911 Solutions, Interim to The meeting site is fully accessible to Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory NG911; Interoperability Testing; PSAP Capital, Implementation of Basel III, Sign Language and other people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language Minimum Regulatory Capital Ratios, Communication Assistance; Detailed Capital Adequacy, Transition interpreters, open captioning, and Report Sections from 2011; NENA i3 Provisions, and Prompt Corrective assistive listening devices will be compared to EAAC Recommendations; Action (77 FR 52792); Regulatory provided on site. Other reasonable TTY Transition/Roadmap; and, Capital Rules: Standardized Approach Timeline Alignment for Phasing into accommodations for people with for Risk-Weighted Assets; Market NG911 PSAPs. disabilities are available upon request. Discipline and Disclosure Requirements DATES: The Committee’s next meeting In your request, include a description of (77 FR 52888); Regulatory Capital Rules: will take place on Friday, September 14, the accommodation you will need and Advanced Approaches Risk-Based 2012, 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (EST), at a way we can contact you if we need Capital Rule; Market Risk Capital Rule the headquarters of the Federal more information. Last minute requests (77 FR 52978). Communications Commission (FCC). will be accepted, but may be impossible DATES: Comments must be submitted on ADDRESSES: Federal Communications to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or before November 9, 2012. Commission, 445 12th Street SW., or call the Consumer and Governmental ADDRESSES: Interested parties are Washington, DC 20554, in the Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 invited to submit written comments to Commission Meeting Room. (voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). the FDIC by any of the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request materials in accessible methods: Cheryl King, Consumer and formats for people with disabilities • http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/ Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) (Braille, large print, electronic files, laws/federal/notices.html • 418–2284 (voice) or (202) 418–0416 audio format), send an email to Email: [email protected] Include (TTY), email: [email protected] and/ [email protected] or call the Consumer the name of the collection in the subject or Patrick Donovan, Public Safety and and Governmental Affairs Bureau at line of the message. • Mail: Leneta G. Gregorie (202–898– Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418– (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 2413, email: [email protected]. 3719), Counsel, Room NY–5050, Federal (TTY). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Federal Communications Commission. Street NW., Washington, DC 20429. December 7, 2010, in document DA 10– • 2318, Chairman Julius Genachowski Karen Peltz Strauss, Hand Delivery: Comments may be announced the establishment and Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental hand-delivered to the guard station at appointment of members and Co- Affairs Bureau. the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days Chairpersons of the EAAC, an advisory [FR Doc. 2012–22133 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. committee required by the Twenty-First BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Century Communications and Video All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy * Session Closed—Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. of the comments may also be submitted 552b(c)(8) and (9). to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC:
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55474 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
Office of Information and Regulatory information collection request to revise comment must be made in writing and Affairs, Office of Management and and rename the collection on the basis sent within thirty days of the date of Budget, New Executive Office Building, of the three rules has been submitted to this Notice to: Federal Deposit Washington, DC 20503. OMB for review. However, since the Insurance Corporation, Division of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDIC’s collection expires on January 31, Resolutions and Receiverships, Leneta Gregorie, at the FDIC address 2013, the FDIC is proceeding with the Attention: Receivership Oversight above. renewal process to ensure continuation Department 8.1, 1601 Bryan Street, of the collection in the event that OMB Dallas, TX 75201. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: does not act on the FDIC’s request to Proposal to renew the following No comments concerning the revise the collection prior to its termination of this receivership will be currently approved collections of expiration date. information: considered which are not sent within Title: Basel II: Disclosures and Request for Comment this time frame. Recordkeeping. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. OMB Number: 3064–0153. the collection of information is Dated: August 29, 2012. Frequency of Response: On occasion. necessary for the proper performance of Valerie J. Best, Affected Public: Insured state the FDIC’s functions, including whether Assistant Executive Secretary. nonmember banks and state savings the information has practical utility; (b) [FR Doc. 2012–22192 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] institutions. the accuracy of the estimates of the BILLING CODE 6714–01–P Estimated Number of Respondents: 8. burden of the information collection, Estimated Average Time per including the validity of the Response: implementation—330 hours; methodology and assumptions used; (c) systems maintenance—27.9 hours; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION disclosures—5.79 hours; control, clarity of the information to be oversight and verification—11.05 hours; collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Sunshine Act Meetings documentation—19 hours; and burden of the information collection on supervisory approvals—16.82 hours. respondents, including through the use AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Total Annual Burden: 3,284 hours. Federal of automated collection techniques or Maritime Commission. General Description of Collection: On other forms of information technology. December 7, 2007, the FDIC, the Office All comments will become a matter of TIME AND DATE: September 12, 2012— of the Comptroller, and the Federal public record. 2:00 p.m. Reserve Board (collectively, the Dated at Washington, DC, this 4th day of PLACE: 800 North Capitol Street NW., ‘‘Agencies’’) issued the joint final rule September, 2012. First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, titled Risk-Based Capital Standards: DC. Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. (final rule) implementing a new risk- Valerie J. Best, STATUS: The meeting will be held in based regulatory capital framework for Assistant Executive Secretary. Open and Closed Session. institutions in the United States. The [FR Doc. 2012–22191 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: final rule requires certain large or BILLING CODE 6714–01–P internationally active banks and bank Open Session holding companies (BHCs) to (1) adopt a written implementation plan, (2) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 1. Briefing on Logistica De Las update that plan for any mergers, (3) CORPORATION Americas Conference. obtain prior written approvals for the 2. Docket No. 11–05: Amendments to Notice to All Interested Parties of the use of certain approaches for the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Termination of the Receivership of determining risk-weighted assets, and Procedure. 10233, Access Bank, Champlin, MN (4) make certain public disclosures 3. Docket No. 11–16: Passenger Vessel regarding their capital ratios, their Notice is hereby given that the Federal Operator Financial Responsibility components, and information on Deposit Insurance Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’) Requirements for Nonperformance of implicit support provided to a as Receiver for Access Bank, (‘‘the Transportation. securitization. There are no required Receiver’’) intends to terminate its 4. Docket No. 12–07: Solicitation of reporting forms associated with this receivership for said institution. The Views on Requests to Develop and information collection. FDIC was appointed receiver of Access Release Container Freight Rate Indices The Agencies, on August 30, 2012, Bank on May 7, 2010. The liquidation for U.S. Agricultural Exports based on a proposed three rules that would amend of the receivership assets has been Sampling of Service Contracts filed with this collection: completed. To the extent permitted by the FMC. Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory available funds and in accordance with Capital, Implementation of Basel III, law, the Receiver will be making a final Closed Session Minimum Regulatory Capital Ratios, dividend payment to proven creditors. Capital Adequacy, Transition Based upon the foregoing, the 1. Rate and Surcharge Trends in the Provisions, and Prompt Corrective Receiver has determined that the Trans Pacific Trade. Action (77 FR 52792); Regulatory continued existence of the receivership CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Capital Rules: Standardized Approach will serve no useful purpose. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 523– for Risk-Weighted Assets; Market Consequently, notice is given that the 5725. Discipline and Disclosure Requirements receivership shall be terminated, to be (77 FR 52888); and Regulatory Capital effective no sooner than thirty days after Rachel E. Dickon, Rules: Advanced Approaches Risk- the date of this Notice. If any person Assistant Secretary. based Capital Rules; Market Risk wishes to comment concerning the [FR Doc. 2012–22200 Filed 9–6–12; 11:15 am] Capital Rule (77 FR 52978). An termination of the receivership, such BILLING CODE 6730–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55475
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ‘‘Information Collection 9000–0053, be gathered and submitted on an Permits, Authorities, or Franchises’’ on exception basis. We estimate that any GENERAL SERVICES your attached document. respondent will be required to submit ADMINISTRATION • Fax: 202–501–4067. supporting information only one time • Mail: General Services annually. In addition, we think that it NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND Administration, Regulatory Secretariat will take the contractor only half an SPACE ADMINISTRATION (MVCB), 1275 First Street NE., hour to pull existing franchises or [Docket 2012–0076; Sequence 39; OMB Washington, DC 20417. ATTN: Hada permits from the files. Control No. 9000–0053] Flowers/IC 9000–0053, Permits, Respondents: 255. Authorities, or Franchises. Responses per Respondent: 1. Federal Acquisition Regulation; Instructions: Please submit comments Annual Responses: 255. Information Collection; Permits, only and cite Information Collection Hours Per Response: 0.5. Authorities, or Franchises 9000–0053, Permits, Authorities, or Total Burden Hours: 128. Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Franchises, in all correspondence AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD), Requesters may obtain a copy of the related to this collection. All comments General Services Administration (GSA), information collection documents from received will be posted without change and National Aeronautics and Space the General Services Administration, to http://www.regulations.gov, including Administration (NASA). Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), 1275 any personal and/or business ACTION: First Street NE., Washington, DC 20417, Notice of request for public confidential information provided. comments regarding an extension of a telephone (202) 501–4755. Please cite previously existing OMB clearance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. OMB Control No. 9000–0053, Permits, Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Authorities, or Franchises, in all SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Analyst, Office of Governmentwide correspondence. Paperwork Reduction Act, the Acquisition Policy, GSA (202) 208–4949 Regulatory Secretariat will be or email [email protected]. Dated: August 28, 2012. William Clark, submitting to the Office of Management SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and Budget (OMB) a request to review Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy and approve an extension of a A. Purpose Division, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy. previously approved information The FAR requires insertion of clause collection requirement concerning 52.247–2, Permits, Authorities, or [FR Doc. 2012–22202 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] permits, authorities, or franchises for Franchises, when regulated BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P regulated transportation. transportation is involved. The clause Public comments are particularly requires the contractor to indicate invited on: Whether this collection of whether it has the proper authorization DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND information is necessary for the proper from the Federal Highway HUMAN SERVICES performance of functions of the Federal Administration (or other cognizant Agency for Healthcare Research and Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and regulatory body) to move material. The Quality whether it will have practical utility; contractor may be required to provide whether our estimate of the public copies of the authorization before Agency Information Collection burden of this collection of information moving material under the contract. The Activities: Proposed Collection; is accurate, and based on valid clause also requires the contractor, at its Comment Request assumptions and methodology; ways to expense, to obtain and maintain any enhance the quality, utility, and clarity permits, franchises, licenses, and other AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research of the information to be collected; and authorities issued by State and local and Quality, HHS. ways in which we can minimize the governments. The Government may ACTION: Notice. burden of the collection of information request to review the documents to on those who are to respond, through ensure that the contractor has complied SUMMARY: This notice announces the the use of appropriate technological with all regulatory requirements. intention of the Agency for Healthcare collection techniques or other forms of Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request information technology. B. Annual Reporting Burden that the Office of Management and DATES: Submit comments on or before The estimated annual reporting Budget (OMB) approve the proposed November 9, 2012. burden has decreased from what was information collection project: ‘‘A ADDRESSES: Submit comments published in the Federal Register at 74 Prototype Consumer Reporting System identified by Information Collection FR 56640, on November 2, 2009. The for Patient Safety Events.’’ In 9000–0053, Permits, Authorities, or decrease is based on a revised estimate accordance with the Paperwork Franchises, by any of the following of the number of respondents, responses Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, methods: per year and response time per AHRQ invites the public to comment on • Regulations.gov: http:// response. According to Fiscal Year 2011 this proposed information collection. www.regulations.gov. Federal Procurement Data System DATES: Comments on this notice must be Submit comments via the Federal (FPDS) data, 3,877 contracts were received by November 9, 2012. eRulemaking portal by searching the awarded to 1021 unique vendors under ADDRESSES: Written comments should OMB control number. Select the link the North American Industry be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds Classification System (NAICS) code 484 Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by with ‘‘Information Collection 9000– for trucking, where the requirements for email at [email protected]. 0053, Permits, Authorities, or this collection would apply. It is Copies of the proposed collection plans, Franchises’’. Follow the instructions estimated that a maximum of 25%, or data collection instruments, and specific provided at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ 255 of these vendors would be required details on the estimated burden can be screen. Please include your name, to provide the information required by obtained from the AHRQ Reports company name (if any), and the clause. The information need only Clearance Officer.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55476 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: patient safety events defined as an whether the respondent is willing to Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports incident or near miss by the AHRQ have CRSPS staff follow up to clarify Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by Common Formats. Such information is information. If a respondent consents, email at [email protected]. necessary for research on how to CRSPS staff will follow up by phone SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: improve the quality of health care, and ask questions about any information promote patient safety and reduce that was not clear in the initial report Proposed Project medical errors. There is a need to collect and annotate the report with this A Prototype Consumer Reporting this information from consumers and information. System for Patient Safety Events match these consumer reports to the 2. Health care provider follow up. For information collected by providers, The Agency for Healthcare Research the subset of consumers that consent, because the two sources may differ. and Quality (AHRQ) requests that the patient safety officers at health care Examining data from both sources Office of Management and Budget provider organizations who maintain allows the project to determine to what (OMB) approve, under the Paperwork the adverse event reporting system will extent patients are able to provide more Reduction Act of 1995, AHRQ’s contribute supplemental information complete or more detailed information. about the consumer-reported incident collection of information for a Prototype This research has the following goals: Consumer Reporting System for Patient which occurred at their facility. CRSPS 1. To develop and design a prototype staff will contact the health care Safety Events. This project aims to system to collect information about design and test a system for collecting organization to share the consumer patient safety events. report with the patient safety officer or information from patients about health 2. To develop and test Web and care safety events following standard other appointed liaison. The liaison will telephone modes of a prototype determine if the consumer-reported definitions and formats. questionnaire. There is a growing body of evidence incident matches an event in the 3. To develop and test protocols for a provider’s Incident Reporting System, that many adverse medical events go follow-up survey of health care unreported in current systems and if so, provide additional providers. information. (Weissman et al., 2008). A primary This demonstration project is being reason for this reporting gap is that most conducted by AHRQ through its Data collected will be analyzed to reporting systems do not presently contractor, RAND Corporation with produce estimates and basic descriptive accept or elicit reports from patients and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Dana statistics on the quantity and type of their families (RTI 2010). AHRQ Farber Cancer Institute, and ECRI consumer-reported patient safety events, recognizes that the unique perspective Institute, pursuant to AHRQ’s statutory examine the variability of responses to of health care consumers could reveal authority to conduct and support questions, examine the mode of data important information that is not research on health care and on systems collection by event types, and conduct reported by health care providers. for the delivery of such care, including correlations, cross tabulations of Patient reports could complement and activities with respect to the quality, responses and other statistical analysis. enhance reports from providers and effectiveness, efficiency, Estimated Annual Respondent Burden thus produce a more complete and appropriateness and value of health care accurate understanding of the services and with respect to quality Exhibit 1 shows the estimated prevalence and characteristics of measurement and improvement. 42 annualized burden hours for medical adverse events (RTI, 2010). U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2). respondents’ time to participate in this In an effort to realize untapped information collection based on the potential of health care consumers to Method of Collection expected number of respondents, 840 to provide important information about To achieve the goal of this project the the intake form and 84 to the provider patient safety events, AHRQ has funded following data collections will be follow up. The number of respondents the development of a prototype implemented: is based on the size of the selected Consumer Reporting System for Patient 1. Safety event intake form and follow community, estimates of health care Safety (CRSPS), designed to collect up. The safety event intake form asks utilization, rates of adverse events, and information from medical patients about about a medical error or mistake, harm response rates in similar investigations. medical errors that resulted or nearly or injury as well as near misses. Medical The intake form is expected to resulted in harm or injury. The purpose patients, consumers, family members maximally require 25 minutes via the of this project is to test the prototype for and other caregivers voluntarily report Web or telephone including the optional its ability to record data from consumers safety events through a Web site or by 10 minutes of follow-up questions, about patient safety events defined as an telephone. The questions ask what resulting in a total burden of 490 hours. incident or near miss by the AHRQ happened, details of the event, when, The health care provider follow up is Common Formats (AHRQ, 2010, details where, whether there was harm, the expected to take 20 minutes and only at: www.pso.ahrq.gov/formats/ type of harm, contributing factors, occurs for the estimated 10% of patients commonfmt.htm). disclosure, and whether the patient consenting; this form carries a total Currently there is no mechanism for reported the event and to whom. burden of 28 hours. The total burden is consumers to report information about Information is also collected regarding 518 hours annually.
EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS
Number of Form name Number of responses per Hours per Total burden respondents respondent response hours
Safety event intake form and follow up ...... 840 1 35/60 490 Health care provider follow up ...... 84 1 20/60 28
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55477
EXHIBIT 1—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS—Continued
Number of Form name Number of responses per Hours per Total burden respondents respondent response hours
Total ...... 924 NA NA 518
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated organization, $885, for a total costs beyond those associated with their annualized cost burden for patients, annualized cost burden of $11,537. time to participate. $10,652, and for the health care Respondents will not incur any other
EXHIBIT 2—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST BURDEN
Number of Total burden Average hour- Total cost Form name respondents hours ly wage rate burden
Safety event intake form and follow up ...... 840 490 $21.74 * $10,652 Health care provider follow up ...... 84 28 31.61 ** 885
Total ...... 924 518 NA 11,537 * Based upon the mean of the average Wages, National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, May 2011, U.S. De- partment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00–0000 ** Based upon the mean of the average wages, National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, May 2011: Occupa- tional Health and Safety Specialists (General Medical and Surgical Hospitals). U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http:// www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes299011.htm
Estimated Annual Cost to the RAND Corporation and the ECRI Government Institute. The estimated cost for this AHRQ is supporting the conduct of work is $899,827. this project as part of a contract with the
EXHIBIT 3—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST
Cost component Total cost Annualized cost
Intake Form Development ...... $364,375 $242,917 System Development ...... 413,860 275,907 Project Management ...... 35,325 23,550 Overhead ...... 86,267 57,511
Total ...... 899,827 599,885
Request for Comments included in the Agency’s subsequent SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10 request for OMB approval of the (a)(2) of the Federal Advisory In accordance with the Paperwork proposed information collection. All Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ’s comments will become a matter of announcement is made of an Agency for information collection are requested public record. Healthcare Research and Quality with regard to any of the following: (a) Dated: August 30, 2012. (AHRQ) Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) Whether the proposed collection of meeting on ‘‘Partnerships for information is necessary for the proper Carolyn M. Clancy, Sustainable Research and Dissemination performance of AHRQ health care Director. of Evidence-Based Medicine (R24)’’. research and health care information [FR Doc. 2012–22028 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] dissemination functions, including DATES: September 20–21, 2012 (Open on BILLING CODE 4160–90–M whether the information will have September 20 from 8:00 a.m. to 8:15 practical utility; (b) the accuracy of a.m. and closed for the remainder of the AHRQ’s estimate of burden (including meeting). DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND This notice is being published less hours and costs) of the proposed HUMAN SERVICES collection(s) of information; (c) ways to than 15 days prior to the September 20– 21 meeting, due to the time constraints enhance the quality, utility, and clarity Agency for Healthcare Research And of reviews and funding cycles. of the information to be collected; and Quality (d) ways to minimize the burden of the ADDRESSES: Hyatt Regency Hotel collection of information upon the Special Emphasis Panel Meeting Bethesda, One Metro Center, Bethesda, respondents, including the use of MD 20814. automated collection techniques or AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: other forms of information technology. and Quality, HHS. Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of Comments submitted in response to ACTION: Notice of SEP meeting. members, agenda or minutes of the non- this notice will be summarized and confidential portions of this meeting
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55478 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
should contact: Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, chapter 35). To request a copy of these The completion of the special study, Committee Management Officer, Office requests, call (404) 639–7570 or send an National Youth Fitness Study, will have of Extramural Research, Education and email to [email protected]. Send written approximately 1,037 respondents in this Priority Populations, AHRQ, 540 comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of quarter for a total burden of 1,037 hours. Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Management and Budget, Washington, In addition, up to 1,000 additional Maryland 20850, Telephone (301) 427– DC or by fax to (202) 395–5806. Written persons (non-NHANES respondents) 1554. comments should be received within 30 might participate in tests of procedures Agenda items for this meeting are days of this notice. or other special studies. The average subject to change as priorities dictate. Proposed Project burden for these special study/pretest SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Special respondents is 3 hours for a total of The National Health and Nutrition Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in 3,000 hours of burden. The burden for Examination Survey (NHANES)— fields related to health care research these studies is a total of 4,037 hours. who are invited by the Agency for (0920–0237, Expiration 11/30/2012)— Participation in NHANES is Healthcare Research and Quality Extension—National Center for Health (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease completely voluntary and confidential. conduct on an as needed basis, Control and Prevention (CDC). NHANES programs produce scientific reviews of applications for Background and Brief Description descriptive statistics which measure the AHRQ support. Individual members of health and nutrition status of the Section 306 of the Public Health the Panel do not attend regularly- general population. Through the use of Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as scheduled meetings and do not serve for questionnaires, physical examinations, amended, authorizes that the Secretary fixed terms or a long period of time. and laboratory tests, NHANES studies of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Rather, they are asked to participate in acting through NCHS, shall collect the relationship between diet, nutrition particular review meetings which statistics on the extent and nature of and health in a representative sample of require their type of expertise. illness and disability; environmental, the United States. NHANES monitors Substantial segments of the SEP social and other health hazards; and the prevalence of chronic conditions meeting referenced above will be closed determinants of health of the population and risk factors related to health such as to the public in accordance with the of the United States. arthritis, asthma, osteoporosis, provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, The National Health and Nutrition infectious diseases, diabetes, high blood section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 Examination Survey (NHANES) has, to pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications for date, been authorized as a generic smoking, drug and alcohol use, physical ‘‘Partnerships for Sustainable Research clearance under OMB Number 0920– activity, environmental exposures, and and Dissemination of Evidence-Based 0237. A change in accounting practices, diet. NHANES data are used to produce Medicine (R24)’’ are to be reviewed and however, requires a shift to a newly- national reference data on height, discussed at this meeting. The grant assigned clearance number for future weight, and nutrient levels in the blood. applications and the discussions could full cycles of the survey. This extension Results from more recent NHANES can disclose confidential trade secrets or requests generic clearance for all be compared to findings reported from commercial property such as patentable activities needed to successfully previous surveys to monitor changes in material, and personal information complete the current 2011–2012 the health of the U.S. population over concerning individuals associated with NHANES survey cycle, which ends in time. NHANES continues to collect the grant applications, the disclosure of early 2013. There are no changes to any genetic material on a national which would constitute a clearly information collection forms. A nine probability sample for future genetic unwarranted invasion of personal month clearance is requested. research aimed at understanding disease privacy. The National Health and Nutrition susceptibility in the U.S. population. Dated: August 30, 2012. Examination Survey (NHANES) was NCHS collects personal identification Carolyn M. Clancy, conducted periodically between 1970 information. Participant level data items Director. and 1994, and continuously since 1999 will include basic demographic by the National Center for Health [FR Doc. 2012–22027 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] information, name, address, social Statistics, CDC. BILLING CODE 4160–90–M security number, Medicare number and Approximately one-quarter year of participant health information to allow data collection is needed to complete for linkages to other data sources such the 2011–2012 cycle. Approximately DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND as the National Death Index and data 3,850 respondents participate in some HUMAN SERVICES from the Centers for Medicare and aspect of the full survey. Of these, some Medicaid Services (CMS). Centers for Disease Control and complete the screening portion and are Prevention then screened out of the sample. Some NHANES data users include the U.S. additional respondents complete the Congress; numerous Federal agencies [30-Day 12–0237] screener and the household interview such as other branches of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork sections, but decline to be examined. National Institutes of Health, and the Reduction Act Review The remaining approximately 1,300 participate in the screener, household United States Department of The Centers for Disease Control and interview and physical examination and Agriculture; private groups such as the Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of followups. Averaging the burden across American Heart Association; schools of information collection requests under all respondents, at these varying levels public health; and private businesses. review by the Office of Management and of participation, results in an average There is no cost to respondents other Budget (OMB) in compliance with the burden of 2.4 hours. The burden for this than their time. The total estimate of Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. activity is 9,240 hours. annualized burden is 13,277 hours.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55479
ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN TABLE
Average Number of Number of burden per Type of respondent respondents responses per response respondent (in hours)
1. NHANES Respondents ...... 3,850 1 2.4 2. Special study/pretest participants ...... 2,037 1 2
Dated: August 30, 2012. Care Act in 2010 (ACA). AI/AN people know through substantive research Ron A. Otten, have traditionally been medically about the changes and updates in the Director, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office underserved and have health disparities latest health care services and access of the Associate Director for Science, Office significantly above those of the through CMS programs. of the Directors, Centers for Disease Control population as a whole. In order to Project Period and Prevention. ensure that AI/AN people have full [FR Doc. 2012–22188 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] knowledge of these new changes and The anticipated period of BILLING CODE 4163–18–P the fullest access to CMS programs, this performance is for this cooperative award will study the adoption and agreement is August 31, 2012 through impact of these new authorities on the August 30, 2017 with funding awarded DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Indian health care system. in 12-month budget increments subject HUMAN SERVICES to the availability of funds and Amount of the Award satisfactory performance. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid The total amount of funding available Provisions of the Notice Services over a five year period is $3,175,000.00. The initial award will be awarded at CMS has solicited a proposal from the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP $635,000.00. The subsequent years will NIHB to undertake analysis, research Programs: Research and Analysis on be awarded on a non-competing and studies to address the impact of Impact of CMS Programs on the Indian continuation basis at approximately CMS programs and AI/AN beneficiaries Health Care System $635,000.00 per year for 5 total years, and the health care system serving those AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & and will be subject to the availability of beneficiaries. The project consists of Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. funds and satisfactory performance by four principal research objectives: • ACTION: Notice of Single Source Award. the recipient. Study the ongoing impact of CMS programs on the Indian health system SUMMARY: This notice supports Justification for Single Source Award through analysis of, response to, and expansion of research on the impact of For the past five years through implementation of CMS regulations by CMS programs on the Indian health care Cooperative Agreements with IHS, Indian health providers. system through a single source award. NIHB has provided analysis and • Study AI/AN demographic, The Indian Health Service (IHS), Tribes research of the potential and actual enrollment, and utilization data and and Tribal Organizations and Urban impact of CMS programs on AI/AN propose strategies to increase CMS data programs, deliver health care services to beneficiaries and the health care system system capabilities to create more American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) serving these beneficiaries. This work Indian specific reporting capacity. people through a network of hospitals, has included extensive analysis and • Provide ongoing study of CMS clinics and other providers. This award research on Medicare and Medicaid data efforts to increase AI/AN knowledge of expands research on the impact of CMS enrollment of AI/AN beneficiaries to CMS programs and CMS responsiveness programs and the delivery of health care understand utilization of the AI/AN to Indian health system. to AI/AN beneficiaries. population in the context of CMS • Provide research support on the use FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: programs. In addition, the NIHB has and effectiveness of the CMS Tribal Rodger Goodacre, Centers for Medicare been instrumental in tracking CMS Consultation Policy. CMS requested that & Medicaid Services, Office of Public regulations and providing analysis and the NIHB submit an application which Affairs/Tribal Affairs Group, 7500 research to better understand the includes: Security Boulevard, M/S S1–05–13, implications of CMS regulatory 1. Cover Letter. Baltimore, MD 21244–1850, (410) 786– guidance on the Indian health programs. 2. SF–424 Application for Federal 3209. Based on this experience, NIHB is the Assistance. Intended Recipient: National Indian only entity capable of carrying out the 3. SF–424A Budget Information— Health Board (NIHB). scope of activities because the scope of Non-Construction Programs. work builds on past experience and 4. A budget narrative (not to exceed Purpose of Award knowledge. Any other source would not three single spaced pages). The IHS and Tribal health programs have all of the knowledge and 5. Abstract of Project. have had long standing authority to bill experience gained in the last five years. 6. A research project narrative that Medicare and Medicaid for services The NIHB provides research on health describes each of the four separate provided at their facilities. These program issues impacting AI/ANs to objectives (the entire narrative not to participating and billing authorities over 565 Federally-recognized Tribes exceed 12 single space pages). were expanded by the American and has historically provided these 7. SF–424B Assurances. Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 services for several decades in 8. Health Board Resolution. (ARRA), the Children’s Health conjunction with the HIS. The NIHB 9. 501(c)(3) Non-Profit certification. Insurance Program Reauthorization Act program has a national focus relevant to 10. Resumes of all key personnel. of 2009 (CHIPRA), and the Affordable its AI/AN constituency who need to 11. Position descriptions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55480 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
12. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, DATES: Although you can comment on marketed as intended for use to if applicable. any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or 13. Copy of approved indirect cost 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency prevent diseases and to provide rate agreement, if applicable. considers your comment on this draft nutrients in support of meeting the 14. Documentation of current OMB CPG before it begins work on the final animal’s total daily nutrient A–133 required financial audit, if version of the CPG, submit either requirements when all the following applicable. electronic or written comments on the factors are present. Specifically: (1) Evaluation criteria for review of the draft CPG by November 9, 2012. Manufacturers make the products application will be comprised of three ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for available to the public only through principal areas: single copies of the draft CPG to the licensed veterinarians or through retail a. Program information which Director, Division of Compliance Policy, or Internet sales to individuals includes current organizational Office of Enforcement, Food and Drug purchasing the product under the capabilities and operations. direction of a veterinarian; (2) b. Program planning and evaluation Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., manufacturers do not market such which includes identification of Element Bldg., rm. 4044, Rockville, MD products as alternatives to approved measurable goals, products, personnel 20857. Send one self-addressed new animal drugs; (3) the manufacturer and workplanning. adhesive label to assist that office in c. Program reporting which includes processing your request, or fax your is registered under section 415 of the organizational capabilities and request to 301–827–0482. See the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350(d)); (4) qualifications and categorical budget SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for manufacturers comply with all food and justification. electronic access to the draft CPG. labeling requirements for such products Submit electronic comments to http:// (see 21 CFR part 501); (5) manufacturers Authority: Section 1110 of the Social www.regulations.gov. do not include indications for a disease Security Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1310. Submit written comments on the draft claim (e.g., obesity, renal failure) on the Dated: August 16, 2012. CPG to the Division of Dockets label of such products; (6) Daniel F. Kane, Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug manufacturers limit distribution of Chief Grants Management Officer, Office of Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. material with any disease claims for Acquisition and Grants Management, Centers 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. such products only to veterinary for Medicare & Medicaid Services. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: professionals; (7) manufacturers secure [FR Doc. 2012–22189 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] William J. Burkholder, Center for electronic resources for the BILLING CODE 4120–01–P Veterinary Medicine (HFV–228), Food dissemination of labeling information and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish and promotional materials such that Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240–453– they are available only to veterinary DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 6865, [email protected]. professionals; (8) manufacturers include HUMAN SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: only ingredients that are general Food and Drug Administration regarded as safe (GRAS) ingredients, I. Background approved food additives, or feed [Docket No. FDA–2012–D–0755] FDA is announcing the availability of ingredients defined in the 2012 Official a draft CPG entitled ‘‘Labeling and Publication of the Association of Draft Compliance Policy Guide Sec. Marketing of Nutritional Products American Feed Control Officials 690.150 on Labeling and Marketing of Intended for Use to Diagnose, Cure, (AAFCO) for the intended uses in such Nutritional Products Intended for Use Mitigate, Treat, or Prevent Disease in products; 1 and (9) the label and labeling To Diagnose, Cure, Mitigate, Treat, or Dogs and Cats.’’ The purpose of this for such products are not false and Prevent Disease in Dogs and Cats; CPG is to communicate FDA’s strategy misleading in other respects.2 Availability for enforcing the new animal drug II. Significance of Guidance AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, HHS. and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) with This level 1 draft CPG is being issued ACTION: Notice. respect to dog and cat food products consistent with FDA’s good guidance that make labeling or marketing claims practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). SUMMARY: The Food and Drug to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or The draft CPG, when finalized, will Administration (FDA) is announcing the prevent disease. Since 1988, the Center represent the Agency’s current thinking availability of a draft compliance policy for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has on this topic. It does not create or confer guide (CPG) entitled ‘‘Compliance observed an increase in the number of any rights for or on any person and does Policy Guide Sec. 690.150 Labeling and dog and cat food products making such not operate to bind FDA or the public. Marketing of Nutritional Products claims that are sold with, or without, An alternative approach may be used if Intended for Use to Diagnose, Cure, the direction of a licensed veterinarian. such approach satisfies the Mitigate, Treat, or Prevent Disease in Because of this increase, and to help Dogs and Cats.’’ This draft CPG is ensure animal safety, CVM is issuing 1 Although food containing these unapproved intended to provide guidance to FDA this draft CPG to set out its current food additives is adulterated within the meaning of staff and industry on how FDA intends thinking with respect to factors it will section 402(a)(2)(c)(i), FDA is unlikely to initiate to use its enforcement discretion with consider before determining whether to enforcement action solely on this basis if the food regard to the labeling and marketing of take regulatory action against dog and additive in question is included in the 2012 edition of the Official Publication of AAFCO. As part of its dog and cat food products that are cat food products intended for use in efforts to work with State partners, FDA has labeled and/or marketed as intending to the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, reviewed safety information related to many of diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or treatment, or prevention of disease. these listed products, and those listed in the 2012 prevent diseases and to provide FDA does not generally intend to Official Publication generally do not fall within our current enforcement priorities. nutrients in support of meeting the recommend or initiate regulatory 2 A therapeutic claim that is not scientifically animal’s total daily nutrient actions against dog and cat food substantiated would be considered false or requirements. products that are labeled and/or misleading, thus making the product misbranded.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55481
requirements of the applicable statutes of the proposed collection of Diagnose, Cure, Mitigate, Treat, or and regulations. information set forth below. Prevent Disease in Dogs and Cats. With respect to the following Description: The purpose of this CPG III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 collection of information, we invite is to communicate FDA’s strategy with Under the Paperwork Reduction Act comments on: (1) Whether the proposed of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501– collection of information is necessary respect to dog and cat food products 3520), Federal Agencies must obtain for the proper performance of our that are labeled and/or marketed as approval from the Office of Management functions, including whether the intending to diagnose, cure, mitigate, and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information will have practical utility; treat, or prevent diseases and to provide information they conduct or sponsor. (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the nutrients in support of meeting the ‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined burden of the proposed collection of animal’s total daily nutrient in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 information, including the validity of requirements. and includes Agency requests or the methodology and assumptions used; Description of Respondents: requirements that members of the public (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, Manufacturers of dog and cat foods that submit reports, keep records, or provide and clarity of the information to be are labeled and/or marketed as information to a third party. Section collected; and (4) ways to minimize the intending to diagnose, cure, mitigate, 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506 burden of the collection of information treat, or prevent diseases and to provide (c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to on respondents, including through the nutrients in support of meeting the provide a 60-day notice in the Federal use of automated collection techniques, animal’s total daily nutrient Register concerning each proposed when appropriate, and other forms of requirements. collection of information before information technology. submitting the collection to OMB for Title: Draft Compliance Policy Guide We estimate the burden of this approval. To comply with this on Labeling and Marketing of collection of information as follows: requirement, we are publishing a notice Nutritional Products Intended for Use to
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1
Number of Average Activity Number of responses per Total annual burden per Total hours respondents respondent responses response
Sections 402 and 403 of the FD&C Act ...... 5 75 375 .25 94 1 There are no operating costs or maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
CVM estimates from its experience comments. Received comments may be DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND that approximately 5 manufacturers will seen in the Division of Dockets HUMAN SERVICES be affected by the draft CPG, times 75 Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., products produced annually equals 375 Monday through Friday. Food and Drug Administration total annual responses. The hours per response are based on approximately .25 V. Electronic Access [Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0902] hour per response for respondents to Copies of the CPG may be look up the ingredient names in the Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal downloaded to a personal computer AFFCO Official Publication. Drug Applications; Chorionic with access to the Internet. The Office This draft CPG also refers to Gonadotropin; Naloxone; of Regulatory Affairs home pages Oxymorphone; Oxytocin previously approved collections of include this draft CPG and may be information found in FDA regulations. accessed at http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, These collections of information are ComplianceManuals/ under HHS. subject to review by the Office of ‘‘Compliance Policy Guides.’’ Management and Budget (OMB) under ACTION: Notice. Dated: August 24, 2012. the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 SUMMARY: The Food and Drug (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections Dara A. Corrigan, Administration (FDA) is withdrawing of information in 21 CFR part 571 (Food Associate Commissioner for Regulatory approval of four new animal drug Additive Petitions and FAP Labeling) Affairs. applications (NADAs) at the sponsor’s have been approved under OMB control [FR Doc. 2012–22231 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] request because the products are no number 0910–0546. The collection of BILLING CODE 4160–01–P longer manufactured or marketed. information in 21 CFR 570.35 (GRAS) has been approved under OMB control DATES: Withdrawal of approval is number 0910–0342. The requirement for effective September 20, 2012. food facility registration has been FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: approved under OMB control number David Alterman, Center for Veterinary 0910–0502. Medicine (HFV–212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., IV. Comments Rockville, MD 20855, 240–453–6843, Interested persons may submit to the email: [email protected]. Division of Dockets Management (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ADDRESSES) electronic or written sponsors in table 1 of this document comments regarding this document. It is have requested that FDA withdraw only necessary to send one set of approval of the four NADAs listed
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55482 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed.
TABLE 1—WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL REQUESTS
NADA No. Trade name (drug) Applicant
030–525 ...... NUMORPHAN (oxymorphone hydrochloride) Injection .. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., 100 Painters Dr., Chadds Ford, PA 19317. 035–825 ...... NARCAN (naloxone hydrochloride) Injection ...... Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., 100 Painters Dr., Chadds Ford, PA 19317. 046–822 ...... VETOCIN (oxytocin) Injection ...... United Vaccines, A Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc., Co., P.O. Box 4220, Madison, WI 53711. 103–090 ...... CHORTROPIN (chorionic gonadotropin) Injection ...... United Vaccines, A Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc., Co., P.O. Box 4220, Madison, WI 53711.
Therefore, under authority delegated accessing the SAMHSA Advisory organizations, and other interested to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs Committees’ Web site, http:// members of the public to come together and redelegated to the Center for www.nac.samhsa.gov/DTAB/ for a professional exchange of Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance meetings.aspx, or by contacting Dr. information on topics ranging from with § 514.116 Notice of withdrawal of Cook. technological impacts on the marine approval of application (21 CFR Committee Name: Substance Abuse and industry, corresponding coverage in 514.116), notice is given that approval Mental Health Services Administration’s related codes and standards, and of NADAs 030–525, 035–825, 046–822, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Drug government regulations. and 103–090, and all supplements and Testing Advisory Board. DATES: The two-day workshop will be amendments thereto, is hereby Dates/Time/Type: September 24, 2012 held on Wednesday, July 24, 2013, and withdrawn, effective September 20, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. E.D.T.: CLOSED, Thursday, July 25, 2013. The deadline 2012. September 25, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal E.D.T.: CLOSED. for advance registration is Monday, July, Place: Sugarloaf Conference Room, Register, FDA is amending the animal 1, 2013. If you are interested in SAMHSA Office Building, 1 Choke Cherry presenting a paper at the workshop, you drug regulations to reflect the voluntary Road, Rockville, Maryland 20857. withdrawal of approval of these must submit a 100 word abstract by Contact: Janine Denis Cook, Ph.D., email to [email protected]. Abstracts applications. Designated Federal Official, CSAP Drug are due on or before November 2, 2012. Dated: September 5, 2012. Testing Advisory Board, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Room 7–1043, Rockville, Maryland See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Bernadette Dunham, 20857, Telephone: 240–276–2600, Fax: 240– below for other dates related to Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. 276–2610, Email: submission of abstracts, draft papers, [FR Doc. 2012–22195 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] [email protected]. and presentations, as well as more BILLING CODE 4160–01–P Janine Denis Cook, information on how to register for the Designated Federal Official, DTAB, Division workshop. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND of Workplace Programs, Center for Substance ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and at The Double Tree by Hilton Hotel, in HUMAN SERVICES Mental Health Services Administration. the Crystal City neighborhood of Substance Abuse and Mental Health [FR Doc. 2012–22167 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Arlington VA. The hotel is located at Services Administration BILLING CODE 4162–20–P 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA; the hotel phone number is (703) 416– Center for Substance Abuse 4100. The hotel is located Prevention; Notice of Meeting DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND approximately three miles from Ronald SECURITY Pursuant to Public Law 92–463, Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) and approximately four blocks notice is hereby given that the Coast Guard Substance Abuse and Mental Health from the Pentagon City Metro station. Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) [Docket No. USCG–2012–0782] For registration information or to obtain Center for Substance Abuse Prevention further information about this Public Workshop on Marine (CSAP) Drug Testing Advisory Board workshop, visit the USCG Web site at Technology and Standards (DTAB) will meet on September 24, http://www.uscg.mil/marine_event. The 2012 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. docket for this notice is available for September 25, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 2 ACTION: Notice. inspection or copying at the Docket p.m. E.D.T. Management Facility (M–30), U.S. The Board will discuss proposed SUMMARY: The American Society of Department of Transportation, West revisions to the Mandatory Guidelines Mechanical Engineers (ASME), in Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, for Federal Workplace Drug Testing coordination with the United States 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Programs. Therefore, this meeting is Coast Guard (USCG), is sponsoring a Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. closed to the public as determined by two-day public workshop on marine and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, the Administrator, SAMHSA, in technology and standards in Arlington, except Federal holidays. You may also accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) VA. This public workshop will provide find this docket on the Internet by going and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d). a unique opportunity for classification to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting Meeting information and a roster of societies, industry groups, standards USCG–2012–0782 in the ‘‘Search’’ box, DTAB members may be obtained by development organizations, government and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55483
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If development. As an example, dialogue • Operating vessels in low air you have questions about this notice from the previous workshop on the safe temperature, low sea temperature, and you may contact a USCG/ASME and economical use of natural gas as a under ice conditions representative via email at marine fuel provided valuable insight • Materials selection for low [email protected]. You may also for the development of CG–521 Policy temperature applications contact Lieutenant Commander Ken Letter No. 01–12,1 which sets forth • Technology and equipment Hettler, Office of Design and national policy regarding acceptable performance issues Engineering Standards, USCG, by design criteria for shipboard natural gas Risk/Hazard Mitigation telephone at (202) 372–1367; or Mr. fuel systems. Joseph S. Brzuszkiewicz, Project Topics for the 2013 workshop are • Dynamic Positioning (DP) operational Engineering Manager, ASME, by listed below and include application of watch circle telephone at (212) 591–8533. various marine technologies to promote • Emergency disconnect scenarios • If you have questions on viewing or safe and environmentally conscious Reliability centered maintenance & submitting material to the docket, call operation of ships and offshore vessels risk based inspection • Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, and platforms. Condition-based monitoring Docket Operations, telephone (202) The next workshop will be held in Controls & Safety Devices 366–9826. Arlington, VA, over a two-day period on • SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Wednesday, July 24, 2013, and Hybrid control technology of DP ADDRESSES systems Background and Purpose Thursday, July 25, 2013. See • above for event location information. Computer based control system, The ASME/USCG Workshop on software validation Marine Technology and Standards Topics of Meeting • Gas detection and emergency provides a unique opportunity for This workshop comprises a series of shutdown (ESD) systems • classification societies, industry groups, panel sessions over a two-day period Remotely operated valves within a standards development organizations, covering a variety of topics. Proposed high pressure or high temperature government agencies, and interested topics include: environment (e.g. subsea exploration) members of the public to come together • Overpressure protection (e.g. fuel for a professional exchange of Emerging Technologies tanks on gas fuelled ships (GFS) or information on topics ranging from • Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)/ cargo tanks on CNG/LNG carriers) • technological impacts on the marine Exhaust Gas Cleaning (EGC) Boiler and power plant controls industry, corresponding coverage in Technologies Human Element related codes and standards, and • Alternative propulsion systems and • government regulations. fuel (other than Compressed Natural Human factors engineering Held once every two to three years, • Safety management systems Gas (CNG) and Liquefied Natural Gas • the public workshop is sponsored by the Human and controls interface (LNG)) • American Society of Mechanical • Acoustic noise limits in vessel design Retrofit of legacy engines • Engineers (ASME), in coordination with • Wastewater treatment system (ballast Training the USCG Office of Design and water, sewage, graywater, bilgewater) Regulatory, Classification, and Engineering Standards. ASME is a CNG/LNG Technology Government Issues standards setting organization with • wide-ranging volunteer committee • LNG fuel tank and piping design Novel design, concept review and membership, which includes USCG • Location of fuel tank on ship re: fire design basis agreement • Fabrication testing, validation supported personnel who serve as safety, venting, etc. • members of various ASME committees • Portable LNG/CNG fuel tanks Testing and approval of ballast water treatment systems in support of USCG missions in (Tanktainers) • maritime safety and environmental • Codes and standards for CNG/LNG Regulatory and classification society protection. The USCG Office of Design technology updates and other ‘‘hot topics’’ and Engineering Standards is • Fitness for service/in-service Call for Papers responsible for developing and inspection. promulgating national regulations and • LNG fuel barges (bunkering, or other Abstracts standards that govern the safe design purposes) If you are interested in presenting a and construction of ships and shipboard paper on one or more topics listed Equipment & Material Selection for the equipment, including hull structure, above, submit a 100 word abstract via Marine Environment, Including Polar stability, electrical and mechanical email to: [email protected]. Abstracts Environment systems, lifesaving and fire safety are due on or before November 2, 2012, equipment, and related equipment • Loading considerations for pressure and should also contain the title of your approval and laboratory acceptance. vessels on ships and platforms paper, name of each author/co-author, This workshop is an opportunity for • Piping design for marine environment name of each presenter and affiliation to the public to provide expertise on • Naval vessel requirements for piping author/co-author, as well as the title, technical matters affecting the marine & pressure vessels address, phone number, facsimile • industry, to leverage new technologies, Non-metallic materials for pressure number, and email address for each and to improve future policymaking, applications named individual. standards development, and • Fire testing rulemaking. The most recent workshop • Resiliently Seated Valves (RSVs) Draft Papers & Presentations was held in Washington, DC, on July If you receive notification that your 29–30, 2010 (75 FR 8099, February 23, 1 CG–521 Policy Letter No. 01–12, ‘‘Equivalency abstract is accepted, you may then Determination—Design Criteria for Natural Gas Fuel 2010). Public engagement on regulations Systems,’’ is available for viewing at http:// submit a draft paper and presentation and design standards enhances both the www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg521/docs/CG– via email to: [email protected]. Draft effectiveness and the quality of policy 521.PolicyLetter.01–12.pdf. papers are due on or before February 8,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55484 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
2013; final papers (formatted and ready Adjournment via facsimile at 202–395–5806 or via _ for publication) are due on or before Please note that the workshop may email at oira [email protected] May 1, 2013. Presentations are due on adjourn early if all business is finished. and via the Federal eRulemaking Portal or before June 1, 2013. Web site at http://www.Regulations.gov Authority Web Sites under e-Docket ID number USCIS– This notice is issued under authority 2008–0013. When submitting comments For additional information on this of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 14 U.S.C. 93(a)(4). by email, please make sure to add OMB workshop, visit the USCG Web site at Dated: September 5, 2012. Control Number 1615–0022 in the http://www.uscg.mil/marine_event. J.G. Lantz, subject box. Registration Director of Commercial Regulations and All submissions received must Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. To register for this workshop, visit the include the agency name, OMB Control USCG Web site at http://www.uscg.mil/ [FR Doc. 2012–22247 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Number and Docket ID. Regardless of marine_event. While the workshop is BILLING CODE 9110–04–P the method used for submitting open to the public, meeting space is comments or material, all submissions limited by room capacity. Since seating will be posted, without change, to the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// is limited, we ask anyone interested in SECURITY attending the workshop to register in www.regulations.gov, and will include advance. The deadline for advance U.S. Citizenship and Immigration any personal information you provide. registration is Monday, July 1, 2013. Services Therefore, submitting this information Registration on the first day of the makes it public. You may wish to workshop will be permitted on a space- [OMB Control Number 1615–0022] consider limiting the amount of available basis. The registration fee for Agency Information Collection personal information that you provide this event is $325 USD if submitted on Activities: Request to Enforce Affidavit in any voluntary submission you make or before May 31, 2013 and $375 USD of Financial Support and Intent to to DHS. For additional information if submitted after May 31, 2013. The Petition for Custody for Public Law 97– please read the Privacy Act notice that registration fee includes admission for 359 Amerasian, Form Number I–363; is available via the link in the footer of one person to each panel session for the Extension, Without Change, of a http://www.regulations.gov. two day event, several coffee breaks, Currently Approved Collection and a reception on the first day of the Note: The address listed in this notice event. should only be used to submit comments ACTION: 30-Day notice. concerning this information collection. Proceedings SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you Material presented at the workshop Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and are seeking information about the status of will be made available to the public on Immigration Services (USCIS) will be your individual case, please check ‘‘My Case the USCG Web site listed above after the submitting the following information Status’’ online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/ conclusion of this event. For additional collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National information on material presented at Customer Service Center at 1–800–375–5283. this event, you may contact one of the review and clearance in accordance individuals listed above in FOR FURTHER with the Paperwork Reduction Act of Written comments and suggestions INFORMATION CONTACT. Summaries of 1995. The information collection notice from the public and affected agencies comments made and materials was previously published in the Federal should address one or more of the presented will be available on the Register on June 1, 2012, at 77 FR 106, following four points: docket at the conclusion of this event. allowing for a 60-day public comment To view the docket, see instructions period. USCIS did not receive any (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary above in ADDRESSES. comments in connection with the 60- day notice. for the proper performance of the Privacy Act DATES: The purpose of this notice is to functions of the agency, including Anyone can search the electronic allow an additional 30 days for public whether the information will have form of comments received into any of comments. Comments are encouraged practical utility; our dockets by the name of the and will be accepted until October 10, (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the individual submitting the comment (or 2012. This process is conducted in agencies estimate of the burden of the signing the comment, if submitted on accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. proposed collection of information, behalf of an association, business, labor ADDRESSES: Written comments and/or including the validity of the union, etc.). You may review a Privacy suggestions regarding the item(s) methodology and assumptions used; Act, system of records notice regarding contained in this notice, especially (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and our public dockets in the January 17, regarding the estimated public burden clarity of the information to be 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 and associated response time, should be collected; and FR 3316). directed to DHS, and to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer. Comments may be (4) Minimize the burden of the Information on Services for Individuals submitted to: DHS, USCIS, Office of collection of information on those who With Disabilities Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory are to respond, including through the Persons with disabilities who require Coordination Division, 20 use of appropriate automated, special assistance should advise us of Massachusetts Avenue NW., electronic, mechanical, or other their anticipated special needs as early Washington, DC 20529–2020. technological collection techniques or as possible by one of the individuals Comments may also be submitted to other forms of information technology, listed above in FOR FURTHER DHS via email at uscisfrcomment@ e.g., permitting electronic submission of INFORMATION CONTACT. dhs.gov, to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer responses.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55485
Overview of This Information SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland in any voluntary submission you make Collection Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and to DHS. For additional information (1) Type of Information Collection Immigration Services (USCIS) will be please read the Privacy Act notice that Request: Extension, Without Change, of submitting the following information is available via the link in the footer of a Currently Approved Collection. collection request to the Office of http://www.regulations.gov. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Management and Budget (OMB) for Note: The address listed in this notice Request to Enforce Affidavit of review and clearance in accordance should only be used to submit comments Financial Support and Intent to Petition with the Paperwork Reduction Act of concerning this information collection. for Custody for Public Law 97–359 1995. The information collection notice Please do not submit requests for individual Amerasian. was previously published in the Federal case status inquiries to this address. If you (3) Agency form number, if any, and Register on June 1, 2012, at 77 FR 106, are seeking information about the status of the applicable component of the DHS allowing for a 60-day public comment your individual case, please check ‘‘My Case period. USCIS did receive 1 comment in Status’’ online at: https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/ sponsoring the collection: USCIS Form Dashboard.do, or call the USCIS National I–363; USCIS. connection with the 60-day notice. The Customer Service Center at 1–800–375–5283. (4) Affected public who will be asked one comment USCIS received was or required to respond, as well as a brief regarding the extension of H–2 Written comments and suggestions abstract: Primary: Individuals or Petitioner’s Employment Related or Fee from the public and affected agencies households. Form I–363 is used by Related Notification. The comment did should address one or more of the applicants to ensure the financial not argue for any changes to the following four points: support of a U.S. citizen. Without the notification; rather, it suggested that the (1) Evaluate whether the proposed use of Form I–363, the USCIS is not able federal government should stop collection of information is necessary to ensure the child does not become a admitting foreign workers. This public for the proper performance of the public charge. comment will not result in any changes functions of the agency, including (5) An estimate of the total number of to the H–2 Petitioner’s Employment whether the information will have respondents and the amount of time Related or Fee Related Notification. practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the estimated for an average respondent to DATES: The purpose of this notice is to agencies estimate of the burden of the respond: 50 respondents responding allow an additional 30 days for public proposed collection of information, with an estimated hour burden per comments. Comments are encouraged including the validity of the response of .5 hour (30 minutes). and will be accepted until October 10, methodology and assumptions used; (6) An estimate of the total public 2012. This process is conducted in (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and burden (in hours) associated with the accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. clarity of the information to be collection: 25 Hours. ADDRESSES: Written comments and/or If you need a copy of the information collected; and suggestions regarding the item(s) (4) Minimize the burden of the collection instrument with contained in this notice, especially supplementary documents, or need collection of information on those who regarding the estimated public burden are to respond, including through the additional information, please visit and associated response time, should be http://www.regulations.gov. We may use of appropriate automated, directed to DHS, and to the OMB USCIS electronic, mechanical, or other also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of Desk Officer. Comments may be Policy and Strategy, Regulatory technological collection techniques or submitted to: DHS, USCIS, Office of other forms of information technology, Coordination Division, 20 Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Massachusetts Avenue NW., e.g., permitting electronic submission of Coordination Division, 20 responses. Washington, DC 20529–2020; Massachusetts Avenue NW., Telephone 202–272–1470. Washington, DC 20529–2020. Overview of This Information Dated: September 4, 2012. Comments may also be submitted to Collection Laura Dawkins, DHS via email at (1) Type of Information Collection Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, [email protected], to the OMB Request: Extension, Without Change, of Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202– a Currently Approved Collection. and Immigration Services, Department of 395–5806 or via email at (2) Title of the Form/Collection: H–2 Homeland Security. [email protected] and via Petitioner’s Employment Related or Fee [FR Doc. 2012–22136 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site Related Notification. BILLING CODE 9111–97–P at http://www.Regulations.gov under e- (3) Agency form number, if any, and Docket ID number USCIS–2009–0015. the applicable component of the DHS When submitting comments by email, sponsoring the collection: No form; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND please make sure to add OMB Control USCIS. SECURITY Number 1615–0107 in the subject box. (4) Affected public who will be asked All submissions received must or required to respond, as well as a brief U.S. Citizenship and Immigration include the agency name, OMB Control abstract: Primary: Business or other for- Services Number and Docket ID. Regardless of profit. The notification requirement is [OMB Control Number 1615–0107] the method used for submitting necessary to ensure that alien workers comments or material, all submissions maintain their nonimmigrant status and Agency Information Collection will be posted, without change, to the will help prevent H–2 workers from Activities: H–2 Petitioner’s Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// engaging in unauthorized employment. Employment Related or Fee Related www.regulations.gov, and will include (5) An estimate of the total number of Notification; Form Number, No Form; any personal information you provide. respondents and the amount of time Extension, Without Change, of a Therefore, submitting this information estimated for an average respondent to Currently Approved Collection makes it public. You may wish to respond: 1,700 respondents with an consider limiting the amount of estimated hour burden per response of ACTION: 30-Day notice. personal information that you provide .5 hour (30 minutes).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55486 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
(6) An estimate of the total public USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Homeland Security will be submitting burden (in hours) associated with the Chief, Regulatory Coordination the following information collection collection: 850 Hours. Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue request to the Office of Management and If you need a copy of the information NW., Washington, DC 20529–2020. Budget (OMB) for review and approval collection instrument with Comments may also be submitted to in accordance with the Paperwork supplementary documents, or need DHS via email at Reduction Act: Importer ID Input additional information, please visit [email protected], to the OMB Record (CBP Form 5106). This is a http://www.regulations.gov. We may USCIS Desk Officer via facsimile at 202– proposed extension of an information also be contacted at: USCIS, Office of 395–5806 or via email at collection that was previously Policy and Strategy, Regulatory [email protected], and via approved. CBP is proposing that this Coordination Division, 20 the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site information collection be extended with Massachusetts Avenue NW., at http://www.Regulations.gov under e- a change to the burden hours. This Washington, DC 20529–2020; Docket ID number USCIS–2006–2008. document is published to obtain Telephone 202–272–1470. When submitting comments by email, comments from the public and affected Dated: September 4, 2012. please make sure to add OMB Control agencies. This proposed information Laura Dawkins, Number 1615–0047 in the subject box. collection was previously published in Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Regardless of the method used for the Federal Register (76 FR 37696) on Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship submitting comments or material, all June 22, 2012, allowing for a 60-day and Immigration Services, Department of submissions will be posted, without comment period. This notice allows for Homeland Security. change, to the Federal eRulemaking an additional 30 days for public [FR Doc. 2012–22137 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Portal at http://www.Regulations.gov, comments. This process is conducted in BILLING CODE 9111–97–P and will include any personal accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. information you provide. Therefore, DATES: Written comments should be submitting this information makes it received on or before October 10, 2012. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND public. You may wish to consider ADDRESSES: Interested persons are SECURITY limiting the amount of personal invited to submit written comments on information that you provide in any this proposed information collection to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration voluntary submission you make to DHS. the Office of Information and Regulatory Services DHS may withhold information Affairs, Office of Management and [OMB Control Number 1615–0047] provided in comments for public Budget. Comments should be addressed viewing that it determines may impact to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs Agency Information Collection the privacy of an individual or is and Border Protection, Department of Activities: Employment Eligibility offensive. For additional information Homeland Security, and sent via Verification, Form I–9, OMB Control please read the Privacy Act notice that electronic mail to oira_submission@ No. 1615–0047; Correction is available via the link in the footer of omb.eop.gov or faxed to (202) 395–5806. http://www.Regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information To ensure that the public has Requests for additional information Collection Under Review; Correction. sufficient opportunity to comment on should be directed to Tracey Denning, On August 22, 2012 the Department of this information collection, USCIS is U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship extending the public comment period Regulations and Rulings, Office of and Immigration Services (USCIS) closing date from Friday, September 21, International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., published a 30-day Notice of 2012 to Thursday, September 27, 2012. 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, Information Collection Under Review Dated: September 4, 2012. at 202–325–0265. (30-day notice) in the Federal Register Laura Dawkins, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP at 77 FR 50710, requesting public Chief Regulatory Coordinator, Regulatory invites the general public and other comments in connection with revisions Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Federal agencies to comment on to the Employment Eligibility Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration proposed and/or continuing information Verification form (Form I–9) being Services, Department of Homeland Security. collections pursuant to the Paperwork submitted to the Office of Management [FR Doc. 2012–22138 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13; and Budget (OMB) for review and BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 44 U.S.C. 3505(c)(2)). The comments clearance in accordance with the should address: (a) Whether the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. collection of information is necessary In the 30-day notice, USCIS DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND for the proper performance of the inadvertently did not indicate that SECURITY functions of the agency, including comments in connection with that whether the information shall have notice should be directed to the OMB U.S. Customs and Border Protection practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the USCIS Desk Officer. USCIS is now agency’s estimates of the burden of the Agency Information Collection correcting this error. Written comments collection of information; (c) ways to Activities: Importer ID Input Record and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity contained in the 30-day notice AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border of the information to be collected; (d) published in the Federal Register on Protection, Department of Homeland ways to minimize the burden including August 22, 2012 at 77 FR 50710, Security. the use of automated collection especially regarding the estimated ACTION: 30-Day Notice and request for techniques or the use of other forms of public burden and associated response comments; Extension of an existing information technology; and (e) the time, should be directed to DHS, and to collection of information. annual costs burden to respondents or the Office of Information and Regulatory record keepers from the collection of Affairs, OMB, USCIS Desk Officer. SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border information (a total capital/startup costs Comments may be submitted to: DHS, Protection (CBP) of the Department of and operations and maintenance costs).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55487
The comments that are submitted will DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND (1) Evaluate whether the proposed be summarized and included in the CBP SECURITY collection of information is necessary request for Office of Management and for the proper performance of the Budget (OMB) approval. All comments U.S. Customs and Border Protection functions of the agency/component, will become a matter of public record. including whether the information will In this document CBP is soliciting Agency Information Collection have practical utility; comments concerning the following Activities; Voluntary Customer Survey (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the information collection: AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border agencies/components estimate of the Title: Importer ID Input Record. Protection, Department of Homeland burden of the proposed collection of OMB Number: 1651–0064. Security. information, including the validity of ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for the methodology and assumptions used; Form Number: CBP Forms 5106. (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and Abstract: The collection of the comments; Extension of an existing information collection: 1651–0135. clarity of the information to be information on the Importer ID Input collected; and Record (CBP Form 5106) is the basis for SUMMARY: U.S. Customs and Border (4) Minimize the burden of the identifying entities who wish to import Protection (CBP) of the Department of collections of information on those who merchandise into the United States, act Homeland Security will be submitting are to respond, including the use of as consignee on an importation when the following information collection appropriate automated, electronic, not the importer of record, or otherwise request to the Office of Management and mechanical, or other technological do business with CBP that would Budget (OMB) for review and approval techniques or other forms of involve the payment of duties, taxes, in accordance with the Paperwork information. fees or other monies or the refund of Reduction Act: Voluntary Customer Title: Voluntary Customer Survey. same. Each person, business firm, Survey. This is a proposed extension of OMB Number: 1651–0135. Government agency, or other an information collection that was Abstract: Customs and Border organization that intends to file an previously approved. CBP is proposing Protection (CBP) plans to conduct a import entry must file CBP Form 5106 that this information collection be customer survey of international with the first formal entry or request for extended with a change to the burden travelers seeking entry into the United services that will result in the issuance hours. This document is published to States at the twenty highest volume of a bill or a refund check upon obtain comments from the public and airports in order to determine adjustment of a cash collection. This affected agencies. This information perceptions of the arrival process at our form must also be filed by or on behalf collection was previously published in ports of entry. This voluntary customer of the ultimate consignee at the first the Federal Register (77 FR 36566) on survey will be conducted using short importation in which the party acting as June 19, 2012, allowing for a 60-day computer or verbal surveys of travelers ultimate consignee is so named. CBP comment period. This notice allows for as they move through entry processing Form 5106 is authorized by 19 U.S.C. an additional 30 days for public areas. Travelers who do not speak 1484 and provided for by 19 CFR 24.5. comments. This process is conducted in English will be given a written version The current version of this form is accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. of the survey in their language and may accessible at: http://forms.cbp.gov/pdf/ DATES: Written comments should be submit their responses in writing. The CBP_Form_5106.pdf. received on or before October 10, 2012. survey will include questions about Action: CBP proposes to extend the ADDRESSES: Interested persons are wait times, ease of entry processing, and expiration date of this information invited to submit written comments on the level of communication, efficiency collection with an increase in the this information collection to the Office and professionalism of CBP officers. The burden hours from 1,000 hours to of Information and Regulatory Affairs, results and analysis of the survey 75,000 due to revised estimates by CBP Office of Management and Budget. responses will be used to identify of the number of respondents filing Comments should be addressed to the actionable items to improve services to Form 5106. The change in the estimated OMB Desk Officer for U.S. Customs and the traveling public with respect to the burden is also due to CBP revising the Border Protection, Department of entry processes for travelers arriving at estimate for the time to complete Form Homeland Security, and sent via United States air ports of entry. 5106 from 6 minutes to 15 minutes. electronic mail to Action: CBP proposes to extend the There are no changes to CBP Form 5106 [email protected] or faxed expiration date of this information or to the information collected. to (202) 395–5806. collection with no change to the burden Type of Review: Extension (with FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: hours. change). Requests for additional information Type of Review: Extension (without Affected Public: Businesses and should be directed to Tracey Denning, change). Individuals. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Affected Public: Individuals, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Travelers. Estimated Number of Respondents Estimated Number of Respondents: Annually: 300,000. International Trade, 799 9th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, 21,000. Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 Estimated Time per Respondent: 5 at 202–325–0265. minutes. minutes. Estimated Total Annual Burden SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CBP Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 75,000. invites the general public and affected Hours: 1,743. Federal agencies to submit written Dated: September 4, 2012. comments and suggestions on proposed Dated: September 4, 2012. Tracey Denning, and/or continuing information Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and collection requests pursuant to the Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L.104– Border Protection. [FR Doc. 2012–22115 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] 13). Your comments should address one [FR Doc. 2012–22229 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111–14–P of the following four points: BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55488 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND other forms of information technology, ACTION: Notice of proposed information SECURITY e.g., permitting electronic submission of collection. responses. United States Immigration and SUMMARY: The proposed information Customs Enforcement Overview of This Information collection requirement described below Collection will be submitted to the Office of Agency Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Management and Budget (OMB) for Activities: Designation of Attorney in Extension, without change, of a review, as required by the Paperwork Fact currently approved information Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– The Department of Homeland collection. 13 (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c) (2) (A)). The (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Department is soliciting public Designation of Attorney in Fact. Enforcement (ICE), will submit the comments on the subject proposal. (3) Agency form number, if any, and following information collection request DATES: Comments Due Date: October 10, the applicable component of the for review and clearance in accordance 2012. Department of Homeland Security with the Paperwork Reduction Act of sponsoring the collection: (No. Form I– ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 1995. The information collection is 312) U.S. Immigration and Customs invited to submit comments regarding published to obtain comments from the Enforcement. this proposal. Comments should refer to public and affected agencies. The (4) Affected public who will be asked the proposal by name and/or OMB information collection was previously or required to respond, as well as a brief approval Number (2528-new) and published in the Federal Register on abstract: Primary: Individuals or should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, June 14, 2012; Vol. 77 No. 115, 14522 Households. The I–312 is the Office of Management and Budget, New allowing for a 60 day comment period. instrument the U.S. Immigration and Executive Office Building, Washington, No comments were received during this Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses to DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email: period. The purpose of this notice is to _ provide immigration bond obligors a OIRA [email protected] fax: allow an additional 30 days for public means to designate an attorney to accept 202–395–5806. comments. on the obligor’s behalf, the return of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Written comments and suggestions cash or United States bonds or notes Colette Pollard, Reports Management from the public and affected agencies deposited to secure an immigration Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing regarding items contained in this notice bond upon the cancellation of the bond and Urban Development, 451 Seventh and especially with regard to the or the performance of the obligor. Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; estimated public burden and associated (5) An estimate of the total number of email Colette Pollard at response time should be directed to the respondents and the amount of time [email protected] or telephone Office of Information and Regulatory estimated for an average respondent to (202) 402–3400. This is not a toll-free Affairs, Office of Management and respond: 12,500 responses at 30 minutes number. Copies of available documents Budget. Comments should be addressed (.50 hours) per response. submitted to OMB may be obtained to OMB Desk Officer, for United States (6) An estimate of the total public from Ms. Pollard. Copies of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, burden (in hours) associated with the proposed forms and other available Department of Homeland Security, and collection: 6,250 annual burden hours. information may be obtained from Ms. sent via electronic mail to Requests for a copy of the proposed Pollard. [email protected] or faxed information collection instrument, with SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The to (202) 395–5806. instructions; or inquiries for additional Comments are encouraged and will be Department will submit the proposed information should be directed to: Rich accepted for thirty days until October information collection to OMB for Mattison, U.S. Immigration and 10, 2012. Written comments and review, as required by the Paperwork Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street suggestions from the public and affected Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. SW., STOP 5705, Washington, DC agencies concerning the proposed chapter 35, as amended). 20536–5705. Dated: June 13, 2012. collection of information should address This Notice is soliciting comments one or more of the following four points: Rich Mattison, from members of the public and affected (1) Evaluate whether the proposed Chief, Records Management, U.S. agencies concerning the proposed collection of information is necessary Immigration and Customs Enforcement, collection of information to: (1) Evaluate for the proper performance of the Department of Homeland Security. whether the proposed collection of functions of the agency, including [FR Doc. 2012–20315 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] information is necessary for the proper whether the information will have BILLING CODE 9111–28–P performance of the functions of the practical utility; agency, including whether the (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the information will have practical utility; agencies estimate of the burden of the DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s proposed collection of information, URBAN DEVELOPMENT estimate of the burden of the proposed including the validity of the collection of information; (3) Enhance methodology and assumptions used; [Docket No. FR–5603–N–61] the quality, utility, and clarity of the (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and Notice of Proposed Information information to be collected; and (4) clarity of the information to be Collection for Public Comment: Study Minimize the burden of the collection of collected; and of Public Housing Agencies’ information on those who are to (4) Minimize the burden of the Engagement with Homeless respond; including through the use of collection of information on those who Households—Follow-up Sample appropriate automated collection are to respond, including through the Survey techniques or other forms of information use of appropriate automated, technology that will reduce burden, electronic, mechanical, or other AGENCY: Office of Policy Development (e.g., permitting electronic submission technological collection techniques or and Research, HUD. of responses)
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55489
This Notice also lists the following homeless households, (2) document the (HUD), which funds PHAs, to develop information: practices of PHAs that have an explicit strategies to expand access to Title of Proposal: Study of Public preference for homeless households; (3) mainstream housing opportunities for Housing Agencies’ Engagement with explore PHA perceptions of barriers to, homeless households that are rooted in Homeless Households—Follow-up or concerns about, increasing the evidence and informed by the PHAs Sample Survey. number of homeless households served themselves. This proposed data OMB Control Number: 2528-pending. or targeting homeless households for collection consists of a telephone survey Description of the need for the priority housing assistance; and (4) to be administered to a purposeful information and proposed use: This identify mechanisms to address or sample of 125 public housing agencies. information collection will support eliminate barriers to serving homeless Members of affected public: Public research that will explore and document households in mainstream housing housing agencies. how public housing agencies (PHAs) assistance, with a focus on the housing Estimation of the total number of currently serve and interact with choice voucher (HCV) program and hours needed to prepare the information homeless households, to achieve the public housing. Findings of this study collection including number of following: (1) Establish a baseline level will enable the U.S. Department of respondents, frequency of response, and of PHAs’ current engagement in serving Housing and Urban Development hours of response:
ESTIMATED RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS
Average time to complete Form Respondent sample Number of (minimum, Frequency Total burden respondents maximum) in (hours) minutes
Telephone Survey ...... A purposeful sample of public hous- 125 60 1 125 ing agencies.
Total Burden Hours ...... 125
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. soliciting public comments on the soliciting comments from members of Status of the proposed information subject proposal. the public and affected agencies collection: Pending OMB approval. DATES: Comments Due Date: November concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. 9(a), and Title 9, 2012. 12, U.S.C. 1701z–1 et seq. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of Dated: August 28, 2012. invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the functions of the agency, including Colette Pollard, the proposal by name/or OMB Control whether the information will have Department Reports Management Officer, number and should be sent to: Colette practical utility; (2) evaluate the Office of the Chief Information Officer. Pollard, Departmental Reports accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the [FR Doc. 2012–22212 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Management Officer, QDAM, burden of the proposed collection of BILLING CODE 4210–67–P Department of Housing and Urban information; (3) enhance the quality, Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room utility, and clarity of the information to 4160, Washington, DC 20410–5000; be collected; and (4) minimize the DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND telephone (202) 402–3400, (this is not a burden of the collection of information URBAN DEVELOPMENT toll-free number) or email Ms. Pollard at on those who are to respond, including [email protected] for a copy of through the use of appropriate [Docket No. FR 5604–N–10] proposed forms, or other available automated collection techniques or information. Persons with hearing or other forms of information technology; Notice of Proposed Information speech impairments may access this e.g., permitting electronic submission of Collection for Public Comment: number through TTY by calling the toll- responses. Funding Availability for OneCPD free Federal Information Relay Service This Notice also lists the following Technical Assistance and Capacity at (800) 877–8339. information: Building Program Title of Proposal: Notice of Funding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Availability for OneCPD Technical AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Kenneth Rogers, Team Lead, Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Secretary for Community Planning and Assistance Division, Office of Technical Program. Development, U.S. Department of Assistance and Management, CPD, Description of the need for the Housing and Urban Development Department of Housing and Urban information proposed: Application (HUD). Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room information is needed to determine 7218, Washington, DC 20410; telephone ACTION: Notice of proposed information competition winners, i.e., those (202) 708–3176 (This is not a toll-free collection. technical assistance providers best able number). to assist CPD grantees and communities SUMMARY: The proposed information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The to develop efficient and effective collection requirement described below Department will submit the proposed programs and projects that increase the will be submitted to the Office of information collection to OMB for supply of affordable housing units, Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork prevent and reduce homelessness, review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. improve data collection and reporting, Reduction Act. The Department is Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is and use coordinated neighborhood and
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55490 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
community development strategies to State and local governments equipped Estimation of the total number of revitalize and strengthen their to provide technical assistance to hours needed to prepare the information communities. recipients of funds administered by the collection including number of Agency Form Numbers: SF–424, SF– Office of Community Planning and respondents, frequency of response, and 424CB, SF–424CBW, LLL, 2880. Development (CPD). hours of response: Members of the affected public: For profit and non-profit organizations or
Number of Number of responses per Total annual Hours Total annual respondents respondent responses per response hours annually
Application ...... 35 1 35 100 3,500 Work Plans ...... 15 17 255 18 4,590 Reports ...... 15 16 240 6 1,440 Recordkeeping ...... 15 12 180 6 960
TOTAL ...... 710 ...... 10,490
Status of proposed information 8120, Washington, DC 20410–6000. Neighborhood Stabilization Program collection: New Collection. Please use ‘‘NSP PRA Comment’’ in the (NSP), with a particular focus on the Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork subject line of any email. round of funding from the American Reduction act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Recovery and Reinvestment Act as amended. Judson L. James at 202–402–5707 (this (ARRA), known as ‘‘NSP2.’’ This information collection will constitute Dated: August 28, 2012. is not a toll-free number) or judson.l.jamesmailto:@hud.gov, for the second round of site visits and Mark Johnston, copies of the proposed forms and other interviews of NSP2 grantees, as well as Assistant Secretary for Community Planning available documents. Please use ‘‘NSP collection of grantees’ property-level and Development (Acting). PRA Comment’’ in the subject line of data on NSP2 activities conducted. The [FR Doc. 2012–22216 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] any email. information collected will be used to BILLING CODE 4210–67–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The describe how program implementation Department of Housing and Urban occurred in practice, gather views of Development will submit the proposed what program outcomes and impacts DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND have occurred, and explore factors that URBAN DEVELOPMENT extension of information collection to OMB for review, as required by the contributed to program outcomes. [Docket No. FR–5609–N–11] Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Agency Form Numbers: U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Members of the Affected Public: A Notice of Proposed Information Notice is soliciting comments from total of 29 NSP2 grantees (25 local and Collection for Public Comment: members of the public and affected 4 national) and 50 partner agencies will Neighborhood Stabilization Program agencies concerning the proposed be part of the study. Staff of these Tracking Study collection of information to: (1) Evaluate grantees will be asked to participate in interviews with HUD’s contractor and to AGENCY: Office of the Assistant whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper provide HUD’s contractor with access to Secretary for Policy Development and their records for tracking program Research, HUD. performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the activity. Local interviews will take ACTION: Notice. information will have practical utility; approximately 2 hours per person and will be administered to approximately 4 SUMMARY: The proposed information (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s staff per NSP2 grantee and 4 additional collection requirement described below estimate of the burden of the proposed staff among partner agencies. Interviews will be submitted to the Office of collection of information; (3) enhance with national grantees will be Management and Budget (OMB) for the quality, utility, and clarity of the administered to approximately 2 staff review, as required by the Paperwork information to be collected; and (4) per NSP2 grantee. Reduction Act. The Department is minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to Property-level data will be compiled soliciting public comments on the either by grantee representatives or by a subject proposal. respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection HUD contractor. Approximately one- DATES: Comment Due Date: November 9, techniques or other forms of information half of the 29 grantees (or 14 grantees) 2012. technology, e.g., permitting electronic and 25 partner organizations will likely ADDRESSES: Interested persons are submission of responses. This Notice chose to report the required data invited to submit comments regarding also lists the following information: themselves via the study’s preformatted this proposal. Comments should refer to Title of Proposal: Site Visit Protocols spreadsheet. HUD estimates that each the proposal by name and/or OMB for Neighborhood Stabilization Program spreadsheet will take one person about Control Number and should be sent (NSP2) Evaluation; Second Round. 1.5 working days (12 hours) to electronically to OMB Control Number: complete, on average. jmailto:[email protected] or in Description of the Need for the For the remaining 15 grantees and 25 hard copy to: Judson L. James, Office of Information and Proposed Use: The U.S. partner organizations, the data will be Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban compiled by the research team with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is conducting an support of local representatives. The Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room important national study of the majority of this effort will be conducted
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55491
by the researcher. HUD estimates that it Estimation of the total number of details the respondent burden on a will take approximately two hours per hours needed to prepare the information quarterly and annual basis: grantee and partner organization to collection including number of provide access to records during this respondents, frequency of response, and time (e.g., pulling the appropriate files). hours of response: The following chart
Number of Responses Hours per entities per entity response Total hours
Interviews: Local NSP grantees ...... 25 4 2 200 Interviews: Local Partner agencies ...... 50 4 2 400 Interviews: National NSP2 grantees ...... 4 2 2 16 Providing Access to Records ...... 40 1 2 80 Compiling Records ...... 39 1 12 468
Status of the proposed information program on preventing and eliminating Title of Proposal: 24 CFR part 125, collection: Pending OMB approval. discriminatory housing practices. Fair Housing Initiatives Program. Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork DATES: Comments Due Date: November OMB Control Number, if applicable: Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 9, 2012. 2529–0033. as amended. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are Description of the need for the Dated: August 31, 2012. invited to submit comments regarding information and proposed use: This is an extension of a currently approved Erika C. Poethig, this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB information collection used to select Assistant Secretary for Policy Development applicants for the Fair Housing and Research. Control Number and should be sent to Paula Stone, FHIP Division, Office of Initiatives Program (FHIP) grants under [FR Doc. 2012–22213 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] a FHIP Notice of Funding Availability BILLING CODE 4210–67–P Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (NOFA). These grants are to fund fair Washington, DC 20410, Room 5222 or housing enforcement and/or education and outreach activities under the DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND the number for the Federal Information following initiatives: Administrative URBAN DEVELOPMENT Relay Service (1–800–877–8339). Enforcement; Private Enforcement, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [Docket No. FR–5605–N–01] Education and Outreach, and Fair Program Contact, Myron Newry, Housing Organizations. Additionally, Notice of Proposed Information Director, FHIP Division, Office of the information is collected to monitor Collection; Comment Request: Fair Programs, Department of Housing and grants and grant funds. Housing Initiatives Program Grant Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Agency form numbers, if applicable: Application and Monitoring Reports Washington, DC 20410, Room 5222, HUD 904 A, B and C, SF–425, SF–424, telephone (202) 402–7095 (this is not a SF–LLL, HUD–2880, HUD–2990, HUD– AGENCY: Office of the Assistant toll free number) for copies of the Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal 2993, HUD–424CB, HUD–424–CBW, proposed forms and other available HUD2994–A, HUD–96010, and HUD– Opportunity (FHEO), Department of information. Housing and Urban Development 27061. (HUD). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Members of the affected public: The Department is submitting the proposed collection of information involves ACTION: Notice. information collection to OMB for Qualified Fair Housing Organizations SUMMARY: The proposed information review, as required by the Paperwork (QFHOs); Fair Housing Organizations collection requirement described below Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. (FHOs); public or private non-profit will be submitted to the Office of chapter 35, as amended). organizations or institutions and other Management and Budget (OMB) for This Notice is soliciting comments public or private entities that are review, as required by the Paperwork from members of the public and affected working to prevent or eliminate Reduction Act of 1995. The Department agencies concerning the proposed discriminatory housing practices; State is soliciting public comments on the collection of information to: (1) Evaluate and local governments; and Fair subject proposal. whether the proposed collection is Housing Assistant Program Agencies. This information is required by the necessary for the proper performance of Estimation of the total numbers of grant application to assist the the Department’s program functions, hours needed to prepare the information Department in selecting the highest including whether the information will collection including number of ranked applicants to receive funds have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the respondents, frequency of response, and under the Fair Housing Initiatives accuracy of the Department’s hours of response: An estimation of Program and carry out fair housing assessment of the paperwork burden 46,420 total hours is needed to prepare enforcement and/or education and that may result from the proposed the information collection. The number outreach activities under the following collection of information; (3) Enhance of respondents is 400 with a frequency initiatives; Private Enforcement, the quality, utility, and clarity of the response of 1 per annum, and the total Education and Outreach, and Fair information which may be collected; hours per respondent is 76.50 hours for Housing Organization. The information and (4) Minimize the burden of the application development. There is an collected from quarterly and final information collection on responders, estimated 104 agencies that will receive progress reports and enforcement logs including the use of appropriate funding and have to provide quarterly will enable the Department to evaluate automated collection techniques or and final reports, with approximately 59 the performance of agencies that receive other forms of information technology having to provide Enforcement Logs and funding and determine the impact of the (e.g., electronic transmission of data). 1 agency reporting on a semi-annual
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55492 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
basis. The estimated number of comments. All submissions must refer calling the toll-free Federal Relay respondents is based on the average of to the above docket number and title. Service at 800–877–8339. the number of submissions for NOFA 1. Submission of Comments by Mail. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: years 2009 to current. The number of Comments may be submitted by mail to The 2012 Appropriations Act (Pub. L. hours is an average based on grantee the Regulations Division, Office of 112–55, approved November 18, 2011) estimates of time to review instructions, General Counsel, Department of provides that up to $10,000,000 of the search existing data sources, prepare Housing and Urban Development, 451 $75,000,000 appropriated for tenant required responses to the application, 7th Street SW., Room 10276, protection actions may be made complete the certification, and assemble Washington, DC 20410–0500. available to provide housing choice exhibits. 2. Electronic Submission of voucher rental assistance to residents Status of the proposed information Comments. Interested persons may residing in low-vacancy areas and who collection: Extension of a currently submit comments electronically through may have to pay rents greater than 30 approved collection. the Federal eRulemaking Portal at percent of household income, as the Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly result of certain specified conditions. of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended. encourages commenters to submit The 2012 Appropriations Act provides Dated: August 3, 2012. comments electronically. Electronic that the tenant protection assistance Sara Pratt, submission of comments allows the may be provided as either enhanced vouchers or project-based voucher Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement commenter maximum time to prepare and Programs. and submit a comment, ensures timely assistance. HUD’s notice that provides the [FR Doc. 2012–22215 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the instructions, eligibility, and selection BILLING CODE 4210–67–P public. Comments submitted criteria on the funding process for electronically through the tenant protection vouchers for certain DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND www.regulations.gov Web site can be at-risk households in low-vacancy areas URBAN DEVELOPMENT viewed by other commenters and can be found on HUD’s Web site at the interested members of the public. following addresses: http:// [Docket No. FR–5657–N–01] Commenters should follow the portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/ instructions provided on that site to program_offices/administration/ Notice of Availability: Funding for submit comments electronically. hudclips/notices/pih and at http:// Tenant-Protection Vouchers for portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/ Note: To receive consideration as public _ Certain At-Risk Households in Low- comments, comments must be submitted program offices/administration/ Vacancy Areas: Request for through one of the two methods specified hudclips/notices/hsg. Comments above. Again, all submissions must refer to HUD is seeking public comment on the docket number and title of the rule. No this notice. Following receipt and AGENCY: Office of General Counsel, Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) consideration of public comment, a final HUD. comments are not acceptable. notice will be issued with final ACTION: Notice. Public Inspection of Public instructions, eligibility, and selection criteria, which may include revisions to SUMMARY: HUD announces the Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications the instructions and criteria contained availability, on its Web site, of in the notice that has been posted on instructions, eligibility, and selection submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between HUD’s Web site, at the Web site criteria on the funding process for addresses listed above. tenant protection vouchers for certain 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above at-risk households in low-vacancy areas, address. Due to security measures at the Dated: August 30, 2012. as provided for in the Consolidated and HUD Headquarters building, an advance Camille E. Acevedo, Further Continuing Appropriations Act, appointment to review the public Associate General Counsel for Legislation and 2012 (2012 Appropriations Act), and comments must be scheduled by calling Regulations. seeks public comment on these the Regulations Division at 202–708– [FR Doc. 2012–22120 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] instructions and criteria. The 3055 (this is not a toll-free number). BILLING CODE 4210–67–P instruction, eligibility and selection Individuals with speech or hearing criteria for this funding process are set impairments may access this number forth in a notice posted on HUD’s Web via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND site at the addresses provided in the Relay Service at 800–877–8339. Copies URBAN DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of of all comments submitted are available this notice. for inspection and downloading at [Docket No. FR–5661–N–01] DATES: Comment Due Date: October 10, www.regulations.gov. Mortgagee Review Board: 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any Administrative Actions ADDRESSES: Interested persons are questions regarding this notice should invited to submit comments regarding be directed to the Housing Voucher and AGENCY: Office of the Assistant the notice posted on HUD’s Web site to Management Operations Division, Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing the Regulations Division, Office of Office of Public and Indian Housing, Commissioner, HUD. General Counsel, Department of Department of Housing and Urban ACTION: Notice. Housing and Urban Development, 451 Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7th Street SW., Room 10276, 4216, Washington, DC 20410–8000, SUMMARY: In compliance with section Washington, DC 20410–0500. telephone number 202–708–0477 (this 202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act, Communications must refer to the above is not a toll-free number). Individuals this notice advises of the cause and docket number and title. There are two with speech or hearing impairments description of administrative actions methods for submitting public may access this number through TTY by taken by HUD’s Mortgagee Review
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55493
Board against HUD-approved the amount of $10,000, without FAMC to pay a civil money penalty in mortgagees. admitting fault or liability. the amount of $14,500, without Cause: The Board took this action admitting fault or liability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: based on the following violations of Cause: The Board took this action Nancy A. Murray, Secretary to the HUD/FHA requirements alleged by based on the following violations of Mortgagee Review Board, 451 Seventh HUD: Superior failed to notify the HUD/FHA requirements alleged by Street SW., Room B–133/3150, Department that it had paid a fine in the HUD: FAMC failed to notify HUD that Washington, DC, 20410–8000; telephone amount of $30,000 to the Department of it paid a fine in the amount of $6,750 (202) 708–2224 (this is not a toll-free Banking of the Commonwealth of to the Department of Banking of the number). Persons with hearing or Pennsylvania; failed to ensure that only Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to speech impairments may access this principal owners or corporate officers resolve allegations that FAMC had number through TTY by calling the toll- submit the annual certification report; violated the Mortgage Licensing Act, free Federal Information Service at (800) and submitted a false certification to and submitted a false certification to 877–8339. HUD when it submitted its electronic HUD when it submitted it electronic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section annual certification for 2011. annual certification for 2011. 202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708(c)(5)) requires that HUD 3. Town Square Mortgage & 6. Midland Mortgage Co., Oklahoma ‘‘publish a description of and the cause Investments, Inc., Frisco, TX [Docket City, OK [Docket No. 10–1999–MR] for administrative action against a HUD- No. 11–1194–MR] Action: On November 23, 2011, the approved mortgagee’’ by the Action: On September 20, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement Department’s Mortgagee Review Board Board entered into a Settlement Agreement with Midland Mortgage (‘‘Board’’). In compliance with the Agreement with Town Square Mortgage Company (‘‘MMC’’) that required MMC, requirements of Section 202(c) (5), this & Investments, Inc. (‘‘Town Square without admitting fault or liability, to notice advises of actions that have been Mortgage’’) that required Town Square pay a civil money penalty in the amount taken by the Board from August 1, 2011 Mortgage to pay a civil money penalty of $1,300,000 and to pay all outstanding to December 31, 2011. in the amount of $11,000, without mortgage insurance premiums owed to admitting fault or liability. HUD. I. Settlement Agreements, Civil Money Cause: The Board took this action Cause: The Board took this action Penalties, Withdrawals of FHA based on the following violations of based on the following violations of Approval, Suspensions, Probations, HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD/FHA requirements alleged by Reprimands, and Administrative HUD: Town Square Mortgage submitted HUD: MMC failed to remit mortgage Payments false audited financial statements to insurance premiums to HUD/FHA on 1. Euro Mortgage Bankers, Inc., Melville, HUD for Fiscal Year ending April 30, 3,438 loans, and failed to notify HUD/ NY [Docket No. 11–1120–MR] 2010, when it claimed ownership of a FHA within fifteen (15) days of the residential condominium unit located in termination of 2,488 contracts for Action: On November 30, 2011, the Apollo Beach, Florida; submitted mortgage insurance. Board issued a Notice of Administrative audited financial statements to HUD Action permanently withdrawing the 7. UnionFederal Mortgage Corporation, that were not in conformity with FHA approval of Euro Mortgage Nanuet, NY [Docket No. 11–1205–MR] Generally Accepted Accounting Bankers, Inc. (‘‘EMB’’). Principles due to the improper Action: On November 30, 2011, the Cause: The Board took this action capitalization of a residential Board issued a Notice of Administrative based on the following violations of condominium unit; and displayed the Action withdrawing the FHA approval HUD/FHA requirements alleged by FHA/HUD logo on its Web site when of UnionFederal Mortgage Corporation HUD: EMB used falsified and/or promoting its FHA mortgage services. (‘‘UFMC’’) for a period of one year. conflicting information in the Cause: The Board took this action origination of HUD/FHA loans; failed to 4. Wall Street Financial Corporation, based on the following violation of ensure loan applications were taken and Fairfield, NJ [Docket No. 11–1179–MR] HUD/FHA requirements alleged by processed by authorized employees; Action: On November 8, 2011, the HUD: UFMC failed to notify HUD that failed to ensure that documents were Board issued a Notice of Administrative it voluntarily surrendered its license to not handled by an interested third party; Action withdrawing the FHA approval the New York State Banking Department failed to adequately document the of Wall Street Financial Corporation on or about October 20, 2010. income used to qualify the borrower; (‘‘WSFC’’) for a period of one year. failed to document the source of funds Cause: The Board took this action 8. Vanguard Funding, LLC, Garden City, used for the downpayment and/or based on the following violations of NY [Docket No. 11–1102–MR] closing costs; failed to perform quality HUD/FHA requirements alleged by Action: On November 28, 2011, the control on all loans that went into HUD: WSFC failed to timely submit or Board entered into a Settlement default within the first six months; and complete its audited financial Agreement with Vanguard Funding, failed to timely submit audited financial statements for its fiscal year ending LLC (‘‘VF’’) that required VF, without statements and supplementary reports December 31, 2010; failed to pay its admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil to HUD. annual certification fee; and failed to money penalty in the amount of $101,500, to indemnify HUD against 2. Superior Mortgage Corporation, submit its annual certification for 2010. losses relating to five (5) FHA-insured Hammonton, NJ [Docket No. 11–1177– 5. Franklin American Mortgage loans for a period of five (5) years from MR] Company, Franklin, TN [Docket No. 11– the date of the Settlement Agreement, Action: On October 11, 2011, the 1202–MR] and to require third party training for its Board entered into a Settlement Action: On October 4, 2011, the Board underwriters. Agreement with Superior Mortgage entered into a Settlement Agreement Cause: The Board took this action Corporation (‘‘Superior’’) that required with Franklin American Mortgage based on the following violations of Superior to pay a civil money penalty in Company (‘‘FAMC’’) that required HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55494 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
HUD: VF failed to notify HUD within requirements when it approved eleven outstanding mortgage insurance ten (10) business days that it was the (11) FHA-insured loans without premiums and late fees owed to HUD. subject of two state enforcement actions identifying irregularities and resolving Cause: The Board took this action prohibiting it from originating discrepancies and conflicting based on the following violations of mortgages; VF originated six (6) FHA- information in the loan files; MetLife HUD/FHA requirements alleged by insured mortgages in the state of New violated HUD/FHA requirements on six HUD: VCB failed to timely remit York while it was the subject of an order (6) FHA-insured loans when it failed to mortgage insurance premiums on forty- from the state of New York suspending adequately document the borrowers’ four (44) loans. its mortgage banker license; VF income; MetLife violated HUD/FHA 13. E Mortgage Management, LLC, permitted a non-FHA approved requirements when it approved four (4) Haddon Township, NJ [Docket No. 11– mortgage broker to perform loan FHA-insured loans after failing to 1200–MR] origination services on two (2) FHA- ensure that documents were not insured loans; VF approved three (3) handled by an interested third party; Action: On February 3, 2012, the loans for borrowers who were ineligible MetLife violated HUD/FHA Board entered into a Settlement for federally insured mortgages due to requirements on four (4) FHA-insured Agreement with E Mortgage outstanding delinquent federal debt; VF transactions when it failed to document Management, LLC (‘‘EMM’’) that approved two (2) FHA-insured loans the source of funds used for the required EMM to pay a civil money without adequately documenting the borrowers’ down- payments and/or penalty in the amount of $14,500, income used to qualify the borrowers; closing costs; MetLife violated HUD/ without admitting fault or liability. VF approved three (3) FHA-insured FHA requirements when it approved Cause: The Board took this action loans without resolving discrepancies in three (3) FHA-insured loans and omitted based on the following violations of the loan files relating to the borrowers’ monthly debt obligations from its HUD/FHA requirements alleged by income and employment; VF failed to underwriting analysis; MetLife violated HUD: EMM failed to notify HUD that document the source of gift funds on HUD/FHA requirements when it EMM agreed to pay a fine in the amount three (3) FHA-insured loans; VF approved an FHA-insured loan for a of $61,500 to the Department of Banking approved a loan when the borrower did borrower who was ineligible because of of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not meet the minimum credit an outstanding court-ordered judgment; and submitted a false certification to requirements; VF approved one loan MetLife violated HUD/FHA HUD when it submitted its electronic where it omitted a liability of the requirements when it approved a loan Annual Certifications for 2011. borrower in the underwriting analysis; for FHA mortgage insurance without 14. Master Mortgage Corporation, VF accepted three (3) loan applications ensuring the borrower met the statutory Bayamon, PR [Docket No. 11–1147–MR] from loan correspondents for which VF 3.5% minimum investment was not an FHA approved Sponsor; and requirement; and MetLife violated HUD/ Action: On February 3, 2012, the VF failed to review five (5) FHA-insured FHA requirements when it approved a Board issued a Notice of Administrative loans that went into early payment loan for a borrower that was over- Action withdrawing the FHA approval default within the first six (6) months of insured by $3,598.54, because it had of Master Mortgage Corporation repayment. failed to consider the seller’s (‘‘MMC’’) for five years. inducement to purchase. Cause: The Board took this action 9. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Minneapolis, based on the following violations of MN [Docket No. 11–1183–MR] 11. Reliance First Capital, LLC Melville, HUD/FHA requirements alleged by Action: On December 20, 2011, the NY [Docket No. 11–1203–MR] HUD: MMC failed to timely submit Board issued a letter of reprimand to Action: On December 22, 2011, the audited financial statements and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (‘‘Wells Fargo’’). Board entered into a Settlement supplementary reports to HUD, and Cause: The Board took this action Agreement with Reliance First Capital, failed to notify HUD that MMC and based on the following violations of LLC (‘‘Reliance’’) that required Reliance MMC’s President were issued a HUD/FHA requirements alleged by to pay a civil money penalty in the Complaint and Cease and Desist Order HUD: Wells Fargo failed to comply with amount of $11,000, without admitting from the Commissioner of Financial property preservation and protection fault or liability. Institutions of Puerto Rico that required requirements on two (2) HUD-insured Cause: The Board took this action MMC to pay fines totaling $280,000, homes following foreclosure. based on the following violations of ordered MMC to permanently cease and HUD/FHA requirements alleged by desist from operating and engaging in 10. MetLife Bank, N.A., Bridgewater, NJ HUD: Reliance failed to notify HUD that the business of a mortgage institution in [Docket No. 11–1148–MR] it agreed to pay a fine in the amount of Puerto Rico, required MMC to Action: On December 12, 2011, the $5,000 to the Department of Banking of immediately surrender its mortgage Board entered into a Settlement the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, institution’s license, and barred MMC’s Agreement with MetLife Bank, N.A. and submitted a false certification to president from serving as an officer, (‘‘MetLife’’) that required MetLife, HUD when it submitted its electronic director, or owner of any financial without admitting fault or liability, to annual certification for 2011. institution. pay an administrative payment in the amount of $41,250 and waive all 12. Virginia Commonwealth Bank, 15. Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc., insurance benefits or indemnify HUD Petersburg, VA [Docket No. 11–1273– Greenwood Village, CO [Docket No. 10– against any losses relating to eleven (11) MR] 1798–MR] FHA-insured mortgages for a period of Action: On December 8, 2011, the Action: On February 23, 2011, the five (5) years from the date of the Board entered into a Settlement Board entered into a Settlement Settlement Agreement. Agreement with Virginia Agreement with Clarion Mortgage Cause: The Board took this action Commonwealth Bank (‘‘VCB’’) that Capital, Inc. (‘‘Clarion’’) that required based on the following violations of required VCB, without admitting fault Clarion to pay a civil money penalty in HUD/FHA requirements self-reported by or liability, to pay a civil money penalty the amount of $45,000, without MetLife: MetLife violated HUD/FHA in the amount of $6,725 and to remit all admitting fault or liability.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55495
Cause: The Board took this action which time UNMB must submit the 1. First Home Mortgage, Inc., based on the following violations of results of its monthly QC audits and Jonesboro, AR [Docket No. 12–1642– HUD/FHA requirements alleged by certifications as to its QC staffing and MRT]. HUD: Clarion failed to comply with operations. 2. HCL Finance Inc., San Jose, CA HUD’s quality control requirements; Cause: The Board took this action [Docket No. 12–1641–MRT]. violated HUD’s mortgagee employee and based on the following violations of 3. Ikon Mortgage Lenders, Inc., Fort staffing requirements; and charged HUD/FHA requirements alleged by Lauderdale, FL [Docket No. 09–9910– unallowable and unsupported fees. HUD: UNMB failed to ensure that the MRT]. 4. Delta Home and Lending, Inc., 16. PHH Home Loans, LLC, Mount quality control reviews for early Sacramento, CA [Docket No.12–1643– Laurel, NJ [Docket No. 11–1201–MR] payment defaults were completed; used conflicting information in originating MRT]. Action: On February 15, 2012, the and obtaining HUD/FHA mortgage 5. Axiom Mortgage Bankers Board entered into a Settlement insurance; and failed to adequately Corporation, Irvine, CA [Docket No. 11– Agreement with PHH Home Loans, LLC document the stability of income used 1234–MRT]. (‘‘PHH’’) that required PHH to pay a to qualify the borrowers. 6. Red Rock Mortgage & Lending, civil money penalty in the amount of LLC., Oklahoma City, OK [Docket No. $14,500, without admitting fault or 19. Fifth Third Bank, Cincinnati, OH 11–1233–MRT]. liability. [Docket No. 10–1998–MR] Cause: The Board took this action Dated: August 31, 2012. based on the following violations of Action: On April 27, 2012, the Board Carol J. Galante, HUD/FHA requirements alleged by entered into a Settlement Agreement Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing– HUD: PHH failed to notify HUD that with Fifth Third Bank (‘‘Fifth Third’’) Federal Housing Commissioner. PHH agreed to pay a fine of $11,750 to that required Fifth Third to pay a civil [FR Doc. 2012–22126 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] money penalty in the amount of the Department of Banking of the BILLING CODE 4210–67–P Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; failed $700,000, without admitting fault or to notify HUD that it paid a fine of liability. $50,000 to the Illinois Department of Cause: The Board took this action DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Financial and Professional Regulation; based on the following violations of and submitted a false certification to HUD/FHA requirements alleged by Bureau of Land Management HUD when it submitted its electronic HUD: Fifth Third failed to timely remit [LLAZP02000.L54100000.FR0000. annual certification for 2011. mortgage insurance premiums to HUD/ FHA, and failed to notify HUD/FHA LVCLA10A5170.241A; AZA 35235] 17. HomeState Mortgage Company, LLC, within 15 calendar days of the Notice of Realty Action: Application for Anchorage, AK [Docket No. 11–1286– termination, transfer or sale of mortgage MR] Conveyance of Federally Owned insurance contracts. Mineral Interests in Maricopa County, Action: On April 3, 2012, the Board II. Lenders That Failed To Timely Meet AZ entered into a Settlement Agreement Requirements for Annual AGENCY: with HomeState Mortgage Company, Recertification of HUD/FHA Approval Bureau of Land Management, LLC (‘‘HMC’’) that required HMC, Interior. without admitting fault or liability, to Action: The Board entered into ACTION: Notice. pay a civil money penalty in the amount settlement agreements with the lenders of $15,000 and to complete a six-month listed below, which required the lender SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land period of probation, during which time to pay a $7,500 or $3,500 civil money Management (BLM) is processing an HMC must submit all marketing penalty, without admitting fault or application under the Federal Land materials to HUD on a quarterly basis liability. Policy and Management Act to convey for review and approval. Cause: The Board took this action the federally owned mineral interests of Cause: The Board took this action based upon allegations that the lenders 111.33 acres located in Maricopa based on the following violations of listed below failed to comply with the County, Arizona, to the surface owner, HUD/FHA requirements alleged by Department’s annual recertification Gavilan Peak Estates, LLC. Upon HUD: HMC reproduced the official HUD requirements in a timely manner. publication of this notice, the BLM is seal on an advertisement or business 1. Anchor Funding Corporation, temporarily segregating the federally solicitation, and disseminated a Norcross, GA ($7,500.00) [Docket No. owned mineral interests in the land misrepresentative or misleading 11–1225–MRT] covered by the application from all advertisement or business solicitation to forms of appropriation under the mining the public. 2. Freyre Mortgage Corp., San Juan, and mineral leasing laws for up to 2 PR. ($3,500.00) [Docket No. 11–1229– years while the BLM processes the 18. United Northern Mortgage Bankers, MRT] application. LTD, Levittown, NY [Docket No. 11– 1149–MR] III. Lenders That Failed To Meet DATES: Interested persons may submit Requirements for Annual written comments to the BLM at the Action: On March 16, 2012, the Board Recertification of HUD/FHA Approval entered into a Settlement Agreement address listed below. Comments must with United Northern Mortgage Bankers Action: The Board voted to withdraw be received no later than October 25, LTD (‘‘UNMB’’) that required UNMB, the FHA approval of each of the lenders 2012. without admitting fault or liability, to listed below for a period of one year. ADDRESSES: Bureau of Land pay a civil money penalty in the amount Cause: The Board took this action Management, Arizona State Office, One of $25,000, indemnify HUD against based upon allegations that the lenders North Central Avenue, Suite 800, losses relating to two FHA-insured loans listed below were not in compliance Phoenix, Arizona 85004. Detailed for a period of five years, and complete with the Department’s annual information concerning this action is a six-month period of probation during recertification requirements. available for review at this address.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55496 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thence West 570 feet; Thence North segregative effect shall terminate upon: Vivian Titus, Senior Land Law 1100 feet; Thence East 570 feet to the (1) Issuance of a patent or other Examiner, at 602–417–9598. Persons True Point of Beginning. document of conveyance as to such who use a telecommunications device mineral interests; (2) Final rejection of Parcel 3 for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal the application; or (3) September 10, Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– That part of the East Half of the 2014, whichever occurs first. 800–877–8339 to contact the above Southeast Quarter of Section 35, Comments: Your comments are individual during normal business Township 7 North, Range 2 East of the invited. Please submit all comments in hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, writing to Vivian Titus at the address day, 7 days a week, to leave a message Maricopa County, Arizona, lying West listed above. Before including your or question for the above individual. of the West lines of those certain parcels address, phone number, email address, You will receive a reply during normal described in Docket 11938, Page 261; or other personal identifying business hours. and in Docket 14071, Page 774; and information in your comment, you lying South of the North line of said SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The should be aware that your entire parcel described in Docket 14071, Page location of the federally owned mineral comment—including your personal 774; extended westerly. interest segregated by this notice is identifying information—may be made intended to be identical in location as Parcel 4 available to the public at any time. While you can ask us in your comment the privately owned surface interest of A part of the Southeast Quarter of the applicant, as described in the to withhold your personal identifying Section 35, Township 7 North, Range 2 information from public review, we applicant’s deeds recorded on June 21, East of the Gila and Salt River Base and 2006, at the Maricopa County Recorder’s cannot guarantee that we will be able to Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, do so. office under Recordation Numbers more particularly described as follows: 20060834935 and 20060834944. The Commencing at the East Quarter corner Authority: 43 CFR 2720.1–1(b). lands referred to in this notice consist of said Section 35; Thence South along Julie A. Decker, of four individual parcels, described in the East line of said Section 35, a the two deeds mentioned above, and are Deputy State Director, Resources. distance of 785 feet; Thence West 675 [FR Doc. 2012–22220 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] described as follows: feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence BILLING CODE 4310–32–P Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian South parallel to and 675 feet West of the East line of said Section 35, a Parcel 1 distance of 1,100 feet; Thence West 570 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The Southwest Quarter of the feet; Thence North 1,100 feet; Thence Southeast Quarter, the South Half of the East 570 feet to the Point of Beginning. Bureau of Land Management The areas described aggregates Northwest Quarter of the Southeast [LLCAN00000.L18200000.XZ0000] Quarter, the South Half of the Northeast approximately 111.33 acres in Maricopa Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, and County, Arizona. Notice of Temporary Closure of Public the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Under certain conditions, Section Lands in Eastern Lassen County, the Southwest Quarter; 209(b) of the Federal Land Policy and California, and Western Washoe Except the East 528 feet of the East Management Act of October 21, 1976, 43 County, Nevada Half of the Southeast Quarter of the U.S.C. 1719, authorizes the sale and Southwest, all in Section 35, Township conveyance of the federally owned AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 7 North, Range 2 East, Gila and Salt mineral interests in land when the Interior. River Base and Meridian, Maricopa, surface estate is not federally owned. ACTION: Notice. Arizona. The objective is to allow consolidation of the surface and mineral interests SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Parcel 2 when either one of the following BLM-managed public lands in the area That part of the Southeast Quarter of conditions exist: (1) There are no known affected by the Rush Fire in eastern the Southeast Quarter of Section 35, mineral values in the land; or (2) Where Lassen County, California, and western Township 7 North, Range 2 East, Gila continued Federal ownership of the Washoe County, Nevada, are closed to and Salt River Base and Meridian, mineral interests interferes with or public access because of dangers posed Maricopa County, Arizona, described as precludes appropriate non-mineral by the Rush Fire. Exempted from this follows: development and such development is a closure are personnel and vehicles Beginning at a point 658.00 feet West more beneficial use of the land than involved with fire suppression and of the Brass Cap and the Southeast mineral development. resource protection and State, local and corner of Section 35, Township 7 North, An application was filed for the sale Federal officials involved with Range 2 East; Thence North 754.85 feet and conveyance of the federally owned enforcement. This closure is necessary to a set point; Thence West 577.00 feet mineral interests in the above-described to protect public health and safety. to a set point; Thence South 755.26 feet parcels of land. Subject to valid existing DATES: The temporary closure is to a set point; Thence East 577.00 feet rights, on September 10, 2012 the effective August 14, 2012, and will be to a point of beginning; Except any part federally owned mineral interests in the lifted no later than September 14, 2012. thereof lying within the following lands described above are hereby FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: described parcel: Commencing at the segregated from all forms of Lynda Roush, Acting Northern East Quarter corner of said Section 35; appropriation under the general mining California District Manager, 707–825– Thence South along the East line of said and mineral leasing laws, while the 2309; or BLM Eagle Lake Field Office Section 35, a distance of 785 feet; application is being processed to Manager Ken Collum, 530–252–5374. Thence West 675 feet to the True Point determine if either one of the two Persons who use a telecommunications of Beginning; Thence South Parallel to specified conditions exists and, if so, to device for the deaf (TDD) may call the and 675 feet West of the East line of said otherwise comply with the procedural Federal Information Relay Service Section 35, a distance of 1100 feet; requirements of 43 CFR part 2720. The (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55497
above individual during normal DATES: Comments on the scope of the fences, dikes, power transmission business hours. The FIRS is available 24 environmental impact statement (EIS) facilities, and permanent operating hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a will be accepted from September 10, facilities. message or question with the above 2012, to November 26, 2012. Background individual. You will receive a reply Three public scoping meetings will be during normal business hours. held to solicit public input on the scope The Paradox Valley Unit is located along the Dolores River in the Paradox SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This of the EIS, potential alternatives, and Valley in Montrose County, Colorado, closure affects all public lands bounded issues to be addressed in the EIS. See about ten miles east of the Colorado- by the Juniper Ridge and Tuledad the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section Utah state line. The Dolores River is a Roads, (combined Lassen County Road for meeting dates. major tributary to the Colorado River. 522), the Stage Road (Lassen County ADDRESSES: Written comments regarding the scope and content of the Groundwater in the Paradox Valley is Road 504), Marr Road (Lassen County highly saline. Saline concentrations in Road 526) and the BLM Buckhorn Road EIS should be sent to Mr. Terence Stroh, Bureau of Reclamation, Western this area have been measured in excess on the north; U. S. Highway 395 on the of 250,000 milligrams per liter; by far west; Nevada Highway 447 and the Colorado Area Office, 2764 Compass Drive, Suite 106, Grand Junction, one of the most concentrated sources in Sand Pass Road on the east; and the the Colorado River Basin. Groundwater Wendel Road on the south. The closure Colorado 81506; telephone (970) 248– 0608; facsimile (970) 248–0601; or email then surfaces into the Dolores River. begins at T34N, R13E, SE corner of Studies show that the Dolores River Section 25 and continues through the at [email protected]. Those not desiring to submit accumulated more than 205,000 tons of entire fire area. This closure is made salt annually before the Paradox Valley under authority of 43 CFR 8364. Any comments or suggestions at this time, but who would like to receive a copy of Unit began operation. person who fails to comply with the The Paradox Valley Unit presently provisions of this closure order may be the EIS, should contact Mr. Stroh using the information cited above. See the consists of a brine collection well field, subject to the penalties provided in 43 brine surface treatment facility, brine CFR 8360.0–7. Specific roads included SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for locations of public scoping meetings. injection facility, a 16,000-foot injection in the closure are Ryepatch Road, Horn well, and associated roads, pipelines, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Road, Garate Road, Ramhorn Road, and electrical facilities. Unit operations Terence Stroh, Bureau of Reclamation, Shinn Ranch Road, Stoney Road, Deep have been adjusted over time to address 2764 Compass Drive, Suite 106, Grand Cut Road, Smoke Creek Road, increased seismic activity and injection Junction, Colorado 81506; telephone Skedaddle Ranch Road, Brubeck Road, pressures. Under normal operations, the (970) 248–0608; email at Dry Valley Road, and Buckhorn Road Paradox Valley Unit averages injection [email protected]; or Mr. Andy Nicholas, from the junction with Lassen County of about nine to ten million gallons of Bureau of Reclamation, Paradox Valley Road 526 (the Marr Road) to the brine per month. The Unit currently Field Office, P.O. Box 20, Bedrock, junction with Nevada State Highway controls about 110,000 tons of salt per Colorado 81411; telephone (970) 859– 447. The Ramhorn Springs Campground year that would have entered the 7214; email at [email protected]; or and the Dodge Reservoir and Dolores River and, in turn, degraded the Mr. Kib Jacobson, Bureau of Campground are also closed. water quality of the mainstem of the Reclamation, 125 South State Street, Colorado River. Thomas Pogacnik, Room 6107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138; Deputy State Director. telephone (801) 524–3753; email at Proposed Action [FR Doc. 2012–22222 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] [email protected]. The proposed action is to identify, BILLING CODE 4310–40–P Persons who use a evaluate, and implement brine disposal telecommunications device for the deaf alternatives to replace or supplement may call the Federal Information Relay Brine Injection Well No. 1 which was DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to built in 1988 and has a projected contact the above individual(s) during Bureau of Reclamation remaining useful life of three to five normal business hours. The FIRS is years, under current operations, Notice of Intent To Prepare an available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, provided that acceptable seismicity Environmental Impact Statement and to leave a message or question with the levels and well integrity are maintained. above individual(s). You will receive a Announcement of Public Scoping Need for Action Meetings for Continued Operation of reply during normal business hours. the Paradox Valley Unit, Montrose SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The The Bureau of Reclamation’s Paradox County, CO Paradox Valley Unit was constructed to Valley Unit is one of the most effective assist in meeting the objectives and salinity control projects in the Colorado AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, standards of the Federal Water Pollution River Basin and provides about ten Interior. Control Act of 1948 (Pub. L. 80–845) percent of the total salinity control in ACTION: Notice of intent. and the Colorado River Basin Salinity the Colorado River at Imperial Dam. Control Act of 1974, as amended and Because the existing brine injection well SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National supplemented (Pub. L. 93–320), which is nearing the end of its useful life, Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as authorizes the construction, operation, another well or alternative brine amended, the Bureau of Reclamation and maintenance of works in the disposal mechanism is needed for intends to prepare an environmental Colorado River Basin to control the continued enhancement and protection impact statement to identify and salinity of water delivered to users in of the quality of water available in the evaluate brine disposal alternatives to the United States and Mexico. Colorado River for use in the United replace or supplement the existing Brine Authorized facilities included wells, States and the Republic of Mexico, and Injection Well No. 1 which has a pumps, pipelines, solar evaporation to enable the United States to comply projected remaining useful life of three ponds, and all necessary appurtenant with its obligations under the agreement to five years under current operations. and associated works such as roads, with Mexico of August 30, 1973.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55498 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
Scoping Information Dated: July 17, 2012. filed by FlashPoint Technology, Inc. Larry Walkoviak, (‘‘Flashpoint’’) of Peterborough, New This notice of intent initiates the Regional Director—Upper Colorado Region, Hampshire alleging violations of section scoping process which guides the Bureau of Reclamation. 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. development of the environmental [FR Doc. 2012–22176 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] 1337) by reason of infringement of impact statement. Scoping is an early BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P certain claims of U.S. Patent No. and public process for determining 6,400,471; U.S. Patent No. 6,222,538; concerns to be addressed and for U.S. Patent No. 6,504,575; and U.S. identifying significant issues and INTERNATIONAL TRADE Patent No. 6,223,190. The NOI named suggested alternatives related to the COMMISSION HTC Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan; proposed action. In addition to oral HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, comments provided at the scoping [Investigation No. 337–TA–850] Washington; Pantech Co., Ltd. of Seoul, meetings, Reclamation also invites Korea; Pantech Wireless, Inc. of Atlanta, Certain Electronic Imaging Devices; written comments during the scoping Georgia; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Commission Determination Not To period. To be most effectively of Shenzhen, China; FutureWei Review an Initial Determination considered, written comments should Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Granting a Joint Motion To Amend the be received no later than November 26, Technologies (USA) of Plano, Texas; Notice of Investigation and Complaint 2012. ZTE Corporation of Shenzhen, China; When the EIS is complete, its AGENCY: U.S. International Trade and ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, availability will be announced in the Commission. Texas. Federal Register, in the local news ACTION: Notice. On August 2, 2012, Flashpoint and media, through direct contact with respondents Huawei Technologies Co., interested parties, and on the project SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Ltd. and FutureWei Technologies, Inc. Web site. Comments will be solicited on the U.S. International Trade d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA) the document at that time. Commission has determined not to (collectively ‘‘the Huawei review the presiding administrative law If special assistance is required to Respondents’’) filed a motion to amend judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination the complaint and NOI to replace the participate in the public scoping (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 6) granting a motion meetings, please contact Ms. Justyn currently named Huawei Respondents by complainant FlashPoint Technology, with Huawei Device Co., Ltd., having a Hock at 970–248–0625 or email at Inc. (‘‘Flashpoint’’) and respondents [email protected]. Please notify Ms. Hock principal place of business at Section B, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei Administration Building, as far in advance as possible to enable FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Reclamation to secure the needed Bantian, Longgang, Shenzhen, Huawei Technologies (USA) Guangdong, P.R. China, 518129, and services. If a request cannot be honored, (collectively ‘‘the Huawei the requestor will be notified. Huawei Device USA Inc., having a Respondents’’) to amend the Notice of principal place of business at 5700 Dates and Addresses of Public Scoping Investigation (‘‘NOI’’) and complaint to Tennyson Parkway, Suite #600, Plano, Meetings replace the Huawei Respondents with Texas 75024. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, On August 9, 2012, the ALJ issued an The scoping meeting dates and China and Huawei Device USA Inc. of ID granting the joint motion to amend addresses are: Plano, Texas. the complaint and NOI to replace the • Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 6:00 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: named Huawei Respondents with to 8:00 p.m., Paradox Valley School, Amanda S. Pitcher, Office of the General Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and Huawei 21501 6 Mile Road, Paradox, Colorado Counsel, U.S. International Trade Device USA Inc. The ALJ found that 81429. Commission, 500 E Street SW., good cause exists to amend the Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) • Wednesday, September 26, 2012, complaint and NOI because Flashpoint 205–2737. Copies of non-confidential 7:00 to 9:00 p.m., Holiday Inn Express, recently learned which entities are documents filed in connection with this 1391 South Townsend Avenue, responsible for the accused products investigation are or will be available for Montrose, Colorado, 81401. based on communications with counsel inspection during official business • Thursday, September 27, 2012, 7:00 for the Huawei Respondents. In hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the addition, the ALJ found that the to 9:00 p.m., Colorado Mesa University, Office of the Secretary, U.S. University Center—Room 221, 1100 substitution of the parties will not International Trade Commission, 500 E require extension of the target date, will North Avenue, Grand Junction, Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Colorado 81501–3122. not change the scope of the telephone (202) 205–2000. General investigation, and will assist in Public Disclosure information concerning the Commission obtaining a complete record for the may also be obtained by accessing its investigation. No petitions for review Before including your address, phone Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. were filed. number, email address, or other The public record for this investigation The Commission has determined not personal identifying information in your may be viewed on the Commission’s to review the ID. comment, you should be aware that electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// your entire comment—including your edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired The authority for the Commission=s personal identifying information—may persons are advised that information on determination is contained in section be made publicly available at any time. this matter can be obtained by 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as While you can ask us in your comment contacting the Commission’s TDD amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in to withhold your personal identifying terminal on (202) 205–1810. sections 210.43–45 of the Commission’s information from public review, we SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR cannot guarantee that we will be able to Commission instituted this investigation 210.43–45). do so. on June 29, 2012, based on a complaint By order of the Commission.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55499
Issued: September 5, 2012. (collectively, ‘‘SLED’’). 76 FR 51396–97 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Lisa R. Barton, (Aug. 18, 2011). The complaint alleged Acting Secretary to the Commission. violations of section 337 of the Tariff Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree [FR Doc. 2012–22172 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the Compensation, and Liability Act sale within the United States after Notice is hereby given that on INTERNATIONAL TRADE importation of certain light-emitting September 4, 2012, a proposed Consent COMMISSION diodes and products containing same by Decree in United States v. State of Utah, reason of infringement of certain claims [Investigation No. 337–TA–798] School and Institutional Trust Lands of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,282,741; 7,893,443; Administration, Civil Action No. 2:12– Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and 7,838,315; 7,959,312; 7,964,881; CV–00841–DBP, was lodged with the Products Containing Same; 6,551,848; 7,268,372; and 7,771,081. United States District Court for the Commission Determination Not To The Commission’s notice of District of Utah. Review an Initial Determination investigation named as respondents The Consent Decree resolves claims Terminating the Investigation in Its OSRAM GmbH of Munich, Germany; by the United States against the State of Entirety on the Basis of a Settlement OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH of Utah, School and Institutional Trust Agreement Regensburg, Germany; OSRAM Opto Lands Administration (‘‘SITLA’’) Semiconductors Inc. of Sunnyvale, pursuant to Section 107(a) of the AGENCY: U.S. International Trade California; and OSRAM Sylvania Inc. of Comprehensive Environmental Commission. Danvers, Massachusetts (collectively, Response, Compensation, and Liability ACTION: Notice. ‘‘OSRAM’’). On December 7, 2011, the Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for Commission determined not to review response costs incurred in conducting a SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that an ID (Order No. 15) granting SLED’s removal action at the Cook Slurry Site the U.S. International Trade motion to amend the Notice of (‘‘Site’’) in Saratoga Springs, Utah (the Commission has determined not to Investigation to change the name of ‘‘Removal Action’’). Cook Associates review the presiding administrative law respondent OSRAM GmbH to OSRAM Inc., doing business as Cook Slurry judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination AG. Notice (Dec. 7, 2011). Company (‘‘Cook’’), operated an (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 38) granting the joint On July 26, 2012, SLED filed a motion explosives manufacturing facility at the motion to terminate the above-captioned to amend the Complaint and Notice of Site on school trust lands owned by the investigation in its entirety on the basis Investigation to substitute Samsung State of Utah which predecessor of a settlement agreement. In view of Electronics Co., Ltd. of Suwon City, agencies to SITLA had leased to Cook. that determination, the Commission Korea (‘‘Samsung Electronics’’), for the Under the terms of the settlement SITLA finds that review of another ID (Order SLED complainants, as a result of will reimburse the United States No. 36), which granted leave to amend corporate reorganization. On July 30, $316,500 of the costs of completing the the complaint and notice of 2012, OSRAM filed an opposition, and Removal Action. investigation, is moot. on August 7, 2012, the ALJ issued an ID The Department of Justice will FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: granting the motion as an ID. Order No. receive, for a period of thirty (30) days Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the 36. from the date of this publication, General Counsel, U.S. International comments relating to the proposed Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., On August 9, 2012, SLED and OSRAM filed a joint motion to settlement agreement. Comments should Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) be addressed to the Assistant Attorney 708–2532. Copies of non-confidential terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a settlement General for the Environment and documents filed in connection with this Natural Resources Division, and either investigation are or will be available for agreement between OSRAM and Samsung Electronics. On August 10, emailed to pubcomment- inspection during official business [email protected] or mailed to P.O. hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 2012, the ALJ granted the motion as an ID. Order No. 38. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Washington, DC 20044–7611, and International Trade Commission, 500 E No petitions for review of either ID should refer to United States v. State of Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, were filed. The Commission has Utah, School and Institutional Trust telephone (202) 205–2000. General determined not to review Order No. 38, Lands Administration, Civil Action No. information concerning the Commission and the investigation is thereby 2:12–CV–00841–DBP, and D.J. Ref. No. may also be obtained by accessing its terminated. As a result, review of Order 90–11–3–10515. Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. No. 36 is moot. During the public comment period, The public record for this investigation The authority for the Commission’s the settlement agreement may be may be viewed on the Commission’s determination is contained in section examined on the following Department electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as of Justice Web site, http:// edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ persons are advised that information on sections 210.21 and 210.42 of the Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the this matter can be obtained by Commission’s Rules of Practice and settlement agreement may also be contacting the Commission’s TDD Procedure (19 CFR 210.21, 210.42). obtained by mail from the Consent terminal on (202) 205–1810. By order of the Commission. Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Justice, Washington, DC Commission instituted this investigation Issued: September 5, 2012. 20044–7611 or by faxing or emailing a on August 18, 2011, based on a Lisa R. Barton, request to ‘‘Consent Decree Copy’’ complaint filed by Samsung LED Co., Acting Secretary to the Commission. ([email protected]), fax no. Ltd. of Suwon City, Korea, and Samsung [FR Doc. 2012–22171 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] (202) 514–0097, phone confirmation LED America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia BILLING CODE 7020–02–P number (202) 514–5271. If requesting a
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55500 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
copy from the Consent Decree Library established 2012 aggregate production DEA has taken into consideration the by mail, please enclose a check in the quotas for controlled substances in above comments along with the relevant amount of $3.75 ($.25 per page) payable Schedules I and II (76 FR 78044). That 2011 year-end inventories, initial 2012 to the U.S. Treasury or, if by email or notice stated that the Administrator manufacturing quotas, 2012 export fax, forward a check in that amount to would adjust, as needed, the established requirements, actual and projected 2012 the Consent Decree Library at the aggregate production quotas in 2012 as sales, research and product address given above. provided for in 21 CFR 1303.13. The development requirements, and 2012 proposed adjusted aggregate Robert Brook, additional applications received. Based production quotas were subsequently on all of the above, the Administrator Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement published in the Federal Register on Section, Environment and Natural Resources has determined that the proposed Division. July 5, 2012 (77 FR 39737) in adjusted 2012 aggregate production consideration of the outlined criteria. quotas for 3,4- [FR Doc. 2012–22121 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] All interested persons were invited to Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV), BILLING CODE 4410–15–P comment on or object to the proposed 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-Methylcathinone adjusted aggregate production quotas on or before August 6, 2012. (methylone), 4-Methyl-N- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Methylcathinone (mephedrone), Analysis for Final Adjusted 2012 alfentanil, amphetamine (for Drug Enforcement Administration Aggregate Production Quotas conversion), desomorphine, [Docket No. DEA–363] Consideration has been given to the diethyltryptamine, dihydromorphine, criteria outlined in the July 5, 2012, gamma hydroxybutyric acid, Controlled Substances: Final Adjusted notice of proposed adjusted aggregate hydrocodone (for sale), hydromorphone, Aggregate Production Quotas for 2012 production quotas in accordance with levomethorphan, methadone, AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 21 CFR 1303.13. In addition, nine methadone intermediate, Administration (DEA), Department of companies, eight DEA registered methylphenidate, morphine (for sale), Justice. manufacturers and one non-registrant, oxycodone (for conversion), oxycodone ACTION: Notice. submitted timely comments regarding a (for sale), and sufentanil required total of 25 Schedule I and II controlled additional consideration and hereby SUMMARY: This notice establishes final substances. Comments received further adjusts the 2012 aggregate adjusted 2012 aggregate production proposed that the aggregate production production quotas for those substances. quotas for controlled substances in quotas for 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N- Regarding amphetamine (for sale), Schedules I and II of the Controlled Methylcathinone (methylone), codeine (for conversion), codeine (for Substances Act (CSA). alfentanil, amphetamine (for sale), morphine (for conversion), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John conversion), amphetamine (for sale), noroxymorphone (for conversion), codeine (for conversion), codeine (for W. Partridge, Chief, Liaison and Policy noroxymorphone (for sale), oripavine, sale), desomorphine, dihydromorphine, Section, Drug Enforcement oxymorphone (for conversion), Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, hydrocodone (for sale), hydromorphone, oxymorphone (for sale), and tapentadol, Springfield, VA 22152, Telephone: (202) levomethorphan, lisdexamfetamine, the Administrator hereby determines 307–4654. methadone intermediate, that the proposed adjusted 2012 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: methylphenidate, morphine (for conversion), morphine (for sale), aggregate production quotas for these Background noroxymorphone (for conversion), substances as published on July 5, 2012, Section 306(a) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. noroxymorphone (for sale), oripavine, at 77 FR 39737 are sufficient to meet the 826) requires that the Attorney General oxycodone (for conversion), oxycodone current 2012 estimated medical, establish aggregate production quotas (for sale), oxymorphone (for scientific, research, and industrial needs for each basic class of controlled conversion), oxymorphone (for sale), of the United States and to provide for substance listed in Schedules I and II. sufentanil, and tapentadol were adequate inventories. Pursuant to the This responsibility has been delegated insufficient to provide for the estimated above, the Administrator hereby to the Administrator of the DEA by 28 medical, scientific, research, and establishes the 2012 final aggregate CFR 0.100. In accordance with 21 U.S.C. industrial needs of the United States, for production quotas for Schedule I and II 826 and 21 CFR 1303.11, DEA export requirements, and for the controlled substances, expressed in published in the Federal Register on establishment and maintenance of grams of anhydrous acid or base, as December 15, 2011, notice of the reserve stocks. follows:
Final adjusted 2012 quotas
Basic Class—Schedule I
1-[1-(2-Thienyl)cyclohexyl]piperidine ...... 5 g 1-[2-(4-Morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–200) ...... 45 g 1-Butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–073) ...... 45 g 1-Methyl-4-phenyl-4-propionoxypiperidine ...... 2 g 1-Pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–018) ...... 45 g 2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine ...... 12 g 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine (DOET) ...... 12 g 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-n-propylthiophenethylamine ...... 12 g 3-Methylfentanyl ...... 2 g 3-Methylthiofentanyl ...... 2 g 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) ...... 30 g
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55501
Final adjusted 2012 quotas
3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone (methylone) ...... 30 g 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (MDEA) ...... 24 g 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) ...... 30 g 3,4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) ...... 20 g 3,4,5-Trimethoxyamphetamine ...... 12 g 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (DOB) ...... 12 g 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine (2–CB) ...... 12 g 4-Methoxyamphetamine ...... 88 g 4-Methylaminorex ...... 12 g 4-Methyl-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (DOM) ...... 12 g 4-Methyl-N-methylcathinone (mephedrone) ...... 25 g 5-(1,1-Dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol ...... 68 g 5-(1,1-Dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol ...... 53 g 5-Methoxy-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine ...... 12 g 5-Methoxy-N,N-diisopropyltryptamine ...... 12 g Acetyl-alpha-methylfentanyl ...... 2 g Acetyldihydrocodeine ...... 2 g Acetylmethadol ...... 2 g Allylprodine ...... 2 g Alphacetylmethadol ...... 2 g Alpha-ethyltryptamine ...... 12 g Alphameprodine ...... 2 g Alphamethadol ...... 2 g Alpha-methylfentanyl ...... 2 g Alpha-methylthiofentanyl ...... 2 g Alpha-methyltryptamine (AMT) ...... 12 g Aminorex ...... 12 g Benzylmorphine ...... 2 g Betacetylmethadol ...... 2 g Beta-hydroxy-3-methylfentanyl ...... 2 g Beta-hydroxyfentanyl ...... 2 g Betameprodine ...... 2 g Betamethadol ...... 2 g Betaprodine ...... 2 g Bufotenine ...... 3 g Cathinone ...... 12 g Codeine-N-oxide ...... 602 g Desomorphine ...... 10 g Diethyltryptamine ...... 18 g Difenoxin ...... 50 g Dihydromorphine ...... 3,750,000 g Dimethyltryptamine ...... 18 g Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid ...... 37,000,000 g Heroin ...... 20 g Hydromorphinol ...... 54 g Hydroxypethidine ...... 2 g Ibogaine ...... 5 g Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) ...... 16 g Marihuana ...... 21,000 g Mescaline ...... 13 g Methaqualone ...... 10 g Methcathinone ...... 12 g Methyldihydromorphine ...... 2 g Morphine-N-oxide ...... 655 g N-Benzylpiperazine ...... 12 g N,N-Dimethylamphetamine ...... 12 g N-Ethylamphetamine ...... 12 g N-Hydroxy-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine ...... 12 g Noracymethadol ...... 2 g Norlevorphanol ...... 52 g Normethadone ...... 2 g Normorphine ...... 18 g Para-fluorofentanyl ...... 2 g Phenomorphan ...... 2 g Pholcodine ...... 2 g Properidine ...... 2 g Psilocybin ...... 2 g Psilocyn ...... 2 g Tetrahydrocannabinols ...... 393,000 g Thiofentanyl ...... 2 g Tilidine ...... 10 g Trimeperidine ...... 2 g
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55502 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
Final adjusted 2012 quotas
Basic Class—Schedule II
1-Phenylcyclohexylamine ...... 2 g 1-Piperdinocyclohexanecarbonitrile ...... 27 g 4-Anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine (ANPP) ...... 1,800,000 g Alfentanil ...... 29,002 g Alphaprodine ...... 2 g Amobarbital ...... 40,007 g Amphetamine (for conversion) ...... 13,300,000 g Amphetamine (for sale) ...... 33,400,000 g Carfentanil ...... 5 g Cocaine ...... 216,000 g Codeine (for conversion) ...... 65,000,000 g Codeine (for sale) ...... 39,605,000 g Dextropropoxyphene ...... 7 g Dihydrocodeine ...... 400,000 g Diphenoxylate ...... 900,000 g Ecgonine ...... 83,000 g Ethylmorphine ...... 2 g Fentanyl ...... 1,428,000 g Glutethimide ...... 2 g Hydrocodone (for sale) ...... 79,700,000 g Hydromorphone ...... 4,207,000 g Isomethadone ...... 4 g Levo-alphacetylmethadol (LAAM) ...... 3 g Levomethorphan ...... 10 g Levorphanol ...... 3,600 g Lisdexamfetamine ...... 12,000,000 g Meperidine ...... 5,500,000 g Meperidine Intermediate-A ...... 5 g Meperidine Intermediate-B ...... 9 g Meperidine Intermediate-C ...... 5 g Metazocine ...... 5 g Methadone (for sale) ...... 23,100,000 g Methadone Intermediate ...... 29,970,000 g Methamphetamine ...... 3,130,000 g
[750,000 grams of levo-desoxyephedrine for use in a non-controlled, non-prescription product; 2,331,000 grams for methamphetamine mostly for conversion to a schedule III product; and 49,000 grams for methamphetamine (for sale)]
Methylphenidate ...... 64,600,000 g Morphine (for conversion) ...... 83,000,000 g Morphine (for sale) ...... 48,200,000 g Nabilone ...... 20,502 g Noroxymorphone (for conversion) ...... 7,200,000 g Noroxymorphone (for sale) ...... 1,981,000 g Opium (powder) ...... 73,000 g Opium (tincture) ...... 1,000,000 g Oripavine ...... 15,300,000 g Oxycodone (for conversion) ...... 7,600,000 g Oxycodone (for sale) ...... 105,200,000 g Oxymorphone (for conversion) ...... 12,800,000 g Oxymorphone (for sale) ...... 5,500,000 g Pentobarbital ...... 34,000,000 g Phenazocine ...... 5 g Phencyclidine ...... 24 g Phenmetrazine ...... 2 g Phenylacetone ...... 16,000,000 g Racemethorphan ...... 2 g Remifentanil ...... 2,500 g Secobarbital ...... 336,002 g Sufentanil ...... 6,730 g Tapentadol ...... 5,400,000 g Thebaine ...... 116,000,000 g
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55503
Aggregate production quotas for all Phenylpropanolamine for 2012’’ was needs, as published on September 14, other Schedule I and II controlled published in the Federal Register (77 2011, at 76 FR 56809. substances included in 21 CFR 1308.11 FR 42333). That notice proposed to In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 826(a) and 1308.12 remain at zero. adjust the 2012 Assessment of Annual and 21 CFR 1315.13, the Administrator Dated: August 31, 2012. Needs for ephedrine (for sale), hereby orders that the 2012 assessment ephedrine (for conversion), of annual needs for ephedrine, Michele M. Leonhart, pseudoephedrine (for sale), pseudoephedrine, and Administrator. phenylpropanolamine (for sale) and phenylpropanolamine, expressed in [FR Doc. 2012–22128 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] phenylpropanolamine (for conversion). kilograms of anhydrous acid or base, is BILLING CODE 4410–09–P All interested persons were invited to adjusted and established as follows: comment on or object to the proposed assessments on or before August 17, Final 2012 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 2012. assessment of List I chemical annual needs Drug Enforcement Administration Comments Received (kg) [Docket No. DEA 353] DEA did not receive any comments to Ephedrine (for sale) ...... 4,300 the proposed adjustment of the Phenylpropanolamine (for Final Adjusted Assessment of Annual assessment of annual needs for sale) ...... 5,800 Needs for the List I Chemicals ephedrine (for sale), ephedrine (for Pseudoephedrine (for sale) .. 278,000 Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and conversion), pseudoephedrine (for sale), Phenylpropanolamine (for Phenylpropanolamine for 2012 phenylpropanolamine (for sale), and conversion) ...... 26,200 phenylpropanolamine (for conversion). Ephedrine (for conversion) ... 12,000 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Conclusion Administration (DEA), Department of Dated: August 31, 2012. Justice. In determining the adjusted 2012 Michele M. Leonhart, ACTION: Notice. assessments, DEA used the calculation Administrator. methodology previously described in SUMMARY: This notice establishes the the 2010 and 2011 assessment of annual [FR Doc. 2012–22127 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Final Adjusted 2012 Assessment of needs (74 FR 60294 and 75 FR 79407 BILLING CODE 4410–09–P Annual Needs for the list I chemicals respectively). DEA considered changes ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and in demand, changes in the national rate DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE phenylpropanolamine. of net disposal, and changes in the rate DATES: Effective Date: September 10, of net disposal by the registrants Drug Enforcement Administration 2012. holding individual manufacturing or import quotas for the chemical; whether Importer of Controlled Substances; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John any increased demand or changes in the Notice of Registration; Cambrex W. Partridge, Chief, Liaison and Policy national and/or individual rates of net Charles City, Inc. Section, Drug Enforcement disposal are temporary, short term, or Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, long term; whether any increased By Notice dated June 18, 2012, and Springfield, VA 22152, Telephone: (202) demand could be met through existing published in the Federal Register on 307–4654. inventories, increased individual June 26, 2012, 77 FR 38085, Cambrex SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 2012 manufacturing quotas, or increased Charles City, Inc., 1205 11th Street, Assessment of Annual Needs represents importation without increasing the Charles City, Iowa 50616–3466, made those quantities of ephedrine, assessment of annual needs; whether application by renewal to the Drug pseudoephedrine, and any decreased demand would result in Enforcement Administration (DEA) to phenylpropanolamine which may be excessive inventory accumulation by all be registered as an importer of the manufactured domestically and persons registered to handle the following basic classes of controlled imported into the United States in 2012 particular chemical; and other factors substances: to provide adequate supplies of each affecting the medical, scientific, chemical for the estimated medical, research, industrial, and importation Drug Schedule scientific, research, and industrial needs needs in the United States, lawful 4-Anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine II of the United States, lawful export export requirements, and reserve stocks, (8333). requirements, and the establishment as found relevant. Phenylacetone (8501) ...... II and maintenance of reserve stocks of Other factors that DEA considered Opium, raw (9600) ...... II such chemicals. Section 306 of the include trends as derived from Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670) II Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 information provided in applications for U.S.C. 826) requires that the Attorney import, manufacturing, and The company plans to import the General establish an assessment of procurement quotas and in import and listed controlled substances for internal annual needs for ephedrine, export declarations. The inventory, use, and to manufacture bulk pseudoephedrine, and acquisition (purchases), and disposition intermediates for sale to its customers. phenylpropanolamine. This (sales) data as provided by DEA- No comments or objections have been responsibility has been delegated to the registered manufacturers and importers received. Comments and requests for Administrator of the DEA by 28 CFR reflects the most current information hearings on applications to import 0.100. available to DEA at the time of narcotic raw material are not On July 18, 2012, a notice entitled publication of this Notice. The appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (2007). ‘‘Proposed Adjustment of the underlying data used to determine the DEA has considered the factors in 21 Assessment of Annual Needs for the List final 2012 assessment of annual needs is U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and I Chemicals Ephedrine, the same as that used in determining the determined that the registration of Pseudoephedrine, and proposed 2012 assessment of annual Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to import the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55504 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
basic classes of controlled substances is registration is consistent with the public Dated: August 29, 2012. consistent with the public interest, and interest. The investigation has included Joseph T. Rannazzisi, with United States obligations under inspection and testing of the company’s Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of international treaties, conventions, or physical security systems, verification Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA of the company’s compliance with state Administration. has investigated Cambrex Charles City, and local laws, and a review of the [FR Doc. 2012–22129 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Inc. to ensure that the company’s company’s background and history. BILLING CODE 4410–09–P registration is consistent with the public Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, interest. The investigation has included and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE inspection and testing of the company’s the above named company is granted physical security systems, verification registration as a bulk manufacturer of Drug Enforcement Administration of the company’s compliance with state the basic classes of controlled and local laws, and a review of the substances listed. company’s background and history. Manufacturer of Controlled Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C Dated: August 29, 2012. Substances; Notice of Registration; .952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Alltech Associates, Inc. with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of By Notice dated May 15, 2012 and company is granted registration as an Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement published in the Federal Register on importer of the basic classes of Administration. May 22, 2012, 77 FR 30327, Alltech controlled substances listed. [FR Doc. 2012–22154 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Associates, Inc., 2051 Waukegan Road, Dated: August 29, 2012. BILLING CODE 4410–09–P Deerfield, Illinois 60015, made Joseph T. Rannazzisi, application by renewal to the Drug Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement Administration (DEA) to Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Administration. the following basic classes of controlled [FR Doc. 2012–22157 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Drug Enforcement Administration substances: BILLING CODE 4410–09–P Manufacturer of Controlled Drug Schedule Substances, Notice of Registration, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Noramco, Inc., (GA) Methcathinone (1237) ...... I N-Ethylamphetamine (1475) ...... I Drug Enforcement Administration By Notice dated May 9, 2012, and N,N-Dimethylamphetamine (1480) I published in the Federal Register on 4-Methylaminorex (cis isomer) I Manufacturer of Controlled May 21, 2012, 77 FR 30026, Noramco, (1590). Substances; Notice of Registration; Alpha-ethyltryptamine (7249) ...... I Inc., 1440 Olympic Drive, Athens, Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315) I Research Triangle Institute Georgia 30601, made application by 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)- I letter to the Drug Enforcement By Notice dated May 15, 2012, and propylthiophenethylamine published in the Federal Register on Administration (DEA) to be registered as (7348). Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ..... I May 22, 2012, 77 FR 30327, Research a bulk manufacturer of Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (2010), a basic Mescaline (7381) ...... I Triangle Institute, Hermann Building, 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxy-amphet- I East Institute Drive, P.O. Box 12194, class of controlled substance listed in schedule I. amine (7391). Research Triangle, North Carolina 4-Bromo-2,5- I 27709, made application by renewal to The company plans to manufacture dimethoxyphenethylamine the Drug Enforcement Administration the listed controlled substance in bulk (7392). (DEA) to be registered as a bulk for distribution to its customers. 4-Methyl-2,5-dimethoxy-amphet- I amine (7395). manufacturer of the following basic No comments or objections have been classes of controlled substances: 2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine I received. DEA has considered the (7396). factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 2,5-Dimethoxy-4- I Drug Schedule determined that the registration of ethylamphetamine (7399). Marihuana (7360) ...... I Noramco, Inc. to manufacture the listed 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine I Cocaine (9041) ...... II basic class of controlled substance is (7400). consistent with the public interest at N-Hydroxy-3,4- I The Institute will manufacture this time. DEA has investigated methylenedioxyamphetamine (7402). marihuana, and cocaine derivatives for Noramco, Inc. to ensure that the 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N- I use by their customers in analytical kits, company’s registration is consistent ethylamphetamine (7404). reagents, and reference standards as with the public interest. The 3,4- I directed by the National Institute on investigation has included inspection Methylenedioxymethamphetam- Drug Abuse. and testing of the company’s physical ine (7405). No comments or objections have been security systems, verification of the 4-Methoxyamphetamine (7411) ... I received. DEA has considered the company’s compliance with state and Alpha-methyltryptamine (7432) .... I factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and local laws, and a review of the Bufotenine (7433) ...... I determined that the registration of company’s background and history. Diethyltryptamine (7434) ...... I Research Triangle Institute to Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), Dimethyltryptamine (7435) ...... I Psilocybin (7437) ...... I manufacture the listed basic classes of and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, Psilocyn (7438) ...... I controlled substances is consistent with the above named company is granted 5-Methoxy-N,N- I the public interest at this time. DEA has registration as a bulk manufacturer of diisopropyltryptamine (7439). investigated Research Triangle Institute the basic class of controlled substance N-Ethyl-1-phenylcyclohexylamine I to ensure that the company’s listed. (7455).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55505
Drug Schedule Cordova, California 95670, made Departmental efforts to reduce application by renewal to the Drug paperwork and respondent burden in 1-(1-Phenylcyclohexyl)pyrrolidine I Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a accordance with the Paperwork (7458). bulk manufacturer of the following basic Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 1-[1-(2-Thienyl)cyclohexyl]piper- I classes of controlled substances: 3501 et seq.), is soliciting comments idine (7470). concerning a proposed extension of the Dihydromorphine (9145) ...... I Drug Schedule Heroin (9200) ...... I authorization to conduct the DOL Normorphine (9313) ...... I Generic Solution for Solicitation for Thebaine (9333) ...... II Grant Applications information Methamphetamine (1105) ...... II Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670) II 1-Phenylcyclohexylamine (7460) II collection. Phencyclidine (7471) ...... II DATES: Phenylacetone (8501) ...... II The company is a contract Submit written comments on or 1-Piperidinocyclohexane- II manufacturer. In reference to Poppy before November 9, 2012. carbonitrile (8603). Straw Concentrate the company will ADDRESSES: Contact Michel Smyth by Cocaine (9041) ...... II manufacture Thebaine intermediates for telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not Codeine (9050) ...... II sale to its customers for further a toll-free number) or by email at DOL_ Dihydrocodeine (9120) ...... II manufacture. No other activity for this [email protected] to request Ecgonine (9180) ...... II drug code is authorized for registration. additional information, including Meperidine intermediate-B (9233) II No comments or objections have been Noroxymorphone (9668) ...... II requesting a copy of this Information received. Comments and requests for Collection Request (ICR). hearings on applications to import The company plans to manufacture Submit comments regarding this ICR, narcotic raw material are not high purity drug standards used for including suggestions for reducing the appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (2007). _ analytical applications only in clinical, burden, by sending an email to DOL DEA has considered the factors in 21 _ toxicological, and forensic laboratories. PRA [email protected]. Comments may No comments or objections have been USC § 823(a) and determined that the also be sent to Michel Smyth, received. DEA has considered the registration of AMPAC Fine Chemicals Departmental Clearance Officer, U.S. factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and LLC., to manufacture the listed basic Department of Labor, Office of the Chief determined that the registration of classes of controlled substances is Information Officer, 200 Constitution Alltech Associates, Inc. to manufacture consistent with the public interest at Avenue NW., Room N–1301, the listed basic classes of controlled this time. Washington, DC 20210. DEA has investigated AMPAC Fine substances is consistent with the public Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Chemicals LLC., to ensure that the interest at this time. DEA has company’s registration is consistent SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: investigated Alltech Associates, Inc. to with the public interest. The Periodically the DOL solicits grant ensure that the company’s registration is investigation has included inspection applications by issuing a Solicitation for consistent with the public interest. The and testing of the company’s physical Grant Applications. To ensure grants are investigation has included inspection security systems, verification of the awarded to the applicant(s) best suited and testing of the company’s physical company’s compliance with state and to perform the functions of the grant, security systems, verification of the local laws, and a review of the applicants are generally required to company’s compliance with state and company’s background and history. submit a two-part application. The first local laws, and a review of the Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. part of DOL grant applications consists company’s background and history. of submitting Standard Form 424, Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR Application for Federal Assistance. The 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR § 1301.33, the above named company is second part of a grant application 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk usually requires a technical proposal granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of demonstrating the applicant’s manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. capabilities in accordance with a controlled substances listed. Dated: August 29, 2012. statement of work and/or selection Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Dated: August 29, 2012. criteria. This information collection is Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of subject to the PRA. Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration. A Federal agency generally cannot Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement conduct or sponsor a collection of Administration. [FR Doc. 2012–22159 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] information, and the public is generally [FR Doc. 2012–22156 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P not required to respond to an BILLING CODE 4410–09–P information collection, unless it is approved by the Office of Management DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and Budget (OMB) under the PRA and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE displays a currently valid OMB Control Office of the Assistant Secretary for Number. In addition, notwithstanding Administration and Management; Drug Enforcement Administration any other provisions of law, no person Agency Information Collection shall generally be subject to penalty for Manufacturer of Controlled Activities; Extension Without Change; failing to comply with a collection of Substances; Notice of Registration; Comment Request; DOL Generic information if the collection of AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC Solution for Solicitation for Grant information does not display a valid Applications By Notice dated May 11, 2012, and Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) published in the Federal Register on ACTION: Notice. and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB May 21, 2012, 77 FR 30026, AMPAC approval for this information collection Fine Chemicals LLC., Highway 50 and SUMMARY: The Department of Labor under Control Number 1225–0086. The Hazel Avenue, Building 05001, Rancho (DOL), as part of continuing current approval is scheduled to expire
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55506 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
on November 30, 2012; however, the Total Estimated Annual Responses: not required to respond to an DOL intends to seek continued approval 7,500. information collection, unless it is for this collection of information for an Estimated Average Time per approved by the Office of Management additional three years. Response: 25 hours. and Budget (OMB) under the PRA and The DOL, as part of its continuing Estimated Total Annual Burden displays a currently valid OMB Control effort to reduce paperwork and Hours: 187,500 hours. Number. In addition, notwithstanding respondent burden, conducts a pre- Total Estimated Annual Cost Burden: any other provisions of law, no person clearance consultation program to $0. shall generally be subject to penalty for provide the general public and Federal Dated: September 5, 2012. failing to comply with a collection of agencies an opportunity to comment on Michel Smyth, information if the collection of proposed, revised, and continuing Departmental Clearance Officer. information does not display a valid information collections before [FR Doc. 2012–22239 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) submitting them to the OMB. This and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB BILLING CODE 4510–23–P program helps to ensure requested data approval for this information collection can be provided in the desired format, under Control Number 1225–0059. The reporting burden (time and financial DEPARTMENT OF LABOR current approval is scheduled to expire resources) is minimized, collection on November 30, 2012; however, the instruments are clearly understood, and Office of the Assistant Secretary for DOL intends to seek continued approval the impact of collection requirements Administration and Management; for this collection of information for an can be properly assessed. Interested Agency Information Collection additional three years. parties are encouraged to provide Activities; Extension Without Change; The DOL, as part of its continuing comments to the individual listed in the Comment Request; DOL Generic effort to reduce paperwork and ADDRESSES section above. Comments Solution for Customer Satisfaction respondent burden, conducts a pre- must be written to receive Surveys and Conference Evaluations clearance consultation program to consideration, and they will be provide the general public and Federal summarized and may be included in the ACTION: Notice. agencies an opportunity to comment on request for OMB approval of the final SUMMARY: The Department of Labor proposed and/or continuing collections ICR. The comments will also become a (DOL) is soliciting comments of information before they are submitted matter of public record. to the OMB. This program helps to The DOL is particularly interested in concerning the proposed extension of the DOL Generic Solution for Customer ensure requested data can be provided comments that: in the desired format, reporting burden Evaluate whether the proposed Satisfaction Surveys and Conference Evaluations information collection (time and financial resources) is collection of information is necessary minimized, collection instruments are for the proper performance of the request (ICR), as part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce clearly understood, and the impact of functions of the agency, including collection requirements can be properly whether the information will have paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork assessed. Interested parties are practical utility; encouraged to provide comments to the Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). individual listed in the ADDRESSES estimate of the burden of the proposed section above. Comments must be DATES: Submit written comments on or collection of information, including the written to receive consideration, and before November 9, 2012. validity of the methodology and they will be summarized and may be assumptions used; ADDRESSES: Contact Michel Smyth by included in the request for OMB Enhance the quality, utility, and telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not approval of the final ICR. The comments clarity of the information to be a toll-free number) or by email at DOL_ _ will become a matter of public record. collected; and PRA [email protected] to request The DOL is particularly interested in Minimize the burden of the collection additional information, including comments that: of information on those who are to requesting a copy of this ICR. Submit Evaluate whether the proposed respond, including through the use of comments regarding this ICR, including collection of information is necessary appropriate automated, electronic, suggestions for reducing the burden, by for the proper performance of the mechanical, or other technological _ _ sending an email to DOL PRA functions of the agency, including collection techniques or other forms of [email protected]. Comments may also whether the information will have information technology, e.g., permitting be sent to Michel Smyth, Departmental practical utility; electronic submission of responses. Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s Agency: Office of the Assistant Labor, Office of the Chief Information estimate of the burden of the proposed Secretary for Administration and Officer, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., collection of information, including the Management. Room N–1301, Washington, DC 20210. Type of Review: Extension without validity of the methodology and Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). change of a currently approved assumptions used; collection. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DOL Enhance the quality, utility, and Title of Collection: DOL Generic periodically conducts customer clarity of the information to be Solution for Solicitation for Grant satisfaction surveys and conference collected; and Applications. evaluations that help assess Minimize the burden of the collection OMB Control Number: 1225–0086. Departmental products and services and of information on those who are to Affected Public: Private Sector—not lead to improvements in areas deemed respond, including through the use of for-profit institutions—and State, Local, necessary. This information collection is appropriate automated, electronic, and Tribal Governments. subject to the PRA. mechanical, or other technological Estimated Number of Respondents: A Federal agency generally cannot collection techniques or other forms of 7,500. conduct or sponsor a collection of information technology, e.g., permitting Frequency: On occasion. information, and the public is generally electronic submission of responses.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55507
Agency: Office of the Assistant Directives Branch (RADB), Office of you do not want to be publicly Secretary for Administration and Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– disclosed in your comment submission. Management. B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory The NRC will posts all comment Type of Review: Extension without Commission, Washington, DC 20555– submissions at http:// change of a currently approved 0001. www.regulations.gov as well as enter the collection. • Fax comments to: RADB at 301– comment submissions into ADAMS, Title of Collection: DOL Generic 492–3446. and the NRC does not routinely edit Solution for Customer Satisfaction For additional direction on accessing comment submissions to remove Surveys and Conference Evaluations. information and submitting comments, identifying or contact information. OMB Control Number: 1225–0059. see ‘‘Accessing Information and If you are requesting or aggregating Affected Public: Individuals or Submitting Comments’’ in the comments from other persons for households; Private Sector—businesses SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of submission to the NRC, then you should or other for-profits, farms, and not for- this document. inform those persons not to include profit institutions; and State, Local, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: identifying or contact information that Tribal Governments. Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager, Office they do not want to be publicly Estimated Number of Respondents: of New Reactor, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory disclosed in their comment submission. 375,000. Commission, Washington, DC 20555– Your request should state that the NRC Frequency: On occasion. 0001; telephone: 301–415–3025; email: does not routinely edit comment Total Estimated Annual Responses: [email protected]. submissions to remove such information 375,000. before making the comment Estimated Average Time per SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: submissions available to the public or Response: 6 minutes. I. Accessing Information and entering the comment submissions into Estimated Total Annual Burden Submitting Comments ADAMS. Hours: 37,500 hours. Total Estimated Annual Cost Burden: A. Accessing Information II. Introduction $0. Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2008– The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dated: September 4, 2012. 0476 when contacting the NRC about Commission (NRC or the Commission) Michel Smyth, the availability of information regarding is considering the issuance of an order under § 52.28 of Title 10 of the Code of Departmental Clearance Officer. this document. You may access information related to this document by Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Transfer [FR Doc. 2012–22245 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] any of the following methods: of Early Site Permit;’’ 10 CFR 50.80, BILLING CODE 4510–23–P • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to ‘‘Transfer of Licenses;’’ and 10 CFR http://www.regulations.gov and search 50.90, ‘‘Application for Amendment of for Docket ID NRC–2008–0476. License, Construction Permit, or Early NUCLEAR REGULATORY • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Site Permit;’’ approving the direct COMMISSION Access and Management System transfer of the Old Dominion Electric [Docket No. 52–008; NRC–2008–0476] (ADAMS): You may access publicly- Cooperative’s (ODEC) interest in the available documents online in the NRC North Anna ESP [Early Site Permit] Approval of Transfer of Early Site Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- Site’s Early Site Permit (ESP–003). The Permit (ESP) and Conforming rm/adams.html. To begin the search, transfer would be to Virginia Electric Amendment, Virginia Electric and select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and and Power Company, doing business as Power Company, North Anna ESP Site then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Dominion Virginia Power (DVP). DVP Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, and ODEC are currently the holders of AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory please contact the NRC’s Public the ESP–003. The Commission is also Commission. Document Room (PDR) reference staff at considering amending the permit for ACTION: Notice of request for license 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by administrative purposes to reflect the transfer; opportunity to comment, email to [email protected]. The proposed transfer. opportunity to request a hearing. ADAMS accession number for each According to an application for document referenced in this notice (if approval filed by DVP and ODEC, DVP DATES: Submit comments by October 10, that document is available in ADAMS) would become the holder of the ESP 2012. A request for a hearing must be is provided the first time that a following approval of the proposed filed by October 1, 2012. document is referenced. The application permit transfer and would assume all ADDRESSES: You may access information dated March 1, 2012, is available under rights, duties, and obligations of ESP– and comment submissions related to ADAMS Accession No. ML12072A091. 003. this document, which the NRC • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and The proposed amendment would possesses and are publically available, purchase copies of public documents at delete references to ODEC, reflect DVP by searching on http:// the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One as the permit holder, and delete certain www.regulations.gov under Docket ID White Flint North, 11555 Rockville provisions that are no longer applicable NRC–2008–0476. You may submit Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. because they applied only where ODEC comments by any of the following maintained an interest in the ESP. methods: B. Submitting Comments Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.28 and 10 CFR • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to Please include Docket ID NRC–2008– 50.80, no ESP, or any right thereunder, http://www.regulations.gov and search 0476 in the subject line of your shall be transferred, directly or for Docket ID NRC–2008–0476. Address comment submission, in order to ensure indirectly, through transfer of control of questions about NRC dockets to Carol that the NRC is able to make your the ESP to any person, unless the Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668; comment submission available to the Commission gives its consent in writing. email: [email protected]. public in this docket. The Commission will approve an • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, The NRC cautions you not to include application for the direct transfer of an Chief, Rules, Announcements, and identifying or contact information that ESP if the Commission determines that
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55508 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
the proposed transferee is qualified to www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- If a participant is electronically hold the permit and that the transfer is collections/cfr/. submitting a document to the NRC in otherwise consistent with applicable accordance with the E-Filing rule, the IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) provisions of law, regulations and participant must file the document orders issued by the Commission All documents filed in NRC using the NRC’s online, Web-based pursuant thereto. adjudicatory proceedings, including a submission form. In order to serve Before issuance of the proposed request for hearing, a petition for leave documents through the Electronic conforming permit amendment, the to intervene, any motion or other Information Exchange System, users Commission will have made findings document filed in the proceeding prior will be required to install a Web required by the Atomic Energy Act of to the submission of a request for browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web 1954, as amended (the Act), and the hearing or petition to intervene, and site. Further information on the Web- Commission’s regulations. documents filed by interested based submission form, including the As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315(b), governmental entities participating installation of the Web browser plug-in, ‘‘[w]here administrative license under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in is available on the NRC’s public Web amendments are necessary to reflect an accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- approved transfer, such amendments (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E- submittals.html. will be included in the order that Filing process requires participants to Once a participant has obtained a approves the transfer. Any challenge to submit and serve all adjudicatory digital ID certificate and a docket has the administrative license amendment is documents over the Internet, or in some been created, the participant can then limited to the question of whether the cases to mail copies on electronic submit a request for hearing or petition license amendment accurately reflects storage media. Participants may not for leave to intervene. Submissions the approved transfer.’’ In light of the submit paper copies of their filings should be in Portable Document Format generic determination reflected in 10 unless they seek an exemption in (PDF) in accordance with the NRC CFR 2.1315(b), only public comments accordance with the procedures guidance available on the NRC’s public with respect to whether the amendment described below. Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site- accurately reflects the approved transfer To comply with the procedural help/e-submittals.html. A filing is are being solicited, notwithstanding the requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 considered complete at the time the general comment procedures contained days prior to the filing deadline, the documents are submitted through the in 10 CFR 50.91. NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an participant should contact the Office of electronic filing must be submitted to III. Opportunity to Request a Hearing the Secretary by email at the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 [email protected], or by telephone Within 20 days from the date of p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital publication of this notice, any person(s) Upon receipt of a transmission, the E- identification ID certificate, which whose interest may be affected by the Filing system time-stamps the document allows the participant (or its counsel or Commission’s action on the application and sends the submitter an email notice representative) to digitally sign may request a hearing and intervention confirming receipt of the document. The documents and access the E-Submittal via electronic submission through the E-Filing system also distributes an email server for any proceeding in which it is NRC E-filing system. Requests for a notice that provides access to the hearing and petitions for leave to participating; and (2) advise the document to the NRC’s Office of the intervene should be filed in accordance Secretary that the participant will be General Counsel and any others who with the Commission’s rules of practice submitting a request or petition for have advised the Office of the Secretary set forth in Subpart C ‘‘Rules of General hearing (even in instances in which the that they wish to participate in the Applicability: Hearing Requests, participant, or its counsel or proceeding, so that the filer need not Petitions to Intervene, Availability of representative, already holds an NRC- serve the documents on those Documents, Selection of Specific issued digital ID certificate). Based upon participants separately. Therefore, Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer this information, the Secretary will applicants and other participants (or Powers, and General Hearing establish an electronic docket for the their counsel or representative) must Management for NRC Adjudicatory hearing in this proceeding if the apply for and receive a digital ID Hearings,’’ of 10 CFR Part 2. In Secretary has not already established an certificate before a hearing request/ particular, such requests and petitions electronic docket. petition to intervene is filed so that they must comply with the requirements set Information about applying for a can obtain access to the document via forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Requests and digital ID certificate is available on the the E-Filing system. petition that are filed after the 20-day NRC’s public Web site at http:// A person filing electronically using deadline will not be entertained absent www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing a determination by the presiding officer apply-certificates.html. System system may seek assistance by that the filing demonstrates good cause requirements for accessing the E- contacting the NRC Meta System Help by satisfying the following three factors Submittal server are detailed in the Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic located on the NRC’s Web site at information upon which the filing is Submission,’’ which is available on the http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- based was not previously available; (ii) agency’s public Web site at http:// submittals.html, by email at the information upon which the filing is www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- [email protected], or by a toll- based is materially different from submittals.html. Participants may free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC information previously available; and attempt to use other software not listed Meta System Help Desk is available (iii) the filing has been submitted in a on the Web site, but should note that the between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern timely fashion based on the availability NRC’s E-Filing system does not support Time, Monday through Friday, of the subsequent information. The unlisted software, and the NRC Meta excluding government holidays. NRC’s regulations are accessible System Help Desk will not be able to Participants who believe that they electronically from the NRC Library on offer assistance in using unlisted have a good cause for not submitting the NRC’s Web site at http:// software. documents electronically must file an
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55509
exemption request, in accordance with hearing will be published in the Federal ML11286A198), requested an exemption 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper Register and served on the parties to the from 10 CFR 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance criteria filing requesting authorization to hearing. for emergency core cooling systems for continue to submit documents in paper For further details with respect to this light-water nuclear power reactors,’’ and format. Such filings must be submitted license transfer application, see the Appendix K to 10 CFR 50, ‘‘ECCS by: (1) First class mail addressed to the application dated March 1, 2012, Evaluation Models.’’ The regulations in Office of the Secretary of the available for public inspection at the 10 CFR 50.46 contain acceptance Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, 11555 criteria for the emergency core cooling Commission, Washington, DC 20555– Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, system (ECCS) for reactors fueled with 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Maryland 20852–2738. Publicly zircaloy or ZIRLOTM cladding. In Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, available documents created or received addition, Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 express mail, or expedited delivery at the NRC are accessible electronically requires that the Baker-Just equation be service to the Office of the Secretary, through ADAMS in the NRC Library at Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ used to predict the rates of energy 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, adams.html. The accession number for release, hydrogen concentration, and Maryland 20852–2738, Attention: the application is ML12072A091. The cladding oxidation from the metal/water Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. application is also available at http:// reaction. The Baker-Just equation Participants filing a document in this www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/ assumes the use of a zirconium alloy, manner are responsible for serving the col.html. Persons who do not have which is a material different from document on all other participants. access to ADAMS or who encounter Optimized ZIRLOTM. The licensee’s Filing is considered complete by first- problems in accessing the documents requested exemption relates solely to class mail as of the time of deposit in located in ADAMS should contact the the specific types of cladding material the mail, or by courier, express mail, or NRC’s PDR Reference staff by telephone specified in these regulations. As expedited delivery service upon at 1–800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737 or written, the regulations presume the use depositing the document with the by email to [email protected]. of zircaloy or ZIRLOTM fuel rod provider of the service. A presiding Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day cladding. Thus, an exemption from the officer, having granted an exemption of August 2012. requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and request from using E-Filing, may require Appendix K is needed to support the a participant or party to use E-Filing if For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Amy M. Snyder, use of a different fuel rod cladding the presiding officer subsequently material. Accordingly, the licensee determines that the reason for granting Acting Chief, Projects Licensing Branch 2, requested an exemption that would the exemption from use of E-Filing no Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM longer exists. New Reactors. Documents submitted in adjudicatory [FR Doc. 2012–22175 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] fuel rod cladding at CNP–2. proceedings will appear in the NRC’s BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 3.0 Discussion electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http:// Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded NUCLEAR REGULATORY Commission may, upon application by pursuant to an order of the Commission, COMMISSION any interested person or upon its own or the presiding officer. Participants are [NRC–2012–0199; Docket No. 50–316] initiative, grant exemptions from the requested not to include personal requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) privacy information, such as social Indiana Michigan Power Company; the exemptions are authorized by law, security numbers, home addresses, or Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2; will not present an undue risk to public home phone numbers in their filings, Exemption health or safety, and are consistent with unless an NRC regulation or other law 1.0 Background the common defense and security; and requires submission of such (2) when special circumstances are information. With respect to Indian Michigan Power Company (the present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), copyrighted works, except for limited licensee) is the holder of Renewed special circumstances include, among excerpts that serve the purpose of the Facility Operating License No. DPR–74, adjudicatory filings and would which authorizes operation of the other things, when application of the constitute a Fair Use application, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 specific regulation in the particular participants are requested not to include (CNP–2). The license provides, among circumstance would not serve, or is not copyrighted materials in their other things, that the facility is subject necessary to achieve, the underlying submission. to all rules, regulations, and orders of purpose of the rule. Petitions for leave to intervene must the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorized by Law be filed no later than 20 days from the (NRC, or the Commission) now or date of publication of this notice. Filings hereafter in effect. This exemption would allow the use submitted after that date will not be The facility consists of a pressurized- of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod entertained absent a determination by water reactor located in Berrien County cladding material at CNP–2. As stated the presiding officer that the filing in Michigan. above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to demonstrates good cause by satisfying 2.0 Request/Action grant exemptions from the requirements the three factors in 10 CFR of 10 CFR part 50. The NRC staff has Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). determined that granting of the The Commission will issue a notice or Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section order granting or denying a hearing 50.12, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ the licensee’s proposed exemption will not request or intervention petition, licensee has, by letter dated September result in a violation of the Atomic designating the issues for any hearing 29, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the that will be held and designating the Access and Management System Commission’s regulations. Therefore, Presiding Officer. A notice granting a (ADAMS) Accession No. the exemption is authorized by law.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55510 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
No Undue Risk to Public Health and achieved for Donald C. Cook Nuclear 50.12, the exemption is authorized by Safety Plant, Unit 2. law, will not present an undue risk to The underlying purpose of 10 CFR Paragraph I.A.5 of Appendix K to 10 the public health and safety, and is 50.46 is to establish acceptance criteria CFR part 50 states that the rates of consistent with the common defense for adequate ECCS performance. As energy release, hydrogen concentration, and security. Also, special previously documented in the NRC and cladding oxidation from the metal- circumstances are present. Therefore, staff’s review of topical reports water reaction shall be calculated using the Commission hereby grants the submitted by Westinghouse Electric the Baker-Just equation. Since the licensee an exemption from the Company, LLC (Westinghouse), and Baker-Just equation presumes the use of requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and subject to compliance with the specific zircaloy clad fuel, strict application of Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, to allow this provision of the rule would not TM conditions of approval established the use of Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod permit use of the equation for therein, the NRC staff finds that the cladding material at CNP–2. Optimized ZIRLOTM cladding for applicability of these ECCS acceptance Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the determining acceptable fuel criteria to Optimized ZIRLOTM has been Commission has determined that the performance. However, the NRC staff demonstrated by Westinghouse. Ring granting of this exemption will not have previously found that metal-water compression tests performed by a significant effect on the quality of the reaction tests performed by Westinghouse on Optimized ZIRLOTM human environment and has published Westinghouse on Optimized ZIRLOTM pproved topical report WCAP–12610– an environmental assessment for this (see Appendix B of WCAP–12610–P–A P–A & CENPD–404–P–A, Addendum 1– exemption on August 23, 2012 (77 FR & CENPD–404–P–A, Addendum 1–A) A, ‘‘Optimized ZIRLOTM,’’ July 2006, 51071). demonstrate conservative reaction rates ADAMS Accession No. ML062080576; This exemption is effective upon relative to the Baker-Just equation. the public version is WCAP–14342–A & issuance. Thus, the NRC staff agrees that CENPD–404–NP–A at ADAMS Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day application of Appendix K, paragraph Accession No. ML062080569) of August, 2012. I.A.5 is not necessary to achieve the demonstrate an acceptable retention of underlying purpose of the rule in these For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. post-quench ductility up to 10 CFR circumstances. Since these evaluations Michele Evans, 50.46 limits of 2,200 °F and 17 percent demonstrate that the underlying Director, Division of Operating Reactor equivalent clad reacted (ECR). purpose of the rule will be met, there Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Furthermore, the NRC staff has will be no undue risk to the public Regulation. concluded that oxidation measurements health and safety. [FR Doc. 2012–22173 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] previously provided by Westinghouse BILLING CODE 7590–01–P (‘‘SER Compliance with WCAP–12610– Consistent With Common Defense and P–A & CENPD–404–P–A Addendum 1– Security TM A ‘Optimized ZIRLO ,’’’ November The proposed exemption would allow NUCLEAR REGULATORY 2007, non-public version at ADAMS the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod COMMISSION Accession No. ML073130562, public cladding material at CNP–2. This version at ADAMS Accession No. change to the plant configuration has no [NRC–2012–0209] ML073130560) illustrate that oxide relation to security issues. Therefore, thickness (and associated hydrogen the common defense and security is not Guidance on Performing a Seismic TM pickup) for Optimized ZIRLO at any impacted by this exemption. Margin Assessment given burnup would be less than both zircaloy-4 and ZIRLOTM. Hence, the Special Circumstances AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory NRC staff concludes that Optimized Special circumstances, in accordance Commission. ZIRLOTM would be expected to with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present ACTION: Draft Japan Lessons-Learned maintain better post-quench ductility whenever application of the regulation Project Directorate guidance; request for than ZIRLOTM. This finding is further in the particular circumstances is not comment. supported by an ongoing loss-of-coolant necessary to achieve the underlying accident (LOCA) research program at purpose of the rule. The underlying SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Argonne National Laboratory, which has purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix Commission (NRC) is issuing for public identified a strong correlation between K to 10 CFR part 50 is to establish comment the draft Japan Lessons- cladding hydrogen content (due to in- acceptance criteria for ECCS Learned Project Directorate Interim Staff service corrosion) and post-quench performance. The wording of the Guidance (JLD–ISG), JLD–ISG–2012–04, ductility. regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 and ‘‘Guidance on Performing a Seismic In addition, the provisions of 10 CFR Appendix K is not directly applicable to Margin Assessment in response to the 50.46 require the licensee to Optimized ZIRLOTM, even though the March 2012 Request for Information periodically evaluate the performance of evaluations above show that the intent Letter.’’ This draft JLD–ISG provides the emergency core cooling system of the regulation is met. Therefore, since guidance on an acceptable method for (ECCS), using currently approved LOCA the underlying purposes of 10 CFR licensees to carry out a Seismic Margins models and methods, to ensure that the 50.46 and Appendix K are achieved Analysis (SMA) method referred to in fuel rods will continue to satisfy 10 CFR through the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM the seismic portion of a letter requiring 50.46 acceptance criteria. Granting the fuel rod cladding material, the special recipients (licensees) to submit exemption to allow the licensee to use circumstances required by 10 CFR information under oath and affirmation Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rods in 50.12(a)(2)(ii) for the granting of an to the NRC. addition to the current mix of fuel rods exemption exist. DATES: Comments must be filed no later does not diminish this requirement of than October 10, 2012. Comments periodic evaluation of ECCS 4.0 Conclusion received after this date will be performance. Thus, the underlying Accordingly, the Commission has considered, if it is practical to do so, but purpose of the rule will continue to be determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR the NRC staff is able to ensure
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55511
consideration only for comments 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by stakeholders. Documentation of the received on or before this date. email to [email protected]. The draft staff’s efforts is contained in SECY–11– ADDRESSES: You may access information JLD–ISG–2012–04 is available under 0124, ‘‘Recommended Actions To Be and comment submissions related to ADAMS Accession No. ML12222A327. Taken Without Delay From the Near- this document, which the NRC The 10 CFR 50.54(f) request letter was Term Task Force Report,’’ dated possesses and are publically available, issued in March 2012, and can be September 9, 2011, (ADAMS Accession by searching on http:// located under ADAMS Accession No. No. ML11245A158), and SECY–11– ML12053A340. 0137, ‘‘Prioritization of Recommended www.regulations.gov under Docket ID • NRC–2012–0209. You may submit NRC’s PDR: You may examine and Actions To Be Taken in Response to comments by any of the following purchase copies of public documents at Fukushima Lessons Learned,’’ dated methods: the NRC’s PDR, Room 01–F21, One October 3, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to White Flint North, 11555 Rockville ML11269A204). http://www.regulations.gov and search Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. As directed by the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY–11– for Docket ID NRC–2012–0209. Address B. Submitting Comments 0093, the NRC staff reviewed the NTTF questions about NRC dockets to Carol Please include Docket ID NRC–2012– Gallagher, telephone: 301–492–3668; recommendations within the context of 0209 in the subject line of your the NRC’s existing regulatory framework email: [email protected]. comment submission, in order to ensure • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, and considered the various regulatory that the NRC is able to make your vehicles available to the NRC to Chief, Rules, Announcements, and comment submission available to the implement the recommendations. The Directives Branch (RADB), Office of public in this docket. staff’s prioritization of the Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– The NRC cautions you not to include recommendations was established in B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory identifying or contact information that SECY–11–0124 and SECY–11–0137. Commission, Washington, DC 20555– you do not want to be publically In March 2012, the NRC issued 0001. disclosed in your comment submission. • Request for Information Pursuant to Fax comments to: RADB at 301– The NRC will post all comment Section 50.54(f) of Title 10 of the Code 492–3446. submissions at http:// of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), For additional direction on accessing www.regulations.gov as well as enter the Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, information and submitting comments, comment submissions into ADAMS. and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force see ‘‘Accessing Information and The NRC does not routinely edit Review of Insights from the Fukushima Submitting Comments’’ in the comment submissions to remove Dai-ichi Accident,’’ hereafter called the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of identifying or contact information. ‘‘March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter.’’ this document. If you are requesting or aggregating Enclosure 1 of that letter, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. comments from other persons for ‘‘Recommendation 2.1: Seismic,’’ Christopher Gratton, Japan Lessons- submission to the NRC, then you should described the actions related to seismic Learned Project Directorate, Office of inform those persons not to include hazard and risk reassessments to be Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. identifying or contact information that taken by licensees in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, they do not want to be publically letter. Among the actions discussed in Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: disclosed in their comment submission. Enclosure 1 is an SMA method, which 301–415–1055; email: Your request should state that the NRC may be appropriate for some plants [email protected]. does not routinely edit comment depending on the outcome of the hazard SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: submissions to remove such information reassessment phase. Enclosure 1 to the before making the comment 50.54(f) letter states that the SMA I. Accessing Information and submissions available to the public or approach should be the NRC SMA Submitting Comments entering the comment submissions into approach (e.g.; NUREG/CR–4334. ‘‘An A. Accessing Information ADAMS. Approach to the Quantification of Seismic Margins in Nuclear Power II. Background Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012– Plants,’’ issued in August 1985 (ADAMS 0209 when contacting the NRC about Following the events at the Accession No. ML090500182), as the availability of information regarding Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant enhanced for full-scope plants in this document. You may access on March 11, 2011, the NRC established NUREG–1407, ‘‘Procedural and information related to this document, a senior-level agency task force referred Submittal Guidance for the Individual which the NRC possesses and are to as the Near-Term Task Force (NTTF). Plant Examination of External Events publically available by any of the The NTTF was tasked with conducting (IPEEE) for Severe Accident following methods: a systematic and methodical review of Vulnerabilities,’’ ADAMS Accession No. • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to the NRC regulations and processes and ML063550238. http://www.regulations.gov and search determining if the agency should make This draft JLD–ISG, ‘‘Guidance on for Docket ID NRC–2012–0209. additional improvements to those Performing a Seismic Margin • NRC’s Agencywide Document programs in light of the events at Assessment in Response to the March Access and Management System Fukushima Dai-ichi. As a result of this 2012, Request for Information Letter,’’ (ADAMS): You may access publically review, the NTTF developed a (ADAMS Accession No. ML12222A327) available documents online in the NRC comprehensive set of recommendations, describes the enhancements to the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- documented in SECY–11–0093, ‘‘Near- SMA method described in NUREG/CR– rm/adams.html. To begin the search, Term Report and Recommendations for 4334 needed to meet the objectives of select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and Agency Actions Following the Events in the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter. It then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Japan,’’ dated July 12, 2011 (ADAMS presents staff positions on Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS Accession No. ML111861807). These enhancements to the major elements of please contact the NRC’s Public recommendations were enhanced by the the NRC SMA and updates references to Document Room (PDR) reference staff at NRC staff following interactions with allow for use of recent advances in
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55512 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
methods and guidance. These guidance SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE the following Web site, documents include the American COMMISSION www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be Society of Mechanical Engineers/ directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the American Nuclear Society, ‘‘Standard Submission for OMB Review; Securities and Exchange Commission, for Level 1/Large Early Release Comment Request Office of Information and Regulatory Frequency Probabilistic Risk Upon Written Request Copies Available Affairs, Office of Management and Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant From: U.S. Securities and Exchange Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Applications,’’ Standard ASME/ANS Commission, Office of Investor Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: RA–Sa–2009, 2009 (hereafter called the Education and Advocacy, _ ASME/ANS PRA standard) and the Washington, DC 20549–0213. Shagufta [email protected]; and (ii) Screening, Prioritization, and Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Extension: Information Officer, Securities and Implementation document (SPID) Rule 17Ad–15, OMB Control No. 3235– Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik- currently under development by the 0409, SEC File No. 270–360. Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Nuclear Energy Institute (with NRC staff Notice is hereby given that pursuant Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 input) for NRC endorsement. to: [email protected]. Comments (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities Licensees may propose other methods must be submitted within 30 days of and Exchange Commission for satisfying these requirements. The this notice. NRC staff will review such methods and (‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments on the existing collection of information Dated: September 4, 2012. determine their acceptability on a case- provided for in the following rule: Rule Kevin M. O’Neill, by-case basis. 17a–10 (17 CFR 240.17Ad–15) under the Deputy Secretary. This guidance, at this time, is only Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 [FR Doc. 2012–22143 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] intended to be used for an SMA U.S.C. 78a et seq.). BILLING CODE 8011–01–P conducted in response to the 50.54(f) Rule 17Ad–15 requires approximately letter, and not for other purposes. 477 transfer agents to establish written The NRC ISG DC/COL–ISG–020, standards for accepting and rejecting SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ‘‘Seismic Margin Analysis for New guarantees of securities transfers from COMMISSION eligible guarantor institutions. Transfer Reactors Based on Probabilistic Risk agents are also required to establish Submission for OMB Review; Assessment’’ (ADAMS Accession No. procedures to ensure that those Comment Request ML100491233), remains the NRC’s standards are used by the transfer agent Upon Written Request Copies Available current guidance for application to new to determine whether to accept or reject From: Securities and Exchange reactors. The contents of this draft JLD– guarantees from eligible guarantor Commission, Office of Investor ISG have no implications for NRC ISG institutions. Transfer agents must Education and Advocacy, DC/COL–ISG–020, the ASME/ANS PRA maintain, for a period of three years Washington, DC 20549–0213. standard, or any other document. following the date of a rejection of The draft JLD–ISG is not a substitute transfer, a record of all transfers Extension: for the requirements in the March 12, rejected, along with the reason for the Regulation S–P, SEC File No. 270–480, OMB Control No. 3235–0537. 2012, 50.54(f) letter and compliance rejection, identification of the guarantor, with the draft JLD–ISG is not required. and whether the guarantor failed to Notice is hereby given that pursuant This draft JLD–ISG is being issued in meet the transfer agent’s guarantee to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities draft form for public comment to standard. These recordkeeping and Exchange Commission involve the public in developing the requirements assist the Commission and (‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the regulatory positions. other regulatory agencies with monitoring transfer agents and ensuring Office of Management and Budget a Proposed Action compliance with the rule. request for approval of extension of the There are approximately 477 previously approved collection of By this action, the NRC is requesting registered transfer agents. The staff information provided for in the privacy public comments on draft JLD–ISG– estimates that every transfer agent will notice and opt out notice provisions of 2012–04. This draft JLD–ISG proposes spend about 40 hours annually to Regulation S–P—Privacy of Consumer guidance related to requirements comply with Rule 17Ad–15. The total Financial Information (17 CFR part 248) contained in the seismic portion of the annual burden for all transfer agents is under the Securities Exchange Act of March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter. The NRC 23,480 hours (477 times 40). The 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (‘‘Exchange staff will make a final determination average cost per hour is approximately Act’’). The Commission plans to submit regarding issuance of the JLD–ISG after $50. Therefore, the total cost of this existing collection of information to it considers any public comments compliance for all transfer agents is the Office of Management and Budget received in response to this request. $1,174,000 (23,480 times $50). for extension and approval. The Commission may not conduct or The privacy notice and opt out notice For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. sponsor a collection of information provisions of Regulation S–P (the Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day unless it displays a currently valid ‘‘Rule’’) implement the privacy notice of September, 2012. control number. No person shall be and opt out notice requirements of Title David L. Skeen, subject to any penalty for failing to V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Director, Japan Lessons-Learned Project comply with a collection of information (‘‘GLBA’’), which include the Directorate, Office of Nuclear Reactor subject to the PRA that does not display requirement that at the time of Regulation. a valid Office of Management and establishing a customer relationship [FR Doc. 2012–22174 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Budget (OMB) control number. with a consumer and not less than BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Background documentation for this annually during the continuation of information collection may be viewed at such relationship, a financial institution
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55513
shall provide a clear and conspicuous and materials. Also, privacy and opt out Background documentation for this disclosure to such consumer of such notices may be delivered electronically information collection may be viewed at financial institution’s policies and to consumers who have agreed to the following Web site: www.reginfo. practices with respect to disclosing electronic communications, which gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) nonpublic personal information to further reduces the costs of delivery. Desk Officer for the Securities and affiliates and nonaffiliated third parties Because SEC staff assumes that most Exchange Commission, Office of (‘‘privacy notice’’). Title V of the GLBA paper copies of privacy and opt out Information and Regulatory Affairs, also provides that, unless an exception notices are combined with other Office of Management and Budget, applies, a financial institution may not required mailings, the burden-hour Room 10102, New Executive Office disclose nonpublic personal information estimates above are based on resources Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by of a consumer to a nonaffiliated third required to integrate the privacy and opt sending an email to: Shagufta_Ahmed@ party unless the financial institution out notices into another mailing, rather omb.eop.gov; and (ii) Thomas Bayer, clearly and conspicuously discloses to than on the resources required to create Director/Chief Information Officer, the consumer that such information may and send a separate mailing. SEC staff Securities and Exchange Commission, be disclosed to such third party; the estimates that, of the estimated 12 c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General consumer is given the opportunity, annual burden-hours incurred, Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312, or before the time that such information is approximately 8 hours would be spent by sending an email to: PRA_Mailbox@ initially disclosed, to direct that such by administrative assistants at an hourly sec.gov. Comments must be submitted to information not be disclosed to such rate of $65, and approximately 4 hours OMB within 30 days of this notice. would be spent by internal counsel at an third party; and the consumer is given Dated: September 4, 2012. hourly rate of $378, for a total an explanation of how the consumer can Kevin M. O’Neill, exercise that nondisclosure option (‘‘opt annualized cost of $2,032 for each of the × × Deputy Secretary. out notice’’). The Rule applies to broker- covered entities (8 $65 = $520; 4 dealers, investment advisers registered $378 = $1,512; $520 + $1,512 = $2,032). [FR Doc. 2012–22144 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] with the Commission, and investment Hourly cost estimates for personnel time BILLING CODE 8011–01–P companies (‘‘covered entities’’). are derived from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s Commission staff estimates that, as of Management & Professional Earnings in SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE early May, 2012, the Rule’s information the Securities Industry 2011, modified COMMISSION collection burden applies to by SEC staff to account for an 1800-hour approximately 21,500 covered entities [Release No. 34–67776; File No. SR–Phlx– work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to (approximately 4,700 broker-dealers, 2012–110] account for bonuses, firm size, 12,600 investment advisers registered employee benefits, and overhead. Self-Regulatory Organizations; with the Commission, and 4,200 Accordingly, SEC staff estimates that the NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of investment companies). In view of (a) total annualized cost for the estimated Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the minimal recordkeeping burden total hour burden for the approximately a Proposed Rule Change Relating to imposed by the Rule (since the Rule has 21,500 covered entities subject to the the Elimination of a Reversal and no recordkeeping requirement and Rule is approximately $43,688,000 Conversion Fee Cap records relating to customer ($2,032 × 21,500 = $43,688,000). communications already must be made Written comments are invited on: (a) September 4, 2012. and retained pursuant to other SEC Whether the proposed collection of Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the rules); (b) the summary fashion in information is necessary for the proper Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which information must be provided to performance of the functions of the (‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 customers in the privacy and opt out Commission, including whether the notice is hereby given that on August notices required by the Rule (the model information shall have practical utility; 24, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC privacy form adopted by the SEC and (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s (‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the the other agencies in 2009, designed to estimates of the burden of the proposed Securities and Exchange Commission serve as both a privacy notice and an collection of information on (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed opt out notice, is only two pages); (c) the respondents; (c) ways to enhance the rule change as described in Items I, II, availability to covered entities of the quality, utility, and clarity of the and III below, which Items have been model privacy form and online model information to be collected; and (d) prepared by the Exchange. The privacy form builder; and (d) the ways to minimize the burden of the Commission is publishing this notice to experience of covered entities’ staff with collection of information on solicit comments on the proposed rule the notices, SEC staff estimates that respondents, including through the use change from interested persons. covered entities will each spend an of automated collection techniques or average of approximately 12 hours per other forms of information technology. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s year complying with the Rule, for a total Consideration will be given to Statement of the Terms of Substance of of approximately 258,000 annual comments and suggestions submitted in the Proposed Rule Change burden-hours (12 × 21,500 = 258,000). writing within 60 days of this The Exchange proposes to remove a SEC staff understands that the vast publication. fee cap on equity options transactions majority of covered entities deliver their The Commission may not conduct or on certain reversals and conversion privacy and opt out notices with other sponsor a collection of information strategies. communications such as account unless it displays a currently valid The text of the proposed rule change opening documents and account control number. No person shall be is available on the Exchange’s Web site statements. Because the other subject to any penalty for failing to at http://nasdaqtrader.com/ communications are already delivered comply with a collection of information micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the to consumers, adding a brief privacy subject to the PRA that does not display and opt out notice should not result in a valid Office of Management and 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). added costs for processing or for postage Budget (OMB) control number. 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55514 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
principal office of the Exchange, on the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 4 Comments may be submitted by any of Commission’s Web site at http:// in particular, in that it is an equitable the following methods: www.sec.gov, and at the Commission’s allocation of reasonable fees and other Electronic Comments Public Reference Room. charges among Exchange members and other persons using its facilities. II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s • Use the Commission’s Internet Statement of the Purpose of, and The Exchange believes that the comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule proposed elimination of the Reversal rules/sro.shtml); or and Conversion Cap is reasonable Change • Send an email to rule- because the Exchange previously [email protected]. Please include File In its filing with the Commission, the capped the option transaction fees in No. SR–Phlx–2012–110 on the subject Exchange included statements Multiply Listed options for reversals line. concerning the purpose of and basis for and conversions in an effort to the proposed rule change and discussed incentivize market participants, but the Paper Comments any comments it received on the Exchange believes such an incentive is • proposed rule change. The text of these no longer necessary. The Exchange also Send paper comments in triplicate statements may be examined at the believes that this proposal is equitable to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, places specified in Item IV below. The and not unfairly discriminatory because Securities and Exchange Commission, Exchange has prepared summaries, set the Exchange is eliminating the Reversal 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC forth in sections A, B, and C below, of and Conversion Cap for all members 20549–1090. the most significant aspects of such and the Exchange believes that market statements. All submissions should refer to File No. participants will continue to transact in SR–Phlx–2012–110. This file number A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Multiply Listed options for reversals should be included on the subject line Statement of the Purpose of, and the and conversions. if email is used. To help the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission process and review your Change Statement on Burden on Competition comments more efficiently, please use 1. Purpose only one method. The Commission will The Exchange does not believe that post all comments on the Commission’s The purpose of the proposed rule the proposed rule change will impose Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ change is to remove a fee cap on equity any burden on competition not rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the options transactions on certain reversals necessary or appropriate in furtherance submission, all subsequent and conversion strategies. The fee cap of the purposes of the Act. amendments, all written statements was intended to incentivize market with respect to the proposed rule participants by capping option C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s change that are filed with the transaction fees related to reversal and Statement on Comments on the Commission, and all written conversion strategies to encourage Proposed Rule Change Received From trading on the Exchange and the Members, Participants, or Others communications relating to the Exchange believes such a fee cap is no proposed rule change between the No written comments were either Commission and any person, other than longer necessary. Reversals are solicited or received. established by combining a short stock those that may be withheld from the position with a short put and a long call III. Date of Effectiveness of the public in accordance with the position that shares the same strike and Proposed Rule Change and Timing for provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be expiration. Conversions are established Commission Action available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission’s Public by combining a long position in the The foregoing rule change has become underlying security with a long put and Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., effective pursuant to Section a short call position that shares the same Washington, DC 20549, on official 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.5 At any time strike and expiration. business days between the hours of The Exchange proposes to eliminate within 60 days of the filing of the 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such this cap for all market participants proposed rule change, the Commission filing also will be available for relating to option transaction fees in summarily may temporarily suspend inspection and copying at the principal Multiply Listed Options (Section II of such rule change if it appears to the office of the Exchange. All comments the Pricing Schedule) of $500 per day Commission that such action is received will be posted without change; for reversal and conversion strategies necessary or appropriate in the public the Commission does not edit personal executed on the same trading day in the interest, for the protection of investors, identifying information from same options class (‘‘Reversal and or otherwise in furtherance of the submissions. You should submit only Conversion Cap’’). The Reversal and purposes of the Act. If the Commission information that you wish to make Conversion Cap applies only to takes such action, the Commission shall available publicly. All submissions executions occurring on either of the institute proceedings to determine should refer to File No. SR–Phlx–2012– two days preceding the standard options whether the proposed rule should be 110 and should be submitted on or expiration date, which typically was the approved or disapproved. before October 1, 2012. third Thursday and Friday of every IV. Solicitation of Comments For the Commission, by the Division of month. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Interested persons are invited to authority.6 2. Statutory Basis submit written data, views, and Kevin M. O’Neill, The Exchange believes that its arguments concerning the foregoing, proposal to amend its Pricing Schedule including whether the proposed rule Deputy Secretary. is consistent with Section 6(b) of the change is consistent with the Act. [FR Doc. 2012–22140 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Act 3 in general, and furthers the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). 3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 6 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55515
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s • Customer, Professional Customer COMMISSION Statement of the Purpose of, and and Voluntary Professional Customer: Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule $0.80 per contract for customer, [Release No. 34–67777; File No. SR–CBOE– Change professional customer and voluntary professional customer transactions.6 2012–084] 1. Purpose The Exchange notes that the customer, Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Exchange received approval to professional customer and voluntary Chicago Board Options Exchange, list and trade cash-settled, European- professional customer fees for standard style Range Options that overlie any Incorporated; Notice of Filing and S&P 500 Index (‘‘SPX’’) options are: (a) index eligible for options trading on the Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed $0.44 per contract if the premium is Exchange.3 Range Options pay an Rule Change To Establish Transaction greater than or equal to $1, and (b) $0.35 exercise settlement amount if the per contract if the premium is less than Fees for CBOE Range Options on the settlement value of the underlying index S&P 500 Index $1. For ease of use, the Exchange is at expiration falls within the specified proposing to establish a single fee for September 4, 2012. Range Length. As stated in the Range customer, professional customer and Option approval order: voluntary professional customer Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the The Commission believes that Range transactions in SROs regardless of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Options would provide investors with a premium amount. The Exchange is not 1 2 ‘‘Act’’) and Rule 19b–4 thereunder, potentially useful investment choice. The proposing to double the amount of notice is hereby given that on August Commission notes that investors now can either existing standard SPX option fee, 28, 2012, the Chicago Board Options replicate the features and structures of Range but rather used those fees as a measure Exchange, Incorporated (‘‘Exchange’’ or Options through the use of currently 13 for setting the proposed $0.80 per ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities and available options traded on the Exchange. [NB: This superscript ‘‘13’’ represents contract fee. The Exchange also Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) footnote 13 in the Range Option approval proposes to layer SROs into the existing the proposed rule change as described order that was published in the Federal Customer Large Trade Discount regime in Items I, II and III below, which Items Register, which is quoted below in text; it for other S&P products, which will limit have been prepared by the self- does not represent a footnote in this filing.] the amount of customer transaction fees regulatory organization. The The payout structure of a Range Option can to the first 10,000 contracts.7 Commission is publishing this notice to be replicated by purchasing four calls or puts • CBOE Market-Maker, Designated solicit comments on the proposed rule with varying strike prices. Range Options will Primary Market-Maker (‘‘DPM’’), E–DPM enable investors to obtain the same payout and Lead Market-Maker (‘‘LMM’’): $0.40 change from interested persons. structure by purchasing one option, with the per contract for CBOE Market-Maker I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s potential of significantly reducing investors’ transaction costs.4 (emphasis added). DPM, E–DPM and LMM transactions, Statement of the Terms of Substance of which is equal to double the transaction the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange will list Range Options fee equal for a single standard SPX on the S&P 500 Index (Ticker: SRO) option.8 As with some other S&P Chicago Board Options Exchange, beginning on August 28, 2012. The products, transactions in SROs will be Incorporated (‘‘CBOE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) purpose of this filing is to establish excluded from the Liquidity Provider proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to transaction fees for SROs. In considering Sliding Scale.9 establish fees for transactions in CBOE the appropriate and equitable amount of • Clearing Trading Permit Holder Range Options on the S&P 500 Index transaction fees for SROs, the Exchange Proprietary: $0.50 per contract for (‘‘SROs’’). The text of the proposed rule considered the fact that the exposure Clearing Trading Permit Holder change is available on the Exchange’s provided by Range Options is Proprietary transactions, which is equal Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at equivalent to four option positions. to double the transaction fee for a single the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary, Consistent with the spirit of the standard SPX option.10 As with some and at the Commission. Commission’s observation noted above, other S&P products, transactions in the Exchange will not be assess [sic] a SROs will be excluded from the II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s transaction fee equal to the transaction Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Statement of the Purpose of, and fees for four options positions, but Cap.11 The Exchange also proposes to Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule rather will, in general, assess a Change transaction fee equal to the transaction will set forth the fees for SROs in that table, to the fees for two option positions. The Fees Schedule. See pages 19 [sic] and 20 [sic] to In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange believes that this transaction Exhibit 5. self-regulatory organization included cost level strikes the appropriate 6 See page 20 [sic] to Exhibit 5. 7 statements concerning the purpose of balance between establishing reasonable See proposed addition of ‘‘SRO’’ to the Customer Large Trade Discount Table to the Fees and basis for the proposed rule change fees and the Exchange’s goal of Schedule. See page 22 [sic] to Exhibit 5. and discussed any comments it received introducing new products to the 8 See page 20 [sic] to Exhibit 5. on the proposed rule change. The text marketplace that are competitively 9 See proposed addition of ‘‘SRO’’ to the Liquidity of those statements may be examined at priced. Provider Sliding Scale Table to the Fees Schedule. the places specified in Item IV below. The amount of transaction fees for See page 20 [sic] to Exhibit 5. As explained in SR– 5 CBOE–2012–008, the Exchange excludes certain The Exchange has prepared summaries, SROs will be as follows: proprietary, singly-listed products from the set forth in sections A, B, and C below, Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale because the of the most significant parts of such 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57376 Exchange has ‘‘expended considerable resources (February 25, 2008), 73 FR 11689 (March 4, 2008) developing its singly-listed products.’’ See statements. (order approving SR–CBOE–2007–104). Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66277 (January 4 73 FR at 11692. 30, 2012), 77 FR 5595 (February 3, 2012). 5 CBOE is adding ‘‘SRO’’ to the title of the Index 10 See page 20 [sic] to Exhibit 5. Options Rate Table, which will exclude SROs from 11 See proposed addition of ‘‘SRO’’ to Clearing 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). the fees set forth in that table and adding ‘‘SRO’’ Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap Table and to 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. to the Proprietary Index Options Rate Table, which Continued
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55516 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
exclude SROs from the CBOE License fee helps the Exchange recoup Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker Proprietary Products Sliding Scale.12 some of the license fees that the transactions is equitable since those Because the CBOE Proprietary Products Exchange pays to the reporting market participants will effectively pay Sliding Scale is structured on a per authority. half of the transactions costs associated contract basis and because SROs • AIM Contract Execution Fee: As with the exposure of four options. provide the exposure of four contracts, with other certain S&P products, The Exchange believes that a fee of the Exchange believes that it is applicable standard transaction fees will $0.40 per contract for CBOE Market- appropriate to exclude SROs. As with apply to AIM, SAM, FLEX AIM and Make, DPM, E–DPM and LMM other S&P products, firm facilitations for FLEX SAM transactions in SROs.19 transactions is equitable since those SROs will not be free. To reflect this, the CBOE notes that SROs are eligible for market participants provide a valuable Exchange is adding ‘‘SROs’’ to this trading on the Exchange as Flexible market service by adding liquidity to the provision in the ‘‘Notes’’ section to the Exchange (‘‘FLEX’’) options, although Exchange and since they are subject to Clearing Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap FLEX option trading functionality is liquidity provider obligations. This Table.13 Products such as SROs are currently disabled.20 When FLEX standard rate is not subject to the assessed fees for firm facilitations trading is enabled for SROs, CBOE will Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale as set because they are proprietary and the submit a filing to establish FLEX fees. forth in Footnote 10 to the Fees Exchange has expended considerable Schedule. Excluding SROs from the resources developing its singly-listed 2. Statutory Basis Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale is products. The Exchange believes the proposed equitable and not unfairly • Broker-Dealer and Non-Trading rule change is consistent with Section discriminatory because all similarly- Permit Holder Market-Maker: $0.80 per 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of situated market participants trading in contract for Broker-Dealer and Non- 1934 (‘‘Act’’),21 in general, and furthers the product will be charged the same Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) 22 of the fees for such transactions and because transactions, which is equal to double Act in particular, in that it is designed the Exchange expended significant the transaction fee for a single standard to provide for the equitable allocation of resources developing SROs. SPX option.14 reasonable dues, fees, and other charges The Exchange also believes that a fee • Marketing Fee: $0.00 per contract. among CBOE Trading Permit Holders of $0.50 per contract for Clearing As with certain other S&P products, the and other persons using its facilities. Trading Permit Holders is equitable Exchange proposes to add SROs to In setting the proposed transaction since they contribute capital to facilitate footnote 6 to the Fees Schedule so that fees for SROs, the Exchange considered customer orders, which in turn provides the Exchange’s marketing fee will not the fact that the exposure provided by a deeper pool of liquidity that benefits apply to SROs.15 • Range Options is equivalent to four all market participants. Excluding SROs Floor Brokerage Fees: $0.08 for non- option positions. Consistent with the from the CBOE Proprietary Products crossed orders and $0.04 for crossed spirit of the Commission’s observation Sliding Scale is equitable and not orders, which is equal to double the in the Range Option approval order (that unfairly discriminatory because that respective Floor Brokerage fees for a Range Options may reduce investor scale is structured on a per contract single standard SPX option.16 SROs will transaction costs), the Exchange basis and because SROs provide the be excluded from the calculation of the determined not to propose a transaction exposure of four contracts. Accordingly, additional monthly fee assessed to any fee equal to the fees for four options the Exchange believes that it is Floor Broker Trading Privilege Holder positions, but rather has proposed, in appropriate to exclude SROs. As with that executes more than 20,000 standard 17 general, to assess a transaction fee equal other S&P products, firm facilitations for SPX options during the month. SROs will not be free. Products such as • Surcharge Fee (Index License): to the fees for two option positions. The SROs are assessed fees for firm $0.20 on all non-public customer Exchange believes that this transaction facilitations because they are transactions in SROs.18 The Index cost level strikes the appropriate balance between establishing reasonable proprietary and the Exchange has expended considerable resources footnote 11 to the Fees Schedule. See pages 21 [sic] fees and the Exchange’s goal of and 32 [sic] to Exhibit 5. See Securities Exchange introducing new products to the developing its singly-listed products. Act Release No. 63701 (January 11, 2011), 76 FR marketplace that are competitively B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 2934 (January 18, 2011) (notice of SR–CBOE–2010– prices [sic]. 116 which filing, among other things, established a Statement on Burden on Competition multiply-listed options fee cap and a CBOE The Exchange believes that the fees proprietary products sliding scale). are equitable and do not unfairly CBOE does not believe that the 12 See proposed addition of the sentence ‘‘SROs discriminate because they provide proposed rule change will impose any are excluded from the CBOE Proprietary Products comparable pricing among similar burden on competition not necessary or Sliding Scale’’ to the CBOE Proprietary Products categories of market participants. The appropriate in furtherance of the Sliding Scale Table. See page 21 [sic] to Exhibit 5. purposes of the Act. 13 See proposed addition of ‘‘SRO’’ to the CBOE Exchange believes that a fee of $0.80 per Trading Permit Holder Fee Cap Table. See page 21 contract for Customer, Professional C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s [sic] to Exhibit 5. Customer, Voluntary Professional Statement on Comments on the 14 See page 20 [sic] to Exhibit 5. Customer, Broker-Dealer and Non- 15 See page 31 [sic] to Exhibit 5. Proposed Rule Change Received From 16 See proposed addition of ‘‘SRO’’ and ‘‘SRO Members, Participants, or Others Options Rate Table to the Fees Schedule. See page Crossed Orders’’ to the Floor Brokerage and PAR No written comments were solicited Official Fees Table to the Fees Schedule. See page 20 [sic] to Exhibit 5. 24 [sic] to Exhibit 5. 19 See proposed addition of ‘‘SRO’’ to footnote 18 or received with respect to the proposed 17 See proposed addition of the sentence ‘‘For to the Fees Schedule. See page 33 [sic] to Exhibit rule change. purposes of determining the 20,000 contract per 5. month threshold, SRO executions are excluded for 20 See CBOE Rule 20.12 (FLEX Trading) and III. Date of Effectiveness of the purposes of the calculation of executed SPX CBOE Regulatory Circular RG12–056 (CFLEX 2.0 Proposed Rule Change and Timing for contracts during the month’’ to footnote 25 to the Rollout Schedule and Settings) at page 4, issued on Commission Action Fees Schedule at page 34 [sic] to Exhibit 5. April 20, 2012. 18 See proposed addition of ‘‘SRO’’ to the 21 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). The proposed rule change is Surcharge Fee section of the Proprietary Index 22 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). designated by the Exchange as
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55517
establishing or changing a due, fee, or filing also will be available for rule change, until September 4, 2012.5 other charge, thereby qualifying for inspection and copying at the principal On August 9, 2012, FINRA submitted a effectiveness on filing pursuant to office of the Exchange. All comments response to the comment letters.6 This Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 23 and received will be posted without change; order approves the proposed rule subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b–424 the Commission does not edit personal change. thereunder. At any time within 60 days identifying information from II. Description of the Proposal of the filing of the proposed rule change, submissions. You should submit only the Commission summarily may information that you wish to make FINRA proposes to amend its rules temporarily suspend such rule change if publicly available. All submissions governing the handling of stop orders. it appears to the Commission that such should refer to File Number SR–CBOE– FINRA Rule 6140(h) currently provides action is necessary or appropriate in the 2012–084 and should be submitted on that a member may, but is not obligated public interest, for the protection of or before October 1, 2012. to, accept a stop order or a stop limit order in a designated security.7 A buy investors, or otherwise in furtherance of For the Commission, by the Division of the purposes of the Act. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated stop order becomes a market order when 25 a transaction takes place at or above the IV. Solicitation of Comments authority. Kevin M. O’Neill, stop price, and a sell stop order becomes Interested persons are invited to Deputy Secretary. a market order when a transaction takes submit written data, views, and place at or below the stop price.8 When [FR Doc. 2012–22141 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] arguments concerning the foregoing, a transaction occurs at the stop price, a including whether the proposed rule BILLING CODE 8011–01–P stop limit order to buy or sell becomes change is consistent with the Act. a limit order at the limit price.9 Comments may be submitted by any of SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Accordingly, FINRA rules provide that the following methods: COMMISSION stop orders and stop limit orders are triggered (i.e., become a market or a Electronic Comments [Release No. 34–67778; File No. SR–FINRA– limit order) by a transaction in a • Use the Commission’s Internet 2012–026] security. comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ FINRA now proposes to also allow rules/sro.shtml); or Self-Regulatory Organizations; members to offer customers stop orders • Send an email to rule- Financial Industry Regulatory and stop limit orders that would be [email protected]. Please include File Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a triggered by a transaction or by an event Number SR–CBOE–2012–084 on the Proposed Rule Change Relating to the other than a transaction (e.g., a subject line. Handling of Stop and Stop Limit quotation).10 FINRA has indicated that Orders some firms and their customers prefer Paper Comments September 4, 2012. alternative triggers for activating stop • Send paper comments in triplicate orders and stop limit orders.11 to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, I. Introduction According to FINRA, some members Securities and Exchange Commission, On May 24, 2012, Financial Industry believe that, for certain securities, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC Regulatory Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) quotations may serve as a better 20549–1090. filed with the Securities and Exchange indicator of the current price than All submissions should refer to File Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant transactions.12 For example, quotations Number SR–CBOE–2012–084. This file to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities for thinly traded securities may be number should be included on the Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule continuously updated, whereas there subject line if email is used. To help the 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule may be limited trading in the Commission process and review your change to amend FINRA’s rules relating securities.13 However, FINRA also states comments more efficiently, please use to the handling of stop orders and stop that some members and customers only one method. The Commission will limit orders. The proposed rule change prefer to have transactions trigger stop post all comments on the Commission’s was published for comment in the orders and stop limit orders, and believe Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ Federal Register on June 6, 2012.3 The that customers could be disadvantaged rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Commission received four comment submission, all subsequent letters regarding the proposal.4 On July 5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67471, 77 amendments, all written statements 19, 2012, the Commission designated a FR 43620 (July 25, 2012). 6 See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, with respect to the proposed rule longer period to act on the proposed Commission, from Racquel L. Russell, Assistant change that are filed with the General Counsel, Regulatory Policy and Oversight, Commission, and all written 25 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). FINRA, dated August 9, 2012 (‘‘FINRA Response’’). communications relating to the 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 7 FINRA Rule 6140(a) defines a ‘‘designated 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. security’’ as any NMS stock as defined in Rule proposed rule change between the 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67085 Commission and any person, other than 242.600(b)(47). (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33537 (‘‘Notice’’). those that may be withheld from the 8 See FINRA Rule 6140(h)(1)(A)–(B). 4 See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 9 public in accordance with the Commission, from Ann L. Vlcek, Managing Director See FINRA Rule 6140(h)(2). provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry 10 FINRA previously proposed to delete in its available for Web site viewing and and Financial Markets Association, dated June 26, entirety Rule 6140(h). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63256 (November 5, 2010), 75 FR 69503 printing in the Commission’s Public 2012 (‘‘SIFMA Letter’’); Gary J. Sjostedt, Director, Order Routing and Sales, TD Ameritrade, Inc., (November 12, 2010) (SR–FINRA–2010–055). The Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., dated June 27, 2012 (‘‘TD Ameritrade Letter’’); and Commission disapproved that proposed rule Washington, DC 20549, on official Christopher Nagy, President, KOR Trading LLC, change. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. dated July 9, 2012 (‘‘KOR Letter’’); and web 63885 (February 10, 2011), 76 FR 9062 (February business days between the hours of 16, 2011) (Order Disapproving SR–FINRA–2010– 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such comment from Virgil F. Liptak, dated July 3, 2012 (‘‘Liptak Letter’’). The comment letters received by 055). the Commission are available at http://www.sec. 11 See Notice, supra note 3, at 33537. 23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). gov/comments/sr-finra-2012-026/finra2012026. 12 See id. 24 17 C.F.R. 240.19b–4(f)(2). shtml. 13 See id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55518 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
if quotations trigger stop orders and stop Rule 5350(a).22 Similarly, under the efforts to educate their customers about limit orders.14 For example, some proposal, a member that routes an order stop orders and stop limit orders.30 members are concerned that using type using an alternative trigger (i.e., a SIFMA stated that, although some of quotations as a trigger could result in an trigger other than a transaction) to its members would like flexibility in execution at a price that the stock had another broker-dealer or exchange must choosing the applicable trigger for stop never traded at on that day.15 take reasonable steps to ensure that the orders and stop limit orders and others FINRA proposes permitting a member order is handled or executed by the would prefer to have one established to accept an order type that activates as other broker-dealer or exchange in trigger point, SIFMA members agree that a market or limit order using an event accordance with the terms of the order FINRA should not introduce a new other than a transaction at the stop price as communicated to the customer order type to provide for the desired as the trigger, such as a quotation.16 The placing the order.23 flexibility.31 Instead, SIFMA advocates a member may not label the order type a FINRA believes that, given the various disclosure and negative consent ‘‘stop order’’ or a ‘‘stop limit order,’’ and risks and benefits of each triggering approach in which a firm would be must clearly distinguish it from a ‘‘stop event, members and their customers required to disclose what would trigger order’’ and a ‘‘stop limit order.’’ 17 For should determine the appropriate a stop order or stop limit order and, if example, an order type that triggers triggering event for stop orders and stop the customer does not object to the using a quotation at the stop price may limit orders.24 In addition, FINRA disclosed trigger, the firm may conclude be labeled a ‘‘stop quotation order.’’ 18 believes that providing customers and the customer consents to the use of that FINRA believes that requiring members members with the flexibility to select trigger.32 SIFMA believes this approach to distinguish orders triggered by an and offer other triggering events for would avoid the costs and burdens of event other than a transaction from stop alternative order types in accordance creating a new order type, including the orders or stop limit orders will allow with their investment objectives and cost of educating investors about the members and customers to share a business models, while requiring new order type.33 uniform understanding that transactions members to disclose a description of the TD Ameritrade raised concerns that serve as the triggering event for stop order type, including the triggering FINRA’s proposal would create an orders and stop limit orders.19 In event, prior to the time the customer undue burden on the industry by addition, FINRA proposes that the places the order, will promote just and requiring it to incorporate a new order member offering such an order type equitable principles of trade.25 type without clearly defined benefits, must disclose to the customer, in paper and may create unnecessary investor III. Summary of Comments Received or electronic form, prior to the time the confusion.34 In addition, TD Ameritrade and FINRA’s Response customer places the order, a description believes creating a new order type of the order type including the The Commission received four identifying stop orders and stop limit triggering event.20 A member that comment letters on the proposed rule orders triggered by a quotation is permits customers to engage in change.26 KOR Trading LLC (‘‘KOR’’), unnecessary as there is no evidence securities transactions online must also the Securities Industry and Financial investors misunderstand or are harmed post the required disclosures on the Markets Association (‘‘SIFMA’’), and TD by such orders.35 member’s Web site in a clear and Ameritrade, Inc. (‘‘TD Ameritrade’’) FINRA responds that the proposed conspicuous manner.21 generally supported FINRA’s objective rule change addresses concerns related FINRA further proposes that a to provide members with flexibility to the potential for investor confusion member that routes a customer stop regarding the triggers for stop orders, with respect to the operation of stop order or stop limit order to another but preferred a disclosure-based orders and stop limit orders, while broker-dealer or exchange for handling approach over creation of a new order providing members the flexibility to or execution must take reasonable steps type.27 An individual commenter offer orders types based on other to ensure that the order is handled or believes that FINRA should retain and triggers.36 FINRA notes that it has executed by the other broker-dealer or enforce Rule 6140(h) as written rather engaged in extensive discussions with exchange in accordance with proposed than amend it to accommodate members its member firms about the proposed that were offering stop orders and stop rule change and has taken into account 14 See id. limit orders triggered by events other the input provided by members in 15 See id. FINRA states that some members than a transaction and disclosing the formulating the proposed rule change.37 expressed concern that quotations may be more triggering event in brokerage For example, FINRA had considered vulnerable to abuse because they can be 28 removing the current definition of ‘‘stop manipulated to trigger stops and then withdrawn or agreements. changed, while other members noted that using KOR stated that the use of disclosures, order’’ and substituting a disclosure transactions also could result in the improper especially those requiring affirmative provision that would require members triggering of a customer’s stop order due to trades consent, would allow investors to disclose to customers how stop orders at prices outside of the current market. See id. at flexibility to choose the trigger for stop would be triggered.38 FINRA states that 33537 n.6. its members expressed a number of 16 FINRA proposes to move the stop order orders and stop limit orders, and would definition from FINRA Rule 6140(h) to proposed reduce the burden on the industry to concerns about this approach, including FINRA Rule 5350. FINRA states that this will create new order types.29 KOR also that it could lead to investor confusion ensure that the existing and proposed stop order stated that brokers should increase regarding the handling of stop orders, provisions apply uniformly to both OTC Equity errors when routing stop orders for Securities and NMS stocks. See id. at 33538. 22 17 See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350, See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350, 30 Supplementary Material .01. Supplementary Material .02. See id. 23 31 18 See Notice, supra note 3, at 33538. See id. See SIFMA Letter. 24 32 19 See id. See Notice, supra note 3, at 33538. See id. 25 33 20 See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350, See id. See id. 34 Supplementary Material .01. For example, the 26 See supra note 4. See TD Ameritrade Letter. disclosure can be made at account opening. See 27 See KOR Letter; TD Ameritrade Letter; SIFMA 35 See id. Notice, supra note 3, at 33538. Letter. 36 See FINRA Response at 4. 21 See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350, 28 See Liptak Letter. 37 See id. at 3. Supplementary Material .01. 29 See KOR Letter. 38 See id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55519
execution to another broker that uses a IV. Discussion and Commission’s In addition, the Commission notes different trigger for stop orders, and Findings FINRA’s belief that the proposal should executions of quotation-triggered stop After careful review of the proposed not impose additional costs on firms orders at prices at which the stock had rule change, the comment letters that continue existing practices 39 54 not traded that day. FINRA also had received, and FINRA’s response, the consistent with FINRA rules. Further, considered retaining the existing rule to Commission finds that the proposed the Commission notes FINRA’s concern require that only transactions trigger rule change is consistent with the that permitting stop order triggers to 40 stop orders and stop limit orders. requirements of Section 15A(b) of the vary solely based on customer consent, However, certain FINRA members were Act 47 and the rules and regulations as suggested by commenters, could concerned that trades outside the thereunder applicable to a national undermine the ability of customers to current market, whether permissible securities association.48 In particular, understand how their stop orders would 55 transactions or clearly erroneous trades, the Commission finds that the proposed be handled. could improperly trigger transaction- rule change is consistent with Section The Commission believes that based stop orders and stop limit orders, 15A(b)(6) of the Act,49 which requires, FINRA’s proposal sufficiently addresses and believed that quotations may serve among other things, that FINRA rules be issues regarding FINRA’s previous as a better indicator of current market designed to prevent fraudulent and proposed rule change, which would 41 price for thinly traded securities. manipulative acts and practices, to have deleted in its entirety the FINRA believes the proposed promote just and equitable principles of provisions of FINRA Rule 6140 relating approach—to retain the default trigger to the handling of stop orders by trade, and, in general, to protect 56 while permitting the use of other investors and the public interest. member firms. The Commission triggers and requiring disclosure of FINRA’s proposal would allow the believes that FINRA’s proposal should those triggers—strikes the appropriate use of transaction-based stop orders and enhance the ability of investors to balance in addressing the views stop limit orders by providing a uniform understand the key attributes of order 42 expressed by FINRA members. In definition of ‘‘stop order’’ and ‘‘stop types offered by their brokers so that particular, FINRA believes that the limit order’’ while also allowing they can make informed choices as to proposal would provide members with member firms to offer order types that whether to use a particular type of flexibility in offering various order are triggered by an event other than a order. types, while also addressing concerns transaction (e.g., a quotation).50 The V. Conclusion regarding the potential for investor Commission notes that a member that It is therefore ordered, pursuant to confusion with respect to the operation provides an order type that is triggered 43 Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,57 that the of stop orders. by an event other than a transaction at proposed rule change (SR–FINRA– FINRA states that the purpose of the the stop price cannot label the order 2012–026) is approved. proposed rule change is to make explicit type a ‘‘stop order’’ or a ‘‘stop limit in FINRA rules that firms are permitted order,’’ and must clearly distinguish the For the Commission, by the Division of to offer stop orders and stop limit orders Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated order type from a ‘‘stop order’’ and a 58 that are triggered by an event other than ‘‘stop limit order.’’ 51 In addition, the authority. a transaction, such as a quotation, as member must disclose to the customer, Kevin M. O’Neill, long as that order type is clearly in paper or electronic form, prior to the Deputy Secretary. differentiated from stop orders and stop time the customer places the order, a [FR Doc. 2012–22142 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] limit orders triggered by a transaction.44 description of the order type including BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Contrary to views expressed by the triggering event.52 commenters, FINRA does not believe While several commenters advocated the proposed rule change would impose for an alternative approach and raised SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE additional costs on members that offer concerns regarding a potential burden as COMMISSION stop orders and stop limit orders given a result of the proposal, the Commission the current requirement to use a [Release No. 34–67774; File No. SR–FINRA– believes that FINRA’s proposal would 2012–025] transaction-based trigger for orders allow members flexibility in the types of labeled as ‘‘stop’’ or ‘‘stop limit,’’ thus orders they offer and provide for Self-Regulatory Organizations; requiring order types that use an disclosure to customers regarding the Financial Industry Regulatory alternative trigger to be labeled operation of such orders. In this regard, Authority, Inc.; Order Approving differently.45 In addition, FINRA is the Commission notes that FINRA Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by concerned that allowing the trigger for weighed various alternatives and took Amendment No. 1, To Adopt Existing stop orders and stop limit orders to vary into account extensive input from its NASD IM–2110–3 as New FINRA Rule solely based on customer consent may members in formulating the proposal.53 5270 (Front Running of Block diminish the level of certainty for Transactions) With Changes in the customers as to how stop orders would proposed rule change to provide members that Consolidated FINRA Rulebook be treated and would result in less determine to offer stop orders and stop limit orders uniformity in the handling of stop with alternative triggers with time to make September 4, 2012. orders and stop limit orders.46 necessary technology changes. See id. 47 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b). I. Introduction 48 In approving this proposed rule change, the 39 On May 17, 2012, Financial Industry See id. Commission has considered the proposed rule’s 40 See id. at 4. impact on efficiency, competition, and capital Regulatory Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) (f/ 41 See id. at 3. formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 42 See id. at 4. 49 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). 54 See FINRA Response at 4. 43 See id. 50 See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350. 55 See id. 44 See id. at 2. 51 See Proposed FINRA Rule 5350, 56 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63885 45 See id. at 4. Supplementary Material .01. (February 10, 2011), 76 FR 9062 (February 16, 2011) 46 See id. Finally, FINRA notes that it will 52 See id. (Order Disapproving SR–FINRA–2010–055). provide an implementation period of no less than 53 See Notice, supra note 3, at 33537; and FINRA 57 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 90 days following Commission approval of the Response at 2. 58 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55520 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
k/a National Association of Securities proposed FINRA Rule 5270 with the Finally, the Front Running Policy Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’)) filed with the changes described below. includes exceptions for ‘‘transactions executed by member participants in Securities and Exchange Commission A. Current Front Running Policy (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section automatic execution systems in those 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act The current Front Running Policy instances where participants must of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 states that it shall be considered accept automatic executions’’ as well as conduct inconsistent with just and thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to situations where a member receives a equitable principles of trade for a adopt existing NASD Interpretive customer’s block order relating to both member or a person associated with a an option or security future and the Material (‘‘IM’’) 2110–3 (Front Running member, for an account in which such Policy) as proposed FINRA Rule 5270 to underlying security and the member, in member or person associated with a furtherance of facilitating the customer’s amend the existing Front Running member has an interest or exercises Policy in several ways to broaden its block order, positions the other side of investment discretion or for certain one or both components of the order. In scope and provide further clarity into customer accounts, to buy or sell an the latter case, a member is still activities that FINRA believes are option or security future when the prohibited from covering any resulting inconsistent with just and equitable member or person associated with a proprietary position by entering an principles of trade. The proposed rule member has material, non-public market offsetting order until information change was published for comment in information concerning an imminent concerning the block transaction has 3 8 the Federal Register on June 6, 2012. block transaction in the underlying been made publicly available. The Commission received two comment security or when the customer has been letters on the proposed rule change,4 provided such material, non-public B. Proposed Changes to Front Running and a response to comments from market information by the member of Policy 9 FINRA.5 On August 30, 2012, FINRA any person associated with a member. 1. Expansion of the Front Running submitted Amendment No. 1 to the Similarly, the same prohibition applies Policy proposal.6 This order approves the for a member or any person associated with a member with respect to an order FINRA proposes to expand the Front proposed rule change, as modified by Running Policy to apply to all securities Amendment No. 1. to buy or sell an underlying security when such member or person associated and other financial instruments and II. Description of the Proposal with a member causing such order to be contracts (in addition to the existing executed has material, non-public options and security futures) that As part of the process of developing market information concerning an overlay the security that is the subject a consolidated rulebook,7 FINRA imminent block transaction in an option of an imminent block transaction and proposed to adopt existing NASD IM– or a security future overlying that that have a value that is materially 2110–3 (‘‘Front Running Policy’’) as security, or when a customer has been related to, or otherwise acts as a provided such material, non-public substitute for, the underlying security. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). market information by the member or Specifically, FINRA proposes to expand 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. any person associated with a member; the Front Running Policy to cover 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67079 prior to the time information concerning trading in an option, derivative, (May 30, 2012), 77 FR 33522 (‘‘Notice’’). the block transaction has been made security-based swap, or other financial 4 See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, publicly available.10 instrument overlying a security that is Commission, from Ryan K. Bakhtiari, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association The Front Running Policy also the subject of an imminent block (‘‘PIABA’’), dated June 26, 2012 (‘‘PIABA Letter’’); prohibits providing material, non-public transaction if the value of the and Sean Davy, Managing Director, Corporate market information concerning an underlying security is materially related Credit Markets Division, Securities Industry and imminent block transaction to to, or otherwise acts as a substitute for, Financial Markets Association (‘‘SIFMA’’), dated such security, as well as any contract July 9, 2012 (‘‘SIFMA Letter’’). customers who then trade on the basis 5 See Letter from Brant K. Brown, Associate of the information. The Front Running that is the functional economic General Counsel, FINRA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Policy is limited to transactions in equivalent of a position in such security Secretary, Commission, dated August 29, 2012 equity securities and options that are (‘‘related financial instrument’’).12 (‘‘FINRA Response’’). required to be reported on a last sale The proposal would also expand the 6 In that amendment, FINRA clarified that the reporting system and to any transaction Front Running Policy when the proposed rule would not apply to orders or transactions involving government securities. involving a security future, regardless of imminent block transaction involves a FINRA noted, however, that actions for similar whether the transaction is reported. The related financial instrument, and front-running conduct occurring in the exempted prohibitions apply until the information prevent trading in the underlying securities markets, including the government concerning the block transaction has security. The proposed rule change also securities market, continue to be covered by FINRA 11 Rule 2010. In the amendment, FINRA also clarified been made publicly available. would extend the Front Running Policy that the 10,000 share language in proposed to include explicitly trading in the same Supplementary Material .03 refers to equity 8 NASD IM–2110–3 states that ‘‘[a] transaction security or related financial instrument securities. Because this amendment is technical in involving 10,000 shares or more of an underlying that is the subject of an imminent block nature, it is not subject to notice and comment. security, or options or security futures covering 13 7 The FINRA rulebook consists of: (1) FINRA such number of shares is generally deemed to be a transaction. Rules; (2) NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated block transaction, although a transaction of less from NYSE (‘‘Incorporated NYSE Rules’’) (together, than 10,000 shares could be considered a block 12 FINRA notes that the proposed rule is not the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules are transaction in appropriate cases.’’ intended to provide an exhaustive list of prohibited referred to as the ‘‘Transitional Rulebook’’). While 9 See NASD IM–2110–3(a). trading activity. See Notice, supra note 3. the NASD Rules generally apply to all FINRA 10 See NASD IM–2110–3(b). 13 The trading restrictions imposed by the current members, the Incorporated NYSE Rules apply only 11 See NASD IM–2110–3 (‘‘when [the Front Running Policy apply until information about to those members of FINRA that are also members information] has been disseminated via the tape or the imminent customer block transaction ‘‘has been of the NYSE (‘‘Dual Members’’). The FINRA Rules high speed communications line of one of those made publicly available,’’ which the rule defines as apply to all FINRA members, unless such rules systems, a similar system of a national securities having been disseminated to the public in trade have a more limited application by their terms. See exchange under Section 6 of the Act, an alternative reporting data. The proposed rule change generally FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008 trading system under Regulation ATS, or by a third- retains this standard for determining when (Rulebook Consolidation Process). party news wire service’’). information has become publicly available.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55521
2. Amended Exceptions to the Front order information,14 transactions in the provided the member documents who Running Policy security that is the subject of the provided the consent and such consent customer block order that are related to evidences the customer’s understanding The proposed rule change would a prior customer order in that security, of the terms and conditions for handling replace several existing provisions in transactions to correct bona fide errors, the customer’s order. the Front Running Policy with proposed and transactions to offset odd-lot orders. Finally, proposed Supplementary Supplementary Material to FINRA Rule Second, with respect to transactions Material .04(c) would state that the 5270. FINRA proposes to replace the undertaken to fulfill or facilitate the prohibitions in the Front Running existing exceptions in the Front execution of the customer block order, Policy shall not apply if the member’s Running Policy for certain transactions proposed Supplementary Material .04(b) trading activity is undertaken in in automatic execution systems and for would specify that Front Running compliance with the marketplace rules positioning the other side of certain Policy does not preclude transactions of a national securities exchange and at orders when a member receives a undertaken for the purpose of fulfilling, least one leg of the trading activity is customer’s block order relating to both or facilitating the execution of, a executed on that exchange. an option and the underlying security or customer’s block order.15 According to 3. Other Proposed Changes both a security future and the FINRA, firms are permitted to trade underlying security. The new ahead of a customer’s block order when FINRA proposes to adopt proposed Supplementary Material identifies types the purpose of such trading is to fulfill Supplementary Material .05 to state that of transactions that are permitted. the customer order and when the the front running of any customer order, Specifically, under the proposed customer has authorized such trading, not just imminent block transactions, Supplementary Material, there would be including that the firm has disclosed to that places the financial interests of the three broad categories of permitted the customer that it may trade ahead of, member ahead of those of its customer transactions: (1) Transactions that the or alongside of, the customer’s order. or the misuse of knowledge of an member can demonstrate are unrelated FINRA proposes, however, that when imminent customer order may violate to the customer block order; (2) engaging in trading activity that could other FINRA rules, including FINRA transactions that are undertaken to affect the market for the security that is Rules 2010 and 5320, or the federal 17 fulfill or facilitate the execution of the the subject of the customer block order, securities laws. customer block order; or (3) transactions the member must minimize any As initially proposed, FINRA would that are executed, in whole or in part, potential disadvantage or harm in the announce the implementation date of on a national securities exchange and execution of the customer’s order, must the proposed rule change in a comply with the marketplace rules of not place the member’s financial Regulatory Notice to be published no that exchange. These three categories of interests ahead of those of its customer, later than 90 days following permitted transactions are discussed and must obtain the customer’s consent Commission approval, with the below. to such trading activity. The implementation date occurring no later Supplementary Material would provide than 90 days following publication of First, with respect to transactions that that a member may obtain consent that Regulatory Notice.18 are unrelated to the customer block through affirmative written consent or order, Supplementary Material .04(a) III. Discussion of Comment Letters and through means of a negative consent FINRA Response would allow members to engage in such letter.16 In addition, a member may transactions provided that the member provide clear and comprehensive oral The Commission received one can demonstrate that the transactions disclosure to, and obtain consent from, comment letter in support of the are unrelated to the material, non-public the customer on an order-by-order basis, proposed rule change,19 and one market information received in comment letter requesting revisions and connection with the customer order. 14 According to FINRA, in addition to more clarifications to the proposed rule The Supplementary Material would traditional information barriers, such as those in change.20 As noted above, FINRA include a list of potentially permitted place to prevent communication between trading responded to the comments in its units, this provision could also include the use of transactions as examples of transactions automated systems (e.g., trades through a ‘‘black response dated August 29, 2012. that, depending upon the box’’) where the orders placed into the automated One commenter stated its belief that circumstances, may be unrelated to the system are handled without the knowledge of a the extension of the Front Running customer block order. These types of person associated with the member who may be Policy to cover any securities and trading in the same security. However, a person transactions could include transactions associated with a member who places an order into financial instruments (not just option where the member has effective a ‘‘black box’’ or other automated system, or contracts and futures) was a logical information barriers established to otherwise has knowledge of the order or the ability approach and would better protect prevent internal disclosure of customer to access information in the system, may not then investors.21 The commenter expressed trade in the same security or a related financial instrument solely because the order ultimately was concern with the exceptions provided in However, FINRA proposes to expand the rule to being handled by the automated system rather than the Supplementary Material, and stated include related financial instruments that may not by the person. Traders who have no knowledge of that FINRA should closely monitor the result in publicly available trading information the order, due to the presence of an information being made available. Accordingly, FINRA also barrier or otherwise, could continue to trade in the 17 Although ‘‘not held’’ orders are not subject to proposes that the prohibitions in the rule be in security or a related financial instrument. See the restrictions in FINRA Rule 5320, front running place until the material, non-public market Notice, supra note 3. a ‘‘not held’’ order that is not of block size may information is either publicly available or ‘‘has 15 According to FINRA, these transactions may nonetheless violate FINRA Rule 2010. See otherwise become stale or obsolete.’’ Whether include, for example, hedging or other positioning Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63895 information has become stale or obsolete will activity undertaken in connection with the (February 11, 2011), 76 FR 9386 (February 17, depend upon the particular facts and circumstances handling of the customer order. See Notice, supra 2011). If the ‘‘not held’’ order is of block size, the involved, including specific information the note 3. proposed rule change would apply to trading member has regarding the transaction, but could 16 The negative consent letter must clearly activity ahead of the order. include factors such as the amount of time that has disclose to the customer the terms and conditions 18 passed since the member learned of the block for handling the customer’s orders, and if the See FINRA Response, supra note 5. transaction, subsequent trading activity in the customer does not object, then the member may 19 See PIABA Letter, supra note 4. security, or a significant change in market reasonably conclude that the customer has 20 See SIFMA Letter, supra note 4. conditions. consented and may rely on the letter. 21 See PIABA Letter.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55522 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
exceptions to ensure member firms are that the trading restrictions in proposed FINRA Rule 5320. Moreover, FINRA not using them as loopholes to engage FINRA Rule 5270 are linked to actual stated that the duties set out in NTM in prohibited activities. In its response, reporting and dissemination rather than 05–51 arise from the same concerns that FINRA stated that it intends to examine by invoking the ‘‘stale or obsolete’’ FINRA Rule 5270 is designed to firms for compliance with, and fully standard when transactions are subject address. FINRA affirmed that proposal enforce, the proposed rule.22 to prompt reporting requirements and encapsulates the obligations established The other commenter raised three the transaction reports are disseminated. in NTM 05–51 with the difference noted substantive issues with the proposal.23 Where there is no reporting and by SIFMA: the disclosure obligation in First, the commenter stated that the dissemination regime in place for the proposed Supplementary Material .04 proposed rule change contained a flaw security or financial instrument, FINRA can be in the form of negative consent in that the barriers to the resumption of agreed with the commenter that, once or, provided certain criteria are met, oral trading in the applicable security or the customer’s order is executed and the consent, which is not permitted by the related financial instrument—that the risk of the transaction has transferred duty to refrain and disclose as set out in information concerning the block from the customer to the firm, there NTM 05–51. FINRA further noted that, transaction has been made publicly would be no trading restrictions in addition to complying with the available or has otherwise become stale imposed by proposed FINRA Rule disclosure obligation in proposed or obsolete—could interfere with a 5270.27 Supplementary Material .04, the broker-dealers’ risk management Second, the commenter requested member must minimize any potential activity, which could create problems in additional clarification on whether the disadvantage to the customer or harm in providing liquidity to the market.24 The negative consent letter described in the execution of the customer’s order, commenter requested clarity on what proposed Supplementary Material .04 and the member must not place its serves as the trigger for lifting trading would satisfy and be consistent with the financial interests ahead of those of its restrictions and stated that trading ‘‘duty to refrain and disclose’’ described customer. FINRA stated that, provided a restrictions should be lifted once the in NASD Notice to Members 05–51 member meets all of the criteria in risk of a transaction has been transferred (‘‘NTM 05–51’’) and FINRA Rule proposed Supplementary Material .04, from the customer through the 5320.28 Additionally, the commenter that member would have fulfilled its execution of the order.25 According to requested clarity on whether the duty to duty to refrain and disclose as set out in the commenter, in the context of a block refrain and disclose described in NTM the Notice to Members. transaction where a member executes as 05–51 29 arises on the basis of the same Finally, the commenter requested a a principal, the member provides analysis as the obligations under 180-day implementation period liquidity to the market and is assuming proposed FINRA Rule 5270. following publication of the applicable the risks of the transaction. While In its response, FINRA agreed that, to Regulatory Notice announcing the executing a block transaction in an the extent possible, proposed Commission’s approval of the proposal, agency capacity, a member cannot trade Supplementary Material .04 should be rather than a 90-day implementation ahead of its customer because the read consistently with NTM 05–51 and period, because members will need to execution of the transaction eliminates the obligations set out in FINRA Rule make additional technology and system the opportunity to do so. In certain 5320.30 FINRA stated that the proposed modifications to comply with the rule.31 situations where a type of security is not Supplementary Material was intended FINRA responded that it would extend subject to prompt last sale reporting to acknowledge FINRA’s previous the implementation date to within 180 requirements, the commenter stated that guidance and the disclosure and days following publication of the the ‘‘stale or obsolete’’ threshold consent provision in proposed Regulatory Notice announcing the proposed by FINRA could prevent a Supplementary Material .04 mirrors Commission’s approval of the rule.32 dealer from performing necessary risk securities exchange under Section 6 of the Act, an IV. Discussion and Commission management activities while providing Findings no additional benefit to the customer. alternative trading system under Regulation ATS, or by a third-party news wire service.’’ After careful review of the proposal, Accordingly, the commenter requested 27 See FINRA Response at 3. the comment letters, and the FINRA confirmation that the execution of a 28 FINRA Rule 5320 (Prohibition Against Trading block transaction by the member as Ahead of Customer Orders) generally prohibits a Response, the Commission finds that principal or agent will be deemed to member that accepts and holds a customer order in the proposed rule change is consistent an equity security without immediately executing with the requirements of the Act and the render the non-public information stale the order from trading that security on the same and obsolete for the purposes of front- side of the market for its own account at a price that rules and regulations thereunder running the customer, and permit the would satisfy the customer order, unless it applicable to a national securities 33 broker-dealer to transact in the security immediately thereafter executes the customer order association and, in particular, the up to the size and at the same or better price at 34 or related financial instrument, even if requirements 15A(b)(6) of the Act. which it traded for its own account. Specifically, the Commission finds that the applicable customer-related 29 NTM 05–51 addresses members’ obligations transaction has not become public. involving large, potentially market-moving orders the proposed rule change is designed to FINRA responded that the ‘‘stale or received from a customer, such as VWAPs, prevent fraudulent and manipulative obsolete’’ standard was intended to institutional orders, and basket transactions. It acts and practices, to promote just and states that, when a member receives such an order, equitable principles of trade, to remove supplement, not replace, the existing it must ‘‘(1) refrain from any conduct that could dissemination standard.26 FINRA noted disadvantage or harm the execution of the impediments to and perfect the customer’s order or place the member’s financial mechanism of a free and open market interests ahead of those of its customer’s and (2) if 22 See FINRA Response. and a national market system, and, in applicable, disclose in writing to the customer that 23 See SIFMA Letter. the member intends to engage in hedging and other 31 24 See SIFMA Letter. positioning activity that could affect the market for See SIFMA Letter at 4. 25 Id. the security that is the subject of the transaction.’’ 32 See FINRA Response at 5. 26 Under NASD IM–2110–3, information It further states that the disclosure must be in the 33 In approving this proposed rule change, the regarding a block transaction is considered publicly form of an affirmative consent letter, but the Commission has considered the proposed rule’s available ‘‘when it has been disseminated via the disclosure need not be on a transaction-by- impact on efficiency, competition, and capital tape or high speed communications line of one of transaction basis. formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). those systems, a similar system of a national 30 See FINRA Response at 4. 34 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55523
general, to protect investors and the would help ensure that members would listed above or other locally announced public interest. not unknowingly violate FINRA rules locations. The proposed rule change is intended when such members rely on the rules of The following areas have been to clarify the types of front running a particular national securities determined to be adversely affected by trading activity that FINRA believes are exchange. the disaster: inconsistent with just and equitable For the foregoing reasons, the Primary Counties: Lincoln, Sandoval, principles of trade while also ensuring Commission believes that the proposed and the Santa Clara Pueblo. that members may continue to engage in rule change, as modified by Amendment The Interest Rates are: transactions that do not present the risk No. 1, is consistent with the of abusive trading practices that the rule requirements of the Act. Percent is intended to prevent. The Commission finds that expanding the rule beyond V. Conclusion For Physical Damage: options and security futures could It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Non-Profit Organizations With enhance the protection of investors by Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,36 that the Credit Available Elsewhere 3.125 further prohibiting the potential misuse proposed rule change (SR–FINRA– Non-Profit Organizations of information from customer orders. 2012–025), as modified by Amendment Without Credit Available Elsewhere ...... 3.000 Expanding the front running prohibition No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved. For Economic Injury: is reasonably designed to prevent For the Commission, by the Division of Non-Profit Organizations fraudulent and manipulative acts and Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated Without Credit Available practices, promote just and equitable authority.37 Elsewhere ...... 3.000 principles of trade, and better protect Kevin M. O’Neill, investors and the public interest, while Deputy Secretary. The number assigned to this disaster protecting imminent block transactions. [FR Doc. 2012–22139 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] for physical damage is 132526 and for Moreover, the proposed rule change economic injury is 132536. also would include three exceptions to BILLING CODE 8011–01–P the Front Running Policy: (1) (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Transactions that the member can demonstrate are unrelated to the SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION James E. Rivera, customer block order; (2) transactions [Disaster Declaration #13252 and #13253] Associate Administrator for Disaster that are undertaken to fulfill or facilitate Assistance. the execution of the customer block New Mexico Disaster #NM–00029 [FR Doc. 2012–22199 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] order; and (3) transactions that are BILLING CODE 8025–01–P executed, in whole or in part, on a AGENCY: U.S. Small Business national securities exchange and Administration. ACTION: Notice. comply with the marketplace rules of DEPARTMENT OF STATE that exchange. The Commission finds SUMMARY: that these exceptions should not This is a Notice of the [Public Notice 8017] unnecessarily restrict legitimate trading Presidential declaration of a major activities of members and are consistent disaster for Public Assistance Only for 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information with just and equitable principles of the State of New Mexico (FEMA–4079– Collection: Application for trade and the protection of investors and DR), dated 08/24/2012. Employment as a Locally Employed the public interest, and should not Incident: Flooding. Staff or Family Member Incident Period: 06/22/2012 through result in fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices. Specifically, 07/12/2012. ACTION: Notice of request for public Effective Date: 08/24/2012. transactions that the member can comment. Physical Loan Application Deadline demonstrate are unrelated to the Date: 10/23/2012. SUMMARY: The Department of State is customer block order do not present the Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan seeking Office of Management and potential for abusive trading practices Application Deadline Date: 05/24/2013. Budget (OMB) approval for the that can disadvantage a customer’s order ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan information collection described below. in violation of the rule, since such In accordance with the Paperwork transactions would not be using the applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Reduction Act of 1995, we are information from the customer’s order. requesting comments on this collection Moreover, transactions that are Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. from all interested individuals and undertaken to fulfill or facilitate the organizations. The purpose of this execution of the customer block order FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, notice is to allow 60 days for public similarly do not present the potential for comment preceding submission of the abuse, as such transactions would be U.S. Small Business Administration, collection to OMB. seeking to ensure the execution of a 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, customer block order. Finally, Washington, DC 20416. DATES: The Department will accept permitting transactions that are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is comments from the public up to executed, in whole or in part, on a hereby given that as a result of the November 9, 2012. national securities exchange and President’s major disaster declaration on ADDRESSES: You may submit comments comply with the marketplace rules of 08/24/2012, Private Non-Profit by any of the following methods: that exchange would remove organizations that provide essential • Web: Persons with access to the impediments to and perfect the services of governmental nature may file Internet may use the Federal Docket mechanism of a free and open market disaster loan applications at the address Management System (FDMS) to and a national market system,35 as it comment on this notice by going to 36 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). www.Regulations.gov. You can search 35 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). 37 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). for the document by entering ‘‘Public
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55524 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
Notice 8017’’ in the Search bar. If use of automated collection techniques the (1) Office of Information and necessary, use the Narrow by Agency or other forms of information Regulatory Affairs, Office of filter option on the Results page. technology. Management and Budget, Attention: • Email: [email protected]. Please note that comments submitted Desk Officer for Treasury, New • Mail: U.S. Department of State— in response to this Notice are public Executive Office Building, Room 10235, SA–44, HR/OE, Suite 368, Attention: record. Before including any detailed Washington, DC 20503, or email at Caroline Cole, 301 4th Street SW., personal information, you should be [email protected] and Washington, DC 20547. aware that your comments as submitted, the (2) Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, You must include the DS form including your personal information, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite number (if applicable), information will be available for public review. 8140, Washington, DC 20220, or email collection title, and the OMB control Abstract of Proposed Collection at [email protected]. number in any correspondence. The DS–0174, Application for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submission(s) may be Direct requests for additional Employment as a Locally Employed Staff or Family Member, is needed to obtained by calling (202) 927–5331, information regarding the collection email at [email protected], or the entire listed in this notice, including requests meet information collection requirements for recruitments information collection request may be for copies of the proposed collection found at www.reginfo.gov. instrument and supporting documents, conducted at approximately 170 U.S. to Caroline Cole, Bureau of Human embassies and consulates throughout Community Development Financial Resources, Office of Overseas the world. Current employment Institutions (CDFI) Fund Employment, U.S. Department of State, application forms do not meet the Washington, DC 20547, who may be unique requirements of Mission OMB Number: 1559–NEW. reached on 202–203–7390 or at recruitment (e.g., language skills and Type of Review: New collection. [email protected]. hiring preferences) under the FS Act of 1980 and 22 U.S.C. 2669(c). The DS– Title: Capital Magnet Fund Reporting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 0174 is needed to improve data Abstract: The purpose of the Capital • Title of Information Collection: gathering and to clarify interpretation of Magnet Fund (CMF) program is to Application for Employment as a candidate responses. competitively award grants to certified Locally Employed Staff or Family Community Development Financial Member. Methodology Institutions (CDFIs) and qualified • OMB Control Number: 1405–0189. Candidates for employment use the nonprofit housing organizations to • Type of Request: Revision of a DS–0174 to apply for Mission- attract and leverage other finance Currently Approved Collection. advertised positions throughout the resources towards the support of • Originating Office: Bureau of world. Mission recruitments generate affordable housing and related Human Resources, Office of Overseas approximately 40,000 applications per community development projects. The Employment (HR/OE). year. Data that HR and hiring officials CMF was authorized in July of 2008 • Form Number: DS–0174. extract from the DS–0174 determines • under Section 1339 of the Housing and Respondents: Candidates seeking eligibility for employment, Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub. L. employment at U.S. Missions abroad, qualifications for the position, and 110–289), and $80 million was including family members of Foreign selections according to Federal policies. appropriated for this initiative under the Service, Civil Service, and uniformed Consolidated Appropriations Act of service members officially assigned to Dated: August 31, 2012. William E. Schaal, Jr., 2010 (Pub. L. 111–117). Twenty-three the Mission and under Chief of Mission Awardees were competitively selected authority. Director, HR/EX, Department of State. • after a careful review of their program Estimated Number of Respondents: [FR Doc. 2012–22203 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] applications. These Awardees entered 40,000. BILLING CODE 4710–15–P • into Assistance Agreements with the Estimated Number of Responses: CDFI Fund that set forth certain 40,000. required terms and conditions of the • Average Time per Response: 1 hour. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY • award, including reporting and data Total Estimated Burden Time: collection requirements. The Assistance Submission for OMB Review; 40,000 hours. Agreement requires the collection of • Comment Request Frequency: On Occasion. annual reports that are used to collect • Obligation to Respond: Required to information for compliance monitoring Obtain a Benefit. September 5, 2012. and program evaluation purposes. This We are soliciting public comments to The Department of the Treasury will information is reviewed to ensure the permit the Department to: submit the following information Awardee’s compliance with its • Evaluate whether the proposed collection request to the Office of performance goals and contractual information collection is necessary for Management and Budget (OMB) for obligations and the overall performance the proper functions of the Department. review and clearance in accordance of the program. • Evaluate the accuracy of our with the Paperwork Reduction Act of estimate of the time and cost burden for 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the Affected Public: Private Sector: this proposed collection, including the date of publication of this notice. Businesses or other for-profits; Not-for- validity of the methodology and DATES: Comments should be received on profit institutions. assumptions used. or before October 10, 2012 to be assured Estimated Total Burden Hours: 920. • Enhance the quality, utility, and of consideration. clarity of the information to be ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding Robert Dahl, collected. the burden estimate, or any other aspect Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. • Minimize the reporting burden on of the information collection, including [FR Doc. 2012–22170 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] those who are to respond, including the suggestion for reducing the burden to BILLING CODE 4810–70–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55525
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY will be conducted. The Taxpayer Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) Advocacy Panel is soliciting public that a meeting of the Taxpayer Internal Revenue Service comments, ideas and suggestions on Advocacy Panel Face-to-Face Service improving customer service at the Methods Project Committee will be held Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Internal Revenue Service. Tuesday, October 9, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. Advocacy Panel Bankruptcy DATES: The meeting will be held Eastern Time via telephone conference. Compliance Project Committee Wednesday, October 17, 2012. The public is invited to make oral AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: comments or submit written statements Treasury. Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1–888–912–1227 for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent ACTION: Notice of meeting. or 718–488–2085. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is to participate must be made with Donna SUMMARY: An open meeting of the hereby given pursuant to section Powers. For more information please Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Bankruptcy 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory contact Ms. Powers at 1–888–912–1227 Compliance Project Committee will be Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) or 954–423–7977, or write TAP Office, conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy that an open meeting of the Taxpayer 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Panel is soliciting public comments, Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Burden Plantation, FL 33324, or contact us at ideas, and suggestions on improving Reduction Project Committee will be the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org. customer service at the Internal Revenue held Wednesday, October 17, 2012, at The agenda will include various IRS Service. 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone Issues. DATES: The meeting will be held conference. The public is invited to Dated: September 4, 2012. Tuesday, October 9, 2012. make oral comments or submit written Louis Morizio, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: statements for consideration. Due to Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. Timothy Shepard at 1–888–912–1227 or limited conference lines, notification of [FR Doc. 2012–22166 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] 206–220–6095. intent to participate must be made with BILLING CODE 4830–01–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Ms. Jenkins. For more information hereby given pursuant to Section please contact Ms. Jenkins at 1–888– 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 912–1227 or 718–488–2085, or write DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 that a meeting of the Taxpayer Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or Internal Revenue Service post comments to the Web site: http:// Advocacy Panel Bankruptcy Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Compliance Project Committee will be www.improveirs.org. The agenda will include various IRS Advocacy Panel Return Processing held Tuesday, October 9, 2012, at 9 a.m. Delays Project Committee Pacific Time via telephone conference. issues. The public is invited to make oral Dated: September 4, 2012. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), comments or submit written statements Louis Morizio, Treasury. for consideration. Due to limited Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. ACTION: Notice of meeting. conference lines, notification of intent [FR Doc. 2012–22169 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] to participate must be made with BILLING CODE 4830–01–P SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Timothy Shepard. For more information Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Return please contact Mr. Shepard at 1–888– Processing Delays Project Committee 912–1227 or 206–220–6095, or write DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY will be conducted. The Taxpayer TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W– Advocacy Panel is soliciting public 406, Seattle, WA 98174, or contact us at Internal Revenue Service comments, ideas, and suggestions on the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org. improving customer service at the The agenda will include various IRS Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Internal Revenue Service. Advocacy Panel Face-to-Face Service Issues. DATES: The meeting will be held Methods Project Committee Dated: September 4, 2012. Tuesday, October 2, 2012. Louis Morizio, AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. Treasury. Janice Spinks at 1–888–912–1227 or [FR Doc. 2012–22130 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] ACTION: Notice of meeting. 206–220–6098. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is BILLING CODE 4830–01–P SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Face-to-Face hereby given pursuant to Section Service Methods Project Committee will 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Internal Revenue Service Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving Advocacy Panel Return Processing Delays Project Committee will be held Open Meeting of Taxpayer Advocacy customer service at the Internal Revenue Tuesday, October 2, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. Panel Taxpayer Burden Reduction Service. Pacific Time via telephone conference. Project Committee DATES: The meeting will be held The public is invited to make oral Tuesday, October 9, 2012. AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), comments or submit written statements FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Treasury. for consideration. Due to limited Donna Powers at 1–888–912–1227 or ACTION: Notice of meeting. conference lines, notifications of intent 954–423–7977. to participate must be made with Ms. SUMMARY: An open meeting of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Janice Spinks. For more information Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer hereby given pursuant to Section please contact Ms. Spinks at 1–888– Burden Reduction Project Committee 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 912–1227 or 206–220–6098, or write
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 55526 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W– DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY DATES: The meeting will be held 406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post Thursday, October 4, 2012. comments to the Web site: http:// Internal Revenue Service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: www.improveirs.org. Ellen Smiley at 1–888–912–1227 or Open Meeting of the Taxpayer 414–231–2360. The agenda will include various IRS Advocacy Panel Joint Committee issues. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is AGENCY: Dated: September 4, 2012. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), hereby given pursuant to Section Treasury. Louis Morizio, 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory ACTION: Notice of meeting. Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. that an open meeting of the Taxpayer [FR Doc. 2012–22165 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Advocacy Panel Refund Processing BILLING CODE 4830–01–P Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Communications Project Committee will Committee will be conducted. The be held Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting p.m. Eastern Time via telephone DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY public comments, ideas, and conference. The public is invited to suggestions on improving customer Internal Revenue Service make oral comments or submit written service at the Internal Revenue Service. statements for consideration. Due to Open Meeting of the Taxpayer DATES: The meeting will be held limited conference lines, notification of Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Project Wednesday, October 24, 2012. intent to participate must be made with Committee FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ellen Smiley. For more information Susan Gilbert at 1–888–912–1227 or please contact Ms. Smiley at 1–888– AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), (515) 564–6638. 912–1227 or 414–231–2360, or write Treasury. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West hereby given pursuant to Section Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI ACTION: Notice of meeting. 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 53203–2221, or post comments to the Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) Web site: http://www.improveirs.org. SUMMARY: An open meeting of the that an open meeting of the Taxpayer The agenda will include various IRS Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be issues. Project Committee will be conducted. held Wednesday, October 24, 2012, 2:00 Dated: September 4, 2012. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. soliciting public comments, ideas and The public is invited to make oral Louis Morizio, suggestions on improving customer comments or submit written statements Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. service at the Internal Revenue Service. for consideration. Notification of intent [FR Doc. 2012–22160 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] DATES: The meeting will be held to participate must be made with Susan BILLING CODE 4830–01–P Tuesday, October 2, 2012. Gilbert. For more information please contact Ms. Gilbert at 1–888–912–1227 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: or (515) 564–6638 or write: TAP Office, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Marianne Dominguez at 1–888–912– 210 Walnut Street, Stop 5115, Des Internal Revenue Service 1227 or 954–423–7978. Moines, IA 50309 or contact us at the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Web site: http://www.improveirs.org. Open Meeting of the Taxpayer hereby given pursuant to Section The agenda will include various IRS Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory topics. Publications Project Committee Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) Dated: September 4, 2012. that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Louis Morizio, AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Project Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. ACTION: Notice of meeting. Committee will be held Tuesday, [FR Doc. 2012–22161 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] October 2, 2012, at 11 a.m. Eastern Time BILLING CODE 4830–01–P SUMMARY: An open meeting of the via telephone conference. The public is Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms invited to make oral comments or and Publications Project Committee will submit written statements for DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy consideration. Due to limited Panel is soliciting public comments, conference lines, notification of intent Internal Revenue Service ideas and suggestions on improving to participate must be made with customer service at the Internal Revenue Marianne Dominguez. For more Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Service. information please contact Ms. Advocacy Panel Refund Processing Dominguez at 1–888–912–1227 or 954– Communications Project Committee DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, October 10, 2012. 423–7978, or write TAP Office, 1000 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Treasury. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisa Knispel at 1–888–912–1227 or Plantation, FL 33324, or contact us at ACTION: Notice of meeting. the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org. 718–488–3557. The agenda will include various IRS SUMMARY: An open meeting of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is issues. Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Refund hereby given pursuant to section Processing Communications Project 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Dated: September 4, 2012. Committee will be conducted. The Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) Louis Morizio, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. public comments, ideas, and Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and [FR Doc. 2012–22163 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] suggestions on improving customer Publications Project Committee will be BILLING CODE 4830–01–P service at the Internal Revenue Service. held Wednesday, October 10, 2012, at 2
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices 55527
p.m. Eastern Time via telephone DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory conference. The public is invited to Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) make oral comments or submit written Internal Revenue Service that an open meeting of the Taxpayer statements for consideration. Due to Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self- Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Employed Decreasing Non-Filers Project limited conference lines, notification of Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self- intent to participate must be made with Committee will be held Tuesday, Employed Decreasing Non-Filers October 16, 2012, at 1 p.m. Eastern Time Ms. Knispel. For more information Project Committee please contact Ms. Knispel at 1–888– via telephone conference. The public is 912–1227 or 718–488–3557, or write AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), invited to make oral comments or TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Treasury. submit written statements for Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or ACTION: Notice of meeting. consideration. Due to limited post comments to the Web site: http:// conference lines, notification of intent SUMMARY: An open meeting of the to participate must be made with Ms. www.improveirs.org. Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Patricia Robb. For more information The agenda will include various IRS Business/Self-Employed Decreasing please contact Ms. Robb at 1–888–912– issues. Non-Filers Project Committee will be 1227 or 414–231–2360, or write TAP Dated: September 4, 2012. conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Office, Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Panel is soliciting public comments, Louis Morizio, Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI ideas, and suggestions on improving 53203–2221, or post comments to the Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. customer service at the Internal Revenue Web site: http://www.improveirs.org. [FR Doc. 2012–22131 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] Service. The agenda will include various IRS BILLING CODE 4830–01–P DATES: The meeting will be held issues. Tuesday, October 16, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: September 4, 2012. Patricia Robb at 1–888–912–1227 or Louis Morizio, 414–231–2360. Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is [FR Doc. 2012–22132 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] hereby given pursuant to Section BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:57 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM 10SEN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Vol. 77 Monday, No. 175 September 10, 2012
Part II
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Population’s Status as an Experimental Population; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55530 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228; telephone —Factor C. Disease or Predation. 303–236–7400. Persons who use a Æ Disease Fish and Wildlife Service Æ Natural Predation telecommunications device for the deaf Æ (TDD) may call the Federal Information Human-caused Mortality 50 CFR Part 17 —Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. Regulatory Mechanisms. [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0039; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Æ National Park Service FXES11130900000C6–123–FF09E30000] Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Æ National Wildlife Refuges Ecological Services Division; telephone Æ Tribal Lands RIN 1018–AX94 303–236–7400. Direct all questions or Æ Forest Service Æ requests for additional information to: State Regulatory Mechanisms Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Æ Environmental Protection Agency and Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish —Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade in Wyoming From the Federal List of and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Factors Affecting Its Continued Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Region Office, Ecological Services Existence. Division, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, Æ Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Æ Population’s Status as an CO 80228. Individuals who are hearing- Genetic Considerations impaired or speech-impaired may call Æ Poison Experimental Population Æ the Federal Relay Service at 800–877– Climate Change Æ Catastrophic Events AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 8337 for TTY assistance. Æ Interior. Impacts to Wolf Pack Social Structure as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a Result of Human-caused Mortality ACTION: Final rule. Table of Contents Conclusion (Including Cumulative Impacts) Significant Portion of the Range Analysis SUMMARY: The best scientific and Executive Summary commercial data available indicate that Post-Delisting Monitoring Background Effects of the Rule gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Wyoming —Delisting Wolves in Wyoming Required Determinations are recovered and are no longer in need —Previous Federal Actions —Paperwork Reduction Act of protection as part of an endangered —Reengaging Wyoming and Changes to Its —National Environmental Policy Act or threatened species under the Wolf Management Plan —Executive Order 13211 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as —Species Description and Basic Biology —Government-to-Government Relationship —Recovery Planning and Implementation With Tribes amended (Act). Therefore, we, the U.S. Æ Recovery Planning and the Development Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), References Cited of Recovery Criteria Authority remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from Æ Monitoring and Managing Recovery Æ List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 the Federal List of Endangered and Recovery by State Regulation Promulgation Threatened Wildlife. Wyoming’s gray Æ Recovery by Recovery Area Æ wolf population is stable, threats are Genetic Exchange Relative to our Executive Summary sufficiently minimized, and a post- Recovery Criteria Æ Conclusion on Progress Towards our (1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action delisting monitoring and management Recovery Goals framework has been developed. This rulemaking is necessary to Summary of Comments and remove gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Therefore, this final rule returns Recommendations management for this species to the Wyoming from the Federal List of —Technical and Editorial Comments Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. appropriate State, Tribal, or Federal —The Delisting Process and Compliance agencies; management in National Parks with Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Delisting is appropriate because gray and National Wildlife Refuges will Policy wolves in Wyoming are recovered and continue to be guided by existing —Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Gray are no longer in need of protection as authorizing and management legislation Wolf Recovery Goals part of an endangered or threatened —The Geographic Scope of Recovery and species under the Endangered Species and regulations. Finally, this action the Impact of This Decision on Range makes obsolete and removes the Act of 1973, as amended (Act). —General Comments on Whether To Delist Wyoming’s gray wolf population is Yellowstone Experimental Population —Human-Caused Mortality Area established in 1994 to facilitate —Gene Flow and Genetic Diversity stable, threats are sufficiently reintroductions. —Adequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms minimized, and a post-delisting —Public Attitudes Toward Wolves monitoring and management framework DATES: This rule becomes effective on —Other Potential Threat Factors has been developed. This action also September 30, 2012. —Cumulative Impacts of Threats makes obsolete and removes the ADDRESSES: This final rule, comments —Post-Delisting Monitoring Yellowstone Experimental Population received, and additional supporting —Positives and Negatives of Wolf Area established in 1994 to facilitate information are available on the Internet Restoration reintroductions. at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket —Native American Tribal Considerations No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0039. Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (2) Major Provision of the Regulatory Additional background information is —Factor A. The Present or Threatened Action Destruction, Modification, or also available online at http:// Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range. This action is authorized by the Act. www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ Æ Suitable Habitat We are amending § 17.11(h), subchapter mammals/wolf/. Comments and Æ Unoccupied Suitable Habitat B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of materials we received, as well as Æ Currently Occupied Habitat Federal Regulations by removing the supporting documentation we used in Æ Potential Threats Affecting Habitat or entry for ‘‘Wolf, gray [Northern Rocky preparing this rule are available for Range Mountain DPS]’’ under MAMMALS in public inspection, by appointment, —Factor B. Overutilization for the List of Endangered and Threatened Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or during normal business hours at the Educational Purposes. Wildlife. We are also amending § 17.84, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Æ Commercial or Recreational Uses subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Æ Overutilization for Scientific or Code of Federal Regulations by Ecological Services Division, 134 Union Educational Purposes removing and reserving both paragraphs
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55531
pertaining to experimental populations Southwest. Later in 1976, we listed the Courts (Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. of ‘‘Gray wolf (Canis lupus)’’: (i) and (n). Texas gray wolf subspecies (C. l. Norton, et al., 354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. In short, this action removes the gray monstrabilis) as endangered in Texas Or. 2005); National Wildlife Federation, wolf in Wyoming from the Federal List and Mexico (41 FR 24062, June 14, et al. v. Norton, et al., 386 F.Supp.2d of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 1976). 553 (D. Vt. 2005); Defenders of Wildlife, and makes obsolete and removes the Due to questions about the validity of et al. v. Hall, et al., 565 F.Supp.2d 1160 Yellowstone Experimental Population subspecies classification at the time and (D. Mont. 2008); Defenders of Wildlife, Area established in 1994 to facilitate issues associated with the narrow et al. v. Salazar, et al., 729 F.Supp.2d reintroductions. geographic scope of each subspecies, we 1207 (D. Mont. 2010). Each of these published a rule reclassifying the gray rulemakings and the subsequent (3) Costs and Benefits wolf as endangered at the species level litigation are discussed below. We have not analyzed the costs or (C. lupus) throughout the coterminous In 2003, we reclassified the benefits of this rulemaking action 48 States and Mexico (43 FR 9607, coterminous 48-State listing into three because the Act precludes consideration March 9, 1978). The exception was DPSs including a threatened Western of such impacts on listing and delisting Minnesota, where the gray wolf was DPS, a threatened Eastern DPS, and an determinations. Instead, listing and reclassified to threatened. This rule also endangered Southwestern DPS (68 FR delisting decisions are based solely on provided assurance that this 15804, April 1, 2003). The Western DPS, the best scientific and commercial reclassification would not alter our centered around the recovered NRM information available regarding the intention to focus recovery on each gray wolf population, included status of the subject species. population as separate entities. California, northern Colorado, Idaho, Accordingly, recovery plans were Montana, Oregon, northern Utah, Background developed for: The Great Lakes in 1978 Washington, and Wyoming. This rule Delisting Wolves in Wyoming (revised in 1992) (Service 1978, entire; also removed the protections of the Act Service 1992, entire); the NRM region in for gray wolves in all or parts of 16 This rulemaking is separate and 1980 (revised in 1987) (Service 1980, southern and eastern States where the independent from, but additive to, the entire; Service 1987, entire); and the species historically did not occur. previous action delisting wolves in the Southwest in 1982 (Service 1982, Finally, this rule established a special Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) entire). A revision to the Southwest 4(d) rule to respond to wolf-human Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (74 recovery plan is now under way. conflicts in areas not covered by FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 76 FR 25590, In 1994, we established nonessential existing nonessential experimental May 5, 2011). We conclude that this experimental gray wolf populations population rules. In 2005, the U.S. approach is appropriate given the under section 10(j) of the Act (50 CFR District Courts in Oregon and Vermont Congressional directive to reissue our 17.84(i)), in portions of Idaho, Montana, concluded that the 2003 final rule was 2009 delisting, which created a remnant and all of Wyoming, including the ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ and violated piece of the NRM DPS. This approach Yellowstone Experimental Population the Act (Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. is also consistent with our 2009 Area (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994) Norton, et al., 354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. delisting determination, which stated and the Central Idaho Experimental Or. 2005); National Wildlife Federation, that ‘‘if Wyoming were to develop a Population Area (59 FR 60266, et al. v. Norton, et al., 386 F.Supp.2d Service-approved regulatory framework November 22, 1994). These designations 553 (D. Vt. 2005)). Both courts ruled the it would be delisted in a separate rule’’ assisted us in initiating gray wolf Service improperly downlisted entire (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, p. 15155). reintroductions in central Idaho and in DPSs based just on the viability of a core This rule is separate from prior actions Yellowstone National Park (YNP). The population. The courts’ rulings to remove the other portions of the NRM Yellowstone Experimental Population invalidated the April 2003 changes to DPS from the List of Endangered and Area included the entire State of the gray wolf listing under the Act. Threatened Wildlife. Outside Wyoming, Wyoming. In 2005 and 2008, we revised In 2003, we also published an this rule will not affect the status of the these regulations to provide increased advanced notice of proposed gray wolf in the portions of the NRM management flexibility for this rulemaking announcing our intention to DPS under State laws or suspend any recovered wolf population in States and delist the Western DPS as the recovery other legal protections provided by State on Tribal lands with Service-approved goals had been satisfied (68 FR 15876, law. post-delisting wolf management plans April 1, 2003). This notice explained Previous Federal Actions (70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR that delisting would require 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR consideration of threats, and that the In 1967, we determined the eastern 17.84(n)). adequacy of State wolf management timber wolf (C. l. lycaon) in the Great The NRM gray wolf population plans to address threats in the absence Lakes region was threatened with achieved its numerical and of protections of the Act would be a extinction (32 FR 4001, March 11, distributional recovery goals at the end major determinant in any future 1967). In 1973, we added the NRM gray of 2000 (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). delisting evaluation. wolf (C. l. irremotus) to the U.S. List of The temporal portion of the recovery In 2004, we determined that Endangered Fish and Wildlife (38 FR goal was achieved in 2002 when the Montana’s and Idaho’s laws and wolf 14678, June 4, 1973). Both of these numerical and distributional recovery management plans were adequate to listings were issued pursuant to the goals were exceeded for the third assure that their shares of the NRM wolf Endangered Species Conservation Act of successive year (Service et al. 2012, population would be maintained above 1969. In 1974, these subspecies were Table 4). In light of this success, we recovery levels (Williams 2004a; listed as endangered under the Act of once reclassified and twice delisted all Williams 2004b). However, we also 1973 (39 FR 1158, January 4, 1974). We or part of this population (68 FR 15804, found the 2003 Wyoming legislation listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the April 1, 2003; 73 FR 10514, February 27, and plan were not adequate to maintain Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) as 2008; 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). Wyoming’s share of a recovered NRM endangered on April 28, 1976, (41 FR These reclassification and delisting gray wolf population (Williams 2004c). 17736) in Mexico and the United States rules were overturned by U.S. District Wyoming challenged this
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55532 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
determination, and the United States the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion Extinction Throughout All or a District Court in Wyoming dismissed for a preliminary injunction and Significant Portion of Its Range’ ’’ (M- the case (State of Wyoming, et al., v. enjoined the Service’s implementation Opinion) (Department of the Interior United States Department of Interior, et of the final delisting rule (Defenders of 2007, entire). The final rule determined al., 360 F.Supp.2d 1214, (D. Wyoming Wildlife, et al., v. Hall, et al., 565 that Wyoming’s existing regulatory 2005)). Wyoming’s subsequent appeal F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. Mont. 2008)). The framework did not provide adequate was unsuccessful (State of Wyoming, et court stated that we acted arbitrarily in regulatory mechanisms to maintain al. v. United States Department of delisting a wolf population that lacked Wyoming’s share of a recovered NRM Interior, et al., 442 F.Supp.3d 1262 (10th evidence of natural genetic exchange wolf population if the protections of the Cir. 2006)). This challenge was resolved between subpopulations. The court also Act were removed and stated that, until on procedural grounds because stated that we acted arbitrarily and Wyoming revised its statutes, Wyoming failed to identify a final capriciously when we approved regulations, and management plan, and agency action necessary for judicial Wyoming’s 2007 wolf management plan obtained Service approval, wolves in review. In 2005, Wyoming petitioned us because the State failed to commit to Wyoming would remain protected by to revise the listing status for the gray managing for at least 15 breeding pairs. the Act (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). wolf by recognizing a NRM DPS and to In addition, the court concluded we The 2009 rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, remove it from the Federal List of acted arbitrarily in approving 2009) was challenged in the U.S. Endangered and Threatened Species Wyoming’s 2007 post-delisting District Court for the District of Montana (Freudenthal 2005, entire). In 2006, we management framework that contained by environmental litigants and in the announced a 12-month finding that a Wyoming statute allowing the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming’s petition (delisting wolves in Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Wyoming by the State of Wyoming, the all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) (WGFC) to diminish Wyoming’s Wolf Wyoming Wolf Coalition, and Park was not warranted because the 2003 Trophy Game Management Area County, Wyoming. On August 5, 2010, Wyoming State laws and its 2003 wolf (Trophy Area) if it ‘‘determines the the U.S. District Court for Montana management plan did not provide diminution does not impede the ruled on the merits of the case and adequate regulatory mechanisms to delisting of gray wolves and will vacated our April 2009 final rule maintain Wyoming’s share of a facilitate Wyoming’s management of (Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. Salazar, recovered NRM wolf population (71 FR wolves.’’ In light of the court order, on et al., 729 F. Supp.2d 1207 (D. Mont. 43410, August 1, 2006). Wyoming September 22, 2008, we asked the court 2010)). The court concluded that the challenged this finding in Wyoming to vacate the final rule and remand it to NRM DPS must be listed or delisted in Federal District Court. This challenge us. On October 14, 2008, the court its entirety. The court rejected the rule’s was rendered moot by Wyoming’s granted our request (Defenders of approach allowing protection of only a revisions to its laws and management Wildlife v. Hall, 9:08–CV–00056–DWM portion of the species’ range because it plan in 2007, which allowed delisting to (D. Mont 2008)). The court’s order was inconsistent with the Act’s move forward. On February 27, 2008, a invalidated the February 2008 rule definition of ‘‘species.’’ Thus, before Wyoming Federal District Court issued designating and delisting the NRM DPS. delisting could occur, Wyoming had to an order dismissing the case (State of develop a regulatory framework that Wyoming, et al., v. United States Following the July 18, 2008, court was determined by the Service to be Department of Interior, et al., U.S. ruling, we reexamined the NRM DPS adequate to maintain Wyoming’s share District Court Case No. 2:06–CV–00245). and Wyoming’s statutes, regulations, of a recovered NRM gray wolf In 2008, we issued a final rule and management plan. This population. The court’s ruling recognizing the NRM DPS and removing reevaluation considered several issues invalidated the 2009 rule designating it from the List of Endangered and not considered in the previous and delisting most of the NRM DPS. Threatened Wildlife (73 FR 10514, evaluation. We determined that the best On October 26, 2010, in compliance February 27, 2008). This DPS included scientific and commercial data available with the order of the U.S. District Court Idaho, Montana, eastern Oregon, north- demonstrated that: (1) The NRM DPS for Montana, we published a final rule central Utah, eastern Washington, and was not threatened or endangered notifying the public that the Federal Wyoming. This DPS was smaller than throughout ‘‘all’’ of its range (i.e., not protections in place prior to the 2009 the 2003 Western DPS and more closely threatened or endangered throughout all delisting had been reinstated (75 FR approximates the historical range of the of the DPS); and (2) the Wyoming 65574). Wolves in eastern Washington, originally listed NRM gray wolf in the portion of the range represented a eastern Oregon, north-central Utah, the region and the areas focused on in both significant portion of the range where Idaho panhandle, and northern Montana NRM recovery plans (39 FR 1175 the species remained in danger of were again listed as endangered. Former January 4, 1974; Service 1980, pp. 3, 7– extinction because of the inadequacy of special rules designating the gray wolf 8; Service 1987, pp. 2, 23). The Service existing regulatory mechanisms. Thus, in the remainder of Montana and Idaho removed protections across the entire on April 2, 2009, we published a final as nonessential experimental DPS after Wyoming revised its wolf rule recognizing the NRM DPS and populations were likewise reinstated. management plan and State law. At the removing the DPS from the List of Additionally, the NRM gray wolf DPS time, we concluded this Wyoming Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, established by the April 2, 2009, final framework provided adequate except in Wyoming, where wolves rule was set aside. Because wolves in regulatory protections to conserve continued to be regulated as a Wyoming were not delisted by the April Wyoming’s portion of a recovered wolf nonessential experimental population 2, 2009, final rule, their listed status was population into the foreseeable future under 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n) (74 FR not affected by the October 26, 2010, (Hall 2007). 15123). The decision to retain the Act’s rule. Environmental litigants challenged protections only in Wyoming was Following the Montana District Court this final rule in the U.S. District Court consistent with a March 16, 2007, decision, the United States Congress for the District of Montana. The Memorandum Opinion issued by the passed, and President Obama signed, plaintiffs also moved to preliminarily Solicitor of the Department of the H.R. 1473, Public Law 112–10—The enjoin the delisting. On July 18, 2008, Interior, ‘‘The Meaning of ‘In Danger of Department of Defense and Full Year
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55533
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 These discussions led to an agreement Wyoming has incorporated these (hereafter referred to as the 2011 and modification of the Wyoming wolf changes into its regulatory framework. Appropriations Act). Section 1713 of the management plan (WGFC 2011, entire). Below we summarize the key points in law directed the Service to reissue its On October 5, 2011, we proposed to the agreement relative to the three April 2009 delisting rule. The Service remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from overarching Service concerns complied with the Appropriations Act the List of Endangered and Threatened highlighted above. on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25590). Thus, Wildlife (76 FR 61782). This proposal First, Wyoming made the existing gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, eastern relied on Wyoming’s 2011 wolf Trophy Area permanent by Oregon, north-central Utah, and eastern management plan (WGFC 2011, entire) incorporating it into State statute. In Washington were once again delisted. and noted that conforming changes to total, Wyoming wolves will be managed The constitutionality of section 1713 of State law and regulations would be as game animals year-round or protected the 2011 Appropriations Act was required to allow Wyoming’s plan to be in about 38,500 square kilometers (km2) upheld in the Montana District Court implemented as written. Following (15,000 square miles (mi2)) in the and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals publication of the proposal, Wyoming northwestern portion of the State (15.2 (Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al., v. revised its State statutes and gray wolf percent of Wyoming), including YNP, Salazar, et al., case no. CV 11–70–M– management regulations (chapter 21) Grand Teton National Park, John D. DWM; Alliance for the Wild Rockies, et and developed gray wolf hunting season Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, al., v. Salazar, et al., case no. 11– regulations (chapter 47) and an adjacent U.S. Forest Service-designated 35670). The Department of Interior Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Wilderness Areas, adjacent public and withdrew the M-Opinion on this topic Management Plan. On May 1, 2012, we private lands, the National Elk Refuge, on May 4, 2011 (Department of the reopened the public comment period on and most of the Wind River Indian Interior 2011, entire). our October 5, 2011, proposal to allow As for the Wyoming challenge to the Reservation (Lickfett 2012). This area of all interested parties an additional Wyoming contains the majority of April 2009 partial delisting rule (74 FR opportunity to comment on the 15123, April 2, 2009), a United States suitable wolf habitat within the State. proposed rule in light of these Wolves will be designated as predatory District Court for Wyoming ruled in documents (77 FR 25664, May 1, 2012). favor of the Wyoming plaintiffs on animals in the remainder of the State November 18, 2010 (Wyoming et al., v. Reengaging Wyoming and Changes to Its (predator area). The above protected and U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., Wolf Management Plan permanent game areas (see Figure 1) 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122829). The The 2009 rule stated that ‘‘until include: 100 percent of the portion of court rejected the Service’s Wyoming revises their statutes, the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) recommendation that the entire State of management plan, and associated recovery area within Wyoming (Service Wyoming be designated as a Trophy regulations, and is again Service 1987, Figure 2); approximately 79 Area, and the court found this position approved, wolves in Wyoming continue percent of the Wyoming portion of the to be arbitrary and capricious, because to require the protections of the Act’’ (74 primary analysis area used in the 1994 it was not supported by the FR 15123, April 2, 2009). This rule Environmental Impact Statement on The administrative record. The court stated specifically expressed concern over: (1) Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to YNP that the record indicated only The size and permanency of the Trophy and Central Idaho (1994 Environmental northwestern Wyoming, which has the Area; (2) conflicting language within the Impact Statement) (areas analyzed as vast majority of the State’s suitable State statutes concerning whether potentially being impacted by wolf habitat, was biologically essential to Wyoming would manage for at least 15 recovery in the GYA) (Service 1994, maintaining the NRM population. breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves, Figure 1.1); the entire home range for 24 However, the court did not render an exactly 15 breeding pairs and 150 of 27 breeding pairs (88 percent), 40 of opinion on whether Wyoming’s current wolves, or only 7 breeding pairs and 70 48 packs (83 percent), and 282 of 328 plan, including the size and location of wolves; and (3) liberal depredation individual wolves (86 percent) in the its 2007 Trophy Area, was sufficient. control authorizations and legislative State at the end of 2011 (Service et al. Instead, the court remanded the matter mandates to aggressively manage the 2012, Tables 2, 4, Figure 3; Jimenez to us to reconsider whether Wyoming’s population down to minimum levels. 2012a; Jimenez 2012, pers. comm.); and regulatory framework would maintain In early 2011, we began discussions approximately 81 percent of the State’s its share of a recovered wolf population with Wyoming seeking to develop a suitable habitat (including over 81 and provide adequate genetic strategy to address each of these issues. percent of the high-quality habitat connectivity. Subsequent to this order, In August 2011, the Service and the (greater than 80 percent chance of the Service and the State reinitiated State of Wyoming announced the supporting wolves) and over 62 percent discussions on revisions to the State’s framework of an agreement that we of the medium-high-quality habitat (50 wolf management framework that would conclude will maintain a recovered wolf to 79 percent chance of supporting satisfy the standards of the Act and population in Wyoming (WGFC 2011, wolves) (Oakleaf 2011; Mead 2012a)). allow delisting to again move forward. appendix I). Since this agreement, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55534 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C management plan further clarifies a goal miles (mi)) south for 4 and a half The State of Wyoming also addressed for gene flow of at least one effective months during peak wolf dispersal our prior concern that the size of the natural migrant per generation entering periods (WGFC 2011, pp. 2, 8, 52). We Trophy Area would affect natural into the GYA, as measured over conclude that this seasonal protection connectivity and genetic exchange. State multiple generations (WGFC 2011, pp. will benefit natural dispersal. wolf management regulations (chapter 4, 9, 26–29, 54). To assist in this goal, Furthermore, Wyoming commits to an 21(4)(a)(ii)) commit to managing wolves a Wyoming statute provides for a adaptive management approach that in Wyoming so that genetic diversity and connectivity issues do not threaten seasonal expansion of the Trophy Area adjusts management if the above the population. The State’s wolf approximately 80 kilometers (km) (50 minimum level of gene flow is not
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER10SE12.000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55535
documented (WGFC 2011, pp. 26–29; wolves within the Trophy Area to be large numbers in Canada and Alaska WGFC 2012, pp. 6–7). Finally, treated as predatory animals under and are now well connected to the translocation of wolves between certain circumstances at the discretion restored NRM wolf populations subpopulations would be used as a last of the State Game and Fish Commission (Pletscher et al. 1991, pp. 547–548; resort, only if necessary to increase (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 16–17, 23). Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1105– genetic interchange (WGFC 2012, p. 7). Wyoming modified W.S. 23–1–302(a)(ii) 1106; Committee on the Status of These efforts would be coordinated with to ensure it does not apply to wolves in Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2001, Montana and Idaho (WGFC 2012, p. 7). the Trophy Area. This change is a pp. iii, v–vi, 13, 21–22, 30–32, 38, 42, Next, Wyoming agreed to maintain a substantial improvement over current 44–46; Boitani 2003, p. 322; Sime 2007; population of at least 10 breeding pairs Wyoming law that will provide for a vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. 4412; Jimenez and at least 100 wolves in portions of wolf population in Wyoming (outside of et al. In review, p. 1). Wyoming outside YNP and the Wind YNP and the Wind River Indian Wolves primarily prey on medium River Indian Reservation (WGFC 2011, Reservation) that always maintains at and large mammals. Wolf prey in the pp. 1–5, 16–26, 52). Importantly, this least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 NRM region is composed mainly of elk commitment does not reflect an individuals. (Cervus canadensis), white tailed deer intention by the Wyoming Game and Furthermore, Wyoming established (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer Fish Department (WGFD) to reduce the defense-of-property regulations that are (Odocoileus hemionus), moose (Alces population down to this minimum similar to our nonessential experimental alces), and (in the GYA) bison (Bison population level. Rather, Wyoming population rules (50 CFR 17.84(n)) bison). Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), intends to maintain an adequate buffer (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 22–23, 30–31, 53). mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), above minimum population objectives Also, Wyoming’s management of and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra to accommodate management needs and depredating wolves will be similar to americana) also are common but less ensure uncontrollable sources of Service management under the Act’s important wolf prey, at least to date. mortality do not drop the population protections (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 22–23, Wolves normally live in packs of 2 to below this minimum population level 30–31, 53). Such rules were in place in 12 animals. In the NRM region, pack (WGFC 2011, p. 24; WGFC 2012, pp. 3– Montana and Idaho prior to delisting sizes average 7 wolves but are slightly 5). and allowed continued population larger in protected areas. A few complex The wolf populations in YNP and on growth. These management approaches packs have been substantially bigger in the lands of sovereign nations will constitute an additional improvement some areas of YNP (Smith et al. 2006, provide an additional buffer above the over the framework Wyoming had in p. 243; Service et al. 2012, Tables 1–3). minimum recovery goal. From 2000 to place for most of 2008. Packs typically occupy large territories the end of 2011 (the most recent official These and other improvements from 518 to 1,295 km2 (200 to 500 mi2). wolf population estimates available), the discussed in more detail below have Once a given area is occupied by wolf population in YNP ranged from 96 addressed the Service’s concerns about resident wolf packs, it becomes to 174 wolves, and between 6 to 16 wolf management in Wyoming and saturated and wolf numbers become breeding pairs. While a lower future make this delisting rule possible. regulated by the amount of available population level in YNP is predicted Appropriate changes have been prey, intraspecific conflict (wolf-on-wolf (between 50 to 100 wolves and 5 to 10 incorporated into State statute, State conflict), other forms of mortality, and packs with 4 to 6 of these packs meeting regulations, and the Wyoming wolf dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover the breeding pair definition annually) management plan. large areas as they try to join other packs (Smith 2012), YNP will always provide or attempt to form their own pack in Species Description and Basic Biology a secure wolf population providing a unoccupied habitat (Mech and Boitani safety margin above the minimum Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are the 2003, pp. 11–17). recovery goal. The Wind River Indian largest wild members of the dog family Typically, only one male and female Reservation typically contains a small (Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from in each pack breed and produce pups number of wolves (single digits), which 18–80 kilograms (kg) (40–175 pounds (Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, sometimes form packs that count toward (lb)) depending upon sex and pp. 243–24; Service et al. 2012, Tables Tribal population totals. On the whole, geographic region (Mech 1974, p. 1). In 1–3). Females and males typically begin we expect the statewide wolf population the NRM region, adult male gray wolves breeding as 2-year-olds and may in Wyoming will be maintained well average just over 45 kg (100 lb), but may annually produce young until they are above minimum recovery levels. weigh up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females over 10 years old. In the NRM region, Another substantial improvement is weigh about 20 percent less than males. litters are typically born in April and Wyoming’s management framework Wolves’ fur color is frequently a grizzled range from 1 to 7 pups, but average inside the Trophy Area. For example, gray, but it can vary from pure white to around 5 pups (Service et al. 1989– Wyoming removed statutory mandates coal black (Gipson et al. 2002, p. 821). 2012, Tables 1–3). Most years, 80 for aggressive management of wolves Gray wolves have a circumpolar range percent of pups survive until winter (WGFC 2011, pp. 24, 52). Previous including North America, Europe, and (Service et al. 1989–2012, Tables 1–3). Wyoming law required aggressive Asia. As Europeans began settling the Wolves can live 13 years (Holyan et al. management until the population United States, they poisoned, trapped, 2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan outside the National Parks fell to six and shot wolves, causing this once- in YNP is less than 4 years (Smith et al. breeding pairs or below. The Service widespread species to be eradicated 2006, p. 245). Pup production and was concerned with Wyoming’s from most of its range in the 48 survival can increase when wolf density previous State law, and it has been conterminous States (Mech 1970, pp. is lower and food availability per wolf remedied. 31–34; McIntyre 1995, entire). Gray wolf increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Additionally, Wyoming agreed that populations were eliminated from Pack social structure is very adaptable wolves in the permanent Trophy Area Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well and resilient. Breeding members can be would not be treated as predatory as adjacent southwestern Canada by the quickly replaced either from within or animals (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 16–17, 23). 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p. outside the pack, and pups can be Past State laws allowed depredating 414). Gray wolves continue to occur in reared by another pack member, should
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55536 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
their parents die (Boyd and Jimenez not, fully follow the guidance provided appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1994, entire; Packard 2003, p. 38; in a recovery plan. 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1). Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. For NRM gray wolves, we formed the The 1994 Environmental Impact 1482). Consequently, wolf populations Interagency Wolf Recovery Team to Statement reviewed the wolf recovery can rapidly recover from severe complete a recovery plan for the NRM standards in the NRM region and the disruptions, such as very high levels of population shortly after it was listed adequacy of the recovery goals to assure human-caused mortality or disease. (Service 1980, p. i; Fritts et al. 1995, p. that the 1987 goals were sufficient Wolf populations have been shown to 111). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (Service 1994, pp. 6:68–78). We were increase rapidly if mortality is reduced (recovery plan) was approved in 1980 particularly concerned about the 1987 after severe declines (Fuller et al. 2003, (Service 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 definition of a breeding pair because it pp. 181–183; Service et al. 2012, Table (Service 1987, p. i). The 1980 recovery included two adult wolves ‘capable’ of 4). plan’s objective was to reestablish and producing offspring instead of two adult For detailed information on the maintain viable populations of the NRM wolves that had actually produced biology of this species see the ‘‘Biology wolf (C. l. irremotus) in its former range offspring. We also believed the and Ecology of Gray Wolves’’ section of where feasible (Service 1980, p. iii). relatively small recovery areas the April 1, 2003, final rule to reclassify This plan did not include recovery goals identified in the 1987 plan greatly and remove the gray wolf from the list (i.e., delisting criteria). The 1980 plan reduced the amount of area that could of endangered and threatened wildlife covered an area similar to the NRM be used by wolves and would almost in portions of the coterminous United DPS, as it was once believed to be the certainly eliminate the opportunity for States (2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 range of the purported NRM wolf meaningful natural demographic and FR 15804). subspecies. It recommended that genetic connectivity. We conducted a thorough literature review of wolf Recovery Planning and Implementation recovery actions be focused on the large population viability analysis and This section includes a detailed areas of public land in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA. minimum viable populations, reviewed discussion of the recovery criteria the recovery goals for other wolf including their development, The 1987 revised recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 57) concluded that the populations, surveyed the opinions of continuous evaluation, and revision as the top 43 wolf experts in North necessary. Additionally, this section subspecies designations may no longer be valid and simply referred to gray America (of which 25 responded), and includes our summary of progress incorporated our own expertise into a wolves in the NRM region. Consistent towards recovery including an review of the NRM wolf recovery goal. with the 1980 plan, it also assessment of whether the criteria are We published our analysis in the 1994 recommended focusing recovery actions met. This section discusses the entire Environmental Impact Statement and a on the large blocks of public land in the NRM population because the recovery peer-reviewed paper (Service 1994, NRM region. criteria apply to the entire population. appendix 8 & 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, Recovery Planning and the The 1987 plan specified recovery pp. 26–38). Development of Recovery Criteria—As criteria of a minimum of 10 breeding Our 1994 analysis concluded that the general background, recovery plans are pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of 1987 recovery goal was, at best, a not regulatory documents, but are opposite sex and adequate age, capable minimum recovery goal, and that instead intended to provide guidance to of producing offspring) for a minimum modifications were warranted on the the Service, States, and other partners of 3 successive years in each of 3 basis of more recent information about on methods of minimizing threats to distinct recovery areas including: (1) wolf distribution, connectivity, and listed species and on criteria that may Northwestern Montana (Glacier numbers. We also concluded, ‘‘Data on be used to determine when recovery is National Park; the Great Bear, Bob survival of actual wolf populations achieved. There are many paths to Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat suggest greater resiliency than indicated accomplishing recovery of a species, Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public by theory,’’ and theoretical treatments of and recovery may be achieved without and private lands); (2) central Idaho population viability ‘‘have created all criteria being fully met. For example, (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank unnecessary dilemmas for wolf recovery one or more criteria may have been Church River of No Return, and programs by overstating the required exceeded while other criteria may not Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and population size’’ (Fritts and Carbyn have been accomplished. In that adjacent, mostly Federal, lands); and (3) 1995, p. 26). Based on our analysis, we instance, the Service may judge that the the YNP area (including the Absaroka- redefined a breeding pair as an adult threats have been minimized Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, male and an adult female wolf that have sufficiently, and the species is robust and Teton Wilderness Areas; and produced at least two pups that enough to reclassify from endangered to adjacent public and private lands). That survived until December 31 of the year threatened or to delist. In other cases, plan recommended that wolf of their birth, during the previous recovery opportunities may have been establishment not be promoted outside breeding season. We also concluded that recognized that were not known at the these distinct recovery areas, but it ‘‘Thirty or more breeding pairs time the recovery plan was finalized. encouraged connectivity between comprising some 300+ wolves in a These opportunities may be used recovery areas. However, no attempts metapopulation (a population that exists instead of methods identified in the were made to prevent wolf pack as partially isolated sets of recovery plan. Likewise, information on establishment outside of the recovery subpopulations) with genetic exchange the species may become available that areas unless chronic conflict required between subpopulations should have a was not known at the time the recovery resolution (Service 1994, pp. 1–15, 16; high probability of long term plan was finalized. The new Service 1999, p. 2). Since completion of persistence’’ because it would contain information may change the extent that the 1987 recovery plan, we have enough individuals in successfully criteria need to be met for recognizing expended considerable effort to reproducing packs that were distributed recovery of the species. Recovery of a develop, repeatedly reevaluate, and over distinct but somewhat connected species is a dynamic process requiring when necessary modify, the recovery large areas, to be viable for the long term adaptive management that may, or may goals (Service 1987, p. 12; Service 1994, (Service 1994, p. 6:75). We explicitly
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55537
stated that the required genetic people provided their expert opinions disruption of human-caused mortality exchange could occur by natural means regarding a wide range of issues related that might affect breeding success in or by human-assisted migration to the NRM recovery goal. We also social carnivores (Brainerd et al. 2008, management and that dispersal of reviewed a wide range of literature, p. 89; Wallach et al. 2009, p. 1; Creel wolves between recovery areas was including wolf population viability and Rotella 2010, p. 1). Specifically, we evidence of that genetic exchange analyses from other areas (Bangs 2002, thought it was important for breeding (Service et al. 1994, appendix 8, 9). In pp. 1–9). pairs to have: Both male and female defining a ‘‘Recovered Wolf Despite varied professional opinions members together going into the Population,’’ we found ‘‘in the northern and a great diversity of suggestions, February breeding season; successful Rockies a recovered wolf population is experts overwhelmingly thought the occupation of a territory (generally 500– 10 breeding pairs of wolves in each of recovery goal derived in our 1994 1,300 km2 (200–500 mi2)); enough pups 3 areas for 3 successive years with some analysis was more biologically to replace themselves; offspring that level of movement between areas’’ appropriate than the 1987 recovery become yearling dispersers; at least four (Service 1994, pp. 6–7). We further plan’s criteria for recovery and wolves at the end of the year, which is determined that a metapopulation of represented a viable and recovered wolf near the population low point (note that this size and distribution among the population. Reviewers also thought the absolute low point occurs in April three areas of core suitable habitat in the genetic exchange, either natural or just before pups are born); all social NRM DPS would result in a wolf human-facilitated, was important to structures and age classes represented population that would fully achieve our maintaining the metapopulation within a wolf population; and adults recovery objectives. configuration and wolf population that can raise and mentor younger For more than 15 years, we have viability. Reviewers also believed the wolves. concluded that movement of proven ability of a breeding pair to show We also determined that an equitable individuals between the metapopulation successful reproduction was a necessary distribution of wolf breeding pairs and segments could occur either naturally or component of a biologically meaningful individual wolves among the three by human-assisted migration breeding pair definition. Reviewers States and the three recovery areas is an management (Service 1994, pp. 7–67). recommended other concepts/numbers essential part of achieving recovery. Specifically, the 1994 Environmental for recovery goals, but most were slight Like peer reviewers in 1994 and 2002, Impact Statement stated ‘‘The modifications to those we recommended we concluded that NRM wolf recovery importance of movement of individuals in our 1994 analysis. While experts and long term wolf population viability between subpopulations cannot be strongly (78 percent) supported our is dependent on its distribution as well overemphasized. The dispersal ability of 1994 conclusions regarding a viable as maintaining the minimum numbers wolves makes such movement likely, wolf population, they also tended to of breeding pairs and wolves. Uniform unless wolves were heavily exploited believe that wolf population viability distribution is not necessary. But a well- between recovery areas, as could was enhanced by higher, rather than distributed population is necessary to happen in the more developed corridor lower, population levels and longer, maintain proportionate numbers of between central Idaho and YNP. rather than shorter, demonstrated packs and individuals in all three Intensive migration management might timeframes. A common minority recovery areas. This approach will become necessary if 1 of the 3 recommendation was an alternative goal maintain wolf distribution in and subpopulations should develop genetic of 500 wolves and 5 years. A slight adjacent to all three recovery areas and or demographic problems’’ (Service majority of reviewers indicated that most of the region’s suitable habitat. 1994, pp. 7–67). The finding went on to even the 1987 recovery goal of only 10 Such an approach will retain sizable say that human-assisted migration breeding pairs (defined as a male and subpopulations within easily traversable should not be viewed negatively and female capable of breeding) in each of distances from one another and, thus, would be necessary in other wolf 3 distinct recovery areas may be viable, facilitate natural connectivity. recovery programs (Service 1994, pp. 7– given the persistence of other small wolf Following the 2002 review of our 67). Furthermore, we found that the populations in other parts of the world. recovery criteria, we began to use States, 1987 wolf recovery plan’s population Based on the above review and in addition to recovery areas, to measure goal of 10 breeding pairs of wolves in considering all available information, progress toward recovery goals (Service 3 separate recovery areas for 3 we reaffirmed our more relevant and et al. 2003–2012, Table 4). Because consecutive years was reasonably sound stringent 1994 definition of wolf Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each and would maintain a viable wolf breeding pairs, population viability, and contain the vast majority of one of the population into the foreseeable future. recovery (Service 1994, p. 6:75; Bangs original three core recovery areas, we We did caution that the numerical 2002, pp. 1–9). determined the metapopulation recovery goal was somewhat We measure the wolf recovery goal by structure would be best conserved by conservative, and should be considered the number of breeding pairs as well as equally dividing the overall recovery minimal (Service 1994, pp. 6–75). by the number of wolves because wolf goal between the three States (73 FR We conducted another review of what populations are maintained by packs 10514, February 27, 2008, p. 10522). constitutes a recovered wolf population that successfully raise pups. We use This approach made each State’s in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate ‘‘breeding pairs’’ (packs that have at responsibility for wolf conservation fair, and update our 1994 analysis and least one adult male and at least one consistent, and clear. It avoided any conclusions (Service 1994, appendix 9). adult female and that raised at least two possible confusion that one State might We attempted to resurvey the same 43 pups until December 31) to describe assume the responsibility for experts we had contacted in 1994 as successfully reproducing packs (Service maintaining the required number of well as 43 other biologists from North 1994, p. 6:67; Bangs 2002, pp. 7–8; wolves and wolf breeding pairs in a America and Europe who were Mitchell et al. 2008, p. 881; Mitchell et shared recovery area that was the recognized experts about wolves and al. 2010, p. 101). The breeding pair responsibility of the adjacent State. conservation biology. We asked experts metric includes most of the important State regulatory authorities and with a wide diversity of perspectives to biological concepts in wolf traditional management of resident participate in our review. In total, 53 conservation, including the potential game populations occur on a State-by-
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55538 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
State basis. We determined that these criteria were maintained. In the the Wind River Indian Reservation will management by State would still most recent peer review, four of the five satisfy Wyoming’s contribution to NRM maintain a sizable wolf population in peer reviewers concurred with our gray wolf recovery. Under this each core recovery area because they conclusion that the Wyoming wolf approach, the wolf populations in YNP each contain manmade or natural population, whose management is to be and the Wind River Indian Reservation refugia from intensive human-caused driven by the recovery goals, would will provide a buffer above the mortality (e.g., wilderness and roadless continue to be a viable population after minimum recovery goal. We conclude areas, National Parks, and remote delisting (Atkins 2011, pp. 6, 10; Atkins that the YNP wolf population can Federal lands) that provide a stronghold 2012, p. 3). Those peer reviewers who effectively buffer the rest of the for wolf populations in each State. specifically addressed the recovery Wyoming wolf population because of Recovery targets by State promote criteria were unanimously supportive of the amount of available habitat in the connectivity and genetic exchange the criteria (Atkins 2011, appendix B). park, the sizable wolf population the between the metapopulation segments For example, Dr. Scott Mills stated that park does now and will continue to by avoiding management that focuses the thresholds for delisting are support, and the relative security of the solely on wolf breeding pairs in consistent with current state-of-the-art park population. relatively distinct core recovery areas. viability analysis science and are an Wyoming’s wolf population will be This approach also will increase the appropriate standard for delisting further buffered because WGFD intends numbers of potential wolf breeding (Atkins 2011, p. 60). Similarly, Dr. to maintain an adequate buffer above pairs in the GYA because it is shared by David Mech concluded that the recovery minimum population objectives to all three States. A large and well- criteria still seem adequate (Atkins accommodate management needs so distributed population within the GYA 2011, p. 73). None of the reviews that uncontrollable sources of mortality is especially important because it is the provided by the independent peer do not drop the population in Wyoming most isolated recovery segment within reviewers challenged the adequacy of outside of YNP and the Wind River the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. the recovery criteria (Atkins 2011, Indian Reservation below the 10 554; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). appendix B). breeding pair and 100 wolf minimum To recap, we have expended The numerical component of the population levels (WGFC 2011, p. 24; considerable effort to develop, recovery goal represents the minimum WGFC 2012, pp. 3–5). The State of repeatedly reevaluate, and, when number of breeding pairs and individual Wyoming also intends to coordinate necessary, modify, these recovery goals wolves needed to achieve and maintain with YNP and the Wind River Indian (Service 1980; Service 1987; Service recovery. Because the NRM wolf Reservation to contribute to the 1994, appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and population must always exceed the objective of at least 15 breeding pairs Carbyn 1995; Bangs 2002, entire). The recovery goal of 30 breeding pairs and and at least 150 wolves statewide, 1980 recovery plan required simply that 300 wolves, we required that Montana including YNP and the Wind River we reestablish and maintain viable and Idaho each manage for at least 15 Indian Reservation. This approach in populations within its former range breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves Wyoming is biologically superior to a where feasible. The 1987 recovery plan in mid-winter. This 50 percent safety single statewide standard in that: It further quantified the goals by requiring margin above minimum recovery levels provides population stability outside a minimum of 10 breeding pairs of was intended to provide an adequate the park, minimizing the chances of a wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite safety margin, recognizing that all bad year in YNP compromising sex and adequate age, capable of wildlife populations, including wolves, maintenance of the minimum recovery producing offspring) for a minimum of can fluctuate widely over a relatively goal; it adds an extra layer of 3 successive years in northwestern short period of time. Managing for a representation, resiliency, and Montana, central Idaho, and the YNP buffer above the minimum recovery redundancy to the GYA’s gray wolf area. In 1994, we revised the definition target is consistent with our 1994 population; and it builds public of a breeding pair (redefined as an adult determination that the addition of a few tolerance for a minimum wolf male and an adult female wolf that have extra pairs would add security to the population outside YNP. Further produced at least two pups that population and should be considered in justification for this approach to wolf survived until December 31 of the year future management planning (Service management after delisting and an of their birth, during the previous 1994, pp. 6–75). Additionally, because additional explanation of why we view breeding season) and added a the recovery goal components are this approach as superior for wolf requirement that there be genetic measured in mid-winter when the wolf conservation in Wyoming long term is exchange (preferably natural, but human population is near its annual low point included in Issue and Response 18 assisted if needed) between (note the absolute low point occurs in below. subpopulations. In 2002, we conducted April just before spring litters are born), To summarize, based on the a peer review of the above information, the average annual wolf population will information above, the current recovery which led us to reaffirm the conclusions be higher than these minimal goals. goal for the NRM gray wolf population reached above (i.e., the definition of Because Wyoming, unlike Montana is: Thirty or more breeding pairs (an wolf breeding pairs, our view of and Idaho, has a large portion of its wolf adult male and an adult female that population viability, and what population in areas outside the State’s raise at least two pups until December constitutes recovery), but moved us control (e.g., YNP and the Wind River 31) comprising 300+ wolves well- towards counting recovery by State in Indian Reservation), we developed an distributed between Montana, Idaho, addition to by recovery area. approach for Wyoming that recognizes and Wyoming functioning as a Finally, every NRM rulemaking this fact, but still holds the State to the metapopulation (a population that exists conducted over the last decade has also same commitment to achieve the as partially isolated sets of included a peer review in which desired safety margin above the subpopulations) with genetic exchange reviewers were asked to weigh in on our minimum recovery goal. Specifically, (either natural or, if necessary, agency- conclusions. The vast majority of these we determined that at least 10 breeding managed) between subpopulations. This reviewers supported our conclusion on pairs and at least 100 wolves at mid- goal further holds Montana, Idaho, and long term population viability assuming winter in Wyoming outside YNP and Wyoming to each maintain a population
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55539
of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least composed of Federal, State, and Tribal population size and trends, as well as 100 wolves at the end of the year. To agency personnel (Bangs 1991, p. 7; distributional and other information. provide that these minimum levels are Fritts et al. 1995, p. 109; Service et al. Recovery by State—At the end of not compromised, Montana and Idaho 1989–2012, p. 1). The Working Group calendar year 2000, the NRM population each are required to manage for a conducted four basic recovery tasks, in first met its overall numerical and population minimum of at least 15 addition to the standard enforcement distributional recovery goal of a breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves functions associated with the take of a minimum of 30 breeding pairs and more at the end of the year. So as not to risk listed species. These tasks were: (1) relisting and to provide management Monitor wolf distribution and numbers; than 300 wolves well-distributed among flexibility, Montana and Idaho intend to (2) control wolves that attacked Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (68 FR manage well above these minimum livestock by moving them, conducting 15804, April 1, 2003; Service et al. 2012, required levels. In Wyoming, the State other nonlethal measures, or by killing Table 4). Because the recovery goal must will maintain the entire minimum them (Bangs et al. 2006, p. 7); (3) be achieved for 3 consecutive years, the recovery goal of at least 10 breeding conduct research and publish scientific temporal element of recovery was not pairs and at least 100 wolves outside of publications on wolf relationships to achieved until the end of 2002 when at YNP and the Wind River Indian ungulate prey, other carnivores and least 663 wolves and at least 49 Reservation. So as not to risk relisting scavengers, livestock, and people; and breeding pairs were present (Service et and to provide management flexibility, (4) provide accurate science-based al. 2012, Table 4). By the end of 2011, Wyoming also intends to manage well information to the public and mass the NRM wolf population achieved its above these minimum required levels. A media so that people could develop numerical and distributional recovery sizable wolf population in YNP and in their opinions about wolves and wolf goal for 12 consecutive years, while the the Wind River Indian Reservation will management from an informed temporal portion of the recovery further buffer the population so that perspective. criterion has been met for 10 minimum recovery goals are not The minimum size and distribution of consecutive years (Service et al. 2012, compromised. Our recovery and post- the wolf population is estimated by the Table 4; 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 71 delisting management goals were Working Group each year and, along FR 6634, February 8, 2006). By the end designed to provide the NRM gray wolf with other information, is published in of 2011, the NRM gray wolf population population with sufficient an interagency annual report (Service et included a minimum population representation, resilience, and al. 1989–2012, Table 4, Figure 1). Since estimate of 1,774 wolves (including at redundancy for their long term the early 1980s, the Service and our least: 653 in Montana; 746 in Idaho; 328 conservation. After evaluating all cooperating partners have radio-collared in Wyoming; 18 in Washington; and 29 available information, we conclude that and monitored approximately 2,000 in Oregon) in 109 breeding pairs wolves in the NRM region to assess the best scientific and commercial (including at least: 39 in Montana; 40 in population status, conduct research, and information available indicates the Idaho; 27 in Wyoming; 2 in Washington; to reduce/resolve conflict with population will remain viable following and 1 in Oregon). Distribution at the end delisting if the recovery targets continue livestock. The Working Group’s annual of 2011 is illustrated in Figure 2. to be met. minimum population estimates Monitoring and Managing Recovery— represent the best scientific and Population trends through the end of In 1989, we formed an Interagency Wolf commercial data available regarding 2011 are illustrated in Figure 3. Working Group (Working Group) minimum year-end NRM gray wolf BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55540 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER10SE12.001 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55541
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER10SE12.002 55542 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Recovery by Recovery Area—As of detecting a pack (Bangs et al. 1998, January 1995, 15 young adult wolves discussed previously, after the 2002 p. 878). Increased monitoring efforts in from Alberta, Canada, were released in peer review of the wolf recovery efforts, northwestern Montana by Montana central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. we began using States, in addition to Fish, Wildlife and Parks since 2005 409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7). In January recovery areas, to measure progress were likely responsible for more 1996, an additional 20 wolves from toward recovery goals (Service et al. accurate minimum population British Columbia were released (Bangs 2003–2012, Table 4). However, because estimates. Wolf numbers in 2003 and et al. 1998, p. 787). Central Idaho the 1987 Recovery Plan (Service 1987, 2004 also likely exceeded 10 breeding contains the greatest amount of highly pp. v, 12, 23) included goals for core pairs and 100 wolves, but were not suitable wolf habitat compared to either recovery areas, we have included the documented simply due to less northwestern Montana or the GYA following discussion on the history of intensive monitoring those years (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559). the recovery efforts and status of these (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). By the end Consequently, the central Idaho area core recovery areas, including how the of 2011, this recovery area contained population has grown substantially and wolf population’s distribution and more than 10 breeding pairs and 100 expanded its range since reintroduction. metapopulation structure is important wolves for the seventh consecutive year As in the Northwestern Montana to maintaining its viability and how the (2005–2011), and probably did so for the Recovery Area, some of the Central biological characteristics of each core last 10 years (2002–2011) (Service et al. Idaho Recovery Area’s increase in its recovery area differ (Service et al. 2012, 2012, Table 4). minimum wolf population estimate Table 4). Routine dispersal of wolves has been beginning in 2005 was likely due to an The Northwestern Montana Recovery documented among northwestern increased monitoring effort by Idaho Area’s 84,800 km2 (33,386 mi2) Montana, central Idaho, and adjacent Department of Fish and Game. The includes: Glacier National Park; the Canadian populations demonstrating central Idaho population peaked in 2008 Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln that northwestern Montana’s wolves are and appears to have declined since then Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and demographically and genetically linked (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). We adjacent public and private lands in to both the wolf population in Canada estimated a minimum of 797 wolves in northern Montana and the northern and in central Idaho (Pletscher et al. 43 breeding pairs in the central Idaho Idaho panhandle. Wolves in this 1991, pp. 547–548; Boyd and Pletscher recovery area at the end of 2011 (Service recovery area were listed and managed 1999, pp. 1105–1106; Sime 2007; et al. 2012, Table 4). This recovery area as endangered species. Wolves naturally vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. 4412; Jimenez has contained at least 10 breeding pairs recolonized this area from Canada. et al. In review, p. 1). Because of fairly and at least 100 wolves for 14 Reproduction first occurred in contiguous but fractured suitable consecutive years (1998–2011) (Service northwestern Montana in 1986 (Ream et habitat, wolves dispersing into et al. 2012; Table 4). al. 1989, entire). The natural ability of northwestern Montana from both The GYA recovery area (63,700 km2 wolves to find and quickly recolonize directions will continue to join or form 2 empty habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, new packs and supplement this segment (24,600 mi )) includes portions of pp. 17–19), the interim control plan of the overall wolf population (Forbes southeastern Montana, eastern Idaho, (Service 1988, 1999, entire), and the and Boyd 1996, p. 1082; Forbes and and northwestern Wyoming. Portions of interagency recovery program combined Boyd 1997, p. 1226; Boyd et al. 1995, p. Wyoming that are occupied by wolves to effectively promote an increase in 140; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19; (Figure 1 above) include most of YNP, wolf numbers (Bangs 1991, pp. 7–13). vonHoldt et al. 2010; Thiessen 2007, p. Grand Teton National Park, and John D. By 1996, the number of known wolves 50; Sime 2007; Jimenez et al. In review, Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway; the had grown to about 70 wolves in 7 p. 1). Absaroka Beartooth, Bridger, known breeding pairs. However, from Unlike YNP or the central Idaho Fitzpatrick, Gros Ventre, Jedediah 1996 through 2004, the minimum Wilderness complex, northwestern Smith, North Absaroka, Popo Agie, estimated number of breeding pairs and Montana lacks a large core refugium that Teton, Washakie, and Winegar Hole wolves in northwestern Montana contains large numbers of overwintering Wilderness Areas; the Dubois Badlands, fluctuated at a low level, partly due to wild ungulates and few livestock. Owl Creek, Scab Creek, and Whiskey actual population size and partly due to Therefore, wolf numbers may not ever Mountain Wilderness Study Areas; and limited monitoring effort. However, be as high in northwestern Montana as adjacent public and private lands since 2005, it has steadily increased they are in the central Idaho or the GYA (Service 1994, p. iv). Much of the (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). At the end recovery areas. However, wolves have wilderness portions of the GYA are only of 2011, we estimated a minimum of persisted in this area for over 30 years, used seasonally by wolves due to high 431 wolves in 25 breeding pairs in the the population is robust today, and elevation, deep snow, and low northwestern Montana recovery area habitat there is capable of supporting productivity (in terms of sustaining (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). hundreds of wolves (Service et al. 2012, year-round wild ungulate populations) The Northwestern Montana Recovery Table 4). State management, pursuant to (Service et al. 2012, Figure 3; 71 FR Area has sustained fewer wolves than the Montana State wolf management 43410, August 1, 2006). In 1995, 14 the other recovery areas because there is plan (Montana Wolf Management wolves representing 3 family groups less suitable habitat and it is naturally Advisory Council 2003), provides that from Alberta were released in YNP more fragmented (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. this population segment will continue (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts et 560; Smith et al. 2010, p. 622). Some of to thrive. al. 1997, p. 7; Phillips and Smith 1996, the variation in our minimum wolf The Central Idaho Recovery Area’s pp. 33–43). In 1996, this procedure was population estimates for northwestern 53,600 km2 (20,700 mi2) includes the repeated with 17 wolves representing 4 Montana is also due to the difficulty of Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank family groups from British Columbia. counting wolves in the area’s thick Church River of No Return, and Finally, 10 pups were removed from forests. Wolves in northwestern Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; adjacent, northwestern Montana in a wolf control Montana also prey mainly on white- mostly Federal lands, in central Idaho; action and released in YNP in the spring tailed deer, resulting in smaller packs and adjacent parts of southwestern of 1997 (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787). Two and territories, which lower the chances Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). In of these pups became breeding adults
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55543
and their genetic signature is common from 1995 through 2004 when the NRM and an open house on the proposal on both in YNP and the GYA (vonHoldt et region contained between 101 and 846 November 15, 2011, in Riverton, al. 2010, p. 4421). We estimated a wolves. Dispersal data of radio-collared Wyoming (76 FR 61782, October 5, minimum of 499 wolves and 38 wolves also demonstrates genetic 2011). Collectively, during the 115-day breeding pairs were in the GYA at the exchange satisfying this criteria (Boyd comment period, we received end of 2011 (Service et al. 2012, Table and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1105–1106; approximately 250,000 comments. 4). By the end of 2011, this recovery Jimenez et al. In review, entire). This Comments were submitted by a wide area had at least 10 breeding pairs and issue is discussed further in Factor E array of parties, including the general at least 100 wolves for twelve below. public, environmental organizations, consecutive years (2000–2011) (Service Conclusion on Progress Towards our groups representing outdoor et al. 2012, Table 4). Recovery Goals—Given the above, the recreational interests, agricultural Wolf numbers in the GYA were best scientific and commercial organizations, and Federal, State, and relatively stable from 2007 through 2009 information available demonstrates that local governments. with around 450 wolves and between 33 all prongs of the recovery criteria are In accordance with our Interagency and 38 breeding pairs (Service et al. met. The numeric and distributional Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 2012, Table 4). In 2010 and 2011, the components of the overarching recovery Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270, GYA population grew to about 500 goal have been exceeded for 12 July 1, 1994), the proposed rule wolves with 37 to 38 breeding pairs, consecutive years, while the temporal underwent peer review. Specifically, we primarily because numbers of wolves portion of the recovery criterion has contracted with an independent outside YNP in Wyoming grew while been met for 10 consecutive years. consultant to assemble a scientific peer wolves in YNP have declined. Furthermore, Montana, Idaho, and review to review the proposed rule and Specifically, wolves in YNP declined Wyoming have each individually met or its supporting information, including from highs of around 170 wolves and exceeded the minimum per-State the Wyoming wolf management plan. between 11 and 16 breeding pairs in recovery targets every year since at least This report was delivered to the Service 2003, 2004, and 2007 to around 100 2002 and met or exceeded the minimum and posted online for public review and wolves and between 6 and 8 breeding management targets every year since at comment in late 2011. While the peer pairs in 2009, 2010, and 2011 (Service least 2004. It is also worth noting that review report was largely supportive of et al. 1998–2012, Table 2). This decline each of the recovery areas (which were the scientific basis, analysis, and in YNP likely occurred because: (1) originally used to measure progress conclusions of the delisting proposal, Highly suitable habitat in YNP was towards recovery) have been the peer review report made a number saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict documented at or above 10 breeding of suggestions including recommending among packs appeared to limit pairs and at least 100 wolves every year Wyoming further clarify how it intends population density; (3) fewer elk occur since 2005 (and probably exceeded to meet its management objectives in the in YNP than when reintroduction took these levels every year since 2002) face of multiple human-caused place (White and Garrott 2006, p. 942; (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). Finally, mortality factors. Following revision to Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259); and (4) the available evidence demonstrates that the State law, regulations and suspected outbreaks of disease in 2005 the NRM gray wolf population is management plan, we reopened the and 2008 (canine distemper (CD) or functioning as a metapopulation with comment period. Accordingly, the possibly canine parvovirus (CPV)) gene flow between subpopulations. independent expert peer reviewers were reduced pup survival to 20 percent Thus, we conclude that the population provided an opportunity to revise or (Service et al. 2006, 2009, Table 2; has recovered. Smith et al. 2006, p. 244; Smith and supplement their review during the Summary of Comments and Almberg 2007, pp. 17–20; Almberg et al. reopened comment period. Recommendations 2010, p. 2058). YNP predicts wolf We reviewed and considered all numbers in YNP may settle into a lower On October 5, 2011, we opened a 100- comments in this final decision. equilibrium long term (Smith 2012). day comment period in which Substantive comments received during Maintaining wolf populations safely interested parties could submit the comment periods and new above recovery levels and promoting comments or information on the information have been addressed below demographic and genetic exchange in proposal (76 FR 61782). This proposal or incorporated directly into this final the GYA segment of the NRM DPS will relied heavily on Wyoming’s wolf rule. Comments of a similar nature are depend on wolf packs living outside the management plan and noted that grouped together under subject headings National Park and wilderness portions conforming changes to State law and in a series of ‘‘Issues’’ and ‘‘Responses.’’ of northwestern Wyoming and regulations would be required to allow Technical and Editorial Comments southwestern Montana (vonHoldt et al. Wyoming’s plan to be implemented as 2010, p. 4422). written. Wyoming modified its State Issue 1: Numerous technical and Genetic Exchange Relative to our statutes and implementing regulations editorial comments and corrections Recovery Criteria—Finally, as noted and amended its wolf management plan were provided by respondents on above, the recovery criteria requires the in early 2012. On May 1, 2012, we various parts of the proposal. Several NRM DPS to function as a reopened the comment period for 15 peer reviewers and others suggested or metapopulation (a population that exists days so the public could comment on provided additional literature to as partially isolated sets of the proposal in light of these new or consider in the final rule. subpopulations) with genetic exchange revised management documents (77 FR Response 1: We corrected and between subpopulations. The available 25664, May 1, 2012). updated this final rule wherever data conclusively demonstrate that this In total, the comment period was appropriate and possible. We portion of the recovery criteria (i.e., open from October 5, 2011, through considered scientific publications and ‘‘genetic exchange’’) is met. Specifically, January 13, 2012, and from May 1, 2012, other literature recommended by peer vonHoldt et al. (2010, p. 4412) through May 16, 2012 (76 FR 61782, reviewers and others. This information demonstrated 5.4 effective migrants per October 5, 2011; 77 FR 25664, May 1, was incorporated, as appropriate, into generation among the subpopulations 2012). We also held a public hearing this final rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55544 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Issue 2: Some comments noted that methods for each State are further decisions to address wolf-livestock the population estimates provided described below. conflicts, to set wolf hunting and would be more accurately described as Montana wolf packs are monitored trapping regulations, and to set harvest minimum population estimates because year round. Common wolf monitoring quotas. We conclude that Montana’s the method of only counting confirmed techniques include direct observational monitoring methods and resulting wolves underestimates the wolf counts, howling and track surveys, use minimum population estimates is more population. A few comments noted that of trail cameras, and public wolf reports. than adequate to inform wolf more wolves exist in Wyoming than Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks seeks management decisions, and as a reliable show up on our description of to document pack size and breeding pair indicator of the population’s recovered abundance and illustrations of status of known packs, to verify wolf status. distribution (i.e., Figures 1 and 2 in the activity in new areas that can result in The Idaho Department of Fish and proposed rule (76 FR 61872, October 5, new packs forming, to document Game and the Nez Perce Tribe use wolf 2011)). Similarly, the peer reviewers dispersal to the extent possible and observation reports from agencies and assess connectivity, to determine pack the public to locate areas of suspected suggested that, while these data are territories, and to identify potentially wolf activity and verify wolf presence. indicative of trends, they should not be affected private landowners and Field crews may decide to capture and used to characterize or quantify small livestock producers. Montana Fish, radio-collar wolves. Radio-collared year-to-year changes in the population. Wildlife, and Parks conducts ground wolves are then located from the air one One peer reviewer recommended that tracking and aerial telemetry 1 to 2 or more times per month dependent on Wyoming’s monitoring protocols times per month to locate radio-collared a host of factors including funding, incorporate detection probabilities into animals, determine localized use personnel, aircraft availability, weather, its methodology. Other comments throughout the year, and document the and other priorities. At the end of the questioned the methods used to number of wolves traveling together. year, they then compile agency- estimate population levels (particularly Den and rendezvous sites are visited to confirmed wolf observations to estimate in Montana and Idaho) and suggested document reproduction. Additional the minimum number and location of the resulting estimates were flawed. A information is collected, such as adult wolves and pups that were likely few comments suggested our population identification of private lands used by alive on December 31 of that year. The estimates in Montana and Idaho were wolves, identification of public land Idaho Department of Fish and Game and likely too optimistic given the ongoing grazing allotments where conflicts could the Nez Perce Tribe estimate minimum hunts. Some comments suggested occur, and common travel patterns. wolf numbers, distribution, and erroneous population estimates Monthly or semimonthly telemetry breeding success by radio-collaring undermined the legitimacy of hunting flights throughout summer and fall keep selected packs from representative areas quotas. track of wolf numbers and status. across the State. Wolves are captured Response 2: We agree that end-of-year At the end of the year, Montana Fish, through foothold trapping in summer or population estimates should be referred Wildlife, and Parks compiles helicopter darting in winter, and to as population minimums as we only information gathered through field monitored one or more times per month count confirmed wolves, packs, and surveys, telemetry, and public reporting via aerial telemetry. In addition, in reproduction. Furthermore, we to estimate the minimum number of recent years Idaho has been placing 20 recognize that while our population wolves in each pack, lone dispersing or more GPS collars on wolves each animals, and successful breeding pairs data are a reasonably good indicator of year; these collars record locations and (an adult male and a female wolf that relative changes and general trends over mortality status several times per day. have produced at least two pups that time, they should not be used to Pack size and movements are monitored survived until December 31). The total indicate exact year-to-year changes. We throughout the summer and fall via number of packs is determined by telemetry. Potential dens and have modified our discussion of counting the number of packs with two rendezvous sites are identified through population estimates and changes over or more individual animals that existed telemetry flights (2+ locations in the time throughout the rule to reflect these on the Montana landscape on December same area) during summer months facts. Similarly, our illustration of wolf 31. If a pack was removed because of (May-September) or ground telemetry packs and their home range only livestock conflicts or otherwise did not and ground searches. Once identified, illustrates confirmed packs and their exist at the end of the calendar year (e.g. biologists investigate on the ground to home range if known. Thus, should any as the result of disease, natural/illegal confirm reproduction and count pups. undocumented packs or lone wolves mortality, or dispersal), it is not In winter (December–January), the exist, they would not be illustrated in included in the year-end total or Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Figures 1 and 2. Additionally, because displayed on the Montana wolf pack the Nez Perce Tribe increase flight the population is measured in mid- distribution map for that calendar year. frequencies to twice monthly to obtain winter when the wolf population is near The statewide minimum wolf pack counts and document breeding its annual low point (note the absolute population is estimated by adding up pairs. If four or more wolves are counted low point occurs in April just before the number of observed wolves in and reproduction was confirmed in spring litters are born), the average verified packs and known lone animals summer, the pack is confirmed as a annual wolf population will be higher as of December 31 each year. This is a successful breeding pair unless than these minimal estimates. Although minimum count and has been reported additional information suggests there have been some criticisms of the as such since wolves first began otherwise (e.g., documented mortality methods Montana and Idaho employ to recolonizing northwest Montana in the that reduced pack size below two adults estimate minimum wolf abundance, mid-1980s. Suspected wolf packs are and two pups). To estimate state-wide distribution, and trends, we have the those that could not be verified with minimum population numbers, the utmost confidence these numbers are confidence. They are not included in number of wolves detected in reliable and, if anything, underestimate the final minimum estimated count. documented packs with complete actual abundance and distribution at the Suspected packs may or may not persist. counts is added to an estimate of wolves end of the year. The monitoring This information is used to make in documented packs without complete
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55545
counts, plus the number of wolves public comment period starting May 1, delist wolves in Wyoming if wolves documented in wolf groups that do not 2012 (76 FR 61782, October 5, 2011; 77 were endangered by any of the five qualify as a pack, and adjusted for lone FR 25664, May 1, 2012). All factors in any portion of the NRM DPS wolves. We conclude that the opportunities to comment were at the time of this final rule. These monitoring methods employed in Idaho announced in the Federal Register, comments went on to assert that wolves and resulting minimum population posted on our Web site and in our in Montana and Idaho were endangered estimates are more than adequate to monthly wolf reports, and publicized in by a variety of factors, most notably inform wolf management decisions and local and national press releases. An inadequate regulation of human-caused are a reliable indicator of the informational meeting and a public mortality affecting both population size population’s recovered status. hearing were both held in Riverton, and genetic exchange. Idaho’s In Wyoming, the WGFD will continue Wyoming, on November 15, 2011 (76 FR suspension of its 2008–2012 step-down to implement existing protocols and 61782, October 5, 2011). Riverton was wolf management plan and Montana’s techniques employed by the Service and selected because of its central location and Idaho’s hunting seasons were most YNP, which have provided adequate and proximity to the portions of often mentioned as changes in documentation of wolf population Wyoming most affected by decisions on management threatening the NRM DPS. status, to determine whether the wolf management. Given the fact that These comments suggested that all recovery criteria have been met (WGFC we satisfied section 4(b)(5)(E)’s statutory States in the NRM DPS needed to 2011, p. 19). These methodologies are requirement for public hearings on this develop enforceable mechanisms to further described in the ‘‘Post-Delisting rule, the limited interest the Riverton maintain the population’s recovered Monitoring’’ section of the rule below hearing garnered (only 10 individuals status before delisting in Wyoming and the ‘‘Population Monitoring’’ offered formal testimony at the hearing), could move forward. section of the Wyoming Wolf and the substantial expense related to Response 4: The approach taken in Management Plan (WGFC 2011, pp. 17– conducting public hearings, we this final rule is appropriate given the 21). declined requests for additional public Congressional directive to reissue our The above techniques have proven a hearings (Thabault 2011). Furthermore, 2009 delisting, which created a remnant reliable indicator of distribution, we reopened the comment period to piece of the NRM DPS. This approach abundance, and trends, are more than ensure the public had an opportunity to is also consistent with our 2009 adequate to inform wolf management review and comment on the proposal in delisting determination which stated decisions, and are a reliable indicator of light of Wyoming’s final regulatory that ‘‘if Wyoming were to develop a the population’s recovered status. That documents, including revised State Service-approved regulatory framework said, we fully recognize and anticipate statutes, revised gray wolf management it would be delisted in a separate rule’’ that monitoring techniques may change regulations (chapter 21), new gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, p. 15155). through time as new knowledge hunting season regulations (chapter 47), While this rulemaking focuses on becomes available and as the parties and an Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wyoming because it is the only portion responsible for monitoring gain Wolf Management Plan (77 FR 25664, of the NRM DPS that remains listed, we additional experience at wolf May 1, 2012). Collectively, the consider other portions of the NRM DPS management and conservation. For opportunities provided for public as appropriate. Thus, the conclusions of example, we anticipate parties comment ensured all members of the the previous delisting and the responsible for monitoring may use information supporting this public, including peer reviewers, had other survey methods and data that are determination are incorporated by sufficient time to review and comment biologically equivalent to the breeding reference. This information is updated, on the proposal in light of all relevant pair definition. Similarly, new where necessary, to consider new materials. All comments, whether techniques may allow for incorporation developments (e.g., Idaho’s suspension presented at a public hearing or of a detection probability as part of the of its 2008–2012 step-down wolf provided in another manner, received abundance estimation protocol. management plan and Montana’s and the same review and consideration. Idaho’s hunting seasons). The Delisting Process and Compliance Approximately 250,000 comments were Overall, the best scientific and With Applicable Laws, Regulations, and received during the public comment commercial information available Policy periods. This significant effort satisfies overwhelmingly indicates wolves are Issue 3: A few comments requested our statutory responsibility. recovered in Wyoming, the GYA, and that we provide additional Issue 4: Several commenters observed throughout the NRM DPS. We strongly opportunities for public comment by that Wyoming was not a DPS, and disagree with the assertion that wolves holding additional public hearings or suggested that it was a violation of the in Montana and Idaho are endangered or extending the public comment period. Act to attempt to delist the Wyoming threatened by inadequate regulation of Some comments objected to the wolf population alone because the Act human-caused mortality or any other proposed delisting rule’s reliance on precludes listing and delisting entities factor (singularly or in combination). Wyoming’s wolf management plan smaller than DPSs. Specifically, these Similarly, we reject that threats in these when Wyoming laws and regulations, comments suggested that our analysis of areas endanger wolves in Wyoming, the which trump the management plan, had threats improperly focused on the GYA or the NRM DPS. Despite changes not yet been revised. These comments Wyoming wolf population, when we in guiding management documents, suggested we must reopen the comment should have considered threats to the both Idaho and Montana remain period on the proposal once these entire NRM DPS. Some comments committed to maintaining a healthy revised documents were finalized. further specified that Congress’s recent wolf population well above minimum Response 3: We provided ample directive to reissue our 2009 delisting recovery levels (also see response on the opportunity for public comment on our rule, which delisted the NRM DPS adequacy of the recovery goals below) proposed rule. This included an initial except Wyoming, did not grant us the (Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight 100-day public comment period, an authority to address Wyoming Committee 2002, pp. 4–5, 18–19; Idaho informational meeting and public separately. These comments went on to Fish and Game Commission 2011, pp. 1, hearing, and an additional 15-day suggest that it would be unlawful to 7; Idaho Fish and Game Commission
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55546 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
2012, pp. 8–9; Montana Wolf said that ‘‘if Wyoming were to develop hindered by State efforts to reduce the Management Advisory Council 2003, a Service-approved regulatory wolf population, which in turn would pp. i,1; Montana Fish, Wildlife and framework it would be delisted in a affect water quality for the downstream Parks 2012b, pp. 2–3, 8–9, 13–15, 22). separate rule’’ (74 FR 15123, April 2, Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus State management of this recovered 2009, p. 15155). This was also lucius) and the Razorback sucker population in Montana and Idaho since referenced in our proposed rule (76 FR (Xyrauchen texanus). delisting has been consistent with our 61782, Oct. 5, 2011, p. 61783). The Response 6: The Act requires that we expectations and does not place the Service is now doing just that—delisting base listing and delisting decisions population at a meaningful risk of Wyoming wolves in a separate rule solely on the best available information extinction now or within the foreseeable following its approval of Wyoming’s concerning the status of and threats to future (Cooley 2011; Jimenez 2012b). In management framework. the subject species and does not give us fact, the minimum population estimate Issue 5: Several comments suggested discretion to alter listing and delisting for the NRM DPS was greater at the end that we should prepare an decisions because of possible impacts to of 2011 than at the end of 2010 (Service Environmental Assessment or an other species. Moreover, other distinct 2012, Tables 4a and 4b). This Environmental Impact Statement statutory provisions address the information validates our determination pursuant to the National Environmental potential effects of the States’ that State-regulated hunting and Policy Act. management actions on listed species, trapping has been and will continue to Response 5: As a regulation adopted such as the Act’s prohibitions against be conducted in a responsible manner under section 4(a) of the Act, this ‘‘take’’ of listed wildlife species or the (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). While we delisting rule is exempt from National requirement of Federal agencies to expect population decreases will occur, Environmental Policy Act procedures. ensure their actions are not likely to these reductions will be carefully The Service’s decision that the National jeopardize the continued existence of managed to maintain a recovered gray Environmental Policy Act does not listed species or destroy or adversely wolf population throughout the apply in making 4(a) determinations is modify a listed species’ critical habitat. northern Rocky Mountains. In based on the reasoning in Pacific Legal Nevertheless, we conclude that this consideration of all threats including Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 decision will not negatively affect other those evaluated in our 2009 delisting (6th Cir. 1981). In this case, the court threatened or endangered species. While rule and all new information available determined that a National one comment mentioned trapping and since this rule was published, we Environmental Policy Act document its potential to affect other regional conclude that the NRM DPS continues cannot serve the purposes of the Act, carnivores like Canada lynx (listed as to face an extremely low risk of because the Secretary must make listing threatened) and wolverine (a candidate extinction within the foreseeable future, decisions based only on the five factors for listing), Wyoming has not proposed does not meet the definition of set forth in section 4(a) of the Act. The a trapping season and has no plans to threatened or endangered, and therefore, Secretary lacks the discretion to pursue a trapping season within the does not warrant listing under the Act. consider environmental impacts beyond Trophy Area (Bruscino 2011b). If such Nevertheless, this rulemaking is those encompassed by the five factors a season is considered in the future, it separate and independent from, but and may use only the best scientific and would be regulated by the WGFD and additive to, the previous action delisting commercial data in assessing the five the WGFC and would be limited as such wolves in the NRM DPS. Wolves in the factors. Following the Pacific Legal mortality would further limit NRM DPS outside of Wyoming are not Foundation ruling and upon the Wyoming’s hunt quotas, which are protected under the Act; therefore, there recommendation of the Council on already expected to be modest once is no regulatory need to determine Environmental Quality, the Service desired population reductions are whether the Act’s protections should be officially determined that National achieved. Moreover, the State must removed for these wolves. Thus, this Environmental Policy Act documents comply with applicable laws in rule in no way reopens the status of are not required for regulations adopted performing any trapping actions: if any wolves within the NRM DPS and pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A potential incidental take of listed outside of Wyoming. While we continue notice outlining the Service’s reasons species were to occur in connection to monitor the status of wolves in for this determination was published in with trapping, the State must comply accordance with the post-delisting the Federal Register on October 25, with the Act’s prohibition against monitoring plans discussed in the 1983 (48 FR 49244). Here, the delisting ‘‘take’’ or obtain an incidental take delisting rule, such a reopening of the decision is based on the same five permit through the permitting wider NRM DPSs status also would be factors used in making listing provisions of section 10. inconsistent with the Congressional determinations under section 4(a). Furthermore, the other listed species direction to proceed with that delisting Issue 6: A few comments indicated we mentioned by the commenter (Colorado action. This rule does not affect the must consider the direct and indirect butterfly plant, Colorado pikeminnow, status of gray wolves in other states impacts of this decision on other and razorback sucker) occur far from within the NRM DPS or the legal threatened and endangered species. One occupied wolf range. For example, protections provided under state laws. comment indicated that delisting could Colorado butterfly plant occurs in Since our previous delisting action, result in wolf trapping (as is occurring southeastern Wyoming and north- the State of Wyoming has addressed the in Idaho and now being planned in central Colorado. Similarly, neither the only reason that wolves in Wyoming Montana), which could affect Canada Colorado pikeminnow nor the razorback warranted continued listing under the lynx (Lynx canadensis) or wolverine sucker occurs above Flaming Gorge in Act—the adequacy of the State’s (Gulo gulo). Another comment Wyoming’s share of the Green River. regulatory measures. By delisting the suggested an unchecked ungulate Thus, any theoretical cascading Wyoming wolf population after wolves population would graze on and ecological effects caused by the wolf in the larger NRM DPS were delisted, decimate the Colorado butterfly plant delisting (e.g., increased herbivory and we are doing exactly what we said we (Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis). impacts to water quality) would be would do in our previous delisting rule. Similarly, one comment suggested extremely unlikely to affect these In our 2009 rule publication, the Service cascading ecological effects would be species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55547
Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Gray standard for a ‘‘vulnerable’’ species and, north of the United States-Canadian Wolf Recovery Goals therefore, concluded our recovery border. Issue 7: Some comments expressed criteria are inadequate and that the Specifically, the NRM DPS represents confusion about our minimum recovery population is still endangered. a 650-km (400-mi) southern range extension of a vast contiguous wolf criteria and the minimum management Response 8: Our recovery and post- population that numbers over 12,000 targets. delisting management goals were Response 7: The Service’s current designed to provide for the long term wolves in western Canada and about recovery goal for the NRM gray wolf conservation of the NRM gray wolf 65,000 wolves across all of Canada and population is 30 or more breeding pairs population by ensuring sufficient Alaska (Committee on the Status of (an adult male and an adult female that representation, resilience, and Endangered Wildlife in Canada 2001, raise at least two pups until December redundancy. As we described earlier in pp. iii, v–vi, 13, 21–22, 30–32, 38, 42, 44–46; Boitani 2003, p. 322). This 31) comprising 300+ wolves in a this final rule, we have expended connectivity is demonstrated by the fact metapopulation (a population that exists considerable effort to develop, that recovery in the NRM DPS began as partially isolated sets of repeatedly reevaluate, and, when when wolves from Canada naturally subpopulations) with genetic exchange necessary, modify, these recovery goals dispersed into the northwestern between subpopulations (Service 1994; (Service 1980; Service 1987; Service Montana recovery area and recolonized Fritts and Carbyn 1995). Within this 1994, appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and this area (Ream et al. 1989; Boyd et al. overall goal, Idaho, Montana, and Carbyn 1995; Bangs 2002, entire). 1995; Pletscher et al. 1997; Boyd and Wyoming are each responsible for The Service contracted for an Pletscher 1999). Routine dispersal of maintaining at least 10 breeding pairs independent peer review of our wolves has been documented among and at least 100 wolves in mid-winter. proposed delisting and four of the five reviewers concurred with our NRM wolves and adjacent Canadian To provide that these minimums are not populations since then demonstrating compromised, we required Montana and determination that the Wyoming wolf population, whose management is to be that wolves in these areas are Idaho to each manage for a safety demographically and genetically linked driven by the recovery goals, would margin of at least 15 breeding pairs and (Pletscher et al. 1991, pp. 547–548; continue to be a viable population after at least 150 wolves in mid-winter. In Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1105– delisting (Atkins 2011, pp. 6, 10; Atkins Wyoming, we agreed that the State 1106; Sime 2007; vonHoldt et al. 2010, 2012, p. 3). The dissenting reviewer’s could manage for a population floor of p. 4412; Jimenez et al. In review, entire). primary issue was not with the recovery at least 10 breeding pairs and at least Connectivity to the GYA is discussed in criteria, but rather with Wyoming’s 100 wolves outside YNP and the Wind more detail below, but is also sufficient management structure and whether the River Indian Reservation in mid-winter, to demonstrate and maintain the recovery criteria would be met (an issue and allow YNP and the Wind River region’s metapopulation structure. Indian Reservation to provide the discussed elsewhere in this rule). Those Taking into account connectivity to remainder of the buffer above the reviewers who specifically addressed adjoining Canadian populations, the minimum recovery goal. In order to the recovery criteria were unanimously effective population targets mentioned meet these goals and allow for supportive of the criteria (Atkins 2011, above have been greatly exceeded. continued management flexibility, all appendix B). For example, Dr. Scott While some contend that these effective three States intend to manage for a Mills stated that the thresholds for population targets should be achieved population comfortably above their delisting are consistent with current strictly within the NRM DPS or the minimum management targets. state-of-the-art viability analysis science western United States, we conclude that Issue 8: Numerous comments and are an appropriate standard for it is biologically appropriate to consider questioned the adequacy of the NRM delisting (Atkins 2011, p. 60). Similarly, the contribution of these connected wolf DPS’s recovery goals referring to them Dr. David Mech concluded the recovery populations to the NRM DPS’s long term in such terms as ‘‘outdated’’ and criteria still seem adequate (Atkins viability. Connectivity to Canadian wolf ‘‘unscientific.’’ These comments further 2011, p. 73). None of the reviews populations has long been a central suggested that delisting based on these provided by the independent peer consideration in developing, revising, goals violated the Act’s requirement to reviewers challenged the adequacy of and validating our recovery goals rely on the best available science. Some the recovery criteria (Atkins 2011, (Service 1994, pp. 41–42 of appendix 9; of these comments offered their own appendix B). Bangs 2002, p. 3). assessment of what constitutes an Although numerous comments Furthermore, model predictions acceptable recovery goal (ranges from offered alternative recovery goals, we do should be used cautiously due to the around current population levels to not find the information presented to be poor quality of data used in most 6,000 wolves were most frequently persuasive, and do not feel revision to models, inaccuracies in estimating mentioned). Others suggested smaller the recovery goals is warranted at this changes in demographic rates, and localized population levels were time. Most of these comments indicated insufficient dispersal data (Beissinger acceptable within a larger, connected a need for an effective population of at and Westphal 1998, p. 821). To estimate metapopulation structure. Some least 500 breeding individuals long term a minimum viable population comments questioned the adequacy of and a total population of ∼1,500 to 6,000 accurately, a population viability the NRM DPS’s recovery goals by noting individuals long term either within the analysis must be able to overcome the that these goals are lower than the NRM DPS or the western United States. likelihood that measures of potential Western Great Lakes population when it However, these comments were based threats to persistence are likely to be was listed, lower than the Western Great upon minimum viable population imprecise (Soule 1987, pp. 1–10; Boyce Lakes recovery goals, and lower than theories and models that assume an 1992, 1993). Reed et al. (2002, p. 7) also Western Great Lakes potential status isolated population. This underlying cautioned that model structure and data review triggers. Some comments opined premise is inappropriate within the quality can affect the validity of that the population meets the NRM region, because NRM wolves are population viability analysis models, International Union for the not isolated and are instead genetically and that population viability analysis Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) connected to vast wolf populations should not be used to determine
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55548 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
minimum viable population or to population (Service 1992, p. 28), the meet the definition of threatened or estimate specific probability of plan explicitly states that the region’s endangered and, as required by section extinction. Population viability analysis total goals ‘‘exceed what is required for 4(g)(2) of the Act, we will make prompt could more appropriately be used to recovery and delisting of the eastern use of the Act’s emergency listing analyze relative rates of extinction timber wolf’’ (Service 1992, p. 27). This provisions if necessary to prevent a (Beissinger and Westphal 1998, p. 821) planning goal was driven not by significant risk to the well-being of the or how population growth and minimum estimates of viability, but population. persistence may be affected by instead by: Existing populations of Finally, we find unfounded the management actions (Reed et al. 2002, 1,550 to 1,750 wolves in Minnesota assertions that the standards of the p. 7). Therefore, the available modeling (Service 1992, p. 4); the plan’s objective IUCN indicate that the NRM population data do not persuade us that the to maintain existing populations currently meets the IUCN’s recovery criteria we are using are (Service 1992, p. 24); and existing ‘‘vulnerable’’ standard or that IUCN incorrect. planning goals by other land managers standards indicate our recovery criteria Some comments asserted that the within Minnesota (Service 1992, p. 27). are inadequate. First, the IUCN assessed NRM gray wolf recovery goals are However, population viability and the gray wolf’s status in 2010 and inadequate because they are lower than sustainability are explicitly discussed in determined the species fell into the population levels in the Western Great the plan. The plan states a ‘‘viable ‘‘species of least concern’’ category Lakes when that population was listed population’’ includes either: (1) An (Mech & Boitani 2010, p. 1). While such (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967; 43 FR isolated, self-sustaining population of assessments routinely provide localized 9607, March 9, 1978). We do not find 200 wolves for 5 successive years; or (2) status determinations, no such such arguments persuasive because a self-sustaining population of 100 determination was bestowed upon listing decisions are not based on wolves within 100 miles of [the other] wolves in the NRM region. Furthermore, abundance and are instead based on Western Great Lakes population following receipt of this comment, we extinction risk informed by threats and (Service 1992, pp. 4, 25–26). contacted Dr. Mech, who led the team population trajectory. For example, Furthermore, the plan stated that ‘‘a that performed IUCN’s 2010 North although whitebark pine (Pinus healthy, self-sustaining wolf population American gray wolf assessment. Dr. albicaulis) likely numbers in the should include at least 100 Mech disagreed with the assertion that millions, the Service recently found this interbreeding wolves * * * [which the NRM population satisfies IUCN’s species to be warranted for listing due would] maintain an acceptable level of ‘‘vulnerable’’ standard (Mech 2012). Dr. to the severe threats it faces and its genetic diversity’’ (Service 1992, p. 26). Mech went on to indicate that any resulting population trajectory (76 FR Based on the above, we find there is no application of the IUCN’s standards to 42631, July 19, 2011). Similarly, the basis for concluding that the NRM and the NRM DPS was inappropriate decisions in 1978 to list wolves in the Western Great Lakes recovery goals are without considering the large, adjoining, Great Lakes as endangered and to somehow contradictory. Instead, we and connected Canadian wolf reclassify the Minnesota population as find that the recovery criteria for the populations, and that if such threatened were based on ongoing NRM and Western Great Lakes populations were included in the threats, population trends, and the populations are similar in regards to the assessment, the NRM region’s wolf desire for additional population minimum number of wolves needed to population would fall into the ‘‘species of least concern’’ category (Mech 2012). redundancy (Service 1978, pp. 7, 8, 10; maintain a viable population, their 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). Neither Given the available information, we reliance on multiple, adjoining decision cited the overall population conclude that the IUCN standards do connected populations, and the relative level as an important factor to justify the not indicate that our recovery criteria proximity between subpopulations. threatened or endangered warrant revision. determination. Therefore, we do not Furthermore, some comments After evaluating all available agree with the assertion that Western asserted that our recovery goals and our information, we conclude that the best Great Lakes wolf population levels at relisting criteria are inadequate because scientific and commercial information the time of listing as endangered or they are lower than the status review available continues to support the threatened provide any evidence that triggers for Western Great Lakes wolves. ability of these recovery goals to provide our recovery criteria for wolves within However, the Western Great Lakes that the population does not again the NRM are too low. status review triggers were selected, not become in danger of extinction. Similarly, some comments opined the because they are indicative of The Geographic Scope of Recovery and NRM gray wolf recovery goals are population viability (again, the plan’s the Impact of This Decision on Range inadequate because they are lower than conclusion regarding viability is the Western Great Lakes population’s discussed above), but rather because Issue 9: Some comments suggested we recovery goals. Again, we do not find they would represent significant should have pursued a single lower-48- this argument compelling. The Western declines, which could be evidence of a State recovery plan instead of regional Great Lakes recovery plan indicated serious problem (Service 2008, pp. 10– recovery plans in the NRMs, the recovery would be achieved when: (1) 11; Ragan 2012). Given the above, we do Western Great Lakes, and the The survival of the wolf in Minnesota is not find persuasive the assertion that Southwest. These comments suggested assured, and (2) at least one viable our recovery goals or our status review our approach to recovery planning population (as defined below) of eastern triggers are too low because they are focused only on easy to recover areas timber wolves outside Minnesota and lower than other wolf population’s and improperly wrote off more difficult Isle Royale in the contiguous 48 States triggers for relisting consideration. To to recover regions. A few comments is reestablished. The recovery plan did the extent that these comments advocate suggested our recovery plans were not establish a specific numerical for a more responsive status review inadequate because they did not cover criterion for the Minnesota wolf trigger in the NRMs, we offer our or include specific criteria for population. While the plan did identify strongest assurance that we will ‘‘significant wolf habitat’’ (e.g., a goal ‘‘for planning purposes only’’ of consider relisting if we ever obtain Colorado). Some comments suggested 1,251–1,400 wolves for the Minnesota sufficient evidence that the species may we should reintroduce wolves across
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55549
numerous regions of the country to passage of the Act, and either have 93–412, at 10 (1973)). Moreover, in reestablish them across their historical worked, or are working, to conserve all authorizing the listing of DPSs under range. Suggested areas for of the genetic diversity remaining in the Act, Congress recognized ‘‘that there reintroduction included potentially wolves south of Canada after their may be instances in which the Service suitable habitat like the southern widespread extirpation (Leonard et al. should provide for different levels of Rockies, the Pacific Northwest, the 2004, entire). Although we have protection for populations of the same Sierra Nevadas, and New England, as satisfied our recovery planning and species. For instance, the U.S. well as unsuitable habitat like Central implementation responsibilities, and population of an animal should not Park in New York City. Other comments any additional recovery planning and necessarily be permitted to become supported the national delisting of implementation (beyond that already extinct simply because the animal is wolves. A number of comments underway) would be discretionary, this more abundant elsewhere in the world’’ suggested wolves should not have been issue is being evaluated further by the (S. Rep. No. 96–151, 96th Cong., 1st listed or recovered anywhere in the Service on a larger, national scale and Sess. (1979), reprinted in A Legislative lower 48 States, because the species will likely be addressed in a separate History of the Endangered Species Act, (Canis lupus) is abundant in Canada, action in the future. 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 1397 (1982)). Alaska, and across Eurasia and the Similarly, the Act does not require us Recovering gray wolves in multiple reintroduced population’s subspecies to restore wolves to a majority of their populations within the lower 48 States (Canis lupus occidentalis) is abundant U.S. historical range or to a majority of satisfies this Congressional intent. across western Canada and into Alaska. the available suitable habitat. Instead, Issue 10: A number of comments Response 9: Possible future wolf the Act requires that we work to recover provided other reasons why our recovery efforts, particularly any species to levels that no longer meet the approach to designating and delisting in additional efforts outside of the NRM definition of threatened or endangered. the NRM DPS was erroneous, having DPS, are beyond the scope of this For some species, this level may require accomplished recovery over only a rulemaking because such actions are not range expansion, but the amount of small portion of the species’ historical part of this listing (NRM DPS) and not expansion is driven by a species’ range. Some comments suggested the necessary to provide for a NRM DPS biological needs affecting viability and NRM DPS was too expansive and that is neither endangered nor sustainability, and not by an arbitrary should not have included unrecovered threatened throughout all or a percent of a species’ historical range or habitat (e.g., eastern Montana and significant portion of its range. suitable habitat. Many other species southern or eastern Wyoming). These Nevertheless, we will clarify our may be recovered in portions of their comments expressed the concern that position on these issues. Gray wolves historical range by removing or our decision to delist this expansive were originally listed as subspecies or as addressing the threats to their continued DPS would preclude wolf recovery in regional populations of subspecies in existence. Other species may be these areas. Others thought the NRM the coterminous United States and recovered by a combination of range DPS should include additional Mexico, including populations in the expansion and threats reduction. There surrounding areas and that recovery and Western Great Lakes region, the NRM is no set formula on how recovery must recolonization should occur across the region, and the Southwest (32 FR 4001, be achieved. Within the NRM DPS, each entire DPS before delisting is allowed to March 11, 1967; 38 FR 14678, June 4, of the States and each of the recovery move forward (e.g., northern Colorado 1973; 39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 41 areas meaningfully contributes to the should be included in the DPS, but FR 17740, April 28, 1976; 41 FR 24064, population’s viability by providing delisting anywhere should be precluded June 14, 1976). When the science began resiliency, redundancy, and until Colorado is also recovered). Other to cast doubt on the validity of the representation (these terms are comments suggested areas like southern subspecific taxonomy, we reclassified described further later in this rule; see and eastern Wyoming once supported these listings into a single unit of the also Shaffer and Stein 2000, entire). viable wolf populations and represented species (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). Across the lower 48 States, 2 other wolf ‘‘a significant portion of range.’’ A This approach was undertaken to ‘‘most populations (Western Great Lakes DPS number of comments disputed our conveniently’’ handle this listing, and and Mexican wolf) provide additional designation of most of these areas as was not intended to signal an intention resiliency, redundancy, and unsuitable habitat, stated that we have to pursue recovery across the entire representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, failed to show that these areas could not lower 48 States (43 FR 9607, March 9, entire). To the extent that additional biologically support wolves, and 1978). In fact, the 1978 reclassification restoration beyond that required by the suggested that our definition of suitable stated that ‘‘biological subspecies would Act is desired by some members of the habitat improperly focused on continue to be maintained and dealt public, we recommend working with regulatory, sociological, economic, and with as separate entities’’ (43 FR 9607, State or Tribal wildlife agencies and political factors, instead of purely March 9, 1978). Accordingly, regional other land managers to achieve these biological factors. A few comments recovery plans were developed and objectives. noted that wolves and wolf packs can implemented in the Western Great Conversely, we do not agree with and do occasionally occupy these areas. Lakes in 1978 (revised in 1992) (Service comments that the gray wolf should not Some comments asserted that recovery 1978, entire; Service 1992, entire), the have been listed because of its in these historically occupied areas was NRM region in 1980 (revised in 1987) abundance outside of the lower 48 important to preserve unique localized (Service 1980, entire; Service 1987, States. When Congress created the Act, adaptations that contribute to the entire), and the Southwest in 1982 (this it sought to provide for ‘‘the possibility species’ long term persistence. These plan is currently being revised) (Service of declaring a species endangered comments opined that wolves are 1982a, entire). This approach was an within the United States where its endangered in this ‘‘significant portion appropriate use of our discretion to principal range is in another country, of range’’ and, therefore, must continue determine how best to proceed with such as Canada or Mexico, and members to be listed as endangered statewide. recovery actions. These recovery efforts of that species are only found in this Response 10: As described in our covered all gray wolf populations country insofar as they exist on the 2009 final rule, we determined the NRM confirmed in the lower 48 States since periphery of their range’’ (H.R. Rep. No. DPS was biologically based,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55550 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
appropriate, and developed in including agriculture, livestock, and support wolves. Instead, the Act accordance with the Act and the urbanization. Wolf recovery in these requires that we achieve sufficient Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment portions of the species’ historical range recovery to provide for the viability of Policy (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). In is unnecessary, because there is more the subject species. This goal has been essence, the boundaries included all than enough suitable habitat (e.g., achieved in the NRM DPS and the gray wolves that were reasonably mainly public lands containing Western Great Lakes DPS. This goal is assumed to be part of the NRM abundant wild ungulates) to support still a work in progress in the population at the time of its designation many times over the minimum Southwest. To the extent that additional (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). No requirements of a recovered and viable restoration beyond that required by the animals that have dispersed within the wolf population. Therefore, additional Act is desired by some members of the United States beyond the boundaries of recovery efforts in these areas are public, we recommend working with the DPS have ever returned, meaning beyond what the Act requires. State or Tribal wildlife agencies and those animals are, essentially, lost to Issue 11: Numerous comments other land managers to achieve these and no longer part of the population. expressed concern that this action, if objectives. The DPS boundaries are also further finalized, would reduce wolf dispersal In fact, State leadership is facilitating supported by the fact that they are into surrounding areas. Many of these wolf restoration in Oregon and consistent with over 30 years of comments specifically objected to the Washington. Despite not being recovery efforts in the NRMs in that: (1) impact Wyoming’s large predator area identified as a focus for wolf recovery in The DPS approximates the U.S. would have on dispersal across any one of the Service’s existing historical range of the originally listed southern Wyoming to Colorado and recovery plans, both States are allowing NRM gray wolf subspecies (39 FR 1171, Utah. One comment opined that and facilitating wolf restoration (Oregon January 4, 1974; Service 1980, p. 3; Colorado represented a significant Department of Fish and Wildlife 2010, Service 1987, p. 2); (2) the DPS portion of the NRM gray wolf range. entire; Wiles et al. 2011, entire). As of boundaries are inclusive of the areas Some comments stated that Mexican this writing, Washington now has seven focused on by both NRM recovery plans wolf recovery was on the brink of confirmed packs and four additional (Service 1980, pp. 7–8; Service 1987, p. failure, in part due to inbreeding suspected packs including five 23) and the 1994 Environmental Impact depression, and that Wyoming’s confirmed and three suspected packs Statement (Service 1994, Ch. 1 p. 3); and predator designation would exacerbate within the delisted NRM DPS and two (3) the DPS is inclusive of the entire the genetic isolation of the Mexican confirmed and one suspected packs Central-Idaho and Yellowstone wolf population. While most of these west of the DPS (Cooley 2012). Similar Nonessential Experimental Population comments focused on the impact of the trends are also occurring in Oregon, areas (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; predator area, some comments which has four confirmed packs within 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 50 expressed concern related to State the delisted NRM DPS and a few CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)). management intending to reduce dispersers outside of the DPS (Cooley population levels, which would in turn 2012). State protections are the primary We based our definition of suitable reduce the number of dispersing wolves mechanism contributing to wolf habitat on the best scientific and and further inhibit recolonization of recovery in eastern Oregon and eastern commercial information available nearby unoccupied areas (e.g., Washington because Federal protections regarding pack persistence (this issue is Washington and Oregon). have been removed in these areas. Wolf discussed in more detail in Factor A Response 11: First, additional wolf restoration in the delisted eastern below). Although wolves historically restoration from NRM gray wolf stock is portions of these States will likely occupied the entire area of the DPS, not necessary in any of the surrounding contribute to recovery in the remainder these distant peripheral areas (e.g., areas to achieve or maintain recovery of of these States. We expect dispersal into eastern Montana and southern or the NRM DPS because the NRM DPS is Oregon and Washington to continue eastern Wyoming) have been modified of more than adequate size and includes unimpeded by this decision. for human use and are no longer more than adequate habitat to achieve Wolf restoration into Colorado and suitable habitat to support wolf packs and maintain a recovered wolf Utah has been slower with only a few and wolf breeding pairs. These distant population. This conclusion makes confirmed dispersers and no confirmed peripheral areas do not support extant restoration in these areas irrelevant to packs forming or reproducing to date. In wolf populations and do not play a this final decision. Because Colorado order for dispersal into surrounding meaningful role in achieving or and Utah are both beyond the range of unoccupied habitat to be biologically sustaining recovery. Although some the NRM gray wolf population and meaningful, both a male and a female short term occupancy and use of some unnecessary for viability or recovery of disperser must cross expansive areas of peripheral areas does occur, it is the NRM gray wolf population, areas suitable and unsuitable habitat, enter minimal and, consistent with our like Colorado and Utah do not represent the same area and find each other before assessment of suitability, wolves have a significant portion of the NRM gray continuing on to other areas, and not persisted in these areas even under wolf’s range. Additionally, listing and survive long enough to reproduce and the Act’s protective regime. The purpose delisting decisions are based solely on successfully raise young. Unlike of the Act is to conserve endangered the status of the subject species, and, dispersal into Oregon and Washington, species and the ecosystems on which because the NRM DPS is a separate wolves must cross greater distances to they depend. We have recovered NRM listing from other U.S. wolves (a get to Colorado and Utah, and wolf populations in areas where separate ‘‘species’’ as defined in section dispersing wolves traversing unsuitable portions of the ecosystem on which they 3(16) of the Act), impacts to habitat, even under the Act’s depend still exist or could be restored. surrounding areas are beyond the scope protections, tend to have lower survival Large portions of the historical range of this rulemaking. Furthermore, as rates (Smith et al. 2010, p. 627; Jimenez (e.g., eastern Montana and southern or discussed above, the Act does not et al. In review, entire). These obstacles eastern Wyoming) where the ecosystem require that we recover the wolf precluded natural recolonization even historically supported wolves have been everywhere it existed historically or when Federal protections were in place. removed and replaced by human uses even every place that currently can After delisting, we expect existing
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55551
trends to continue (i.e., occasional management intentions and processes frameworks were adequate and rejected dispersers with the odds being against are more clearly defined and laid out on political, rather than, scientific pack formation and reproduction). today because of this review (Atkins grounds. Some of these comments Regarding Mexican wolf conservation, 2012, p. 4; WGFC 2012, entire). Thus, pointed to the November 18, 2010, at this point in time, we are managing we conclude that management of wolves Wyoming District Court ruling as the Mexican wolf population without after delisting has been improved and evidence that the previous wolf infusion of genes from other sources and has a greater likelihood of always management plan was sound (Wyoming do not see isolation from other wolves meeting minimum management targets et al., v. U.S. Department of the Interior, as a negative (Brown 2012). If infusion as a result of this review. Additionally, et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122829). A of genes from northern wolves is the final rule was improved through few comments accused us of changing determined to be beneficial in the careful consideration of all comments the requirements for Wyoming after an future, we would want to carefully and information provided. We agreement was reached and expressed evaluate both the process and the effect appreciate the work of the peer frustration with our unwillingness to (Brown 2012). reviewers on this issue. defend the 2008 NRM DPS delisting, Although not unanimous, most of the General Comments on Whether To which included Wyoming (73 FR 10514, reviewers ultimately supported our Delist February 27, 2008). Others suggested conclusion that the Wyoming wolf that previous issues with the State’s Issue 12: We received comments from population is likely to be maintained post-delisting regulatory framework many people expressing either support above recovery levels (Atkins 2012, have been resolved and delisting must for, or opposition to, delisting. Many of Table 1). While our rulemaking process again proceed. More specific criticisms these comments (including people on does not depend on the ‘‘vote’’ of the related to this issue are discussed in both sides of the issue) stated a belief peer reviewers, and instead reflects our more detail in subsequent comments that their opinion was the majority and determination of what the best scientific below. that we should do a better job of and commercial information available Response 14: While Wyoming’s listening to the wants and desires of the indicates, on the whole, we view the approach to wolf management may American people. Some suggested that final peer review report (Atkins 2012, seem similar to previously rejected their comment should count more or entire) as an endorsement of our Wyoming wolf plans, Wyoming’s less than other similar comments. conclusions (caveats noted). Response 12: The decision whether to Regarding the selection of the peer revised approach to wolf management finalize this action is not a vote. Listing reviewers, a third-party contractor, provides substantially more protection and delisting decisions must be made Atkins Global, selected the reviewers for wolves over previous versions. The based solely on the best scientific and based on qualifications and experience April 2009 rule noted three primary commercial data available. In this case, related to gray wolf life history and areas of concern with Wyoming’s the best scientific and commercial data biology, predator/wildlife management, previous management plan including: available demonstrate that the Wyoming population viability, genetics, and (1) The size and permanency of wolf population and the greater NRM subpopulation integration within Wyoming’s Trophy Area; (2) conflicting gray wolf DPS is recovered, is likely to metapopulations (Atkins 2011, pp. 9– language within the State statutes remain recovered, and is unlikely to 10). Reviewers selected were also free concerning whether Wyoming would again become threatened with from any conflict of interest and manage for at least 15 breeding pairs extinction within the foreseeable future. independent of the Service; the Idaho and at least 150 wolves, exactly 15 Therefore, we are finalizing our Department of Fish and Game; Montana breeding pairs and 150 wolves, or only proposal. Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; and all 7 breeding pairs and 70 wolves; and (3) Issue 13: Some comments objecting to Wyoming State agencies. These peer liberal depredation control the delisting noted that the results of an reviewers were not selected to achieve authorizations and legislative mandates independent scientific peer review, a certain position, nor did they reach a to aggressively manage the population contracted by the Service to review the consensus. Instead, the diversity of down to minimum levels (74 FR 15123, proposed delisting and the supporting perspectives, experience, and April 2, 2009). Our conclusions on documents, found issues with the qualifications achieved the desired several of these issues were challenged Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan. outcome of ensuring a comprehensive in the Wyoming District Court. This report stated, ‘‘The Plan, as and critical evaluation of the available Although the Wyoming District Court written, does not do an adequate job of information, our proposal, and our disagreed with our determinations on explaining how wolf populations will conclusions. This process and the report several of these issues, it did not be maintained, and how recovery will it generated benefitted the rulemaking determine the previous Wyoming wolf be maintained’’ (Atkins 2011, p. iii). A process, improved this final rule, and management framework was adequate few comments questioned the more than satisfied applicable peer and did not order us to accept the plan. objectivity of the peer review suggesting review standards. Instead, it ordered us to reconsider our we selected reviewers that we knew Issue 14: A number of comments position on Wyoming’s approach to would support our proposal. accused us of accepting a Wyoming wolf management in light of several Response 13: Following the release of management plan that was nearly conflicts within the record (including the first peer review report (Atkins identical to the previously rejected plan. our position that a statewide Trophy 2011, entire), Wyoming developed a A few comments noted that we Area should be pursued in Wyoming). series of documents to clarify its previously determined the old Subsequent to this order, the Service management authorities, regulatory framework would and the State reinitiated discussions on responsibilities, and intentions. meaningfully affect the NRM DPS’s revisions to Wyoming’s wolf Wyoming specifically considered and resiliency, redundancy, and management framework that would responded to concerns expressed by representation, and decrease the ability satisfy the standards of the Act and peer reviewers when developing these to conserve the species. Other allow delisting to again move forward. documents (Atkins 2012, p. 4; WGFC comments maintained that previous The results of this process led to 2012, p. 1). In this regard, Wyoming’s Wyoming post-delisting regulatory development of a revised wolf
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55552 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
management plan, and are incorporated definition annually (Service et al. 2000– comments asserted that political in this rule. Through this process, 2010, Table b; Smith 2012). This wolf pressure was responsible for our Wyoming improved its management management strategy is a vast agreement with Wyoming’s plan. Other plan in each of the major areas of improvement over the previous comments noted our support for concern outlined above. agreement and provides adequate hunting as evidence of our anti-wolf In 2008, we determined Wyoming’s assurances that the minimum recovery bias. A few comments suggested Trophy Area was adequate (73 FR goal will not be compromised. allowing us to make this decision was 10514, February 27, 2008). However, a Wyoming’s numeric minimum a conflict of interest, and asserted that 2009 Montana District Court decision management targets are discussed in we get a major portion of our budget correctly noted that Wyoming had more detail in subsequent comments. from hunting-related revenue. Some of retained the ability to diminish the size Additionally, Wyoming’s these comments offered specific legal or of this unit and to revise its boundaries management framework has corrected policy arguments supporting their in a manner the Service had previously what we had concluded was an overly position (these comments are discussed determined to be unacceptable (71 FR aggressive management regime. After in more detail below), while others were 43410, August 1, 2006; Defenders of our 2008 delisting became effective, the based on moral or ethical positions or Wildlife, et al., v. Hall, et al., 565 State issued regulations that treated the general distrust for our agency. Many F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. Mont. 2008)). In entire Trophy Area as a chronic comments suggested we should response, the State statute was revised, depredation area and allowed reengage Wyoming to negotiate a better and the existing Trophy Area was made significant take across the entire region deal for wolves. Many other comments permanent in 2012. As discussed in until the population outside YNP was viewed Wyoming’s approach to more detail in subsequent sections of reduced to 6 breeding pairs. This, and managing the wolf population as a good this rule, the permanent Trophy Area is related concerns, have been addressed. compromise balancing the needs of of sufficient size to support a recovered The State statute now mandates that ranchers, hunters, wolves, and other wolf population in Wyoming, under the limits on human-caused mortality be wildlife. Many comments supported management regime developed for this put in place to ensure that minimum delisting, suggesting wolf populations area. Furthermore, in response to agreed-upon management targets and are well above recovered levels, that concerns about gene flow and genetic minimum recovery levels are not delisting is long overdue, and that State connectivity, the Wyoming statute was compromised. management will maintain the wolf revised to expand the trophy game Other significant improvements population’s recovered status. portion of the State approximately 80 include a commitment to monitor and Response 15: By nearly any measure, kilometers (km) (50 miles (mi)) south for manage to provide adequate levels of the NRM gray wolf population and all 4 and a half months during peak wolf genetic exchange; defense-of-property of its subpopulations are recovered and dispersal periods. This additional regulations that are similar to our will remain recovered under the protected area will benefit natural nonessential experimental population management frameworks now in place dispersal. The adequacy of this area to rules; and a change in the State statute in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. meet the wolf population’s biological that ensures wolves in the permanent Wolves are no longer in danger of needs is discussed in more detail in trophy game portions of Wyoming will extinction either now or in the subsequent comments. not be treated as predatory animals. foreseeable future and will not meet the Another major difference between the Given the above changes, we definitions of a threatened or an previous management plan and the conclude that Wyoming’s revised wolf endangered species if delisting occurs. current one is Wyoming’s firm management framework is adequate and We are proud to say that successful commitment to the minimum recovery will maintain the population’s recovery efforts and State, Tribal, and goals. Wyoming’s previous wolf recovered status. Federal management after delisting management framework contained Issue 15: Many commenters expressed ensures that the public will continue to conflicting language within the State their opinion that NRM and Wyoming be able to hear NRM wolves howl in the statutes concerning whether Wyoming wolves remained endangered, were wild for countless future generations to would manage for at least 15 breeding teetering on the edge of extinction, or come. In short, the regulatory pairs and at least 150 wolves, exactly 15 would again become endangered if the frameworks now in place give us great breeding pairs and 150 wolves, or only Act’s protections were removed. One confidence that this success story for 7 breeding pairs and 70 wolves outside comment indicated this decision would American conservation and the Act will of YNP. The revised approach commits jeopardize the wolf population and, be maintained. Wyoming to maintaining a population thus, violated section 7 of the Act. Many The most recent official minimum satisfying the entire minimum recovery comments objected to removing population estimate shows that the goal outside of YNP and the Wind River protections regardless of extinction risk. NRM wolf population contains more Indian Reservation, and to maintain a Other commenters suggested delisting than 1,774 adult wolves and more than buffer above these minimum levels, in was in order and that they supported 109 breeding pairs. Most of the suitable order to provide that the minimum compromise, but that this did not habitat is now occupied and likely at, or targets are not compromised (WGFC represent an acceptable compromise. A above, long term carrying capacity 2011, p. 24; WGFC 2012, pp. 3–5). number of commenters noted a desire to (excluding Oregon and Washington, These statewide totals will be further continue to be able to hear wolves in the which are only beginning to be buffered by wolves in YNP, which have wild and for their grandchildren to be reoccupied). This population has ranged from 96 to 174 wolves and from able to have the same experience. exceeded recovery goals for 10 6 to 16 breeding pairs from 2000 to the Several comments opined that delisting consecutive years. Although population end of 2011 (the most recent official could cause irreversible harm. Many decreases are expected in Idaho, wolf population estimates available). In comments asserted we had abandoned Montana, and Wyoming, we expect that the future, YNP wolf populations are sound science in our decision-making these reductions will be carefully predicted to settle between 50 to 100 process, and had instead taken anti- managed so that populations are wolves and 5 to 10 packs with 4 to 6 of wildlife policies by yielding to political maintained well above recovery levels these packs meeting the breeding pair and stakeholder pressure. A few (perhaps around 1,000 wolves will be
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55553
maintained across the NRM DPS long a Service status review and any relisting Response 17: Human-caused mortality term). Our expectation for gradual consideration. is the most significant factor affecting reductions was verified in 2009 and the long term conservation status of the Human-Caused Mortality 2011 (the first 2 years of State wolf population in Wyoming, the GYA, management including a hunting Issue 17: Many comments expressed and the entire NRM DPS. Therefore, season) where the population remained concern about the amount of human- managing this source of mortality relatively stable (technically, slight caused mortality and possible direct and remains the primary factor for increases were documented each year) indirect impacts. Some questioned the maintaining a recovered wolf even in the face of substantial mortality amount of human-caused mortality that population into the foreseeable future. levels. Measurable declines across the the population can withstand in the The best available information indicates region are expected to begin to occur in short term (as populations are being that wolf populations have an ample 2012. In Wyoming, we expect the total reduced from current levels) and in the natural resiliency to high levels of statewide population will be reduced longer term once minimum management human-caused mortality, if population between 10 to 20 percent in 2012 with targets are achieved. Many comments levels and controllable sources of continued gradual reductions thereafter, took issue with statements taken from mortality are adequately regulated as if appropriate. Given the species’ the Wyoming wolf management plan they will be in Wyoming. For example, reproductive capacity, such declines are that indicated Wyoming wolves could from 1995 to 2008, the NRM wolf not irreversible; instead, populations tolerate up to 36 percent annual population grew by an average of about would rebound rapidly if human-caused mortality. One commenter expressed 20 percent annually, even in the face of mortality is reduced. concern that Wyoming has only a an average annual human-caused The basis for our determination, as narrow margin for error because the mortality rate of 23 percent (Service et required by the Act, is the best scientific number of wolves in the Trophy Area al. 2012, Table 4; Smith et al. 2010, p. and commercial information available, are only a little above minimum 620; also see Figure 3 above). Similarly, which indicates that the Wyoming, management targets. This comment in 2009 and in 2011, more than 600 GYA, and NRM gray wolf populations asserted that our data from the last 5 NRM wolves died each year from all sources of mortality (agency control are recovered and do not meet the years indicated that the population had including defense of property, regulated definition of threatened or endangered. stabilized with less than 20 percent harvest, illegal and accidental killing, This decision is not based on political mortality associated with livestock and natural causes), and the population and stakeholder pressure, nor has our depredation control efforts, but that showed little change (technically, slight support for hunting biased our decision. Wyoming may exceed these and other increases in minimum population levels Furthermore, very little of the Service’s human-caused mortality rates after were documented each year) (Service et budget and none of the Endangered delisting. Some comments suggested Species program’s budget comes from al. 2012, tables 4a, 4b). that we must set firm standards for While some authors have suggested hunting revenue. While we respect the acceptable levels of human-caused human-caused mortality is additive or moral and ethical reasons some mortality in different circumstances. ‘‘super-additive,’’ and have predicted members of the public may have for Numerous comments indicated that the significant impacts to wolf populations disapproving of this decision, delisting many sources of human-caused from modest levels of human-caused is the appropriate decision based on the mortality allowed by the Wyoming mortality (Creel and Rotella 2010; statutory requirements of the Act. regulatory framework could easily and Atkins 2011, p. 81; Vucetich and Carroll Additionally, delisting a recovered routinely exceed tolerable levels of In review), other researchers disagree species is a non-discretionary duty and mortality. Several comments suggested (Gude et al. 2011). Overall, the literature not subject to the provisions of section management assumptions were indicates wolf populations can maintain 7(a)(2) of the Act. incorrect in that hunting-related themselves despite human-caused Issue 16: Some comments expressed mortality was not compensatory for mortality rates of 17 to 48 percent concern that if the Service accepted the other human-caused mortality, was (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 182–184 [22 Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan, more likely additive or ‘‘super- percent]; Adams et al. 2008 [29 percent]; as written, it would set a precedent additive,’’ and that overall population Creel and Rotella 2010 [22 percent]; allowing Idaho and Montana to change impacts would exceed direct reported Sparkman et al. 2011 [25 percent]; Gude their management plans. mortality levels because of impacts to et al. 2011 [48 percent]; Vucetich and Response 16: We have no indication pack structure and reproduction. Some Carroll In review [17 percent]). that Idaho or Montana have a desire to of these comments asserted hunting Furthermore, wolf populations have change their management plans to would cause psychological trauma or been shown to increase rapidly if mirror Wyoming’s. Both States other indirect effects to surviving mortality is reduced after severe appreciate the sovereignty they now wolves. Other comments indicated that declines (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 181– enjoy to manage wolves as a recovered wolves have proven resilient to human- 183; Service et al. 2012, Table 4). species under State jurisdiction and are caused mortality, that our description of After delisting, Wyoming will unlikely to reopen this issue. wolf susceptibility to human-caused gradually reduce the wolf population, Furthermore, both States recognize that mortality was exaggerated, and that manage for a buffer above the State’s a change as significant as, for example, such mortality would be limited and minimum management targets, and designating wolves as predators in large adequately regulated. Some comments adaptively manage human-caused portions of the States could trigger a asserted wolves will become less mortality. Regarding the adaptive status review under our post-delisting susceptible to human-caused mortality management strategy, Wyoming will monitoring criteria because such an as they ‘‘relearn their fear of man.’’ limit mortality as necessary in the action could be perceived as Many of these comments emphasized following order: first, Wyoming will significantly increasing the threat to the the ability of wolves to respond quickly limit control actions for unacceptable wolf population (depending on the to population reductions noting, for impacts to ungulates; next the State will specifics). Idaho and Montana have example, reports of wolf packs with limit harvest levels; then it will limit expressed a strong interest in avoiding more than one female with pups. control for damage to private property;
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55554 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
and, finally, it will limit lethal take different approach to wolf management population as a buffer even though it permits (WGFC 2012, p. 7). We believe in Wyoming versus Montana and Idaho. may occasionally fall below 5 breeding that the third and fourth sources of Nearly all wolf populations in Montana pairs (although it will likely not fall mortality noted above will rarely need and Idaho occur in areas under State below 50 wolves). In our opinion, this to be limited because all other sources jurisdiction. Therefore, it makes sense sizable and secure park population is a of mortality will not likely exceed what for these States to manage for a superior buffer to the simple 50 percent the population can withstand, leaving statewide total. In Wyoming, a buffer used in the other States, and is some modest level of surplus wolves for substantial portion of the wolf habitat more appropriate to the Wyoming harvest. However, all of these sources of and wolf population occurs in YNP, situation given differences in human-caused mortality can be limited, where the State has no jurisdiction management authority. Overall, while if necessary. Harvest will be limited (Oakleaf 2011). Thus, it would be more this approach represents a new strategy with an adaptive approach determining difficult to manage for a statewide total. to maintain this recovered population, it what the population can withstand in a In essence, the decision to split numeric is consistent with our overarching goal given year and across years. While we targets by management authority is because it will maintain the statewide expect Wyoming to reduce the wolf similar to the decision to split the Wyoming wolf population well above population in the Trophy Area and overall NRM goal by State, just at a more minimum recovery levels. Furthermore, remove most resident wolves within the localized level. Given this difference, based on Wyoming’s management predator portion of the State, we we decided that a different solution was approach (i.e., the State’s commitment conclude that the wolf population can appropriate. to maintain at least 10 breeding pairs tolerate the level of mortality expected The recovery goal requires at least 10 and at least 100 wolves, which the State in the short term before leveling off at breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves intends to satisfy by managing for a a longer term equilibrium. Given the per State. The new approach and buffer above these minimums) and our biological resilience of wolves to agreement provides that this goal is met understanding of the YNP wolf controlled and managed human-caused in Wyoming outside YNP and the Wind population’s likely future abundance mortality, these strategies provide that River Indian Reservation (large areas (50 to 100 wolves and 5 to 10 packs and Wyoming’s minimum management outside of State jurisdiction). Wyoming 4 to 6 breeding pairs), the original 15- targets will not be compromised. When is firmly committed to a population at breeding-pair and 150-wolf-minimum combined with wolves occurring in least at these levels as reflected in State management targets will rarely, if ever, adjoining jurisdictions and across the statute, regulations, and its management be compromised. NRM DPS, we have high confidence that plan. In order to meet these goals and While some have asserted that this recovery will not be compromised in allow for continued management new approach removes Wyoming’s Wyoming, the GYA, or across the NRM flexibility, Wyoming intends to manage incentive to conserve wolves resident to DPS. for a population above its minimum Issue 18: Numerous commenters management targets. Furthermore, the protected areas and that many of these asserted that Wyoming’s wolf wolf populations in YNP and on the wolves could be killed when they management framework remains flawed, tribal lands of sovereign nations will ventured from these protected areas, we in that it fails to clearly commit to provide an additional buffer above the conclude that this concern is managing for at least 15 breeding pairs minimum recovery goal intended by the unwarranted. The peer reviewer who in the State. A few comments noted that previous management objective of at raised this point expressly noted we previously stated this was a least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 concern for Grand Teton National Park requirement, rejected Wyoming’s 2003 wolves statewide. From 2000 to the end wolves. However, these wolves occur regulatory frameworks for failing to of 2011 (the most recent official wolf within the Trophy Area and are counted commit to this minimum management population estimates available), the wolf in the State’s totals, so Wyoming still target, and that the courts took issue population in YNP has ranged from 96 has an incentive to consider impacts to with past Wyoming plans and our to 174 wolves, and between 6 to 16 these wolves when making management approval of Wyoming’s 2007 regulatory breeding pairs. While a lower future decisions. The same applies for wolves framework for not clearly committing to population level in YNP is predicted in the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial this standard. Several comments noted (between 50 to 100 wolves and 5 to 10 Parkway and the National Elk Refuge. that Wyoming’s ‘‘commitment’’ to packs with 4 to 6 of these packs meeting While this criticism could theoretically maintain at least 15 breeding pairs and the breeding pair definition annually) be relevant to YNP wolves, most YNP at least 150 wolves statewide, in (Smith 2012), YNP will always provide packs rarely leave the park and most of cooperation with YNP and the Wind a secure wolf population providing a those packs that routinely leave the park River Indian Reservation, was nothing safety margin above the minimum occur on the northern part of YNP, more than a non-enforceable promise. A recovery goal. where they occasionally enter adjoining few comments questioned whether YNP We conclude that the YNP wolf portions of southern Montana. Montana can adequately buffer the Wyoming wolf population can effectively buffer the rest has already taken steps to limit impacts population, citing predictions that the of the Wyoming wolf population to YNP wolves in these adjoining areas. YNP wolf population was declining into because of the significant amount of Most other YNP wolf packs are not a lower long term equilibrium. One peer available habitat in the park, the sizable expected to be as vulnerable to human- reviewer expressed concern that, by wolf population the park does now and caused mortality in adjoining areas most removing the statewide goal for will continue to support, and the years, because they generally spend less Wyoming, the State’s incentive to relative security of the park population. time in these adjoining areas. conserve wolves in protected areas is YNP is the most protected population in Furthermore, as discussed in Factor B removed, and that such wolves would the NRM DPS and least likely to be below, all three States have an incentive be vulnerable to killing when they left meaningfully affected by human-caused to maintain a healthy YNP wolf these areas. mortality. This security from human- population. For example, a healthy wolf Response 18: After careful caused mortality, the most significant population in YNP brings economic consideration, we decided differences in threat factor facing wolves in the NRM benefits to all three States through State management authority warranted a DPS, was critical in accepting the YNP increased tourism. Furthermore, there is
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55555
a regulatory incentive to maintain the consistent minimum goal that will not reported at the end of the year should YNP population, since we will initiate fluctuate across years. Such a steady they persist through that period), but a status review if the Wyoming goal will be easier to consistently will not be relied upon by the WGFD statewide population, including YNP, satisfy. when making wolf management falls below 15 breeding pairs or below Issue 19: Many comments criticized decisions (e.g., when setting hunting 150 wolves routinely or for 3 Wyoming’s commitment to maintain at quotas) necessary to ensure the State consecutive years. Wyoming’s wolf least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 maintains at least minimum management plan confirms Wyoming’s wolves outside YNP and the Wind River management targets (WGFC 2012, p. 3). intention to coordinate with YNP to Indian Reservation. Some indicated this This approach was demonstrated this maintain a statewide total of at least 15 commitment was too low and that the year when the WGFD and the WGFC breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves area can support more wolves. Many developed hunting quotas that provide (WGFC 2011, p. 1). comments expressed general concern Wyoming with a substantial cushion Furthermore, we have previously that State management would result in above the minimum management targets noted potential pitfalls with applying a significant wolf population reductions solely within the Trophy Area and simple requirement to maintain at least (a 40 to 60 percent reduction was most allow any resident wolves that persist in 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 often cited). Several peer reviewers the predator area to further buffer these wolves statewide in Wyoming, and thought these goals should be met minimum requirements. conclude that the new approach is more within the Trophy Area instead of While Wyoming can support more likely to maintain the population’s across all of Wyoming given the wolves than the agreement requires, the recovered status in Wyoming than the insecurity of wolves in the predator Act does not require managing the statewide approach employed in area. Some comments complained that species at carrying capacity. Instead, it Montana and Idaho. Under the 15 at the time of the draft proposal, requires achieving and maintaining breeding pair statewide approach, if the Wyoming’s commitment to these targets recovery and providing reasonable YNP wolf population increased to, for was not reflected in binding statutes or assurance of long term viability so that example, 12 breeding pairs after regulations. A few comments expressed the population does not again become delisting, Wyoming could have reduced concern that reporting mortality could threatened or endangered. We have the wolf population outside the park to occur 24 hours to 10 days after the determined that Wyoming’s approach to 3 breeding pairs. However, such a event, during which significant wolf management after delisting will robust population in YNP would have mortality could occur, compromising achieve these goals and, when an increased likelihood of intraspecific management objectives. Numerous considered in the region’s larger strife and disease, likely resulting in a comments, including the peer management scheme, will maintain population decline similar to those reviewers, recommended that the recovery in Wyoming, the GYA, and observed in YNP in 2005 and 2008. This Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan across the NRM DPS. park population decline (i.e., falling clearly commit to maintain a ‘‘sizable’’ Wyoming intends to meet its statutory from 12 breeding pairs to, say, 5 buffer above minimum population and regulatory standards by managing breeding pairs), in combination with an targets. Other commenters for a buffer above minimum allowable population reduction outside recommended that Wyoming develop a management targets (WGFC 2012, pp. 3– the park (to as low as 3 in the above specific numeric buffer and that this 5). The population will be routinely and example), could compromise the buffer needed to be enshrined in statute continuously monitored to detect minimum recovery goal of at least 10 or regulation before delisting could changes in population abundance, breeding pairs statewide. Recent occur. The peer reviewers also distribution, and demographic makeup. analysis of this information contributed expressed concern over the potential All mortality within the Trophy Area to our conclusion that a different rate of wolf population reduction, and will be reported within 72 hours (W.S. approach was warranted in Wyoming. recommended that the Wyoming Gray 23–1–304(d)(iv); W.S. 23–3–115(c)) The new strategy precludes this Wolf Management Plan provide a better including: Take authorized by lethal possibility by maintaining the explanation of the adaptive processes take permits, which must be reported population at least at the minimum (including use of monitoring data) that within 24 hours (chapter 21, section recovery goals outside YNP and the will guide wolf population reductions. 7(b)(v)); harvest, which must be Wind River Indian Reservation, and Many comments indicated a gradual reported within 24 hours (chapter 47, allows the wolf population in YNP and population reduction was unlikely since section 4(f)(i)); and defense of property on the Wind River Indian Reservation to Wyoming’s regulatory framework take, which must be reported within 72 provide the additional buffer above the authorizes numerous, competing hours (W.S. 23–1–304(d)(iv); W.S. 23– minimum recovery goal. In addition to sources of human-caused mortality. 3–115(c); chapter 21, section 6(a)). preventing an unacceptable population Other comments suggested State Mortality in the predator area (which decline, this approach is also desirable commitments to maintain numeric after the first year will likely be limited) to the extent that it increases the management objectives must be binding must be reported within 10 days (W.S. public’s understanding and expectation and enforceable. Some noted that when 23–1–304(d)(iii); WGFC 2011, p. 29). that some modest wolf population and we accepted commitments short of this Should Wyoming’s wolf population wolf distribution will, and must, be standard in the past, the States failed to approach minimum management maintained outside of the National meet the commitments. objectives, the State will sequentially Parks in order to maintain delisting and Response 19: Consistent with our limit: control actions for unacceptable State management authority. We agreement with the State, both impacts to ungulates; harvest levels; conclude that this public understanding Wyoming statutes and regulations now control for damage to private property; of Wyoming’s responsibility will result require Wyoming to maintain at least 10 and lethal take permits (WGFC 2012, p. in increased public tolerance for wolves breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves 7). Regarding hunting specifically, the outside of National Parks. Such public outside YNP and the Wind River Indian addendum notes that Wyoming would tolerance will benefit wolf conservation. Reservation at the end of the year. employ an iterative, adaptive, and Finally, this approach is desirable for Wolves in the predator area will count public process whereby season the WGFD, because it gives the State a towards these goals (i.e., they will be structures, hunt areas, and quotas are
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
evaluated and adjusted based on the over time based on this new data, when the actual population would have response of the wolf population to prior including learning what the population declined (from 131 wolves to 121 management actions (WGFC 2012, pp. can withstand (in terms of the amount, wolves). Such data could lead State 4–7). Furthermore, the addendum notes timing, and intensity of human-caused officials to increase quotas and other Wyoming’s authority to revise, reduce, mortality) and how to consistently meet take allowances even as populations are or close hunting seasons if necessary or exceed the State’s minimum declining. Issues associated with such (WGFC 2012, pp. 6–7). Such flexibility management targets long term. This errors would be increasingly risky the allows the State to adaptively respond approach is more appropriate closer the State is to its minimum to population problems should its biologically than us developing an population target. assumptions on susceptibility to arbitrary, mandatory buffer based on Response 20: We concluded that risk human-caused mortality prove overly current data that is unlikely to be an associated with such potential optimistic. Overall, we conclude that accurate predictor of long term population counting errors will be this approach of managing, monitoring, population response after delisting. minimal because detection in Wyoming and regulating and limiting human- Regarding the rate of reduction, will be high under State management, caused mortality, including adjustments Wyoming has consistently indicated it year in and year out. Several factors throughout the year as necessary, so that intends to pursue a gradual population contribute to this likely high detection minimum management targets will be reduction during this learning phase. To rate including: WGFD’s survey effort achieved, the population’s recovered this end, Wyoming’s 2012 hunting quota will be greater than what has been status will not be compromised, and the (52 wolves) is anticipated to reduce the occurring under Service management population will not again become Trophy Area wolf population by about because WGFD has substantially more endangered within the foreseeable 11.5 percent and result in a Trophy Area human power dedicated to wildlife future throughout all or a significant wolf population of around 170 wolves management in northwestern Wyoming portion of its range. and 15 breeding pairs at the end of 2012 than we do; and the geography and use We decided against requiring (Mills 2012, pers. comm.). This initial of the area is conducive to wolf Wyoming to provide a specific numeric goal is comfortably above the minimum detection. These factors will result in a buffer above these minimum agreed-upon population targets and is high detection rate, likely higher than management targets. While Wyoming consistent with the stated intention of a we achieved in the past. Therefore, will, and must, maintain a buffer to gradual population reduction. In future while estimates of abundance and consistently meet its minimum years, hunting quotas will be set later in trends will not be perfect, we conclude management targets, the buffer the year to allow full consideration of that they are likely to always be necessary to achieve this goal will recruitment and mortality events that sufficiently reliable assuming change over time. For example, current occurred during spring and summer. In maintenance of an adequate buffer information indicates approximately the long term, the State has sufficient above minimum recovery levels. 140 wolves have a 95 percent chance of discretion to allow continued gradual That said, the importance of this issue producing at least 10 breeding pairs population reductions as necessary and and any possible erroneous conclusions (Bruscino 2012, p. 5). Similarly, appropriate, before stabilizing the about abundance and trends is Wyoming anticipates hunting and other population comfortably above the dependent on how close Wyoming sources of mortality will reduce the minimum recovery goals. manages to its minimum population Trophy Area’s wolf population to Overall, given the biological resilience targets. In 2012, Wyoming’s take around 170 wolves and around 15 of wolves to controlled and managed allowances are expected to maintain breeding pairs at the end of 2012 (well human-caused mortality, these around 170 wolves and 15 breeding above Wyoming’s management goals) strategies will provide that Wyoming’s pairs outside of YNP and the Wind (Mills 2012, pers. comm.). While these minimum management targets are not River Indian Reservation at the end of models are a reasonable short term compromised. When combined with the year (Mills 2012, pers. comm.). As predictor of population response, they wolves occurring in adjoining discussed in Issue and Response 19 are based on population data while the jurisdictions and across the NRM DPS, above, in subsequent years the Act’s protections were in place. After we have high confidence recovery will population will likely be gradually delisting, management differences will not be compromised in Wyoming, the reduced, but always maintained with a likely alter population dynamics and GYA, or across the NRM DPS. sufficient buffer to allow management change the usefulness of the currently Issue 20: One peer reviewer expressed flexibility and preclude the possibility available data to predict the number of concern that the State’s reliance on that relisting could occur. In most years, wolves needed to meet or exceed the minimum population numbers, instead the wolf population within the Trophy State’s breeding pair target. For of estimates that incorporate detection Area will be well above the minimum example, higher mortality rates may probabilities, could result in improper management targets of at least 10 result in fewer packs successfully assumptions about trends. This reviewer breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves. raising pups through the end of the year went on to indicate that if the State Minimum counts will verify that the and qualifying as breeding pairs. increased monitoring intensity as the State has achieved these goals (as The exact difference between current population gets closer and closer to the discussed in Issue and Response 2 minimum estimates and likely future minimum management targets, this above). Wolves in YNP and the Wind outcomes are not known and probably increasing monitoring intensity could River Indian Reservation provide an will not be known with any certainty result in the appearance of a population additional buffer so that the statewide until after the new management regime increase when actual populations are minimum recovery level is not is implemented (likely for several declining. For example, if a raw count compromised. Within the larger GYA, years). Given this fact, we concluded of 105 wolves one year detected only 80 wolves in the Montana and Idaho that a firm commitment to the percent of the population and a raw portion of the GYA provide additional underlying minimum management count of 115 wolves the next year representation, resiliency, and target was sufficient, recognizing the detected 95 percent of the population, redundancy across the overall GYA State would monitor the population raw counts would imply an increasing population. Such a conservative after delisting and adjust management population (from 105 to 115 wolves) approach sufficiently minimizes the risk
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55557
associated with erroneous conclusions as the additional 100 wolves and 10 legally described area (chapter 21, about trends resulting from fluctuating breeding pairs outside the YNP. The section 7(b)(ii)). These requirements detection probabilities. While we would combination of these two conservation provide that application of this source support the development of a areas will provide for wolf recovery in of take is limited in time and geography. monitoring technique that incorporates Wyoming. Similarly, State regulations indicate that detection probabilities, and Wyoming Issue 22: Numerous comments purported cases of wolf harassment, has indicated that it is open to such an objected to Wyoming’s approach to injury, maiming, or killing must be approach if subsequent data indicate lethal take permits. Some objected to the verified by the WGFD (chapter 21, that there is a need (State law requires State’s statutory mandate to issue lethal section 6(b)). We conclude that this Wyoming to employ techniques that take permits as long as population requirement for WGFD verification accurately determine the population objectives are not likely to be would limit potential abuse for this (W.S. 23–1–304(d)(i))) (Mills 2012, pers. compromised. Others objected to the source of mortality. Regarding the comm.), we conclude that current issuance of lethal take permits for issuance of lethal take permits for techniques are adequate, given the ‘‘harassing’’ livestock or domestic wolves ‘‘harassing’’ livestock or overall management approach that will animals. These comments indicated that domestic animals, Wyoming will be employed in the Trophy Area, the harassment is not defined and could require that WGFD staff verify that GYA, and the NRM region. include, for example, causing dogs to wolves were present and involved in Issue 21: A few commenters thought bark or cattle to move from one grazing activities that would directly indicate an it problematic that the agreed-upon area to another. These comments went actual attack was likely (Mead 2012b). strategy places the burden of meeting on to indicate that because an area Such activity must be an activity, such the minimum recovery goal (at least 10 would be categorized as a chronic wolf as chasing or molesting, that is an breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves) depredation area if there are two immediate precursor to actual biting, on areas outside of YNP. These harassment episodes within a 2-month wounding, grasping, or killing (Mead comments pointed out that the proposed period, this could allow large portions 2012b). Similar allowances are rule appeared to view YNP as merely of Wyoming to be designated as a incorporated in our experimental playing ‘‘a supporting role’’ in chronic wolf depredation area, which, population rules (50 CFR 17.84(n)(3)). maintaining recovery, rather than the in turn, would authorize liberal Finally, and most importantly, State central role the park is likely to play, mortality over most of the Trophy Area. law (W.S. 23–1–304(n)) and the given its abundance of high-quality One comment suggested that this implementing regulations (chapter 21, suitable habitat. These comments note ‘‘flimsy standard’’ could result in the section 7(b)(iii)) clarify that existing this approach is a complete reversal issuance of hundreds of permits permits would be cancelled, and from previous Wyoming wolf (perhaps more permits than wolves exist issuance of new permits would be management plans, which relied in the Trophy Area). Some commenters suspended, if the WGFD determines primarily on YNP to meet the minimum wondered how long it would take the further lethal control could compromise recovery levels, with Wyoming WGFD to figure out whether there was the State’s ability to maintain a providing the buffer above the a need to suspend or cancel permits and population of at least 10 breeding pairs minimum levels. Some comments whether this could endanger the ability and at least 100 wolves in Wyoming maintained YNP should bear a greater of the State to maintain the population outside of YNP and the Wind River burden for wolf recovery and commit to above agreed-upon targets. A few maintain specific numbers of wolves. comments noted there was not a Indian Reservation at the end of the Others wanted clarification that the quantitative limit on the size of a calendar year. Importantly, the word agreement with Wyoming in no way chronic depredation area or the number ‘‘could’’ (as opposed to would or will) obligates the State of Wyoming to of permits in such areas indicating provides authority for the WGFD to manage for more than 10 breeding pairs resulting take could be significant. manage for a buffer above the minimum and more than 100 wolves at any time. Other comments noted safeguards and target and limit control from lethal take Response 21: Our discussion of YNP limits on lethal take permit issuance permits, if necessary, to maintain an was not intended to downplay or designed to minimize population-level adequate minimum buffer. However, the undermine the importance of YNP for impacts and prevent this source of Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf the conservation of the GYA or NRM mortality from compromising Management Plan explains that the gray wolf population. YNP represents a management objectives. State law’s mandatory approach to secure block of suitable habitat, which Response 22: Wyoming law (W.S. 23– issuance of lethal take permits requires has supported between 96 and 174 1–304(n)) states that permits ‘‘shall be that Wyoming’s adaptive management wolves and from 6 to 16 breeding pairs issued’’ to landowners or livestock framework limit other discretionary since 2000. While a lower long term owners in cases where wolves are sources of mortality before it limits this future population level in YNP is harassing, injuring, maiming, or killing source of mortality (WGFC 2012, p. 7). predicted (Smith 2012), YNP will livestock or other domesticated animals, On the whole, the available continue to be important to the regional and where wolves occupy geographic information indicates that Wyoming’s wolf population and will play an areas where chronic wolf predation approach to lethal take permits may important role in maintaining the occurs. Numerous safeguards limit the affect population abundance regional wolf population’s recovered potential of these permits to (particularly at a localized level where status. We agree that this approach is a detrimentally affect the population. For wolf-livestock conflict is high), but that modification from that used in previous example, State statute requires that Wyoming has instituted sufficient Wyoming wolf management plans, but it permits be issued, and renewed as safeguards so that this source of is an approach that we requested as a necessary, in 45-day increments (W.S. mortality would not compromise the remedy to our previous determination 23–1–304(n)), and State regulations State’s ability to maintain a population that the Wyoming management plan limit the take allowance for each permit of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least was inadequate. In fact, recovery in to a maximum of 2 gray wolves, and 100 wolves in Wyoming outside of YNP Wyoming depends both on having specify that each permit can only apply and the Wind River Indian Reservation healthy populations within YNP as well to a specified limited geographic or at the end of the calendar year.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Issue 23: We received many 2007; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008), about 38,500 km2 (15,000 mi2) in the comments on the permanent Trophy noting only minor issues that needed to northwestern portion of the State (15.2 Area and the predator area. Many of be remedied (Gould 2009; 74 FR 15123, percent of Wyoming (Lickfett 2012)), these comments asserted this line was April 2, 2009). A few comments including YNP, Grand Teton National arbitrary and not scientifically derived. advocated for a smaller Trophy Area, Park, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial A few comments ridiculed an approach asserting that all wolves outside of Parkway, adjacent U.S. Forest Service, that assumed wolves would adhere to National Parks should be considered designated Wilderness Areas, adjacent human-made boundaries. Most of these predators. public and private lands, the National comments thought that the WGFD Response 23: We recognize our Elk Refuge, and most of the Wind River should be given management authority position on this issue may have led Indian Reservation. Wolves will be statewide (note that the WGFD does not people to view our perspective as designated as predatory animals in the have management authority over wolves changing over time without reasoned remainder of the State (predator area). in the predator area). Some comments justification. We clarify our position The above protected and permanent noted that Wyoming treats other here. A statewide Trophy Area has long game areas (see Figure 1) include: 100 predators (e.g., mountain lions and been our preferred approach to sustain percent of the portion of the GYA black bears) as trophy game animals wolf conservation, but that something recovery area within Wyoming (Service statewide, while others noted that less than a statewide trophy game 1987, Figure 2); approximately 79 wolves are not managed as predators in designation (i.e., the current Trophy percent of the Wyoming portion of the any other State in the country. Many Area) can satisfy the species’ biological primary analysis area used in the 1994 suggested a predator designation was needs and maintain Wyoming’s share of Environmental Impact Statement (areas unnecessary because State management a recovered wolf population assuming analyzed as potentially being impacted provides plenty of management adequate management within this area. by wolf recovery in the GYA) (Service flexibility to address wolf problems as This issue is important because 1994, Figure 1.1); the entire home range evidenced by the Wyoming gray wolf designation of an area as a predator area for 24 of 27 breeding pairs (88 percent), plan’s long list of lethal options. or a Trophy Area strongly influences the 40 of 48 packs (83 percent), and 282 of Some comments asserted that likelihood of wolf and wolf pack 328 individual wolves (86 percent) in Wyoming’s new strategy including the persistence within the area. ‘‘Trophy the State at the end of 2011 (Service et Trophy Area and the flex zone was game’’ status allows the WGFC and al. 2012, Tables 2, 4, Figure 3; Jimenez almost the same or only marginally WGFD to regulate methods of take, 2012a; Jimenez 2012, pers. comm.); and better than previously rejected State hunting seasons, types of allowed take, approximately 81 percent of the State’s regulatory frameworks and accused the and numbers of wolves that can be suitable habitat (including over 81 Service of reversing itself on this issue. killed. All other States within the NRM percent of the high-quality habitat These comments noted that our 2009 DPS manage wolves as a game species (greater than 80 percent chance of delisting determination had stated statewide. ‘‘Predatory animals’’ in supporting wolves) and over 62 percent support for a state-wide trophy game Wyoming are regulated by the State’s of the medium-high-quality habitat (50 status and provided numerous reasons Department of Agriculture under title to 79 percent chance of supporting why we felt such an approach was 11, chapter 6 of the Wyoming Statutes. wolves) (Oakleaf 2011; Mead 2012a)). ‘‘advisable’’ and ‘‘the best way for Under these regulations, wolves in Based on the above analysis, it is clear Wyoming to provide adequate predator areas can be killed by anyone that this is the portion of Wyoming regulatory mechanisms.’’ Some noted with very few restrictions. Coyotes are where wolf recovery was always that we previously found statewide managed in Wyoming in this manner. envisioned to occur, that wolves have trophy game status would provide The nature of this taking means it is failed to persist in large numbers WGFD more flexibility to devise an unlikely that wolf packs or breeding outside of this area, that the vast adaptive management strategy that pairs will persist in the predator area of majority of the State’s suitable habitat is allows the State to respond to Wyoming. While some lone wolves and contained within this portion of population declines and still maintain dispersing wolves from both within the Wyoming, and that this portion of its numeric objectives. Others thought GYA and from other metapopulations Wyoming has a demonstrated history of areas like the Big Horn Mountains, will be killed, lone wolves and being able to support a wolf population Wind River Range, Wyoming Range, and dispersers will likely be less prone to that exceeds agreed-upon minimum Salt Range could support wolves and take than resident packs, whose management targets. While a statewide should be protected (not designated as locations are easily detected and ranges trophy game designation would allow a predator area) so recovery can are easily determined. for more management flexibility, eventually take hold in these areas. Still Given these impacts, our assessment Wyoming’s current Trophy Area is of other comments supported State of adequacy analyzed whether the sufficient size to support and maintain management and indicated the State’s Trophy Area is of sufficient size to a recovered wolf population in Trophy Area was adequate because it support and maintain a recovered wolf Wyoming over the long term, assuming includes most of the suitable habitat. population in Wyoming over the long adequate management within this area. One peer reviewer noted that there term, assuming adequate management To understand our position on the was no functional difference between within this area. This assessment Trophy Area, it is useful to review our Wyoming’s predator status across compared Wyoming’s Trophy Area to past positions on this issue. Prior to largely unsuitable habitat and past assessments of where we thought 2003, the gray wolf was designated by management in eastern Montana and wolf recovery would occur, subsequent W.S. 23–1–101(a)(viii) as a predatory southern Idaho (today or while listed) modeling exercises showing where animal statewide in Wyoming. In 2003, that precluded wolf pack establishment wolves are most likely to occur and Wyoming passed a State law that in these areas. A number of comments persist, and actual wolf distributional designated wolves as ‘‘trophy Game’’ in indicated that we must approve data of where wolves persisted under YNP, Grand Teton National Park, John Wyoming’s dual status approach, the Act’s protections. In total, Wyoming D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, because we had previously concluded wolves will be managed as game and the adjacent USFS-designated such an approach was acceptable (Hall animals year-round or protected in Wilderness areas (Wyoming House Bill
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55559
0229) once the wolf is delisted from the rectifies the inadequacies of the to preemptive landowner control. Still Act. This State law also allowed the previous plan. other comments disputed our assertion WGFC to increase the Trophy Area if Many comments note the Service’s that wolves in the predator area would certain population targets were not prior preference for statewide trophy likely not persist. These comments achieved. The 2003 permanent Trophy game designation. We acknowledge that asserted take in this area, once the Area totaled about 7 percent of many official statements on this issue initial novelty wears off, would likely be Wyoming (Lickfett 2011). Wyoming’s (i.e., letters from the Director or Federal ‘‘opportunistic’’ rather than a 2003 post-delisting regulatory Register notices) demonstrate that we ‘‘wholesale extirpation.’’ Some of these framework was rejected because of consistently questioned past Wyoming comments expressed the opinion that several flaws including (but not solely Trophy Area designations and individual wolves, packs and breeding because of) an insufficiently small concluded a revision was necessary or pairs could or would occasionally occur Trophy Area (Williams 2004c). Our required. However, a careful inspection in less densely populated portions of 2006 petition finding clarified that ‘‘a of the record will show that most eastern Wyoming. Others suggested large portion of the area permanently statements regarding a statewide trophy control in the predator area is nothing designated as ‘trophy game’ actually has game designation describe this approach new because most wolves in this area little to no value to wolf packs because as advisable or recommended, rather are already killed because they tend to it is not suitable habitat for wolves and, than required. While there are become problem wolves. Still others thus, is [seasonally] used * * * because exceptions to this generalized summary expressed the view that wolves should of their high elevation, deep snow, and of our position in the record, an overall be ‘‘controlled by any means’’ if they low ungulate productivity’’ (71 FR reading of the record confirms this move outside ‘‘their designated range.’’ 43410, August 1, 2006). Overall, we account of our position over time. Response 24: Although a large concluded that a larger Trophy Area Issue 24: Some comments expressed predator area will result in forms of was necessary because maintenance of the opinion that predator status across mortality that many members of the wolf populations above recovery levels most of the State would subject wolves public view as inhumane or unethical would likely depend on wolves living to unsustainable levels of mortality and (see Issue and Response 31 below), this outside the National Parks and compromise the population’s recovered portion of Wyoming’s regulatory wilderness portions of Wyoming (71 FR status. A few comments asserted that framework will not subject wolves to 43410, August 1, 2006). In 2007, the vast majority of wolves in Wyoming unsustainable levels of mortality or Wyoming adopted new legislation that would be subjected to unlimited and compromise the population’s recovered increased the Trophy Area. This new unregulated taking. Some comments status. In fact, few wolves currently Trophy Area, comparable to the current supported the ‘‘very strict’’ occur in the predator area where such protected and trophy areas, was deemed requirements for reporting wolf unlimited taking will be allowed (at the mortality in the predator area, while sufficient to provide for the end of 2011, this included: 3 of 27 other comments questioned whether the conservation of Wyoming’s share of a breeding pairs; 8 of 48 packs; and 46 of monitoring and collection of genetic recovered wolf population (Hall 2007; 328 wolves). As in eastern Montana and samples would be mandatory. Several 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008). southern Idaho, wolf restoration will not comments expressed concern that However, this approval was later occur in largely unsuitable habitat wolves from YNP, Grand Teton National retracted, in part, because Wyoming’s regardless of its management Park, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial 2007 legislation allowed the WGFC to designation. Parkway, and the National Elk Refuge Wolf packs in the predator portions of diminish the Trophy Area to the 2003 would be killed when they venture Wyoming are easy to detect and locate line if it determines the diminution outside those protected areas. These and will generally not persist following would not impede the delisting of gray comments indicated this outcome delisting. However, some individuals wolves (Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. would be exacerbated when wolves from these packs could survive as lone Hall, et al., 565 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. follow elk to neighboring elk feeding animals. Because none of the packs Mont. 2008); Gould 2009; 74 FR 15123, grounds. One comment suggested State resident to YNP or the Trophy Area are April 2, 2009). and Federal officials develop a protocol known to spend a significant portion of The current Trophy Area improves for collaboration and coordination their time in the predator portions of upon the 2003 Trophy Area as it is before wolf removal occurs on feed Wyoming (Jimenez 2012 a; Jimenez significantly larger and not subject to grounds in the Jackson area, in light of 2012, pers. comm.), the predator WGFC expansion or reduction. The potential impacts to Grand Teton designation is not expected to current Trophy Area improves upon the National Park and National Elk Refuge meaningfully affect wolves in YNP or in 2007 Trophy Area in that: (1) It is wolves. Use of nonlethal take was the Trophy Area (Jimenez 2012, pers. permanent and cannot be diminished; particularly recommended on elk comm.). While a larger Trophy Area and (2) it will be seasonally expanded feedgrounds. A few comments may benefit wolves and wolf approximately 80 km (50 mi) south (see recommended a 20-mile buffer around conservation, protected and game Figure 3) (an additional 3,300 km2 the Trophy Area to protect wolf parents portions of Wyoming are of sufficient (1,300 mi2) or 1.3 percent of Wyoming) during the denning and pup rearing size to support a recovered wolf from October 15 to the last day of season. Other comments objected to the population in Wyoming, under the February (28th or 29th) to facilitate Trophy Area being set in statute, to the management regime developed for this natural dispersal of wolves between extent it prevents an expansion of the area. Wyoming and Idaho. While many Trophy Area, even if it becomes Finally, State law requires that any commenters asserted that these changes necessary to protect wolf populations. human-caused mortality occurring in were minor tweaks that do not justify a A few comments noted occupancy the predator area must be reported to departure from past Service positions, rarely persisted in the predator areas WGFD within 10 days (W.S. 23–1– we conclude that these changes are even when wolves were listed, so all the 304(d)(iii)). This will assist the WGFD biologically substantive and important. predator status does is change the form with monitoring mortality in the These and other changes were sufficient of mortality these wolves endure from predator area and allow the State to for us to determine that the current plan agency control when they kill livestock adjust mortality within the Trophy
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Area, if necessary. The State will also of an area in the Trophy Area does not occur within YNP or Grand Teton collect genetic samples from these imply a delegation of management National Park (Frost and Wessels 2012; animals when possible (chapter 21, authority to the State or in any way alter Joss 2012; Mead 2012b). Although the section 5(a)). existing management arrangements. Addendum to Wyoming’s Wolf Issue 25: Many comments expressed Inclusion in the Trophy Area does not Management Plan asserts the state’s concern about the potential for the necessarily mean hunting or other State authority to manage wolves on hunting of wolves on Federal land and control actions will be allowed. Grand inholdings within Grand Teton National that this delisting rule represented a Teton National Park was included in the Park, hunting of wolves on those new management arrangement between Trophy Area and YNP was not because inholdings would not be allowed the Department of the Interior and the wolves occurring in Grand Teton because hunting within Grand Teton State of Wyoming for particular areas National Park are likely to spend National Park is not authorized by (e.g., National Parks or Wildlife Refuges) significant amounts of their time in federal law, and is therefore prohibited. that would supersede existing law, areas under State jurisdiction (including Title 36 of the Code of Federal regulations, or policy. The most possibly denning in the Trophy Area) Regulations makes clear that the frequently mentioned land ownership whereas most YNP wolf packs spend hunting prohibition is applicable on all categories included the National Elk most of their time in YNP. Thus, it lands within the park boundary, Refuge, Grand Teton National Park, John makes sense to count Grand Teton regardless of ownership. Therefore, D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, National Park wolves in the State’s taking of wolves would not be allowed Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study management totals, and it makes sense on any of the inholdings within the Areas, and Forest Service lands. Many to exclude YNP wolves from the State’s park. The exception to the hunting comments expressed concern that management objectives. For utmost prohibition within the park is the elk inclusion of an area in Wyoming’s clarity, below we summarize reduction program, which is a Trophy Area implied an intention by management authority for the most management tool specifically included the State of Wyoming to hunt wolves in often mentioned areas within the in the park’s enabling legislation. these areas. Specifically, some were Trophy Area. Although hunting is currently confused by YNP’s exclusion from the Within the National Elk Refuge allowed for many other game species in Trophy Area, contrasted with Grand (included in the Trophy Area), the the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Teton National Park’s inclusion when refuge retains all authority and Parkway under the Parkway’s enabling management in these areas should be responsibility to manage all wolves on legislation and Wyoming law, the comparable, if not identical. Other the Refuge including, but not limited to, National Park Service has indicated a comments expressed concern that monitoring, research, harvest, and wolf ‘‘strong preference that wolves not be Wyoming claimed jurisdiction over control for depredations on domestic hunted in the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. private lands within Grand Teton animals and negative impacts on Memorial Parkway’’ (Frost and Wessels National Park and might authorize wildlife. Recreational wolf hunting and 2012). Wyoming’s hunting regulations hunting within the park’s boundaries. trapping is not currently authorized on are clear that gray wolf hunting would Many expressed concern for hunting in the refuge and is not anticipated, but not occur in the Parkway during the the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial could be considered in the future 2012 season, although nothing in Parkway, noting such hunting would (Kallin 2012, pers. comm.). Regarding Wyoming’s regulations or Wyoming’s sever a critical connectivity corridor predator management, regional Service wolf management plan would preclude between Grand Teton National Park and guidance clarifies that management wolves from being hunted in the YNP. Other comments expressed decisions are the purview of the refuge Parkway in subsequent years. Should concern that National Park system manager, but that generally: Agency- hunting ever occur in the John D. wolves would be killed when they left directed population management Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, it the park and suggested that buffers with activities (i.e., those intended solely to would likely be very limited, would be no hunting or subunits immediately reduce or control predator populations) unlikely to noticeably affect wolf gene adjoining these units be established would not be allowed on refuge lands; flow or connectivity, and it would be with very limited quotas to protect these ground-based control activities (but not closely coordinated with the National wolves. Finally, a few comments aerial gunning) could be allowed for Park Service. expressed concern that Wyoming specific animals or family groups likely Some wolves in protected areas, such claimed jurisdiction for non-Indian fee responsible for documented livestock as Grand Teton National Park or the title lands within the Wind River Indian depredations on neighboring or National Elk Refuge, will be vulnerable Reservation, meaning any wolves on adjoining lands (subject to National to hunting and other forms of human- these lands would be treated as a Environmental Policy Act compliance); caused mortality when they leave these predator. and requests to conduct nonlethal Federal land management units. These Response 25: Nothing in this rule activities such as surveillance, live- wolves were included in the Trophy would alter, or in any way affect, the trapping, marking, or radio-collaring by Area for exactly this reason. Because jurisdiction or authority of the State of partners could be granted (Coleman Wyoming counts these wolves in its Wyoming, Tribal governments, the 2011). The Service will continue to totals, it has an incentive to minimize National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and monitor and report on wolves located impacts to these wolves (e.g., more Wildlife Service, or any other entity on the National Elk Refuge (Kallin wolves, packs, and breeding pairs in with respect to the regulation of 2012a). These wolves will count toward these protected Federal lands means hunting. Whatever jurisdiction or the State’s objective of at least 10 fewer wolves are needed for recovery in authority to authorize, prohibit, or breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves the remainder of the Trophy Area). Such regulate hunting existed in such areas outside YNP and the Wind River Indian information influenced Wyoming’s prior to this final rule is unchanged by Reservation (Kallin 2012a). intended harvest in 2012. Specifically, the promulgation of this rule (except, of Within National Park System units, in 2012, Wyoming authorized a harvest course, that this rule removes the hunting is not allowed unless the of 15 wolves in all of the units adjoining protections of the Act for wolves in authorizing legislation specifically Grand Teton National Park (more than Wyoming). More specifically, inclusion provides for it. Thus, hunting will not 60 wolves occur in Grand Teton
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55561
National Park and the surrounding assume that if any wolves occur in these permitted take would be regulated and area). We expect that harvest will have areas they will be treated as predators. limited as necessary. Furthermore, from a minimal impact on Grand Teton Issue 26: Some comments expressed a practical standpoint, such baiting is National Park wolves because: The concern that State management and the likely to be very time consuming given surrounding units are fairly large; we resulting increased human-caused the difficulty of trying to actually catch have no reason to assume harvest in mortality would negatively affect a wolf ‘‘doing damage to private these units will be concentrated along surviving wolves and packs across the property.’’ In the unlikely event that this park boundaries; and some reproduction region. Some comments focused on the theoretical issue becomes a regular will occur. Similar considerations will impact to pack social structure. Others source of uncontrollable mortality, also occur in future years. Furthermore, focused on psychological trauma and similar to legitimate defense of property should such mortality result in higher increased stress to survivors which in allowances, it would result in a smaller than expected impacts in 2012 or future turn could affect their own likelihood of harvest quota or other limits on years, we expect Wyoming to work with survival. A few comments noted that controllable human-caused mortality as the Service and National Park Service to even in a relatively large protected area, a means of compensating and ensuring address the issue (Mills 2012, pers. human harvesting outside park the population’s recovered status is not comm.). Should it ever become boundaries can affect evolutionarily compromised. This approach is necessary, Wyoming could consider important social patterns within adequate to address this improbable, smaller hunting units for areas adjoining protected areas. theoretical issue. these protected areas. Similar strategies Response 26: Wolf packs frequently Issue 28: Many comments objected to have been successfully implemented in have high rates of natural turnover killing wolves for eating their natural Montana in areas adjoining YNP. (Mech 2007, p. 1482) and quickly adapt prey. These comments dispute the to changes in pack social structure Within Forest Service lands, conclusion that wolves were causing (Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 89). Higher rates including Wilderness Areas and unacceptable impacts to ungulate herds of human-caused mortality outside Wilderness Study Areas (which are and instead suggested prey abundance protected areas will result in different generally Forest Service lands), the was primarily shaped by other factors wolf pack size and structure than in Forest Service typically defers to States (e.g., habitat and climate). Many of these protected areas. However, wolf on hunting decisions (16 U.S.C. 480, comments suggested that we should let populations in many parts of the world, 528, 551, 1133; 43 U.S.C. 1732(b)). The nature achieve a natural balance over including most of North America, time instead of reducing wolf primary exception to this deference is experience various levels of human- populations. Other comments suggested the Forest Service’s authority to identify caused mortality and the associated Wyoming might use its allowance to areas and periods when hunting is not disruption in natural processes and wolf address ‘‘unacceptable impacts to permitted (43 U.S.C. 1732(b)). However, social structure, without ever being ungulate populations’’ to quickly reduce even these decisions are to be developed threatened (Boitani 2003, pp. 322–323). wolf populations to minimum levels. in consultation with the States. Thus, Therefore, while human-caused These comments asserted that the vague most State-authorized hunting occurs on mortality may alter pack structure, we and flexible definition of ‘‘unacceptable State and Federal public lands like have no evidence that indicates this impacts’’ (‘‘any decline in a wild National Forests, Wilderness Areas, and issue, if adequately regulated (as will ungulate population or herd that results Wilderness Study Areas. Bureau of Land occur in the NRM region), is a in the population or herd not meeting Management lands are managed significant concern for wolf the state population management goal or similarly. This rule does not change or conservation. recruitment levels established for the in any way alter this arrangement. Issue 27: A few comments opined that population or herd’’) could result in Regarding the Wind River Indian Wyoming State law would allow abuse abuse of this provision if the State Reservation, we understand that of the State’s defense of property established absurd objectives for the Wyoming claims management authority allowance. Specifically, some opined primary purpose of justifying large-scale of non-Indian fee title lands and on that Wyoming’s chapter 21 and State wolf removals. Bureau of Reclamation lands within the statutes (W.S. 23–3–115) could allow Response 28: To date, Wyoming has Wind River Indian Reservation’s the use of dogs or livestock as bait to not proposed any wolf control projects boundaries. Thus, wolves will be encourage wolves to attack, which specifically to address unacceptable classified as game animals (Shoshone would in turn allow the killing of the impacts to ungulate herds. At present, and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game offending wolf ‘‘doing damage to private nearly all of Wyoming’s elk herds are at Department 2007, pp. 2–3, 9) within property.’’ These comments noted this levels above State objectives. While half about 80 percent of the reservation and is different than our experimental of Wyoming’s moose populations are will be treated as predators on the population rule’s allowances for defense not meeting State objectives, the science remaining 20 percent (Hnilicka 2012). of property, where such baiting was does not indicate wolves are the Predator status would have minimal specifically prohibited. primary culprit for this outcome. This impact on wolf management and Response 27: A representative from information indicates no immediate abundance, because these inholdings the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office need for such an approach. After tend to be concentrated on the eastern indicated the baiting scenario laid out delisting, other management tools will side of the reservation outside of above could be prosecuted under State reduce wolf populations from current reported areas of wolf activity law (Nesvik 2012). Regardless, we levels, further limiting the need for (Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and conclude that such a scenario is control specifically to address Game Department 2007, Figure 1). We unlikely to occur and exceedingly unacceptable impacts to ungulate herds. note that, while the Shoshone and unlikely to become a meaningful source Therefore, we expect wolf control Arapaho Tribes do not agree that of mortality. Should a member of the specifically to address unacceptable Wyoming has authority over these public desire to pursue wolf removal, impacts to ungulate herds will be rare, lands, to date the Tribes have not rather than risk violating State laws and will be regulated should it occur, and challenged this management authority regulations, most would pursue either a will not compromise recovery. Instead for other wildlife species. Therefore, we hunting tag or a lethal take permit. Such of using this tool, we expect that
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55562 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Wyoming will consider ungulate herd responsibilities towards wolves in poor animal husbandry practices (things health when designing hunting units different parts of the State. Similar like putting livestock in known wolf- and quotas. This approach will allow requirements would be placed upon the occupied areas). them to use hunting (which is a far public even if Wyoming adopted a Response 30: While not required by cheaper management tool) to address single statewide trophy animal the Act, State, Tribal, and Federal any perceived issues. Both hunting and designation when wolves cross into managers will continue to use a projects specifically to address areas like National Parks, wildlife combination of management options in unacceptable impacts to ungulate herds refuges, sovereign Indian land, or other order to reduce wolf-human conflicts, (should any occur) will be carefully States, or when hunters move from one including nonlethal forms (Bangs et al. regulated so that population objectives hunting unit into another. Such 2006). However, these methods are only are not compromised and recovery is differential standards governing take effective in some circumstances, and no maintained in Wyoming, the GYA, and allowance currently exist for other single tool is a cure for every problem. across the NRM DPS. State-regulated species and rarely cause Lethal control will still be required in Issue 29: Some comments expressed confusion for the public. Furthermore, many circumstances. In areas with year- concern that illegal human-caused the potential for confusion is lessened round high livestock density, it is mortality might be greater once Federal because Trophy Area boundaries are set almost impossible to prevent chronic protections are removed due to lower in statute. Thus, the same agency will livestock depredation if wolf packs form and undefined consequences of illegal consistently make management in those areas. Lethal control used in wolf killing in the Trophy Area. A few decisions for a set location; while combination with nonlethal methods comments suggested unlimited and management may seasonally shift can improve the overall effectiveness of unregulated taking in the predator area between agencies in the seasonal both management options (Bangs et al. will encourage people to illegally shoot Trophy Area, the timing and geography 2006, p. 8; Brietenmoser et al. 2005, p. wolves in regulated portions of of this shift is set in statute and will not 70). Wyoming. A few comments noted our change across years, providing some Issue 31: Many comments objected to previous statements that a statewide reasonable level of predictability here, various types of mortality that will be trophy game status would be easier for too. This contrasts with and allowed in Wyoming, particularly in the the public to understand and easier to substantially improves upon previous predator area, as well as activities regulate and enforce. Some comments regulatory frameworks in Wyoming currently ongoing in Montana and noted the need for strict enforcement where the WGFC had authority to move Idaho, which they viewed as inhumane, with strong fines and penalties. the line whenever it saw fit if the State’s unethical, or unfair. For example, some Response 29: Upon delisting, wolves objectives could be met in a smaller people objected to poisoning, gassing, will become protected by State, Tribal, area. Thus, overall, we conclude that, hunting, trapping or snaring (as well as and Federal laws and regulations. In while some confusion is possible, the not checking traps often enough), most cases, when wildlife managers available evidence indicates that most torturing, and various other methods of have sufficient evidence to recommend stakeholders will obey the law as it killing wolves. A few suggested humane prosecution, prosecution is pursued applies to wolves in different euthanasia instead of other less-humane (Bruscino 2012, pers. comm.). geographical areas. methods of control. Others objected to Enforcement will keep illegal activity to Therefore, we conclude that while any wolf killing. Many viewed wolves a minimal level. While listed, illegal some level of illegal mortality goes on as intelligent, sentient beings that killing was estimated to be responsible now and is likely to continue, we have warrant protection. A few comments for approximately 10 percent of annual high confidence that this issue, expressed the opinion that the sudden mortality. This level of mortality was singularly or in combination with other shift of wolves being protected as not a threat to the population because of factors, will not compromise the endangered one day to being considered the species’ prolific reproductive Wyoming, the GYA, or the NRM gray vermin the next day was capacity. There was no indication that wolf population’s recovered status. unprecedented, contrary to the intent of illegal mortality levels increased Issue 30: Many other comments the Act, and violated the duty imposed following previous delistings. In the suggested Wyoming should employ by the Act to recover and protect at-risk Midwest, it appeared that fewer wolves nonlethal deterrents, birth control or species. Others opined that this were illegally killed during the deer sterilization, or relocation before approach violated the stated purpose of hunting season when wolves were resorting to lethal control. Some the Act ‘‘to provide a means whereby delisted than when they were listed comments accepted lethal control when the ecosystems upon which endangered (Wydeven et al. 2008). Furthermore, we there was a current or imminent threat species and threatened species depend do not share the opinion that the take to personal property. Many comments may be conserved.’’ A few comments allowances authorized in the predator suggested increased spending for suggested Wyoming’s decision to area will encourage others within the rancher education including nonlethal designate wolves as predators across Trophy Area to break the law. To the approaches to deterring wolf most of the State violated six principles contrary, slightly greater defense of depredation. One comment asserted that of the North American Wildlife Model property allowances and legal hunting limiting lethal control methods was the of Conservation including: Wildlife as opportunities may shift some illegal best way to spur innovation in public trust resources; allocation of killing into legal mortality categories. developing and increasing application wildlife by law; wildlife should only be Finally, while enforcement of the law of effective nonlethal options. This killed for a legitimate purpose; wildlife would have been easier under statewide commenter asserted that, by limiting the are considered an international trophy animal status, we conclude that amount of lethal control and who can resource; science is the proper tool for human-caused mortality can be implement it, incidents of residents discharge of wildlife policy; and adequately regulated by Wyoming under killing the wrong wolf would be democracy of hunting (the 7th principle the current regulatory framework. Under minimized. A few comments indicated is ‘‘elimination of markets for game’’). Wyoming’s regulatory framework it will that State compensation programs Response 31: We recognize and be incumbent upon members of the (which pay at 7 times market value) respect that many find some or all forms public to know their rights and create a perverse incentive to encourage of human-caused wolf mortality as
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55563
morally or ethically objectionable. Some and reduce occupied range, increasing mammal (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 189– forms of wolf mortality that may occur the distance a dispersal event would 190; Paquet et al. 2006, p. 3; Liberg in the predator area were not need to cover, which in turn would 2008). Genetic and dispersal data implemented while the Service was reduce both the numbers of dispersal demonstrate that minimal acceptable responsible for wolf management. events and increase mortality among levels of genetic exchange between all However, the Act requires that we make dispersers. Various types of allowable NRM subpopulations were met or our determination based on the status of mortality (hunting and killing in the exceeded while the species was listed the subject species (is it recovered and predator area were most frequently (including from 1995 to 2004 when the will State management retain that mentioned) would result in reduced population was between 101 and 846 recovered status if the Act’s protections survival for wolves traveling between individuals and likely a higher rate of are removed) and does not allow us to subpopulations (including dispersal effective dispersal since then). While consider the manner in which during peak dispersal periods), and high State management will almost certainly individuals will be killed after delisting mortality rates in unprotected areas reduce genetic exchange rates from unless it would affect this overarching would kill wolves that successfully recent levels (which exceed minimal viability determination. The manner of traverse between subpopulations. acceptable levels of genetic exchange), take is subject to State control once Some comments noted our previous we find it extremely unlikely that it will wolves are delisted. Based on the conclusion that dispersal would likely be reduced to the point that the GYA available information, we do not find ‘‘noticeably decrease’’ if populations wolf population will be threatened by any persuasive information to indicate were maintained near 150 wolves per lower genetic diversity in the that the manner of killing will affect the State. Several comments apparently foreseeable future. Similarly, the peer viability of the Wyoming, the GYA, or viewed this as an admission that review report concluded ‘‘genetic the NRM gray wolf populations. management at these levels are not concerns (inbreeding, maintenance of Regarding viability, few wolves occur in genetically sustainable. A few gene flow) are minor’’ and that ‘‘gene the predator portion of Wyoming (now comments suggested that we should flow is likely to be adequate in the and likely far fewer after delisting); analyze this threat at minimum short- and medium-term’’ (Atkins 2012, therefore, few wolves will be subjected population levels. Some comments p. iii). Overall, the best scientific and to such taking. Furthermore, we cannot challenged our assertion that the commercial information available find any evidence that a shift from being population was recovered as long as indicates this issue is unlikely to Federally protected under the Act one human-caused mortality, the primary undermine the Wyoming, the GYA, or day to being considered vermin the next threat faced by the species, could the NRM gray wolf population’s day conflicts with Congressional intent impede gene flow. While the peer recovered status and that this issue, or violates the Act. Finally, designation review report concluded that ‘‘gene flow singularly or in combination with other of large portions of Wyoming as a is likely to be adequate in the short and factors, is unlikely to cause the predator area is not inconsistent with medium term,’’ some comments population to become an endangered the purposes of the Act—wolf expressed concern about genetic health species within the foreseeable future restoration in nearly all of the predator in the long term. Still other comments throughout all or a significant portion of area is unrealistic regardless of its indicated gene flow was unlikely to its range. This issue is discussed further designation; as in eastern Montana and become a conservation issue for NRM in subsequent Issues and Responses and southern Idaho, wolf restoration will not and GYA wolves, given the proximity of in Factor E below. occur in largely unsuitable habitat neighboring wolf populations and the Issue 33: Many comments expressed regardless of its management dispersal capabilities of wolves. the opinion that the seasonal Trophy designation. In other words, protection Numerous documented long distance- Area expansion would not be effective of the wolf population and maintenance dispersal events were given as examples in maintaining a genetic connection of the ecosystems on which wolves of the species’ dispersal ability (i.e., between wolves in Wyoming and depend have been, and will continue to dispersal into Oregon, Washington, wolves in Idaho. A few comments noted be, protected to the extent necessary. California, South Dakota, Nebraska, that we previously recommended a Colorado, and Utah). A few comments statewide Trophy Area reasoning that Gene Flow and Genetic Diversity noted that most of the peer reviewers dispersal is more likely to lead to Issue 32: A few comments suggested viewed genetic connectivity and genetic exchange if dispersers have safe that lack of genetic diversity was an potential genetic issues as a ‘‘non- passage through the predator area. issue for NRM gray wolves, that almost issue.’’ Numerous comments asserted that the all wolves in Yellowstone and Idaho Response 32: NRM wolves are as seasonal Trophy Area’s boundary was descended from a small reintroduced genetically diverse as their vast, secure, based on political compromise and not population, and that the genetic healthy, contiguous, and connected science. Many comments noted that we diversity of the extirpated North populations in Canada (Forbes and failed to present any data explaining American gray wolf was twice that of Boyd 1997, p. 1089; vonHoldt et al. why this geographic area and this time the current population. Many comments 2007, p. 19; vonHoldt et al. 2010, pp. period are adequate to maintain genetic discussed genetic connectivity and 4412, 4416–4421), and, thus, genetic connectivity. Some of these comments potential future genetic issues that diversity is not a wolf conservation noted that seasonal protection was could result from genetic isolation (e.g., issue in the NRM DPS at this time inadequate because wolf dispersal takes inbreeding depression or reduced (Hebblewhite et al. 2010, p. 4383; many months and occurs at all times of genetic fitness). Many comments vonHoldt et al. 2010, pp. 4412, 4416, the year. Other comments noted that indicated that gene flow was limited 4421). Wolves have an unusual ability more than half of the time the area was under the Act’s strict regulatory to rapidly disperse long distances across protected as a game area, hunting would framework, and would be even more virtually any habitat and select mates to occur, further limiting its effectiveness limited after delisting. Specifically, maximize genetic diversity. Wolves are as a protective corridor. these comments indicated State among the least likely species to be A few comments suggested the management would reduce the wolf affected by inbreeding when compared effectiveness of this area would be population resulting in fewer dispersers, to nearly any other species of land further hindered by management in
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55564 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Idaho. Specifically, during the fall 2011 permanent Trophy Area is likely to be Most of the peer reviewers concurred to spring 2012 hunting season, Idaho’s a small portion of the total number of with our assessment, noting that the Southern Wolf Hunting Zone (adjacent dispersers. Trophy Area was sufficient to maintain to the seasonal Trophy Area) had a 7- Additionally, the predator area genetic connectivity and gene flow month hunting season (August 30 to designation will not preclude dispersal. between subpopulations. Additionally, March 31) with unlimited total quotas. While resident packs with established most peer reviewers indicated that the This comment indicated that these home ranges and known denning sites designation of a large predator area combined management schemes do in the predator area are expected to be would not undermine this connectivity little or nothing to prevent genetic removed, dispersers will be more and the desired levels of gene flow. isolation because they do not provide a difficult to find, resulting in some Issue 34: Some comments questioned single day of the year when wolves can successful dispersal. Hunting data from the basis for the goal of at least one move between this portion of Idaho and Idaho’s Southern Wolf Hunting Zone effective migrant per generation moving Wyoming and not face unlimited kill demonstrates this conclusion. During into the GYA to address potential prospects. A few comments the 2009–2010 hunting season, Idaho genetic issues. A few comments noted recommended the seasonal Trophy Area allowed hunting from August 30th to that documented effective natural should be added to the permanent March 31st in this zone, but only one migration into the Greater Yellowstone Trophy Area. Some comments suggested wolf was harvested. During the 2011– Ecosystem was less than half of the one the southern boundary should be placed 2012 hunting season, Idaho allowed effective migrant per generation further south than the Teton County line hunting from August 30th to March 31st standard (0.43 natural effective migrants for both scientific and economic reasons with an unlimited quota in this zone, per generation); one comment noted that (predator status in Teton County could but only harvested two wolves. Much this estimate was a minimum estimate hurt its image as a place that honors and like the Wyoming predator area, few and a rate around the minimum protects wildlife). Others suggested the resident wolves occupy this area, so standard probably occurred. Some entire State should be categorized as a most take that occurs is opportunistic. comments cited literature Trophy Area (instead of the seasonal Such take has proven minimal to date. recommending up to 10 migrants per Trophy Area expansion) in order to We conclude that this trend will generation. One comment even maximize the likelihood of maintaining continue in Idaho’s Southern Wolf indicated that some populations require genetic connectivity. Hunting Zone. Similarly, take of greater than 20 migrants per generation. Response 33: Dispersing wolves will dispersers in the predator area will One of the peer reviewers noted gene likely use multiple routes to enter the flow should also occur from the GYA occur, but will be limited, and dispersal GYA in the years to come. For example, into the other subunits. will likely continue through this area, a simple evaluation of Figure 2 in this Response 34: As a general rule, despite the predator area’s legal status rule would suggest the shortest and genetic exchange of at least one effective and liberal take opportunities. most direct path to entering the GYA is migrant (i.e., a breeding migrant that from the central Idaho region into The seasonal expansion of the Trophy passes on its genes) per generation is eastern Idaho’s portion of the GYA. In Area was designed to facilitate viewed as sufficient to prevent the loss recognition of this likelihood, Idaho has additional dispersal around the of alleles and minimize loss of limited hunting in this region. southern edge of the GYA population. heterozygosity within subpopulations Similarly, some wolves could move Specifically, the permanent Trophy (Mills and Allendorf 1996, entire; Wang from western Montana into south- Area will expand approximately 80 km 2004, entire; Mills 2007, p. 193). This central Montana and enter the GYA (50 mi) south along the western border level of gene flow allows for local subpopulation. The distance between of Wyoming from October 15 to the end evolutionary adaptation while these areas is currently very small (a fact of February (see Figure 1 above). This minimizing negative effects of genetic demonstrated by the relative difficulty seasonal expansion covers drift and inbreeding depression. While in determining which subpopulation approximately 3,300 km2 (1,300 mi2) higher levels of genetic exchange may some intervening packs should be (i.e., an additional 1.3 percent of be beneficial (note the ‘‘at least’’ in the assigned to based on visual inspection Wyoming). This area was selected to above standard), we conclude that a alone; i.e., pack 99 or 242 in Figure 2) provide a southern route around the minimum of one effective migrant per and is expected to remain an easily Teton Range in winter when high generation is a reasonable and travelable distance long term. Effective elevation and high snow packs would acceptable goal to avoid any degradation migration into the GYA via these routes limit wolf passage. The timing of this in the NRM DPS’s current levels of could be done without moving through expansion was also selected to provide genetic diversity. Even the most Wyoming and would accomplish the additional protection for wolves during cautious peer reviewer, Dr. Vucetich, desired connectivity goal. peak dispersal periods in winter. agreed ‘‘existing literature suggests that Similarly, while YNP’s recent high Human-caused mortality will be limited this objective for immigration is density and reproductive output during this important time period. For appropriate’’ (Atkins 2011, p. 87). As appears to have limited gene flow from example, in 2012, Wyoming established discussed further in Factor E below, this other subpopulations into the park (but a quota of 2 wolves for the seasonal level of genetic exchange likely not necessarily through the park), the Trophy Area with a season from October occurred when the population was lack of dispersal into YNP may change 15 through December 31; no hunter between 101 and 846 wolves and has as the park’s wolf population continues harvest will be allowed from January 1 likely been exceeded at higher its decline into a lower long term through the end of February. The population levels (as discussed in more equilibrium (Smith 2012). Furthermore, seasonal expansion of the Trophy Area, detail in Factor E below). regardless of whether they establish in together with other reforms to the Management attention to date has the park, future wolf population State’s regulatory framework, will focused on gene flow into the GYA from densities in YNP will not preclude benefit dispersal and will provide that other subpopulations because this is the dispersing wolves from traveling the Wyoming, the GYA, and the NRM most isolated population, and the through the park. Given the above, gray wolf population’s recovered status population where a lack of gene flow dispersal around the southern end of the will not be compromised. has a theoretical potential to affect the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55565
population. The other two monitoring program, which will be of providing gene flow. Other comments subpopulations are well connected to more intensive than what is undertaken insisted delisting should not occur until each other and Canadian wolf for any other species in Wyoming (Mead the population can be shown to be populations, indicating that genetic 2012a). Should data warrant a need, the genetically viable under State issues are not likely to be a conservation States will then implement remedial management without translocation. issue for the central Idaho or actions, as appropriate, including Response 36: Montana, Idaho, and northwestern Montana subpopulations. options like limiting the amount and Wyoming all agree that natural While gene flow from the GYA into timing of human-caused mortality to connectivity is the preferred approach other subpopulations has likely increase survival of dispersing wolves. to maintaining genetic diversity, and occurred and will likely continue after Overall, this comprehensive and have indicated an intention to jointly delisting, such movement is not rigorous approach to this issue gives us collaborate to provide continued necessary for the preservation of GYA, confidence that genetic diversity will opportunities for natural connectivity central Idaho, or northwestern Montana not become a threat to the population’s between all three recovery areas (Groen wolf subpopulations. While such gene recovered status. et al. 2008, p. 2; WGFC 2012, pp. 6–7). flow is desirable, it is not necessary to Issue 36: Many comments objected to Given the dispersal capabilities of prevent the NRM DPS or any of its human-assisted migration as a strategy wolves and the proximity of suitable subpopulations from becoming to address potential genetic threats habitat, we conclude that the States can, threatened or endangered. associated with reduced or lost and will, achieve adequate levels of Issue 35: A few comments noted that connectivity when feasible methods for genetic exchange. Such levels likely no genetic exchange could occur for up ensuring natural dispersal and occurred when the population was to 20 years before remedial action population connectivity exist (e.g., between 101 and 846 wolves and have would be considered. Some of these reducing human-caused mortality). likely been exceeded at higher comments saw this as problematic Others thought human-assisted population levels (as discussed in more because some modeling indicates a migration should be a last resort and detail in Factor E below). Although small, isolated population of around 170 that it was an inappropriate tool to future dispersal will differ from past wolves could see decreased juvenile overcome anthropogenic barriers to levels, the available data support a survival within 60 years. dispersal (primarily human-caused conclusion that human-assisted Response 35: As discussed elsewhere mortality). Others noted that this migration is unlikely to be a regular in this rule, genetic diversity is not a management approach risks activity. Instead, translocation of wolves short term issue and will not constitute unnecessarily creating a conservation- or other management techniques to a threat to the viability of the wolf reliant species. Some suggested move genes between subpopulations population at any time in the allowance for human-assisted migration would only be used as a stop-gap foreseeable future. Even for small and meant the population was not measure, if necessary to increase genetic isolated populations (neither of which recovered, because the Act requires self- interchange (WGFC 2012, p. 7). In short, will be the case for the GYA wolf sustaining wild populations to achieve NRM wolves and wolves in the GYA are population), changes in genetic recovery. Other comments argued any not expected to need or rely on human- diversity take time. For example, a species that requires translocation is not assisted migration often, if ever, and vonHoldt et al. (2007, pp. 16, 19) model recovered because section 3 of the Act these populations will not become suggested that even if the GYA defines ‘‘recovery’’ (technically ‘‘conservation reliant’’ as defined by population is maintained at about 170 ‘‘conservation’’) as ‘‘the point at which Scott et al. (2005, entire). That said, animals and no effective migration the measures provided pursuant to this should it ever become necessary, occurs, the heterozygosity and Act are no longer necessary’’ and the list human-assisted migration is an inbreeding coefficients will not change of measures includes relocation. Some acceptable management technique for the next 10 years, would change comments expressed the view that we (especially when relied upon only as a minimally over the next 20 to 30 years had no real assurance Wyoming would measure of last resort). This conclusion (not enough to result in a phenotypic use translocation only as an option of is consistent with the position we took change), and that it would take 60 years last resort, and more likely, it would in our 1994 Environmental Impact before a 15 percent reduction in become ‘‘standard procedure.’’ Statement, which noted that other reproductive rates could occur (which A few comments viewed our wildlife management programs rely would not likely threaten or endanger allowance for human-assisted migration upon such agency-managed genetic the population). However, we believe as removing State incentive to achieve exchange and concluded that the even these outcomes are overly the criterion via natural dispersal. approach should not be viewed pessimistic, because the vonHoldt et al. Others requested clarification on when negatively (Service 1994, pp. 6–75). (2007) model assumes a population it would be used, what it would look We recognize that the logistics of level about half the GYA’s likely long like, and how it would be financed. human-assisted migration, should it term average (as discussed elsewhere in These comments concluded it was ever become necessary, would present a this rule) and, even in a worst case counter to the Act for us to rely on the number of challenges, but we are scenario, natural effective migration and unenforceable intentions of Wyoming as confident that those challenges can be gene flow will exceed zero (the model grounds to dismiss this potential threat. overcome. Source wolves could be assumes zero effective migration). One comment suggested the proposed obtained from any of the other Given the above, we conclude that it rule oversimplified the feasibility of subpopulations or adjoining is appropriate to monitor this issue for artificial translocation noting few populations in Canada. Wolf capturing multiple wolf generations before transplanted wolves would become and transporting was used for the initial deciding whether to take action and breeders, that artificial insemination reintroductions, have proven to be a what type of action to take. However, would be technically difficult, and that feasible and successful technique, and this approach does not mean this issue such a program would be costly to the could be used again (Fritts et al. 2001, will be neglected as this comment seems States. Still other comments suggested p. 129). Such assisted migration efforts to imply. In fact, Wyoming has agreed relocating problem wolves instead of would take into account the fact that to pursue an extensive long term genetic killing them, noting the ancillary benefit only a fraction of relocated wolves
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55566 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
would likely become breeders (35 demonstrate that the population would authority within the Trophy Area for a percent of naturally dispersing wolves necessarily be threatened or endangered few months in 2008. During 2008, the reproduce (Jimenez et al. In review, pp. if the goals were not met. Given the documented minimum wolf population 9–12); similarly, two of ten pups moved available information, we did not feel outside YNP saw modest changes, from northwestern Montana to YNP in we could satisfy this standard. For including a total population decrease 1997 became breeding adults (vonHoldt example, we do not believe the available from 188 to 178 individuals, an increase et al. 2010, p. 4421). Other unorthodox information would support a conclusion in the number of packs from 25 to 30, approaches to genetic migration such as that the population would be threatened and an increase in the number of artificial insemination of wild animals or endangered if we achieved an average breeding pairs from 14 to 16 (Service et could also be considered, but are less of 0.75 effective dispersers per al. 2007–2008, Wyoming chapter, p. 4). likely to be used because they would generation over the next century instead Wyoming also experienced a present their own logistical challenges of the goal of at least one effective comparable number of livestock (Thomassen and Farstad 2008, entire; migrant per generation. In fact, we find depredations in recent years (67 in Payan-Carreira et al. 2011, entire). All it very unlikely this would be the case. 2008, while the area has averaged 98 such efforts would be a cooperative Therefore, we decided it would be since 2003) (Service et al. 2007–2008, effort between the three States, Federal inappropriate to commit to a specific Wyoming chapter). Meanwhile, agency agencies and other partners as status review or relisting trigger related control including defense of property appropriate. Funding such wolf to this issue. However, we will continue take was also comparable to the long management would also be a to work with the States on this issue so term average (46 in 2008, while the area cooperative effort with multiple parties that genetic issues do not threaten the has averaged 39 since 2003) (Service et contributing various portions as NRM gray wolf. We will also work with al. 2007–2008, Wyoming chapter). necessary and appropriate; funding wolf the States over the long term to carefully Although Wyoming only had management is discussed further in monitor any changes in genetic diversity management authority for a few months Issue and Response 46 below. and fitness. In the unlikely event that in 2008, most agency control and Finally, the idea that delisting should this issue does ever pose a significant defense of property mortality occurs not occur until the population can be risk to the well-being of NRM gray during spring and summer, which shown to be genetically viable under wolves, as required by section 4(g)(2) of makes these numbers informative of the State management without translocation the Act, we will make prompt use of the WGFD’s approach to management and is inconsistent with the purposes of the Act’s emergency listing provisions. its capacity to meet objectives. Act. Because delisting is a precursor to Wyoming also planned a modest hunt Adequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms full State management (i.e., State with a quota of 25 wolves in 2008 before management unrestricted by the Act and Issue 38: A few comments questioned this hunt was enjoined from occurring. including hunting), it is impossible to the competency of the State to manage Collectively, this information require demonstrated successful State wolves. Some comments asserted that corroborates our belief that Wyoming management as a precondition to giving Wyoming management authority can, and likely will, follow through on delisting. This issue is true for was inappropriate given the State’s its stated management intentions. management of genetics or any other history with this issue and public Issue 39: We received a few comments issue. attitudes towards wolves in the State. on what constitutes an adequate Issue 37: We received a number of Others expressed faith that Wyoming’s regulatory mechanism and what was suggestions to improve the adequacy of wildlife professionals would do an appropriate to consider in our analysis. Wyoming’s commitment to maintaining exceptional job managing this species, Some comments pointed out that we natural connectivity including: That we as they have done with other wildlife relied on unenforceable State intentions develop objective and measurable like mountain lions, black bears, in our 2009 delisting, which were recovery criteria or relisting triggers for bobcats, and coyotes. Numerous promptly disavowed or violated. For natural dispersal; that we develop comments expressed confidence the example, some comments asserted that specific management actions to ensure State would do a far better job than we we relied upon Idaho’s stated intention the criteria remain met; that the States have done. to manage for 520 wolves, but that this commit to genetic monitoring in State Response 38: WGFD has a relatively commitment was set aside when the law or a binding management plan; and large and well-distributed professional State suspended their 2008–2012 step- that we commit to relisting within a game and fish staff that have down wolf management plan. Some specific time period if the natural demonstrated skill and experience in comments suggested the Wyoming Gray dispersal criteria are not met. successfully managing a diversity of Wolf Management Plan was not Response 37: Although we seriously resident species, including many large, regulatory in nature and should not be considered developing a status review high-profile, and controversial considered or relied upon. Some trigger related to genetic connectivity, carnivores. WGFD staff is fully qualified comments suggested that State statute we ultimately decided this was not to manage a recovered wolf population. and regulations should not be appropriate because we concluded that State management of wolves in the considered adequate because they can it is extremely unlikely that declines in Trophy Area (where most wolves reside) be modified after the delisting become genetic diversity would threaten or will be in alignment with the classic effective. For example, while the size endanger the Wyoming, the GYA, or the State-led North American model for and permanency of the Trophy Area is NRM gray wolf populations. Thus, we wildlife management, which has been set in statute, this could be repealed or concluded that a status review trigger extremely successful at restoring, amended by the Wyoming state would create an issue where there was maintaining, and expanding the legislature. not one and, therefore, was distribution of numerous populations of Numerous comments objected to our inappropriate. Similarly, we concluded other wildlife species, including other ‘‘unrealistically high prediction of that it was not appropriate to commit to large predators, throughout North future wolf numbers’’ (‘‘perhaps around relisting if certain levels of gene flow are America (Geist 2006, p. 1; Bangs 2008). 1,000 wolves across the NRM DPS’’). A not achieved. Such a specific WGFD provided evidence of this few comments questioned the basis for commitment would require us to competency when it had management our statement that it was ‘‘extremely
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55567
unlikely’’ that Montana, Idaho, and Response 39: Our primary a significant risk to the well-being of the Wyoming would manage their wolf consideration in gauging the adequacy population. populations near the minimum of Wyoming’s regulatory framework is Our analysis must consider what is management targets. These comments that binding State statutes and most likely to occur in light of the indicated that the States’ only implementing regulations mandate practical reality of the situation as commitment was to targets between 100 maintenance of a population at least informed by minimum State and 150 wolves per State, that it was satisfying agreed-upon minimum commitments and other information. In illegal for our analysis to assume any management targets. Wyoming’s wolf this case, while all three States intend numbers other than those that we had management plan further clarifies that to pursue population reductions, which firm commitments to maintain, and that the WGFD and WGFC intends to satisfy we anticipate and to which we do not the States were clearly demonstrating a these statutory and regulatory mandates object, none of the States have indicated strong commitment to quickly reduce by maintaining a buffer above minimum an interest in managing their the wolf population. One peer reviewer population targets. The approach populations at or very close to minimum agreed-upon targets (although expressed concern whether Wyoming outlined in the WGFC plan will be used, Wyoming will likely be the closest to its had authority to manage for a buffer for example, by WGFD and WGFC in minimum management targets). None of above minimum management targets setting annual hunting quotas and and whether State management would the States are likely to manage down to, limiting controllable sources of or very near, minimum management push Wyoming’s population closer and mortality. While it would have been closer to the razor edge of 10 breeding targets because doing so would severely desirable for Wyoming to have included limit State flexibility to address wolf pair and 100 wolves. This reviewer reference to a buffer above minimum seemed concerned over numerous depredation issues, limit wolf harvest population targets in State statute and opportunities, and increase the risk of sources of take allowed under regulations, inclusion of such a concept Wyoming’s wolf management plan and relisting. None of the States or any or a specific numeric buffer is not major interest group in the States would repeated reference to the 10 breeding required for us to consider the buffer pair and 100 wolf thresholds in State like to see any of these scenarios occur. described in Wyoming’s wolf statutes and regulations, rather than In fact, State wildlife managers have management plan. While some have referring to a buffer above these consistently reiterated to us their desire questioned whether Wyoming has the minimums. Other comments indicated not to come close to their floor levels in legal authority to maintain a buffer, we Wyoming’s agreed-upon population light of these factors. Such information conclude that Wyoming has the targets would not be compromised leads us to conclude that Idaho, authority because: (1) Both the statute because no decision-makers, managers, Montana, and Wyoming will all manage and regulations require maintaining ‘‘at or stakeholders would ever want to risk comfortably above the minimum least’’ these minimum population relisting and the loss of State control, management targets. levels; and (2) meeting this statutory While we recognize that both Idaho especially after living with a protected and regulatory mandate will require and Montana are moving toward higher wolf population with limited harvest and longer seasons, we conclude management options for so many years. managing above this goal so that uncontrollable sources of mortality (e.g., that these approaches are temporary as A few comments indicated that we disease and defense of property) do not the States pursue population reductions. erroneously considered a nonbinding compromise the mandated minimum We expected population reductions in genetics Memorandum of targets. Montana and Idaho at the time of their Understanding (MOU) with delisting and conclude that such While Wyoming statutes, unenforceable commitments in our 2009 reductions are reasonable given the implementing regulations, or its wolf delisting, that the States had since failed current size of the wolf population management plan could theoretically be to deliver on these promises, and that (which are likely at or above the suitable changed at any time, just as the Act this should serve as evidence that habitat’s long term carrying capacity) reliance on such nonbinding could theoretically be repealed and the resulting impacts (some real and commitments is inappropriate. tomorrow, it is reasonable to rely on some perceived; see Issue and Response Numerous comments indicated that these documents as the basis to 50). It should also be noted that Idaho’s there was no guarantee that the understand the State’s management 2011 hunting season, which was subpopulations would continue to be intentions after delisting. In short, the criticized by some stakeholders for connected, and thus that we lacked Act does not require documents to be being overly aggressive, only resulted in adequate regulatory mechanisms. Others permanent, for nothing is permanent. a slight change in minimum estimated suggested the commitment to Furthermore, we cannot ignore any of population levels in Idaho in 2011 (from translocate wolves was not guaranteed these documents, as it would violate the a minimum Idaho population estimate to occur and should not be relied upon. requirement of section 4(b)1(A) to rely of 777 wolves and 46 breeding pairs to A few comments suggested a species upon the best scientific and commercial a minimum statewide estimate of 746 can be threatened by the inadequacy of information available and to take into wolves and 40 breeding pairs) (Service regulatory mechanisms alone, even if no account State conservation efforts. As a et al. 2012, Table 4b). After the States other threat factor puts the population at final safeguard against management achieve an initial population reduction, risk. Some comments suggested binding being meaningfully modified after the harvest rates will moderate as the and enforceable habitat standards must delisting becomes effective, we will population stabilizes and the public’s be in place as was done in the initiate a status review and consider current angst and intense interest wanes Yellowstone grizzly bear delisting. relisting if there is a change in State law (see Issue and Response 41). The NRM Several comments suggested we should or management objectives that would gray wolf population will then likely have pressed for the development of a significantly increase the threat to the settle into a reasonable, long term single, regional management plan wolf population. We will also make equilibrium, well above minimum (including all relevant State, Federal, prompt use of the Act’s emergency recovery levels. and private interest groups) instead of listing provisions, as required by section Another factor that we weighed separate plans for each State. 4(g)(2) of the Act, if necessary to prevent regarding likely long term population
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55568 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
levels is the practical challenges of consider what is most likely to occur in the population reduction phase will reducing wolf populations down to light of the practical reality of the likely reduce gene flow from current minimum levels and maintaining such situation as informed by State levels, we conclude that the reduction reductions long term. These factors commitments and other factors. Our will not compromise acceptable levels include wolves’ reproductive capacity, consideration of this issue involves a of gene flow long term and find it very which will require substantial mortality number of factors, including the very unlikely State management will to keep populations well below carrying high levels of genetic diversity in the negatively affect genetics to the point capacity; the rugged, remote, and GYA and the NRM DPS at present; the that this issue constitutes a threat that difficult to access landscape in which remarkable dispersal capabilities of could warrant listing in the near, many wolves occur (particularly in wolves; wolves’ ability to outbreed to medium, or long term. central Idaho); the likelihood that maximize genetic diversity; We do not anticipate translocation of wolves will become more difficult to demonstrated minimum levels of gene wolves will be necessary, because we find and kill as their numbers are flow from 1995 through 2004 when the expect that natural connectivity will reduced and as they become more wary NRM region contained between 101 and continue at acceptable levels after of humans; and the likelihood that 846 wolves; the high probability that delisting. Genetic exchange is not a hunter and trapper interest and actual effective migration was likely short or medium term issue even if no dedication will diminish as the wolf significantly higher than demonstrated genetic exchange occurs for many population is reduced, impacts are less minimum levels; expected population generations (a very unlikely outcome). pronounced, and success rates diminish levels and distribution in the GYA and The States will monitor for genetic (trapping in particular is expensive and across the NRM DPS long term; and exchange and indications of loss of time-intensive and would likely not be consideration of the likely impacts of genetic diversity. This monitoring and worthwhile with reduced success rates). State management in the initial years the related results could then affect Overall, we expect measurable when populations are being reduced management (e.g., the timing and population reductions over the next few and longer term as populations level off. intensity of human-caused mortality) if years. During this initial reduction Based on these factors and other the available data indicates remedial phase, populations may even fall below information, we continue to conclude actions are needed. Translocation will our long term predicted levels. that the best scientific and commercial only be used as a matter of last resort However, given the above information, information available indicates that if adequate genetic diversity does not we conclude that such reductions genetic issues are extremely unlikely to occur and State management is not able would likely be temporary and, in the threaten the wolf population in to otherwise remedy. While we have long term, a NRM gray wolf population Wyoming, the GYA, or the NRM DPS high confidence the States would more than double the minimum within the foreseeable future. complete such translocation and said management targets is likely. translocation could be effective if it was By definition, a MOU is an agreement Conversely, the scenario of achieving ever necessary, we conclude that it is between parties indicating an intended and maintaining population minimums unlikely that it will ever become common line of action. While we did across the entire NRM DPS is very necessary. unlikely. not rely on the genetics MOU in Furthermore, we disagree with Considering the above factors, we reaching the above conclusion on comments that indicate that the existing continue to conclude that the GYA wolf population viability, the MOU is regulatory mechanisms are inadequate population will likely maintain a long indicative of an intention of the States even if no threats put the population at term average of around 300 wolves and to maintain the NRM population’s risk. Post-delisting regulatory the entire NRM DPS will likely achieve metapopulation structure by mechanisms are needed to regulate a long term average of around 1,000 encouraging natural dispersal and remnant threats. If there are no remnant wolves. These numbers are based on our effective migrants and implementing threats, a regulatory framework would professional opinion after considering management practices that should foster serve no purpose. In short, if there is all of the above and evaluating various both. Some management practices that nothing to threaten the population, regional scenarios. For example, 200 would assist in achieving this goal nothing needs regulation after delisting. wolves is likely a conservative estimate include maintaining the wolf With respect to wolves, habitat for the Wyoming statewide wolf population at higher rather than protections were not necessary to population including YNP and the minimum levels; maintaining greater achieve delisting, and will not be Wind River Indian Reservation; rather than more restricted pack necessary to maintain recovery after similarly, it is unlikely Idaho or distribution throughout suitable habitat; delisting. Therefore, strict binding and Montana will reduce and maintain their reducing human-caused wolf mortality enforceable habitat standards (as wolf populations below 350 wolves per during key dispersing and reproductive established for grizzly bears in the GYA) State. Even if all three States were to time periods over the long term; and are not needed for wolves. In this case, simultaneously achieve and maintain maintaining the integrity of the core human-caused mortality is the most the low end of this range, an unlikely recovery areas so that they can continue significant issue to the long term outcome, the NRM population would to serve as refugia and source conservation status of the wolf still total around 900 wolves, excluding populations. One example of where population in Wyoming, the GYA, and dispersers and lone wolves, which Idaho has acted consistent with the the entire NRM DPS and the only issue typically range from 10 to 12 percent of MOU was its decision in 2009 and 2011 that requires regulation after delisting the population (Mech and Boitani 2003, to end its wolf hunting season on (in the form of binding minimum p. 170). Therefore, our conclusions December 31st for those areas thought population targets by geographic area). regarding long term abundance are most important for dispersal (i.e., the Such protections are in place. likely conservative estimates of long Beaverhead and Island Park units) Regarding the shape that the term averages. (Idaho Fish and Game Commission regulatory framework takes, we disagree Similar to our position on population 2011, entire). In the 2012–2013 season, that a single cross-regional framework numbers, our evaluation of risk hunting ends January 31st for these was necessary. In this case, separate associated with genetic factors must units. While State management through post-delisting regulatory frameworks per
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55569
State appear adequate. We also note that killing across the NRM was evidence will likely achieve a long term average Congress directed us to republish our that negative attitudes towards wolves of around 1,000 wolves. At these levels, April 2009 rule in 2011, which were a threat that could eliminate impacts of the recovered wolf contained separate State regulatory wolves from the region. Other population will be modest. This will in approaches rather than a single regional comments indicated conservation turn promote public tolerance such that one. To the extent cross-regional organizations had negatively affected this issue does not materialize to the coordination is desirable, it goes on public attitudes toward wolves in point where it might threaten the gray today as appropriate and is expected to Wyoming and across the NRM with wolf population’s long term survival. continue for the foreseeable future. their unrealistic expectations for wolf Other Potential Threat Factors Issue 40: Other comments expressed recovery, lack of recognition of property the view that while statutory changes rights, and continued litigation. We Issue 42: A couple of comments were necessary to implement the State received conflicting comments and indicated that the Wyoming wolf wolf management plan, delisting should perspectives about whether a return to population was threatened by impacts not be contingent on adoption of State management and the resulting to habitat and range. One comment conforming regulations. These increased management flexibility would suggested wilderness areas were not comments suggested that State statute lead to greater acceptance of wolves and secure because Congress can and development of an approved wolf decreased animosity toward wolves. A undesignate them at any time. This management plan were a sufficient few comments indicated that the comment also suggested that we had no commitment to maintain a sustainable polarizing wolf issue had become guarantee that private lands will not be recovered wolf population and that indicative of a culture clash and that developed or otherwise altered so that State regulations should remain flexible extremist attitudes toward wolves (pro they would no longer support wolves. and be defined at the sole discretion of and con) had little to do with the This comment also suggested that the State, consistent with the realities of wolf conservation and more wolves were at risk on public lands commitments represented by State to do with values. because livestock grazing on public statutes and the Wyoming wolf lands would result in wolf mortality; Response 41: As indicated elsewhere management plan. poison on public lands could kill Response 40: As noted above, State in this rule, human attitudes are wolves; mining, mineral development, statute, State regulations (chapter 21 important to the long term preservation oil and gas development, and associated and 47), and the Wyoming wolf of the gray wolf population in human traffic would cause direct management plan all are important Wyoming, the GYA, and the NRM DPS. mortality (increased wolf–truck pieces of the State’s post-delisting While there is not universal acceptance collision) and cause pollution that management framework. All three of of wolves in Wyoming or the NRM DPS, would kill wolves or impair their these documents guide and clarify the we conclude that the majority of the reproduction; and hunting and illegal State’s approach to wolf management region’s residents are willing to tolerate take on some public lands would kill after delisting, and ignoring any one of wolves as a part of the landscape still more wolves. This comment these three documents would violate provided impacts to humans are criticized the proposed rule for not our responsibility to rely upon the best minimized (see also Issue 50 below). quantifying the amount of development scientific and commercial information Although we agree our failure to delist expected, quantifying the impact to available. By extension, a significant has negatively affected public tolerance suitable habitat and the impact to change to any one of these documents (see Issues 50 and 53 below), we unsuitable habitat important as would prompt us to consider whether to conclude that State management in dispersal corridors, and the number of initiate a status review. We took a Wyoming and across the NRM DPS will wolves that will be killed or otherwise similar approach in Idaho in 2011 be successful in achieving a reasonable adversely affected. This comment also following Idaho’s suspension of its balance between the needs of a suggested that road repairs and 2008–2012 wolf management plan recovered wolf population and other reconstruction in YNP was a new threat (reverting to its 2002 Service-approved public needs. We recognize and accept that would degrade the environment in plan) and after it set its hunting plan for that achieving this balance will require the park, affecting prey and causing 2011–2012 (Cooley 2011). In that case, reducing the wolf population in wolves to leave the protected park we determined these management Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming from boundaries and be subjected to decisions did not represent a significant current levels. This reduction will, in increased likelihood of dying. This threat to the Idaho wolf population and turn, reduce the real and perceived comment also suggested snowmobile did not meet the threshold necessary to impacts of the wolf population and will use can kill or injure wolves and that trigger a status review (Cooley 2011). reduce public opposition to the species’ associated pollution could kill wolves conservation. The increased ability of or reduce their reproductive success. Public Attitudes Toward Wolves members of the public to defend their Response 42: We have thoroughly Issue 41: Numerous comments property and the ability of the hunter analyzed the issue of habitat and range indicated the region’s ‘‘frontier’’ and community to harvest wolves will also and conclude that it is not a threat to the ‘‘wild west’’ attitudes, including those increase this tolerance for wolves. Once population now or in the foreseeable of State officials, threatened wolves. these initial population reductions are future. The vast majority of suitable Some comments pointed toward the realized, public pressure will be wolf habitat is secure in mountainous Wyoming wolf management plan’s reduced, State harvest rates will forested public land (wilderness and negative portrayal of wolves, the moderate, and the species will likely roadless areas, National Parks, and some decision to designate wolves outside the settle into a reasonable equilibrium well lands managed for multiple uses by the Trophy Area as predators, and above minimum recovery levels. As U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Wyoming’s apparent willingness to do noted elsewhere in this rule (see Issue Management) that will not be legally only the minimum necessary to prevent and Response 39 above), we conclude available or suitable for intensive levels relisting as evidence of negative public that the GYA wolf population will likely of human development (Service 1993, attitudes toward wolves. Many maintain a long term average of around 1996, 2007; Servheen et al. 2003; U.S. comments suggested the ongoing wolf 300 wolves and the entire NRM DPS Department of Agriculture Forest
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55570 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Service 2006). While changes to the offered. One comment suggested that Other comments on this issue are also protected status of these areas is the wolf population could be not persuasive. For example, there is no theoretically possible, such an outcome endangered by grizzly bears, black evidence to support the idea that the is highly improbable, especially at the bears, mountain lions, and other wolves Trophy Area might not be adequate to scale that would be necessary to affect as wolves and other predators compete meet the population’s needs in a the viability of the Wyoming, the GYA, for limited food resources. climate-altered world. At present, the or the NRM gray wolf population. Response 44: While there have been Trophy Area supports a robust prey base Although some human activities in documented declines in some ungulate and a wolf population that far exceeds these areas and other surrounding areas populations, overall, prey numbers the agreed-upon minimum management could increase human-caused mortality, remain robust and more than adequate targets. This topic is discussed in detail we do not expect noticeable increases in to provide for the regional wolf below in Factor E. Based on available such activities in the foreseeable future. population’s needs. The availability of climate change projections, it is unlikely Furthermore, human-caused mortality prey is not a threat factor to wolf that climate change would noticeably will be adequately regulated by the persistence now or within the hinder the Trophy Area’s capacity to States so that the population’s recovered foreseeable future. While intraspecific support a wolf population well above status is not compromised. This rule conflict can regulate wolf populations, the agreed-upon minimum management also analyzes impacts to habitat and natural predation has not threatened the targets. Because this issue is not a range as they relate to connectivity and NRM gray wolf population and is not meaningful factor affecting the concludes future connectivity is likely to in the foreseeable future; future population’s viability, a detailed unlikely to be meaningfully affected by changes in prey abundance are not adaptive management framework with changes in habitat and range. To the expected to change this conclusion. specific triggers and specific responses extent that such development does Issue 45: A number of comments is not necessary or appropriate. Finally, occur, it would not threaten the noted that climate change is expected to the Act does not allow us to consider recovered status of the Wyoming, the have a severe impact on the North impacts of this decision to other species GYA, or the NRM gray wolf populations American continent during the 21st nor does it allow us to require the States in the foreseeable future. Finally, we century. A few comments indicated to maintain wolf populations at high conclude that ongoing activities in YNP climate change would stress wild densities to benefit other species in the (e.g., road repair and snowmobile use) animal and plant populations and face of climate change. Issue 46: Some comments expressed are unlikely to increase to the point reduce survival rates. A few comments concern that all or parts of the State where they would negatively affect asserted it would be a mistake to delist wolf management plan would not be wolves. Statutory, regulatory, and policy when we do not yet know what impacts implemented because of hard economic restrictions covering national parks give climate change will have on ungulate us great confidence that YNP will take times and resulting funding limitations. and wolf populations (e.g., impacts on proper precautions to ensure all These comments noted that the behavior, distribution, and abundance). activities in the park minimize impacts Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan One comment stated that the Trophy to wildlife, including wolves. does not identify definite funding Issue 43: Numerous comments Area might not be adequate to meet the sources and does not guarantee funding indicated nonnative human populations population’s needs in a climate-altered will be available. For example, one are overpopulated and a threat to the world. This comment cited a Ninth comment suggested population targets wolf population. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that could be compromised if inadequate Response 43: Human presence and suggested a need for specific monitoring caused the State to overlook the activities associated with this management responses tied to specific a disease event and the State then also presence does affect the landscape and triggering criteria, not a general allowed a high hunting quota. Other a region’s use by wolves. For example, commitment to adaptive management, comments noted Wyoming’s robust areas like New York City have been so in order to address threats associated economy and healthy State funding for altered that they are unable to support with climate change. Some comments wildlife would mean adequate funding a resident wolf population. Similarly, suggested wolf densities should be for wolf management. Conversely, these some prairie habitats in Wyoming are maintained to buffer the impacts of comments noted that looming Federal also no longer capable of supporting climate change on other species. For budget cuts would harm our ability to persistent wolf packs; however, more example, wolf killing of vulnerable elk properly manage the Wyoming wolf than sufficient habitat exists to support might compensate for reduced winter population. a recovered wolf population. Human elk kills, thus bolstering food Response 46: It is not possible to population levels in Wyoming (the availability for other animals and predict with certainty future second least densely populated State in minimizing the impacts of climate governmental appropriations, nor can the country) are not a threat to the wolf change. we commit or require Federal funds population’s recovered status now or in Response 45: This issue is discussed beyond those appropriated (31 U.S.C. the foreseeable future. Secondary in our Factor E analysis below. We 1341(a)(1)(A)). Even though Federal impacts related to human presence are continue to conclude that wolves are funding is dependent on year-to-year discussed in more detail in separate unlikely to be threatened by climate allocations, we have consistently and sections. change. Wolves are one of the most fully funded wolf management. Federal Issue 44: A few comments noted that adaptable and resilient land mammals funding will continue to be available in wolf numbers would soon begin to see on earth, once ranged across most of the future for State management, but significant natural declines if the wolf North America from central Mexico to certainly not to the extent while wolves population is not reduced, because wolf the Arctic Ocean and from coast to were listed. The Service will continue to overabundance is causing the native coast, and can prey on every type of assist the States to secure adequate prey population, on which wolves are ungulate in their worldwide northern funding for wolf management. The dependent, to drastically decline. hemisphere range. Thus, wolves are States recognize that implementation of Numerous personal accounts of among the least likely species to be their wolf management plans requires ungulate population declines were threatened by this factor. funding and have committed to secure
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55571
the necessary funding to manage the and threaten the wolf population. Some levels, both States have maintained, and wolf populations under the guidelines of these noted the likelihood of such an are expected to continue to maintain, a established by their approved State wolf event if the population was already sizable population in their portion of management plans (Idaho Legislative close to minimum population targets. the GYA. Across the entire GYA, we Wolf Oversight Committee 2002; p. 23– Response 48: Our assessment of expect the population will be managed 25; Montana Wolf Management threats considered potential risk factors for a long term average of around 300 Advisory Council 2003, p. xiv; individually and cumulatively. Our wolves across portions of Montana, Wyoming 2011, pp. 42–43). In Wyoming threats assessment is organized Idaho, and Wyoming. specifically, the State indicates it will sequentially, consistent with how Overall, the GYA’s expected fund operational costs for the wolf section 4(a) of the Act is organized. We abundance and geographic distribution management program through its then discuss the overall finding, which (occurring in both protected and regular budget, but also noted that considers the cumulative impacts of all unprotected portions of the GYA and continued Federal funding will assist in potential threat factors. We considered occurring across multiple management some aspects of management, e.g., direct and weighed the cumulative effects of jurisdictions) provides the GYA wolf Federal funding to the State, Federal all known and reasonably foreseeable population with substantial management on some Federal lands threat factors facing the population representation, resiliency, and such as National Wildlife Refuges and when reaching the conclusion that the redundancy. Additional representation, National Parks, and Wildlife Services gray wolf in Wyoming no longer meets redundancy, and resiliency is also assisting in control activities (WGFC and is unlikely to ever again meet the provided across the three connected 2011, pp. 42–43). Wyoming also definition of an endangered species. recovery areas and three core NRM DPS indicated a willingness to pursue When considering the population’s States, as well as connectivity to outside funding sources such as private recovered status, it is important to Canada. These factors provide us with donations, grants from foundations, remember that the minimum recovery confidence the population can assistance from nongovernmental criteria require Idaho, Montana, and withstand the types of impacts organizations and funding partnerships Wyoming to each maintain at least 10 mentioned in the above comments. with other interested entities (WGFC breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves Wolves are very resilient and can 2011, p. 43). in mid-winter. After delisting, Wyoming withstand and recover from most of the These combined State and Federal has committed to maintain at least 10 specific events noted in the above commitments are more than enough to breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves comments. Such events are likely to provide for adequate management of the outside of YNP and the Wind River cause localized impacts, which would population after delisting. In the Indian Reservation at the end of the not affect all or even a majority of the unlikely event that wolf management is year, and will maintain a buffer above population in Wyoming, the GYA, or inadequately funded to carry out the these minimum levels so that the the NRM DPS. For example, when basic commitments of an approved State minimum targets are not compromised. disease hit the YNP wolf population in plan, then the promised management of Thus, Wyoming intends to manage for 2005 and 2008 there were substantial, threats by the States and the required the entire recovery goal outside of YNP. temporary impacts, but they were monitoring of wolf populations might These statewide totals will be further experienced only on a local scale and not be addressed. That scenario would buffered by wolves in YNP which the YNP population quickly rebounded. trigger a status review for possible experience extremely low rates of No similar large-scale events have been relisting under the Act, including human-caused mortality allowing the documented in other portions of possible use of the emergency listing population essentially to be naturally Wyoming. authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the regulated at carrying capacity. From It should be noted that wolves’ Act. 2000 to the end of 2011 (the most recent natural reproductive capacity and Issue 47: One comment mentioned official wolf population estimates dispersal ability, State commitments to hybridization as a threat. This comment available), the wolf population in YNP monitoring and adaptive management, did not elaborate on this issue and how ranged from 96 to 174 wolves, and and the regional population’s it could threaten the population. between 6 to 16 breeding pairs. The representation, resiliency, and Response 47: The NRM wolves’ YNP wolf population appears to be redundancy would not provide total genetic signature does not show signs of settling around the lower end of this protection from catastrophic events. For past or ongoing hybridization with other range (Service et al. 2000–2010, Table b; example, as noted in the rule, a canid species (VonHoldt et al. 2011, p. Smith 2012). Specifically, YNP cataclysmic eruption underneath YNP 4). Unlike some other wolf populations biologists expect that the park will settle would devastate the GYA ecosystem. (e.g., red wolves), hybridization is not between 50 to 100 wolves and 5 to 10 However, events such as these are affecting NRM gray wolf populations packs with 4 to 6 of these packs meeting extremely unlikely within the and is not a threat to the NRM DPS’s the breeding pair definition annually foreseeable future. recovered status. (Smith 2012). Given the above, the Regarding management, Wyoming minimum recovery criteria for Wyoming does not intend to manage the Cumulative Impacts of Threats will always be greatly exceeded. population at minimum agreed-upon Issue 48: Several comments Additionally, the GYA wolf targets. Instead, the State intends to questioned the validity of our population will be further buffered by manage for a buffer, recognizing that conclusions for individual threat factors wolves in Idaho and Montana’s portion some unforeseen events could affect the suggesting they were considered in of the GYA. Since 2002, Montana’s GYA population. Furthermore, Wyoming isolation. These comments indicated wolf population ranged from 55 to 130 (like Montana and Idaho) intends to that we needed to analyze threats in a wolves since recovery was achieved in carefully monitor the population and cumulative manner. A number of 2002, and Idaho’s ranged from 0 to 40 will adjust all controllable mortality comments suggested some combination wolves in its portion of the GYA factors, such as mortality resulting from of natural mortality, disease events, (Service et al. 2003–2012, Tables 1b, 2). harvest and depredation control, in catastrophic events, and high human- While populations in these areas are response to measured mortality of all caused mortality events could co-occur expected to be reduced from current causes (WGFC 2012, p. 7). For example,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55572 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Wyoming will monitor for disease and consistent with the minimum recovery when the available information associated impacts (WGFC 2011, p. 22) criteria and the State’s minimum indicates a change in management and reduce controllable sources of management targets, and the final strategy could represent a meaningful human-caused mortality if the available criterion would be triggered if threat. Finally, as indicated above, we information indicates such factors are management veers from approved post- offer our strongest assurance that we causing unacceptable population delisting regulatory frameworks. Some will consider relisting if there is ever declines (WGFC 2011, pp. 23–25; WGFC commenters, including some peer sufficient evidence that the species may 2012, p. 7). These management reviewers, expressed concern that the meet the definition of threatened or measures provide that impacts related to States may face pressure to manage to endangered and, as required by section human-caused mortality are the ‘‘razor’s edge’’ (e.g., intentionally 4(g)(2) of the Act, we will make prompt appropriately managed and will not manage below the above levels 2 out of use of the Act’s emergency listing singularly, or in combination with other every 3 years). This could result in a provisions if necessary to prevent a factors, compromise the population’s population lower than the above significant risk to the well-being of the recovered status. standards are designed to facilitate population. This approach more than without triggering a status review. In satisfies our post-delisting monitoring Post-Delisting Monitoring response to this concern, we will also responsibilities so that the population’s Issue 49: A few comments indicated conduct a status review if the above recovered status will not be our status review triggers were too low. standards are routinely not achieved— compromised. Other comments expressed frustration an outcome we do not anticipate. We Positives and Negatives of Wolf with the perceived relative lack of have incorporated this commitment into Restoration oversight once delisting occurs, the ‘‘Post-Delisting Monitoring’’ section including failure to initiate status of this final rule, discussed below. Issue 50: Some comments expressed reviews in Idaho and Montana following We take our post-delisting monitoring the view that failure to delist had changes to management (most often commitments very seriously and will resulted in unchecked growth of the mentioned were decisions to suspend fulfill our responsibilities to monitor the wolf population in Wyoming and the 2008–2012 Idaho Wolf Population population’s status relative to the above throughout the NRM region, and that Management Plan and after decisions to triggers. Our record demonstrates this the resulting wolf abundance had set hunting and trapping seasons with commitment—we published our annual caused significant negative impacts to: high or no quotas). assessments of the population’s status at ungulate populations (elk, moose, deer, Response 49: For Idaho and Montana, the end of 2009 and 2011 (Bangs 2010; bison, and bighorn sheep herd declines); three scenarios would lead us to initiate Jimenez 2012b); we did not publish a State game agencies (largely dependent a status review and analysis of threats similar finding in 2010 because the on hunting revenue); guides and to determine if relisting was warranted population was not delisted at the end outfitters (reduced opportunity for including: (1) If the wolf population of 2010. We also evaluated Idaho’s ungulate harvest by clients); hunters falls below the minimum NRM wolf decision to suspend its 2008–2012 wolf (reduced recreational and sustenance population recovery level of 10 breeding management plan at the end of 2010 opportunities); ranchers (from livestock pairs of wolves or 100 wolves in either (prior to Congressional action to delist depredation by wolves; stress to Montana or Idaho at the end of the year; this population) and revert to its livestock affecting weight and health; (2) If the wolf population segment in Service-approved 2002 wolf and declining business opportunities for Montana or Idaho falls below 15 management plan and its hunting plan ranchers who use/lease their land for breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end for 2011–2012. We conducted an hunting); and the local economy (lost of the year in any one of those States for evaluation of the changes in Idaho and hunting and ranching revenue). Some 3 consecutive years; or (3) If a change not Montana that year because only expressed concern for wolves attacking in State law or management objectives Idaho decided to authorize no quotas in pets and pack animals. Other comments would significantly increase the threat large portions of the State and no overall expressed concern for habituated to the wolf population. For Wyoming, state-wide quota. This assessment wolves threatening human safety. Still we will initiate a formal status review determined these management decisions other comments expressed concern that to determine if relisting is warranted: (1) did not represent a significant threat to wolves carry and transmit diseases and If the wolf population falls below the the Idaho wolf population and did not parasites harmful to both wildlife and minimum recovery level of 10 breeding meet the threshold necessary to trigger humans (Echinococcus granuloslls, also pairs or 100 wolves in Wyoming a status review (Cooley 2011). This known as Hydatid Disease, was most statewide (including YNP and the Wind assessment’s determination was frequently mentioned). Many sportsmen River Indian Reservation) at the end of validated by the minimum end-of-year noted that wolves were significantly any 1 year; (2) If the wolf population population numbers, which showed hindering the conservation progress for segment in Wyoming excluding YNP little change in 2011 (technically, slight other wildlife, which has been funded and the Wind River Indian Reservation increases in minimum population levels by sporting revenues. Some comments falls below 10 breeding pairs or 100 were documented; Service et al. 2012, suggested the 1994 Environmental wolves at the end of the year for 3 tables 4a, 4b). Consistent with this past Impact Statement was flawed in that we consecutive years; (3) If the wolf practice, similar assessments of Idaho underestimated the impacts wolves population in Wyoming falls below 15 and Montana’s 2012–2013 hunting and would cause. Many of these comments breeding pairs or 150 wolves, including trapping seasons are ongoing as of this described the reintroduction in such YNP and the Wind River Indian writing. terms as ‘‘catastrophic’’ and Reservation, for 3 consecutive years; or Throughout the post-delisting ‘‘disastrous.’’ Some comments asserted (4) If a change in State law or monitoring period we will continue to that Wyoming residents had been management objectives would publish annual assessments to promised that the wolf population significantly increase the threat to the determine if the status review triggers would be maintained at or below 100 or wolf population. These status review have been met. We will also conduct on- 150 animals and that excess wolves triggers are appropriate because: The the-spot assessments (similar to our should be killed. Many comments numeric status review triggers are August 2011 assessment (Cooley 2011)) expressed support for hunting as a
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55573
method to reduce the Wyoming wolf destroy Echinococcus granulosus, and plant communities, and their population and restrict its distribution. wolves in these ecosystems currently relationships with each other. These Others suggested wolf population have a relatively high prevalence of the effects have been most pronounced in impacts were minimal and had been parasite. E. granulosus is just one of pristine areas, such as in YNP. While exaggerated by anti-wolf interest groups. many zoonotic diseases (diseases these effects may occur at varying A few noted wolves kill few livestock transmissible to humans) in wildlife. degrees elsewhere, they are increasingly and that other predators kill more When handling canids or canid feces we modified and subtle the more an area is livestock than do wolves. Some recommend wearing gloves, not affected by humans (Ripple and Beschta comments noted impacts to ungulates smoking, eating, or drinking, and 2004, entire; Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334– are complex and not fully understood washing up afterwards. These simple 338; Robbins 2004, pp. 80–81; Fortin et with some herds showing declines, precautions decrease exposure to a al. 2005, entire; Garrott et al. 2005, p. some showing increases, and some negligible level. We also recommend not 1245; Hebblewhite et al. 2005, p. 2135; showing little or no effect from wolves. feeding uncooked wild or domestic Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747–753; A few comments asserted that hunters ungulate organs to dogs and maintaining Mech 2012, entire). While these were erroneously blaming wolves for proper veterinary care of dogs and their purported effects are interesting (albeit decimating elk populations. These parasites. These types of public health still controversial; see Mech 2012, comments noted that all of Wyoming’s advisories are appropriate for those entire), such information is not elk herds are at or above State engaged in wolf hunting or other considered in listing or delisting management objectives. A few indicated wildlife pursuits that include handling decisions. Similarly, the Act does not ungulate herds were overpopulated and of any canine species, tissues, or scat require that we prevent ‘‘trophic destroying native ecosystems. (Boyce and Samuel 2011, entire). downgrading’’ (Estes et al. 2011, entire) Numerous comments noted the positive Issue 51: Many comments suggested or that we achieve or maintain direct and indirect economic impacts of both the Wyoming wolf management ‘‘ecological effectiveness’’ (Soule et al. wolf restoration through increased plan and the proposed delisting rule 2003, p. 1239). Instead, listing and tourism; other comments suggested failed to note the value of wolves. Some delisting decisions are based upon visitation to YNP had not meaningfully commenters noted that the return of extinction risk of the subject species. changed since reintroduction. wolves had restored ecological balance When a species no longer meets the Response 50: Although we recognize to the region and that delisting would definition of an endangered or that wolf restoration has resulted in upset this balance. A number of threatened species under the Act, it is both positive and negative economic comments pointed to the ecological role recovered, and we are to delist it. impacts to the region, the Act precludes of wolves in modifying ungulate consideration of such impacts on listing behavior, distribution, and movements Native American Tribal Considerations and delisting determinations. Instead, and the resulting ‘‘cascade effect’’ they Issue 52: A number of comments listing and delisting decisions are based produce for other unrelated species and noted that many Native American tribes solely on the best scientific and the larger ecosystem. Some contended honored wolves; viewed wolves as commercial information available these cascading effects also helped sacred relatives that taught them to regarding the status of the subject farming and ranching. Many comments hunt, live in harmony, and sing to the species. In this case, the Wyoming wolf also pointed out that wolves strengthen creator; and learned how to build population and the greater NRM gray ungulate herds by preying on vulnerable stronger tribes by observing wolf pack wolf population is recovered, and now ungulates, which allows greater loyalty. Only one of these comments that adequate regulatory mechanisms numbers of healthier, more robust, and came from a self-identified Native are in place, we have sufficient more alert animals to survive and pass American (the rest were speaking assurances the species’ recovered status on genes. Some comments suggested generally about what we could learn will be maintained. Nevertheless, after wolves reduce the prevalence of disease from Native Americans on this issue). delisting, we expect Wyoming will (particularly chronic wasting disease This comment indicated wolves should reduce the State’s wolf population, and brucellosis) by removing sick be protected because they are sacred to which should reduce any adverse individuals from native ungulate Native Americans and important for economic impacts of the region’s wolf populations. Others comments pointed Native American religious ceremonies. population. out that maintaining top level predators Response 52: We take our Regarding human safety, there have like wolf populations resulted in fewer relationships with the Tribes very been no wolf-caused injuries or deaths mesopredators like coyotes (Canis seriously and are sensitive to potential in the NRM region since recovery efforts latrans), which has been shown to conflicts with tribal cultural values. The first began. Some individuals have reduce impacts on pronghorn antelope wolf reintroduction has returned what reported feeling threatened by wolves, (Antilocapra americana). Some traditional Arapaho and Shoshone and a few wolves have been taken in comments suggested these positive stories call a helper (Shoshone and such situations. Such take is allowed by impacts would be reduced or hindered Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game both our general regulations for the Act if Wyoming was allowed to implement Department 2007, p. 2) and assisted in and both experimental populations’ its wolf management plan. Others restoring what the Salish & Pend special regulations (50 CFR 17.21(c)(2); suggested recovery levels should d’Oreille Tribal Elders call a ‘‘balanced 50 CFR 17.84(i)(3)(v); 50 CFR prevent ‘‘trophic downgrading’’ and ecosystem’’ (Confederated Salish and 17.84(n)(4)(vi)). After delisting, the provide for ‘‘ecological effectiveness’’ Kootenai Tribes 2009, p. 3). In States will continue to allow for take in (i.e., occupancy with densities that preparation for a return to Tribal defense of an individual’s life or the life maintain critical ecosystem interactions management, we worked with the of another person. and help ensure against ecosystem Tribes to prepare wolf management Regarding disease, the public should degradation). plans that allowed for self-governance. treat all wildlife, including canids, as Response 51: We recognize that wolf Most of these plans discuss the cultural potential vectors of disease. Although recovery appears to have caused trophic importance of wolves, but also allow wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone and cascades and ecological effects in some control of problem wolves and the central Idaho were treated with drugs to areas that affect numerous other animal potential for wolf hunting. Having an
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55574 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
approved plan allowed the Shoshone particular factor to evaluate whether the packs to persist. Outside of Wyoming, and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game species may respond to the factor in a this analysis looks at areas between the Department to manage wolves on the way that causes actual impacts to the three recovery areas to inform our Wind River Indian Reservation under species. If there is exposure to a factor understanding of current and future the more liberal 2005 and 2008 and the species responds negatively, the connectivity, with particular focus on nonessential experimental populations factor may be a threat, and during the the central Idaho to GYA dispersal regulations (70 FR 1286, January 6, status review, we attempt to determine corridor. For an analysis of other 2005; King 2007; 73 FR 4720, January how significant a threat it is. The threat portions of the NRM DPS relative to this 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(n)). Most is significant if it drives or contributes factor, see our 2009 delisting recently, we contacted the Eastern to the risk of extinction of the species determination (74 FR 15123, April 2, Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes such that the species warrants listing as 2009). We analyze a number of potential in October 2011, requesting endangered or threatened as those terms threats to wolf habitat including government-to-government consultation are defined by the Act. However, the increased human populations and to discuss any concerns the Tribes may identification of factors that could affect development (including oil and gas), have with our proposal (Guertin 2011). a species negatively may not be connectivity, ungulate populations, and The Joint Council for these Tribes sufficient to justify a finding that the livestock grazing. declined this opportunity (Greenwood species warrants listing. The Suitable Habitat—Wolves are habitat 2011). Neither of these tribes nor any information must include evidence generalists (Mech and Boitoni 2003, p. other Tribes formally commented on the sufficient to suggest that the potential 163) and once occupied or transited all proposal. We also funded some Tribal threat is likely to materialize and that it of Wyoming. However, much of the wolf monitoring and management has the capacity (i.e., it should be of wolf’s historical range within this area through the years. Collectively, the sufficient magnitude and extent) to has been modified for human use. While above activities satisfy our Tribal affect the species’ status such that it lone wolves can travel through, or consultation responsibilities. While meets the definition of endangered or temporarily live, almost anywhere some individuals may find portions of threatened under the Act. (Jimenez et al. In review, p. 1), much of Wyoming’s regulatory framework The following analysis examines the Wyoming is no longer suitable habitat to morally objectionable and in conflict five factors affecting, or likely to affect support wolf packs and wolf breeding with their tribal cultural values, these Wyoming, GYA, and NRM wolves pairs (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559; Carroll individual objections are not grounds to within the foreseeable future. We have et al. 2006, p. 32). We have reviewed the take a different course. We will continue previously concluded wolves in the quality, quantity, and distribution of to inform the Tribes regarding the status remainder of the NRM DPS are habitat relative to the biological of wolves and to respond to any Tribal recovered and warranted delisting (74 requirements of wolves. In doing so, we requests for government-to-government FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 76 FR 25590, reviewed two models, Oakleaf et al. consultation. May 5, 2011). Today’s rulemaking is (2006, pp. 555–558) and Carroll et al. separate and independent from, but (2003, pp. 536–548; 2006, pp. 27–31), to Summary of Factors Affecting the additive to, the previous action delisting help us gauge the current amount and Species wolves in the NRM DPS. While this distribution of suitable wolf habitat in Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) rulemaking focuses on Wyoming, Wyoming. Both models ranked habitat and implementing regulations (50 CFR because this is the only portion of the as ‘‘suitable’’ if they had characteristics part 424) set forth procedures for adding NRM DPS that remains listed, the that indicated they might have a 50 species to, removing species from, or conclusions of the previous delisting percent or greater chance of supporting reclassifying species on the Federal and the information supporting this wolf packs. Suitable wolf habitat was Lists of Endangered and Threatened determination are incorporated by typically characterized in both models Wildlife and Plants. Under section reference. This information is only as public land with mountainous, 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be updated where necessary (e.g., Idaho’s forested habitat that contains abundant determined to be endangered or suspension of its 2008–2012 step-down year-round wild ungulate populations, threatened based on any of the wolf management plan and Montana’s low road density, low numbers of following five factors: (A) The present or and Idaho’s hunting seasons) to domestic livestock that are only present threatened destruction, modification, or consider new developments affecting seasonally, few domestic sheep, low curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) the larger NRM DPS. The best scientific agricultural use, and few people. Overutilization for commercial, and commercial information available Unsuitable wolf habitat was typically recreational, scientific, or educational demonstrates gray wolves in Wyoming, just the opposite (i.e., private land, flat purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) the GYA, and the NRM DPS are open prairie or desert, low or seasonal The inadequacy of existing regulatory recovered and are unlikely to become wild ungulate populations, high road mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or endangered in the foreseeable future density, high numbers of year-round manmade factors affecting its continued throughout all or a significant portion of domestic livestock including many existence. We must consider these same their range. domestic sheep, high levels of five factors in delisting decisions (50 agricultural use, and many people). Factor A. The Present or Threatened CFR 424.11(d)). However, in delisting Despite their similarities, these two Destruction, Modification, or decisions, this analysis of threats is an models had differences in the area evaluation of both the threats currently Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range analyzed, layers, inputs, and facing the species and the threats that This section evaluates the entire State assumptions. As a result, the Oakleaf et are reasonably likely to affect the of Wyoming, and within Wyoming we al. (2006, p. 559) and Carroll et al. species in the foreseeable future focus primarily on suitable habitat, (2006, p. 33) models predicted different following the delisting and the removal currently occupied areas, and the amounts of theoretically suitable wolf or reduction of the Act’s protections. Trophy Area. Within Wyoming, we also habitat in areas examined by both In considering what factors might examine unsuitable habitat. Habitat models. constitute threats, we must look beyond suitability is based on biological Oakleaf’s model was a more intensive the exposure of the species to a features that affect the ability of wolf effort that looked at potential wolf
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55575
habitat in the NRM region (Oakleaf et al. across the western United States upon information derived from theoretical 2006, p. 555). To comprise its which comparisons could be made. models by Carroll et al. (2006, p. 25) and geographic information system layers, Many of the more isolated primary Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 554), our 17 the model used roads accessible to two- habitat patches that the Carroll model years of field experience managing wheel and four-wheel vehicles, predicted as currently suitable were wolves in Wyoming, and locations of topography (slope and elevation), land predicted to be unsuitable by the year persistent wolf packs and breeding pairs ownership, relative ungulate density 2025, indicating they were likely on the since recovery has been achieved (based on State harvest statistics), cattle lower end of what ranked as suitable (Service et al. 1999–2012, Figure 1). and sheep density, vegetation habitat in that model (Carroll et al. 2006, Collectively, this evidence leads us to characteristics (ecoregions and land p. 32). Because these areas were concur with the Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. cover), and human density. Oakleaf typically too small to support breeding 559) model’s predictions that the most analyzed the characteristics of areas pairs and too isolated from the core important habitat attributes for wolf occupied and not occupied by NRM population to receive enough dispersing pack persistence are forest cover, public wolf packs through 2000 to predict what wolves to overcome high mortality rates, land, high elk density, and low livestock other areas in the NRM region might be we conclude that these areas are not density. Therefore, we conclude that suitable or unsuitable for future wolf currently suitable habitat based upon Oakleaf’s calculations of the amount pack formation (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. our data on Wyoming wolf pack and distribution of suitable wolf habitat 555). In total, Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. persistence for the past 17 years (Bangs available for persistent wolf pack 559) ranked 28,725 km2 (11,091 mi2) as 1991, p. 9; Bangs et al. 1998, p. 788; formation, in the parts of Wyoming suitable wolf habitat in Wyoming. Service et al. 1999–2012, Figure 1). analyzed, represent a reasonable Carroll’s model analyzed a much Despite differences in each model’s prediction of suitable wolf habitat in larger area (all 12 western States and analysis area, layers, inputs, and Wyoming (although these calculations northern Mexico) in a less specific way assumptions, both models predicted somewhat overestimated habitat than Oakleaf’s model (Carroll et al. that most suitable wolf habitat in suitability in some areas such as the Big 2006, pp. 27–31). Carroll’s model used Wyoming was in the GYA, which is the Horn mountains) (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. density and type of roads, human area currently occupied by wolves in 559). population density and distribution, Wyoming. These models are useful in Generally, Wyoming’s suitable habitat slope, and vegetative greenness to understanding the relative proportions is located in the northwestern portion of estimate relative ungulate density to and distributions of various habitat the State. A comparison of actual wolf predict associated wolf survival and characteristics and their relationships to pack distribution in 2009 and 2011 fecundity rates (Carroll et al. 2006, p. wolf pack persistence. Both models (Service et al. 2010; 2012, Figure 1) to 29). These factors were used to develop generally support our earlier predictions Oakleaf et al.’s (2006, p. 559) prediction estimates of habitat theoretically about wolf habitat suitability in the of suitable habitat indicates that nearly suitable for wolf pack persistence. In GYA (Service 1980, p. 9; Service 1987, all suitable habitat in Wyoming is addition, Carroll predicted the potential p. 7; Service 1994, p. vii). Because these currently occupied and areas predicted effect of increased road development two theoretical models only define to be unsuitable remain largely and human density expected by 2025 on suitable habitat as those areas that have unoccupied. Of note, the permanent suitable wolf habitat (Carroll et al. 2006, characteristics with a 50 percent or Trophy Area and protected areas pp. 30–31). In total, Carroll et al. (2006, greater probability of supporting wolf contain approximately 81 percent of the pp. 27–31) ranked 77,202 km2 (29,808 packs, the acreages of suitable habitat State’s suitable habitat (including over mi2) in Wyoming as suitable habitat. that they indicate can be successfully 81 percent of the high-quality habitat According to the Carroll model, occupied are only estimates. (greater than 80 percent chance of approximately 30 percent of Wyoming The Carroll et al. (2006, p. 25) model supporting wolves) and over 62 percent would be ranked as suitable wolf habitat also indicated that the GYA and of the medium-high-quality habitat (50 (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27–31). neighboring population centers had to 79 percent chance of supporting The Carroll et al. (2006, pp. 31–34) habitat suitable for dispersal between wolves) (Oakleaf 2011; Mead 2012a). model tended to be more generous than them, and such habitat would remain Although Carroll determined there the Oakleaf et al. (2006, pp. 558–560) relatively intact in the future. However, may be some additional suitable wolf model in identifying suitable wolf the GYA is the most isolated (Oakleaf et habitat in Wyoming beyond the area habitat. Based on empirical wolf data al. 2006, p. 554). This conclusion is Oakleaf analyzed, we conclude that it is over our 17 years of experience in supported by dispersal and genetic marginally suitable at best, and is Wyoming, we have determined exchange data (vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. insignificant to NRM DPS, GYA, or Oakleaf’s projections were more 4420; Jimenez et al. In review, p. 1). We Wyoming wolf population recovery, realistic. Unlike the Oakleaf model, the note that some surrounding habitat that because it occurs in small, isolated, and Carroll model did not incorporate is considered unsuitable for pack fragmented areas and is unlikely to livestock density into its calculations persistence is still important for support many, if any, persistent (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27–29; Oakleaf maintaining effective migration through breeding pairs. While some areas in et al. 2006, p. 556). Thus, the Carroll natural dispersal. Wyoming predicted to be unsuitable model did not consider those conditions Overall, we evaluated data from a habitat by the above models have been where wolf mortality is high and habitat number of sources on the location of temporarily occupied and used by unsuitable because of chronic conflict suitable wolf habitat in developing our wolves or even packs, we still consider with livestock. During the past 17 years, estimate of currently suitable wolf these areas to be largely unsuitable Wyoming wolf packs have been unable habitat. Specifically, we considered the habitat because wolf packs in such areas to persist in areas intensively used for recovery areas identified in the 1987 have failed to persist long enough to be livestock production, primarily because wolf recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 23), categorized as breeding pairs and of agency control of problem wolves and the primary analysis areas analyzed in successfully contribute toward recovery. illegal killing. However, due to the large the 1994 Environmental Impact Therefore, we conclude that such areas area analyzed, the Carroll model Statement for the GYA (63,700 km2 are unsuitable habitat and that provided a valuable relative measure (24,600 mi2) (Service 1994, p. iv), dispersing wolves attempting to
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55576 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
colonize those areas are unlikely to form they are more likely to encounter Occupied habitat in Wyoming occurs breeding pairs, persist long enough to surrounding unsuitable habitat only in the northwestern part of the raise yearlings that can disperse to (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998, p. 2128). State (see Figure 1 above). Specifically, facilitate demographic and genetic Implementation of wolf recovery has this occupied area extends slightly exchange within the NRM DPS, or shown that some theoretically suitable further east than the Trophy Area, otherwise contribute to population habitat described by the available includes about the western-third of the recovery. models fails to be functional (or Wind River Indian Reservation, and Unoccupied Suitable Habitat— suitable) wolf habitat because of non- extends south to about Big Piney, Habitat suitability modeling indicates modeled parameters (e.g., edge effect Wyoming. The occupied portion of that the GYA and central Idaho core discussed above) that exist in those Wyoming and the GYA is illustrated in recovery areas are atypical of other areas. Figure 1 above. habitats in the western United States For the above reasons, we conclude The Wyoming wolf population’s because suitable wolf habitat in these that the Wyoming wolf population will relatively stable distribution is the result areas occurs in much larger contiguous be centered around YNP and the GYA. of the wolf population approaching blocks (Service 1987, p. 7; Larson 2004, This was always the intention, as biological limits, given available p. 49; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 35; Oakleaf indicated by the GYA recovery area suitable habitat and conflict in et al. 2006, p. 559). Such core refugia identified in the 1987 Recovery Plan unsuitable habitat. The remaining areas provide a steady source of and the primary analysis area identified habitat predicted by Carroll’s model is dispersing wolves that populate other in the 1994 Environmental Impact often fragmented, occurring in smaller, adjoining potentially suitable wolf Statement. This core area will support more isolated patches (Carroll et al. habitat. Some habitat ranked by models the recovered Wyoming and GYA wolf 2006, p. 35). These areas have only been as suitable adjacent to this core refugia population and continue to contribute occupied by a few breeding pairs that may be able to support wolf breeding to the NRM gray wolf populations’ failed to persist (Service et al. 2012, pairs, while other habitat farther away recovered status. Figure 1). Given the above, there is from a strong source of dispersing Currently Occupied Habitat—We probably limited ability for the wolves may not be able to support calculated the currently occupied area Wyoming wolf population to expand persistent packs. This fact is important in the NRM DPS wolf population by significantly beyond its current outer when considering suitable habitat as drawing a line around the outer points boundaries, even under continued defined by the Carroll et al. (2006, p. 30) of radio-telemetry locations of all protections of the Act. As demonstrated and Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) models, known wolf pack territories at the end by the wolf population’s demographic because wolf populations can persist of 2010 (Service et al. 2012, Figure 1). abundance and relatively constant despite very high rates of mortality only Since 2002, most packs have occurred geographic occupancy in northwestern if they have high rates of immigration within a consistent area (Service et al. Wyoming, it is clear that there is (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 183). Therefore, 2003–2012, Figure 1), although the outer sufficient suitable habitat to maintain model predictions regarding habitat boundary of the entire NRM wolf the Wyoming wolf population well suitability do not always translate into population has fluctuated somewhat as above recovery levels. successful wolf occupancy and wolf peripheral packs establish in unsuitable Potential Threats Affecting Habitat or breeding pairs, just as habitat predicted or marginally suitable habitat and are Range—Wolves are one of the most to be unsuitable does not mean such subsequently lost (Messer 2011). We adaptable large predators in the world areas will not support wolf breeding define occupied wolf habitat as that area and are unlikely to be substantially pairs. confirmed as being used by resident affected by any threat except high levels Strips and smaller (less than 2,600 wolves to raise pups, or that is of human persecution (Fuller et al. km2 (1,000 mi2)) patches of theoretically consistently used by two or more 2003, p. 163; Boitani 2003, pp. 328– suitable habitat (Carroll et al. 2006, p. territorial wolves for longer than 1 330). Even active wolf dens can be quite 34; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559) month (Service 1994, pp. 6:5–6). resilient to nonlethal disturbance by (typically, isolated mountain ranges) The overall distribution of most humans (Frame et al. 2007, p. 316). often possess a higher mortality risk for Wyoming wolf packs primarily forming Establishing a recovered wolf wolves because of their enclosure by, in mountainous forest habitat has been population in the NRM region did not and proximity to, unsuitable habitat similar since 2000, despite a wolf require land-use restrictions or with a high mortality risk (Murray et al. population in the State that has more curtailment of traditional land uses 2010, p. 2514; Smith et al. 2010, p. 620). than doubled (Service et al. 2001–2012, because there was enough suitable In addition, pack territories often form Figure 1; Bangs et al. 2009, p. 104). The habitat and wild ungulates and along distinct geological features (Mech wolf population has saturated most sufficiently few livestock conflicts to and Boitani 2003, p. 23), such as the suitable habitat in the State. Because recover wolves under existing crest of a rugged mountain range, so packs are unlikely to persist in conditions (Bangs et al. 2004, pp. 95– usable space for wolves in isolated, unsuitable habitat, significant growth in 96). Traditional land-use practices in long, narrow mountain ranges may be the population’s distribution is unlikely. Wyoming are not a threat to wolves in reduced by half or more. This We include unoccupied areas separating the State, and thus, do not need to be phenomenon, in which the quality and areas with resident packs as occupied modified to maintain a recovered wolf quantity of suitable habitat is wolf habitat because these intervening population into the foreseeable future. diminished because of interactions with unsuitable habitat areas contribute to We do not anticipate that habitat surrounding less-suitable habitat, is demographic and genetic connectivity changes in Wyoming will occur at a known as an edge effect (Mills 1995, pp. (vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. 4412). While magnitude that will threaten wolf 400–401). Edge effects are exacerbated these areas are not capable of supporting recovery in the foreseeable future, in small habitat patches with high persistent wolf packs, dispersing wolves because the vast majority of occupied perimeter-to-area ratios (i.e., those that routinely travel through these areas, and habitat is in public ownership that is are long and narrow, like isolated packs occasionally occupy them managed for uses that are mountain ranges) and in species with (Service 1994, pp. 6:5–6; Bangs 2002, p. complementary with the maintenance of large territories, like wolves, because 3; Jimenez et al. In review, p. 1). suitable wolf habitat and viable wolf
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55577
populations (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 542; source of the potential population accelerated road development and Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 560). fluctuations and appropriate increasing amounts of transportation The 63,714 km2 (24,600 mi2) GYA is management responses, we feel facilities (pipelines and energy primarily composed of public lands confident that, although different herds transmission lines); additional resource (Service 1994, p. iv), and represents one may experience differing population extraction (primarily oil and gas, coal, of the largest contiguous blocks of dynamics, the GYA will continue to and wind development in certain areas); suitable habitat within the region. support large populations of ungulates, and increased recreation on public Public lands in National Parks (YNP, and Wyoming will continue to maintain lands (Robbins 2007, entire). Despite Grand Teton National Park, and John D. ungulate populations at densities that efforts to minimize impacts to wildlife Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway), will continue to support a recovered (Brown 2006, pp. 1–3), some wilderness (the Absaroka Beartooth, wolf population well into the development will make some areas of North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton foreseeable future. Wyoming and the GYA less suitable for Wilderness Areas), roadless areas, and The presence of cattle and sheep also wolf occupancy. In the six northwestern large blocks of contiguous mountainous affect wolf habitat and range. Cattle and Wyoming counties most used by forested habitat are largely unavailable sheep are at least twice as numerous as wolves, the human population is or unsuitable for intensive development. wild ungulates, even on public lands projected to increase approximately 15 Within the occupied portions of (Service 1994, p. viii). Most wolf packs percent by 2030 (from 122,787 counted Wyoming, land ownership is mostly have at least some interaction with in 2010 to 141,000 forecast in 2030) Federal (78.6 percent, 58.1 percent of livestock. Wolves and livestock can live (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 536; Wyoming which is National Park Service or near one another for extended periods of Department of Administration and wilderness) with some State (2.6 time without significant conflict, if Information Economic Analysis percent), Tribal (8.4 percent), and agency control prevents the behavior of Division 2008, entire; U.S. Census private lands (10.5 percent) (Lickfett chronic livestock depredation from Bureau 2010, entire). We anticipate 2012). becoming widespread in the wolf similar levels of population growth in The vast majority of suitable wolf population. However, whenever wolves the other neighboring areas, because the habitat and the current wolf population and livestock mix, some livestock and West as a region is projected to increase are secure in mountainous forested some wolves will be killed. Conflicts at rates faster than any other region Federal public land (wilderness and between wolves and livestock have (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). As human roadless areas, National Parks, and some resulted in the annual removal of populations increase, associated lands managed for multiple uses by the around 8 to 15 percent of the wolf impacts will follow. However, human U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land population (Bangs et al. 1995, p. 130; development will not occur on a scale Management) that will not be legally Bangs et al. 2004, p. 92; Bangs et al. that could possibly affect the overall available or suitable for intensive levels 2005, pp. 342–344; Service et al. 2012, suitability of Wyoming or the GYA for of human development (Service 1993, Tables 4, 5; Smith et al. 2010, p. 620). wolves, and no foreseeable habitat- 1996, 2007; Servheen et al. 2003; U.S. Such active control promotes tolerance related threats will prevent these areas Department of Agriculture Forest for wolf presence by responding to, and from supporting a wolf population that Service 2006). Furthermore, the ranges minimizing future, impacts to private is capable of substantially exceeding of wolves and grizzly bears overlap in property without threatening the wolf recovery levels. many parts of Wyoming and the GYA, population viability. Most types of intensive human and mandatory habitat guidelines for We do not foresee a substantial development predicted in the future in grizzly bear conservation on public increase in livestock abundance Wyoming will occur in areas that have lands far exceed necessary criteria for occurring across northwestern Wyoming already been extensively modified by maintaining suitable habitat for wolves that would result in increased wolf human activities and are unsuitable as (for an example, see U.S. Department of mortality, and in fact, the opposite trend wolf habitat (Freudenthal 2005, Agriculture Forest Service 2006). Thus, has been occurring. In recent years, appendix III). Mineral extraction northwestern Wyoming will continue to more than 200,000 hectares (500,000 activities are likely to continue to be provide optimal suitable habitat for a acres) of public land grazing allotments focused at lower elevations, on private resident wolf population. have been purchased and retired in lands, in open habitats, and outside of The availability of native ungulate areas of chronic conflict between currently suitable and currently populations is a key factor in wolf livestock and large predators, including occupied wolf habitat (Robbins 2007, habitat and range. Wild ungulate prey wolves (Fischer 2008). Assuming entire). Development on private land species are composed mainly of elk, adequate regulation of other potential near suitable habitats will continue to white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, threat factors (discussed below), the expose wolves to more conflicts and and bison. Bighorn sheep, mountain continued presence of livestock will not higher risk of human-caused mortality. goats, and pronghorn antelope also are in any meaningful way threaten the However, the rate of conflict is well common, but are not important as wolf recovered status of the Wyoming wolf below the level wolves can withstand, prey. In total, Wyoming supports about population in the foreseeable future. especially given the large amount of 50,000 elk and about 90,000 mule deer Although human population growth secure habitat in public ownership, in northwestern Wyoming (Bruscino and development may affect wolf much of which is protected, that will 2011a). All but two of Wyoming’s 35 elk habitat and range, we expect these support a recovered wolf population management units are at or above the impacts will be minimal, because the and will provide a reliable and constant WGFD numeric objectives for those amount of secure suitable habitat is source of dispersing wolves. herds; however, calf/cow ratios in more than sufficient to support wolf Furthermore, management programs several herd units are below desired breeding pairs well above recovery (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 348), research levels (WGFD 2010, p. 1; Mead 2012a). levels. We expect the region will see and monitoring, and outreach and The State of Wyoming has successfully increased growth and development education about living with wildlife can managed resident ungulate populations including conversion of private low- somewhat reduce such impacts. for decades. With managers and density rural lands to higher density Modeling exercises can also provide scientists collaborating to determine the urban and suburban development; insight into future land-use
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55578 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
development patterns. While these et al. 2005, pp. 2–7). Conversely, in species within the foreseeable future models have weaknesses (such as an many surrounding rural areas, habitat throughout all or a significant portion of inability to accurately predict economic suitability for wolves will be increased its range.’’ upturns or downturns, uncertainty beyond current levels as road densities Factor B. Overutilization for regarding investments in infrastructure on public lands are reduced, a process Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or that might drive development, such as under way in the entire NRM region Educational Purposes roads, airports, or water projects, and an (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 25; Servheen et inability to predict open-space al. 2003; Service 1993, 1996, 2007; Commercial or Recreational Uses— acquisitions or conservation easements), Brown 2006, pp. 1–3). Wolves have This section discusses both legal and we nevertheless think that such models exceptional dispersal abilities including illegal killing for commercial or are useful in adding to our the ability to disperse long distances recreational purposes, such as hunting understanding of likely development across vast areas of unsuitable habitat. and trapping. All other potential sources patterns. Carroll et al. (2003, p. 541; Numerous lone wolves have already of human-caused mortality (e.g., legal or 2006, p. 32) predicted future wolf been documented to have successfully illegal killing for other purposes, agency habitat suitability under several dispersed through these types of or individual actions to address scenarios through 2025, including developed areas (Jimenez et al. In conflicts over wolf-livestock potential threats such as increased review, p. 1). History proves that wolves interactions, or wolf kills in the predator human population growth and road are among the least likely species of area of Wyoming) are discussed in the development. Similarly, in 2005, the land mammal to face a serious threat ‘‘Human-caused Mortality’’ section of Center for the West produced a series of from reduced connectivity related to Factor C below; potential impacts of maps predicting growth through 2040 projected changes in habitat (Fuller et human-caused mortality to natural for the West (Travis et al. 2005, pp. 2– al. 2003, pp. 189–190). connectivity and gene flow are 7). These projections are available at: discussed in the ‘‘Genetic There is more than enough habitat Considerations’’ section of Factor E http://www.centerwest.org/futures/west/ connectivity between occupied wolf 2040.html. These models predict very below. First, this section discusses habitat in Canada, northwestern illegal commercial or recreational use. little development across occupied and Montana, and Idaho to provide for the suitable portions of the NRM DPS, Next, this section focuses on legal exchange of sufficient numbers of Wyoming, or GYA. hunting and trapping in Wyoming. dispersing wolves to maintain Based on these projections, we have Finally, this section evaluates regulated determined that increased development demographic and genetic diversity in hunting and trapping in Idaho and will not alter wolf habitat suitability in the NRM wolf metapopulation. We have Montana because some wolves and the NRM DPS, Wyoming, or GYA nearly documented routine movement of radio- some packs cross State boundaries. For enough to cause the wolf population to collared wolves across the nearly an analysis of other portions of the NRM fall below recovery levels in the contiguous available suitable habitat DPS relative to this factor, see our 2009 foreseeable future. We acknowledge that between Canada, northwestern delisting determination (74 FR 15123, habitat suitability for wolves will Montana, and central Idaho (Boyd et al. April 2, 2009). Additional consideration change over time with human 1995, p. 136; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, of such take since 2009 has verified our development, activities, and attitudes, pp. 1100–1101; Jimenez et al. In review, previous conclusions that State but not to the extent that it is likely to p. 23). No foreseeable threats put this management of such human-caused threaten wolf recovery. We conclude connectivity at risk. The GYA is the mortality will not undermine that future human population growth most physically isolated core recovery maintenance of any portion of the NRM will not adversely affect wolf area within the NRM DPS, but the GYA DPS’s recovered status (Cooley 2011; conservation. Wolf populations persist has also demonstrated sufficient levels Jimenez 2012b; see also Issue and in many areas of the world that are far of connectivity to other occupied Response 4 above). Additional more developed than this region habitats and wolf populations in the consideration of such take in Montana currently is, or is likely to be, in the NRM. Within the foreseeable future, and Idaho are also included in other foreseeable future (Boitani 2003, pp. only minimal habitat degradation will portions of this rule as appropriate. 322–323). Current habitat conditions are occur between the GYA and the other Since the species was listed, killing adequate to support a wolf population recovery areas. Overall, we conclude for commercial or recreational use has well above minimal recovery levels, and that this will have only minimal been prohibited. While some wolves model predictions indicate that impacts on foreseeable levels of may have been illegally killed for development over the next 25 years is dispersal and connectivity of wolves in commercial use of the pelts and other unlikely to change habitat in a manner the GYA and the State of Wyoming with parts, such illegal commercial that would threaten the wolf population other wolf populations in the NRM. In trafficking is rare. Furthermore, illegal (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 544). short, future connectivity is unlikely to capture of wolves for commercial Regarding connectivity between the be meaningfully affected by changes in breeding purposes is also possible, but Wyoming and the GYA wolf to the habitat and range (genetic exchange is we have no evidence that it occurs in remainder of the NRM DPS, minimal discussed in more detail under Factor E Wyoming, the GYA, or elsewhere in the change in human population growth below), and any changes that are likely NRM DPS. We conclude that the (Travis et al. 2005, pp. 2–7) and habitat will not threaten the recovered status of prohibition against ‘‘take’’ provided by suitability (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541; the Wyoming, the GYA, or the NRM section 9 of the Act has discouraged and Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32) are expected gray wolf populations in the foreseeable minimized the illegal killing of wolves along the Idaho-Montana border future. Therefore, we find present or for commercial or recreational purposes. between the central Idaho wolf threatened destruction, modification, or Post-delisting, State, tribal, and other population and the GYA. In fact, curtailment of habitat and range, Federal laws and regulations will projected development is anticipated to singularly or in combination with other continue to provide a strong deterrent to include modest expansions threats, will not cause the Wyoming, the such illegal wolf killing by the public. concentrated in urban areas and GYA, or the NRM gray wolf populations State, tribal, and other Federal wildlife immediately surrounding areas (Travis to be ‘‘likely to become an endangered agencies have well-distributed,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55579
experienced professional law Wilderness Areas, adjacent public and (WGFC 2011, pp. 2–3, 16, 25, 53). enforcement officers to help enforce private lands, the National Elk Refuge, Harvest quotas will be established their respective wildlife regulations. and most of the Wind River Indian through WGFD’s normal season-setting Similar regulatory approaches have Reservation (Lickfett 2012). This area is process. Quotas will be based on the been effective in the conservation of of sufficient size to support Wyoming population status of wolves at the end other resident wildlife, such as black wolf population targets, under the of the previous calendar year, and bears, mountain lions, elk, and deer. management regime developed for this consider wolf mortality and population Most hunting and trapping that will area. growth estimated during the current occur post-delisting will be legal, Wolves will be considered as trophy calendar year (WGFC 2011, pp. 23–25). permitted, and regulated by the State of game animals within the area of All forms of wolf mortality will be Wyoming or the Wind River Indian northwestern Wyoming identified as the considered when setting appropriate Reservation. Trophy Area (see Figure 1 above). In harvest levels (WGFC 2011, pp. 23–25). Legal regulated harvest will be areas under State jurisdiction, ‘‘trophy Seasons will close when the mortality employed by Montana, Idaho, and game’’ status allows the WGFC and quota is reached or if the WGFC deems Wyoming after delisting. Additionally, WGFD to regulate methods of take, it necessary to close the season for other the Wind River Indian Reservation may hunting seasons, and numbers of wolves reasons. Importantly, the WGFD will not consider legal regulated harvest. Harvest that could be killed. The boundary and manage wolves at the minimum will be done in a manner compatible size of the Trophy Area was established population objective (WGFC 2011, p. with wolf conservation. Wolves can by State statute and cannot be 24). Instead, the WGFD will set harvest maintain themselves despite human- diminished through WGFC rule or levels that maintain an adequate buffer caused mortality rates of 17 to 48 regulation. The Trophy Area will be above minimum population objectives percent (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 182–184 seasonally expanded approximately 80 to provide management flexibility [22 percent +/¥ 8 percent]; Adams et al. km (50 mi) south (see Figure 1 above) (WGFC 2011, p. 24). 2008 [29 percent]; Creel and Rotella from October 15 to the last day of Wyoming wolf hunting seasons will 2010 [22 percent]; Sparkman et al. 2011 February (28th or 29th) to facilitate coincide primarily with fall big game [25 percent]; Gude et al. 2011 [48 natural dispersal of wolves between hunting seasons (October through percent]; Vucetich and Carroll In review Wyoming and Idaho. During this December), but they may be established [17 percent]). timeframe, the Trophy Area will be outside of that period or extended We have long encouraged hunting as expanded by approximately 3,300 km2 beyond that period if necessary to a long term strategy for wolf (1,300 mi2) (i.e., an additional 1.3 achieve management objectives (WGFC conservation because it is a valuable, percent of Wyoming) (Lickfett 2011). 2011, pp. 23–25, 53). Wyoming’s wolf efficient, and cost-effective tool to help Regarding methods for regulated management plan indicates that the manage wildlife populations (Bangs et hunting within the Trophy Area, State expects to delineate approximately al. 2009, pg. 113). Viable robust wolf numerous safeguards ensure such take 10 to 12 wolf hunting areas within the populations in Canada, Alaska, and will be fair chase. For example, hunting Trophy Area to focus harvest in specific other parts of the world are hunted and regulations within the Trophy Area areas (i.e., areas with high wolf- trapped and are not threatened by this prohibit: Use of dogs to aid in wolf livestock conflict, high human- type of mortality. Furthermore, all hunting (W.S. 23–3–109(a)); poisoning trafficked areas, or areas where ungulate States in the NRM DPS have substantial (W.S. 23–3–304); hunting from a road herds are below State management experience operating regulated harvest (W.S. 23–3–305); hunting with the aid objectives) (WGFC 2011, pp. 1, 16). as a wildlife management tool for of artificial light (W.S. 23–3–306(b)); Wyoming has 12 hunting units for the resident species. Regarding experience hunting from snow machines, 2012 hunting season. Persons who specific to wolves, in both 2009 and automobiles, or airplanes; and hunters legally harvest a wolf within the Trophy 2011, more than 250 NRM wolves were receiving spotting assistance from Area will be required to report the killed through hunting and a total of aircraft (W.S. 23–3–306). Note that the harvest to the WGFD within 24 hours, more than 600 NRM wolves died each limitations listed here are a small and check the harvested animal in year from all sources of mortality sample of protective measures in place within 5 days (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 22– (agency control including defense of and not intended to constitute a 25). Reporting periods for harvested property, regulated harvest, illegal and comprehensive list; parties looking for a wolves may be extended after inaugural accidental killing, and natural causes), comprehensive list of limitations on hunting seasons if it is determined that and the population showed little change wolf hunting within the Trophy Area extended reporting periods will not (technically, slight increases in should consult the WGFD. increase the likelihood of overharvest minimum population levels were Within the Trophy Area, Wyoming (WGFC 2011, p. 23). Similar harvest documented each year) (Service et al. intends to use public harvest of wolves strategies have been successful for 2012, tables 4a, 4b). While future to reduce wolf populations to minimize countless other wildlife species in population reductions are anticipated, wolf impacts to livestock, ungulate Wyoming. the available information gives us every herds, and humans (WGFC 2011, pp. 1, Within the Trophy Area, at the end of confidence that the States will run 23). Wyoming will develop an annual 2011, there were at least 177 wolves in hunts such that wolf populations will hunt plan that will take into at least 29 packs (including 16 breeding not be threatened by recreational or consideration, but not be limited to, the pairs), as well as at least 4 lone wolves; commercial uses. following when developing a wolf within the seasonal Trophy Area, at the In Wyoming, wolves will be managed hunting program or extending wolf end of 2011, there were at least 10 as game animals year-round or protected hunting seasons: Wolf breeding seasons; wolves in at least 2 packs (including 1 in about 38,500 km2 (15,000 mi2) in the short- and long-range dispersal breeding pair), as well as at least 5 lone northwestern portion of the State (15.2 opportunity, survival, and success in wolves (Jimenez 2012a). In 2012, percent of Wyoming), including YNP, forming new or joining existing packs; Wyoming will authorize a hunting quota Grand Teton National Park, John D. conflicts with livestock; and the broader of 52 wolves in 2012, and once Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, game management responsibilities reproduction is accounted for, the State adjacent U.S. Forest Service-designated related to ungulates and other wildlife estimates that this would reduce the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55580 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
population by about 11.5 percent within Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Although not likely to be necessary, the Trophy Area (Mills 2012, pers. Department 2007, p. 9). Given the small should hunting in other adjoining areas comm.). Specifically, Wyoming number of wolves, packs, and breeding have a bigger impact than anticipated, estimates the population within the pairs supported while Act protections we expect other adjoining States would Trophy Area would be around 170 were in place, we expect the area will follow Montana’s lead and limit hunting wolves and 15 breeding pairs at the end support very modest wolf population in these adjoining areas to limit impacts of 2012 (Mills 2012, pers. comm.). We levels and distribution. Given this, we to YNP wolves. All three States have note that this first-year goal is expect very limited hunting or trapping long cooperated with YNP on wildlife comfortably above the minimum agreed- on the Wind River Indian Reservation. management issues, a situation we upon population targets. No legal wolf hunting or trapping will expect to continue (Bruscino 2012, pers. Commercial or recreational trapping occur within the boundaries of YNP and comm.; Smith 2012, pers. comm.). is not currently being planned in Grand Teton National Park. Similarly, Furthermore, all three States have an Wyoming (Bruscino 2011b). However, no wolf hunting is currently planned or incentive to maintain a minimally an adaptive management approach, anticipated on the National Elk Refuge affected wolf population in YNP both which could include trapping, may (although it could be considered in the for visitor enjoyment and the resulting occur in the future (WGFC 2011, p. 25; future) (Kallin 2012, per. comm.). economic benefits. Additionally, while Mead 2012a). If such a season is However, wolves in these areas may be we doubt this issue could ever bring the considered in the future, it would be impacted by hunting or trapping when Wyoming statewide population down regulated by the WGFD and the WGFC. they leave these areas to various extents below 15 breeding pairs or below 150 Furthermore, take would be limited depending on the unit. In Grand Teton wolves, all 3 States have an incentive because the resultant mortality would National Park and the National Elk not to have their management actions count toward Wyoming’s total harvest Refuge, wolf pack home ranges typically outside YNP cause population-level quotas, which are already expected to be cross outside of these Federal impacts in the park that could lead to modest once desired population boundaries, thus, hunting pressures in a Service status review (see status reductions are achieved. If trapping is adjoining areas will likely impact these review trigger 3 below). Wyoming’s wolf used in the future it will be conducted wolves. These wolves were included in management plan confirms this within the framework of the State’s the Trophy Area for exactly this reason. intention in that it states Wyoming is overall demographic targets. Therefore, Wyoming will manage these committed to coordinate with YNP to Regarding past hunting seasons, in wolves along with other wolves within contribute to maintain a statewide total our 2009 delisting rule (74 FR 15123, the remainder of the Trophy Area to of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least April 2, 2009), we determined that ensure their statewide minimum 150 wolves (WGFC 2011, p. 1). Wyoming’s proposed 2008 harvest management target is not compromised. Although hunting is currently strategy (that was not implemented) was Most YNP packs rarely leave the park. allowed for many other game species in well-designed, biologically sound, and, However, a few packs occasionally leave the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial by itself, it would not have threatened the park boundaries, which could Parkway under the Parkway’s enabling Wyoming’s share of the recovered NRM subject them to hunting in adjoining legislation and Wyoming law, the wolf population. Given Wyoming’s areas. This situation is most common for National Park Service has indicated a strong commitment to maintain a packs in the northern part of YNP where ‘‘strong preference that wolves not be population of at least the agreed-upon some of these wolves occasionally enter hunted in the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. minimum population targets, its adjoining portions of southern Montana. Memorial Parkway’’ (Frost and Wessels intention to consider all forms of wolf Montana has responded to this situation 2012). Wyoming’s hunting regulations mortality when making wolf by creating a small subquota for areas are clear that gray wolf hunting would management decisions, and numerous adjoining YNP. Specifically, within the not occur in the Parkway during the safeguards built into its harvest strategy, large South Central Montana hunting 2012 season, although nothing in we are confident that this source of unit, which had an overall quota of 18 Wyoming’s regulations or Wyoming’s mortality will not compromise the wolves in 2011, Montana Fish, Wildlife wolf management plan would preclude Wyoming wolf population’s recovered and Parks created a small subunit with wolves from being hunted in the status. a subquota of 3 wolves for areas Parkway in subsequent years. Should The Wind River Indian Reservation’s immediately adjoining YNPs northern hunting ever occur in the John D. management plan indicates wolves will boundary (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, it be designated as a game animal post- Parks 2011, pp. 6–7). This approach has would likely be very limited, would be delisting and hunting and trapping can been successful at minimizing hunting unlikely to noticeably affect wolf gene occur (Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal impacts to YNP packs (Smith 2012, flow or connectivity, and it would be Fish and Game Department 2007, p. 9). pers. comm.). We anticipate Montana closely coordinated with the National The season timing and length, harvest will continue such harvest limits in Park Service. quota, and other specifics will be areas adjoining YNP in future years. Recent hunts in Idaho and Montana determined by the Eastern Shoshone Most other YNP wolf packs are not demonstrate wolf tolerance for hunting. and Northern Arapaho Tribes (Shoshone expected to be as vulnerable to human- Both Idaho and Montana designated and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game caused mortality in adjoining areas most wolves as game animals statewide and Department 2007, p. 9). Harvest strategy years because they generally spend less each State conducted conservative wolf will depend on the number of wolves time in these adjoining areas. That said, hunts in 2009. These hunts distributed present on Wind River Indian these patterns will vary by year. For wolf harvest across occupied habitat, Reservation and the management example, the Delta pack is generally took into account connectivity and direction the Tribes wish to take known from southeastern YNP and its possible dispersal corridors, resulted in (Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and range can include adjoining portions of good hunter compliance, and improved Game Department 2007, p. 9). The Wyoming, but this year it appears to be hunter attitudes about wolves (Montana Tribes have not designated a specific spending so much time in Wyoming Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2009, entire; number of individuals or packs for that it may count as a Wyoming pack Dickson 2010; Service et al. 2010, Idaho which they will manage (Shoshone and rather than a YNP pack. chapter, pp. 13–14; Service et al. 2010,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55581
Montana chapter, pp. 17–25). In total, this unit in 2010. During the 2011 2011), we do not expect much, if any, Montana hunts took 72 wolves out of season, Idaho authorized a quota of 30 future trapping in this area. the 75-harvest quota and, in Idaho, wolves in the Island Park hunting unit Montana’s wolf quota for 2011 within hunts took 185 wolves out of 2009’s with a season from August 30th to the GYA was 43 wolves including 19 quota of 220 (Montana Fish Wildlife & December 31st, and limits of 1 wolf per wolves within the Gallatin/Madison Parks 2009, entire). Each State closed tag with a limit of 2 tags per person unit, 6 wolves within the Highlands/ wolf harvest in individual management (Idaho Fish and Game Commission Tobacco Roots/Gravelly/Snowcrest unit, zones at the end of that State’s season 2011). The quota for this unit was not and 18 wolves within the South Central or when as a unit (or subunit) met its reached because only 10 wolves were Montana unit (Montana Fish, Wildlife quota, whichever came first. Montana taken. The 2012–2013 hunting seasons and Parks 2011, pp. 6–7). These quotas closed its wolf hunt statewide authorize a quota of 30 wolves with a were nearly achieved with 16, 5, and 18 November 16th. In Idaho, a few zones season from August 30th to January 31st wolves taken in each of the above units, remained open until March 31. Despite and limits of 1 wolf per tag with a limit respectively. In 2011, the minimum a total harvest of 257 wolves in Montana of 2 tags per person. If the last several estimate was 139 wolves in 22 verified and Idaho and other sources of human- years are any indication, it is unlikely packs, 10 of which qualified as a caused mortality, the NRM population this quota will be achieved. Overall, the breeding pair. This represents a slight showed little change in 2009 data demonstrate this modest hunting change in the area’s wolf population (technically, a slight increase in level in this unit had minimal impact. (technically, a slight increase in the minimum population levels was As hunting continues in this region documented wolf population) from 2010 documented). Hunting continued in across multiple consecutive years, it when the minimum population estimate some portions of Idaho into 2010. In will reduce the number of wolves, was 118 wolves in 19 packs in 2010, of 2010, the minimum population estimate packs, and breeding pairs in this area which 6 qualified as breeding pairs. saw a small decline. During the 2011– (this is the State’s intention). In the long Small fluctuations also occurred 2012 harvest, 379 wolves were taken in run, it is likely that this area will following the 2009 hunting season. Idaho (255 by hunters and 124 by continue to support a modest number of Thirteen wolves were taken in this unit trappers), and 166 wolves were taken in wolves and packs (one to four packs) in 2009. From the end of 2008 to the Montana (Idaho Department of Fish and some of which will qualify as breeding end of 2009 (the period affected by the Game 2012, entire; Montana Fish, pairs. This regulated taking in Idaho 2009 wolf hunt), the minimum wolf Wildlife and Parks 2012a, entire). may minimally affect a small number of population estimate in Montana’s share Considering all sources of mortality in Wyoming wolves (e.g., the three of the GYA declined from 130 wolves in 2011, the population changed Wyoming packs that cross into Idaho). 18 packs, 11 of which met the breeding minimally (minimum population In future years, once the initial desired pair criteria, to 106 wolves in 17 estimates grew by around 3 percent population level is achieved, such verified packs, 9 of which qualified as across the NRM DPS including a 15 impacts are expected to be minimal. a breeding pair. Both agency control percent increase in Montana and 4 Idaho’s other hunting unit in the GYA (which increased in 2009) and hunter percent reduction in Idaho). Some area is the southern Idaho unit. harvest were factors in these declines. additional reduction likely occurred Potential hunting impacts in this unit As of this writing, the Montana 2012– during the 2012 portion of the 2011– are expected to be zero to low single 2013 hunting season’s quota is not 2012 hunting season. Regardless, these digits. During the 2009–2010 hunting determined, but will be higher than past data confirm wolves’ capacity to season, Idaho allowed hunting from seasons and may include trapping and withstand significant mortality. As August 30th to March 31st in this zone increased harvest. In the long run, anticipated in our 2009 delisting rule but did not reach its quota and only 1 Montana will modestly reduce the (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009), Montana wolf was harvested. During the 2011– number of wolves, packs, and breeding and Idaho are now planning higher 2012 hunting season, Idaho allowed pairs in this area. However, it is likely harvest rates to reduce the population hunting from August 30th to March 31st this area will continue to support a below current levels (which are likely at with an unlimited quota in this zone, sizeable number of wolves, packs, and or above long term carrying capacity of but only harvested 2 wolves. During breeding pairs. Specifically, in our the suitable habitat). After this initial 2011, no documented packs or groups professional judgment, this area will population reduction phase, we occupied the Southern Idaho Zone. support at least 8 packs long term, a anticipate that the NRM gray wolf Furthermore, hunting in this unit is significant number of which will qualify population will then settle into a expected to have little to no impact on as breeding pairs. This regulated taking reasonable, long term equilibrium, well packs in Wyoming. Because this area is in Montana, in light of the quotas for above minimum recovery levels. largely unsuitable habitat with no areas adjacent to YNP, may affect some On a more localized level, hunting in substantial wolf population, recent Wyoming wolves in some years, but is Idaho and Montana may affect Wyoming modest take trends in this unit are likely not expected to be a significant impact. wolves because some wolves and some to continue. In summary, illegal commercial and packs cross State boundaries. Thus, next Trapping was not authorized in either recreational use will remain a negligible we analyze hunting in Idaho’s and the Island Park unit or the southern source of mortality, and legal and State- Montana’s portion of the GYA. During Idaho unit (Idaho Fish and Game regulated harvest for commercial and the 2009 season, Island Park hunting Commission 2011). Similarly, trapping recreational use will be managed in a unit had a quota of five wolves with an is also not planned for the 2012–2013 manner compatible with wolf October 1st to December 31st season season in either of these areas. Trapping conservation. Wolves can maintain and a limit of one wolf per person was only authorized where hunting population levels despite very high (Service et al. 2010, Idaho chapter, pp. alone was not anticipated to be effective sustained human-caused mortality rates. 81–84). The quota for this unit was met, in reducing the wolf population (Idaho For example, in 2009 and in 2011, more and the unit was closed November 2nd Fish and Game Commission 2011). than 600 NRM wolves died each year (Service et al. 2010, Idaho chapter, pp. Because trapping is typically reserved from all sources of mortality (agency 81–84). There is no harvest data from for more remote, inaccessible areas control including defense of property, 2010 because wolves were not hunted in (Idaho Fish and Game Commission regulated harvest, illegal and accidental
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55582 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
killing, and natural causes), and the We are unaware of any wolves that the same pattern seen for wolves in population showed little change have been removed from the wild for other areas of North America (Brand et (technically, slight increases in solely educational purposes in recent al. 1995, pp. 428–429; Bailey et al. 1995, minimum population levels were years. Wolves that are used for such p. 445; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–204; documented each year) (Service et al. purposes are typically privately held Atkinson 2006, pp. 1–7; Smith and 2012, tables 4a, 4b). Regulated hunting captive-reared offspring of wolves that Almberg 2007, pp. 17–19; Johnson and trapping are commonly used to were already in captivity for other 1995a, 1995b; Almberg et al. 2009, p. 3; manage wolves in Canada and Alaska reasons. However, we or the States and 2010, p. 2058; Jimenez et al. 2010a, p. without population-level negative Tribes may get requests to place wolves 1120; 2010b p. 331), and will not effects (Bangs 2008), and all States in that would otherwise be euthanized in significantly threaten wolf population the NRM DPS have substantial captivity for research or educational viability. Nevertheless, because these experience operating regulated harvest purposes. Such requests have been, and diseases and parasites, and perhaps as a wildlife management tool for are likely to continue to be, rare. Such others, have the potential to affect wolf resident species. In Wyoming, requests will not substantially affect population distribution and population levels will be carefully human-caused wolf mortality rates. demographics, monitoring implemented monitored; all sources of mortality will In summary, we find that commercial, by the States, Tribes, and National Park be used to set quotas and measure recreational, scientific, and educational Service will track disease and parasite progress toward them; harvest units will use, singularly or in combination with events. Should such an outbreak occur be closed when quotas are met, or if other threats, will not cause the that results in a population decline, otherwise needed (e.g., if overall Wyoming, the GYA, or the NRM gray discretionary human-caused mortality population objectives are being wolf population to be ‘‘likely to become (such as hunting, post-delisting) would approached); harvest units will be small an endangered species within the be adjusted over an appropriate area and to allow targeted control of authorized foreseeable future throughout all or a time period to ensure wolf population mortality; and populations will be significant portion of its range.’’ numbers are maintained above recovery managed with a buffer above minimum Factor C. Disease or Predation levels (WGFC 2011, pp. 21–22, 24). targets. This approach is consistent with Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects the State’s management of numerous This section discusses disease and wolves, domestic dogs (Canis other species. parasites, natural predation, and all familiaris), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), On the whole, we anticipate sources of human-caused mortality not coyotes (Canis latrans), skunks Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana will all covered under Factor B above (the (Mephitis mephitis), and raccoons reduce populations in the short term Factor B analysis includes sources of (Procyon lotor). The population impacts and that harvest rates and season human-caused mortality for commercial of CPV occur via diarrhea-induced duration will be reduced over time. and recreational uses). The below dehydration leading to abnormally high Long term, commercial and recreational analysis focuses on wolves in Wyoming, pup mortality (Wisconsin Department of human-caused mortality and total but considers adjoining portions of the Natural Resources 1999, p. 61). Clinical human-caused mortality will occur at GYA because some wolves and some CPV is characterized by severe sustainable rates that will not packs cross State boundaries. Data for hemorrhagic diarrhea and vomiting; compromise minimum management other regions are considered, debility and subsequent mortality is a targets or minimum recovery objectives. particularly where it implies a threat result of dehydration, electrolyte Overutilization for Scientific or that could someday affect Wyoming or imbalances, and shock. CPV has been Educational Purposes—From 1979 to GYA wolves. For an analysis of other detected in nearly every wolf 2010, the Service and our cooperating portions of the NRM DPS relative to this population in North America including partners captured 1,963 wolves for factor, see our 2009 delisting Alaska (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441; Brand monitoring, nonlethal control, and determination (74 FR 15123, April 2, et al. 1995, p. 421; Kreeger 2003, pp. research purposes with less than 3 2009). 210–211; Johnson et al. 1994; Almberg percent experiencing accidental death. Disease—Wolves throughout North et al. 2009, p. 2), and exposure in After delisting, the States, National America are exposed to a wide variety wolves is thought to be almost Parks, and Tribes will continue to of diseases and parasites. Many diseases universal. Currently, nearly 100 percent capture and radio-collar wolves for (viruses and bacteria, many protozoa of the wolves handled in Montana and monitoring and research purposes in and fungi) and parasites (helminthes Wyoming had blood antibodies accordance with State, Federal, and and arthropods) have been reported for indicating nonlethal exposure to CPV tribal laws, wolf management plans, the gray wolf, and several of them have (Atkinson 2006; Smith and Almberg regulations, and appropriate agency had significant but temporary impacts 2007, p. 18; Almberg et al. 2009, p. 2; humane animal care and handling during wolf recovery in the 48 Service et al. 2009, Wyoming chapter, p. policies. The capture or possession of conterminous States (Brand et al. 1995, 11). CPV might have contributed to low wolves from within the Trophy Area for p. 428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–214). The pup survival in the northern range of scientific or educational purposes will 1994 Environmental Impact Statement YNP in 1999. CPV was suspected to be regulated by the WGFD under rules on gray wolf reintroduction identified have done so again in 2005 and possibly set in chapter 10 and chapter 33 of disease impact as an issue, but did not 2008, but evidence now points to canine Commission Regulations. We expect evaluate it further (Service 1994, pp. distemper (CD) as having been the that capture-caused mortality by 1:20–21). primary cause of low pup survival Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, and Infectious disease induced by during those years (Smith et al. 2006, p. universities conducting wolf parasitic organisms is a normal feature 244; Smith 2008, pers. comm.; Almberg monitoring, nonlethal control, and in the life of wild animals, and the et al. 2010, p. 2058). Pup production research, will remain below 3 percent of typical wild animal hosts a broad and survival in YNP returned to normal the wolves captured, and will remain an multispecies community of potentially levels after each event (Almberg et al. insignificant source of mortality to the harmful parasitic organisms (Wobeser 2009, pp. 18–19). wolf population (Murray et al. 2010, p. 2002, p. 160). We fully anticipate that The impact of disease outbreaks to the 2519). these diseases and parasites will follow overall NRM wolf population has been
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55583
localized and temporary, as has been comm.) documented the most severe 19). The GYA wolves likely contracted documented elsewhere (Bailey et al. wolf impacts from CD when the YNP mange from coyotes or fox, whose 1995, p. 441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; population was around the historic high populations experience occasional Kreeger 2003, pp. 210–211). Despite of 170 wolves the previous winter. That outbreaks. Between 2003 and 2008, the these periodic disease outbreaks, the said, less severe outbreaks of CD can percentage of Montana packs with NRM wolf population increased at a rate and do occur at lower population levels. mange fluctuated between 3 and 24 of about 20 percent annually from 1996 CD impacts are typically localized. In percent of packs. Between 2002 and to 2008 (Service et al. 2012, Table 4; 2008, wolf packs in Wyoming outside 2008, the percentage of Wyoming packs Smith et al. 2010, p. 620; also see Figure YNP (about 25 packs and 15 breeding with mange fluctuated between 3 and 15 3 above. Mech and Goyal (2011) pairs) appeared to have normal pup percent of packs. In these cases, mange recently found that from 1987 to 1993, production (Jimenez 2008, pers. comm.), did not appear to infest every member CPV reduced pup survival and indicating the probable disease outbreak of the pack. For example, in 2008, subsequent dispersal and overall in 2008 was localized to YNP. The manage was detected in 8 wolves from population growth in the Superior available information indicates CD 4 different packs in YNP, one pack in National Forest of Minnesota (a mortality may be associated with high Wyoming outside YNP, and a couple of population at carrying capacity in carnivore density. Thus, the wolf packs in previously infested areas of suitable habitat); after that the populations in the GYA may be more southwestern Montana. Mange has not population apparently gained resistance affected by CD and other diseases when been confirmed in wolves in Idaho to CPV. It is possible that at carrying wolves and other carnivores exist at (Jimenez et al. 2010a, p. 1123). capacity CPV may affect the GYA and high densities in suitable habitat (e.g., in In packs with the most severe mange Wyoming wolf populations similarly, YNP in 2005 and 2008). This may infestations, pup survival appeared low, such that the overall rate of growth may partially explain why no similar events and some adults died (Jimenez et al. be temporarily reduced. have been documented in other portions 2010a, pp. 1122–1123). In addition, we Canine distemper (CD) is an acute, of Wyoming, and may limit the future euthanized several wolves with severe fever-causing disease of carnivores likelihood of similar events in other mange for humane reasons and because caused by a virus (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). portions of Wyoming after delisting. of their abnormal behavior. We predict It is common in domestic dogs and Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete that mange in the GYA and State of some wild canids, such as coyotes and bacterium, is spread primarily by deer Wyoming will act as it has in other parts foxes in the NRM region (Kreeger 2003, ticks (Ixodes dammini). Host species of North America (Brand et al. 1995, pp. p. 209). The prevalence of antibodies to include humans, horses (Equus 427–428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 207–208; this disease in wolf blood in North caballus), dogs, white-tailed deer, mule Jimenez et al. 2010a, p. 1123) and not American wolves is about 17 percent deer, elk, white-footed mice threaten wolf population viability. (Kreeger 2003, p. 209), but varies (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern Wolves are not likely to be infested with annually and by specific location. chipmunks (Tamias striatus), coyotes, mange on a chronic population-wide Nearly 85 percent of Montana wolf and wolves. In wolf populations in the level (Jimenez et al. 2010a, p. 1123). blood samples analyzed in 2005 Western Great Lakes region, it does not Dog-biting lice (Trichodectes canis) indicated nonlethal exposure to CD appear to cause adult mortality, but commonly feed on domestic dogs, but (Atkinson 2006). Similar results were might be suppressing population growth can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz found in Wyoming (Smith and Almberg by decreasing wolf pup survival et al. 1983, p. 372; Mech et al. 1985, p. 2007, p. 18; Service et al. 2009, (Wisconsin Department of Natural 404; Jimenez et al. 2010b, entire). The Wyoming chapter, p. 11; Almberg et al. Resources 1999, p. 61). Lyme disease lice can attain severe infestations, 2010, p. 2061). Mortality in wolves has has not been documented in the GYA or particularly in pups. The worst been documented in Canada (Carbyn Wyoming wolf populations. infestations can result in severe 1982, p. 109), Alaska (Peterson et al. Mange is caused by a mite (Sarcoptes scratching, irritated and raw skin, 1984, p. 31; Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441), scabeii) that infests the skin. The substantial hair loss particularly in the and in a single Wisconsin pup irritation caused by feeding and groin, and poor condition. While no (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 7). burrowing mites results in intense wolf mortality has been confirmed from CD is not a major mortality factor in itching, resulting in scratching and dog-biting lice, death from exposure or wolves, because despite high exposure severe fur loss, which can lead to secondary infection following self- to the virus, affected wolf populations secondary infections or to mortality inflicted trauma caused by usually demonstrate good recruitment from exposure during severe winter inflammation and itching appears (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 420–421). weather (Kreeger 2003, pp. 207–208). possible. The first confirmed NRM Mortality from CD has only been Advanced mange can involve the entire wolves with dog-biting lice were confirmed on a few occasions in NRM body and can cause emaciation, members of the Battlefield pack in the wolves despite their high exposure to it, decreased flight distance, staggering, Big Hole Valley of southwestern however, we suspect it contributed to and death (Kreeger 2003, p. 207). In a Montana in 2005 and 2006, and one the high pup mortality documented in long term Alberta wolf study, higher wolf in south-central Idaho in 2006 and the northern GYA in spring 1999, 2005, wolf densities were correlated with 2007; but these infestations were not and 2008 (Almberg et al. 2010, p. 2061). increased incidence of mange, and pup severe (Service et al. 2006, p. 15; CD is likely maintained in the NRM survival decreased as the incidence of Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Jimenez et al. region by multiple hosts, and periodic mange increased (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 2010b). The source of this infestation is outbreaks will undoubtedly occur every 427–428). Mange has been shown to unknown, but was likely domestic dogs. 2–5 years (Almberg et al. 2010, p. 2058). temporarily affect wolf population Lice have been documented in the NRM However, as documented elsewhere, CD growth rates and perhaps wolf DPS since 2005, and infestations are does not threaten wolf populations, and distribution (Kreeger 2003, p. 208). likely to continue to be occasionally the NRM wolf population increased Mange has been detected in, and documented in the future. Lice may even during years with localized caused mortality to, GYA wolves contribute to the death of some outbreaks (Almberg et al. 2010, p. 2058). (Jimenez et al. 2010a, p. 1120; Atkinson individual wolves, but they will not YNP biologists (Smith 2008, pers. 2006, p. 5; Smith and Almberg 2007, p. threaten the GYA or Wyoming wolf
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55584 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
population (Jimenez et al. 2010b, p. with Federal agencies and universities 2005), in wolf populations subject to 332). and usually have both reactive and human harvest (Adams et al. 2008), and Rabies, canine heartworm (Dirofilaria proactive wildlife health monitoring during periods of relatively high prey immitus), blastomycosis, brucellosis, protocols. Reactive strategies consist of abundance (Peterson and Page 1988). neosporsis, leptospirosis, bovine periodic intensive investigations after However, this cause of mortality does tuberculosis, canine herpesvirus disease or parasite problems have been not result in a level of mortality that (Almberg et al. 2010), canine detected through routine management would significantly affect a wolf coronavirus, viral papillomatosis, practices, such as pelt examination, population’s viability in Wyoming, the hookworm, tapeworm (Echinococcus reports from hunters, research projects, GYA, or the NRM DPS. granulosus) (Foreyt et al. 2008, p. 1), or population monitoring. Proactive In summary, we find that natural lice, sarcoptic mange, coccidiosis, and strategies often involve ongoing routine predation, singularly or in combination canine adenovirus/hepatitis have all investigation of wildlife health with other threats, will not cause the been documented in wild gray wolves, information through collection and Wyoming, the GYA, or the NRM gray but their impacts on future wild wolf analysis of blood and tissue samples wolf populations to be ‘‘likely to populations are not likely to be from all or a sub-sample of wildlife become an endangered species within significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419– carcasses or live animals that are the foreseeable future throughout all or 429; Johnson 1995a, b, pp. 5–73, 1995b, handled. a significant portion of its range.’’ pp. 5–49; Mech and Kurtz 1999, p. 305; Overall, we conclude that diseases or Human-caused Mortality—This Wisconsin Department of Natural changes in disease monitoring, section discusses most sources of Resources 1999, p. 61; Kreeger 2003, pp. singularly or in combination with other human-caused mortality; however, 202–214; Atkinson 2006, pp. 1–7; threats, will not cause the Wyoming, the hunting and trapping are discussed in Almberg et al. 2010, p. 3; Jimenez et al. GYA, or the NRM gray wolf population the ‘‘Commercial and Recreational 2010a, p. 1123; 2010b, p. 332). Canid to become in danger of extinction Uses’’ section of Factor B above and rabies caused local population declines throughout all or a significant portion of potential impacts of human-caused in Alaska (Ballard and Krausman 1997, its range now or in the foreseeable mortality to natural connectivity and p. 242), and may temporarily limit future. gene flow are discussed in the ‘‘Genetic population growth or distribution where Natural Predation—No wild animals Considerations’’ section of Factor E another species, such as arctic foxes routinely prey on gray wolves (Ballard below. As with previous sections, this (Alopex lagopus), act as a reservoir for et al. 2003, pp. 259–260). From 1982 to write-up focuses on Wyoming, because the disease. We have not detected rabies 2004, about 3.1 percent of all known this is the portion of the NRM DPS that in NRM wolves. Range expansion could wolf mortality in the NRM DPS resulted remains listed; however, the provide new avenues for exposure to from interspecific strife (Murray et al. conclusions of the previous delisting several of these diseases, especially 2010, p. 2519). Occasionally wolves and the information supporting this canine heartworm, rabies, bovine have been killed by large prey such as determination are incorporated by tuberculosis, and possibly new diseases elk, deer, bison, and moose (Mech and reference and updated below as such as chronic wasting disease and Nelson 1989, p. 207; Smith et al. 2006, appropriate. West Nile virus, further emphasizing the p. 247; Mech and Peterson 2003, p. 134), Humans kill wolves for a number of need for vigilant disease-monitoring but those instances are few. Since the reasons. For example, some wolves are programs. 1980s, about a dozen YNP wolves have killed to resolve conflicts with livestock Because several of the diseases and died from wounds received while (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 310; Woodroffe et parasites are known to be spread by attacking prey (Smith et al. 2006, p. al. 2005, pp. 86–107, pp. 345–347). wolf-to-wolf contact, their incidence 247). That level of natural mortality Occasionally, wolf killings are may increase if wolf densities increase. does not significantly affect wolf accidental (e.g., wolves are hit by However, because wolf densities are population viability or stability. Since vehicles, mistaken for coyotes and shot, already high and may be peaking NRM wolves have been monitored, only or caught in traps set for other animals) (Service et al. 2012, Table 1, Figure 1), a few wolves have been confirmed (Bangs et al. 2005, p. 346). Other wolf wolf-to-wolf contacts will not likely killed by other large predators. At least killings are intentional, illegal, and are lead to a continuing increase in disease two adults were killed by mountain not reported to authorities. A few prevalence. Most NRM gray wolves will lions, and one pup was killed by a wolves have been killed by people who continue to have exposure to most grizzly bear (Jimenez et al. 2009, p. 76). stated that they believed their physical diseases and parasites in the system. Wolves in the NRM region inhabit the safety was being threatened. The overall However, the impact of disease same areas as mountain lions, grizzly NRM wolf mortality rate of 26 percent outbreaks to the overall NRM wolf bears, and black bears, but conflicts since reintroduction comprises illegal population has been localized and rarely result in the death of either kills (10 percent), control actions to temporary, as has been documented species. Wolves evolved with other resolve conflicts (10 percent), natural elsewhere (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441; large predators, and no other large causes including disease/parasites and Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; Kreeger 2003, predators in North America, except intraspecific strife (3 percent), and pp. 210–211). Diseases or parasites have humans, have the potential to accidental human causes such as not been a significant threat to wolf significantly affect wolf populations. vehicle collisions and capture mortality population recovery to date, and we Other wolves are the largest cause of (3 percent). Eighty percent of the overall have no reason to conclude that they natural predation among wolves. NRM wolf mortalities are human-caused will become a significant threat to the Wherever wolf packs occur, including (Murray et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2010; viability of recovered wolves in the the NRM DPS, some low level of wolf Service et al. 2011, p. 7). While human- foreseeable future. mortality will result from territorial caused mortality, including both illegal In terms of future disease monitoring, conflict. Such intraspecific killing has killing and agency control, has not States have committed to monitor the been noted in newly expanding prevented population recovery, it has NRM wolf population for significant populations or restored populations affected NRM wolf distribution (Bangs disease and parasite problems. State (Fritts and Mech 1981; Wydeven et al. et al. 2004, p. 93), preventing successful wildlife health programs often cooperate 1995; Mech and Boitani 2003; Smith pack establishment and persistence in
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55585
open prairie or high desert habitats spite of these mortality rates, minimum person who is charged by the owner (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 788; Bangs et al. known wolf numbers increased at a rate with the care or management of 2009, p. 107; Service et al. 1989–2012, of around 20 percent annually 1995– livestock or domesticated animals’’ Figure 1). Overall, wolf populations can 2008 (the period when the population (WGFC 2011, p. 22). Wolves killed maintain themselves despite human- was presumed below carrying capacity) under authority of these regulations caused mortality rates of 17 to 48 (Service et al. 2012, Table 4; Smith et al. shall be reported to a WGFD percent, indicating wolf populations are 2010, p. 620; also see Figure 3 above). representative within 72 hours (WGFC quite resilient to moderate human- Since 2008, the NRM population 2011, pp. 22, 31). These regulations are caused mortality, if it is adequately appears to have largely stabilized (see similar to the experimental population regulated (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 182– Figure 3 above). rules in place in Montana and Idaho 184 [22 percent +/¥ 8 percent]; Adams After delisting, human-caused after the population achieved recovery et al. 2008 [29 percent]; Creel and mortality, and its authorization or levels (70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 Rotella 2010 [22 percent]; Sparkman et regulation, will differ in various parts of FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR al. 2011 [25 percent]; Gude et al. 2011 Wyoming. In total, wolves will be 17.84(n)). While in place in Montana [48 percent]; Vucetich and Carroll In managed as game animals year-round or and Idaho, these rules were sufficiently review [17 percent]) protected in about 38,500 km2 (15,000 protective to allow continued As part of the interagency wolf mi2) in northwestern Wyoming (15.2 population expansion (Service et al. monitoring program and various percent of Wyoming), including YNP, 2012, Table 4). Based on our experience research projects, over 20 percent of the Grand Teton National Park, John D. with these similar rules, we expect take NRM wolf population has been Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, related to this issue to be minimal. We monitored since the 1980s (Smith et al. adjacent U.S. Forest Service-designated conclude that these rules will not 2010, p. 620; Murray et al. 2010, p. Wilderness Areas, adjacent public and compromise the State of Wyoming’s 2514; Service et al. 1989–2012, Tables private lands, the National Elk Refuge, ability to meet the agreed-upon 1–5). While it is unclear if these wolves and most of the Wind River Indian population objectives (at least 10 were representative of the entire Reservation. This area is of sufficient breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves population (Atkins 2011, p. 56), this size to support Wyoming population outside YNP and sovereign tribal lands) information is nonetheless informative. targets, under the management regime assuming the State manages for an From 1984 through 2004, annual adult developed for this area. adequate buffer above these minimum survival likely averaged around 75 Within portions of the Trophy Area levels as Wyoming intends to do (WGFC percent, which typically allows wolf under State jurisdiction, wolves will be 2011, p. 24; WGFC 2012, pp. 3–5). population growth (Keith 1983, p. 66; managed by the WGFD as trophy game Fuller et al. 2003, p. 182; Smith et al. animals. ‘‘Trophy game’’ status allows Additionally, Wyoming law (W.S. 23– 2010, p. 620; Murray et al. 2010, p. the WGFC and WGFD to regulate 1–304(n)) states that permits ‘‘shall be 2514). Wolves in the largest blocks of methods of take, hunting seasons, types issued’’ to landowners or livestock remote habitat without livestock, such of allowed take, and numbers of wolves owners in cases where wolves are as central Idaho or YNP, had annual that could be killed. The boundary and harassing, injuring, maiming, or killing survival rates around 80 percent (Smith size of the Trophy Area was established livestock or other domesticated animals, et al. 2006, p. 245; Smith et al. 2010, p. by State statute and cannot be changed and where wolves occupy geographic 620). Wolves outside of large remote through WGFC rule or regulation. The areas where chronic wolf predation areas had survival rates as low as 54 Trophy Area will be seasonally occurs. Importantly, numerous percent in some years (Smith et al. 2006, expanded approximately 80 km (50 mi) safeguards are in place that limit the p. 245; Smith et al. 2010, p. 626); the south (see Figure 3) from October 15 to potential of these permits to highest mortality rates are localized in the last day of February (28th or 29th) meaningfully and detrimentally affect areas we consider largely unsuitable for to facilitate natural dispersal of wolves the population. For example, State pack persistence. between Wyoming and Idaho. During statute requires that permits be issued, Wolf mortality resulting from control this timeframe, the Trophy Area will be and renewed as necessary, in 45-day of problem wolves, which includes legal expanded by approximately 3,300 km2 increments (W.S. 23–1–304(n)), and take by private individuals under (1,300 mi2) (i.e., an additional 1.3 State regulations limit the take defense of property regulations, was percent of Wyoming). Management allowance for each permit to a estimated to remove an average of 10 within the Trophy Area is described maximum of 2 gray wolves, and specify percent of adult radio-collared wolves below, followed by management in that each permit can only apply to a annually since reintroduction, but that other portions of Wyoming. specified limited geographic or legally rate has steadily increased as the wolf After delisting, Wyoming will allow described area (chapter 21, section population has expanded beyond property owners inside the Trophy Area 7(b)(ii)). These requirements ensure suitable habitat and caused increased to immediately kill a wolf doing damage application of this source of take is conflicts with livestock (Service et al. to private property (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, limited in time and geography. 2012, Table 4, 5). Defense of property 4, 22, 30–31, 32). State statute defines Similarly, State regulations indicate that take, authorized by experimental ‘‘doing damage to private property’’ as purported cases of wolf harassment, population rules (Service 1994, pp. ‘‘the actual biting, wounding, grasping, injury, maiming, or killing must be 2:13–14; 59 FR 60252, November 22, or killing of livestock or domesticated verified by the WGFD (chapter 21, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; animal, or chasing, molesting, or section 6(b)). This requirement for 70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR harassing by gray wolves that would WGFD verification will limit potential 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(i) indicate to a reasonable person that abuse for this source of mortality. & (n)), makes up a small percentage of such biting, wounding, grasping, or Regarding the issuance of lethal take these control actions. Specifically, such killing of domesticated animals is likely permits for wolves ‘‘harassing’’ livestock take represented about 7 percent of to occur at any moment’’ (W.S. 23–3– or domestic animals, Wyoming will problem wolves legally removed from 115(c)). These regulations define require that WGFD staff verify that 1995 to 2010 and about 9 percent of ‘‘owner’’ as ‘‘the owner, lessee, wolves were present and involved in such removals from 2008 to 2010. In immediate family, employee, or other activities that would directly indicate an
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55586 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
actual attack was likely; such activity our previous delisting, there was no are not compromised and that recovery must be an immediate precursor to indication that illegal mortality levels is maintained in Wyoming, the GYA, actual biting, wounding, grasping, or increased from those occurring while and across the NRM DPS. killing, such as chasing or molesting wolves were delisted. After delisting, WGFD may also take wolves that (Mead 2012b). Wolves killed under the WGFD law enforcement personnel will displace elk from State-operated authority of a lethal take permit shall be investigate all wolves killed outside the feedgrounds in the Trophy Area if this reported to the WGFD representative framework established by State statute movement by elk results in one of the specified on the permit within 24 hours and WGFC regulations, and appropriate following conflicts: (1) Damage to (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 22–23). law enforcement and legal action will be private stored crops; (2) elk Finally, and most importantly, State taken. We do not expect illegal killing commingling with domestic livestock; law (W.S. 23–1–304(n)) and the will increase after delisting. or (3) displacement of elk from implementing regulations (chapter 21, Within portions of the Trophy Area feedgrounds onto highway rights-of-way section 7(b)(iii)) clarify that existing under State jurisdiction, WGFD may causing human safety concerns (WGFC permits would be cancelled, and also control wolves when it determines 2011, pp. 5, 39–41). While such issuance of new permits would be a wild ungulate herd is experiencing authorizations may cause localized suspended, if the WGFD determines unacceptable impacts or to address impacts, we do not expect population- further lethal control could compromise wolf-ungulate conflicts at State-operated level impacts in Wyoming, the GYA, or the State’s ability to maintain a elk feedgrounds (WGFC 2011, pp. 5, 39– the NRM DPS. Because Wyoming will population of at least 10 breeding pairs 41). As noted by several peer reviewers, consider all forms of wolf mortality and at least 100 wolves in Wyoming it is scientifically challenging to when making ungulate-related wolf outside of YNP and the Wind River conclusively demonstrate that predation control management decisions (WGFC Indian Reservation at the end of the is causing an ungulate population 2011, pp. 21, 23–24), these mortality calendar year. Importantly, the word decline (or what portion of a decline is sources will not compromise the State’s ‘‘could’’ (as opposed to would or will) being caused by predation) because ability to maintain wolf management provides authority for the WGFD to numerous factors typically interact to objectives nor will they compromise manage for a buffer above the minimum cause the impact (Atkins 2011, pp. 67, recovery in Wyoming, the GYA, or the target and limit control from lethal take 85–86). While any decision to remove NRM DPS. permits, if necessary, to maintain an wolves in response to ‘‘unacceptable In the predator area, wolves will adequate minimum buffer. However, the impacts’’ to ungulate populations could experience unlimited human-caused Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf be a normative, values-driven mortality; mortality in this area will be Management Plan explains that the determination (e.g., one party may view monitored through mandatory reporting State law’s mandatory approach to any impact as unacceptable, while within 10 days of the kill (WGFC 2011, issuance of lethal take permits requires others may have extremely high pp. 3, 8, 17, 23, 29). Wolves are unlike that Wyoming’s adaptive management tolerance for impacts), we expect the coyotes, in that wolf behavior and framework limit other discretionary agency will primarily base such reproductive biology have resulted in sources of mortality before it limits this decisions on ungulate herd health. wolves historically being extirpated in source of mortality (WGFC 2012, p. 7). Specifically, Wyoming’s wolf the face of extensive human-caused On the whole, the available information management plan indicates wolf control mortality. As we have previously indicates that Wyoming’s approach to to address unacceptable impacts to wild concluded (71 FR 43410, August 1, lethal take permits may affect ungulates will require a determination 2006; 72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 73 population abundance (particularly at a that wolf predation is a significant factor FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR localized level where wolf-livestock in the population or herd not meeting 15123, April 2, 2009), wolf packs are conflict is high), but that Wyoming has the State population management goals unlikely to persist in portions of instituted sufficient safeguards so that or recruitment levels established for the Wyoming where they are designated as this source of mortality would not population or herd (WGFC 2011, pp. 5, predatory animals. This conclusion was compromise the State’s ability to 39–41). All but 2 of Wyoming’s 35 elk validated in 2008 after our previous maintain a population of at least 10 management units are at or above the delisting became effective and most of breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves State’s numeric objectives for those the wolves in the predator area were in Wyoming outside of YNP and the herds; however, calf/cow ratios in killed within a few weeks of losing the Wind River Indian Reservation at the several herd units are below desired Act’s protection. We expect that wolf end of the calendar year. levels (WGFD 2010, p. 1). Five of the packs in the predator area of Wyoming Some other minor sources of human- State’s ten moose herds are below will not persist. caused mortality may also occur inside objectives (WGFD unpublished data). Despite this anticipated mortality, the the Trophy Area. For example, Wyoming has not yet put forward any portions of Wyoming outside the accidental mortality sometimes occurs proposals to control wolves to address predator area are large enough to from such sources as vehicle collisions. unacceptable impacts to ungulate herds, support Wyoming’s management goals Because these types of mortalities are and we are not aware of any intentions and a recovered wolf population (Figure rare and have little impact on wolf to develop such proposals. While such 1 illustrates wolf pack distribution populations, they were authorized by proposals are possible, it is more likely relative to Wyoming’s Trophy Area). our experimental population rule with Wyoming will consider ungulate herd Our 2009 delisting rule confirmed this little to no impact on wolf populations. health when designing hunting units conclusion, but expressed two concerns Take in self-defense or defense of others and quotas. This approach will allow (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). First, the has been exceedingly rare. We expect them to use hunting (which is a far rule expressed concern that mortality in take from these sources will remain rare cheaper management tool) to address the predator area would be high, and after delisting with little impact on the any perceived issues. Both hunting and this situation would inhibit natural wolf population. projects specifically to address genetic exchange. This issue is While wolves were listed, illegal unacceptable impacts to ungulate herds discussed in the Issues and Responses killing removed an estimated 10 percent (should any occur) will be carefully above and in ‘‘Genetic Considerations’’ of the population annually. Following regulated so that population objectives portion of Factor E below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55587
The second concern expressed in our livestock or dogs, or chasing, molesting, In National Parks units, human- 2009 delisting rule (74 FR 15123, April or harassing by wolves that would caused mortality has been, and is 2, 2009) was that lone wolves, breeding indicate to a reasonable person that expected to continue to be, very rare pairs, or packs from the Trophy Area such biting, wounding, grasping, or because park regulations are very may periodically and temporarily travel killing of livestock or dogs is likely to protective of wildlife with few into the predator area and suffer high occur at any moment (Shoshone and exceptions. Accidental mortality or mortality rates. The 2009 rule Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game defense of life mortality may occur, but concluded that a large predator area Department 2007, p. 8). The plan also as in the rest of Wyoming, we expect ‘‘substantially increases the odds that allows the tribal government to remove these sources of mortality will be these periodic dispersers will not ‘‘wolves of concern’’ (Shoshone and exceedingly rare. Another rare but survive, thus, affecting Wyoming’s wolf Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game potential source of human-caused population’’ (74 FR 15123, April 2, Department 2007, p. 8). ‘‘Wolves of mortality is agency action to remove 2009). We continue to conclude that no concern’’ are defined as wolves that habituated wolves that pose a threat to wolf packs or breeding pairs will persist attack livestock, dogs, or livestock human safety after nonlethal efforts in the predator area of Wyoming and herding and guarding animals once in a have failed to correct the behavior. In that some wolves that primarily occupy calendar year or any domestic animal 2003, YNP developed a plan for the the Trophy Area will be killed when twice in a calendar year (Shoshone and management of habituated wolves (YNP traveling into the predator area. Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game 2003, entire). YNP policies indicate However, Wyoming’s overall Department 2007, p. 8). ‘‘removal of nuisance animals may be management strategy has been improved Criteria to determine when take will undertaken to reduce a threat to public to such an extent that such mortality be initiated are: (1) Evidence of the health or safety’’ (YNP 2003, p. 8). can occur without compromising the attack, (2) reason to believe that Further, management policies (YNP recovered status of the population in additional attacks will occur, (3) no 2003, p. 8) state: ‘‘Where visitor use or Wyoming. evidence of unusual wolf attractants, other human activities cannot be Such losses were a substantial and (4) any animal husbandry practices modified or curtailed, the Service may concern when State law required WGFD previously specified by the Tribes have directly reduce the animal population to aggressively manage the population been implemented (Shoshone and by using several animal population down to minimal levels. However, Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game management techniques * * *.’’ Those Wyoming has removed current statutory Department 2007, p. 8). In situations techniques include ‘‘destruction of mandates for aggressive management with chronic wolf depredation, enrolled animals by National Park Service down to minimum levels. Furthermore, members may acquire written personnel or their authorized agents.’’ Wyoming has agreed to maintain a authorization from the tribes to shoot This is important in YNP because the population of at least 10 breeding pairs wolves on tribal land after at least two unusually high exposure that wolves and at least 100 wolves in areas under separate confirmed depredations by have to people in YNP increases the its jurisdiction. To accomplish this, wolves on livestock, livestock herding likelihood of unpredictable wolf Wyoming intends to maintain an or guarding animals, or dogs, and the behavior (YNP 2003, p. 9). To address adequate buffer above minimum tribes have determined that wolves are such situations, YNP has developed a population objectives to accommodate routinely present and pose a significant management plan that calls for management flexibility and to ensure risk to the owner’s livestock (Shoshone increased public education, monitoring, that uncontrollable sources of mortality and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game aversion conditioning, and, if necessary, do not drop the population below this Department 2007, p. 8). Other forms of wolf removal (YNP 2003, pp. 4, 9–12). minimum population level (WGFC authorized human-caused mortality This approach, endorsed by the Service 2011, p. 24). Collectively, the plan gives include take in defense of human life, in 2003 (YNP 2003, p. 13), is authorized us confidence that unlimited human- take needed to avoid conflicts with by existing experimental population caused mortality in the predator area human activities, incidental take, rules (50 CFR 17.84(i)(3)(v)). will not compromise the recovered accidental take, scientific take, or take status of the Wyoming wolf population. for humane reasons (such as to aid or State, Tribal, and Federal The Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal euthanize sick, injured, or orphaned management in Wyoming provides that Fish and Game Department will manage wolves) (Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal human-caused mortality will not all wolves occurring on the Wind River Fish and Game Department 2007, p. 8). threaten the recovered status of the Indian Reservation according to its These regulations are similar to population. As discussed above, wolf approved wolf management plan (King experimental population rules currently populations have an ample natural 2007; Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal in place on the Wind River Indian resiliency to high levels of human- Fish and Game Department 2007, Reservation (70 FR 1286, January 6, caused mortality, if population levels entire). The plan allows any enrolled 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 and controllable sources of mortality are member on tribal land to shoot a wolf CFR 17.84(n)). This type of take has not adequately regulated. For example, in in the act of attacking livestock or dogs proven a limiting factor for the area. 2009 and in 2011, more than 600 NRM on tribal land, provided the enrolled Furthermore, as stated in our 2007 wolves died each year from all sources member provides evidence of livestock approval letter, suitable habitat on the of mortality (agency control including or dogs recently (less than 24 hours) Wind River Indian Reservation is defense of property, regulated harvest, wounded, harassed, molested, or killed occasionally used by wolves, but is not illegal and accidental killing, and by wolves, and a designated agent is considered essential to maintaining a natural causes), and the population able to confirm that the livestock or recovered wolf population in Wyoming, showed little change (technically, slight dogs were wounded, harassed, and any wolves that establish increases in minimum population levels molested, or killed by wolves (Shoshone themselves on tribal lands will be in were documented each year) (Service et and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game addition to those necessary for al. 2012, tables 4a, 4b). From 1995 to Department 2007, p. 8). ‘‘In the act of management by the State of Wyoming 2008, the NRM wolf population grew by attacking’’ means the actual biting, for maintaining a recovered wolf an average of about 20 percent annually, wounding, grasping, or killing of population (King 2007). even in the face of an average annual
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55588 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
human-caused mortality rate of 23 Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing conserve natural and cultural resources percent (Service et al. 2012, Table 4; Regulatory Mechanisms and the wildlife present within units of Smith et al. 2010, p. 620; also see Figure This section provides an analysis of the National Park System. National Park 3 above). Overall, wolf populations can State, tribal, and Federal regulatory Service management policies require maintain themselves despite human- mechanisms to determine if they are that native species be protected against caused mortality rates of 17 to 48 adequate to maintain the species’ harvest, removal, destruction, percent (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 182–184 recovered status in the absence of the harassment, or harm through human ¥ [22 percent +/ 8 percent]; Adams et al. Act’s protections. By definition, action, although certain parks may 2008 [29 percent]; Creel and Rotella potential threats only require regulation allow some harvest in accordance with 2010 [22 percent]; Sparkman et al. 2011 if they represent a threat in the absence federal law and applicable laws of the [25 percent]; Gude et al. 2011 [48 of regulation. This section focuses on State or States in which a park is located percent]; Vucetich and Carroll In review likely future population levels (National Park Service 2006, pp. 44, 103). No population targets for wolves [17 percent]). anticipated to be maintained, noting will be established for the National that human-caused mortality is the most After delisting, most human-caused Parks. Instead, management emphasis in significant issue influencing these mortality in Wyoming will be similar to National Parks after delisting will focus levels. In short, if human-caused that which occurred under either the on continuing to minimize the human mortality is adequately regulated and 1994 experimental population rules impacts on wolf populations (YNP 2003, population targets are sufficient to allow (now governing most of Wyoming) or pp. 9–12). Thus, because of their for other potential unforeseen or the 2005 experimental population rules responsibility to preserve all native uncontrollable sources of mortality, no (as noted above, hunting is evaluated wildlife, units of the National Park other potential threats are likely to separately under Factor B above) (59 FR System are often the most protective of 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR compromise the population’s viability. wildlife. In the case of the wolf, the 60266, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, This section does not go into detail National Park Service Organic Act and January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, about each individual threat factor or National Park Service policies will 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(i) & (n)), as modified source of mortality. Instead it includes continue to provide protection in 2008, governing management over an overview with a focus on the following Federal delisting for wolves most of Idaho and Montana in recent regulatory mechanism that addresses located within the park boundaries. years. While some allowed take will be each threat factor or source of mortality. Although hunting is currently more liberal (e.g., mortality in the For a more detailed discussion of any allowed for many other game species in predator area), resulting in greater one potential threat, see the supporting the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial overall rates of human-caused mortality discussion under the specific applicable Parkway under the Parkway’s enabling post-delisting, the increase will not Factor (i.e., A, B, C, or E). As with other legislation and Wyoming law, the compromise the State’s ability to factors above, the below analysis National Park Service has indicated a maintain the population above recovery focuses on wolves in Wyoming because ‘‘strong preference that wolves not be levels. All sources of mortality will be only wolves in Wyoming remain listed, hunted in the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. monitored and considered in State however, the conclusions of the Memorial Parkway’’ (Frost and Wessels management decisions. Many sources of previous delisting and the information 2012). Wyoming’s hunting regulations authorized take can be limited, if supporting this determination are are clear that gray wolf hunting would necessary, to keep the population above incorporated by reference. To the extent not occur in the Parkway during the recovery levels (e.g., the State can that management changes have taken 2012 season, although nothing in suspend lethal take permits, agency place, they are discussed in the Wyoming’s regulations or the control actions, or hunting seasons). applicable Factor elsewhere in this rule Wyoming’s wolf management plan Finally, recognizing some mortality will as well as in the Issues and Response would preclude wolves from being occur from uncontrollable sources (e.g., section above. hunted in the Parkway in subsequent National Park Service—Twenty some wolves that primarily occupy the years. Should hunting ever occur in the percent of the currently occupied Trophy Area will be lost when they John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial portions of Wyoming (defined in Factor occasionally travel into the predator Parkway, it would likely be very A above) and 23 percent of areas that are area), Wyoming no longer intends to limited, would be unlikely to noticeably protected or where wolves are regulated aggressively manage the population affect wolf gene flow or connectivity, as game animals occur within a National down toward minimal levels (an and it would be closely coordinated Park (see Figure 1 above). Since 2000, approach we previously indicated was with the National Park Service. the wolf population in YNP ranged from Overall, natural sources of mortality unacceptable), and, in fact, intends to 96 to 174 wolves, and between 6 to 16 (e.g., disease) will occasionally affect maintain an adequate buffer above breeding pairs. While some wolves and wolf populations in National Parks, but, minimum population objectives. some wolf packs also occur in Grand in light of adequate regulation of Collectively, this information indicates Teton National Park and John D. intentional human-caused mortality, that human-caused mortality will be Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, most impacts from these occasional events managed to assure the Wyoming of these wolves and wolf packs usually will be temporary and not threaten the population’s recovered status is not have a portion of their home range in population. compromised. areas under the State of Wyoming’s National Wildlife Refuges—Each unit In summary, we find human-caused jurisdiction; thus, these wolves are only of the National Wildlife Refuge System mortality, singularly or in combination subject to National Park Service was established for specific purposes. with other threats, will not cause the regulation when on National Park The National Elk Refuge was established Wyoming, the GYA, or the NRM gray Service lands. in 1912 as a ‘‘winter game (elk) reserve’’ wolf populations to be ‘‘likely to The National Park Service Organic (37 Stat. 293, 16 U.S.C. 673), and the become an endangered species within Act (16 U.S.C. l et seq.) and the National following year Congress designated the the foreseeable future throughout all or Park Service management policies on area as ‘‘a winter elk refuge’’ (37 Stat. a significant portion of its range.’’ wildlife generally require the agency to 847). In 1921, all lands included in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55589
refuge, or that might be added in the Game Department 2007, entire). Suitable them as permanent wilderness areas. future, were reserved and set apart as habitat on the Wind River Indian This means that individual wilderness ‘‘refuges and breeding grounds for Reservation supports a small wolf study areas are protected from new road birds’’ (Executive Order 3596), which population. While this area sometimes construction by Forest Plans. Therefore, was affirmed in 1922 (Executive Order supports packs, it has not supported a activities such as timber harvest, 3741). In 1927, the refuge was expanded breeding pair. The Wind River Indian mining, and oil and gas development to provide ‘‘for the grazing of, and as a Reservation is not considered essential are much less likely to occur because refuge for, American elk and other big to maintaining a recovered wolf the road networks required for these game animals’’ (44 Stat. 1246, 16 U.S.C. population in Wyoming, and any activities are unavailable. However, 673a). These purposes apply to all or wolves that establish themselves on because these lands are not most of the lands now within the refuge. tribal lands will be in addition to those congressionally protected, they could In accordance with the National necessary for management by the State experience changes in management Wildlife Refuge System Administration of Wyoming for maintaining a recovered prescription with Forest Plan revisions. Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. wolf population (King 2007). This regulatory framework has been 668dd–668ee) by the National Wildlife Forest Service—Federal law indicates adequate to achieve wolf recovery in Refuge System Improvement Act of Forest Service land shall be managed to Wyoming and across the entire NRM 1997, the Service, which manages the provide habitat for fish and wildlife DPS without additional land use National Elk Refuge, recently including wolves and their prey. restrictions. The Forest Service has a announced a notice of intent to prepare Specifically, under the National Forest demonstrated capacity and a proven a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Management Act of 1976, as amended history of providing sufficient habitat the refuge. Comprehensive Conservation (16 U.S.C. 1600–1614), the Forest for wolves and their prey, and the Forest Plans guide management of wildlife and Service shall strive to provide for a Service lands will continue to be their habitats on refuges (75 FR 65370, diversity of plant and animal adequately regulated to provide for the October 22, 2010). This process is communities when managing national needs of wolves and their prey. ongoing. forest lands. Similarly, the Multiple Use While the Forest Service manages and The refuge’s nearly 10,000 hectares and Sustained Yield Act (16 U.S.C. 528) regulates habitat and factors affecting (25,000 acres) provide a winter home for indicates National Forests are to be habitat, the Forest Service typically one of the largest wintering managed for ‘‘wildlife and fish defers to States on hunting decisions (43 concentrations of elk; in addition to the purposes’’ among other purposes, and U.S.C. 1732(b)). The primary exception large elk herds, a free-roaming bison the Federal Land Policy and to this deference is the Forest Service’s herd winters at the refuge (75 FR 65370, Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. authority to identify areas and periods October 22, 2010). Wolves occurring on 1701) says public lands are to be when hunting is not permitted (43 the National Elk Refuge will be ‘‘managed in a manner * * * that will U.S.C. 1732(b)). However, even these monitored, and refuge habitat provide food and habitat for fish and decisions are to be developed in management will maintain an adequate wildlife and domestic animals.’’ consultation with the States. Thus, prey base for them (Service and Wilderness areas are afforded the human-caused mortality and the National Park Service 2007, entire; highest protections of all Forest Service adequacy of the associated regulatory Kallin 2011, pers. comm.; Smith 2007, lands. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 framework are discussed under the pers. comm. as cited by WGFC 2011, p. U.S.C. 1131–1136) states the following: ‘‘State Regulatory Mechanisms’’ section 18; Kallin 2012b). Recreational wolf (1) New or temporary roads cannot be below, as well as ‘‘Commercial and hunting and trapping is not currently built; (2) there can be no use of motor Recreational Uses’’ section of Factor B, authorized and is not anticipated, but vehicles, motorized equipment, or and the ‘‘Human-caused Mortality’’ could be considered in the future motorboats; (3) there can be no landing section of Factor C. (Kallin 2012, pers. comm.). Because of of aircraft; (4) there can be no other form State Regulatory Mechanisms— the relatively small size of the refuge, all of mechanical transport; and (5) no Within portions of the Trophy Area of the wolves and all of the packs that structure or installation may be built. under State jurisdiction, wolves will be occur on the refuge will also spend The following wilderness areas occur in managed as a game animal, which significant amounts of time on adjacent the Trophy Area: All of the Absaroka allows the WGFC and WGFD to regulate U.S. Forest Service lands. Thus, much Beartooth, Fitzpatrick, Gros Ventre, methods of take, hunting seasons, types like Grand Teton National Park, these Jedediah Smith, North Absaroka, of allowed take, and numbers of wolves. wolves are only subject to National Washakie, Teton, and Winegar Hole The boundary and size of the Trophy Wildlife Refuge regulation during the Wilderness Areas as well as the Area and its seasonal expansion, as set small portion of their time spent on the northern half of the Bridger Wilderness forth in the agreement between the National Elk Refuge. Area. Service and the State and reflected in Tribal Lands—Wolves will be Wilderness study areas are designated Wyoming’s revised wolf management managed as game animals on the Wind by Federal land management agencies plan, was established by State statute, River Indian Reservation. The Eastern (e.g., USDA Forest Service) as those which cannot be changed through Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes having wilderness characteristics and WGFC rule or regulation. This area is of govern this area and the Shoshone and being worthy of congressional sufficient size to support Wyoming Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game designation as a wilderness area. The population targets, assuming Department and the Service’s Lander following wilderness study areas occur implementation of Wyoming’s Wyoming Management Assistance in the Trophy Area: The Dubois management plan for this area. In Office manage wildlife occurring on the Badlands, Owl Creek, and Whiskey consideration of, and to address, Service reservation. Wolf management on the Mountain Wilderness Study Areas. concerns about genetics and Wind River Indian Reservation is Individual National Forests that connectivity, Wyoming included a guided by the Service-approved ‘‘Wolf designate wilderness study areas seasonal expansion of the Trophy Area Management Plan for the Wind River manage these areas to maintain their in its management plan. From October Indian Reservation’’ (King 2007; wilderness characteristics until 15 through the end of February, the Shoshone and Arapahoe Tribal Fish and Congress decides whether to designate Trophy Area will expand approximately
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55590 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
80 km (50 mi) south (see Figure 1 gradual to ensure population targets are classified as endangered by the State above). This seasonal expansion will not compromised while the State until March 2005, when the Idaho Fish benefit natural dispersal (for a more gathers information on the vulnerability and Game Commission reclassified the detailed discussion of genetic of wolves under a State management species as a big game animal under the connectivity, see the ‘‘Genetic regime. All sources of mortality will be Idaho Administrative Procedures Act Considerations’’ section of Factor E considered in management decisions (13.01.06.100.01.d). As a big game below). and all forms of regulated take will be animal, State regulations adjust human- Wolves that occur in the remainder of limited in the unlikely event that caused wolf mortality to ensure Wyoming under State jurisdiction will wolves approach minimum recovery recovery levels are exceeded. Title 36 of be classified as predators. Predatory criteria. These will be reflected in all the Idaho statutes has penalties animals are regulated by the Wyoming WGFD and WGFC planning and associated with illegal take of big game Department of Agriculture under title management decisions. animals. These rules are consistent with 11, chapter 6 of the Wyoming Statutes. Wolves taken outside the framework the legislatively adopted Idaho Wolf Under these regulations, wolves in established by State statute and WGFC Conservation and Management Plan predator areas can be killed by anyone regulations will be considered to have (Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight with very few restrictions. As we have been taken illegally and will be Committee 2002) and big game hunting previously concluded (71 FR 43410, investigated by WGFD law enforcement regulations currently in place. The August 1, 2006; 72 FR 6106, February 8, personnel (WGFC 2011, p. 25). Idaho Wolf Conservation and 2007; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; Appropriate law enforcement and legal Management Plan states that wolves 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009), wolf packs action will be taken, which could will be protected against illegal take as are unlikely to survive in portions of include fines, jail terms, and loss of a big game animal under Idaho Code Wyoming where they are designated as hunting privileges (WGFC 2011, p. 25). 36–1402, 36–1404, and 36–202(h). The predatory animals. However, portions We conclude that these measures Idaho Fish and Game Commission outside the predator area are large constitute adequate regulatory determines harvest quotas annually enough to support Wyoming’s mechanisms to address the threat of (specific harvest quotas are discussed in management goals and a recovered wolf illegal killing of wolves. Factor B, and impacts on genetics are population (this issue is discussed In Montana, statutes and discussed in Factor E as well as in the further in the ‘‘Human-caused administrative rules categorize the gray Issues and Responses above). Mortality’’ section of Factor C above as wolf as a ‘‘Species in Need of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming are well as the ‘‘Genetic Considerations’’ Management’’ under the Montana committed to implement wolf portion of Factor E below). Nongame and Endangered Species management in a manner that also Within portions of the Trophy Area Conservation Act of 1973 (MCA 87–5– encourages connectivity among wolf under State jurisdiction, wolves will be 101 to 87–5–123). Montana law defines populations (Groen et al. 2008, entire; managed by the WGFC and the WGFD. ‘‘species in need of management’’ as WGFC 2011, pp. 26–29, 52, 54). This The WGFC will direct the management ‘‘The collection and application of will include limiting human-caused of wolves, and the WGFD will assume biological information for the purposes mortality timing, intensity, and overall management authority of wolves (WGFC of increasing the number of individuals levels as necessary. Both Montana’s and 2011, p. 1). The State of Wyoming has within species and populations of Idaho’s 2009 and 2011 hunts consider a relatively large and well-distributed wildlife up to the optimum carrying and minimize impacts to natural professional game and fish agency that capacity of their habitat and maintain connectivity. As a measure of last resort, has the demonstrated skills and those levels. The term includes the if necessary, the States will implement experience to successfully manage a entire range of activities that constitute agency-managed genetic exchange diversity of resident species, including a modern scientific resource program, (moving individual wolves or their large carnivores. The WGFD and WGFC including, but not limited to research, genes into the affected population are well-qualified to manage a recovered census, law enforcement, habitat segment) (Groen et al. 2008, entire; wolf population. State management of improvement, and education. The term WGFC 2011, pp. 26–29, 52, 54). wolves within the Trophy Area will also includes the periodic or total Genetics is discussed further under follow the classic State-led North protection of species or populations as Factor E below as well as in the Issues American model for wildlife well as regulated taking.’’ Classification and Responses above) management, which has been extremely as a ‘‘Species in Need of Management’’ Overall, the regulatory frameworks of successful at restoring, maintaining, and and the associated administrative rules Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are expanding the distribution of numerous under Montana State law create the adequate and provide that potential populations of other wildlife species, legal mechanism to protect wolves and remnant threats are sufficiently including other large predators, regulate human-caused mortality minimized. Should management needs throughout North America (Geist 2006, (including regulated public harvest) be identified in future years, all three p. 1; Bangs 2008). beyond the immediate defense of life/ States have regulatory authority to Within the Trophy Area, Wyoming property situations. Some illegal modify management to meet such statute (W.S. 23–1–304), regulations human-caused mortality likely still needs; although we did not rely upon (chapter 21, section 4(a)(i)), and its occurs, and is to be prosecuted under this in making our decision, we management plan (WGFC 2011, p. 1) all State law and Commission regulations. recognized all three States have a strong require maintenance of at least 10 Montana’s Fish, Wildlife, and Parks incentive to maintain the NRM DPS and breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves. Commission determine harvest quotas its subpopulations well above minimal To ensure this target is not inadvertently annually (specific harvest quotas are population levels. compromised, Wyoming intends to discussed in Factor B, and impacts on Environmental Protection Agency— maintain an adequate buffer above genetics are discussed in Factor E). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and minimum population objectives (WGFC The Idaho Fish and Game Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) 2011, p. 24; WGFC 2012, pp. 3–5). Commission has authority to classify provides for Federal regulation of Additionally, Wyoming is planning that wildlife under Idaho Code 36–104(b) pesticide distribution, sale, and use. All any future population reduction will be and 36–201. The gray wolf was pesticides distributed or sold in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55591
United States must be registered but these impacts are expected to be affect wolf restoration (Kellert et al. (licensed) by the Environmental minor (few wolf packs are 1996, p. 977; Kellert 1999; p. 167; Protection Agency. Before the transboundary) and can be regulated Zimmermann et al. 2001, p. 137; Enck Environmental Protection Agency may through limits on human-caused and Brown 2002, p. 16; Williams et al. register a pesticide, the applicant must mortality, if necessary. Population 2002, p. 1; Ericsson and Heberlein 2003, show, among other things, that using the reductions in Idaho and Montana are p. 149; Fritts et al. 2003, pp. 289–316; pesticide according to specifications not expected to threaten the Wyoming, Bruskotter et al. 2007, p. 211; Karlsson ‘‘will not generally cause unreasonable the GYA, or the NRM gray wolf and Sjostrom 2007, p. 610; Stronen et al. adverse effects on the environment.’’ No population. Additionally, agency 2007, p. 1; Heberlein and Ericsson 2008, poisons can currently be legally used to capacity and past practice with wolves p. 391; Bruskotter et al. 2009, p. 119; poison wolves in the United States and other game species provide Wilson and Bruskotter 2009, p. 353; because of Environmental Protection confidence that minimum management Bruskotter et al. 2010a, p. 941; Agency restrictions. However, sodium targets will always be met or exceeded. Bruskotter et al. 2010b, p. 30; Houston cyanide (used only in M–44 devices) Finally, the threat of relisting provides et al. 2010, p. 2; Treves and Martin and Compound 1080 (sodium additional certainty the objectives will 2010, p. 1; Treves et al. 2009, p. 2; for fluoroacetate used only in livestock not be compromised, although we did additional references see Service 1994, protection collars) are legal toxicants for not rely on this fact in reaching our appendix 3; 76 FR 81666, December 28, use on other non-wolf canids. Sodium conclusion. 2011). cyanide was reregistered for use in M– In summary, we find existing These public attitudes began to shift 44 devices in 1994 (Environmental regulatory mechanisms adequate and in the mid-20th century because of Protection Agency 1994, entire). conclude that this issue, singularly or in increased urbanization and increasing Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) combination with other threats, will not national concerns about environmental was registered for use in livestock cause the Wyoming, the GYA, or the issues. However, huge decreases in wolf protection collars in 1995 NRM gray wolf populations to be ‘‘likely abundance due to wolf extirpation in (Environmental Protection Agency 1995, to become an endangered species within the last century, lack of first-hand entire). The Large Gas or Denning the foreseeable future throughout all or experience with wolves and the damage Cartridge was registered for use in 2007 a significant portion of its range.’’ they can cause, and increasing urbanization have resulted in most (Environmental Protection Agency 2007, Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Americans holding favorable attitudes entire). Although gas cartridges are Factors Affecting Its Continued toward wolves and wolf restoration beginning the reregistration process, we Existence do not expect the product will be (Williams et al. 2002; Atkins 2011, p. approved for use on wolves. This section discusses public 71). These same societal shifts in human All three products have label attitudes toward wolves, genetics, attitudes have also occurred in other restrictions imposed by the poison, climate change, catastrophic parts of the world (Boitani 2003, p. 321). Environmental Protection Agency events, and potential impacts of human- The huge shift in human attitudes and consistent with a Service 1993 caused mortality to pack structure. As the resulting treatment of wolves Biological Opinion to protect with previous sections, this write-up compared to 100 years ago is evident by endangered species (Environmental focuses on Wyoming because this is the the shift in policies throughout North Protection Agency 1994, p. 4; portion of the NRM DPS that remains America and other parts of the world Environmental Protection Agency 1995, listed; however, the conclusions of the from extirpation to restoration (Boitani pp. 27, 32–38). It is a violation of previous delisting and the information 2003, pp. 322–323; Boitani and Ciucci Federal law to use a pesticide in a supporting this determination are 2010, pp. 19–21). Today, a majority of manner inconsistent with its labeling, incorporated by reference and updated Americans view wolves favorably for a and the courts consider a label to be a below as appropriate. multitude of reasons, and many legal document (Environmental Public Attitudes Toward the Gray members of the public now consider it Protection Agency 2011, p. 1). The Wolf—Human attitudes toward wolves appropriate to reverse wolf extirpation, Environmental Protection Agency’s were the main reason the wolf was a perceived historic wrong (Houston et regulation of these and other toxicants listed under the Act because those al. 2010, p. 27). has been adequate to prevent any attitudes resulted in Federal, State, and Despite the variety of opinions, there meaningful impacts to wolf populations local governments promoting wolf is little published research on what in Wyoming, the GYA, or the NRM DPS. extirpation by whatever means possible, factors increase human tolerance of These restrictions constitute an including widespread poisoning, even wolves and how those translate into adequate regulatory mechanism of this in National Parks (see also Poisoning conservation success by preventing potential issue. section below). Those attitudes were excessive rates of human-caused Collectively, the above regulatory largely based on the real and perceived mortality (Bath and Buchanan 1989; framework is adequate to maintain conflicts between humans and wolves, Williams et al. 2002; Ericsson et al. recovered wolf populations and to primarily in the context of livestock 2004; Fritts et al. 2003). The groups prevent relisting. These regulations depredation, hunting of ungulates, and most supportive of wolf conservation protect wolf populations (in the case of concerns for human safety. are often members of environmental the National Park Service) or manage Public hostility toward wolves led to organizations and urban residents. them adequately above population the government-sanctioned persecution These individuals often view wolf targets so that potential unforeseen or that extirpated the species from the reintroduction as restoring an ecological uncontrollable sources of mortality do NRM DPS in the 1930s. Negative balance. However, favorable attitudes not compromise population targets. attitudes toward wolves remain deeply toward wolves frequently decrease as While no wolves are expected to persist ingrained in some individuals and people experience, or think they might in the predator area, this area is not continue to affect human tolerance of soon experience, living with wolves necessary for wolf conservation in wolves. Many papers have addressed (Houston et al. 2010, p. 1). Wyoming. Impacts could also occur in the concept of recent human tolerance Typically, the groups most likely to adjacent portions of Montana and Idaho, of wolves and how those attitudes might oppose wolf recovery are livestock
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55592 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
producers, hunters, and rural residents et al. 2004, p. 102; Bangs et al. 2009, pp. the beginning of restoration efforts. within or near potential wolf habitat. 112–113). We anticipate this approach Likewise, the Canadian Provinces These individuals face a higher will continue to benefit public attitudes restored wolf populations throughout probability of directly suffering after delisting. large portions of their historical range competition or damage from wolves. Additionally, hunters’ perceptions of by ‘‘harvesting’’ them back to fully Numerous public attitudes surveys wolves improve when opportunity for recovered levels (Pletscher et al. 1991, indicate human attitudes toward wolves hunting is allowed (Idaho Department of p. 545). In 2009 and 2010, Sweden used improve when there is local Fish and Game 2007, pp. 51, 55–56, 64– hunters to cap the population at 220 participation in wildlife management 65). Idaho Department of Fish and Game wolves, in part, to promote public through regulated harvest and defense and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks tolerance for wolf restoration (Liberg of life and property regulations. Surveys biologists (Dickson 2010; Maurier 2010; 2009, pers. comm.; Furuholm 2011, also show improvement in attitudes Idaho Department of Fish and Game pers. comm.). when people can pursue traditional 2007, pp. 43–47) reported that many big We conclude that public tolerance of activities, like hunting and grazing, game hunters coming through wolves will improve as wolves are without restrictions (For references see mandatory hunter check stations in delisted, local residents begin to play a Service 1994, appendix 3; Williams et 2008 were extremely agitated and angry role in managing wolf populations, and al. 2002; Idaho Department of Fish and about wolves. In 2009, when wolves hunters start to see wolves as a trophy Game 2007; Houston et al. 2010; 76 FR were delisted and there was a fair-chase animal with value. This process has 81666, December 28, 2011). Wolf hunting season, few hunters already begun in other delisted areas; conservation can be successful even in complained. In 2010, when the court however, it will likely take time for this areas with relatively high human order had relisted wolves, local increased control over the resource and density, if management policies factor- frustration and negative opinions about the related sense of ownership to in human concerns (Linnell et al. 2001, wolves erupted to previously translate into tangible benefits in p. 345). unforeseen levels. Hunters and most improved public opinion and less A 1994 Environmental Impact hunter organizations were again very extreme rhetoric. Public acceptance is Statement’s summary of human values upset and frustrated; some went as far highest where wolves did not disappear surveys (Service 1994, appendix 3) as to call for illegal killing by shooting, and where wolf populations are found that the overriding concern of and a few even called for poisoning typically healthy (or perhaps just with those living with wolves is the financial wolves. much longer periods of exposure to and emotional loss that occurs when Similarly, in Wisconsin in 2006 wolves) (Houston et al. 2010, pp. 19– wolves kill livestock. Further (before wolves were delisted for 19 20). However, it has not been illustrating the connection between months in 2007–2008), 17 illegal kills determined whether this is due more to financial cost/benefit and attitudes, one were discovered, including 9 killed increased knowledge and experience survey found Alaskan trappers (who during the 9-day firearm deer season. dealing with wolves or relaxed local legally harvest wolves for their pelts) When wolves were delisted in 2007 and management policies (including liberal had the most accurate knowledge of lethal control of problem wolves was public harvest and defense of property wolves and viewed wolves the most allowed by the State, known and regulations) to address local conflicts. favorably (Kellert 1985). Toward this documented illegal kills decreased to 11 The State of Wyoming has developed end, compensation programs for wolf- overall with only 1 during the firearm a strategy that will not only provide for livestock depredations may have deer season, and 5 of these were deemed wolf recovery, but also allow benefited attitudes toward wolves. to be accidental shootings outside of consideration of the diverse opinions Wyoming intends to continue such regular wolf range. Notably, the wolf and attitudes of its citizens. Wyoming’s programs in the trophy game portions of population steadily increased plan promotes wolf occupancy of the State (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 31). throughout this period (Wydeven et al. suitable habitat in a manner that Allowing landowners to defend their 2010, Figure 3). Although the small minimizes damage to private property, property may have also ameliorated sample size does not allow any firm allows for continuation of traditional some of the concern related to potential conclusions, this example illustrates western land-uses such as grazing and wolf-livestock conflicts. For example, that local human tolerance of wolves is hunting, and allows for direct citizen from 1995 through 2004, the highest rate an important factor in long term wolf participation in, and funding for, State of illegal killing occurred in conservation. Keeping a large, recovered wolf management (in the form of State northwestern Montana, where wolves wolf population listed under the Act defense of property and hunting were listed as endangered and legal fuels negative attitudes rather than regulations). With the continued help of protection was highest, compared to resolves them (Bangs et al. 2009, pp. private conservation organizations, central Idaho and the GYA, where 112–113). Wyoming and the Tribes will continue wolves were managed under more Regulated public harvest has also to foster public support to maintain a liberal nonessential experimental been successfully used for a host of recovered wolf population. The WGFD population regulations. However, the other species to garner local public has staff dedicated to providing accurate difference in habitat security might also tolerance for restoration efforts (Geist and science-based public education, explain the differences in rates of 2006, p. 285). The success of this information, and outreach (WGFC 2011, human-caused mortality (Smith et al. approach is illustrated by the pp. 41–42). Wyoming’s comprehensive 2010, p. 630). Upon delisting, Wyoming conservation of mountain lions and approach to wolf management provides intends to implement regulations black bears, which were also once us with confidence that human attitudes similar to our experimental population persecuted throughout most of North toward wolves should not again regulations within the Trophy Area. America. These species were recovered threaten wolves in Wyoming. State management provides a larger and by State and tribal game and fish As noted above, wolf conservation has more effective local organization and a agencies and hunters with much less the potential to be affected by the degree more familiar means for dealing with controversy than the recovery of wolves. of human tolerance for wolves (Boitiani these conflicts (Mech 1995, pp. 275– The recovery of those other species 2003, p. 317; Fritts et al. 2003, p. 289). 276; Williams et al. 2002, p. 582; Bangs included regulated public harvest from We expect that State management will
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55593
improve tolerance of wolves because the numbers, density, or presence of other of dispersing wolves reproduce (Jimenez public appreciates increased State wolves (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 11– et al. In review, p. 12). Because a wolf control (less Federal control), and 180; Jimenez et al. In review, p. 14). generation is approximately 4 years, increased management flexibility, As a general rule, genetic exchange of dispersal data indicate that more than including hunting. When one considers at least one effective migrant (i.e., a one effective migrant per generation has that current human attitudes were breeding migrant that passes on its likely entered into the GYA wolf sufficient to achieve wolf restoration, genes) per generation is viewed as population. Specifically, these data and that we expect State management to sufficient to prevent the loss of alleles indicate we may have averaged around improve these attitudes, we conclude and minimize loss of heterozygosity one-and-a-half effective migrants into that public attitudes are no longer a within subpopulations (Mills and the GYA per generation since threat to wolves’ recovered status in Allendorf 1996, entire; Wang 2004, reintroduction, with a large portion of Wyoming. entire; Mills 2007, p. 193). This level of this dispersal occurring in recent years. Furthermore, to the extent any impact gene flow allows for local evolutionary Genetics data have only been from human tolerance (or lack thereof) adaptation while minimizing negative analyzed from 1995 to 2004 when the is realized, it will affect human-caused effects of genetic drift and inbreeding NRM gray wolf population was between mortality. Wyoming’s plan provides depression. While higher levels of 101 and 846 wolves (including a assurance that human-caused mortality genetic exchange may be beneficial minimum population estimate of 14 to will be adequately regulated so that (note the ‘‘at least’’ in the above 452 wolves in central Idaho) and still recovery is not compromised. Thus, we standard), we conclude that a minimum growing (average 27 percent annual conclude that human attitudes are no of one effective migrant per generation growth rate). During this period, the longer a threat to the gray wolf is a reasonable and acceptable goal to NRM region demonstrated a minimum population’s recovered status in avoid any degradation in the NRM of 3.3 to 5.4 effective migrants per Wyoming. DPS’s current levels of genetic diversity. generation among the three Genetic Considerations—Overall, The northwestern Montana and central subpopulations (vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. NRM wolves are as genetically diverse Idaho core recovery areas are well- 4412). Within this range, the 3.3 as their vast, secure, healthy, connected to each other and to large effective migrants per generation reflect contiguous, and connected populations wolf populations in Canada through natural dispersal, while the 5.4 effective in Canada (Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. dispersal (Boyd et al. 1995, p. 136; Boyd migrants per generation include human- 1089; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19; and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1100–1101; assisted migration (Stahler 2011). vonHoldt et al. 2010, pp. 4412, 4416– Hebblewhite et al. 2010, p. 4383; Within the GYA, natural dispersal data 4421) and, thus, genetic diversity is not vonHoldt et al. 2010, pp. 4422–4423; demonstrates that six wolves in four a wolf conservation issue anywhere in Jimenez et al. In review, p. 23). packs appear to have descended from the NRM DPS at this time (Hebblewhite The GYA is the most isolated core one central Idaho disperser (the 2002 et al. 2010, p. 4383; vonHoldt et al. recovery area within the NRM DPS disperser discussed in the above 2010, pp. 4412, 4416, 4421). This (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 554; vonHoldt et paragraph who was the breeding male of current genetic health is the result of al. 2007, p. 19). From 1992 to 2008, we the Greybull pack near Meeteetse, deliberate management actions by the documented five radio-collared wolves Wyoming) (vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. Service and its cooperators since 1995 naturally entering the GYA, two of 4412, Supporting Table S5; Stahler (Bradley et al. 2005, p. 1504). which are confirmed to have bred 2011). These data demonstrate a Furthermore, genetic data collected (Jimenez et al. In review, p. 23). The minimum of 0.42 natural effective from 1995 to 2004 demonstrate that all first wolf dispersed from northwestern migrants entering the GYA per subpopulations within the NRM DPS Montana to the eastern side of the GYA generation from 1995 to 2004 (Stahler maintained high genetic diversity in 1992 when only 41 wolves and 4 2011). Because only about 30 percent of during the first 10 years after breeding pairs were in the region the NRM wolf population was sampled, reintroduction (Hebblewhite et al. 2010, (Pletscher et al. 1997, p. 464). This wolf the minimum estimate of effective p. 4384; vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. 4423). did not breed because it dispersed migrants per generation was likely a Genetic diversity has likely changed before the 1995–1996 reintroductions significant underestimate (Hebblewhite little since 2004. Below we analyze and there were no other wolves present et al. 2010, p. 4384; vonHoldt et al. whether genetics will become a threat to in the GYA. In 2002, a central Idaho 2010, pp. 4422–4423; Stahler 2011). wolves in Wyoming, the GYA, or the wolf dispersed to the eastern side of the While additional analysis may be NRM region within the foreseeable GYA and became the breeding male of needed to determine how much of an future. the Greybull pack near Meeteetse, underestimate this represents (Stahler Wolves have an unusual ability to Wyoming. In 2006, another central 2011), Hebblewhite et al. (2010, p. 4384) rapidly disperse long distances across Idaho wolf dispersed to the northern suggest this estimate is ‘‘almost virtually any habitat and select mates to edge of the GYA (south of Bozeman, certainly low by at least half.’’ maximize genetic diversity. Only Montana); it is unknown if this wolf Both of the above information sources extremely large bodies of water or vast bred. In 2007, two wolves from central (documented dispersal rates from 1992 deserts appear to restrict wolf dispersal Idaho dispersed to the eastern side of to 2008 and genetic analysis from 1995 (Linnell et al. 2005). Wolves are among GYA. One of these dispersers joined a to 2004) indicate acceptable levels of the least likely species to be affected by pack near Dubois, Wyoming; its effective migration occurred when the inbreeding when compared to nearly reproductive status is unknown. The population was between 101 and 846 any other species of land mammal other 2007 disperser joined a pack near wolves and have likely been exceeded at (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 189–190; Paquet Sunlight Basin, Wyoming, and bred. higher population levels. However, et al. 2006, p. 3; Liberg 2008). Wolves Because only 20 to 30 percent of the numerous factors that contributed to avoid inbreeding by dispersing to find NRM wolf population has been radio- these levels of gene flow while the unrelated mates (Bensch et al. 2006, p. collared, it is reasonable to assume species was listed will differ after 72; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 1). This several times the documented number delisting. For example, after delisting social pattern is a basic function of wolf of radio-collared wolves likely entered the population will no longer be populations and occurs regardless of the the GYA. On average, about 35 percent growing, the population will likely go
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55594 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
through a period reduction before Furthermore, while these data could be around 1,000 wolves across the NRM leveling off, and management will likely used to model likely future effective DPS). Overall, conclude that State result in higher mortality rates for both migration, natural changes to the wolf management of population levels alone dispersers and resident wolves. Thus, population and post-delisting is unlikely to reduce the overall rate of past dispersal data is unlikely to be an management across the NRM region will natural dispersal enough to threaten exact predictor of future effective affect these variables and affect the adequate levels of effective migration. migration rates. Below we discuss resulting projections. Below we discuss Human-caused wolf mortality is factors likely to influence future factors that are likely to change these another key factor in determining effective migration after delisting. variables in future years. whether dispersers become effective A more detailed look at dispersal Several geographic and biological (i.e., a breeding migrant that passes on data, although reflective of the situation factors influence migration in the GYA. its genes). In short, wolves must be able while wolves were listed, may provide For example, physical barriers (such as to traverse suitable and unsuitable insights into likely dispersal after high-elevation mountain ranges that are habitat between the key recovery areas delisting. NRM gray wolf dispersal data difficult to traverse in winter) appeared and survive long enough to find a mate from 1995 to 2008 indicated that: to discourage dispersal through Grand in suitable habitat and reproduce. While Wolves routinely dispersed at all Teton National Park’s western managed under the Act, dispersers had population levels and from packs of all boundary. Because most wolves a 70 percent survival rate. However, sizes (greater than 10 percent of the disperse in winter, they tended to travel State and Tribal wolf management is radio-collared wolf population through low-elevation valleys where likely to reduce survival of dispersing dispersed annually); some dispersers wild prey concentrations were highest wolves. Across the NRM DPS, we expect moved long distances despite the due to lower snow depths. To date, the mortality rates to increase after delisting occurrence of empty suitable habitat high density and reproductive output of due to hunting, more liberal defense of nearby (23 percent of these dispersers wolves in YNP have created a property allowances (than under traveled greater than or equal to 100 unidirectional flow of effective previous experimental population miles, a distance that separates dispersers leaving but not entering the rules), and, in Wyoming, control of routinely occupied areas in the GYA Park’s wolf population (note, we have wolves on State-managed elk feeding and central Idaho); wolves dispersed in few data regarding whether wolves grounds and some impacts to dispersers all directions (19 percent of dispersers traveled through the park) (vonHoldt et in the predator area of the State. traveled east as would be necessary to al. 2007, p. 270; vonHoldt et al. 2010, As noted above, wolves can maintain get from central Idaho to the GYA); p. 4413; Wayne and Hedrick 2010). This themselves despite human-caused dispersal occurred year round, but is because young dispersing wolves seek mortality rates of 17 to 48 percent peaked in winter (more than half of all to establish territories in less saturated (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 182–184 [22 dispersal occurred in the 4 months of habitats, and wolves from outside YNP percent +/¥ 8 percent]; Adams et al. November through February); dispersal are unable to establish residency inside 2008 [29 percent]; Creel and Rotella was a long, meandering process areas that appear saturated. This does 2010 [22 percent]; Sparkman et al. 2011 (dispersal events averaged 5.5 months); not mean wolves were precluded from [25 percent]; Gude et al. 2011 [48 disperser survival rates were lower than traveling through the park. Long term, percent]; Vucetich and Carroll In review for resident wolves (70 versus 80 we expect that, at lower YNP population [17 percent]). Because States intend to percent); and 35 percent of dispersing densities, wolves from outside YNP will initially reduce wolf populations and wolves reproduced (Jimenez et al. In be increasingly successful at dispersing ultimately maintain level wolf review, pp. 9–12). into and through YNP. populations in balance with prey It should be noted that the above Population levels across the NRM populations and reduce livestock estimates could over- or under estimate DPS could affect natural rates of gene conflicts, it seems reasonable to assume actual percentages depending on flow. For example, because a small that there will be high mortality across various factors related to the portion of wolves disperse annually the entire region for the next several representativeness of the available data. (perhaps between 10 and 30 percent years, but that the population will For example, the estimate that 10 (Adams et al. 2008, Table 4; Atkins stabilize at a sustainable level over the percent of the wolf population disperses 2011, p. 56; Jimenez et al. In review)), long term. annually may be an underestimate of an Idaho wolf population of 350 to 550 The management approaches of all the real number because yearlings and wolves long term (a range that is three NRM States take into account and 2-year-olds in some areas have a higher realistic long term) will produce many limit hunting impacts during important dispersal rate than older wolves (Adams more dispersers than a population dispersal periods, including the et al. 2008, Table 4), but may be closer to minimum recovery targets. breeding, denning, and pup-rearing underrepresented in the radio-collared While the wolf population will probably periods (late winter through early fall). wolf sample (Jimenez et al. In review, p. be reduced after delisting, all three Long term, across Montana, Idaho, and 10). Mech and Boitani (2003, p. 170) States in the NRM region plan to Wyoming, most hunting-related summarized North American wolf manage wolf populations comfortably mortality will occur from October to studies that suggested lone dispersing above minimum recovery levels to allow December when big game seasons are wolves comprised 10 to 15 percent of for wolf hunting opportunities, in scheduled and most big game hunters wolf populations in winter. Adams et al. anticipation of uncontrollable sources of are in the field. In 2009 in Montana, 78 (2008, Table 4) estimated dispersal rates mortality, and to provide that relisting percent of harvested wolves were for yearlings, 2-year-olds, and older does not occur. Based on the available opportunistically harvested by hunters Alaskan wolves as being 61 percent, 35 suitable habitat including remote or who were primarily hunting elk, deer, percent, and 11 percent, respectively; protected areas, management direction or both (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Adams suggested a dispersal rate being employed or planned by the Parks 2009, p. 3). In both 2009 and around 30 percent may be more likely States, and State projections, we 2011, Montana’s wolf seasons were for NRM wolves given our data’s bias conclude that the overall NRM scheduled to run through the end of toward older adults (Atkins 2011, p. 56; population is likely to be maintained December, or when quotas were met Jimenez et al. In review, p. 10). well above recovery levels (perhaps (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2011,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55595
entire). In 2009, Idaho’s wolf season was losing the Act’s protection. However, maintain, and improve linkage of open until December 31st or until the roaming dispersers will be less prone to wildlife movement areas between the quota was met, but was extended removal than resident packs, whose large blocks of public land in the region through the end of March for all units locations and ranges are easily detected. is ongoing (Servheen et al. 2003, p. 3). that did not meet their quotas. The 2009 In total, wolves will be protected or This interagency effort involves 9 State hunting season was not extended in any managed as game animals year-round in and Federal agencies working on areas important for dispersal. In 2011, about 38,500 km2 (15,000 mi2) (15.2 linkage facilitation across private lands, Idaho’s wolf hunting season ran through percent of Wyoming) in northwestern public lands, and highways (Interagency March for most units, but ends Wyoming, including YNP, Grand Teton Grizzly Bear Committee 2001, pp. 1–2; December 31st for those areas thought National Park, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Brown 2006, pp. 1–3). Key partners important for dispersal (i.e., the Memorial Parkway, adjacent U.S. Forest include the Forest Service, National Beaverhead and Island Park units) Service-designated Wilderness Areas, Park Service, Bureau of Land (Idaho Fish and Game Commission adjacent public and private lands, the Management, U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, entire). During the 2012–2013 National Elk Refuge, and the Wind River and the States of Idaho, Montana, hunting season, these units will remain Indian Reservation. The permanent Washington, and Wyoming. To date, open until January 31st. Closing hunting Trophy Area incorporates nearly all of this effort has included: (1) in these units earlier than other units is Wyoming’s current wolf packs and Development of a written protocol and consistent with States’ commitments to includes the vast majority of the State’s guidance document on how to preserve genetic diversity by ensuring suitable habitat. Additionally, the implement linkage zone management on the continuation of natural dispersal Trophy Area will be seasonally public lands (Public Lands Linkage among the subpopulations through expanded approximately 80 km (50 mi) Wildlife Taskforce 2004, pp. 3–5); (2) effective management of the timing and south along the western border of production of several private land location of human-caused mortality Wyoming (see Figure 1 above) from linkage management documents (Groen et al. 2008, entire). While October 15 to the end of February (28th (Service 1997; Parker and Parker 2002, increased human-caused mortality, or 29th). During this period of peak p. 2); (3) analyses of linkage zone particularly hunting and trapping, is dispersal, the Trophy Area will be management in relation to highways 2 expected to continue across much of the expanded by approximately 3,300 km (Geodata Services Inc. 2005, p. 2; Waller 2 NRM DPS in the coming years as States (1,300 mi ) (i.e., an additional 1.3 and Servheen 2005, p. 998); and (4) pursue population reductions, we percent of Wyoming). Maintenance of periodic workshops discussing expect the need for such long seasons genetic exchange and connectivity were implementation of management actions will dwindle once desired reductions the primary considerations in for wildlife linkage. The objective of this are achieved. Other sources of human- Wyoming’s agreement to increase work is to maintain and enhance caused mortality, such as State control protection for wolves within this area movement opportunities for all wildlife of problem wolves, is limited to recent during winter months. This seasonal species across the region. Although this depredation events, which are expansion will benefit natural dispersal. linkage work is not directly associated Within the Trophy Area, Wyoming uncommon during peak dispersal with the wolf population, it will benefit may also control wolves to address periods. wolves after delisting. The State of Wyoming has indicated wolf-ungulate conflicts at State-operated that its hunting seasons will occur elk feeding grounds (WGFC 2011, pp. 5, Wyoming’s gray wolf management primarily in conjunction with fall 39–41). Wyoming maintains 22 winter regulations indicate the State is hunting seasons, but may be extended elk feeding grounds including 10 within committed to managing gray wolves in beyond that period, if necessary, to the permanent Trophy Area, 3 within Wyoming so that genetic diversity and achieve management objectives (WGFC the seasonal Trophy Area, and 9 within connectivity issues do not threaten the 2011, pp. 2–3, 16, 25, 53). Wyoming will the permanent predator area. These population (chapter 21, section 4(a)(ii)). develop a hunting plan each year that areas attract and frequently hold These regulations state that this will take into consideration, but will not dispersing wolves. Many dispersing commitment would be accomplished by be limited to, the following: Wolf wolves in Wyoming, and several encouraging effective migrants into the breeding seasons; short- and long-range established packs, include elk feed population in accordance with the dispersal opportunity, survival, and grounds as part of their winter home Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan success in forming new or joining range. As noted above, within the (chapter 21, section 4(a)(ii)). The existing packs; conflicts with livestock; predator area, take would occur without Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf and the broader game management limit. Within the Trophy Area, WGFD Management Plan indicates the WGFD responsibilities related to ungulates and may take wolves that displace elk from would strive for a minimum genetic other wildlife (WGFC 2011, pp. 2–3, 16, feeding grounds in the Trophy Area if target of ∼1 effective migrant per 25, 53). such displacement results in one of the generation (WGFC 2012, pp. 6¥7). In Wyoming, survival of dispersing following conflicts: (1) Elk damage to Wyoming, in coordination with wolves will also be reduced in portions private stored crops; (2) elk Montana and Idaho, has agreed to of the State where wolves will be commingling with domestic livestock; collect genetic samples continuously, classified as predators. In the predator or (3) elk displaced from feeding and test the samples every 3 to 5 years area, human-caused mortality will be grounds moving onto highway rights-of- to search for dispersers and their unlimited; therefore, wolf survival rates way and causing human safety offspring as well as to detect losses in will decline. This finding is consistent concerns. Such take will likely further heterozygosity and changes in allele with past Service findings (71 FR 43410, reduce survival of dispersing wolves frequency (WGFC 2011, pp. 26–29). August 1, 2006; 72 FR 6106, February 8, (WGFC 2011, pp. 5, 39–41). Success in achieving the objective of 2007; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; Generally, genetic connectivity across one effective migrant per generation will 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009), and was the NRM DPS has increased with time, be measured over multiple generations validated in 2008 when most of the and it will remain a high-priority issue (WGFC 2011, pp. 26–29). If this wolves in the predator area were killed for the Service and our partner wildlife minimum target is not achieved, the within a few weeks of temporarily agencies. Processes to identify, WGFD would first consider changes to
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55596 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the monitoring program, if the increased State will maintain a population above professional judgment, even if no new monitoring is likely to overcome the 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs on genes entered into the GYA (a near failure to document the desired level of lands under State jurisdiction and, in impossibility), genetic diversity is likely gene flow (WGFC 2012, p. 6). most years, will maintain a healthy many decades, and perhaps a century or If the WGFD determines increased buffer above this minimum population more, away from becoming an issue and monitoring is unlikely to document level. The wolf population in YNP has even then, it would be unlikely to adequate levels of genetic interchange, ranged from 96 to 174 wolves since threaten the GYA population. or it determines that sufficient 2000. However, the YNP wolf Poison—Poisoning is a potentially interchange is not occurring regardless population appears to be declining significant factor in maintenance of the of monitoring efforts, it would alter toward a long term equilibrium around wolf population because it can be an management, including reducing the lower end of this range (Service et effective and inexpensive method to kill mortality quotas in dispersal corridors al. 2000–2012, Table 2; Smith 2012). In wolves. Wolf extirpation in the United or reducing total mortality quotas over Montana’s share of the GYA, minimum States and many other areas of the a series of years to increase the population estimates have ranged from world occurred primarily through probability that migrants into the 55 to 130 wolves since recovery was extensive use of poisons. Wolf population survive and reproduce achieved in 2002 (Service et al. 2003– populations began to recover in many (WGFC 2012, pp. 6–7). Outside experts 2012, Table 1b). During this period, the areas only when certain poisons were will be consulted, as necessary or GYA constituted between 20 to 42 banned, despite continued human- appropriate, to assist in identifying percent of Montana’s statewide wolf caused mortality by shooting and appropriate changes to regional population estimate. At the end of 2010, trapping (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 311; Fuller management. Specifically, Wyoming this area included a minimum et al. 2003, pp. 162–163, 189; Boitani will: (1) Conduct an evaluation of all population estimate of 118 wolves. 2003, p. 329). Poison was once sources of mortality, in coordination Montana’s planned quota for this area in commonly used by Federal and State with other partners as appropriate, with the 2011 hunting season was 43 wolves, agencies and the public throughout the a focus on those within Wyoming’s and 39 wolves were actually taken, western United States for control of jurisdiction (and the jurisdiction of which appears to have allowed the coyotes and other predators. However, other partners, as appropriate), to population in this area to grow (by many poisons (such as strychnine, determine which sources of mortality, about 18 percent). In Idaho’s share of Compound 1080, cyanide, and other and the extent to which those sources, the GYA, minimum population toxins) for predatory animal are most meaningfully affecting genetic estimates have ranged from 0 to 40 management were banned or their use connectivity; and (2) modify population wolves since recovery was achieved in severely limited (Executive Order management objectives, in coordination 2002 (Service et al. 2003–2012, Table 2). 11643; Fagerstone et al. 2004). Today, no poisons can legally be used with other partners, as appropriate, At the end of 2010, this area included against wolves in the United States based on the above evaluation, as a minimum population estimate of 40 because of Environmental Protection necessary, to achieve the desired level wolves. Idaho’s planned 2011 hunt Agency restrictions (described above). of gene flow (WGFC 2011, pp. 26–29). includes a quota of 30 wolves in this While steps could be taken to allow The extent of actions taken will depend area, but the quota for this unit was not registration and limited use, the process on the level of gene flow as it relates to reached because only 10 wolves were is complex, time consuming (5–10 the genetic connectivity objectives. For taken (Idaho Fish and Game example, if the data indicates gene flow years), and would likely not allow Commission 2011, entire). Collectively, is close to the objective, minor widespread use for a host of reasons, these data suggest a long term average modifications to management will be including public disdain for poisoning of around 300 wolves in the GYA, implemented (WGFC 2011, pp. 26–29). predators (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 311; including sizable populations in YNP, However, if very low levels of gene flow Fagerstone et al. 2004, p. 76) and other portions of Wyoming, and are documented over numerous concerns over secondary nontarget portions of the GYA in Montana and generations, more extreme management poisoning. Furthermore, within the Idaho. measures will be implemented (WGFC Trophy Area, poison is prohibited by 2011, pp. 26–29). This adaptive In summary, the GYA wolf population Wyoming Statute 23–3–304(a). Sodium approach will implement specific and will not be threatened by lower genetic cyanide (only in M–44 devices), appropriate remedial actions as directed diversity in the foreseeable future. A Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate by the available data (WGFC 2011, pp. number of biological factors support this used only in livestock protection 26–29). Translocation of wolves conclusion including the current high collars), and denning cartridges (active between subpopulations would only be level of genetic diversity in the NRM ingredients of sodium nitrate and used as a stopgap measure, if necessary DPS, proven connectivity between charcoal) are legal toxicants for use on to increase genetic interchange (WGFC subpopulations, wolf dispersal other canids. In all three cases, 2012, p. 7). All of the above efforts capabilities, the strong tendency of Environmental Protection Agency label would be coordinated with Montana wolves to outbreed by choosing restrictions preclude use on wolves and Idaho (WGFC 2012, p. 7). unrelated mates, and the likely long (Environmental Protection Agency 1994, Maintenance of the GYA at very low term population and distribution levels pp. 2, 4; Environmental Protection population levels is unlikely to be a of wolves in the NRM DPS. In addition Agency 1995, pp. 28–29; Environmental meaningful concern in its own right. to these natural factors, the States of Protection Agency 2007, p. 3). Poisons Overall, we expect the GYA population Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have (including strychnine, Compound 1080, will be managed for a long term average committed to monitor for natural cyanide, and Temic (an agricultural of around 300 wolves across portions of genetic connectivity, modify poison used for insect control)) have Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. While management as necessary to facilitate occasionally illegally killed dogs and exact numbers are difficult to predict natural connectivity, and, if necessary, wolves in the NRM region. Such illegal and may fluctuate by area and by year, implement a human-assisted migration killing has been exceedingly rare and the following information provides program to achieve at least one effective has not affected the wolf population’s some perspective. In Wyoming, the migrant per generation. In fact, in our recovery (Murray et al. 2010, p. 2514;
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55597
Service et al. 2012, Table 4, Figure 1). extremely likely that approximately 75 conducting such analyses that applies to We believe this source of mortality will percent of global warming since 1950 all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We remain rare into the foreseeable future. has been caused by human activities. use our expert judgment and Only a concerted agency-driven or Scientists use a variety of climate appropriate analytical approaches to otherwise large-scale campaign to models, which include consideration of weigh relevant information, including employ poison could threaten the natural processes and variability, as uncertainty, in our consideration of recovered wolf population in Wyoming, well as various scenarios of potential various aspects of climate change. the GYA, or the larger NRM DPS. levels and timing of GHG emissions, to The 20th century was the warmest in However, this circumstance is highly evaluate the causes of changes already the last 1,000 years (Inkley et al. 2004, unlikely in the foreseeable future. Even observed and to project future changes pp. 2–3), with global mean surface in areas like the predator area, in temperature and other climate temperature increasing by 0.4 to 0.8 widespread poisoning is unlikely in the conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007, degrees Celsius (0.7 to 1.4 degrees foreseeable future because as these types entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, Fahrenheit). These increases in of highly toxic and dangerous poisons 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). temperature were more pronounced would have to be legally registered and All combinations of models and over land masses as evidenced by the widely available. Overall, this potential emissions scenarios yield very similar 1.5 to 1.7 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 3.0 threat is strictly theoretical in nature projections of increases in the most degrees Fahrenheit) increase in North and is unlikely to ever again threaten common measure of climate change, America since the 1940s (Vincent et al. this wolf population. average global surface temperature 1999, p. 96; Cayan et al. 2001, p. 411). Climate Change—Our analyses under (commonly known as global warming), According to the IPCC, temperatures the Endangered Species Act include until about 2030. Although projections will increase 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius consideration of ongoing and projected of the magnitude and rate of warming (2.0 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ differ after about 2030, the overall (IPCC 2007, pp. 10–11). The magnitude and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the trajectory of all the projections is one of of warming in the NRM region has been Intergovernmental Panel on Climate increased global warming through the greater, as indicated by an 8-day Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’ end of this century, even for the advance in the appearance of spring refers to the mean and variability of projections based on scenarios that phenological indicators in Edmonton, different types of weather conditions assume that GHG emissions will Alberta, since the 1930s (Cayan et al. over time, with 30 years being a typical stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong 2001, p. 400). The hydrologic regime in period for such measurements, although scientific support for projections that the NRM region also has changed with shorter or longer periods also may be warming will continue through the 21st global climate change, and is projected used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term century, and that the magnitude and to change further (Bartlein et al. 1997, ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change rate of change will be influenced p. 786; Cayan et al. 2001, p. 411; Stewart in the mean or variability of one or more substantially by the extent of GHG et al. 2004, pp. 223–224). Under global measures of climate (e.g., temperature or emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44–45; climate change scenarios, the NRM precipitation) that persists for an Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760–764, 797– region may eventually experience extended period, typically decades or 811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555– milder, wetter winters and warmer, longer, whether the change is due to 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). drier summers (Bartlein et al. 1997, p. natural variability, human activity, or (See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of 786). Additionally, the pattern of both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). other global projections of climate- snowmelt runoff may also change, with Scientific measurements spanning related changes, such as frequency of a reduction in spring snowmelt (Cayan several decades demonstrate that heat waves and changes in et al. 2001, p. 411) and an earlier peak changes in climate are occurring, and precipitation. Also see IPCC 2011 (Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223–224), so that the rate of change has been faster (entire) for a summary of observations that a lower proportion of the annual since the 1950s. Examples include and projections of extreme climate discharge will occur during spring and warming of the global climate system, events.) summer. and substantial increases in Various changes in climate may have Even with these changes, precipitation in some regions of the direct or indirect effects on species. environmental, habitat, or prey changes world and decreases in other regions. These effects may be positive, neutral, resulting from climate change should For these and other examples, see IPCC or negative, and they may change over not threaten the Wyoming wolf 2007a (p. 30) and Solomon et al. 2007 time, depending on the species and population. Next to humans, wolves are (pp. 35–54, 82–85). Results of scientific other relevant considerations, such as the most widely distributed land analyses presented by the IPCC show interactions of climate with other mammal on earth. Wolves live in every that most of the observed increase in variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) habitat type in the Northern Hemisphere global average temperature since the (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). that contains ungulates, and once mid-20th century cannot be explained Identifying likely effects often involves ranged from central Mexico to the Arctic by natural variability in climate, and is aspects of climate change vulnerability Ocean in North America. The NRM ‘‘very likely’’ (defined by the IPCC as 90 analysis. Vulnerability refers to the region is roughly in the middle of percent or higher probability) due to the degree to which a species (or system) is historical wolf distribution in North observed increase in greenhouse gas susceptible to, and unable to cope with, America. Because historical evidence (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere adverse effects of climate change, suggests gray wolves and their prey as a result of human activities, including climate variability and survived in hotter, drier environments, particularly carbon dioxide emissions extremes. Vulnerability is a function of including some near-desert conditions, from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007a, pp. the type, magnitude, and rate of climate we expect wolves could easily adapt to 5–6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; change and variation to which a species the warmer and drier conditions that are Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21–35). Further is exposed, its sensitivity, and its predicted with climate change, confirmation of the role of GHGs comes adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; including any northward expansion of from analyses by Huber and Knutti see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19–22). diseases, parasites, new prey, or (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is There is no single method for competitors or reductions in species
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55598 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
currently at or near the southern extent entire). Regarding impacts to wolves, mile) diameter crater formed about of their range. It would be virtually YNP concluded ‘‘wolves are adapted to 13,800 years ago (Lowenstern et al. impossible that environmental, habitat, landscapes strongly influenced by fire, 2005, p. 4). We do not consider either or prey species changes due to the the primary forest disturbance agent a nonexplosive lava flow eruption or a environmental effects of climate change within the GYE, are highly vagile, and hydrothermal-explosion likely within could significantly affect such an are adaptable to changing ecological the foreseeable future, but even if one of adaptable, resilient, and generalist conditions * * * [and] fires will these did occur, the impact to wolves or predator. provide significant long term benefits to their prey would likely be localized, Environmental or habitat changes gray wolves by maintaining natural temporary, and would not threaten the resulting from changing climatic ecosystem processes’’ (YNP 2004, viability of the wolf population in either conditions have the potential to affect appendix I). Future fires are likely in the the GYA, the Wyoming, or the NRM wolf prey. Declining moose populations GYA system. Overall, we agree wolves gray wolf populations. in the southern GYA may result from are adaptable and will benefit from fires Earthquakes also occur in the region. climate change and declining habitat in the long term. Wildfires often lead to The most notable earthquake in YNP’s quality, a conclusion that has been an increase in ungulate food supplies recent history was a magnitude 7.5 in reached in other parts of the southern and an increase in ungulate numbers. 1959 (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 3). range of moose in North America While minor, localized, short term Similarly, a magnitude 6.5 earthquake (Murray et al. 2006, p. 25; Becker 2008, impacts are likely, fire will not threaten hit within YNP in 1975 (Lowenstern et entire; Becker et al. 2010, p. 151). the viability of the wolf population in al. 2005, p. 3). The 1959 earthquake Climate change has affected elk either the GYA or Wyoming. killed 28 people, most of them in a nutrition, elk herd demographics, and The GYA has also experienced several massive landslide triggered by the quake the proportion of migratory and exceedingly large volcanic eruptions in (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 3). Such nonmigratory elk in the GYA, but not to the past 2.1 million years. Super massive landslides and other the extent that such wolf prey could eruptions occurred 2.1 million, 1.3 earthquake-related impacts could also disappear (Middleton et al. In Press). million, and 640,000 years ago affect wildlife. But as with other However, the extent and rate to which (Lowenstern et al. 2005, pp. 1–2). Such potential catastrophic events, the impact most ungulate populations will be a similar event would devastate the of a large earthquake to wolves or prey affected is difficult to foresee with any GYA ecosystem. While one could argue would likely be localized, temporary, level of confidence. One logical ‘‘we are due’’ for such an event, and would not threaten the viability of consequence of climate change could be scientists with the Yellowstone Volcano the wolf population in the GYA, the a reduction in the number of elk, deer, Observatory maintain that they ‘‘see no Wyoming, or the NRM gray wolf moose, and bison that die overwinter, evidence that another such cataclysmic populations. thus maintaining a higher prey base for eruption will occur at Yellowstone in The habitat model/population wolves (Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 574; the foreseeable future * * * [and that] viability analysis by Carroll et al. (2003, Wilmers and Post 2006, p. 405). recurrence intervals of these events are p. 543) analyzed environmental Furthermore, increased over-winter neither regular nor predictable’’ stochasticity and predicted it was survival would likely result in overall (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 6). We agree unlikely to threaten wolf persistence in increases and more resiliency in and do conclude that such an event is the GYA. We also considered ungulate populations, thereby providing not likely within the foreseeable future. catastrophic and stochastic events that more prey for wolves. More likely to occur is a nonexplosive might reasonably occur in Wyoming, the Catastrophic Events—Here we lava flow eruption or a hydrothermal GYA, or the NRM DPS within the analyze a number of possible explosion. There have been 30 foreseeable future, to the extent catastrophic events including fire, nonexplosive lava flows in YNP over possible. Most catastrophic events volcanic activity, and earthquake. Fire is the last 640,000 years, most recently discussed above are unlikely to occur a natural part of the Yellowstone 70,000 years ago (Lowenstern et al. within the foreseeable future. Other system; however, 20th century forest 2005, p. 2). During such an eruption, events that might occur within the management, which included extensive flows ooze slowly over the surface, foreseeable future would likely cause wildfire suppression efforts, promoted moving a few hundred feet per day for only localized and temporary impacts heightened potential for a large fire several months to several years that would not threaten the GYA, the event. The 1988 fires, the largest (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 2). Any Wyoming, or the NRM gray wolf wildfires in YNP’s recorded history, renewed volcanic activity at YNP would populations. burned a total of 3,213 km2 (793,880 most likely take this form (Lowenstern Impacts to Wolf Pack Social Structure acres) or 36 percent of the Park. et al. 2005, p. 3). In general, such events as a Result of Human-Caused However, large mobile species such as would have localized impacts and be far Mortality—When human-caused wolves and their ungulate prey usually less devastating than a large eruption mortality rates are low, packs often were not meaningfully adversely (although such an event could also contain a wider spread of individuals affected. Surveys after the 1988 fires cause fires; fire as a threat is discussed across age classes. Such larger complex found that 345 dead elk, 36 deer, 12 above). Hydrothermal explosions, pack structures are most common in moose, 6 black bears, and 9 bison died triggered by sudden changes in pressure National Parks and large, remote in GYA as a direct result of the of the hydrothermal system, also wilderness areas. These types of social conflagration (YNP 2011, p. 3). YNP’s occasionally affect the region. More than structures will continue in protected fire management policy (YNP 2004, a dozen large hydrothermal explosion areas like YNP after wolves are delisted. entire) indicates natural wildfires craters formed between about 14,000 While intense harvest in immediately should be allowed to burn, so long as and 3,000 years ago (Lowenstern et al. adjoining areas can alter natural social parameters regarding fire size, weather, 2005, p. 4). The largest hydrothermal- structure of kin-based groups (e.g., and potential danger are not exceeded. explosion crater documented in the increase adoption of unrelated Those fires that do exceed the world is along the north edge of individuals into packs) in the protected standards, as well as all human-caused Yellowstone Lake in an embayment areas (Rutledge et al. 2010, entire), as fires, are to be suppressed (YNP 2004, known as Mary Bay; this 2.6-km (1.5- explained in the ‘‘Commercial or
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55599
Recreational Uses’’ section of Factor B species within the foreseeable future that it meets the definition of an above, harvest levels have been limited throughout all or a significant portion of ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened in adjoining areas where such impacts its range.’’ species’’ under the Act. are most likely to be an issue and are As long as populations are maintained Conclusion (Including Cumulative likely to continue to be regulated in this above minimal recovery levels, wolf Impacts) manner. This approach is expected to biology (namely the species’ minimize such impacts in YNP. According to 50 CFR 424.11(d), we reproductive potential) and the Regardless, only approximately 20 may delist a species if the best available availability of secure blocks of suitable percent of the region’s wolf population scientific and commercial data indicate habitat will maintain source currently lives primarily in National that: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the populations capable of withstanding all Parks or Wilderness areas. Therefore, species is recovered and is no longer other foreseeable threats. In terms of wolves in most of the NRM DPS endangered or threatened; or (3) if the habitat, the amount and distribution of constantly interact with livestock and original scientific data used at the time suitable habitat in public ownership people. In these areas, wolves the species was classified were in error. provides, and will continue to provide, experience higher rates of human- The second criterion (i.e., recovered and large core areas that contain high- caused mortality, which alters pack is no longer endangered or threatened) quality habitat of sufficient size to structure but does not reduce applies for wolves in Wyoming. anchor a recovered wolf population. population viability, their ability to Wolves in Wyoming, the GYA, and Our analysis of land-use practices reproduce, or their ability to produce across the NRM DPS are recovered. All shows that these areas will maintain dispersers (Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 89; prongs of the recovery criteria are their suitability well into the foreseeable Jimenez et al. In review, p. 1). satisfied. The numerical, distributional, future. While disease and parasites can Wolf packs frequently have high rates and temporal components of the temporarily cause localized population of natural turnover (Mech 2007, p. 1482) overarching recovery goal have been impacts, as long as populations are and quickly adapt to changes in pack exceeded for 10 consecutive years. managed above recovery levels, these social structure (Brainerd et al. 2008, p. Furthermore, Montana, Idaho, and factors are not likely to threaten the wolf 89). Higher rates of human-caused Wyoming have each individually met or population at any point in the mortality outside protected areas will exceeded the minimum per-State foreseeable future. Natural predation is result in smaller wolf pack size and recovery targets every year since at least also likely to remain an insignificant different structure than in protected 2002, and met or exceeded the factor in population dynamics into the areas. However, wolf populations in minimum management targets every foreseeable future. Additionally, we many parts of the world, including most year since at least 2004. Each of the conclude that other natural or manmade of North America, experience various recovery areas (which were originally factors like public attitudes towards levels of human-caused mortality and used to measure progress toward wolves, climate change, catastrophic the associated disruption in natural recovery) has been documented at or events, and impacts to wolf pack social processes and wolf social structure, above 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves structure are unlikely to threaten the without ever being threatened (Boitani every year since 2005 and probably wolf population within the foreseeable 2003, pp. 322–323). Therefore, while exceeded these levels every year since future. While poisoning is a potentially human-caused mortality may alter pack 2002 (Service et al. 2012, Table 4). significant factor in the maintenance of structure, we have no evidence that Finally, the available evidence the wolf population, no poisons can be indicates this issue, if adequately demonstrates the NRM gray wolf legally used to poison wolves in the regulated (as will occur in the NRM population is functioning as a United States, and we do not foresee or region), is a significant concern for wolf metapopulation with gene flow between anticipate a change in poison regulation conservation. subpopulations. Thus, we conclude that that would allow more widespread wolf Since 1987, we have removed more the population has recovered. poisoning. than 1,700 problem wolves in the NRM Before we can delist we must also Human-caused mortality is the most region and have monitored the effect of consider the threats currently facing the significant issue to the long term removing breeding adults and other species and the threats that are conservation status of the wolf pack members on wolf pack structure reasonably likely to affect the species in population in Wyoming, the GYA, and and subsequent breeding. Those effects the foreseeable future following the the entire NRM DPS. Therefore, were minor and would certainly not delisting. Under section 3 of the Act, a managing this source of mortality (i.e., affect wolf population recovery species is an ‘‘endangered species’’ if it overutilization for commercial and (Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 89). Although is in danger of extinction throughout all recreational purposes [Factor B] as well human-caused mortality will likely or a significant portion of its range and as other sources of human-caused increase after delisting, history has is a ‘‘threatened species’’ if it is likely mortality [Factor C]) remains the proven that adequate wolf reproduction to become an endangered species within primary challenge to maintaining a and survival can occur to sustain wolf the foreseeable future throughout all or recovered wolf population into the populations, despite prolonged periods a significant portion of its range. In foreseeable future. Fortunately, wolf of high rates of human-caused mortality considering what factors might populations have an ample natural (Boitani 2003, pp. 322–323). The constitute ‘‘threats,’’ we must look resiliency to high levels of human- Wyoming wolf population will be beyond the exposure of the species to a caused mortality, if population levels managed so that human-caused particular factor to evaluate whether the and controllable sources of mortality are mortality will not threaten the species may respond to the factor in a adequately regulated. For example, in population. way that causes actual impacts to the 2009 and in 2011, more than 600 NRM Overall, we conclude that other species. The information must include wolves died each year from all sources natural or manmade factors, singularly evidence sufficient to suggest that the of mortality (agency control including or in combination with other threats, potential threat is likely to materialize defense of property, regulated harvest, will not cause the Wyoming, the GYA, and that it has the capacity (i.e., it illegal and accidental killing, and or the NRM gray wolf population to be should be of sufficient magnitude and natural causes), and the population ‘‘likely to become an endangered extent) to affect the species’ status such showed little change (technically, slight
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55600 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
increases in minimum population levels population targets are not compromised (single digits), which sometimes form were documented each year) (Service et while the State gathers information on packs that count toward Tribal al. 2012, tables 4a, 4b). Similarly, from the vulnerability of wolves under a State population totals. None of these packs 1995 to 2008, the NRM wolf population management regime. This graduated have ever met the breeding pair grew by an average of about 20 percent approach to population reductions and definition. annually, even in the face of an average long term stabilization of the In total, Wyoming wolves will be annual human-caused mortality rate of population, with an adequate buffer managed as game animals year-round or 23 percent (Service et al. 2012, Table 4; above minimum population targets, protected in about 38,500 km2 (15,000 Smith et al. 2010, p. 620; also see Figure provides us with confidence that mi2) in the northwestern portion of the 3 above). Overall, wolf populations can Wyoming’s minimum management State (15.2 percent of Wyoming), maintain themselves despite human- targets will not be compromised. including YNP, Grand Teton National caused mortality rates of 17 to 48 All three States within the NRM DPS Park, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial percent (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 182–184 are required to manage comfortably Parkway, adjacent U.S. Forest Service- [22 percent +/¥ 8 percent]; Adams et al. above the minimum recovery level of at designated Wilderness Areas, adjacent 2008 [29 percent]; Creel and Rotella least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 public and private lands, the National 2010 [22 percent]; Sparkman et al. 2011 wolves. In Montana and Idaho, we Elk Refuge, and most of the Wind River [25 percent]; Gude et al. 2011 [48 required the statewide population level Indian Reservation (Lickfett 2012). This percent]; Vucetich and Carroll In review to be managed at least 50 percent above area (see Figure 1) includes: 100 percent [17 percent]). Furthermore, wolf this target. Because Wyoming, unlike of the portion of the GYA recovery area populations have been shown to Montana and Idaho, has a large portion within Wyoming (Service 1987, Figure increase rapidly if mortality is reduced of its wolf population in areas outside 2); approximately 79 percent of the after severe declines (Fuller et al. 2003, the State’s control (e.g., YNP and the Wyoming portion of the primary pp. 181–183; Service et al. 2012, Table Wind River Indian Reservation), we analysis area used in the 1994 4). developed an approach for Wyoming Environmental Impact Statement (areas Human-caused mortality can include that recognizes this fact, but still holds analyzed as potentially being impacted both controllable sources and sources of the State to the same commitment to by wolf recovery in the GYA) (Service mortality that will be difficult to limit. achieve the desired safety margin above 1994, Figure 1.1); the entire home range Controllable sources of mortality are the minimum recovery goal. for 24 of 27 breeding pairs (88 percent), discretionary and can be limited by the Specifically, the wolf populations in 40 of 48 packs (83 percent), and 282 of managing agency. They include YNP and the Wind River Indian 328 individual wolves (86 percent) in permitted take, sport hunting, and direct Reservation will provide the remaining the State at the end of 2011 (Service et agency control. Sources of mortality that buffer above the minimum recovery goal al. 2012, Tables 2, 4, Figure 3; Jimenez will be difficult to limit, or may be intended by the minimum management 2012a; Jimenez 2012, pers. comm.); and uncontrollable, occur regardless of targets employed in Montana and Idaho approximately 81 percent of the State’s population levels and include things (i.e., population targets 50 percent above suitable habitat (including over 81 like defense of property mortality, minimum recovery levels). From 2000 percent of the high-quality habitat illegal take, accidental mortality (such to the end of 2011 (the most recent (greater than 80 percent chance of as vehicle collisions), and mortality in official wolf population estimates supporting wolves) and over 62 percent the predator area of Wyoming. available), the wolf population in YNP of the medium-high-quality habitat (50 The recovery goal calls for a three-part ranged from 96 to 174 wolves, and to 79 percent chance of supporting metapopulation of at least 30 breeding between 6 to 16 breeding pairs. wolves) (Oakleaf 2011; Mead 2012a)). pairs and at least 300 wolves equitably However, recent population levels may Although wolves will not persist in the distributed among Montana, Idaho, and be higher than the long term carrying predator area, these protected and Wyoming. We have determined that capacity of YNP; the park predicts its managed portions of Wyoming are of Wyoming’s share of this recovery goal wolf numbers may decline further and sufficient size to support a recovered will be satisfied by Wyoming’s settle into a lower equilibrium (Smith wolf population in Wyoming. commitment to maintain at least 10 2012). Specifically, YNP biologists Genetic diversity is not a wolf breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves estimate that the park will have between conservation issue in the NRM DPS at in areas outside of YNP and the Wind 50 to 100 wolves and 5 to 10 packs with this time and we do not expect it to River Indian Reservation. All sources of 4 to 6 of these packs meeting the become one in the foreseeable future. mortality will be considered in breeding pair definition annually (Smith While the GYA is the most isolated core management decisions so that 2012). Regardless, YNP will represent a recovery area within the NRM DPS, management objectives are met. core refugium that contains a substantial genetic and dispersal data demonstrate Furthermore, Wyoming intends to number of overwintering wild ungulates that minimal acceptable levels of maintain an adequate buffer above and few livestock with low levels of genetic exchange between all NRM minimum population objectives to human-caused wolf mortality. These subpopulations were met or exceeded accommodate management needs and factors guarantee that the area will while the species was listed. While ensure uncontrollable sources of remain a secure stronghold for the State management will almost certainly mortality do not drop the population Wyoming wolf population. Thus, YNP reduce genetic exchange rates from below this minimum population level. will always provide a secure wolf recent levels (which appear to exceed Thus, the minimum recovery goal for population providing a safety margin minimal acceptable levels of genetic the State of Wyoming will be exceeded above the minimum recovery goal. exchange), we find it extremely unlikely in areas outside YNP and the Wind The Wind River Indian Reservation that it will be reduced to the point that River Indian Reservation, allowing YNP will further buffer the population, the GYA wolf population will be and the Wind River Indian Reservation although the area’s contribution to threatened by lower genetic diversity in to provide an additional buffer above recovery levels has always been, and is the foreseeable future. Overall, the best the minimum recovery target. likely to remain, very modest. The Wind scientific and commercial information Additionally, Wyoming is planning a River Indian Reservation typically available indicates that this issue is gradual population reduction to ensure contains a small number of wolves unlikely to undermine the Wyoming,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55601
the GYA, or the NRM gray wolf Two recent district court decisions purposes and the plain meaning of the population’s recovered status and that have addressed whether the SPR key definitions of the Act; it does not this issue, singularly or in combination language allows the Service to list or conflict with established past agency with other factors, is unlikely to cause protect less than all members of a practice (i.e., prior to the 2007 the population to become an defined ‘‘species’’: Defenders of Wildlife Solicitor’s Opinion), because no endangered species within the v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. consistent, long term agency practice foreseeable future throughout all or a Mont. 2010), concerning the Service’s has been established; and it is consistent significant portion of its range. delisting of the NRM gray wolf (74 FR with the judicial opinions that have We considered all potential threats 15123, Apr. 12, 2009); and WildEarth most closely examined this issue. individually and cumulatively, Guardians v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. Having concluded that the phrase including all sources of mortality, LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010), ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ currently facing the species and those concerning the Service’s 2008 finding provides an independent basis for reasonably likely to affect the species in on a petition to list the Gunnison’s listing and protecting the entire species, the foreseeable future throughout prairie dog (73 FR 6660, Feb. 5, 2008). we next turn to the meaning of Wyoming and the GYA. Collectively, The Service had asserted in both of ‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold the available information indicates that these determinations that it had for when such an independent basis for wolves in Wyoming, the GYA, and the authority, in effect, to protect only some listing exists. NRM DPS are recovered, likely to members of a ‘‘species,’’ as defined by Although there are potentially many remain recovered, and unlikely to again the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or ways to determine whether a portion of become threatened with extinction DPS), under the Act. Both courts ruled a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we within the foreseeable future. Thus, in that the determinations were arbitrary conclude, for the purposes of this accordance with 50 CFR 424.11(d), we and capricious on the grounds that this finding, that the significance of the are delisting wolves in Wyoming. This approach violated the plain and portion of the range should be determined based on its biological rulemaking is separate and independent unambiguous language of the Act. The contribution to the conservation of the from, but additive to, the previous courts concluded that reading the SPR species. For this reason, we describe the action delisting wolves in the remainder language to allow protecting only a threshold for ‘‘significant’’ in terms of of the NRM DPS (all of Idaho, all of portion of a species’ range is an increase in the risk of extinction for Montana, eastern Oregon, eastern inconsistent with the Act’s definition of the species. We conclude that a Washington, and north-central Utah) (74 ‘‘species.’’ The courts concluded that biologically based definition of FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 76 FR 25590, once a determination is made that a species (i.e., species, subspecies, or ‘‘significant’’ best conforms to the May 5, 2011). DPS) meets the definition of purposes of the Act, is consistent with Significant Portion of the Range ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened judicial interpretations, and best Analysis species,’’ it must be placed on the list ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for in its entirety and the Act’s protections the purposes of this finding, a portion Having determined that gray wolf in applied to all members of that species of the range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ Wyoming does not meet the definition (subject to modification of protections if its contribution to the viability of the of endangered or threatened throughout through special rules under sections species is so important that, without its range, we must next consider 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). that portion, the species would be in whether there are any significant Consistent with that interpretation, danger of extinction. portions of its range that are in danger and for the purposes of this finding, we We evaluate biological significance of extinction or likely to become interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion based on the principles of conservation endangered. The Act defines of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of biology using the concepts of ‘‘endangered species’’ as any species ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened redundancy, resiliency, and which is ‘‘in danger of extinction species’’ to provide an independent representation. Resiliency describes the throughout all or a significant portion of basis for listing; thus there are two characteristics of a species that allow it its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened species’’ as situations (or factual bases) under which to recover from periodic disturbance. any species which is ‘‘likely to become a species would qualify for listing: a Redundancy (having multiple an endangered species within the species may be endangered or populations distributed across the foreseeable future throughout all or a threatened throughout all of its range; or landscape) may be needed to provide a significant portion of its range.’’ The a species may be endangered or margin of safety for the species to definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant threatened in only a significant portion withstand catastrophic events. to this discussion. The Act defines the of its range. If a species is in danger of Representation (the range of variation term ‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The term extinction throughout a SPR, then, the found in a species) ensures that the ‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish entire species is an ‘‘endangered species’ adaptive capabilities are or wildlife or plants, and any distinct species.’’ The same analysis applies to conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and population segment [DPS] of any ‘‘threatened species.’’ Therefore, the representation are not independent of species of vertebrate fish or wildlife consequence of finding that a species is each other, and some characteristic of a which interbreeds when mature.’’ The endangered or threatened in a species or area may contribute to all phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ significant portion of its range is that the three. For example, distribution across a (SPR) is not defined by the statute, and entire species shall be listed as wide variety of habitats is an indicator we have not addressed it in our endangered or threatened, respectively, of representation, but it may also regulations including: (1) The and the Act’s protections shall be indicate a broad geographic distribution consequences of a determination that a applied across the species’ entire range. contributing to redundancy (decreasing species is either endangered or likely to We conclude, for the purposes of this the chance that any one event affects the become so throughout a significant finding, that interpreting the SPR phrase entire species) and the likelihood that portion of its range, but not throughout as providing an independent basis for some habitat types are less susceptible all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a listing is the best interpretation of the to certain threats, contributing to portion of a range as ‘‘significant.’’ Act because it is consistent with the resiliency (the ability of the species to
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55602 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
recover from disturbance). None of these which restrictions will be imposed or if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In concepts is intended to be mutually resources expended that do not practice, a key part of the portion status exclusive, and a portion of a species’ contribute substantially to species’ analysis is whether the threats are range may be determined to be conservation. But we have not set the geographically concentrated in some ‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions threshold so high that the phrase ‘‘in a way. If the threats to the species are under any one of these concepts. significant portion of its range’’ loses essentially uniform throughout its For the purposes of this finding, we independent meaning. Specifically, we range, no portion is likely to warrant determine if a portion’s biological have not set the threshold as high as it further consideration. Moreover, if any contribution is so important that the was under the interpretation presented concentration of threats applies only to portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by by the Service in the Defenders portions of the species’ range that asking whether, without that portion, litigation. Under that interpretation, the clearly would not meet the biologically the representation, redundancy, or portion of the range would have to be based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ such resiliency of the species would be so so important that current imperilment portions will not warrant further impaired that the species would have an there would mean that the species consideration. increased vulnerability to threats to the would be currently imperiled In this case, we have already point that the overall species would be everywhere. Under the definition of determined wolves are not threatened or in danger of extinction (i.e., would be ‘‘significant’’ used in this finding, the endangered in areas including protected ‘‘endangered’’). Conversely, we would portion of the range need not rise to and game portions of the State. not consider the portion of the range at such an exceptionally high level of Therefore, this analysis only evaluates issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there is biological significance. (We recognize whether the portions of Wyoming where sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and that if the species is imperiled in a wolves are treated as predators representation elsewhere in the species’ portion that rises to that level of constitute a threatened or endangered range that the species would not be in biological significance, then we should significant portion of the range of danger of extinction throughout its conclude that the species is in fact wolves in Wyoming, the GYA, or the range if the population in that portion imperiled throughout all of its range, NRM DPS. of the range in question became and that we would not need to rely on When analyzing the significance of extirpated (extinct locally). the SPR language for such a listing.) the predator area to wolf conservation, We recognize that this definition of Rather, under this interpretation we ask it is important to understand the role, or ‘‘significant’’ establishes a threshold whether the species would be lack thereof, that the predator area plays that is relatively high. On the one hand, endangered everywhere without that in the conservation of the species. given that the consequences of finding portion, i.e., if that portion were Wyoming’s predator area was not envisioned to meaningfully contribute a species to be endangered or threatened completely extirpated. In other words, in an SPR would be listing the species to wolf recovery in the region (in fact, the portion of the range need not be so throughout its entire range, it is the predator area contains zero percent important that even being in danger of important to use a threshold for of the original recovery zone) as it has extinction in that portion would be ‘‘significant’’ that is robust. It would not very little suitable habitat (∼19 percent sufficient to cause the remainder of the be meaningful or appropriate to of the State’s suitable habitat). Today, range to be endangered; rather, the establish a very low threshold whereby even with the protections of the Act, complete extirpation (in a hypothetical a portion of the range can be considered very few wolves, packs, and breeding future) of the species in that portion ‘‘significant’’ even if only a negligible pairs occupy the predator area (3 of 27 would be required to cause the increase in extinction risk would result breeding pairs, 8 of 48 packs, and 46 of remainder of the range to be from its loss. Because nearly any portion 328 individual wolves in Wyoming at of a species’ range can be said to endangered. the end of 2011). If all of the wolves, contribute some increment to a species’ The range of a species can packs, and breeding pairs that occupy viability, use of such a low threshold theoretically be divided into portions in the predator area were extirpated, the would require us to impose restrictions an infinite number of ways. However, remainder of the Wyoming, the GYA, or and expend conservation resources there is no purpose to analyzing the NRM wolf population would not disproportionately to conservation portions of the range that have no become endangered. This determination benefit: Listing would be rangewide, reasonable potential to be significant is based on our conclusion that the even if only a portion of the range of and threatened or endangered. To protected and game portions of the State minor conservation importance to the identify only those portions that warrant are of sufficient size and contain enough species is imperiled. On the other hand, further consideration, we determine suitable habitat to support and maintain it would be inappropriate to establish a whether there is substantial information a recovered wolf population in threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too indicating that: (1) The portions may be Wyoming over the long term, given the high. This would be the case if the ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) the species may be expected management strategy for this standard were, for example, that a in danger of extinction there or likely to area, without any survival in the portion of the range can be considered become so within the foreseeable future. predator area. While some wolves that ‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that Depending on the biology of the species, primarily occupy the Trophy Area will portion result in the entire species being its range, and the threats it faces, it be killed when traveling into the currently endangered or threatened. might be more efficient for us to address predator area, total mortality from such Such a high bar would not give the SPR the significance question first or the events is expected to be minimal, would phrase independent meaning, as the status question first. Thus, if we not compromise the population’s Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of determine that a portion of the range is recovered status, and would not cause Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 (9th not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to the remainder of the range to become Cir. 2001). determine whether the species is endangered. Furthermore, while wolf The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in endangered or threatened there; if we mortality in the predator area could this finding carefully balances these determine that the species is not affect successful migration between concerns. By setting a relatively high endangered or threatened in a portion of subpopulations, such mortality: (1) Is threshold, we minimize the degree to its range, we do not need to determine expected to be opportunistic and
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 55603
minimal, and (2) is not expected to by packs to indicate minimum review to determine if relisting is affect genetic factors to the point that it population size, approximate warranted: could cause the remainder of the range composition, and minimum (1) If the wolf population falls below to become endangered. In short, even if distribution. This level of wildlife the minimum recovery level of 10 no wolves survived in, or successfully monitoring is intensive and provides breeding pairs or 100 wolves in traversed, the predator area, the NRM relatively accurate minimum estimates Wyoming statewide (including YNP and DPS as well as wolves in Wyoming and of wolf population distribution and the Wind River Indian Reservation) at the GYA would not become endangered. structure (Service et al. 2012, Table 1– the end of any 1 year; All of these issues are discussed in more 4, Figure 1–4). The Service Annual (2) If the wolf population segment in detail above. Reports have documented all aspects of Wyoming excluding YNP and the Wind Based on this information and the wolf management program River Indian Reservation falls below 10 analysis, we conclude that the predator including staffing and funding, legal breeding pairs or 100 wolves at the end portion of Wyoming does not represent issues, population monitoring, livestock of the year for 3 consecutive years; ‘‘a significant portion of range.’’ conflicts, control to reduce livestock (3) If the wolf population in Wyoming falls below 15 breeding pairs or 150 Post-Delisting Monitoring and pet damage, research (predator/prey interactions, livestock/wolf conflict wolves, including YNP and the Wind Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us prevention, disease and health River Indian Reservation, for 3 to implement a system in cooperation monitoring, publications, etc.) and consecutive years; or with the States, to monitor for at least public outreach. (4) If a change in State law or 5 years the status of all species that have In Wyoming after delisting, the management objectives would recovered and been removed from the WGFD, the National Park Service, the significantly increase the threat to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Service, and the Shoshone and wolf population. Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and Arapahoe Tribal Fish and Game As discussed above in Issue and 17.12). The primary goal of post- Department will each monitor wolf Response #49, we will also conduct a delisting monitoring is to ensure that populations in areas under their status review if the above standards are the recovered species does not respective jurisdiction and share routinely not achieved—an outcome we deteriorate, and if an unanticipated information as appropriate. These do not anticipate. decline is detected, to take measures to agencies will monitor breeding pairs Status review or relisting decisions halt the decline to avoid relisting the and total number of wolves in Wyoming will be based on the best scientific and species as threatened or endangered. If in order to document their minimum commercial data available. If a formal relisting is ever warranted, as directed number, distribution, reproduction, and status review is triggered during the by section 4(g)(2) of the Act, we will mortality. These agencies will continue post-delisting monitoring period by make prompt use of the Act’s emergency to use the monitoring techniques and these triggers or the triggers noted for listing provisions if we determine the strategies that have been used to the remainder of the DPS in our 2009 wolf faces a significant risk to its well- estimate the NRM wolf population for delisting rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, being. more than 20 years, but may modify 2009), the review will evaluate the Wolves have been monitored in the these techniques through time as new status of the entire NRM DPS to NRM DPS for over 20 years. The NRM knowledge becomes available and as the determine if relisting is warranted. In region was intensively monitored for parties responsible for monitoring gain the unlikely event such a review is ever wolves even before wolves were additional experience at wolf necessary, the review would attempt to documented in Montana in the mid- management and conservation. identify why a particular area is not 1980s (Weaver 1978; Ream and Mattson Information from these partners will be meeting its population objectives. For 1982, pp. 379–381; Kaminski and published by WGFD in an annual wolf example, if the wolf population in Hansen 1984, p. v). Numerous Federal, report. Similar reports have been Wyoming falls below 15 breeding pairs State, and Tribal agencies, universities, published annually since 1989 by the or 150 wolves including YNP and the and special interest groups assisted in Service and our partners (Service et al. Wind River Indian Reservation for 3 those various efforts. Since 1979, wolves 1989–2012, entire). consecutive years when the Wyoming have been monitored using standard For the post-delisting monitoring wolf population under State jurisdiction techniques including collecting, period, the best source of that is at least 10 breeding pairs and at least evaluating, and following up on information will be the State’s annual 100 wolves, the status review would suspected observations of wolves or report or other wolf reports and focus on factors affecting wolves in YNP wolf signs by natural resource agencies publications. We intend to post the and the Wind River Indian Reservation. or the public; howling or snow tracking annual State wolf reports on our Web Adaptive management strategies may be surveys conducted by the Service, site (http://www.fws.gov/mountain- recommended in this review. cooperators, volunteers, and interested prairie/species/mammals/wolf/) by All such reviews will be made special interest groups; and by around April of each following year. We available for public review and capturing, radio-collaring, and also intend to annually publish an comment, including peer review by monitoring wolves. We only treat assessment of the status of the wolf select species experts. If relisting is ever wolves and wolf packs as confirmed population in the NRM DPS during the warranted, as directed by section 4(g)(2) when Federal, State, or Tribal agency post-delisting monitoring period. This of the Act, we will make prompt use of verification is made by field staff that assessment will consider the minimum the Act’s emergency listing provisions if can reliably identify wolves and wolf numbers of packs, breeding pairs, and necessary to prevent a significant risk to signs. total numbers of wolves in mid-winter the well-being of the NRM DPS. At the end of the year, we compile by State and by recovery area as well as Additionally, if any of these scenarios agency-confirmed wolf observations to any changes in threats. This information occur during the mandatory post- estimate the minimum number of and will inform whether a formal status delisting monitoring period of at least 5 location of adult wolves and pups that review is necessary. years, the post-delisting monitoring were likely alive on December 31 of that Specifically, the following scenarios period will be extended 5 additional year. These data are then summarized will lead us to initiate a formal status years from that point.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 55604 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Effects of the Rule other information from 10 or more American organizations in order to both Once effective, this rule will remove persons during any 12-month period to (1) provide them with a complete the protections of the Act for all gray satisfy monitoring information needs. If understanding of the changes, and (2) to wolves in Wyoming. This rulemaking is it becomes necessary to collect understand their concerns with those separate and independent from, but information from 10 or more non- changes. If requested, we will conduct additive to, the previous action delisting Federal individuals, groups, or additional consultations with Native wolves in the remainder of the NRM organizations per year, we will first American Tribes and multi-tribal DPS (all of Idaho, all of Montana, obtain information collection approval organizations subsequent to this final eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, from the OMB. rule in order to facilitate the transition to State and tribal management of and north-central Utah) (74 FR 15123, National Environmental Policy Act April 2, 2009; 76 FR 25590, May 5, wolves within Wyoming. We have determined that an 2011). Additionally, once effective, this Environmental Assessment or an References Cited rule will remove the special regulations Environmental Impact Statement, as under section 10(j) of the Act A complete list of references cited is defined under the authority of the designating Wyoming as a nonessential available: (1) On the Internet at http:// National Environmental Policy Act of experimental population area for gray www.regulations.gov or http:// 1969, need not be prepared in wolves. These regulations currently are www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ connection with regulations adopted found at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and 17.84(n). mammals/wolf/ or (2) upon request pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We We are making this rule effective less from the Denver Regional Office, published a notice outlining our reasons than 30 days after the date of Ecological Services Office (see FOR for this determination in the Federal publication. As stated above, this rule FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR removes protective regulations 49244). This issue is also addressed Authority pertaining to gray wolves in Wyoming. further in Issue and Response 5 above. Therefore, this rule is ‘‘a substantive The authority for this action is the rule which * * * relieves a restriction.’’ Executive Order 13211 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). As set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), such Executive Order 13211 requires a rule may be made effective less than agencies to prepare Statements of List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 30 days after its publication date. Energy Effects when undertaking certain Endangered and threatened species, Required Determinations actions. As this rule is not expected to Exports, Imports, Reporting and significantly affect energy supplies, Paperwork Reduction Act recordkeeping requirements, distribution, or use, this action is not a Transportation. The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320 significant energy action and no implement provisions of the Paperwork Statement of Energy Effects is required. Regulation Promulgation Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Accordingly, we hereby amend part The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of define a collection of information as the the Code of Federal Regulations, as obtaining of information by or for an In accordance with the President’s follows: agency by means of identical questions memorandum of April 29, 1994, posed to, or identical reporting, Government-to-Government Relations PART 17—ENDANGERED AND recordkeeping, or disclosure with Native American Tribal THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS requirements imposed on, 10 or more Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR Order 13175, and the Department of the ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we continues to read as follows: persons’’ refers to the persons to whom readily acknowledge our responsibility Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. a collection of information is addressed to communicate meaningfully with 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– by the agency within any 12-month recognized Federal Tribes on a 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. period. For purposes of this definition, government-to-government basis. In employees of the Federal Government accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 § 17.11 [Amended] are not included. We may not conduct of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the or sponsor and you are not required to Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust entry for ‘‘Wolf, gray [Northern Rocky respond to, a collection of information responsibilities, and the Endangered Mountain DPS]’’ under MAMMALS in unless it displays a currently valid OMB Species Act), we readily acknowledge the List of Endangered and Threatened control number. our responsibilities to work directly Wildlife. This rule does not contain any with Tribes in developing programs for collections of information that require healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that § 17.84 [Amended] approval by OMB under the Paperwork tribal lands are not subject to the same ■ 3. Amend § 17.84 by removing and Reduction Act. As described under the controls as Federal public lands, to reserving paragraphs (i) and (n). Post-Delisting Monitoring section above, remain sensitive to Indian culture, and gray wolves in Wyoming will be to make information available to Tribes. Dated: August 22, 2012. monitored by WGFD, Sovereign Tribal We have coordinated with the affected Daniel M. Ashe, Nations in Wyoming, the National Park Tribes on this rule and earlier related Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Service, and the Service. We do not rules including offers to consult with [FR Doc. 2012–21988 Filed 8–31–12; 4:15 pm] anticipate a need to request data or Native American Tribes and Native BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SER2.SGM 10SER2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Vol. 77 Monday, No. 175 September 10, 2012
Part III
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579 Early Warning Reporting, Foreign Defect Reporting, and Motor Vehicle and Equipment Recall Regulations; Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55606 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (OMB) at the address listed in the Timian, Office of Defects Investigation ADDRESSES section on or before (telephone: 202–366–0209). For legal National Highway Traffic Safety November 9, 2012. Comments to OMB issues, contact Andrew J. DiMarsico, Administration are most useful if submitted within 30 Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA days of publication. (telephone: 202–366–5263). You may 49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579 ADDRESSES: Written comments to send mail to these officials at National [Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0068; Notice 1] NHTSA may be submitted using any Highway Traffic Safety Administration, one of the following methods: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West RIN 2127–AK72 • Mail: Send comments to: Docket Building, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Early Warning Reporting, Foreign Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Defect Reporting, and Motor Vehicle Table of Contents and Equipment Recall Regulations Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12– 140, Washington, DC 20590. I. Introduction AGENCY: National Highway Traffic • Fax: Written comments may be II. Summary of the Proposed Rule Safety Administration (NHTSA), faxed to (202) 493–2251. III. Background • Internet: To submit comments A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule Department of Transportation (DOT). B. The Foreign Defect Reporting Rule ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking electronically, go to the US Government C. Defect and Noncompliance Information (NPRM); Proposal to revise a currently regulations Web site at http:// Reports and Notifications approved information collection. www.regulations.gov. Follow the online D. Scope of this Rulemaking instructions for submitting comments. IV. Discussion SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing • Hand Delivery: If you plan to A. Statutory Background on Early Warning, amendments to certain provisions of the submit written comments by hand or Foreign Defect Reporting and Recall early warning reporting (EWR) rule and courier, please do so at 1200 New Jersey Notification Requirements the regulations governing motor vehicle Avenue SE., West Building Ground B. Matters Considered in Adding Data Elements to Early Warning Reports and equipment safety recalls. The Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC C. Vehicle Type for Light Vehicle amendments to the EWR rule would between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Aggregate Data require light vehicle manufacturers to Monday through Friday, except federal D. Reporting by Fuel and/or Propulsion specify the vehicle type and the fuel holidays. System Type and/or propulsion system type in their Whichever way you submit your E. New Component Categories for Light reports and add new component comments, please remember to mention Vehicles, Buses, Emergency Vehicles, categories of stability control systems the docket number of this document and Medium-Heavy Vehicles for light vehicles, buses, emergency within your correspondence. The docket 1. Stability Control Systems 2. Forward Collision Avoidance and Lane vehicles, and medium-heavy vehicle may be accessed via telephone at 202– Departure Prevention manufacturers, and forward collision 366–9324. 3. Backover Prevention avoidance, lane departure prevention, Comments regarding the proposed F. Proposed EWR Reporting Templates and backover prevention for light revisions to existing information G. Electronic Submission of Annual vehicle manufacturers. In addition, collections should be submitted to Substantially Similar Vehicle Lists NHTSA proposes to require motor NHTSA through one of the preceding H. VIN Submission and Recall Remedy vehicle manufacturers to report their methods and a copy should also be sent Completion Information for Safety annual list of substantially similar to the Office of Information and Recalls vehicles via the Internet. I. Added Requirements for Information Regulatory Affairs, Office of Required to be Submitted in a Part 573 As to safety recalls, we propose, Management and Budget, 725–17th Defect and Noncompliance Information among other things, to require certain Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Report manufacturers to submit vehicle Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer. 1. An Identification and Description of the identification numbers (VIN) for Instructions: All comments submitted Risk Associated with the Safety Defect or recalled vehicles and to daily report in relation to these proposed rule Noncompliance with FMVSS changes in recall remedy status for those changes must include the agency name 2. As to Motor Vehicle Equipment Recalls, vehicles; require online submission of and docket number or Regulatory the Brand Name, Model Name, and recalls reports and information; and Identification Number (RIN) for this Model Number of the Equipment Recalled require adjustments to the required rulemaking. For detailed instructions on 3. Prohibited Disclaimers in Part 573 content of the owner notification letters submitting comments and additional Defect and Noncompliance Information and envelopes required to be issued to information on the rulemaking process, Report owners and purchasers of recalled see the Request for Comments heading J. Online Submission of Recall-Related vehicles and equipment. of the Supplementary Information Reports, Information, and Associated DATES: Written comments regarding section of this document. Please note Documents and Recall Reporting Templates these proposed rule changes may be that all comments received will be posted without change to http:// K. Amendments to Defect and submitted to NHTSA and must be Noncompliance Notification received on or before: November 9, www.regulations.gov, including any Requirements Under Part 577 2012. In compliance with the Paperwork personal information provided. L. Regulatory Changes to Add or Make Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy More Specific Current Requirements for comment on proposed revisions to Act heading under Rulemaking Manufacturers to Keep NHTSA Informed existing information collections. See the Analyses and Notices. of Changes and Updates in Defect and Paperwork Reduction Act section under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Noncompliance Information Reports M. Requirement to Notify NHTSA in the Rulemaking Analyses below. All non-legal issues on EWR requirements, Event of Filing of Bankruptcy Petition of comments relating to the revised contact Tina Morgan, Office of Defects a Recalling Manufacturer information collection requirements Investigation, NHTSA (telephone: 202– N. Lead Time should be submitted to NHTSA and to 366–0699). For non-legal issues on V. Request for Comments the Office of Management and Budget recall requirements, contact Jennifer VI. Privacy Act Statement
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55607
VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices regulations, manufacturers are required identification number ranges for A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures to submit annual lists of substantially recalled tires. 74 FR 47757–58. The final B. Regulatory Flexibility Act similar vehicles to NHTSA. 49 CFR rule also stated that manufacturers must C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 579.11(e) provide the country of origin for a D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act As described more fully in the recalled component. Id. Last, the rule E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) Background section, below, EWR amended the definition of ‘‘other safety F. Paperwork Reduction Act requirements vary somewhat depending campaign’’ to be consistent with the 1. Part 579 Collection on the nature of the reporting entity definition of ‘‘customer satisfaction 2. Parts 573 and 577 Collections (motor vehicle manufacturers, child campaign.’’ Id. G. Executive Order 13045 restraint system manufacturers, tire The September 2009 rule did not H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) manufacturers, and other equipment address several proposals in the I. Plain Language manufacturers) and the annual preceding December 2008 NPRM. Those J. Data Quality Act production of the entity. The EWR proposals sought to require light vehicle K. Executive Order 13609 information NHTSA receives is stored manufacturers to include the vehicle VIII. Proposed Regulatory Text in a database, called Artemis, which type in the aggregate portion of their I. Introduction also contains additional information quarterly EWR reports, report on use of (e.g., domestic and foreign recall details electronic stability control in light In 2000, Congress enacted the and complaints filed directly by vehicles, and specify fuel and/or Transportation Recall Enhancement, consumers) related to defects and propulsion systems when providing Accountability, and Documentation investigations. model designations. Id. The agency (TREAD) Act. Public Law 106–414. Up The Early Warning Division of the decided to issue a separate rulemaking until the TREAD Act’s enactment, Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) addressing some of the foregoing NHTSA relied primarily on analyses of reviews and analyzes a huge volume of proposals to obtain more meaningful complaints from consumers and early warning data and documents comments. See 74 FR 47744. Today’s technical service bulletins (TSBs) from submitted by manufacturers. Using its document addresses proposals raised in manufacturers to identify potential traditional sources of information, such the December 2008 NPRM not resolved safety related defects in motor vehicles as consumer complaints from vehicle by the September 2009 final rule. and motor vehicle equipment. Congress owner questionnaires (VOQs) and Recently, in July 2012, Congress concluded that NHTSA did not have manufacturers’ own communications, enacted the Moving Ahead for Progress access to data that may provide an and the additional information provided in the 21st Century (MAP–21) Act, earlier warning of safety defects or by EWR submissions, ODI investigates Public Law 112–141, 126 Stat 405, 763 information related to foreign recalls potential safety defects. These (July 6, 2012). Section 31301 of this Act and safety campaigns. Accordingly, the investigations often result in recalls. requires the Secretary of Transportation TREAD Act required that NHTSA In the last several years, the agency to mandate that motor vehicle safety prescribe rules requiring motor vehicle published two amendments to the EWR recall information be made available to and equipment manufacturers to submit regulations. On May 29, 2007, NHTSA the public on the Internet, be searchable certain information to NHTSA that made three changes to the EWR rule. 72 by vehicle make and model and vehicle would assist identifying potential safety FR 29435. First, the definition of ‘‘fire’’ identification number (VIN), be in a related defects and to require was amended to more accurately format that preserves consumer privacy, manufacturers to submit reports on capture fire-related events. 72 FR 29443. and includes information about each foreign defects and safety campaigns. Second, the agency eliminated the recall that has not been completed for See 49 U.S.C. 30166(m) and (l). requirement to produce hard copies of each vehicle. The section further On July 10, 2002, NHTSA published a subset of field reports known as provides that the Secretary may initiate its Early Warning Reporting (EWR) ‘‘product evaluation reports.’’ Id. Last, a rulemaking to require manufacturers regulations requiring that motor vehicle the agency limited the time that to provide this information on a and equipment manufacturers provide manufacturers must update a missing publicly accessible Internet Web site. Id. certain early warning data. 49 CFR part vehicle identification number (VIN)/tire 579, subpart C; see 67 FR 45822. The identification number (TIN) information II. Summary of the Proposed Rule EWR rule requires quarterly reporting of or a component in a death or injury The early warning reporting (EWR) early warning information: Production incident to a period of no more than one rule requires certain manufacturers of information; information on incidents year after NHTSA receives the initial motor vehicles and motor vehicle involving death or injury; aggregate data report. 72 FR 29444. On December 5, equipment to submit information to on property damage claims, consumer 2008, NHTSA issued a notice of NHTSA. 49 CFR part 579, subpart C. complaints, warranty claims, and field proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which The EWR rule divides vehicle reports; and copies of field reports was followed in September 2009 by a manufacturers into different segments (other than dealer reports and product final rule that modified the reporting based upon weight or vehicle evaluation reports) involving specified threshold for light vehicle, bus, application. These segments are light vehicle components, a fire, or a rollover. medium-heavy vehicle (excluding vehicles, buses, emergency vehicles, On October 11, 2002, NHTSA emergency vehicles), motorcycle and medium-heavy vehicles, motorcycles published regulations requiring trailer manufacturers’ quarterly EWR and trailers. The proposed amendments manufacturers to report foreign recalls reports. See 73 FR 74101 (December 5, to the EWR rule concern light vehicles, or other safety campaigns in a foreign 2008); 74 FR 47740, 47757–58 buses, emergency vehicles, and country covering a motor vehicle, item (September 17, 2009). This rule further medium-heavy vehicles. of motor vehicle equipment or tire that required manufacturers to submit EWR Today’s document proposes requiring is identical or substantially similar to a reports with consistent product names light vehicle manufacturers to report motor vehicle, item of motor vehicle from quarter to quarter and amended vehicle type in their death and injury equipment or tire sold or offered for sale part 573 Defect and Noncompliance and aggregate reports. Under the current in the United States. 49 CFR part 579, Responsibility and Reports to require EWR rule, light vehicle manufacturers subpart B, 67 FR 63310. Under these tire manufacturers to provide tire submit vehicle type as part of
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55608 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
production reports, but do not report distribution of that information to the campaigns, we are proposing to require vehicle types in either their death and affected public. certain additional items of information injury reports or their aggregate reports. First, for motor vehicle recalls, and in from recalling manufacturers. These This proposal seeks to correct this accordance with the MAP–21 Act, we additional items include an inconsistency. are proposing to adopt regulations that identification and description of the risk We propose to require reporting on would implement MAP–21’s mandate associated with the safety defect or additional components in the light that the Secretary require motor vehicle noncompliance with a FMVSS, and, as vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle, and safety recall information be made to motor vehicle equipment recalls, the medium-heavy vehicle component available to the public on the Internet, brand name, model name, and model categories and to amend the light be searchable by vehicle make and number, of the equipment recalled. We vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle, and model and vehicle identification are also proposing that manufacturers be medium-heavy vehicle reporting number (VIN), be in a format that prohibited from including disclaimers templates. preserves consumer privacy, and in their Part 573 information reports. This proposal also would add a includes information about each recall Similarly, as part of our effort to requirement that light vehicle that has not been completed for each ensure we are apprised of information manufacturers provide the fuel and/or vehicle. See MAP–21 Act, Public Law related to recalls that we oversee, we are propulsion system type for nine (9) 112–141, § 31301, 126 Stat 405, 763 also proposing changes to add or make different fuel and/or propulsion system (July 6, 2012). The Secretary was given more specific current requirements for types. In addition, the proposal would the discretion to engage in rulemaking manufacturers to keep NHTSA informed add definitions for each fuel and/or to require each manufacturer to provide of changes and updates in information propulsion system. the information above on vehicles it provided in the defect and Furthermore, today’s document manufacturers on a publicly accessible noncompliance information reports they proposes to add four (4) new light Internet Web site. Id. at section supply. vehicle and one (1) new medium-heavy 31301(b). We propose to exercise the We are proposing to require vehicle component reporting categories. authority given the Secretary in sections manufacturers to submit through a The new light vehicle component (a) and (b), not only to meet the Act’s secure, agency-owned and managed categories are electronic stability mandate, but to increase the numbers of web-based application, all recall-related control, forward collision avoidance, motor vehicles remedied under safety reports, information, and associated lane departure prevention, and backover recall campaigns which, in turn, will documents. This is to improve our prevention; the new medium-heavy serve to reduce the risk of incidents, as efficiency and accuracy in collecting vehicle component category is stability well as injuries or fatalities, associated and processing important recalls control/roll stability control. We also with vehicles that contain safety defects information and then distributing it to propose new definitions for each of or fail to meet minimum FMVSS. the public. It also will reduce a current these components. We are also To meet MAP–21, and increase the and significant allocation of agency proposing to correct a minor number of motor vehicles remedied resources spent translating and inconsistency in light vehicle under safety recall campaigns, the processing the same information that is manufacturer reporting of vehicle types agency proposes to offer vehicle owners currently submitted in a free text to capture several recently introduced and prospective purchasers an fashion, whether that text is delivered light vehicle technologies. enhanced vehicle recalls search tool via a hard copy, mailed submission, or This proposal also seeks comments on through its Web site, www.safercar.gov, delivered electronically through email. amendments to a manufacturer’s that will go beyond the current In order to ensure that owners are reporting requirements related to safety functionality to search by specific make promptly notified of safety defects and recalls and other safety campaigns in and model vehicle, and will offer a VIN- failures to meet minimum safety foreign countries under subpart B of based search function that will report standards, we are proposing to specify part 579. 49 CFR part 579, subpart B. back whether a vehicle has been subject that manufacturers notify owners and We propose to standardize the manner to a safety recall, and whether that purchasers no later than 60 days of of submitting annual lists of vehicle has had the manufacturer’s free when a safety defect or noncompliance substantially similar vehicles under remedy performed. decision is made. In the event the free 579.11(e) by uploading them, via a In order to gather the information remedy is not available at the time of secure Internet connection, to NHTSA’s necessary for us to provide this notification, we are proposing that Artemis database using a template enhanced functionality, we are manufacturers be required to issue a provided on NHTSA’s EWR Web site. proposing to require larger volume, light second notification to owners and Currently, manufacturers may submit vehicle manufacturers to submit the purchasers once that remedy is their substantially similar lists by mail, VINs for vehicles affected by a safety available. facsimile or email. See 49 CFR 579.6(a). recall to NHTSA. We further propose to In an effort to encourage owners to Today’s proposed rule proposes require these manufacturers to submit to have recall repairs made to their changes and additions to the regulations NHTSA recall remedy completion vehicles and vehicle equipment, we are governing recalls, 49 CFR Part 573, information on those vehicles, again proposing additional requirements Defect and Noncompliance supplied by VIN, that is updated at least governing the content and formatting of Responsibility and Reports, and 49 CFR once daily so that our search tool has owner notification letters and the Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance ‘‘real time’’ information that can inform envelopes in which they are mailed in Notification. owners and other interested parties if a an effort to improve the number of We are proposing a number of recall is outstanding on a vehicle. In our vehicles that receive a remedy under a measures in an effort to improve the effort to improve the information recall. We are proposing that all letters information the agency receives from received from recalling manufacturers, include ‘‘URGENT SAFETY RECALL’’ recalling manufacturers concerning the and so NHTSA can better understand in all capitals letters and in an enlarged motor vehicles and equipment they are and process recalls, as well as manage font at the top of those letters, and that recalling and the plans for remedying and oversee the recall campaigns and for vehicle recalls, the manufacturer those products, in addition to the manufacturers conducting those place the VIN of the owner’s vehicle
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55609
affected by the safety defect or light truck tire and motorcycle tire specified data elements. In addition, noncompliance, within the letter. To manufacturers that produced, imported, light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle further emphasize the importance of the offered for sale, or sold 15,000 or more and medium-heavy vehicle communication, and to distinguish it per tire line are also required to provide manufacturers are required to submit from other commercial comprehensive quarterly reports. The copies of field reports, except for dealer communications, we are proposing that first group must provide comprehensive and product evaluation reports. the envelopes in which the letters are reports every calendar quarter. 49 CFR On a quarterly basis, vehicle and mailed be stamped with the logos of the 579.21–26. The second group consists of equipment manufacturers meeting the National Highway Traffic Safety all other manufacturers of motor production thresholds discussed above Administration and the U.S. Department vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must provide comprehensive reports for of Transportation, along with a (i.e., vehicle manufacturers that each make and model for the calendar statement that the letter is an important produce, import, or sell in the United year of the report and nine previous safety recall notice issued in accordance States fewer than 5,000 light vehicles, model years for vehicles and four years with Federal law. medium-heavy vehicles (excluding for equipment. The vehicle systems or Lastly, we are proposing to add a emergency vehicles and buses), components on which manufacturers requirement for manufacturers to notify motorcycles, or trailers annually; fewer provide information vary depending the agency in the event they file for than 500 emergency vehicles annually; upon the type of vehicle or equipment bankruptcy. This requirement will help fewer than 100 buses annually; manufactured. Light vehicle us preserve our ability to take necessary manufacturers of original motor vehicle manufacturers must provide reports on and appropriate measures to ensure equipment; and manufacturers of twenty (20) vehicle components or recalling manufacturers, or others such replacement motor vehicle equipment systems: Steering, suspension, service as corporate successors, continue to other than child restraint systems and brake, parking brake, engine and engine honor obligations to provide free tires). The second group has limited cooling system, fuel system, power remedies to owners of unsafe vehicle reporting responsibility.1 49 CFR train, electrical system, exterior lighting, and equipment products. 579.27. visibility, air bags, seat belts, structure, Light vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle latch, vehicle speed control, tires, III. Background and medium-heavy vehicle wheels, seats, fire and rollover. Bus, A. The Early Warning Reporting Rule manufacturers must provide emergency vehicle and medium-heavy information relating to: vehicle manufacturers must provide On July 10, 2002, NHTSA published • a rule implementing the EWR Production (the cumulative total of reports on an additional four (4) vehicle provisions of the TREAD Act, 49 U.S.C. vehicles or items of equipment components or systems: service brake 30166(m). 67 FR 45822. This rule manufactured in the year). air, fuel system diesel, fuel system • Incidents involving death or injury 2 requires certain motor vehicle other, and trailer hitch. based on claims and notices received by manufacturers and motor vehicle B. The Foreign Defect Reporting Rule the manufacturer. equipment manufacturers to report • Claims relating to property damage On October 11, 2002, NHTSA information and submit documents to received by the manufacturer. published regulations implementing NHTSA that could be used to identify • Consumer complaints (a foreign motor vehicle and product potential safety-related defects. communication by a consumer to the defect reporting provisions of the The EWR regulation divides manufacturer that expresses TREAD Act, 49 U.S.C. 30166(1). 67 FR manufacturers of motor vehicles and dissatisfaction with the manufacturer’s 63295, 63310; 49 CFR 579, subpart B. motor vehicle equipment into two product or performance of its product or The Foreign Defect Reporting rule groups with different reporting an alleged defect). requires certain motor vehicle responsibilities for reporting • Warranty claims paid by the manufacturers and motor vehicle information. The first group consists of: manufacturer pursuant to a warranty equipment manufacturers to report (a) Larger vehicle manufacturers that program (in the tire industry these are information and submit documents to meet certain production thresholds that warranty adjustment claims). NHTSA when a manufacturer or a produce light vehicles, buses, • Field reports (a report prepared by foreign government determines that a emergency vehicles, medium-heavy an employee or representative of the safety recall or other safety campaign vehicles, trailers and/or motorcycles; (b) manufacturer concerning the failure, should be conducted in a foreign tire manufacturers that produce over a malfunction, lack of durability or other country for products that are identical certain number per tire line; and (c) all performance problem of a motor vehicle or substantially similar to vehicles or manufacturers of child restraints. Light or item of motor vehicle equipment). items of equipment sold or offered for vehicle, motorcycle, trailer and For property damage claims, warranty sale in the United States. 49 U.S.C. medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers claims, consumer complaints and field 30166(1)(1) & (2). To assist the agency’s except buses and emergency vehicles reports, light vehicle, bus, emergency program implementation, manufacturers that produced, imported, offered for vehicle and medium-heavy vehicle must submit an annual list of sale, or sold 5,000 or more vehicles manufacturers submit information in substantially similar vehicles to annually in the United States are the form of numerical tallies, by NHTSA. 49 CFR 579.11(e). This list is required to report comprehensive specified system and component. These due by November 1 of each year. reports every calendar quarter. data are referred to as aggregate data. Manufacturers may submit their Emergency vehicle manufacturers must Reports on deaths or injuries contain substantially similar vehicle list by report if they produced, imported, mail, facsimile or by email. 49 CFR offered for sale, or sold 500 or more 1 In contrast to the comprehensive quarterly 579.6(a). NHTSA offers a Microsoft vehicles annually and bus reports provided by manufacturers in the first Excel template on its Web site http:// manufacturers must report if they group, the second group of manufacturers does not have to provide quarterly reports. These produced, imported or offered for sale, manufacturers only submit information about a 2 Manufacturers of motorcycles, trailers, child or sold 100 or more buses annually in death incident when they receive a claim or notice restraints and tires report on varying systems and the United States. Passenger car tire, of a death. components. See 49 CFR 579.23–26.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55610 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
www.safercar.gov/ that manufacturers notifications. Section 577.7 dictates the subsection, specifically 30166(m)(3)(B), can download and use to upload their time and manner of these notifications. authorizes the agency to require substantially similar lists directly to Recently, in July 2012, Congress manufacturers to report information that NHTSA’s Artemis database. The vast enacted the MAP–21 Act, Public Law may assist in the identification of safety majority of manufacturers submit their 112–141, 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012). It defects. Specifically, section substantially similar list by uploading requires, among other things, that the 30166(m)(3)(B) states: ‘‘As part of the the template directly to the agency. Secretary of Transportation require that final rule * * * the Secretary may, to motor vehicle safety recall information the extent that such information may C. Defect and Noncompliance be made available to the public on the assist in the identification of defects Information Reports and Notifications Internet, be searchable by vehicle make related to motor vehicle safety in motor Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and and model and vehicle identification vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 30119, manufacturers are required to number (VIN), be in a format that in the United States, require provide notice to the Secretary if the preserves consumer privacy, and manufacturers of motor vehicles or manufacturer determines that a motor includes information about each recall motor vehicle equipment to report, vehicle or item of motor vehicle that has not been completed for each periodically or upon request of the equipment contains a defect related to vehicle. Id. at section 31301(a). The Act Secretary, such information as the motor vehicle safety or does not comply provides that the Secretary may initiate Secretary may request.’’ This subsection with an applicable motor vehicle safety a rulemaking to require manufacturers conveys substantial authority and standard. The regulation implementing to provide this information on a discretion to the agency. Most EWR the manufacturer’s requirement to publicly accessible Internet Web site. Id. data, with the exception of information provide notice to NHTSA is located at at 31301(b). on deaths and property damage claims, 49 CFR part 573 Defect and is reported under regulations authorized Noncompliance Responsibility and D. Scope of this Rulemaking by this provision. Reports, which, among other things, Today’s proposed rule is limited in The agency’s discretion is not requires manufacturers to provide scope to the proposed amendments to unfettered. Per 49 U.S.C. reports (commonly referred to as Defect the EWR requirements, the foreign 30166(m)(4)(D), NHTSA may not or Noncompliance reports, or Part 573 defect reporting rule, and to the impose undue burdens upon Reports, as the case may be) to NHTSA requirements associated with safety manufacturers, taking into account the on defects in motor vehicles and motor recall reporting, administration, and cost incurred by manufacturers to report vehicle equipment and noncompliances execution as delineated in Parts 573 and EWR data and the agency’s ability to use with motor vehicle safety standards 577 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal the EWR data meaningfully to assist in found in 49 CFR part 571. Section 573.6 Regulations. Apart from the proposed the identification of safety defects. specifies the information that changes noted above in the summary The TREAD Act also amended 49 manufacturers are required to submit to section, NHTSA intends to leave the U.S.C. 30166 to add a new subsection (l) the agency and Section 573.9 specifies remaining current EWR, foreign defect to address reporting of foreign defects the address for submitting reports. One reporting regulations, and safety recalls and other safety campaigns by vehicle element is the identification of the implementing regulations Parts 573 and and equipment manufacturers. This vehicles containing the defect or 577 unchanged. section requires manufacturers of motor noncompliance. Section 573.6(c)(2)(i) vehicles or items of motor vehicle requires manufacturers to identify IV. Discussion equipment to notify NHTSA if the passenger cars by the make, line, model A. Statutory Background on Early manufacturer or a foreign government year, the dates of manufacture and other Warning Reporting, Foreign Defect determines that the manufacturer information as necessary to describe the Reporting and Recall Notification should conduct a recall or other safety vehicles. For all other vehicles, Section Requirements campaign on a motor vehicle or item of 573.6(c)(2)(ii) requires manufacturers to motor vehicle equipment that is identify the vehicles by body style or Under the early warning reporting identical or substantially similar to a type, dates of manufacture and any requirements of the TREAD Act, motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle other information as necessary to NHTSA is required to issue a rule equipment offered for sale in the United describe the vehicle, such as the GVWR. establishing reporting requirements for States. 49 U.S.C. 30166(l). Subsection (l) Section 573.6(c)(3) requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and does not define ‘‘identical’’ or the term manufacturers to submit the total motor vehicle equipment to enhance the ‘‘substantially similar.’’ Under the number of vehicles that potentially agency’s ability to carry out the TREAD Act’s foreign defect reporting contain the defect or noncompliance. provisions of Chapter 301 of Title 49, provisions, NHTSA is to specify the Section 573.8 requires manufacturers to United States Code, which is commonly contents of the notification. Id. maintain lists of VINs of the vehicles referred to by its initial name the The Safety Act also requires involved in a recall as well as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle manufacturers of motor vehicles or remedy status for each vehicle to be Safety Act or as the Safety Act. See 49 items of motor vehicle equipment to included in a manufacturer’s quarterly U.S.C. 30166(m)(1), (2). Under one notify NHTSA and owners and reporting as specified in 573.7. subsection of the early warning purchasers of the vehicle or equipment The conduct of a recall notification provisions, NHTSA is to require reports if the manufacturer determines that a campaign, including how and when of information in the manufacturers’ motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle owners, dealers, and distributors are possession to the extent that such equipment contains a defect related to notified, is addressed by regulation in information may assist in the motor vehicle safety or does not comply 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and identification of safety-related defects with an applicable motor vehicle safety Noncompliance Notification. Section and which concern, inter alia, data on standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118(c). 577.5 specifies required content and claims for deaths and aggregate Manufacturers must provide notification structure of the owner notifications. statistical data on property damage. 49 pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 577.13 specifies required U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(A)(i); see also 49 section 30119 of the Safety Act. Section content for dealer and distributor U.S.C. 30166(m)(3)(C). Another 30119 sets forth the contents of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55611
notification, which includes a clear While it is clear that motor vehicle requires only that ‘‘motor vehicle safety description of the defect or manufacturers have data regarding information’’ include information about noncompliance, the timing of the safety recalls, NHTSA also receives each recall that has not been completed notification, means of providing safety recall information from for each vehicle. However, under notification and when a second manufacturers pursuant to other NHTSA regulations, recall information notification is required. 49 U.S.C. provisions of the Safety Act and is broader than the information 30119. Subsection (a) of section 30119 NHTSA’s regulations. See 49 U.S.C. specifically listed in section 30301(a). confers considerable authority and §§ 30118 and 30119; 49 CFR part 573. Under 49 CFR part 573, in general, discretion on NHTSA, by rulemaking, to With both manufacturers and NHTSA manufacturers are required to submit require additional information in a collecting safety recall information, several types of information, such as the manufacturer’s notification. See 49 section 30301(a) lacks precise language total number of vehicles, an estimate of U.S.C. 30119(a)(7). as to who is required to make that the percentage of vehicles with the In July 2012, Congress enacted the information available on the Internet. defect, a description of the defect, a MAP–21 Act. See Public Law 112–141, Paragraph (a) is clear that the ‘‘Secretary chronology of all the principal events 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012). Sections shall require’’ the information be placed that lead to the determination of a 31301 of the MAP–21 Act mandates that on the Internet, but it is unclear who the recall, a description of the the Secretary require that motor vehicle Secretary is to require to place safety manufacturer’s remedy program, etc. safety recall information be made recall information on the Internet. See 49 CFR 573.6. Given the diversity of available to the public on the Internet, Under this language, either information that could constitute safety and it provides authority to the manufacturers or NHTSA may be recall information, Congress has vested Secretary, in his discretion, to conduct required to place safety recall considerable discretion with NHTSA to a rulemaking to require each information on the Internet. determine the appropriate types of manufacturer to provide its safety recall In addition, section 30301(a) is silent information to be placed on the Internet. information on a publicly accessible on which manufacturers are subject to Section 30301(a) also fails to specify Internet Web site. Under section making information available on the how and when the safety recall 31301(a), Congress has directed the Internet, only requiring motor vehicle information shall be placed on the Secretary to require motor vehicle safety safety recall information be made Internet. Other than providing for the information be available on the Internet, available. This section does not specify information to be searchable by vehicle searchable by vehicle make, model and which vehicle manufacturers are make, model and VIN, and that the VIN, preserves consumer privacy and required to make their information format preserves consumer privacy, includes information regarding available. Consistent with traditional section 31301(a) is silent on the format completion of the particular recall. tools of statutory construction, Congress and degree of availability of the safety is presumed to know each agency’s Section 31301(b) authorizes the recall information. Current information statutory and regulatory scheme. Under Secretary, in his discretion, to conduct available on the Safercar.com Web site its regulatory scheme, NHTSA often a rulemaking requiring each is available in different formats and breaks down motor vehicle manufacturer to provide the safety recall degrees of availability. For instance, the manufacturers into different vehicle information in paragraph (a) on a agency makes consumer complaints classes based upon each vehicle’s publicly accessible Internet Web site. available on the Internet in two different application. For example, under the Specifically, section 31301(a) states: formats. One format is searchable by (a) VEHICLE RECALL Early Warning Reporting (EWR) vehicle, make, model and component. INFORMATION.—Not later than 1 year Regulation, 49 CFR part 579, subpart C, The other format provides the public the after the date of enactment of this Act, NHTSA divides motor vehicle ability to download NHTSA’s consumer the Secretary shall require that motor manufacturers into several reporting complaint database, which permits the vehicle safety recall information— categories such as light vehicles, individual to perform customized (1) Be available to the public on the medium-heavy vehicles, motorcycles searches of the consumer complaint Internet; and trailers and has limited the (2) be searchable by vehicle make and reporting obligations of classes of database. Without precise language model and vehicle identification vehicle manufacturers that annually specifying the format and degree of number; produce under a certain amount. See 49 availability, NHTSA is left to determine (3) be in a format that preserves CFP 579.21–24. Here, Congress has not the appropriate mechanism for consumer privacy; and directly spoken on whether safety recall placement on the Internet. (4) includes information about each information must be made available While providing authority to conduct recall that has not been completed for from all vehicle manufacturers, certain a rulemaking, section 31301(b) provides each vehicle. classes of vehicle manufacturers or, like little help in resolving the issues in While Congress has provided certain the EWR rule, certain manufacturers paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) provides parameters to its mandate to make safety based on annual production. Congress, the Secretary with the authority to recall information available on the accordingly, has left it to NHTSA to conduct a rulemaking to provide the Internet, it has not directly spoken on determine the scope of manufacturers information in subsection (a) and the mechanism to implement section that are required to place safety recall provides limited instructions as to the 31301(a), leaving the agency to use its information on the Internet. scope of any such rulemaking and discretion to fill any ambiguity. Moreover, section 30301(a) does not sharing such information with Paragraph (a) is silent with respect to expressly state the type of safety recall automobile dealers and consumers. who is required to make safety recall information that must be placed on the Section 31301(b) states: information available, which Internet, merely requiring ‘‘motor (b) RULEMAKING.—The Secretary manufacturers are subject to the vehicle safety recall information’’ and may initiate a rulemaking proceeding to requirement, the types of safety requiring that this information be require each manufacturer to provide information to be made available and searchable by vehicle, make and model the information described in subsection how and when the information is placed and VIN. Other than vehicle make, (a), with respect to that manufacturer’s on the Internet. model and VIN, section 30301(a) motor vehicles, on a publicly accessible
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55612 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Internet Web site. Any rules heavy vehicle reporting would assist in aggregate data under those sections. We promulgated under this subsection— identifying safety-related defects: also propose to amend the light vehicle (1) shall limit the information that • The importance of the data to motor reporting templates for the EWR death must be made available under this vehicle safety. and injury and aggregate reports to section to include only those recalls • The maturity of a particular reflect adding vehicle type. The issued not more than 15 years prior to technology and its market penetration. proposed light vehicle templates are the date of enactment of [MAP–21]; • Whether the current component located in Appendix A below. (2) may require information under categories are adequate to capture Today’s proposal will assist ODI to paragraph (1) to be provided to a dealer information related to proposed data identify potential safety-related defects or an owner of a vehicle at no charge; elements. by making light vehicle EWR data and • Whether ODI has investigated or received internally consistent. Because (3) shall permit a manufacturer a been notified of vehicle recalls related light vehicle manufacturers providing reasonable period of time after receiving to the proposed data elements. quarterly EWR reports are not obligated information from a dealer with respect • Whether VOQ complaints related to to provide the vehicle type in their to a vehicle to update the information the data elements have been useful in death and injury and aggregate EWR about the vehicle on the publicly opening investigations into potential reports, NHTSA is unable to distinguish accessible Internet Web site. safety-related defects and whether those whether the light vehicle death and Similar to paragraph (a) of 31301, investigations have resulted or may injury and aggregate data are associated paragraph (b) does not address which result in recalls. with certain vehicle types such as manufacturers are subject to the • Whether manufacturers collect passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, requirement to provide safety recall information on the proposed data light trucks or incomplete vehicles. information on the publicly accessible elements. Without being able to isolate this • Internet, whether the information is The burden on manufacturers. information by vehicle type, ODI cannot placed on the manufacturer’s public We emphasize that the general match aggregate data with production Web site or NHTSA’s Web site, the approach of the EWR program is to data. types of safety information to be made collect data on numerous systems and If this proposal is adopted, NHTSA available and how and when the components in a very wide range and could perform a more focused analysis information is placed on the Internet. volume of vehicles for the agency to of the EWR information. For instance, Instead, it vests considerable discretion then systematically review information, warranty claims by vehicle type from in the agency to conduct a rulemaking with the end result being the the aggregate data can be matched with to best meet the statutory goals of identification of a relatively small corresponding vehicle type production section 31301. The MAP–21 Act further number of potential safety problems, data, allowing us to determine the specifies that a manufacturer’s filing of compared to the amount of data occurrence of warranty claims per a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 collected and reviewed. These data are vehicle type. This proportion can be of Title 11 of the United States Code, considered along with other information used in a subsequent, more focused and does not negate its duty to comply with, collected by and available to the agency thorough analysis of EWR data. A among other things, the defect and in deciding whether to open relatively high rate of warranty claims noncompliance notification and investigations. per production unit may warrant further reporting obligations, nor the C. Vehicle Type for Light Vehicle examination of EWR and other ODI requirement to provide a free remedy, Aggregate Data sources of information. This proposal under the Safety Act. MAP–21 Act at would permit a more efficient and section at 31312. The EWR regulation requires light targeted use of the EWR data in terms vehicle manufacturers producing 5000 of detecting and identifying potential B. Matters Considered in Adding Data or more vehicles annually to submit Elements to Early Warning Reports safety concerns. production information including the Light vehicle manufacturers should be Under EWR, we endeavor to collect a make, the model, the model year, the able to readily identify the vehicle type body of information that may assist in type, the platform and the production. from the VIN provided in the the identification of potential safety- 49 CFR 579.21(a). Manufacturers must information they receive. About 95 related defects in motor vehicles and provide the production as a cumulative percent of the EWR reports on incidents motor vehicle equipment. When we total for the model year, unless involving a death or injury include a believe that the EWR information may production of the product has ceased. VIN when initially submitted by be refined or enhanced to further Id. While light vehicle manufacturers manufacturers. 71 FR 52040, 52046 advance our goal of identifying safety are required to provide the type of (September 1, 2006). Warranty claims defects, we consider factors that are vehicle with their production, they are and field reports normally contain a VIN relevant to the particular area of EWR not required to provide the type of because the manufacturer’s authorized under consideration. In view of our vehicle when they submit death and dealer or representative has access to broad statutory authority to require injury data pursuant to 49 CFR the vehicle and, in the case of warranty reporting of information that may assist 579.21(b) or with aggregate data under claims, a vehicle manufacturer will not in the identification of potential safety- 49 CFR 579.21(c).3 Under today’s notice, pay a warranty claim unless the claim related defects, we do not believe that we propose to amend 579.21(b) and (c) includes the VIN. For consumer it is necessary or appropriate to identify to require light vehicle manufacturers to complaints and property damage claims, a prescriptive list of factors for provide the type of vehicle when they the VIN or other information is delineating particular data elements. submit their death and injury data and generally available to identify the type Nonetheless, based on our experience, of vehicle. If the VIN is not available, we the following considerations, among 3 For light vehicles, type means a vehicle certified propose that the manufacturer submit other things, have been identified as by its manufacturer pursuant to 49 CFR 567.4(g)(7) ‘‘UN’’ for ‘‘unknown’’ in the required as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, relevant to evaluating whether or not or truck or a vehicle identified by its manufacturer field. adding data elements to light vehicle, as an incomplete vehicle pursuant to 48 CFR 568.4. NHTSA believes that this change bus, emergency vehicle and medium- See 49 CFR 579.4. would place a minimal burden on light
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55613
vehicle manufacturers. Each systems and an ‘‘other’’ category in and fuel/propulsion system will assist manufacturer would need to add a field which manufacturers may bin their in our identification of safety defect to its EWR database containing the light vehicles. We are also proposing trends. NHTSA has opened several vehicle type and perform definitions for each fuel and/or investigations on light vehicle models reprogramming of internal software. In propulsion system and codes that a manufactured with more than one fuel its response to the December 2008 manufacturer would use when or propulsion system as an option. Each NPRM, the Alliance of Automobile reporting. investigation involved an issue with a Manufacturers (Alliance), an industry The current Corporate Average Fuel specific fuel or propulsion system that trade group,4 did not object to this Economy (CAFE) standard and new under current EWR reporting is masked proposal, stating that the costs were proposed CAFE standards will spur by light vehicle manufacturers reporting relatively modest. See Comment of manufacturers to increasingly produce the vehicles under one category for fuel/ Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers fuel efficient vehicles employing propulsion: to December 5, 2008 NPRM (docket various technologies. Following the • PE02–071 and EA03–001 involved #NHTSA 2008–0169–0013.1, located at direction set by President Obama on alleged vehicle explosions during fires http://www.regulations.gov/search/ May 21, 2010, NHTSA and the on 1996–2003 Ford Crown Victoria Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R= Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) vehicles powered by compressed 09000064808443c2). have issued a Notice of Proposed natural gas (CNG). The 1996–2003 We seek comment on today’s Rulemaking (NPRM) for Fuel Economy Crown Victoria was manufactured with proposed amendments to 49 CFR and Greenhouse Gas emissions two (2) different fuel/propulsion 579.21(b) and (c) to add a vehicle type regulations for model year (MY) 2017– systems: Spark ignition fuel (SIF) and requirement to EWR death and injury 2025 light-duty vehicles.5 NHTSA CNG. This resulted in a recall: NHTSA and aggregate data reports. In any believes that to meet the proposed CAFE recall number 03V472. comments on burden, we seek details on rule, manufacturers will increase their • PE07–028 involved alleged CNG costs to revise EWR templates and production of light vehicles with tanks exploding during fires on 2003 software to meet this proposal. alternate fuel/propulsion systems which Honda Civic vehicles powered by CNG. will raise new safety issues in these Honda recalled the vehicles. See D. Reporting by Fuel and/or Propulsion vehicle that are currently unaccounted NHTSA recall number 07V512. The System Type for in the EWR regulatory scheme. 2003 Honda Civic is available with three The EWR regulation requires light Therefore, as the automotive industry (3) different fuel/propulsion systems: vehicle manufacturers to report the begins to introduce and produce more SIF, hybrid (HEV) or CNG. required information by make, model vehicles with new propulsion systems, Accordingly, we propose amending and model year. 49 CFR 579.21(a), NHTSA believes now is an opportune 49 CFR 579.21(a), (b), and (c) to require (b)(2), (c). The rule also requires light time to start collecting EWR information light vehicle manufacturers to provide vehicle manufacturers to subdivide their to assist in identifying potential defects the type of fuel and/or propulsion EWR death and injury and aggregate in these new systems. As currently system when they submit their EWR reports by components. 49 CFR configured, the EWR reporting structure data. We also propose amending the 579.21(b)(2), (c). The reporting by make, may mask potential problems with these light vehicle reporting templates for the model and model year and component systems. NHTSA is currently unable to EWR production information, death and categories have remained unchanged discern from EWR data whether a injury, and aggregate reports to reflect since the EWR regulation was published particular vehicle problem is unique to adding fuel and/or propulsion type. in July 2002. Since that time, a particular fuel or propulsion system. We propose adding a new definition manufacturers have introduced new Under today’s proposal, problems with of ‘‘fuel and/or propulsion system type’’ technologies to meet the demand for a particular make and model that may in 49 CFR 579.4. The new definition more fuel efficient vehicles. Currently, be unique to one fuel/propulsion system would provide that ‘‘Fuel and/or light vehicle manufacturers do not could be readily distinguished from propulsion system type means the identify the specific fuel or propulsion problems that may apply to that make variety of fuel and/or propulsion system used in their vehicles. As use of and model regardless of the fuel/ systems used in a vehicle, as follows: these new technologies expands, we are propulsion system. Also, this proposal Compressed natural gas (CNG); concerned that the current EWR would permit NHTSA to investigate compression ignition fuel (CIF); electric reporting scheme is not sufficiently safety concerns in many makes and battery power (EBP); fuel-cell power sensitive for readily identifying vehicles models with similar fuel/propulsion (FCP); hybrid electric vehicle (HEV); with different fuel and/or propulsion systems (e.g., a battery problem in a hydrogen based power (HBP); plug-in system types. For example, some plug-in electric vehicle or a hydrogen hybrid (PHV); and spark ignition fuel models, such as the Toyota Camry, are fuel cell problem that may extend to (SIF).’’ Manufacturers would identify offered with both conventional and similarly equipped vehicles). the fuel and/or propulsion system on hybrid propulsion systems. To address We believe that adding the the EWR template in the appropriate these concerns, we propose to amend appropriate fuel and/or propulsion field. In addition to amending 579.4 to 579.21(a), (b), and (c) to require light system type to EWR will enhance add ‘‘fuel and/or propulsion system vehicle manufacturers to report fuel NHTSA’s ability to identify and address type’’, we propose to amend that section and/or propulsion system types in their potential safety defects related to to add a definition for each fuel/ EWR reports. We also propose to amend specific fuel and/or propulsion systems. propulsion system type, as follows: the light vehicle reporting templates to Recent investigations indicate that • Compressed natural gas (CNG) reflect these proposals. We propose dividing light vehicles by make, model, means, in the context of reporting fuel adding eight (8) fuel and/or propulsion and/or propulsion system type, a system 5 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2017 and Later that uses compressed natural gas to 4 The Alliance members are BMW Group, Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas propel a motor vehicle. Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy • Compression ignition Fuel (CIF) Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Standards, 76 FR 74854–75420, December 1, 2011 Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and (located at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/ means, in the context of reporting fuel Volkswagen. rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-25_CAFE_NPRM.pdf). and/or propulsion system type, a system
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55614 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
that uses diesel or any diesel-based fuels potential problems that may occur for manufacturers because to propel a motor vehicle. This includes within a fuel or propulsion system, manufacturers already collect this biodiesel. which requires the agency to information. Manufacturers collect and • Electric battery power (EBP) means, differentiate between propulsion analyze data on alternative fueled in the context of reporting fuel and/or technologies that are, or will be, models, like any other model, to propulsion system type, a system that available to consumers. For EWR monitor quality control, safety problems uses only batteries to power an electric purposes, there is no technical hardware and to make in-process improvements. motor to propel a motor vehicle. difference between a vehicle with a In their data collections, manufacturers • Fuel-cell power (FCP) means, in the spark ignition fuel engine capable of distinguish between fuel/propulsion context of reporting fuel and/or using a variety of fuels, such as ethanol systems within a model to conduct root propulsion system type, a system that or gasoline, or a mixture of fuels, such cause analyses. Once EWR systems are uses fuel cells to generate electricity to as E85 (ethanol/gasoline mixture) and a revised, additional ongoing burdens power an electric motor to propel the vehicle with a spark ignition fuel engine should be negligible as manufacturers vehicle. using gasoline only. While such a fuel already have established EWR • Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) distinction is appropriate for the CAFE operations. In addition, the agency has means, in the context of reporting fuel program, EWR will not benefit from that proposed a relatively small number of and/or propulsion system type, a system level of detail because the specific fuel fuel and/or propulsion system types that that uses a combination of an electric type being used will be unknown. should not require manufacturers to motor and internal combustion engine We solicit comment on our proposed report on hundreds of different models, to propel a motor vehicle. definitions and seek input on clarifying as stated by the Alliance. • Hydrogen based power (HBP) each distinct system type. We also seek We seek comments on our proposal to means, in the context of reporting fuel comment on whether additional fuel amend 49 CFR 579.21 to add fuel and/ and/or propulsion system type, a system and/or propulsion system types should or propulsion system type to light that uses hydrogen to propel a motor be added and how they might be vehicle reporting, the proposed types of vehicle through means other than a fuel defined. fuel or propulsion systems and each cell. The Alliance’s comments to the proposed fuel or propulsion type • Plug-in hybrid (PHV) means, in the December 2008 NPRM opposed adding definition. We also seek comments on context of reporting fuel and/or fuel or propulsion systems because it the proposed light vehicle templates propulsion system type, a system that would increase manufacturers’ reporting located in section F below incorporating combines an electric motor and an costs. First, the Alliance contended that our proposed amendments. Finally, on internal combustion engine to propel a adding fuel/propulsion system reporting comments related to burden, we seek motor vehicle and is capable of by distinct models would impose a one- details on costs to revise EWR templates recharging its batteries by plugging in to time cost of approximately $170,000 and software to meet the fuel and/or an external electric current. (per manufacturer) to revise their EWR propulsion system type proposal. • Spark ignition fuel (SIF) means, in systems to collect and properly bin the the context of reporting fuel and/or data. Substantial ongoing costs would E. New Component Categories for Light propulsion system type, a system that be incurred as well. According to these Vehicles, Buses, Emergency Vehicles, uses gasoline, ethanol, or methanol comments, manufacturers separately and Medium-Heavy Vehicles based fuels to propel a motor vehicle. maintain some data, such as production The EWR regulation requires light and We anticipate that the majority of and sales information, based upon the medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers to vehicles produced by manufacturers type of fuel or propulsion system in report the required information by will be captured by our proposed various models. However, the Alliance specific component categories. 49 CFR definitions. However, the proposal states that manufacturers do not 579.21(b)(2), (c), (d) and 579.22(b), (c), includes the term ‘‘other’’ to identify separate vehicles by fuel or propulsion (d). The component categories for each vehicle models employing a fuel/ system when reporting EWR data by vehicle type have remained unchanged propulsion system that is not component category. Doing so, the since the EWR regulation was published enumerated in our other proposed fuel Alliance states, would require in July 2002. Since that time, new and/or propulsion types. For example, manufacturers to revise their systems, technologies, such as Electronic the Dual fuel F–150 would be classified which appears to be the bulk of the Stability Control (ESC), Roll Stability as ‘‘Other,’’ since it is propelled by manufacturers’ costs. The Alliance also Control (RSC), Forward Collision either gasoline or CNG. We propose to noted that adding fuel/propulsion types Avoidance (FCA), Lane Departure use the following codes for fuel/ would require manufacturers to report Prevention (LDP), and Backover propulsion type: CNG, CIF, EBP, FCP, on hundreds of different models. Prevention, have been introduced into HEV, HBP, PHV, SIF and OTH (Other). Today’s proposal is different than the the marketplace. As these new Our fuel/propulsion system types one proposed in the December 2008 technologies are implemented, and include most of the alternative fuels NPRM. Our current proposal would not demand for these products increases in found in the Energy Policy and add the fuel and/or propulsion system the market place, we are concerned that Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, type to the model name as was proposed the EWR component categories are 49 U.S.C. 32901, but not all. Due to in December 2008. It proposes to add a unsuitable for capturing these newer differences in the Corporate Average new separate reporting element to the technologies. As a result, today we Fuel Economy (CAFE) and EWR EWR. propose to add components ESC, RSC, programs, our proposed categories of If today’s proposal is adopted, FCA, LDP and backover prevention to fuel/propulsion systems differ slightly manufacturers will incur a one-time cost EWR reporting. from the alternative fuels listed in to revise EWR templates and software to section 32901. While EPCA encourages incorporate the fuel and/or propulsion 1. Stability Control Systems manufacturers to produce vehicles using system types in their EWR reporting. We propose to add a new component alternative fuels, the EWR program has However, in the agency’s view, adding for light vehicles, buses, emergency a different focus. In the context of the fuel and/or propulsion system type vehicles and medium/heavy vehicles in alternative fuel vehicles, that focus is on to EWR will not be unduly burdensome 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) and 49 CFR
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55615
579.22(b)(2) for stability control report stability control issues under ‘‘03 • That enhances rollover stability by systems.6 On April 6, 2007, NHTSA service brake, hydraulic’’ and ‘‘04 applying and adjusting the vehicle brake published a final rule adding Federal service brake, air’’ because those torques to reduce lateral acceleration of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) definitions include stability control. As a vehicle; No. 126 Electronic Stability Control a result, potential stability control issues • That is computer-controlled with Systems. 72 FR 17236, 17310, as may be masked within the broader the computer using a closed-loop amended 72 FR 34410 (June 22, 2007). service brake category, making NHTSA algorithm to enhance rollover stability; FMVSS No. 126 requires that all new unable to examine and detect potential • That has a means to determine the light vehicles, with certain exceptions, safety concerns that may be associated vehicle’s lateral acceleration; • must be equipped with an ESC system directly with a vehicle’s stability control That has the means to determine meeting the standard’s requirements. As system. Adding an ESC component the vehicle mass or, if applicable, it pertains to buses, emergency vehicles category to light vehicles and stability combination vehicle mass; That has a and medium-heavy vehicles, NHTSA control and/or RSC to buses, emergency means to modify engine torque, as studies indicate that stability control vehicles and medium-heavy vehicles necessary, to assist the driver in systems provide potential safety benefits reporting categories will allow NHTSA maintaining rollover stability of the for heavy trucks.7 In addition, for some vehicle and/or combination vehicle; and to capture data on this mandatory • manufacturers, stability control systems system on light vehicles and new That, when installed on a truck are standard on all heavy trucks.8 As a system on medium-heavy trucks and tractor, has the means to provide brake result of FMVSS No. 126 and safety analyze stability control data for pressure to automatically apply and benefits of stability control systems on potential defects. modulate the brake torques of a towed heavy vehicles, the number of vehicles We propose to use the ESC definition semi-trailer. containing stability control systems is found in 49 CFR 571.126.S4 for light Recent investigative activities and increasing rapidly and potentially could vehicles. We propose to define ESC for manufacturer recalls illustrate that include most of the vehicle fleet. buses, emergency vehicles, and adding a stability control component In addition to stability control medium-heavy vehicles as a system that category likely will assist NHTSA to systems, RSC systems are increasingly has all the following attributes: uncover potential safety issues. The agency has opened several light vehicle being installed on heavy trucks. RSC • That augments vehicle directional ESC investigations since 2007 that detects a high lateral acceleration stability by applying and adjusting the under current EWR reporting is masked condition that could lead to a truck vehicle brake torques individually at by light vehicle manufacturers reporting rolling over, and intervenes by each wheel position on at least one front ESC issues under service brake system: automatically applying the vehicle’s and at least one rear axle of the vehicles • PE08–056 and EA09–002 involved brakes and/or reducing engine power to induce correcting yaw moment to alleged ESC malfunctions on 2005–2006 and applying the engine retarder. We limit vehicle oversteer and to limit Chevrolet Corvettes. The subject are proposing to include RSC in the vehicle understeer; definition of stability control in this vehicles are allegedly experiencing • That enhances rollover stability by notice for medium-heavy trucks. In sudden and unexpected inappropriate applying and adjusting the vehicle brake addition, while trailer-based RSC brake application to one or more wheels torques individually at each wheel systems are available, we are not causing the ESC to malfunction. This position on at least one front and at least proposing to include reporting of RSC investigation resulted in a recall one rear axle of the vehicle to reduce incidents by trailer manufacturers at (10V172). lateral acceleration of a vehicle; • this time. RSC systems are installed • PE08–072 and EA09–006 involved predominantly on powered vehicles That is computer-controlled with alleged ESC and/or Traction Control such as truck tractors, rather than the computer using a closed-loop System (TCS) malfunctions on 2003 trailers, in the current marketplace. algorithm to induce correcting yaw Toyota Sequoias. The subject vehicles moment and enhance rollover stability; are allegedly experiencing sudden and The EWR regulation currently does • not have a specific component for That has a means to determine the unexpected inappropriate brake stability control issues. See 49 CFR vehicle’s lateral acceleration; application to one or more wheels • 579.21(b)(2) and 579.22(b)(2). Light That has the means to determine causing the ESC to malfunction. This vehicle manufacturers report ESC issues the vehicle’s yaw rate and to estimate its investigation resulted in a recall under ‘‘03 service brake system’’ and side slip or side slip derivative with (10V176). medium-heavy vehicle manufacturers respect to time; In addition, there have been eleven • That has the means to estimate (11) light vehicle recalls 9 due to ESC 6 Manufacturers may market or refer to ESC as vehicle mass or, if applicable, problems and three (3) medium-heavy electronic stability program, vehicle stability combination vehicle mass; vehicle recalls 10 due to stability control control, rollover stability control, vehicle dynamics • That has the means to monitor integrated management system, or active skid and problems. The agency believes that traction control, among others. driver steering input; stability control issues are likely to • 7 See DOT HS 811 205, October 2009, ‘‘Safety That has a means to modify engine increase as vehicle manufacturers add Benefits of Stability Control Systems for Tractor- torque, as necessary, to assist the driver stability control to their fleets. In our Semitrailers’’ located at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/ in maintaining control of the vehicle NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20 view, it is important to capture EWR Avoidance/2009/811205.pdf and DOT HS 811 233, and/or combination vehicle; and data on this key safety component, November 2009, ‘‘Heavy Truck ESC effectiveness • That, when installed on a truck supplementing NHTSA’s traditional Study Using NADS’’ located at http://www.nhtsa. tractor, has the means to provide brake screening methods to assist in gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash %20Avoidance/2009/811233.pdf. pressure to automatically apply and 8 Not your daddy’s brakes: Technology advances modulate the brake torques of a towed 9 The light vehicle recalls are designated NHTSA allow for shorter stopping distances and the semi-trailer. recall nos.: 98V080, 04V554, 05V119, 05V120, development of stability and collision avoidance RSC has similar attributes related to 05V177, 05V316, 08V645, 09V122, 09V130, 09V187, and 09V280. systems, but there is a need for good maintenance, rollover stability. We propose to define Fleet Equipment, March 22, 2010 (located at 10 The medium-heavy vehicle recalls are http://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/Item/71983/ RSC as a system that has the following designated NHTSA recall nos.: 05V543, 09V115, not_your_daddys_brakes.aspx). attributes: and 09V196.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55616 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
identifying potential safety issues are valuable to manufacturers because 579.22(b)(2) to add the component sooner. they are the primary sources for ‘‘stability control system.’’ We also seek The Alliance’s comments to the manufacturers to identify problems, and comments on the proposed definition December 2008 NPRM opposed adding to monitor quality and in-process for this component. an ESC component, citing both improvements. With the ability to 2. Forward Collision Avoidance and substantive concerns and cost burdens. identify specific issues through service Lane Departure Prevention The Alliance contends that most codes and field inspections, consumers will be unaware whether manufacturers should be able to code In addition to adding a component ESC was activated or operated properly stability control issues appropriately. category for ESC, we propose to add during an accident. In addition, because Adding a new component to the light Forward Collision Avoidance (FCA) and ESC shares components with other vehicle, bus, emergency vehicle and Lane Departure Prevention (LDP) system systems, the Alliance states that it will medium-heavy vehicle EWR reporting is components for light vehicles in 49 CFR be difficult for manufacturers to likely to create a one-time cost for 579.21(b)(2). These emerging crash ascertain whether a consumer manufacturers to amend their reporting avoidance technologies have been in complaint, warranty claim, field report template and revise their software development for some time and are or other item reportable under EWR systems to appropriately categorize the appearing in the current light vehicle should be included in the ESC category. stability control system data. We do not fleet. As these new technologies are The Alliance also asserts that adding an believe this cost will be substantial or implemented, and demand increases, ESC category would require a pose an undue burden on we are concerned that the EWR substantial investment. manufacturers. In the agency’s view, as component categories will not capture The agency acknowledges that in discussed above, stability control is an them. NHTSA believes it is appropriate some instances consumers may not important required component for to add these technologies to EWR now. perceive stability control problems vehicle control and a malfunction can An FCA system monitors and detects during a crash or will be unable to have an impact on vehicle safety. the presence of objects in a vehicle’s distinguish stability control problems Capturing data on this new technology forward travel lane and alerts the driver from problems with other components. will assist the agency in identifying by means of an audible and/or visual This may occur when a consumer potential problems sooner. Because the warning of a potential impact with the communicates through a complaint or a number of vehicles with stability object. FCA systems seek to warn property damage claim to the control is increasing rapidly and all drivers of stopped, decelerating or manufacturer. Although there may be light vehicles manufactured after slower moving vehicles in the vehicle’s some of these instances, the agency September 1, 2011 must have ESC, we lane of travel in order to avoid believes that misidentification of believe that it is appropriate for the collisions. Some FCA systems may also stability control complaints will be agency to start collecting EWR data on assist with driver’s braking or negligible. The agency receives vehicle this specific component. automatically brake to avoid collisions. owner questionnaires (consumer Therefore, we propose to amend 49 Manufacturers may market or refer to complaints) reporting potential CFR 579.21(b)(2) and 49 CFR this crash-avoidance technology as problems with ESC. Furthermore, 579.22(b)(2) to add Stability Control forward collision warning (FCW), consumer complaint data represent only System to the list of components in that predictive brake assist, crash imminent 5 percent and property damage claims section. We also propose to amend 49 braking, dynamic brake support, represent less than 1 percent of the EWR CFR 579.4(b) to add the regulatory collision warning system, collision aggregate data for the service brake definition of ESC systems, found in 49 warning with brake support, collision component. Consumer complaints and CFR 571.126.S4,12 to add definition of mitigation brake system, pre-sense or property damage claims data are likely stability control and RSC for buses, pre-safe systems, pre-collision system, to be analyzed by a dealer’s technician emergency vehicles, and medium-heavy collision warning with brake assist, and/ or manufacturer’s representative, who vehicles, and to amend the definition of or collision warning with auto brake, can identify customers’ concerns and ‘‘service brake system’’ to remove among other things. We propose to classify them accordingly as either stability control from the definition. We define FCA as a system: stability control or another seek comments on our proposal to • That has an algorithm or software to component.11 amend 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) and 49 CFR determine distance and relative speed of The bulk of the EWR data for the an object or another vehicle directly in service brake component consists of 12 FMVSS No. 126 defines Electronic Stability the forward lane of travel; and warranty claims and field reports. Control system or ESC system to mean a system that • has all of the following attributes: That provides an audible, visible, Manufacturers likely have the capability (1) That augments vehicle directional stability by and/or haptic warning to the driver of to identify and report specific problems applying and adjusting the vehicle brake torques a potential collision with an object in associated with stability control in individually to induce a correcting yaw moment to the vehicle’s forward travel lane. warranty claims and field reports. a vehicle; The system may also include a Manufacturers of light vehicles have (2) That is computer-controlled with the feature: computer using a closed-loop algorithm to limit • elaborate warranty systems that capture vehicle oversteer and to limit vehicle understeer; That pre-charges the brakes prior to, information about discrete components (3) That has a means to determine the vehicle’s or immediately after, a warning is and service codes. Manufacturers also yaw rate and to estimate its side slip or side slip issued to the driver; track issues identified by their derivative with respect to time; • That closes all windows, retracts (4) That has a means to monitor driver steering representatives in the field. These data inputs; the seat belts, and/or moves forward any (5) That has an algorithm to determine the need, memory seats in order to protect the 11 ODI recently reviewed consumer complaints and a means to modify engine torque, as necessary, vehicle’s occupants during or submitted to the agency by a manufacturer in the to assist the driver in maintaining control of the immediately after a warning is issued; context of a follow-up information request on EWR vehicle; and or service brake data. ODI was able to classify the (6) That is operational over the full speed range • That applies any type of braking manufacturer’s consumer complaints into brake and of the vehicle (except at vehicle speeds less than 20 ESC issues based on the text associated with each km/h (12.4 mph), when being driven in reverse, or assist or input during or immediately consumer complaint. during system initialization). after a warning is issued.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55617
FCA systems generally employ radar, functionality of the component as related to a vehicle’s FCA or LDP laser and/or camera-based sensors to reported in the underlying claim, notice, systems. Adding these component detect objects in front of the vehicle. warranty claim, complaint, property categories to light vehicle reporting will Toyota Motor Corporation’s Pre- damage claim or field report. allow NHTSA to obtain data on these Collision System (PCS) utilizes a radar- While FCA and LDP are relatively important safety systems and analyze based system. Nissan’s Infiniti brand new technologies, their use is them for potential safety concerns. offers a laser-based system. Toyota’s increasing. Registration data indicates Adding FCA and LDP as component Advanced Pre-Collision System that there are over 769,000 and 657,000 categories to the light vehicle EWR combines both a radar and camera. For registered vehicles equipped with FCA reporting will require manufacturers to FCA reporting, we anticipate and LDP systems, respectively.13 The incur a one-time cost to amend their manufacturers will submit EWR data latest production data from EWR reporting template and revise their related to these systems and their indicate that the total number of software systems to appropriately specific components. Where an issue vehicles with FCA and LDP systems is categorize the data. We do not believe arises involving a component that has now 1,656,000 and 1,292,000, these costs will be substantial or pose an more than one function, we propose that respectively.14 undue burden. NHTSA is encouraging deployment of manufacturers report EWR data based 3. Backover Prevention upon the functionality of the component these important crash avoidance as reported in the underlying claim, systems by notifying consumers which In addition to adding component notice, warranty claim, complaint, vehicles offer them through the New Car categories for ESC, FCA, and LDP, we property damage claim or field report. Assessment Program. On July 11, 2008, propose to add a component category An LDP system warns a driver that his NHTSA published a final decision for systems designed to mitigate or her vehicle is exiting a travel lane notice in the Federal Register backover crashes for light vehicles in 49 and may automatically provide steering announcing changes to the New Car CFR 579.21(b)(2). On December 7, 2010, input to help the driver maintain lane Assessment Program (NCAP) for model NHTSA published an NPRM proposing position. Manufacturers may market or year 2010. This change was delayed to amend FMVSS No. 111, Rearview refer to this crash-avoidance technology until model year 2011. 73FR 79206. Mirrors, to expand the current rear as lane departure warning, lane keeping Starting with model year 2011 vehicles, visibility requirements for all light assist, lane detection algorithm, lane NHTSA recommends ESC, FCW and vehicles under 10,000 pounds Gross assist, and/or lane monitoring systems, LDW systems that pass the NCAP Vehicle Weight Rating by specifying an among others. These systems generally performance tests on the Web site area behind the vehicle that a driver use a small camera to detect and track www.safercar.gov. 73 FR 40016, 40034. must be able to see when the vehicle is lane markings and provide an audible The agency believes that adding these in reverse. See 75 FR 76186. The agency and/or visible warning to the driver if technologies in NCAP will increase estimates that on average there are 292 the vehicle is in danger of crossing the consumer awareness of these beneficial fatalities and 18,000 injuries (3,000 of lane line unintentionally. Accordingly, technologies and spur market demand. which NHTSA estimates are we propose to define LDP as a system: 73 FR 40033. We note that today’s incapacitating) resulting from backover • That has an algorithm or software to proposed EWR components FCA and incidents every year. Of those, 228 determine the vehicle’s position relative LDP have slightly different naming fatalities and 17,000 injuries were to the lane markers and the vehicle’s conventions than the NCAP naming attributed to backover incidents projected direction; and conventions of FCW and LDW. Both involving light vehicles under 10,000 • That provides an audible, visible, EWR’s and NCAP’s definitions capture pounds. Id. at 76187. While many and/or haptic warning to the driver of basic warning functions of these manufacturers currently offer vehicle unintended departure from a travel lane. technologies, but the EWR definition is models with some form of a backover The system may also include a more generic than NCAP due to the prevention system, in the near term feature: agency’s attempt to capture future NHTSA believes that manufacturers • That applies the vehicle’s stability versions of these systems that the would meet these new requirements control system to assist the driver to agency had not made a determination with a rear visibility system that maintain lane position during or whether these systems are beneficial includes a rear-mounted video camera immediately after the warning is issued; and therefore should receive additional and an in-vehicle visual display. As a • That applies any type of steering credit under NCAP. result of the rulemaking and the input to assist the driver to maintain Adding FCA system and LDP acceptance of backover technologies in lane position during or immediately component categories to the light the market place, the agency believes after the warning is issued; or vehicle reporting category will assist that the number of vehicles utilizing • That applies any type of braking NHTSA in identifying potential safety some form of a backover prevention pressure or input to assist the driver to issues for these critical safety systems. system will increase dramatically and maintain lane position during or The EWR regulation currently does not that over time these systems will take on immediately after the warning is issued. have a specific component for FCA and different trade names and include Most LDP systems function through LDP issues. See 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2). additional functionality not present cameras placed on the windshield that Manufacturers may report FCA and LDP today. detect lane markers in front of the issues under ‘‘01 steering system,’’ ‘‘03 For the purposes of EWR, NHTSA is vehicle and calculate the vehicle’s service brake system,’’ or ‘‘18 vehicle defining a backover prevention system position relative to the lane markers. For speed control.’’ As a result, potential as a system that provides a rearview LDP reporting, we anticipate FCA and LDP issues will be masked image to a driver to prevent a vehicle manufacturers will submit EWR data within these broader categories, making from striking an individual or other related to these systems and their NHTSA unable to examine and detect object while traveling in reverse. This components. When an issue arises with potential safety concerns that may be definition is similar to the definition in a component that has more than one the December 2010 NPRM. Therefore, function, we propose that manufacturers 13 RL Polk Registration data, July 1, 2009. we propose to define backover report EWR data based upon the 14 EWR Production Data, 3rd quarter of 2010. prevention as a system that has:
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55618 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
• A visual image of the area directly F. Proposed EWR Reporting Templates substantially similar list directly to the behind a vehicle that is provided in a Based upon the proposed Artemis database. However, most single location to the vehicle operator amendments for light vehicle vehicle manufacturers upload their and by means of indirect vision. manufacturers to provide the vehicle substantially similar lists directly to We are proposing to define a backover type and fuel and/or propulsion type in Artemis through the agency’s secure detection system as a system that their quarterly EWR submissions, and Internet server. These manufacturers use provides a visual image to the rear of the adding ESC, FCA, LDP, and Backover a template that is available on the agency’s Web site, located at http:// vehicle or a sensor-based system that Prevention system components to EWR www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ewr/xls.cfm. The provides a warning to the driver because reporting, we propose to amend the agency would prefer that manufacturers manufacturers are currently using these EWR light vehicle production, death upload their lists in to Artemis because types of systems. NHTSA estimates that and injury, and aggregate reporting submissions by mail, facsimile, or email 19.8 percent of MY 2010 light vehicles templates. The proposed light vehicle cannot be uploaded to Artemis and are reporting templates are located in have an image-based backover not readily searchable. To ensure that 15 Appendix A to this NPRM. Figure 1 prevention system. NHTSA can readily search all represents the proposed amended light For backover prevention reporting, we substantially similar lists, we propose to vehicle production template, Figure 2 anticipate manufacturers will submit amend section 579.6(b) to require that represents the proposed amended light EWR data related to these systems and the annual list of substantially similar vehicle death and injury reporting their components. When an issue arises vehicles required by 579.11(e) be with a component that has more than template and Figure 3 represents the uploaded directly to the Artemis proposed amended light vehicle one function, we propose manufacturers database. aggregate reporting template. Appendix report EWR data based upon the We seek comments on our proposal to B contains the proposed bus, emergency functionality of the component as require manufacturers to submit their vehicle and medium-heavy vehicle reported in the underlying claim, notice, substantially similar list directly to the reporting templates that incorporate the warranty claim, complaint, property Artemis database. proposed amendment to add stability damage claim or field report. control to these vehicles. Figure 4 H. VIN Submission and Recall Remedy The agency believes these measures represents the proposed amended bus Completion Information for Safety will enhance its ability to identify and aggregate reporting template, Figure 5 Recalls address potential safety defects related represents the proposed amended We are proposing a number of to this important safety system that is emergency vehicle aggregate reporting changes in the regulations governing already in the market. The EWR template and Figure 6 represents the safety recalls in an effort to improve the regulation currently does not have a proposed amended medium-heavy information the agency receives from specific component for backover vehicle aggregate reporting template. We recalling manufacturers about the motor prevention issues. See 49 CFR seek comments on our proposed vehicles and equipment they are 579.21(b)(2). Currently, manufacturers reporting templates. recalling, plans for remedying those may report backover prevention issues products, and distribution of that G. Electronic Submission of Annual under ‘‘13 visibility’’ or ‘‘11 electrical information to the affected public. system.’’ As a result, potential backover Substantially Similar Vehicle Lists The first of these changes proposes to prevention issues will be masked within The foreign defect reporting require larger volume manufacturers, these broader categories, making regulations, 49 CFR part 579, subpart B, whose safety recalls address the vast NHTSA unable to examine and detect require manufacturers selling or offering majority of vehicles recalled, to provide potential safety concerns that may be motor vehicles for sale in the United to the agency VIN information for the associated directly with a vehicle’s States to submit annually a document vehicles covered by their respective backover prevention systems. Adding that identifies each model of motor recall campaigns. This proposed change this component category to light vehicle vehicle that the manufacturer sells or is aimed, among other things, to reporting will allow NHTSA to obtain plans to sell during the following year accomplish the MAP–21 Act mandate data on these important safety systems in a foreign country that the that the Secretary require motor vehicle and analyze it for potential safety manufacturer believes is identical or safety recall information be made concerns. substantially similar to a motor vehicle available to the public on the Internet, Therefore, we propose to amend 49 sold or offered for sale in the United be searchable by vehicle make and CFR 579.21(b)(2) to add FCA, LDP, and States (or to a motor vehicle that is model and vehicle identification backover prevention systems to the list planned for sale in the United States in number (VIN), be in a format that of components in that section. We also the following year) and each such preserves consumer privacy, and propose to amend the definition of identical or substantially similar vehicle includes information about each recall ‘‘visibility’’ to remove an exterior view- sold or offered for sale in the United that has not been completed for each based television system for light States. 49 CFR 579.11(e). Manufacturers vehicle. See MAP–21 Act, Public Law vehicles. We seek comments on our may submit this list to NHTSA by mail, 112–141, § 31301(a), 126 Stat 405, proposal to amend 49 CFR 579.21(b)(2) facsimile or by email. 49 CFR 579.6. 763.With section 31301’s mandate to to add the components ‘‘forward When a manufacturer notifies NHTSA make recall safety information publicly collision avoidance system,’’ ‘‘lane of a safety recall or other safety available, we believe the best way to departure prevention system,’’ and campaign in a foreign country, the meet MAP–21’s requirement is to ‘‘backover prevention system.’’ We also agency searches the manufacturer’s increase the safety recall information seek comments on the proposed substantially similar list for vehicles in currently available on the agency’s Web definitions for these components. the U.S. that may contain a similar site. The agency makes a considerable problem as identified in the foreign amount of safety recall information available to the public. VIN information 15 Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, recall or campaign. Backover Crash Avoidance Technologies NPRM Unlike EWR reports, manufacturers from vehicle manufacturers will be used FMVSS No. 111. are not required to upload their to support an enhanced version of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55619
agency’s current recalls look-up service five working days of when that VIN remedy has been performed on each available online at www.safercar.gov. It information becomes available.16 recalled vehicle in order to provide full will enable vehicle owners and other Our proposal is consistent with information to a consumer and to meet interested users to determine with recommendations to improve recall the MAP–21 Act’s requirement that the confidence whether a specific vehicle completion rates (the percentage of the Secretary require ‘‘information about has a safety defect or noncompliance recalled vehicle population that has the each recall that has not been completed that has not been remedied under the recall remedy performed) made by the for each vehicle.’’ Otherwise, the recalls manufacturer’s remedy program. Our U.S. General Accountability Office look-up function we envision will tell a current recalls look-up offers the (GAO) in response to its review of consumer only that a vehicle was functionality of searching for vehicle NHTSA’s safety recalls. See U.S. subject to a safety recall at some point, safety recalls, among other ways, General Accountability Office, NHTSA and not whether the remedy was through a make and model search (and Has Options to Improve the Safety performed. With the added recall so meeting an express requirement of Defect Recall Process, GAO–11–603 information from large volume light section 31301(a) of MAP–21 Act), but it (2011), available in the agency’s vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA can does not offer information for any one, rulemaking docket. inform consumers that a vehicle is specific vehicle. We expect that Our proposal would impose little to subject to a safety recall and whether providing vehicle-specific recalls no additional burden on manufacturers. the remedy identified by the information will have a positive impact Vehicle manufacturers already acquire manufacturer has been performed and on vehicle recalls completions, thereby VIN information from state motor meet MAP–21’s express provision to reducing the risk of injuries and vehicle agencies for purposes of make this information available to the fatalities associated with motor vehicle conducting recalls. This is because, public. The information must be up-to safety defects and noncompliances with under the Safety Act, and its date, so we propose that manufacturers minimum FMVSS. implementing regulations, a electronically submit on a daily basis manufacturer must notify each person the recall remedy status of each vehicle Our service will cover all major who is registered under State law as the covered by a recall. makes, models, and model years, so that owner of the vehicle of the recall, and We propose that manufacturers consumers have a ‘‘one stop shop’’ for registered owner information is provide a vehicle’s remedy status using safety recall information on vehicles maintained on a VIN basis by the the categories required in the agency’s they may own or consider purchasing. respective State agencies. See 49 U.S.C. quarterly reporting requirements: Owners will not need to search multiple 30119(d)(1)(A) and 49 CFR Unremedied; inspected and repaired; Web sites for recalls information 577.7(a)(2)(i). In addition, larger vehicle inspected and determined not to require regarding their vehicles. The search manufacturers submit specific VINs in repair; exported; stolen; scrapped; the functionality and returned information connection with certain aspects of the owner was unable to be notified will be consistent for all recalls, major Early Warning Reporting Rule. 49 CFR (returned mail); or other (for whatever manufacturers, and light vehicles. 579.21, 22, 23, and 24. The agency other reason the manufacturer could not Additionally, by receiving recall simply proposes here that vehicle remedy the vehicle. See 49 CFR information by VIN, NHTSA’s manufacturers submit the VIN 573.7(b)(4) and (5). established recall email subscription information in a prescribed format. We propose an additional category to service can immediately notify its users, Indeed, many manufacturers already account for the period between the time over 70,000 at present and growing, provide VIN-based recall look-up a manufacturer has decided to conduct when their VIN has been included in a functions on their Internet or other a recall and notified NHTSA, and the recall. This benefit will be especially commercial Web pages.17 time it notifies owners of the availability important when a recall involves an In our view, there are benefits to of the free remedy. This pre-recall immediate and imminent safety threat. having NHTSA offer a similar launch or ‘‘recall remedy not yet Consumers will be able to quickly application for owners and consumers available’’ category would inform an conclude whether a serious safety that cuts across all major makes, owner that his or her vehicle is subject concern they learn about through models, and model years, so that to a recall, but the remedy is not yet television or social media is linked to consumers have a ‘‘one stop shop’’ for available. We propose that for VINs their particular vehicle. safety recall information on vehicles designated by the manufacturer as falling within the pre-recall launch We propose to amend subsection they may own or consider purchasing. We believe that providing easy access to period, our service confirm that the 573.6(c)(3) to require larger volume vehicle is subject to the manufacturer’s motor vehicle manufacturers that this important safety information will facilitate notifications of a recall to recall, so that an owner is not manufacture 25,000 or more light misinformed as to his/her vehicle’s vehicles annually or 5,000 or more owners and encourage owners and consumers to obtain the recall remedy. inclusion, and knows that the remedy motorcycles annually to submit campaign has not been launched. Our electronically the VIN of each vehicle We believe this would result in increased completion rates and a proposal expands the information we that potentially contains a defect or currently provide via our recalls search noncompliance, and will be covered by reduction of the number of unsafe vehicles on U.S. roads. function where we summarize the recall a safety recall campaign. As with other campaign and inform when the recall is information required to be submitted on NHTSA must obtain information from the manufacturer on whether the recall expected to start and provide a vehicles being recalled, manufacturers telephone number for owners to contact would be required to submit this 16 Our proposal to change from a less precise ‘‘as the manufacturer for further information when submitting a Part 573 it becomes available’’ requirement to a more precise information. Under our proposal, more Report, unless that information was not five working day requirement is addressed in information would be available because available at that time, in which case, it section L, infra. the manufacturer will now have the would be submitted when it became 17 See e.g., www.carfax.com, Chrysler: http:// www.chrysler.com/en/owners/and Ford: http:// ability to designate by VIN this pre- available, or, under a proposal www.ford.com/owner-services/customer-support/ recall launch status in the event, due to addressed later in this notice, within recall-information. parts delays or other circumstances, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55620 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
manufacturer is unable to offer the free process accomplished through a secure ‘‘permit a manufacturer a reasonable remedy to all involved owners on the server using secure file transfer protocol period of time after receiving same date. (SFTP). The daily VIN updates of information from a dealer with respect We further propose a ‘‘deleted’’ vehicles covered in a recall along with to a vehicle to update the information category that will enable a manufacturer the remedy status would be updated about the vehicle on the publicly to remove vehicles from a recall using a NHTSA specified application accessible Internet Web site.’’ See MAP– population. For example, a programming interface (API). The 21 Act at section 31301(b)(3). Given that manufacturer may have mistakenly manufacturer’s server would post to a paragraph (b) refers back to the assessed the scope of vehicles affected secure server, operated by the agency, at information in paragraph (a) in section by a particular safety defect or a set time each day. Only changes to the 31301, we read (b)(3) to include noncompliance condition and will then previous day’s information would be completion of the safety recall remedy need to adjust the population, by adding submitted, thereby greatly limiting the offered by the manufacturer on that or removing vehicles and their volume of information being transferred vehicle. In this proposed rule, we do not respective VINs. from the manufacturer to the agency. propose to define what that reasonable Also, we propose to require that After its submission is completed and period of time is. In the agency’s manufacturers provide the date the verified, the manufacturer would experience, we have not encountered recall remedy was performed, where receive an acceptance notice. If any situations involving large volume applicable, so that we can also provide portion of the submission was rejected, manufacturers failing to update their that information to interested owners that information would be returned to records on recalls completions by and consumers. the manufacturer on a secure, NHTSA dealers. Accordingly, we do not believe Under our proposal, a manufacturer operated Recalls Portal. The agency these manufacturers will inordinately would first submit VIN data for vehicles anticipates that its system will provide delay updating their internal recalls covered by a recall when submitting a sufficient detail (to the specific recall completion records and thereby stymie Part 573 Report (or, if that information and VIN level) to the manufacturer the timeliness and accuracy of the VIN is not available at that time, within the when information is rejected in order look-up service we propose to meet prescribed time of when it becomes for the manufacturer to quickly identify MAP–21’s requirements. We seek available, typically within a matter of and resolve any problems. comments on the agency’s decision not weeks). The information would be The requirement to submit VIN to define the term ‘‘reasonable period of submitted electronically in a table information electronically is not highly time.’’ Due to the statutory requirement format. Manufacturers would be burdensome. The information we seek under the Safety Act that a required to list VINs vertically in rows in today’s proposal is already captured manufacturer must remedy recalled with a horizontally adjacent column for by manufacturers and submitted to vehicles when presented, manufacturers reporting the current recall remedy NHTSA in part. Under 49 CFR 573.8, maintain records reflecting a vehicle’s status category, plus the pre-recall manufacturers are required to maintain recall remedy status indefinitely. 49 launch category, and a column for information, including VINs, on all U.S.C. 30120. Although manufacturers reporting the date the recall remedy was vehicles involved in a recall performed (where applicable). An maintain such records indefinitely, the notification. These lists are maintained utility and safety benefit of NHTSA example of the table we propose is in computer information storage devices located in Appendix C, Form C1, receiving such records decreases over and must be maintained for five years. time. Accordingly, we propose to limit attached to this notice. However, because a manufacturer’s the requirement to provide electronic Thereafter, each day at a time obligation to perform a recall remedy updates to 10 years from the date a specified by the agency, the does not expire, manufacturers must manufacturer first supplied the VIN list manufacturer would submit to NHTSA maintain records that, at a minimum, for a recall. Manufacturers are only the same table, but now limited to a list reflect the current recall remedy status required to provide a free remedy under of VINs for which the recall remedy of the vehicles covered by their the Safety Act for vehicles that were status had changed from the previous campaigns. In addition, manufacturers bought by the first purchaser less than day’s submission, complete with the are currently required to submit 10 calendar years from when the designations reflecting the new status. quarterly reports that provide the recall manufacturer notified its owners of the Also, if there were changes to the recall remedy status of vehicles in a safety population, either additions or recall campaign. In order to maintain safety defect or noncompliance. See 49 subtractions, the manufacturer would recall data and determine recall remedy U.S.C. 30120(g). Also, in the agency’s submit those VINs as well. VINs that status, most manufacturers use software experience and, based upon our need to be added to a manufacturer’s and create large electronic databases interactions with manufacturers, very VIN list would be included in its daily that are integrated with their dealer few vehicles can be expected to be update to the agency with an network. Such electronic databases presented for remedy 10 years after a identification of the date of the addition. record VIN data and recall remedy recall notification has been made. In our VINs that need to be removed from a status information, update it, and view, very few consumers will utilize manufacturer’s VIN list, due to later synchronize this information on regular our VIN look-up service to learn of information establishing that the vehicle intervals against their systems for recalls on their vehicles that are over a should not have been recalled, for one processing and paying their dealerships decade old. Furthermore, the utility of, example, would be appropriately coded. or repair facilities to perform the recall and safety benefits derived from, a VIN- We further propose to include a remedy. Accordingly, larger volume lookup service will not be adversely comment column that can be used to manufacturers will only have to incur a affected with our proposed ten-year attach any notes, up to 30 characters, one-time cost to reconfigure their limit. needed to help describe the status of a systems to transmit VIN data and recall In order to offer a functional VIN particular VIN. Appendix C, Form Cl, remedy status information in the recall search tool and to provide demonstrates these functions. electronic format NHTSA requires. effective search capability at launch, we A manufacturer’s VIN data The MAP–21 Act specifies that any require a database of recalled vehicle submission would be an automated rules issued pursuant to the Act will VIN data. Otherwise, when our VIN
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55621
recall search tool is launched, there will to meet the Act’s requirement. See Based on feedback we receive about be very little utility to the tool and users MAP–21 Act at section 31301(b). This our current recalls look-up service and will be discouraged from using the tool, discretion includes setting parameters email recall notification service, we thereby undermining our efforts to that determine which manufacturers anticipate that the majority of users of facilitate owner notification and must provide recall information for the our service will be individual reducing the number of unsafe vehicles Internet site that is contemplated under consumers or users of light vehicles and on U.S. roadways. Therefore, if the VIN the Act. motorcycles, rather than medium-heavy proposal is adopted, we propose to We propose to limit the VIN commercial vehicle owners and users. require manufacturers, within 180 days submission requirement to The latter tend to communicate directly of the effective date of this rule, to manufacturers of 25,000 or more light with the manufacturer or dealerships submit VIN data for each vehicle vehicles, or manufacturers of 5,000 or and rely less upon the Agency for covered by a recall filed within 24 more motorcycles, manufactured for information about recalls or vehicular months prior to the effective date of this sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or safety issues. If at a later time, we VIN submission requirement. To clarify, delivered for introduction in interstate believe that receiving VIN data from this ‘‘filed’’ means a manufacturer submitted commerce, or imported into the United community would be beneficial, we a Part 573 defect or noncompliance States annually.19 A manufacturer may amend our rulemaking. As with the report indicating its intention to would meet these thresholds if it knows smaller volume manufacturers, nothing conduct a recall, except those or anticipates it will meet these prevents these manufacturers from manufacturers that stated an intent to thresholds by the end of the current voluntary participation. We seek file a petition for an exemption to the calendar, or if it reached those volumes comment on our decision. recall requirements on the basis that the during the previous calendar year. Some large light vehicle noncompliance is inconsequential to Based on current data received by manufacturers also manufacture medium-heavy vehicles. In some cases, motor vehicle safety (unless, of course NHTSA’s Early Warning Division, this these medium-heavy vehicles fall the petition was denied in which case notice includes a list of vehicle within the same model family (e.g., Ford the manufacturer would be required to manufacturers presently meeting the F-series vehicles). Accordingly, we conduct a recall and provide VINs). above stated production thresholds, A proposal to require VIN data on clarify that should a light vehicle found in Appendix E. At this time, we vehicles covered by recalls filed prior to manufacturer make a defect or propose to limit this requirement to the MAP–21 Act’s enactment is directly noncompliance decision that results in these manufacturers because, due to contemplated in the Act, which a recall of its light vehicle applications their production volume and their provides that any implementing as well as medium or heavier duty current obligation for EWR reports, rulemaking, ‘‘shall limit the information applications, then it would be required these larger manufacturers have the that must be made available * * * to to provide the VINs on all the recalled include only those recalls issued not resources to readily and efficiently meet vehicles. This is to avoid consumer more than 15 years prior to the date of the proposed VIN reporting confusion and possible misinformation enactment of this Act.’’ See MAP–21 requirements using the electronic media from the agency in the event of such Act, Public Law 112–141, § 31301(b)(1), we propose here. recalls. We wish to avoid foreseeable 126 Stat 405, 763 (July 6, 2012). At this time, we are not proposing to situations where a consumer would hear Accordingly, our proposal to require require smaller light vehicle or of a recall in the news media or through VIN data on vehicles covered by recalls motorcycle manufacturers to submit our recall notification system, go to our filed within the prior 2 years’ time is VIN data. The costs and burdens of this web site with their VIN, and retrieve an well within the agency’s discretion. We proposed rule would be greater on these erroneous message that the recall does seek comment on whether to require smaller volume manufacturers than for not apply to the vehicle or it is VIN data on recalls covered by recalls their large volume counterparts. For unknown whether it applies. Although filed in earlier years. smaller manufacturers that do not we are not proposing to require Our proposal to require submission of already operate robust computer manufacturers to submit VIN data for VIN data to us is limited to larger, light systems and complex databases, a one- recalls that involve only their medium- vehicle manufacturers. Although time investment to purchase the needed heavy vehicle applications, we would already permissible under section 30119 hardware and software and daily expect that manufacturers will not of the Safety Act,18 the MAP–21 Act’s maintenance to meet the VIN bifurcate their defect or noncompliance express grant of authority to the requirement could be costly. decision-making and file separate defect Secretary to require motor vehicle safety If after several years of experience or noncompliance reports in order to recall information to be publicly with VIN data, we believe that receiving avoid producing VINs on their medium- available provides the agency discretion VIN data from smaller manufacturers heavy vehicle applications in those in determining the information needed would be beneficial, we may propose to situations where the same safety defect include lower volume manufacturers. Of or noncompliance affects both light and 18 Vehicle manufacturers must notify NHTSA and course, nothing prevents these medium-heavy applications. We solicit provide certain information when they decide to manufacturers from voluntary comments on our approach of requiring recall their vehicles to remedy a safety defect or noncompliance with a FMVSS. See 49 U.S.C. 30118 participation in our VIN look-up light vehicle manufacturers, where they and 30119. Under section 30119, NHTSA has service. We solicit comment on our recall vehicles for defects or considerable discretion to determine the contents of decision to not include lower volume noncompliances that affect both light such notices, including content that changes based manufacturers in this proposed rule. and medium-heavy applications, to on the product or manufacturer. 49 U.S.C. § 30119(a). For example, in the case of passenger submit VIN data on all the vehicles vehicles, an identification of the vehicles to be 19 For purposes here, ‘‘light vehicle’’ means any being recalled. recalled is to be made by make, line, model year, motor vehicle, except a bus, motorcycle, or trailer, Some recalls involve safety defects and dates of manufacture, whereas other types of with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less. 49 CFR 579.4. where the consequences arise as the vehicles (and items of equipment) are subject to ‘‘Motorcycle’’ means a motor vehicle with motive different requirements. Compare 49 CFR power having a seat or saddle for the use of the result of exposure to certain 573.6(c)(2)(i) to 49 CFR 573.6(c)(2)(ii), (iii), (iv), and rider and designed to travel on not more than three environmental conditions. These are (v). wheels in contact with the ground. 49 CFR 571.3. commonly referred to as ‘‘regional
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55622 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
recalls,’’ and in these recalls only the a NHTSA-owned and operated tool, information to NHTSA and instead vehicles currently registered, or given the many factors that affect the maintain its public Web site with the originally sold or registered, in those completeness, reliability, and timeliness same information as would be posted on areas, are covered by the recall. of information provided by a NHTSA’s Web site and the same Consistent with today’s proposal to manufacturer on the recall history of functionality as NHTSA’s Web site, we require submission of VINs associated vehicles that it manufactured. Among would need to adopt regulations in with the recalled population, we clarify our present concerns are that not all order to ensure individual that only the VINs of the vehicles vehicle manufacturers offer a VIN- manufacturer’s Web sites offer a covered by the safety recall are to be driven service and some offer it only if standardized look and functionality provided. the consumer is a registered user of the regardless of the manufacturer To further comply with the directive site with the manufacturer (a process providing the service. We tentatively in the MAP–21 Act, and meet the safety that may or may not require input of believe these rules would likely include objective of providing the public personal information such as names, items such as requiring a conspicuous specific and up-to-date recall addresses, and phone numbers). Also, hyperlink to the VIN-driven recall tool information on vehicles, we propose to not all manufacturers provide recalls found on the manufacturer’s main Web amend subsection 573.6(c)(3) to add information to third party sites, those page (or similarly easy to locate Web three subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii). that do may not provide that page), prohibiting any marketing or The first, subparagraph (i), contains information to the same third party sales information in conjunction with requirements for VIN submission as sites. Some sites include marketing and the VIN recall tool, requiring well as recall remedy status for each other material not relevant or distracting straightforward ease-of-use without Web VIN. Subparagraph (ii) contains the from the recalls information, and the site registration or personal information requirement that, on a one-time basis currency of the information as to other than a VIN, and providing of the only, manufacturers must submit the whether a particular vehicle has been same VIN specific recall information as VIN information for each vehicle remedied varies between search tools. what the agency proposes to provide covered by a safety recall filed within 24 We also solicit comments on the costs through its proposed VIN-driven recalls months prior to the effective date of this and burdens, as well as expected safety tool. rule. Subparagraph (iii) specifies that benefits, of any alternatives suggested in We solicit comments on this any vehicle manufacturer not covered comments. We note that any alternatives alternative and on the above possible by (i) or (ii), may voluntarily supply VIN must meet the MAP–21 Act’s minimum requirements for a manufacturer information for vehicles it has recalled requirements. Safety recall information election to post information on its Web voluntarily, so long as it submits the provided under an alternative must be: site in lieu of the manufacturer information in accordance with the available to the public on the Internet; providing data for a NHTSA Web site. requirements of both (i) and (ii). searchable by vehicle make, model, and We solicit additional or different rules We seek comments on our proposal to VIN; in a format that preserves for manufacturer owned and operated require a list of VINs for vehicles subject consumer privacy; and include recalls look-up tools. We solicit to a recall from larger vehicle information about each recall that has comments on the costs and burdens, as manufacturers, as well as our proposal not been completed for each vehicle. well as expected safety benefits, of this to require these manufacturers to submit Although we will consider alternatives alternative. once daily any changes to the recall that may not be free of charge to dealers remedy status of vehicles involved in or owners, we are unlikely to adopt After comments are received on this recall campaigns and the associated such alternatives. We believe safety notice, we reserve the flexibility to information identified above. We also critical information, such as recall develop and adopt an alternative based seek comment on our proposal to information, should be provided to the on outgrowths of this proposal or require VIN information for recalls public without charge. comments received on the discussion conducted within the 24 months prior We are open to considering, and above. to this rule’s effective date. request comment on, providing a Lastly, all manufacturers are required In addition to comments on our vehicle manufacturer the choice to to file quarterly reports reporting on the proposal, we solicit information participate in the agency’s VIN look-up progress of their recall campaigns. See concerning plausible alternatives to our tool and the information service, or, to 49 CFR 573.7. Given that the larger proposal. Specifically, we solicit expressly elect to provide on its own volume manufacturers and those small suggestions for VIN-driven recalls Web site a VIN look-up that would volume manufacturers that opt in to the search mechanisms that do not require ensure a level of information at least VIN look-up service will be providing manufacturer submission of VIN equal to the Agency’s proposed service. daily information from which the information to the agency, but provide To meet the agency’s requirements, we agency can determine completion a comparable level of timely and envision the manufacturer’s recall look- information, the purpose of those accurate vehicle-specific recall up tool, for example, would need to be quarterly reports would be obsolete as to information, across a comparable VIN-driven with information as to recall those manufacturers’ recalls. We, breadth and depth of vehicle completion updated at least once daily therefore, propose to eliminate the applications. (exclusive of any reasonable period of quarterly reports requirement for large We would be interested in learning, time the manufacturer may need to volume manufacturers and small for example, if vehicle manufacturer update its records based on information volume manufacturers that opt in to the VIN-driven recalls search tools located from dealers as to recall completion on VIN look-up service. on their Web sites are a realistic a vehicle). We envision it being a free We seek comment on our proposal to alternative or, as another example, if service available to the public, remove the requirement to report VIN-driven recalls search tools owned including dealers, owners, and any quarterly for those manufacturers that by third parties are comparable interested parties. In all likelihood, if will be required to submit VIN alternatives. We are interested in we were to offer an alternative under information and submit to NHTSA comments that address whether these or which a manufacturer would be allowed recall remedy completion information other tools are plausible alternatives to to elect not to submit recall VIN as described in our proposals.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55623
I. Added Requirements for Information 1. An Identification and Description of the equipment. Many items of Required To Be Submitted in a Part 573 the Risk Associated With the Safety equipment are sold to owners and Defect and Noncompliance Information Defect or Noncompliance With FMVSS identifiable under a brand (or trade) Report Under our current regulations, a name that is different from identifying information submitted to NHTSA under Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and manufacturer does not have to identify or describe the consequence or risk 573.6(c)(2)(iii). This makes real-world 30119, manufacturers must provide associated with a safety defect or identification of the recalled equipment notification to the agency if the difficult for both the agency and noncompliance when it submits a Part manufacturer decides or the agency consumers. And where owners cannot 573 Information report to NHTSA. Many or are limited in their ability to identify determines that a noncompliance or manufacturers voluntarily provide this recalled equipment, their removal of safety-related defect exists in a motor information in their notifications and that equipment from use and obtaining vehicle or item of motor vehicle reports, but others may not or may not the manufacturer’s free remedy is equipment. NHTSA has significant on a consistent basis. effectively undermined, thereby discretion in determining the contents We believe this information is critical allowing unsafe equipment to remain in of this notification. See 49 U.S.C. to NHTSA’s understanding and 30119(a)(7). Among other things, use and continue to pose a safety risk. evaluation of the safety defect or In order to address this shortcoming, NHTSA’s regulation specifying the noncompliance for which the contents of the notification to the we propose to require the brand (or manufacturer is conducting a recall. trade) name, model name, and model agency, 49 CFR Part 573, delineates the This information is valuable to number information, where that information to be contained in the NHTSA’s knowledge of the issue and information applies to the recalled notification to NHTSA in section 573.6 assists in NHTSA’s assessment of the equipment, from manufacturers in their and instructions for submitting reports adequacy of the manufacturer’s Part 573 reports. This information in section 573.9. campaign and corrective actions. A would include the commercial name of Manufacturers are currently required description of the risk is critical to the the recalled equipment item so NHTSA to submit certain details concerning the agency’s summary of the defect or and consumers can easily identify the safety defect (or noncompliance, as the noncompliance that is available on the product. case may be), the affected products, the agency’s Web site, and to adequately We request comments on this proposed schedule for notifying owners inform owners of the safety risk and proposal. and dealers, in addition to a host of properly motivate them to perform the recommended recall remedy. In turn, in 3. Prohibited Disclaimers in Part 573 other recalls-related details, in their Part our view, having this information Defect and Noncompliance Information 573 reports. These requirements are available on our Web site will assist in Report located in subsection 573.6(c) of Part the agency’s goal to increase completion Under the Safety Act, manufacturers 573. rates. are required to notify NHTSA and then The information required to be We propose to require that conduct an owner notification campaign submitted has been and remains useful. manufactures identify the consequence and provide a free remedy when they In our experience over the years, or risk in terms that are consistent with decide a vehicle or item of motor however, there are additional details the present requirements found in 49 vehicle equipment they manufactured that the agency needs in order to better CFR 577.5(f) for identifying and contains either a safety defect or fails to understand and process safety recalls, as describing risk in owner notification comply with a FMVSS. Manufacturers well as manage and oversee the recall letters. By requiring the description of are further required to affirmatively campaigns and the manufacturers risk to meet the same requirements as state in their owner notifications that conducting those campaigns. for owner letters, we can better manage they have decided a safety defect (or Accordingly, we are proposing today to consistency between what the noncompliance, as the case may be) add the following requirements to manufacturer reports, what NHTSA exists in the product. See 49 CFR subsection 573.6(c): publishes, and what manufacturers 577.5(c). There is no correlating communicate to owners in furtherance requirement, however, for • An identification and description of of the agency’s mission to adequately manufacturers to make a similar the risk associated with the safety defect notify owners and increase remedy statement in the notifications and Part or noncompliance with FMVSS, and in completion rates. Accordingly, we 573 reports they are required to supply terms consistent with the current propose to modify paragraph (c)(5) of NHTSA. requirements of 49 CFR 577.5(f) for 573.6—the paragraph that requires a Although many Part 573 reports are providing in owner notifications an description of the defect or filed each year in which the evaluation of the risk to motor vehicle noncompliance—to add a requirement manufacturer states plainly that it has safety from the safety defect or that manufacturers identify and describe made a safety defect or noncompliance noncompliance; and the risk attendant to the safety defect or decision, there are many that do not. • For equipment recalls, the make, noncompliance on which they are And, on occasion, there are Part 573 model name, and model number, as reporting. reports filed where the manufacturer applicable, of the equipment and as it We seek comments on our proposal. disavows that it has made any such decision and that it is conducting a was identified and/or labeled at time of 2. As to Motor Vehicle Equipment purchase to the purchaser. recall campaign nevertheless in order to Recalls, the Brand Name, Model Name, avoid a difficulty that it has decided We also propose to add a new and Model Number of the Equipment will be alleviated or reduced if it paragraph to Part 573 to prohibit Recalled conducts the campaign. On most disclaimers in a manufacturer’s Part 573 Pursuant to section 573.6(c)(2)(iii), occasions the difficulty avoided is information report. manufacturers recalling motor vehicle further investment of resources in A discussion of these proposals equipment for safety defects or responding to an agency investigation follows. noncompliances are required to identify into the product, or litigation with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55624 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
agency over whether the product reflecting the progress of a recall requirements through the contains a safety defect or is campaign. www.safercar.gov Web site will be able noncompliant. Nevertheless, even where a to use their EWR passwords for These attempts to disavow defect or manufacturer exercises this option it purposes of filing information and noncompliance decisions, which still requires significant allocation of documents associated with safety amount to disclaimers, are inconsistent agency resources toward processing the recalls. Manufacturers will be able to with the Safety Act and introduce information received via email and in a track their submissions on the secure confusion into the public record for PDF format into the agency’s systems Web portal and we also plan to send the those safety recalls. See 49 U.S.C. such that it can be effectively reviewed, submitter a confirmation message to an §§ 30118—30120. Notification to managed, stored, and then delivered to email account registered with the NHTSA through the filing of the the Web site. The agency resources agency confirming our receipt of the requisite Part 573 information report is required to perform the same tasks and submission. only prescribed and intended when the provide the same services in relation to As to Part 573 defect and manufacturer has made a defect or recalls information where the noncompliance information reports noncompliance decision or where manufacturer chose not to file using this specifically, we are proposing that NHTSA has made such a decision after option, but rather to submit only a hard manufacturers use one of five forms that its investigation and an opportunity for copy via certified mail or other means we will make available on the agency a hearing. The decision is the necessary such as expedited mail delivery or Web site; one for vehicles, one for precedent to those filings, all of which facsimile, are even greater. equipment, one for tires, one for child are a matter of public record and shared We seek to maximize the use of restraints, and one for vehicle alterers.20 with the public via NHTSA’s Web site technology to lessen the agency’s costs, The manufacturer will complete online www.safercar.gov. Further, as noted reduce errors in data entry and improve one form depending on the type of above, the manufacturer is required to the public recall notification process. product for which it made a safety notify owners and purchasers that it has We believe technology has reached the defect or noncompliance decision, and made a defect or noncompliance point where manufacturers all have submit it online to the agency. The decision in its notifications to those access to the Internet and are fields of each form will pertain to each owners and purchasers. See 49 CFR performing many, if not most, business of the requirements in the regulations 577.5(c). For a manufacturer to make communications and tasks using it. For for the defect and noncompliance this statement, but then to have a record example, many manufacturers submit information reports (49 CFR 573.6), as reflecting the direct opposite, is EWR information electronically through well as those proposed requirements in confusing and misleading. a Web portal developed for that today’s notice that are adopted in a final Accordingly, we propose to amend purpose. We believe that the time has rule. There are also a handful of fields Part 573 to add a new paragraph come to require manufacturers to submit for which information is not required to instructing manufacturers that Part 573 Part 573 information through an online be supplied by the manufacturer, either reports must not contain a statement or application that would be hosted and currently or under any of our proposals implication that there is no safety managed by the agency. Web-based in today’s notice, but nevertheless defect. submissions deliver maximum provide information that is useful to us We welcome comments on this efficiency and reduce the agency’s and that we would like to have if a proposal. burden to translate and enter manufacturer is willing to supply it. J. Online Submission of Recalls-Related information into its database. No longer With the exception of information that Reports, Information, and Associated would the agency devote resources to must be submitted in an initial report, Documents and Recalls Reporting identifying and correcting errors in see 49 CFR 573.6(b), the manufacturer Templates translation that occur whenever agency will be able to leave blank those fields personnel review and then reenter the for which it does not have information Under present requirements, information reviewed into the NHTSA at the time of filing and later resubmit manufacturers have the option under database. A Web-based submission is the unavailable information to update or section 573.9 to submit recall-related faster and provides better delivery of amend its report, as the case may be. information as a portable document recall information to the public For VIN data, and recall remedy status format (.pdf) attachment to an email encouraging quicker remediation of as to each vehicle on a VIN list, we message to the agency. See 72 FR 32014 defective products and freeing up propose to provide a VIN submission (June 11, 2007). That option has proven resources that are better allocated to template, in the form of a standard table very useful and effective for both managing and analyzing recall that manufacturers can use or follow to manufacturers and the agency as both information as part of recall oversight. develop their own tables. This was seek to maximize the efficiency with We are proposing to amend section discussed above in our discussion which important recall information is 573.9 to require manufacturers to related to our proposal to require sent to and received by the agency so securely submit all Part 573 report submission of VIN lists and daily that it can then be processed and information and recall notification updates on recall remedy status. The distributed from the agency to the materials electronically through the use public via our Web site of forms or direct upload functions that 20 A vehicle alterer means a person who alters by www.safercar.gov as well as through our will be housed on an agency owned and addition, substitution, or removal of components recall notification service. The recall- controlled Web site. We envision this (other than readily attachable components) a related information that is routinely process and its functionality to be very certified vehicle before the first purchaser of the vehicle other than for resale. See 49 CFR 567.4. submitted by many manufacturers in similar to what many manufacturers are Vehicle alterers may also be referred to as vehicle this manner ranges from Part 573 already doing pursuant to EWR up-fitters. A separate form for vehicle alterers reports, to amendments and updates to requirements. As with that program, and would be beneficial as these, usually, very small those reports, to representative copies of to ensure security, we plan to issue companies are often unfamiliar with safety recall reporting and a form that does not confuse ‘‘new recall communications such as owner passwords before allowing submissions vehicle alterer’’ for ‘‘vehicle manufacturer’’ would and dealer notifications and technical to be made to the agency. Manufacturers help to clarify their role in conducting safety instructions, to quarterly reports that are currently meeting EWR recalls.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55625
template we propose to use is in vehicle recalls conducted by vehicle 577.5(a), 577.7(a). Consistent with its Appendix C, Form C1, attached to this alterers. Figure D2 is the form for interpretation of ‘‘reasonable time’’ for notice. equipment recalls, other than tires and agency-order notifications that is For vehicle recalls conducted by child restraints. Figure D3 is the form currently found in Part 577, see 49 CFR smaller volume vehicle manufacturers for tire recalls, Figure D4 is the form for 577.7(b), NHTSA has recently started that are not subject to the new VIN child restraint recalls, and Figure D5 is informing manufacturers conducting reporting requirements proposed in this the form for vehicle recalls conducted recalls that it expects them to conduct notice, and equipment recalls, we will by vehicle alterers. Figure D6 is the owner notifications within 60 days of have an online form for those proposed quarterly report form. Figure their Part 573 filing. There have been manufacturers to complete and submit D7 is the proposed recalls portal occasions where manufacturers have through the Web site. The fields on that dashboard, where manufacturers can see expressed concerns about NHTSA’s form will coordinate with the current a summary of their Part 573 reports, as expectations due to difficulties the requirements of section 573.7, Quarterly well as an example of a confirmation manufacturer may have faced in the reports. The form we propose to use is message a manufacturer will see after execution of a particular recall. For shown in Figure D6, Quarterly Report submitting a Part 573 report. example, manufacturers have raised Form Management, and which is We seek comments on our proposal to concerns about providing notice within available in this rulemaking’s docket. amend section 573.9 to require online 60 days when they are faced with delays In addition, we propose to include submission of the reports and in obtaining recall remedy parts that direct upload functions for the information required by 573.6, as well will extend the time period by which uploading of all representative copies of as on the forms, templates and direct they can feasibly offer a free remedy communications on recalls that are upload functions we have proposed. well beyond 60 days after they have presently required to be submitted to K. Amendments to Defect and notified NHTSA of a safety defect or the agency under 573.6(c)(10). This failure to comply with minimum safety would include materials such as copies Noncompliance Notification Requirements Under Part 577 standards. In these circumstances, of owner notifications and dealer manufacturers have contended that notifications and technical instructions. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and sending letters to owners creates owner We also propose this function for the 30119, manufacturers must provide confusion and frustration, as the remedy draft owner notification letters and the notification to owners, purchasers, and is unavailable. envelopes that manufacturers are dealers if the manufacturer decides or The intent of the notification obligated to submit to the agency for the agency determines that a requirement is to ensure that owners approval pursuant to section 577.5(a). noncompliance or safety-related defect and dealers are informed of We also propose to allow for an ‘‘other’’ exists in a motor vehicle or item of unreasonable safety risks due to defects or miscellaneous direct upload function motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has or failures to meet minimum safety so that a manufacturer can submit to us significant discretion as to requirements requirements. The requirement that this any other materials for either our review related to recall notifications, including notification be performed within a (such as dealer notices that the contents of these notifications. 49 reasonable time balances the need for manufacturers are not obligated to U.S.C. 30119(a)(7). At a minimum, prompt notice to owners to warn of the submit for our approval, but manufacturers must provide these safety risks with the need to provide nevertheless may want to solicit the notifications within a reasonable time manufacturers limited flexibility to agency’s input for any number of after first deciding that a product has a develop and provide the remedy. Even reasons), or for submission to its recalls safety defect or noncompliance. 49 where the remedy is not ready at the file. U.S.C. 30119 and 49 CFR 577.7(a)(1). time of notification, the manufacturer We recognize that 49 U.S.C. 30118(c) For agency-ordered notifications often can instruct an owner to take requires that manufacturers notify associated with ordered recalls, the precautionary steps while the remedy is NHTSA by certified mail when they agency has defined reasonable time to being prepared or procured in order to learn a motor vehicle or equipment they mean within 60 days of the avoid or at least mitigate the occurrence manufactured contains a defect and manufacturer’s receipt of the order, of the defect or its consequence. decide in good faith that the defect is unless the Administrator orders a Mitigation may include inspections safety-related, or decide that such a different timeframe. 49 CFR 577.7(b). conducted by the owner or the product does not comply with an NHTSA’s regulations specifying the manufacturer (or its representative), applicable FMVSS. In order to meet the contents and timing of owner and dealer observation of certain warnings that can statutory requirement, we envision notifications are found in 49 CFR Part be reported to the manufacturer, such as manufacturers submitting a printed 577, Defect and Noncompliance illumination of a malfunction indicator copy of the completed online form after Notifications. Among other things, Part light, or application of an interim the form has been submitted and 577 specifies the information and, in remedy. For example, if a ‘‘check accepted by the agency. The agency will some cases, the required order of that engine’’ light appearing at highway design the system to allow information. It also dictates the speeds might indicate an engine defect manufacturers to download and print a formatting of the envelopes containing that may lead to a fire, a simple copy of this material. the owner notifications. For owner notification letter before the remedy is In order to meet our proposal today to notifications, these requirements are available can alert the owner that, if one require electronic filing and submission found in section 577.5, and for dealer encounters this situation, the driver of all recalls-related information and notifications, in section 577.13. should pull over and shut down the materials, we propose to change the As indicated above, both the statute vehicle immediately in order to avoid a heading and the regulatory text of 573.9. and Part 577 require that owners and possible vehicle fire. Examples of each of the forms we are purchasers be notified by the We do not believe the flexibility that proposing manufacturers be required to manufacturer within a reasonable time is extended through a reasonableness complete are available for review in this after the manufacturer first decides that standard could fairly be construed to rulemaking’s docket. Figure D1 is the either a safety defect or noncompliance mean that critical safety information be form for vehicle recalls, other than exists. 49 U.S.C. 30119(c) and 49 CFR withheld from those that are most likely
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55626 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
to suffer the consequence of a safety propose that the envelopes in which the As to the third proposal, we are defect or noncompliance until such time letters are mailed be stamped with logos concerned that due to the sheer volume as the manufacturer is ready to perform of the U.S. Department of of materials consumers receive in their the remedy aspect of a recall campaign. Transportation and NHTSA, in blue or regular mail, safety recall notifications Subordinating an owner’s awareness black, along with a statement in red that are being inadvertently overlooked and and ability to make an informed the letter is an important safety recall ignored. Many materials consumers now judgment, and to take measures to notice issued in accordance with federal receive in their mailboxes are stamped protect one from the risks and law. with terminology designed to incite a consequences associated with a safety Our first two proposals were items of level of urgency or immediacy and so defect or noncompliance, to the specific recommendation in the GAO’s terminology like ‘‘important,’’ or manufacturer’s commercial interest in June 2011 report concerning its audit of ‘‘urgent,’’ has become commonplace. providing a more smoothly executed NHTSA’s safety recalls program and its We are also concerned that other and administered campaign, is review of mechanisms for improving business interests, such as interests inconsistent with the Act. that program. See U.S. General selling extended vehicle warranties, are Accordingly, we propose to add Accountability Office, NHTSA Has enclosing marketing, advertising, and language to section 577.7(a)(1) to require Options to Improve the Safety Defect other non-safety related materials, in that manufacturers notify owners and Recall Process, GAO–11–603 (2011). As envelopes that replicate or closely purchasers no later than 60 days of part of its audit, GAO conducted focus mirror safety recall notifications in when they notify NHTSA that a defect groups to ascertain what content in efforts to call attention to their materials or noncompliance with a FMVSS exists, owner letters did or did not, or would and induce the recipient to open them. and, should the free remedy not be or would not, motivate owners to have These serve ultimately to discourage available at the time of notification, that important recall remedies applied to owners from opening safety recall manufacturers issue a second their vehicles in the event of a recall. notifications because the owner has notification to owners and purchasers The focus group participants reviewed grown accustomed to envelopes that once that remedy is available. As sample owner notification letters and appear to be official but simply are indicated above, this 60 day time frame their envelopes and provided feedback. marketing something related to his/her parallels the requirement for agency- A number of themes resonated from this motor vehicle or equipment, and will ordered notifications. See 49 CFR research, one of which was that the assume the materials inside do not 577.7(b). We propose to add language to seriousness or severity of the defect may relate to a serious safety concern. make clear that both notifications—the not have been communicated as clearly In an effort to better emphasize the first or ‘‘interim’’ notification to inform as it could have been and that could importance of a recall notification, and of the defect or noncompliance, and impact an owner’s motivation to react to distinguish it from other mailed then the second notification to again positively to a recall notification. GAO materials, we propose to require all inform of the defect or noncompliance Audit at p. 31. Another theme was the envelopes containing safety recall and inform of the availability of the free importance of indicating to the owner owner notifications to have imprinted remedy—will need to meet the that their specific vehicle was affected on them an identical one inch by three requirements of Part 577.5. This added by the defect and subject to the recall. inch label found in the bottom left language avoids any potential issues or Id. Accordingly, the GAO in its report corner of the envelope. This is so that, confusion over whether the notifications recommended NHTSA require owner over time, owners and consumers will need to meet the current requirements letters to include the word ‘‘urgent’’ in recognize this label and immediately for owner notifications of a safety recall. large type in the owner letters in order make the connection that the As for the requirements associated to obtain owners’ attention to the letter, communication is a safety recall with the content of owner and and that the owner’s VIN be included so notification. This label is to contain the purchaser notifications, we are that it is clear to the owner that their logos for the NHTSA as well as the U.S. proposing three measures to amplify the vehicle is affected by the defect and the Department of Transportation, in blue or importance of the notifications and the subject of the letter. Id. at 37. black, with the message that the urgency with which an owner should We believe there is merit to the GAO’s notification is an ‘‘Important Safety act in obtaining the remedy. First, we recommendations as to how we can Recall Notice Issued In Accordance propose to require that all notification adjust the content or format of owner With Federal Law.’’ The phrase letters include ‘‘URGENT SAFETY notification letters to better inform and ‘‘Important Safety Recall Notice’’ is to RECALL’’ in all capitals letters and in motivate owners to react positively to be in white lettering within a solid red an enlarged font at the top of the important recall notifications from box. An example of a recall notification notification letter to owners and manufacturers. These recommendations envelope with this new label can be purchasers. Second, for vehicle recalls, are specific and, in our view, easy to found in Appendix D with this notice. we propose that the manufacturer place accommodate. We are hopeful that including our logo, the VIN of the owner’s vehicle affected Therefore, we propose to modify the the Department’s logo, this message, in by the safety defect or noncompliance language of paragraph (b) of section conjunction with the other present within the letter. Third, in order to 577.5—the section that specifies the requirements for these envelopes, will further emphasize the importance of the content and structure of owner accomplish our objectives of motivating communication, and to distinguish it notification letters, and the paragraph increased owner compliance when they from other commercial that directs that each letter open with a learn of a safety recall on their vehicles. communications, such as advertising statement that the letter is being sent in The following is a visual image of the and marketing communications, we accordance with the Safety Act. proposed label:
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55627
Accordingly, we propose to modify relate to, among other things, the propose to tighten the regulation, section 577.5(a), ‘‘Notification pursuant identification of the vehicles or vehicle instead of leaving the language as is and to a manufacturer’s decision,’’ to equipment covered by a safety recall engaging in unnecessary interactions incorporate this proposal. campaign, the total number of vehicles with slow-to-report manufacturers. In addition, we propose to include or items of equipment covered by a Similarly, the agency believes that direct upload functions for the campaign and the associated VINs, the requiring manufacturers to amend uploading of all representative copies of percentage of the vehicles or items of information required by paragraphs (2), communications on recalls that are equipment covered by the campaign (3), (4), (8)(i) or (ii) of paragraph (c) presently required to be submitted to estimated to actually contain the safety within 5 working days after it has new the agency under 577.5(a). This change defect or noncompliance, the information that updates or corrects allows the agency to verify consistency description of the manufacturer’s information that was previously with the above proposed changes to program for remedying the safety defect reported will assist in the agency’s effort 573.6(c)(10) and 573.9 by requiring or noncompliance, and the estimated to monitor recalls, because the agency manufacturers to submit their proposed date(s) for sending notifications to will then have correct information on owner notification letters and envelopes owners and dealers about the safety through our online recalls portal. recall. Further, we propose to add a critical matters such as the recall We seek comments on these requirement that within 90 days of a population, the total number of vehicles proposals. recall’s available remedy, the or items of equipment potentially manufacturer review its Part 573 Report containing the defect or noncompliance, L. Regulatory Changes To Add or Make the percentage of vehicles or items of More Specific Current Requirements for for completeness and accuracy and supplement or amend it as necessary to equipment estimated to actually contain Manufacturers To Keep NHTSA the defect, and the manufacturer’s Informed of Changes and Updates in comply with Part 573. program for remedying the defect or Defect and Noncompliance Information We have tentatively concluded that noncompliance. Reports these changes are needed for several reasons. First, inaccurate or incomplete The proposed affirmative obligation to Manufacturers are required to provide 573 reports impede the agency’s ability review a Part 573 within 90 days of an their defect and noncompliance to effectively monitor safety recalls, or information reports not more than five available recall remedy in order to evaluate a safety recall’s effectiveness. identify any changes or additions working days after making a safety NHTSA cannot properly perform its needed to that report stems from our defect or noncompliance decision. They oversight role or respond properly to the concern that employees who do the are required to supply certain public regarding a recall when the reporting on behalf of the manufacturer information in those reports at the agency has incomplete or inaccurate outset—basic information like their information about the recall. Although may not always have the updated or name, identification of the products often NHTSA is notified of updated corrected information as soon as it is being recalled, and a description of the information or changes to a safety recall known or decided, and that there may defect or noncompliance occasioning campaign, there continue to be many be some delay within the the recall. Manufacturers have the instances in which it is not, or the manufacturer’s organization in getting flexibility to provide other required information is not provided promptly, that information to those employees. information as it becomes available or is only provided once NHTSA Even if the employees who report have when and if that information is not identifies an inaccuracy or access to or receive new information available at the time of first filing. These inconsistency and requests the immediately, those employees may not timeframes and minimal requirements manufacturer provide an explanation. report the new information. The for the reports as initially filed with The agency, therefore, believes it purpose of the affirmative review NHTSA are found in 49 CFR 573.6(b). necessary to revise the regulations to requirement is to ensure that We propose to amend section 573.6(b) more clearly specify that manufacturers manufacturers report additions and in three respects. First, we propose to must promptly provide information not changes to previous reports. We require that information not available at previously provided and submit envision our new online recalls portal to submission of the initial report be updated or corrected information. These automatically notify the manufacturer provided within five working days of proposals provide a specific timeframe after a recall remedy campaign begins so when it becomes available and in place to submit the supplemental and the manufacturer can be reminded to of the current requirement which amended information. review its report and certify its specifies only that the information be The current requirement in 49 CFR completeness and accuracy, or submit provided as it becomes available. Next, 573.6(b) that the manufacturer submit revised or supplemental information to require manufacturers to submit to information ‘‘as it becomes available’’ and then certify the overall submission NHTSA an amended Part 573 Report lacks precision. Since the agency through the same online system. within five working days if and when adopted this requirement, there have the manufacturer has new information been instances when, in our view, Accordingly, we propose to amend that updates or corrects the information information has become available but paragraph 573.6(b) to include this that was previously reported, as the manufacturer has not submitted the affirmative review requirement. required by paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (8)(i) information to the agency. To obtain the We seek comments on these or (ii) of paragraph (c). These paragraphs information in a timely manner, we proposals.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10SE12.003 55628 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
M. Requirement To Notify NHTSA In regulation, or logical outgrowths of V. Request for Comments the Event of Filing of Bankruptcy of a them, are adopted in a final rule. The How do I prepare and submit Recalling Manufacturer proposed amendments requiring some comments? lead time include the requirement for We propose to amend Part 573 to add Your comments must be written and a requirement that a manufacturer must light vehicle manufacturers to provide the vehicle type and fuel and/or in English. To ensure that your notify NHTSA if it files a bankruptcy comments are correctly filed in the propulsion system type in their petition or is the subject of an Docket, please include the docket quarterly EWR submissions and adding involuntary bankruptcy petition for number of this document in your which relief has been ordered in a Stability Control systems, FCA, LDP, comments. Your comments must not be United States Bankruptcy Court. Based and Backover Prevention components to more than 15 pages long.21 We upon our experience, it is necessary to EWR reporting. Because manufacturers established this limit to encourage you learn of any bankruptcy proceedings will need time to modify existing EWR to write your primary comments in a when the petition is filed, so that we databases and software to conform their concise fashion. However, you may may act to enforce the provisions of the systems to meet the amendments attach necessary additional documents Safety Act. This, in turn, would protect proposed today, we propose a lead time to your comments. There is no limit on the interests of owners and consumers of one year from the date the final rule the length of the attachments. of recalled vehicles and equipment. is published. We believe this lead time Please submit your comments by any Often, NHTSA learns of bankruptcies is an adequate amount of time for of the following methods: well after the petition filing date, which manufacturers to comply with the • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to limits the ability of the agency to proposed amendments. Accordingly, the http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the address issues including performance of proposed effective date for the online instructions for submitting outstanding recalls. Notice of amendments to light vehicle type, light comments. • bankruptcy proceedings will provide vehicle fuel and/or propulsion system Mail: Docket Management Facility, the agency with vital information in reporting and components will be the M–30, U.S. Department of order for it to take appropriate steps to first reporting quarter that is one year Transportation, 1200 New Jersey ensure the completion of the from the date the final rule is published. Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12– manufacturer’s recall remedy campaign. 140, Washington, DC 20590. NHTSA has authority to collect For the proposal to amend the manner • Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 information that is vital to carrying out in which substantially similar lists are New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, its functions under the Safety Act. The submitted, we do not believe a long lead Room W12–140, between 9 a.m. and 5 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle time is necessary. We propose that the p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89–563 effective date for this amendment be 60 Friday, except Federal holidays. (1966), 80 Stat. 728, authorizes NHTSA days after the date the final rule is • Fax: (202) 493–2251. to issue regulations as necessary to carry published. If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we out the Act. Id at § 118, 80 Stat 728; See We understand that adopting today’s ask that the documents submitted be 15 U.S.C. 1407 (1990), repealed and proposals to require larger vehicle scanned using Optical Character recodified without substantive change, manufacturers to supply VIN Recognition (OCR) process, thus PL 103–272, July 5, 1994, 108 Stat 745 information electronically and in the (1994), and Section 30119(a) authorizes allowing the agency to search and copy manner specified will require those NHTSA to collect information to certain portions of your submissions.22 manufacturers to modify or adjust their adequately inform the agency of a defect Please note that pursuant to the Data existing databases and software in order or noncompliance. NHTSA believes that Quality Act, in order for substantive this information will assist its efforts to to arrange for the submission of this data to be relied upon and used by the carry out the recall remedy provisions of information and the daily updates of it. agency, it must meet the information the Safety Act. Secondarily, receiving We further understand that the quality standards set forth in the OMB notice of a manufacturer’s bankruptcy in requirements to file online Part 573 and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. a timely manner will help NHTSA to Reports and quarterly reports (where Accordingly, we encourage you to effectuate the new statutory requirement applicable) using the forms prescribed consult the guidelines in preparing your of section 31312 of the MAP–21 Act. will also require some lead time, comments. OMB’s guidelines may be Section 31312 of MAP–21 adds a new including time for manufacturers to accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ section 30120A to Chapter 301 of Title register and be provided passwords and omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT’s 49, United States Code. That section to conduct training of staff. We propose guidelines may be accessed at http:// specifies that a manufacturer’s filing of the effective date for these proposals be dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQuality a petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 180 days after the date the final rule is Guidelines.pdf. 11 of Title 11 does not negate the published. How can I be sure that my comments manufacturer’s safety recall For the remaining proposals affecting were received? responsibilities under the Safety Act. requirements under Parts 573 and 577, Accordingly, we propose to amend If you submit your comments by mail we do not believe as long a lead time is and wish Docket Management to notify Part 573 to add section 573.16, to necessary. Those proposals do not require the reporting of a bankruptcy you upon its receipt of your comments, require changes to technology or enclose a self-addressed, stamped petition to NHTSA. We seek comments investment of additional resources. on these proposals. postcard in the envelope containing Accordingly, we propose the effective your comments. Upon receiving your N. Lead Time date for all remaining proposals that are We understand that manufacturers adopted be 60 days after the date the 21 See 49 CFR § 553.21. final rule is published. 22 Optical character recognition (OCR) is the need lead time to modify their existing process of converting an image of text, such as a EWR databases and software if today’s We seek comments on our proposed scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into proposed amendments to the EWR lead time and effective dates. computer-editable text.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55629
comments, Docket Management will received into any of our dockets by the one-time burden of $51,200 per return the postcard by mail. name of the individual submitting the manufacturer. The agency also estimates comment (or signing the comment, if an annual cost burden of $133,930 per How do I submit confidential business submitted on behalf of an association, manufacturer for the proposed information? business, labor union, etc.). You may amendments to Part 577 to notify If you wish to submit any information review DOT’s complete Privacy Act owners and purchaser of recalled motor under a claim of confidentiality, you Statement in the Federal Register vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. should submit three copies of your published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR B. Regulatory Flexibility Act complete submission, including the 19477) or you may visit http:// information you claim to be confidential dms.dot.gov. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) business information, to the Chief of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices agencies to evaluate the potential effects above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION A. Regulatory Policies and Procedures of their proposed and final rules on CONTACT. When you send a comment small businesses, small organizations Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory containing information claimed to be and small governmental jurisdictions. Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, confidential business information, you Section 605 of the RFA allows an October 4, 1993) provides for making should include a cover letter setting agency to certify a rule, in lieu of determinations whether a regulatory forth the information specified in our preparing an analysis, if the proposed action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore confidential business information rulemaking is not expected to have a subject to Office of Management and regulation.23 significant economic impact on a In addition, you should submit a Budget (OMB) review and to the substantial number of small entities. copy, from which you have deleted the requirements of the Executive Order. This proposed rule would affect all claimed confidential business The Order defines as ‘‘significant motor vehicle and motor vehicle information, to the Docket by one of the regulatory action’’ as one that is likely equipment manufacturers. The methods set forth above. to result in a rule that may: proposed changes to the EWR (1) Have an annual effect on the regulations, the foreign defect reporting Will the Agency consider late economy of $100 million or more or regulation, defect and noncompliance comments? adversely affect in a material way the information reports, and defect and We will consider all comments economy, a sector of the economy, noncompliance notifications would received before the close of business on productivity, competition, jobs, the affect manufacturers of light vehicles, the comment closing date indicated environment, public health or safety, or buses, emergency vehicles, medium- above under DATES. To the extent State, local, or Tribal governments or heavy vehicles, motorcycles and trailers, possible, we will also consider communities; tires and motor vehicle equipment. comments received after that date. (2) Create a serious inconsistency or In order to determine if any of these Therefore, if interested persons believe otherwise interfere with an action taken manufacturers are small entities under that any new information the agency or planned by another agency; the RFA, NHTSA reviewed the North places in the docket affects their (3) Materially alter the budgetary American Industry Classification comments, they may submit comments impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, System (NAICS) codes. Business entities after the closing date concerning how or loan programs or the rights and are defined as small businesses using the agency should consider that obligations of recipients thereof; or the North American Industry information for the final rule. (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues Classification System (NAICS) code, for If a comment is received too late for arising out of legal mandates, the the purposes of receiving Small us to consider in developing a final rule President’s priorities, or the principles Business Administration (SBA) (assuming that one is issued), we will set forth in the Executive Order. assistance. One of the criteria for consider that comment as an informal This document was reviewed under determining size, as stated in 13 CFR suggestion for future rulemaking action. E.O. 12866 and the Department of 121.201, is the number of employees in Transportation’s regulatory policies and the firm. For establishments primarily How can I read the comments submitted procedures. This rulemaking action is engaged in manufacturing or assembling by other people? not considered ‘‘significant’’ under automobiles and light and medium- You may read the materials placed in Department of Transportation policies heavy duty trucks, buses, new tires, or the docket for this document (e.g., the and procedures. The effects of these motor vehicle body manufacturing, the comments submitted in response to this proposed changes have been analyzed firm must have less than 1,000 document by other interested persons) in a Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation. employees to be classified as a small at any time by going to http:// The proposals being made within this business. For establishments www.regulations.gov. Follow the online document that relate to adding reporting manufacturing the safety systems for instructions for accessing the dockets. fields for light vehicle and medium- which reporting will be required, the You may also read the materials at the heavy vehicle manufacturers would firm must have less than 750 employees Docket Management Facility by going to place only a minimal burden on EWR to be classified as a small business. For the street address given above under manufacturers through a one-time establishments manufacturing truck ADDRESSES. The Docket Management adjustment to their EWR databases and trailers, motorcycles, child restraints, re- Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 software. The agency estimates that the tread tires, other vehicles equipment p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through proposal will result in a one-time and alterers, and second-stage Friday, except Federal holidays. burden of $62,208 per light vehicle manufacturers, the firm must have less manufacturer and $10,368 per bus, than 500 employees to be classified as VI. Privacy Act Statement emergency vehicle, and medium-heavy a small business. In determining the Anyone is able to search the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, the number of employees, all employees electronic form of all comments proposals being made within this from the parent company and its document that relate to new VIN subsidiaries are considered and 23 See 49 CFR § 512. submission requirements will result in a compared to the 1,000 employee
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55630 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
threshold. Many of the bus companies effect on the States, on the relationship the Office of Management and Budget are owned by other larger companies. between the national government and (OMB) for review and comment. The The agency separately published a the States, or on the distribution of ICR describes the nature of the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation that power and responsibilities among the information collections and their includes a regulatory flexibility various levels of government, as expected burden. analysis. That document sets forth in specified in Executive Order 13132. The collection of information detail the agency’s analysis and is associated with Part 579 is titled located in the docket. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ‘‘Reporting of Information and The agency believes that there are a The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Documents About Potential Defects’’ substantial number of small businesses of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires and has been assigned OMB Control that will be affected by the proposed agencies to prepare a written assessment Number 2127–0616. This collection is amendments to the Early Warning Rule, of the costs, benefits, and other effects approved by OMB. The collection of the Foreign Defect Reporting Rule, the of proposed or final rules that include information associated with Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Information a Federal mandate likely to result in and portions of Part 577 is titled, Reports, and Defect and Noncompliance expenditures by State, local or tribal ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reporting Notification; however, we do not believe governments, in the aggregate, or by the and Notification.’’ This collection is that the requirements, which involve private sector, of more than $100 approved by OMB and has been reporting and recordkeeping, will million annually (adjusted annually for assigned OMB Control Number 2127– amount to a substantial economic inflation with base year of 1995). 0004. burden, as discussed in the Cost section Adjusting this amount by the implicit of the Preliminary Regulatory gross domestic product price deflator for 1. Part 579 Collections Evaluation. the year 2007 results in $130 million When NHTSA most recently In summary, as stated in the agency’s (119.682 ÷ 92.106 = 1.30). This proposal requested renewal of the information Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, this would not result in expenditures by collection associated with Part 579, the proposal will not have a significant State, local or tribal governments. This agency estimated that the collection of economic impact on a substantial proposal only applies to motor vehicle information would result in 2,355 number of small businesses. For the and equipment manufacturers. The responses, with a total of 82,391 burden reasons stated in the Preliminary proposal would result in one-time cost hours on affected manufacturers. These Regulatory Evaluation, the agency of about $4.75 million for proposed estimates were based on 2006 EWR data. believes that the proposed amendments EWR and Part 573 VIN changes and The agency has published two to Part 573, Part 577 and 579 will not about $7.5 million annually recurring amendments to the EWR regulation have a significant economic impact on costs to manufacturers for notifying since then which will affect the vehicle manufacturers, and motor owners and purchasers of recalls under reporting burden on manufacturers. On vehicle equipment manufacturers the proposed changes to Part 577. This May 29, 2007, the agency eliminated the including tire manufacturers affected by proposal would not result in requirement to produce hard copies of the proposed rule. Accordingly, I certify expenditures by motor vehicles and a subset of field reports known as that this proposed rule would not have equipment manufacturers of more than ‘‘product evaluation reports.’’ 72 FR a significant economic impact on a $130 million annually and, therefore, 29435. On September 17, 2009, NHTSA substantial number of small entities. would not require an assessment per the issued a final rule that modified the reporting thresholds for quarterly EWR C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. reports. 74 FR 47740. The reporting Executive Order 13132 on threshold for light vehicle, medium- ‘‘Federalism’’ requires us to develop an E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice heavy vehicle (excluding buses and accountable process to ensure Reform) emergency vehicles), motorcycle, and ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, trailer manufacturers was changed from and local officials in the development of ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ 24 the agency has an annual production of 500 vehicles to ‘‘regulatory policies that have considered whether this proposed rule an annual production of 5,000 vehicles. federalism implications.’’ The Executive would have any retroactive effect. We The reporting threshold for emergency Order defines this phrase to include conclude that it would not have a vehicles stayed the same, but the regulations ‘‘that have substantial direct retroactive or preemptive effect, and reporting threshold for bus effects on the States, on the relationship judicial review of it may be obtained manufacturers was changed from an between the national government and pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section annual production of 500 vehicles to an the States, or on the distribution of does not require that a petition for annual production of 100 vehicles. power and responsibilities among the reconsideration be filed prior to seeking These changes have reduced the number various levels of government.’’ The judicial review. of manufacturers required to report agency has analyzed this proposed rule certain information and the amount of F. Paperwork Reduction Act in accordance with the principles and information those manufacturers are criteria set forth in Executive Order Under the Paperwork Reduction Act required to report. Because these 13132 and has determined that it will of 1995, a person is not required to changes will affect the burden on not have sufficient federalism respond to a collection of information manufacturers, our burden hour implications to warrant consultation by a Federal agency unless the estimates need to be adjusted. with State and local officials or the collection displays a valid Office of preparation of a federalism summary Management and Budget (OMB) control a. Adjusted Estimates for Current impact statement. The changes number. The Information Collection Information Collections proposed in this document only affect a Request (ICR) for the proposed revisions In the EWR final regulatory rule that regulates submission of to the existing information collections Evaluation (July 2002, NHTSA docket information the manufacturers of motor described below has been forwarded to # 8677), it was assumed that reviewing vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and/or processing would be required for which does not have substantial direct 24 See 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996). death and injury claims/notices,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55631
property damage claims, non-dealer field reports would not impose points. Table 1 below shows the number field reports, and foreign death claims. incremental burden hours since of documents submitted in 2011 by It was also assumed that customer computer systems were set up to reporting type. complaints, warranty claims, and dealer automatically count these aggregate data
The agency assumed that a total of 5 foreign death claims. For these, it would number of documents NHTSA receives minutes would be required to process require 15 minutes. Multiplying this in each reporting category will yield each report with the exception of average number of minutes times the burden hours (see Table 2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10SE12.004 55632 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
The burden hours associated with by multiplying the hours of computer manufacturers for the category. Using aggregate data submissions for customer use (for a given category) by the number these methods and the number of complaints, warranty claims, and dealer of manufacturers reporting in a category. manufacturers who reported in 2011, we field reports are included in reporting Similarly, reporting burden hours are have estimated the burden hours for and computer maintenance hours. The calculated based on industry input, by reporting cost and computer burden hours for computer maintenance multiplying hours used to report for a maintenance (see Table 3). are calculated, based on industry input, given category by the number of
TABLE 3—ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS FOR REPORTING AND COMPUTER MAINTENANCE
Number of Quarterly Hours for com- Annual burden manufacturer hours to Annual burden puter mainte- hours for Vehicle/Equipment category reporting in report per hours for nance per computer 2011 manufacturer reporting manufacturer maintenance
Light Vehicles ...... 40 8 1,280 347 13,880 Medium-Heavy Vehicles ...... 30 5 600 86.5 2,595 Trailers ...... 68 1 272 86.5 5,882 Motorcycles ...... 21 2 168 86.5 1,817 Emergency Vehicles ...... 8 5 160 86.5 692 Buses ...... 29 5 580 86.5 2,509 Tires ...... 38 5 760 86.5 3,287 Child Restraint ...... 29 1 116 86.5 2,509 Vehicle Equipment ...... 5 1 20 ......
Total ...... 3,956 ...... 33,170
Thus, the total burden hours for EWR other safety campaign are identical or agency. NHTSA estimated that death and injury data, aggregate data substantially similar to vehicles or preparing and submitting each foreign and non-dealer field reports is 7,178 equipment sold in the United States, (2) defect report (foreign recall campaign) (Table 2) + 3,956 (Table 3) + 33,170 prepare and submit reports of these would require 1 hour of clerical staff (Table 3) = 44,304 burden hours. campaigns to the agency, and (3) where and that translation of determinations In order to provide the information a determination or notice has been made into English would require 2 hours of required for foreign safety campaigns, in a language other than English, technical staff (note: this assumes that manufacturers must (1) determine translate the determination or notice all foreign campaign reports would whether vehicles or equipment that are into English before transmitting it to the require translation, which is unlikely). covered by a foreign safety recall or
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10SE12.005 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55633
NHTSA received 104 foreign recall estimate that it takes 7,000 documents × manufacturers supply the list of reports in 2011 which results in 104 5 minutes = 35,000 minutes or 584 substantially similar vehicles hours for preparation and submission of hours for manufacturers to submit electronically will be minimal. The the reports (104 defect reports × 1 hour notices as required under Part 579.5. agency believes the electronic clerical = 104 hours) and 208 hours for Based on the foregoing, we estimate submission of annual substantially technical time (104 foreign recall reports the burden hours for manufacturer to similar vehicle information will take an × 2 hours technical = 208 hours.) comply with the current EWR additional hour for an IT technician to With respect to the burden of requirements, the foreign campaign submit their lists to NHTSA. There are determining identical or substantially requirements and the Part 579.5 about 85 substantially similar vehicle similar vehicles or equipment to those requirements are 45,880 burden hours list submissions per year and about 80 sold in the United States, manufacturers (44,304 hours for EWR requirements + percent are already submitted of motor vehicles are required to submit 992 hours for foreign campaign electronically. Thus, we estimate that not later than November 1 of each year, requirements + 584 hours for Part manufacturers will incur about 17 a document that identifies foreign 579.5). additional burden hours per year to products and their domestic b. New Collections submit substantially similar vehicle lists counterparts. NHTSA continues to electronically. NHTSA believes that if estimate that the annual list could be NHTSA believes that if this NPRM is this NPRM is made final, there will be developed with 8 hours of professional made final, there will be a one-time increase of 17 burden hours on those staff time. NHTSA has received lists increase of 27,160 burden hours on reporting under Part 579, Subpart B. those reporting under Part 579, Subpart from 85 manufacturers for 2011, We estimate that the total burden C. Adding vehicle type, fuel and/or resulting in 680 burden hours (85 hours associated with the Part 579 vehicle manufacturers × 8 hours = 680 propulsion system type, and four new components (stability control, FCA, requirements would be 45,880 hours for hours). current reporting requirements + 27,016 Therefore, the total annual hour LDP, and backover prevention) to the hours for proposed new requirements + burden on manufacturers for reporting vehicle EWR reporting is likely to create 17 hours for proposed electronic foreign safety campaigns and a one-time cost for manufacturers to submission of substantially similar list = substantially similar vehicles/ amend their reporting template and 72,913 burden hours pursuant to the equipment is 992 hours (680 hours revise their software system to regulatory changes made pursuant to professional time + 104 hours clerical appropriately categorize the data. We Part 579, which represents a reduction time + 208 hours technical time). estimate that one-time cost to revise Section 579.5 also requires EWR databases and software proposed in the burden hours estimated for the manufacturers to submit notices, in the NPRM would involve 2 weeks of current collection (82,391 burden bulletins, customer satisfaction a computer programmer’s time and 8 hours). campaigns, consumer advisories and hours of a manager’s time per one 2. Parts 573 and 577 Collections other communications that are sent to component or fuel/propulsion element. more than one dealer or owner. Thus, an increase in burden hours for The approved information collection Manufacturers are required to submit light vehicle manufacturers will be 80 associated with Part 573 and portions of this information monthly. However, the hours × 6 (vehicle type, 4 components Part 577 is associated with an estimated burden hours associated with this and fuel/propulsion) = 480 hours for a annual burden of 21,370 hours information were inadvertently not computer programmer and 8 hours × 6 associated with an estimated 175 included in the overall burden hours (vehicle type, 4 components and fuel/ respondents per year. The control calculated and submitted with the propulsion) = 48 hours for a computer number for these collections is OMB previous information collection request. manager or 528 burden hours. For bus, Control Number 2127–0004. For Therefore, we have estimated the emergency vehicle and medium/heavy information concerning how we burden hours necessary for vehicle manufacturers, we estimate 80 calculated these estimates please see the manufacturers to comply with this hours for computer programmers and 8 Federal Register Notices 76 FR 17186 requirement. hours for computer manager to add the (March 28, 2011) and 76 FR 34803 (June Section 579.5 does not require stability control and/or RSC component. 14, 2011). manufacturer to create these documents. There are currently 40 light vehicle These estimates require revision. For Manufacturers are only required to send manufacturers and 67 bus (29), several of the current collections, we copies to NHTSA. Therefore, the burden emergency vehicle (8) and medium- have more current information on hours are only those associated with heavy vehicle (30) manufacturers which which to base estimates, and so we are collecting the documents, preparing would be affected by the proposed making adjustments to those estimates them for mailing, and sending them to changes. The additional burden hours to provide more accurate assessments of NHTSA. Manufacturers are required to for light vehicle manufacturers would burden. Also, our proposals in today’s submit the documents within 5 working be 528 × 40 = 21,120 more burden notice will result in a number of new days after the end of the month in hours. For bus, emergency vehicle and collections which require burden which they were issued. Manufacturers medium/heavy vehicle manufacturers, calculations. × are allowed to submit them by mail, by we estimate an additional 88 67 = a. Adjusted Estimates for Current facsimile or by email. Most 5,896 burden hours. For these reasons, Information Collections manufacturers submit them by email if this NPRM is made final, NHTSA (about 75 percent), some manufacturers believes industry will incur a one-time Our prior estimates of the number of send in paper copies by mail and others increase in 21,120 + 5,896 = 27,016 manufacturers each year that would be send in electronic copies on disk by more burden hours to implement the required to provide information under mail. proposed requirements to NHTSA. Part 573, the number of recalls for NHTSA receives about 7,000 notices a Today’s proposal also proposes which Part 573 information collection year. We estimate that it takes about 5 changes to Part 579, Subpart B. We requirements would need to be met, and minutes to collect, prepare and send a believe the burden associated with the number of burden hours associated notice to NHTSA. Therefore, we adding a requirement that with the requirements currently covered
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55634 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
by this information collection require Assuming an average of 3 distributors hours to this requirement since to date adjustment as explained below. per equipment item, (which is a liberal no such reports have been provided and Previously, we calculated an average estimate given that many equipment our original expectation that dealers of 650 Part 573 information reports were manufacturers do not use independent would comply with manufacturers’ filed with NHTSA each year by distributors) the total number of burden plans has proven true. approximately 175 distinct hours associated with this third party Accordingly, we estimate 30 burden manufacturers (MFRs). After reviewing notification burden is approximately hours a year will be spent complying more recent records which reflect higher 1,200 hours per year (80 recalls × 3 with the tire recall campaign recall volumes, we are adjusting this distributors × 5 hours). requirements found in 49 CFR estimate to 280 distinct manufacturers As for the burden linked with a 573.6(c)(9). filing an average of 680 Part 573 manufacturer’s preparation of and Additionally, because the agency has information reports each year. notification concerning its yet to receive a single report of a We continue to estimate that it takes reimbursement for pre-notification defective or noncompliant tire being a manufacturer an average of 4 hours to remedies, consistent with previous intentionally sold or leased in the complete each notification report to estimates (see 69 Fed. Reg. 11477 fourteen years since this rule was NHTSA and that maintenance of the (March 10, 2004)), we continue to proposed, our previous estimate of zero required owner, purchaser, dealer and estimate that preparing a plan for burden hours remains unchanged with distributors lists requires 8 hours a year reimbursement takes approximately 8 this notice. per manufacturer. Accordingly, the hours annually, and that an additional NHTSA’s supporting information for subtotal estimate of annual burden 2 hours per year is spent tailoring the the current Part 577 information hours related to the reporting to NHTSA plan to particular defect and collection did not include estimates of of a safety defect or noncompliance and noncompliance notifications to NHTSA the burden linked with the requirement maintenance of owner and purchaser and adding tailored language about the to notify owners and purchasers of a lists is 4,960 hours annually ((680 plan to a particular safety recall’s owner safety recall. Today, we estimate that notices × 4 hours/report) + (280 MFRs notification letters. In sum, these burden. We estimate that it takes × 8 hours)). required activities add an additional manufacturers an average of 8 hours to In addition, we continue to estimate 3,600 annual burden hours ((280 draft their notification letters, submit an additional 2 hours will be needed to manufacturers × 8 hours) + (680 recalls them to NHTSA for review, and then add to a manufacturer’s information × 2 hours)). finalize them for mailing to their report details relating to the The Act and Part 573 also contain affected owners and purchasers. We manufacturer’s intended schedule for numerous information collection calculate that the Part 577 requirements notifying its dealers and distributors, requirements specific to tire recall and result in 5,440 burden hours annually (8 and tailoring its notifications to dealers remedy campaigns, as well as a hours per recall × 680 recalls per year). and distributors in accordance with the statutory and regulatory reporting b. New Collections requirements of 49 CFR § 577.13. This requirement that anyone that knowingly would total to an estimated 1,360 hours and intentionally sells or leases a We recognize that our proposal to annually (680 notices × 2 hours/report). defective or noncompliant tire notify require owner notifications within 60 In the event a manufacturer supplied NHTSA of that activity. days of filing a Part 573 report will the defect or noncompliant product to Manufacturers are required to include increase the burden hours associated independent dealers through specific information relative to tire with the requirement to notify owners independent distributors, that disposal in the notifications they and purchasers of a safety recall. We manufacturer is required to include in provide NHTSA concerning calculated that about 25% of past recalls its notifications to those distributors an identification of a safety defect or did not include an owner notification instruction that the distributors are to noncompliance with FMVSS in their mailing within 60 days of the filing of then provide copies of the tires, as well as in the notifications they the Part 573 report. Under the proposed manufacturer’s notification of the defect issue to their dealers or other tire outlets requirements, manufacturers would or noncompliance to all known participating in the recall campaign. See have to send two letters in these cases: distributors or retail outlets further 49 CFR § 573.6(c)(9). We previously an interim notification of the defect or down the distribution chain within five estimated about 10 tire recall campaigns noncompliance within 60 days and a working days. See 49 CFR per year; however, we are adjusting this supplemental letter notifying owners § 577.8(c)(2)(iv). As a practical matter, figure to 15 tire campaigns per year to and purchasers of the available remedy. this requirement would only apply to better reflect recent figures. We estimate Accordingly, we estimate that 1,360 equipment manufacturers since vehicle that the inclusion of this additional burden hours will be added by this 60- manufacturers generally sell and lease information will require an additional day interim notification requirement vehicles through a dealer network, and two hours of effort beyond the subtotal (680 recalls × .25 = 170 recalls; 170 not through independent distributors. above associated with non-tire recall recalls times 8 hours per recall = 1,360 We believe our previous estimate of campaigns. This additional effort hours). Therefore we calculate the total roughly 90 equipment recalls per year consists of one hour for the NHTSA burden created by Part 577 to notify needs to be adjusted to 80 equipment notification and one hour for the dealer owners and purchasers of defective recalls per year to better reflect recent notification for a total of 30 burden vehicles or motor vehicle equipment at recall figures. Although the distributors hours (15 tire recalls a year × 2 hours 6,800 hours (5,440 + 1,360). are not technically under any regulatory per recall). We believe the burden associated requirement to follow that instruction, Manufacturer owned or controlled with the added requirement that we expect that they will, and have dealers are required to notify the manufacturers supply the list of VINs estimated the burden associated with manufacturer and provide certain associated with the vehicles covered by these notifications (identifying retail information should they deviate from their recall campaigns will be minimal. outlets, making copies of the the manufacturer’s disposal plan. As discussed earlier, manufacturers are manufacturer’s notice, and mailing) to Consistent with our previous analysis, already required to have ready at the be 5 hours per recall campaign. we continue to ascribe zero burden agency’s request a list of VINs for
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55635
vehicles covered by each recall. They recall campaigns from the past 24 experience, roughly 10 percent of safety must also have the status of the remedy months will require 60 burden hours. recalls involve a change or addition to of each vehicle on that list at the end of This estimate of 60 hours includes the the information supplied in a 573 each quarterly reporting period, and so time needed for software development Report. The vast majority of these they will know the vehicles (and (24 hours), data preparation (24 hours), changes or additions are to only a associated VINs) that have not been and file naming (12 hours). We calculate single, discrete, informational remedied and be able to provide that these one-time burdens will only be component, such as a change in the updated information. They must, as a incurred in the first year and include number of products to be campaigned or practical matter, and in order to meet 1,740 hours for VIN list template a change in the manufacturer’s the requirement that they identify creation (29 MFRs × 60 hours), 8,700 estimation of when it will begin its current owners based on State hours for the daily VIN update system owner and dealer notifications. As such, registration data (which is accessed configuration (29 MFRs × 300 hours), these amended reports are relatively using VINs), be able to provide the and 1,740 hours for the historical VIN simple and straightforward and will States with a list of VINs, and, more submissions (29 MFRs × 60 hours) for a require little time to submit through than likely, that list would be in an combined total of 12,180 hours (1,740 + NHTSA’s new online recalls portal. electronic format that can be transferred 8,700 + 1,740). As for the active review of the Part readily to each State for its use in Due to our proposed changes to 573 information report conducted compiling its list of owner names and quarterly reporting, specifically, lifting within 90 days of the recall’s available addresses associated with each VIN. the requirement to calculate and submit remedy, we estimate this review will Any added burden, therefore, is reduced recall quarterly reports for the largest take no more than 30 minutes per recall, to time and costs associated with the manufacturers of light vehicles or as the informational components to be manufacturer’s transfer of that motorcycles, this burden will decrease. provided in a Part 573 report that will information to NHTSA through a secure We now estimate an average 515 now require an update or correction to server using SFTP. quarterly reports will be filed per NHTSA are very discrete and We anticipate that the initial quarter (or 2,060 reports per year) by the straightforward. Accordingly, we electronic submission of a VIN list to manufacturers not required to submit estimate that there will be an additional NHTSA’s database will require one hour VINs under our proposed changes to burden of 340 hours a year (680 recalls to compile per recall and that the Part 573. Accordingly, we revise our at 30 minutes each). recurring daily updates will add no previous calculation of 12,000 burden In view of the fact that the additional hourly burden as it will be an hours (3,000 quarterly reports × 4 hours/ requirement to inform NHTSA of a automated process handled by the report) to a new calculation of 8,240 change or update in these recall manufacturer’s electronic servers. We burden hours for quarterly reporting components is new, we will liberally calculate that 10 affected motorcycle (2,060 quarterly reports × 4 hours/ assume that the number of amended manufacturers will now submit VINs for report). This will result in a reduction reports will double. Therefore, we an average of 2 recalls each year and 19 of 3,760 hours annually. assume that 20 percent of Part 573 affected light vehicle manufacturers will As to the new requirement that reports will involve a change or submit VINs for an average of 8 recalls manufacturers utilize NHTSA’s new addition. At 30 minutes per amended each year. We estimate this will add an online recalls portal for the submission report, this will add an additional 68 additional 172 burden hours (1 hour × of all recall documents, we believe there burden hours per year (680 recalls × .20 2 recalls × 10 MFRs + 1 hour × 8 recalls will be minimal burden. Manufacturers = 136 recalls; 136/2 = 68 hours). × 19 MFRs). typically produce their Part 573 reports As to the proposal to require While we believe the automated by entering the needed data into a manufacturers to notify NHTSA in the process to submit VINs and daily VIN computer word processor, emailing and/ event of a bankruptcy, we expect this remedy updates will be minimally or printing and mailing their report. notification to take an estimated 2 hours burdensome, we do believe the affected NHTSA’s new online recalls portal will to draft and submit to NHTSA. We 29 manufacturers will incur a more simply replace the manufacturer’s data estimate that only 10 manufacturers complex burden during the initial setup entry method and delivery with a might submit such a notice to NHTSA and configuration of their computer standardized online form. We do believe each year, so we calculate the total systems. We estimate that each of the 29 there will be some unmeasured burden burden at 20 hours (10 MFRs × 2 hours). manufacturers will spend a total of 60 reduction by having a centralized Web Due to the initial costs associated hours creating a standardized VIN list site where manufacturers can find with the Part 573 VIN submission template they will use in their VIN assistance in conducting their recall and proposal, our burden estimate is higher submissions to NHTSA. This estimate of upload all of their recall documents. for the first year of this rule. The Part 60 hours includes the time needed for However, we do estimate a small burden 573 and Part 577 requirements found in software development (24 hours), data of 2 hours annually in order to set up this proposal will require 39,530 burden preparation (24 hours), and file naming their recalls portal account with the hours in the first year of this rule and (12 hours). We estimate the pertinent contact information and then 27,350 hours each subsequent year. configuration of the manufacturers’ maintaining/updating their account Due to this range of estimates, we will databases to supply the needed VIN information as needed. We estimate this request the maximum estimate of 39,530 information in a format suitable to be will require a total of 560 hours burden hours. Accordingly, we plan to received by NHTSA’s computer servers annually (2 hours × 280 MFRs). request approval from OMB to add an will require a total of 300 hours. This We recognize that manufacturers will additional 18,160 burden hours a year, estimate of 300 hours includes the time incur additional burden in meeting the for a total of 39,530 burden hours for the needed for software development (180 new requirement to submit changes or regulatory changes proposed to Part 573 hours), data preparation (60 hours), and additions to the information supplied in and Part 577. database management including the an earlier Part 573 report, as well as in We request comment on our burden purchase of any needed new hardware conducting the active review of Part 573 hour estimate. (60 hours). Also, we estimate that the report information within 90 days of a Apart from the burden hours one-time VIN submissions related to the recall’s available remedy. In our estimated above, several of our
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55636 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
proposals in today’s notice involve We estimate the incremental costs • Have we organized the material to investment as well as recurring costs. associated with the proposed suit the public’s needs? We estimate these costs as follows: amendments total $12.25 million (3.27 • Are the requirements in the rule We estimate that the IT staff and million for EWR + $1.48 million for Part clearly stated? database professionals that will be paid 573 VIN changes + $7.5 million in recall • Does the rule contain technical to assist the manufacturers in creating notification letters) in the first year and language or jargon that isn’t clear? their VIN list templates, configuring $7.5 million recurring costs annually in • Would a different format (grouping their daily VIN update systems, and the second and subsequent years for and order of sections, use of headings, gathering historical recall VIN recall notification letters. paragraphing) make the rule easier to information, average an hourly rate of Comments are invited on: understand? • $110 per hour. At this hourly rate, the • Whether the collection of Would more (but shorter) sections VIN list template creation cost would information is necessary for the proper be better? • total $191,400 ($110 × 60 hours × 29 performance of the functions of the Could we improve clarity by adding Department, including whether the tables, lists or diagrams? MFRs). The cost to configure the • manufacturer’s system to automatically information will have practical utility. What else could we do to make the • submit VIN updates would total Whether the Department’s estimate rule easier to understand? $957,000 ($110 × 300 hours × 29 MFRs). for the burden of the information If you have any responses to these The cost to provide the VINs for the last collection is accurate. questions, please include them in your • 24 months of safety recalls would total Ways to enhance the quality, utility, comments on this proposal. $191,400 ($110 × 60 hours × 29 MFRs). and clarity of the information to be J. Data Quality Act Also, the required hardware that will collected and to minimize the burden of Section 515 of the FY 2001 Treasury need to be purchased we estimate will the collection of information on and General Government average $5,000 for a total of $145,000 respondents, including the use of Appropriations Act (Public Law 106– ($5,000 × 29 MFRs). We estimate that automated collection techniques or 554, section 515, codified at 44 U.S.C. these one year costs will total other forms of information technology. 3516 historical and statutory note), $1,484,800 ($191,400 + $957,000 + Please submit any comments, commonly referred to as the Data $191,400 + $145,000). identified by the docket number in the Quality Act, directed OMB to establish As explained above, we estimate that heading of this document, by the methods described in the ADDRESSES government-wide standards in the form each manufacturer will spend 3 hours of guidelines designed to maximize the compiling and submitting these VIN section of this document to NHTSA and OMB. ‘‘quality,’’ ‘‘objectivity,’’ ‘‘utility,’’ and lists. The subsequent daily updates on ‘‘integrity’’ of information that Federal the changes in recall remedy status for G. Executive Order 13045 agencies disseminate to the public. As any of the vehicles involved in the Executive Order 13045 applies to any noted in the EWR final rule (67 FR recall, however, will be conducted rule that: (1) Is determined to be 45822), NHTSA has reviewed its data through an automated process ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined collection, generation, and performed by the manufacturers’ under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an dissemination processes in order to computer servers. Accordingly, we environmental, health or safety risk that ensure that agency information meets ascribe zero costs to this automated NHTSA has reason to believe may have the standards articulated in the OMB function. a disproportionate effect on children. If and DOT guidelines. Where the As for costs associated with notifying the regulatory action meets both criteria, proposed rule change is requiring owners and purchasers of recalls, we we must evaluate the environmental additional reporting by manufacturers, estimate this costs $1.50 per notification health or safety effects of the planned the new requirements will serve to on average. This cost estimate includes rule on children, and explain why the improve the quality of the data NHTSA the costs of printing, mailing, as well as planned regulation is preferable to other receives under the EWR rule, enabling the costs vehicle manufacturers may pay potentially effective and reasonably the agency to be more efficient and to third-party vendors to acquire the feasible alternatives considered by us. productive in proactively searching for names and addresses of the current This rulemaking is not economically potential safety concerns as mandated registered owners from state and significant. through the TREAD Act. territory departments of motor vehicles. In reviewing recent recall figures, we H. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) K. Executive Order 13609: Promoting determined that an estimated 20 million The Department of Transportation International Regulatory Cooperation letters are mailed yearly totaling assigns a regulation identifier number The policy statement in section 1 of $30,000,000 ($1.50 per letter × (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in Executive Order 13609 provides, in part: 20,000,000 letters). The changes to Part the Unified Agenda of Federal The regulatory approaches taken by foreign 577 requiring a manufacturer to notify Regulations. The Regulatory Information governments may differ from those taken by their affected customers within 60 days Service Center publishes the Unified U.S. regulatory agencies to address similar would add an additional $7,500,000 Agenda in or about April and October issues. In some cases, the differences (20,000,000 letters × .25 requiring of each year. You may use the RIN between the regulatory approaches of U.S. interim owner notifications = 5,000,000 contained in the heading at the agencies and those of their foreign letters; 5,000,000 × $1.50 = $7,500,000). beginning of this document to find this counterparts might not be necessary and In total we estimate that the Part 577 action in the Unified Agenda. might impair the ability of American requirements along with the new businesses to export and compete proposal to require notifications within I. Plain Language internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 60 days will cost manufacturers a total Executive Order 12866 requires each environmental, and other issues, $37,500,000 annually ($30,000,000 agency to write all rules in plain international regulatory cooperation can owner notification letters + $7,500,000 language. Application of the principles identify approaches that are at least as interim notification letters = of plain language includes consideration protective as those that are or would be $37,500,000). of the following questions: adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55637
International regulatory cooperation can also addition, each manufacturer shall inspected and repaired or inspected and reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary amend information required by determined not to require repair, the differences in regulatory requirements. paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (8)(i) or (ii) of manufacturer shall provide the date NHTSA requests public comment on paragraph (c) within 5 working days those actions were completed. A whether (a) ‘‘regulatory approaches after it has new information that manufacturer shall provide this taken by foreign governments’’ updates or corrects information that was information in accordance with the concerning the subject matter of this previously reported. Within 90 days of table ‘‘VIN Table for Safety Recall,’’ rulemaking and (b) the above policy the date the recall remedy becomes provided at Web page http://www. statement, have any implications for available, the manufacturer shall review safercar.gov/Vehicle+Manufacturers this rulemaking. its defect and noncompliance and follow the instructions there for information report and certify its submitting this information and must, VIII. Proposed Regulatory Text completeness and accuracy or once daily at a time designated by the List of Subjects in 49 CFR parts 573, supplement or amend it as necessary to agency, for 10 years from the date it first 577, and 579 comply with this section. Each provides its VIN list, provide any manufacturer submitting new changes to this information using Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and information relative to a previously application programming interface via recordkeeping requirements, Tires. submitted report shall refer to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). In consideration of the foregoing, notification campaign number when a (ii) Each manufacturer of vehicles NHTSA proposes that parts 573, 577, number has been assigned by the covered by (i) above, on a one-time basis and 579 be amended as set forth below: NHTSA. only and no later than 180 days after PART 573—DEFECT AND * * * * * [the effective date of final rule] (i), shall NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY (c) * * * submit the same information as in (i) for AND REPORTS (2) * * * each defect or noncompliance (iii) In the case of items of motor notification campaign filed within 24 1. Revise the authority citation for vehicle equipment, the identification months prior to [the effective date of part 573 to read as follows: shall be by the generic name of the final rule]. A manufacturer must Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116– component (tires, child seating systems, provide this information in the same 30121, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 axles, etc.), part number (for tires, a manner as in (i) above and must, once CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8. range of tire identification numbers, as daily at a time designated by the agency, required by 49 CFR 574.5), size and for 10 years from the date it first 2. Amend § 573.4 by adding the function if applicable, the inclusive provided notification of the defect or definitions of ‘‘Light vehicle’’ and dates (month and year) of manufacture noncompliance pursuant to this section, ‘‘Motorcycle’’ in alphabetical order to if available, brand (or trade) name, provide any changes to this information read as follows: model name, model number, as using application programming § 573.4 Definitions. applicable, and any other information interface via Hypertext Transfer * * * * * necessary to describe the items. Protocol (HTTP). Manufacturers that did Light vehicle means any motor * * * * * not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for vehicle, except a bus, motorcycle, or (3) The total number of vehicles or sale, introduce or deliver for trailer, with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or items of equipment potentially introduction in interstate commerce, or less. containing the defect or noncompliance, import into the United States 25,000 or Motorcycle means a motor vehicle and, where available the number of more light vehicles or 5,000 or more with motive power having a seat or vehicles or items of equipment in each motorcycles in the current calendar year saddle for the use of the rider and group identified pursuant to paragraph or the calendar year prior to [the designed to travel on not more than (c)(2) of this section. effective date of the final rule] are not three wheels in contact with the ground. (i) If the manufacturer has subject to this requirement. (iii) A manufacturer of motor vehicles * * * * * manufactured for sale, sold, offered for not required to submit information 3. Amend § 573.6 by revising sale, introduced or delivered for under (i) above may voluntarily submit paragraphs (b), (c)(2)(iii), (c)(3), and introduction in interstate commerce, or the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) (c)(5) to read as follows: imported into the United States 25,000 or more light vehicles or 5,000 or more of each vehicle potentially containing § 573.6 Defect and noncompliance motorcycles in the current calendar year the defect or noncompliance. A information report. or the calendar year prior, the reporting manufacturer that voluntarily submits * * * * * vehicle manufacturer shall provide the information under this paragraph must (b) Each report shall be submitted not vehicle identification number (VIN) of submit VIN information in accordance more than 5 working days after a defect each vehicle potentially containing the with (i) and comply with the in a vehicle or item of equipment has defect or noncompliance and, as to each requirements of (ii) above. been determined to be safety related, or VIN listed, the recall remedy status of * * * * * a noncompliance with a motor vehicle the vehicle associated with that VIN (5) A description of the defect or safety standard has been determined to identified by one of the following noncompliance, including both a brief exist. At a minimum, information categories: Unremedied; inspected and summary and a detailed description, required by paragraphs (1), (2) and (5) repaired; inspected and determined not with graphic aids as necessary, of the of paragraph (c) of this section shall be to require repair; exported; stolen; nature and physical location (if submitted in the initial report. The scrapped; the owner was unable to be applicable) of the defect or remainder of the information required notified; other (reason remedy could not noncompliance. In addition, the by paragraph (c) of this section that is be performed is specified); recall manufacturer shall identify and describe not available within the five-day period remedy not yet available; or deleted the risk to motor vehicle safety shall be submitted within 5 working (vehicle removed from recall). For reasonably related to the defect or days of when it becomes available. In vehicles with a recall remedy status of noncompliance consistent with its
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55638 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
evaluation of risk required by 49 CFR which relates to motor vehicle safety a defect that relates to motor vehicle 577.5(f). shall not contain any statement or safety, or fails to conform to an * * * * * implication that there is no defect, or applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 4. Revise the first sentence of that the defect does not relate to motor standard, the manufacturer shall paragraph (a) of § 573.7 to read as vehicle safety. provide notification in accordance with follows: (b) A report submitted to NHTSA paragraph (a) of § 577.7, unless the pursuant to § 573.6 regarding a manufacturer is exempted by the § 573.7 Quarterly reports. noncompliance with an applicable Administrator (pursuant to 49 U.S.C. (a) With the exception of vehicle motor vehicle safety standard shall not 30118(d) or 30120(h)) from giving such manufacturers that are required to contain any statement or implication notification. The notification shall supply information pursuant to that there is not a noncompliance. contain the information specified in this § 573.6(c)(3)(i), each manufacturer who * * * * * section. The information required by is conducting a defect or noncompliance 7. Add § 573.16 as follows: paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section notification campaign to manufacturers, shall be presented in the form and order distributors, dealers, or owners shall § 573.16 Reporting bankruptcy petition. specified. The information required by submit to NHTSA a report in Each manufacturer that files a paragraphs (d) through (h) of this accordance with paragraphs (b), (c), and bankruptcy petition, or is the subject of section may be presented in any order. (d) of this section. an involuntary petition for which relief Except as authorized by the * * * * * has been ordered, pursuant to Title 11 Administrator, the manufacturer shall 5. Revise § 573.9 to read as follows: of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 submit a copy of its proposed owner et seq., shall provide NHTSA a report as § 573.9 Address for submitting required notification letter, including any reports and other information. specified below. provisions or attachments related to (a) The name of the court, the docket reimbursement, to NHTSA’s Recall All submissions, except as otherwise number, and the name, address and required by this part, shall be submitted Management Division (NVS–215) no telephone number of the manufacturer’s fewer than five Federal Government through the forms and links provided on legal representative: the Web page http://www.safercar.gov/ business days before it intends to begin (b) a copy of the bankruptcy petition; mailing it to owners. The manufacturer Vehicle+Manufacturers. Defect and (c) a list of the recalls for which the noncompliance information reports shall mark the outside of each envelope manufacturer filed a ‘‘Defect and in which it sends an owner notification required by section 573.6 of this part noncompliance information report’’ shall be submitted using one of the letter with a notation that includes the with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR 573.6; words ‘‘SAFETY,’’ RECALL,’’ and following forms, depending upon the and type of product that is the subject of the ‘‘NOTICE,’’ all in capital letters and in (d) the information specified in 49 a type that is larger than that used in the report: ‘‘Defect and/or Noncompliance CFR 573.7(b) for each recall listed Information Report Form—Vehicles;’’ address section, and is also pursuant to section (c) above. distinguishable from the other type in a ‘‘Defect and/or Noncompliance Each report pursuant to this section Information Report Form—Equipment;’’ manner other than size. It shall also must be received by NHTSA not more imprint on the outside of this envelope ‘‘Defect and/or Noncompliance than 5 working days after the date the Information Report Form—Tires;’’ a label, one inch by three inches in size petition is filed in the United States and located in the bottom left corner of ‘‘Defect and/or Noncompliance Bankruptcy Court. Reports shall be Information Report Form—Child the envelope. The label to be used is addressed to the Associate located at http://www.safercar.gov/ Restraints;’’ ‘‘Defect and/or Administrator for Enforcement, National Noncompliance Information Report— Vehicle+Manufacturers/RecallsPortal/ Highway Traffic Safety Administration, SafetyRecallLabel. This label shall not Vehicle Alterers.’’ In addition, a printed Attention: Recall Management Division copy of the information report as filed be used for any purpose other than (NVS–215), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., compliance with this paragraph by any must be submitted by certified mail in Washington, DC 20590, or submitted as accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 30118(c) entity outside of the Department of an attachment to an email message to Transportation. Except where the format and addressed to the Associate [email protected] in a portable Administrator for Enforcement, National of the envelope has been previously document format (pdf.). approved by NHTSA’s Recall Highway Traffic Safety Administration, * * * * * Attention: Recall Management Division Management Division (NVS–215), each manufacturer must submit the envelope (NVS–215), 1200 New Jersey Avenue PART 577—DEFECT AND format it intends to use to that division SE., Washington, DC 20590. The NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION information required by paragraphs at least five Federal Government 573.6(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this part shall be 1. Revise the authority citation for business days before mailing the submitted using the form, ‘‘VIN Table part 577 to read as follows: notification to owners. Submission of for Safety Recall’’ located at http:// Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116– envelopes and proposed owner www.safercar.gov/ 121, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR notification letters shall be made by the Vehicle+Manufacturers. Reports 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8. means identified in 49 CFR 573.9. required under section 573.7 of this part Notification sent to an owner whose 2. Amend § 577.5 by revising address is in the Commonwealth of shall be submitted using the form, paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: ‘‘Quarterly Report Form’’ also located at Puerto Rico shall be written in both this Web page. § 577.5 Notification pursuant to a English and Spanish. manufacturer’s decision. * * * * * (b) At the top of the notification, the 6. Add § 573.15 as follows: (a) When a manufacturer of motor statement ‘‘URGENT SAFETY vehicles or replacement equipment RECALL,’’ in all capital letters and in a § 573.15 Disclaimers. determines that any motor vehicle or type size that is larger than that used in (a) A report submitted to NHTSA item of replacement equipment the remainder of the letter. Then pursuant to § 573.6 regarding a defect produced by the manufacturer contains followed beneath by, for vehicle recalls,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55639
the statement ‘‘This notice applies to Compressed natural gas (CNG) means, an object or another vehicle directly in your vehicle, (manufacturer to insert in the context of reporting fuel and/or the forward lane of travel; and VIN for the particular vehicle).’’ Then propulsion system type, a system that • That provides an audible, visible, followed beneath by an opening uses compressed natural gas to propel a and/or haptic warning to the driver of statement: ‘‘This notice is sent to you in motor vehicle. a potential collision with an object in accordance with the National Traffic * * * * * the vehicle’s forward travel lane. and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.’’ Compression ignition fuel (CIF) The system may also include a * * * * * means, in the context of reporting fuel feature: 3. Amend § 577.7 by revising the first and/or propulsion system type, a system • That pre-charges the brakes prior to, sentence of (a)(1) and adding a second that uses diesel or any diesel-based fuels or immediately after, a warning is sentence to read as follows: to propel a motor vehicle. This includes issued to the driver; biodiesel. • That closes all windows, retracts § 577.7 Time and manner of notification. * * * * * the seat belts, and/or moves forward any (a) * * * Electric battery power (EBP) means, in memory seats in order to protect the (1) Be furnished no later than 60 days the context of reporting fuel and/or vehicle’s occupants during or from the date the manufacturer files its propulsion system type, a system that immediately after a warning is issued; defect or noncompliance information uses only batteries to power an electric or • report in accordance with 49 CFR motor to propel a motor vehicle. That applies any type of braking 573.6(a). In the event that the remedy assist or input during or immediately for the defect or noncompliance is not * * * * * Electronic stability control system for after a warning is issued. available at the time of notification, the light vehicles is used as defined in S4. * * * * * manufacturer shall issue a second of § 571.126 of this chapter. Fuel and/or propulsion system type notification in accordance with the For buses, emergency vehicles, and means the variety of fuel and/or requirements of this part once that medium/heavy vehicles it means a propulsion systems used in a motor remedy is available. * * * system: vehicle, as follows: compressed natural * * * * * • That augments vehicle directional gas (CNG); compression ignition fuel stability by applying and adjusting the (CIF); electric battery power (EBP); fuel- PART 579—REPORTING OF vehicle brake torques individually at cell power (FCP); hybrid electric vehicle INFORMATION AND each wheel position on at least one front (HEV); hydrogen based power (HBP); COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT and at least one rear axle of the vehicle plug-in hybrid (PHV); spark ignition POTENTIAL DEFECTS to induce correcting yaw moment to fuel (SIF); and other (OTH). 1. Revise the authority citation for limit vehicle oversteer and to limit * * * * * part 579 to read as follows: vehicle understeer; Fuel-cell power (FCP) means, in the • That enhances rollover stability by Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30102–103, 30112, context of reporting fuel and/or 30117–121, 30166–167; delegation of applying and adjusting the vehicle brake propulsion system type, a system that authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8. torques individually at each wheel uses fuel cells to generate electricity to position on at least one front and at least power an electric motor to propel a Subpart A—General one rear axle of the vehicle to reduce motor vehicle. lateral acceleration of a vehicle; * * * * * 2. In § 579.4 amend paragraph (c) by • That is computer-controlled with revising the definition of ‘‘Service brake Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) means, the computer using a closed-loop in the context of reporting fuel and/or system’’ and adding the definitions of algorithm to induce correcting yaw ‘‘Backover prevention system,’’ propulsion system type, a system that moment and enhance rollover stability; uses a combination of an electric motor ‘‘Compressed natural gas (CNG),’’ • That has a means to determine the and internal combustion engine to ‘‘Compression ignition fuel (CIF),’’ vehicle’s lateral acceleration; propel a motor vehicle. ‘‘Electric battery power (EBP),’’ • That has the means to determine ‘‘Electronic stability control,’’ ‘‘Forward the vehicle’s yaw rate and to estimate its * * * * * collision avoidance system,’’ ‘‘Fuel and/ side slip or side slip derivative with Hydrogen based power (HBP) means, or propulsion system type,’’ ‘‘Fuel-cell respect to time; in the context of reporting fuel and/or power (FCP),’’ ‘‘Hybrid electric vehicle • That has the means to estimate propulsion system type, a system that (HEV),’’ ‘‘Hydrogen based power vehicle mass or, if applicable, uses hydrogen to propel a vehicle (HBP),’’ ‘‘Lane departure prevention combination vehicle mass; through means other than a fuel cell. system,’’ ‘‘Plug-in hybrid (PHV),’’ ‘‘Roll • That has the means to monitor * * * * * stability control,’’ ‘‘Spark ignition fuel driver steering input; Lane departure prevention system (SIF),’’ and ‘‘Visibility’’ in alphabetical • That has a means to modify engine means a system: order to read as follows: torque, as necessary, to assist the driver • That has an algorithm or software to in maintaining control of the vehicle determine the vehicle’s position relative § 579.4 Terminology. and/or combination vehicle; and to the lane markers and the vehicle’s * * * * * • That, when installed on a truck projected direction; and (c) Other terms. *** tractor, has the means to provide brake • That provides an audible, visible, * * * * * pressure to automatically apply and and/or haptic warning to the driver of Backover prevention system means a modulate the brake torques of a towed unintended departure from a travel lane. system that has: semi-trailer. The system may also include a • A visual image of the area directly * * * * * feature: behind a vehicle that is provided in a Forward collision avoidance system • That applies the vehicle’s stability single location to the vehicle operator means a system: control system to assist the driver to and by means of indirect vision. • That has an algorithm or software to maintain lane position during or * * * * * determine distance and relative speed of immediately after the warning is issued;
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55640 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
• That applies any type of steering connective elements (such as wiring NHTSA’s Web page http://www-odi. input to assist the driver to maintain harnesses, hoses, piping, etc.), and nhtsa.dot.gov/ewr/xls.cfm, for lane position during or immediately mounting elements (such as brackets, submitting the list. after the warning is issued; or fasteners, etc.). * * * * * • That applies any type of braking * * * * * pressure or input to assist the driver to Spark ignition fuel (SIF) means, in the Subpart C—Reporting of Early maintain lane position during or context of reporting fuel and/or Warning Information immediately after the warning is issued. propulsion system type, a system that 4. Amend § 579.21 by: * * * * * uses gasoline, ethanol, or methanol a. Revising the first sentence of Plug-in hybrid (PHV) means, in the based fuels to propel a motor vehicle. paragraph (a); context of reporting fuel and/or * * * * * b. Revising the first sentence of propulsion system type, a system that Visibility means the systems and paragraph (b)(2); combines an electric motor and an components of a motor vehicle through c. Revising the first sentence of internal combustion engine to propel a which a driver views the surroundings paragraph (c); and motor vehicle and is capable of of the vehicle including windshield, d. Adding a fifth sentence to recharging its batteries by plugging in to side windows, back window, and rear paragraph (c) to read as follows: an external electric current. view mirrors, and systems and * * * * * components used to wash and wipe § 579.21 Reporting requirements for Roll stability control system means a windshields and back windows. This manufacturers of 5,000 or more light system: term includes those vehicular systems vehicles annually. • That enhances rollover stability by and components that can affect the * * * * * applying and adjusting the vehicle brake ability of the driver to clearly see the (a) Production information. torques to reduce lateral acceleration of roadway and surrounding area, such as Information that states the a vehicle; the systems and components identified manufacturer’s name, the quarterly • That is computer-controlled with in FMVSS Nos. 103, 104, and 111. This reporting period, the make, the model, the computer using a closed-loop term also includes the defogger, the model year, the type, the platform, algorithm to enhance rollover stability; defroster system, the heater core, blower the fuel/propulsion system type coded • That has a means to determine the fan, windshield wiper systems, mirrors, as follows: CNG (compressed natural vehicle’s lateral acceleration; windows and glazing material, heads-up gas), CIF (compression ignition fuel), • That has the means to determine display (HUD) systems, and exterior EBP (electric battery power), FCP (fuel- the vehicle mass or, if applicable, view-based television systems for cell power), HEV (hybrid electric combination vehicle mass; medium-heavy vehicles, but does not vehicle), HBP (hydrogen based power), • That has a means to modify engine include exterior view-based television PHV (plug-in hybrid), SIF (spark torque, as necessary, to assist the driver systems for light vehicles which are ignition fuel) and OTH (Other), and in maintaining rollover stability of the defined under ‘‘Backover prevention production. * * * vehicle and/or combination vehicle; and system’’ and exterior lighting systems * * * * * • That, when installed on a truck which are defined under ‘‘Lighting.’’ (b) * * * tractor, has the means to provide brake This term includes all associated (2) For each incident described in pressure to automatically apply and switches, control units, connective paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the modulate the brake torques of a towed elements (such as wiring harnesses, manufacturer shall separately report the semi-trailer. hoses, piping, etc.), and mounting make, model, model year, the type, the * * * * * elements (such as brackets, fasteners, fuel/propulsion system type (as Service brake system means all etc.). specified in paragraph (a)), and VIN of components of the service braking * * * * * the vehicle, the incident date, the system of a motor vehicle intended for 3. Amend § 579.6 by: number of deaths, the number of the transfer of braking application force a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as injuries for incidents occurring in the from the operator to the wheels of a paragraph (b)(1); and United States, the State or foreign vehicle, including the foundation b. Add paragraph (b)(2) to read as country where the incident occurred, braking system, such as the brake pedal, follows each system or component of the master cylinder, fluid lines and hoses, * * * * * vehicle that allegedly contributed to the braking assist components, brake (b)(1) Information, documents and incident, and whether the incident calipers, wheel cylinders, brake discs, reports that are submitted to NHTSA’s involved a fire or rollover, coded as brake drums, brake pads, brake shoes, early warning data repository must be follows: 01 steering system, 02 and other related equipment installed in submitted in accordance with § 579.29 suspension system, 03 service brake a motor vehicle in order to comply with of this part. Submissions must be made system, 05 parking brake, 06 engine and FMVSS Nos. 105, 121, 122, or 135 by a means that permits the sender to engine cooling system, 07 fuel system, (except equipment relating specifically verify that the report was in fact 10 power train, 11 electrical system, 12 to a parking brake). This term also received by NHTSA and the day it was exterior lighting, 13 visibility, 14 air includes systems and devices for received by NHTSA. bags, 15 seat belts, 16 structure, 17 automatic control of the brake system (2) The annual list of substantially latch, 18 vehicle speed control, 19 tires, such as antilock braking, traction similar vehicles submitted pursuant to 20 wheels, 22 seats, 23 fire, 24 rollover, control, and enhanced braking, but does § 579.11(e) of this part shall be 25 electronic stability control system, 26 not include systems or devices submitted to NHTSA’s early warning forward collision avoidance system, 27 necessary for electronic stability control, data repository identified on NHTSA’s lane departure prevention system, 28 forward collision avoidance, lane Web page http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ backover prevention system, 98 where a departure prevention, or backover ewr/ewr.cfm. A manufacturer shall use system or component not covered by prevention. The term includes all the template provided at the early categories 01 through 22 or 25 through associated switches, control units, warning Web site, also identified on 28, is specified in the claim or notice,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55641
and 99 where no system or component (b) * * * (c) Numbers of property damage of the vehicle is specified in the claim * * * * * claims, consumer complaints, warranty or notice. * * * (2) For each incident described in claims, and field reports. Separate (c) Numbers of property damage paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the reports on the numbers of those claims, consumer complaints, warranty manufacturer shall separately report the property damage claims, consumer claims, and field reports. Separate make, model, model year, and VIN of complaints, warranty claims, and field reports on the numbers of those the bus, emergency vehicle or medium- reports which involve the systems and property damage claims, consumer heavy vehicle, the incident date, the components that are specified in codes complaints, warranty claims, and field number of deaths, the number of 01 through 22, or 25 in paragraph (b)(2) reports which involve the systems and injuries for incidents occurring in the of this section, or a fire (code 23), or components that are specified in codes United States, the State or foreign rollover (code 24). * * * 01 through 22, or 25 through 28 in country where the incident occurred, paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or a fire each system or component of the (d) Copies of field reports. For all (code 23), or rollover (code 24). * * * vehicle that allegedly contributed to the buses, emergency vehicles and medium- For each report, the manufacturer shall incident, and whether the incident heavy vehicles manufactured during a separately state the vehicle type and involved a fire or rollover, coded as model year covered by the reporting fuel/propulsion type if the manufacturer follows: 01 Steering system, 02 period and the nine model years prior stated more than one vehicle type or suspension system, 03 service brake to the earliest model year in the fuel/propulsion type for a particular system, hydraulic, 04 service brake reporting period, a copy of each field make, model, model year in paragraph system, air, 05 parking brake, 06 engine report (other than a dealer report or a (a) of this section. and engine cooling system, 07 fuel product evaluation report) involving * * * * * system, gasoline, 08 fuel system, diesel, one or more of the systems or 5. Amend § 579.22 by: 09 fuel system, other, 10 power train, 11 components identified in paragraph a. Revising the first sentence of electrical, 12 exterior lighting, 13 (b)(2) of this section, or fire, or rollover, paragraph (b)(2); visibility, 14 air bags, 15 seat belts, 16 containing any assessment of an alleged b. Revising the first sentence of structure, 17 latch, 18 vehicle speed failure, malfunction, lack of durability, paragraph (c); and control, 19 tires, 20 wheels, 21 trailer c. Revising the first sentence of or other performance problem of a hitch, 22 seats, 23 fire, 24 rollover, 25 motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle paragraph (d) as follows: electronic stability control system/roll equipment (including any part thereof) stability control system, 98 where a § 579.22 Reporting requirements for that is originated by an employee or system or component not covered by manufacturers of 100 or more buses, representative of the manufacturer and manufacturers of 500 or more emergency categories 01 through 22 or 25 is vehicles and manufacturers of 5,000 or specified in the claim or notice, and 99 that the manufacturer received during a more medium-heavy vehicles (other than where no system or component of the reporting period. buses and emergency vehicles) annually. vehicle is specified in the claim or * * * * * * * * * * notice. * * * BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 55642 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Appendix A
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10SE12.006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55643
Appendix B
Appendix C
FORM C1—EXAMPLE VIN TABLE SUBMISSION
Recall Remedy VIN Recall Date added disposition date Comment 30
1JN4B76Y2XB645813 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 R 07/23/09 1JN4B76Y2XB645814 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 I 03/07/11 1JN4B76Y2XB645815 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 U ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB645816 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 Z ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB645817 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 U ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB645818 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 U ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB645819 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 Z ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB645820 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 R 11/04/10 1JN4B77Y2XB645816 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 R 07/05/09 1JN4B76Y2XB445814 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 U ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB645821 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 R 03/07/11 1JN4B76Y2XB645822 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 X ...... 1JN4B77Y2XB645817 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 Z ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB445815 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 I 08/09/11 1JN4B76Y2XB645823 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 Z ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB645824 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 R 11/02/11 1JN4B77Y2XB645818 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 U ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB645874 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 D ...... NOT RECALLED. 1JN4B76Y2XB645864 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 D ...... NOT RECALLED. 1JN4B76Y2XB445816 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 U ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB645825 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 U ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB645758 ...... 09V165 04/11/09 U ...... LATE ADDITION. 1JN4B76Y2XB645826 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 Z ...... 1JN4B77Y2XB645819 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 I 04/08/09 1JN4B76Y2XB445817 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 I 11/02/11 1JN4B76Y2XB645827 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 R 03/07/11 1JN4B76Y2XB645813 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 R 01/23/10 1JN4B76Y2XB645814 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 S ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB635815 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 X ...... 1JN4B76Y2XB945816 ...... 09V165 03/07/09 S ......
RECALL DISPOSITION KEY RECALL DISPOSITION KEY—Continued
X Recall Remedy Not Yet Available. E Exported. R Inspected and Repaired. T Stolen. U Unremedied. S Scrapped. I Inspected and Determined Not to Re- D Deleted. quire Repair. Z The Owner was Unable to be Noti- fied.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10SE12.007 55644 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Appendix D
Appendix E Vehicle manufacturers to submit daily Vehicle manufacturers to submit daily VIN updates VIN updates Vehicle manufacturers to submit daily VIN updates 13 Kia Motors Corporation. 25 Toyota Motor Corporation. 14 Land Rover. 26 Triumph Motorcycles America LTD. 1 American Suzuki Motor Corp. 15 Leggett & Pratt, Incorporated- 27 Volkswagen Of America, Inc. 2 BMW Of North America, LLC. Masterack. 28 Volvo Cars Of N.A. LLC. 3 Bombardier Recreational Products 16 Mazda Motor Corp. 29 Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA. Inc. 17 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. 4 Chrysler Group LLC. 18 Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. 5 Ducati North America. 19 Nissan North America, Inc. Issued on: August 27, 2012. 6 Ford Motor Company. 20 Piaggio USA, Inc. Daniel C. Smith, 7 General Motors LLC. 21 Polaris Industries, Inc. Senior Associate Administrator, Vehicle 8 Genuine Scooters, LLC. 22 Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Safety. 9 Harley-Davidson Motor Company. 23 STR Motorsports Inc. DBA Kymco 10 Honda (American Honda Motor Co.) USA. [FR Doc. 2012–21574 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] 11 Hyundai Motor Company. 24 Subaru Of America, Inc. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 12 Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:59 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEP2.SGM 10SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP10SE12.008 Vol. 77 Monday, No. 175 September 10, 2012
Part IV
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 217 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction and Operation of a Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port in the Gulf of Mexico; Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55646 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Information and Regulatory Affairs, availability of the species or stock(s) for NEOB–10202, Office of Management subsistence uses (where relevant), and if National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Budget, Attn: Desk Office, the permissible methods of taking and Administration Washington, DC 20503, [email protected]. requirements pertaining to the gov. mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 50 CFR Part 217 Instructions: Comments must be such takings are set forth. NMFS has [Docket No. 110801452–2387–03] submitted by one of the above methods defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR to ensure that the comments are 216.103 as ‘‘* * * an impact resulting RIN 0648–BB00 received, documented, and considered from the specified activity that cannot by NMFS. Comments sent by any other be reasonably expected to, and is not Taking and Importing Marine method, to any other address or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals individual, or received after the end of species or stock through effects on Incidental to Construction and the comment period, may not be annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ Operation of a Liquefied Natural Gas considered. All comments received are Except with respect to certain Deepwater Port in the Gulf of Mexico a part of the public record and will activities not pertinent here, the MMPA AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries generally be posted for public viewing defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: ‘‘any act of Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and on www.regulations.gov without change. pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), All personal identifying information has the potential to injure a marine Commerce. (e.g., name, address) submitted mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [‘Level A harassment’]; or (ii) has ACTION: Proposed rule; request for voluntarily by the sender will be the potential to disturb a marine comments. publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or mammal or marine mammal stock in the SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request otherwise sensitive or protected wild by causing disruption of behavioral from Port Dolphin Energy LLC (Port information. NMFS will accept patterns, including, but not limited to, Dolphin) for authorization to take anonymous comments (enter N/A in the migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, marine mammals incidental to port required fields if you wish to remain feeding, or sheltering [‘Level B construction and operations at its Port anonymous). Attachments to electronic harassment’].’’ Dolphin Deepwater Port in the Gulf of comments will be accepted in Microsoft Summary of Request Mexico, over the course of five years; Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats On February 1, 2011, NMFS received approximately June 2013 through May only. 2018. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal a complete application from Port FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Dolphin for the taking of marine Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is Laws, Office of Protected Resources, mammals incidental to port proposing regulations to govern that NMFS, (301) 427–8401. construction and operations at its Port take and requests information, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dolphin Deepwater Port (DWP) facility suggestions, and comments on these in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). During the proposed regulations. Availability period of these proposed regulations DATES: Comments and information must A copy of Port Dolphin’s application (June 2013–May 2018), Port Dolphin be received no later than October 25, may be obtained by writing to the proposes to construct the DWP and 2012. address specified above (see related infrastructure—expected to ADDRESSES: You may submit comments ADDRESSES), calling the contact listed occur over an approximately 11-month on this document, identified by FDMS above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION period, beginning in June 2013—and to Docket Number 110801452–2387–03, by CONTACT), or visiting the Internet at: subsequently begin operations. The any of the following methods: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ proposed DWP, which is designed to • Electronic Submission: Submit all incidental.htm. To help NMFS process have an operational life expectancy of electronic public comments via the and review comments more efficiently, 25 years, would be an offshore liquefied Federal e-Rulemaking Portal please use only one method to submit natural gas (LNG) facility, located in the www.regulations.gov. To submit comments. GOM approximately 45 km (28 mi) off comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, the western coast of Florida, and Background first click the Submit a Comment icon, approximately 68 km (42 mi) from Port and then enter 110801452–2387–03 in Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the Manatee, located in Manatee County, the keyword search. Locate the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct Florida, within Tampa Bay (see Figure document you wish to comment on the Secretary of Commerce to allow, S–1 in Port Dolphin’s application). The from the resulting list and click on the upon request, the incidental, but not DWP would be in waters of the U.S. Submit a Comment icon on the right of intentional, taking of small numbers of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that line. marine mammals by U.S. citizens who approximately 31 m (100 ft) in depth. • Hand delivery or mailing of engage in a specified activity (other than The proposed DWP would consist comments via paper or disc should be commercial fishing) within a specified principally of a permanently moored addressed to Michael Payne, Chief, geographical region if certain findings buoy system, designed for offloading of Permits and Conservation Division, are made and either regulations are natural gas, leading to a single proposed Office of Protected Resources, National issued or, if the taking is limited to new natural gas transmission pipeline Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East- harassment, a notice of a proposed that would come ashore at Port Manatee West Highway, Silver Spring, MD authorization is provided to the public and connect to existing infrastructure. 20910. for review. Take of marine mammals would occur Comments regarding any aspect of the Authorization for incidental takings as a result of the introduction of sound collection of information requirement shall be granted if NMFS finds that the into the marine environment during contained in this proposed rule should taking will have a negligible impact on construction of the DWP and pipeline be sent to NMFS via one of the means the species or stock(s), will not have an and during DWP operations, which provided here and to the Office of unmitigable adverse impact on the would involve shuttle regasification
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55647
vessel (SRV) maneuvering, docking, and from the DWP to shore would include total area, with continental shelf (22 debarkation, as well as regasification burial of the pipeline, selective percent), continental slope (20 percent), activity. Because the specified activities placement of protective cover (either and abyssal plain (20 percent) have the potential to take marine rock armoring or concrete mattresses) composing the remainder of the basin. mammals present within the action over the pipeline at several locations The project site is located on the west area, Port Dolphin requests along the pipeline route where full Florida Shelf, a portion of the Inner authorization to incidentally take, by burial is not possible, and the horizontal Continental Shelf, in an area of Level B harassment only, small numbers directional drilling (HDD) of three relatively low wave energy and tidal of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops segments of the pipeline. variation (Gore, 1992). truncatus) and Atlantic spotted dolphin SRVs are specialized LNG carriers The GOM is separated from the (Stenella frontalis). designed to regasify the LNG prior to Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean by off-loading for transport to shore. Each Cuba and other islands, and has Description of the Specified Activity STL buoy would moor one SRV on relatively narrow connections to the Port Dolphin proposes to own, location throughout the unloading Caribbean and Atlantic through the construct, and operate a DWP in the cycle. An SRV would typically moor at Florida and Yucatan Straits. The GOM U.S. EEZ of the GOM Outer Continental the deepwater port for between 4 and 8 is composed of three distinct water Shelf (OCS) approximately 45 km (28 days, depending on vessel size and masses, including the North and South mi) off the western coast of Florida to send-out rate. Unloading of natural gas Atlantic Surface Water (less than 100 m the southwest of Tampa Bay, in a water (i.e., vaporization or regasification) deep), Atlantic and Caribbean depth of approximately 31 m (100 ft). would occur through a flexible riser Subtropical Water (up to 500 m deep), On March 29, 2007, Port Dolphin connected to the STL buoy and into the and Subantarctic Intermediate Water. submitted an application to the U.S. pipeline end manifold (PLEM) for Circulation within the GOM, and Coast Guard (USCG) and the U.S. transportation to shore via the subsea within the project area, is dominated by Maritime Administration (MarAd) for pipeline. With two separate STL buoys, the Loop Current, which enters the all federal authorizations required for a Port Dolphin may schedule an overlap GOM flowing north through the Yucatan DWP license under the Deepwater Port between arriving and departing SRVs, Strait, flows south along the Florida Act of 1974 (DWPA). Port Dolphin thus allowing natural gas to be delivered coast in the vicinity of the project area, received that license in October 2009. in a continuous flow. and exits the GOM through the Florida The Port would consist of a Port Dolphin is planning for an initial Straits. The velocity of the current in the permanently moored unloading buoy natural gas throughput of 400 million project area ranges between 1.56 and system with two submersible buoys standard cubic feet per day (MMscfd). 15.16 cm/s in summer, and 1.79 to 25.36 separated by a distance of Although the Port would be capable of cm/s in winter (APL, 2006). The approximately 5 km (3 mi). The buoys an average of 800 MMscfd with a peak direction of flow in the project area is would be designed to moor a capacity of 1,200 MMscfd, this level of generally south to southeast. specialized type of LNG carrier vessel throughput would not be achieved In shallow areas along the west (i.e., SRVs) and would remain during the span of this proposed rule. Florida Shelf, additional influences on submerged when vessels are not Based on a regasification cycle of water flow and circulation include wind present. Regasified natural gas would be approximately 8 days and initial stress, freshwater inflow, and variations sent out through the unloading buoy to throughput of 400 MMscfd, maximum in buoyancy (Gore, 1992). Wind speeds a 36-in (0.9 m) pipeline that would vessel traffic during operations over the at the project site range from 2.26 to connect onshore at Port Manatee with lifetime of the proposed 5-year 7.61 m/s in summer, and 2.85 to 11.04 the existing Gulfstream Natural Gas regulations is projected to consist of 46 m/s in winter (APL, 2006). Tidal System and Tampa Electric Company SRV unloadings per year. variation along Florida’s west-central (TECO) Bayside pipeline. The DWP In the open ocean, SRVs typically continental shelf is moderate, with an would only serve SRVs. Construction of travel at speeds of up to 19.5 kn (36.1 average range of approximately 2 ft (0.6 the DWP would be expected to take 11 km/hr). When approaching the vicinity m) (Gore, 1992). months. Port Dolphin DWP would be of the DWP (i.e., during approach to the At the eastern edge of the Loop designed, constructed, and operated in DWP), the SRVs would typically slow to Current along the west Florida Shelf, accordance with applicable codes and about half speed. In close proximity to circulation patterns result in an standards and would have an expected the STL buoys, the SRVs would slow to upwelling of deep nutrient-rich water. operating life of approximately 25 years. dead slow and utilize thrusters to attain This upwelling supports a high level of The locations of the DWP and proper vessel orientation relative to the biological activity, producing large associated pipeline are shown in Figure DWP, taking into consideration ambient concentrations of plankton. Nutrient S–1 in Port Dolphin’s application; ocean currents, wind conditions, and levels (primarily nitrogen and Figure 1–1 of the same document buoy position. The following phosphorus) are also affected by runoff depicts a conceptual site plan for the subsections describe the Region of from agricultural and urbanized areas DWP. Activity and the preceding facets of and from submarine groundwater The installation of the DWP facilities construction and operation in greater discharge, leading to red tide would include the construction and detail. conditions. In the project area, red tide installation of offshore buoys, mooring occurs on an almost annual basis (Hu et lines, and anchors. The two unloading Region of Activity al., 2006). Red tides are caused by rapid buoys, also known as submerged turret The GOM is a marine water body growth of the species Karenia brevis, a loading (STL) buoys, would each have bounded by Cuba on the southeast; toxic species which produces eight mooring lines connected to anchor Mexico on the south and southwest; and brevetoxins (a type of neurotoxin) that points, likely consisting of piles driven the U.S. Gulf Coast on the west, north, can accumulate in bivalves and cause into the seabed. When not connected to and east. The GOM has a total area of mortality in marine organisms (Hu et al., a SRV, STL buoys would be submerged 564,000 km2 (217,762 mi2). Shallow and 2006). The rapid growth of these 60 to 70 ft (18 to 21 m) below the sea intertidal areas (water depths of less organisms can also create a hypoxic surface. The installation of the pipeline than 20 m) compose 38 percent of the zone (area with dissolved oxygen
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55648 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
concentrations below 2 mg/L), which United States. Originally, the DWPA based on standard designs for can cause mortality among benthic promoted the construction and oceangoing LNG carriers would be used communities, fish, turtles, birds, and operation of deepwater ports as a safe to supply LNG to the Port. Approximate marine mammals (Hu et al., 2006). and effective means of importing oil dimensions of each SRV would range Extreme variations in water into the United States and transporting from 280 m (919 ft) in length and 43 m circulation patterns, tides, and wave oil from the OCS, while minimizing (141 ft) in breadth, with a design draft heights can occur along the west Florida tanker traffic and associated risks close of 11.4 m (37.4 ft) for the smaller vessels coast during periodic tropical storms to shore. The Maritime Transportation to 315.5 m (1,035 ft) in length and 50 and hurricanes. Warm water within the Security Act of 2002 amended the m (164 ft) in breadth, with a design draft Loop Current can act as an energy definition of ‘‘deepwater port’’ to of 12 m (39 ft) for the larger vessels. The source in summer and fall months, include facilities for the importation of maximum height above the waterline fueling the development of these storms. natural gas. would be 41.1 m (135 ft). The 145,000 Features of these storms that can affect LNG is natural gas that has been m3 SRV would displace 80,000 t (88,185 natural circulation and topography cooled to about ¥260 °F (¥162 °C) for ton) and the 217,000 m3 SRV would include high winds, flooding, storm efficient shipment and storage as a displace 108,000 t (119,050 ton). The surges, and beach erosion. liquid. LNG is more compact than the vessels would be equipped with a trunk Tampa Bay is an estuary formed by gaseous equivalent, with a volumetric and mating cone to receive the the rise of sea level into a former river differential of about 610 to 1. LNG can unloading buoy, lifting and connection valley. Tampa Bay consists of four thus be transported long distances devices, an LNG vaporization system, subregions, including lower Tampa Bay, across oceans using specially designed and gas metering systems. All critical middle Tampa Bay, Old Tampa Bay, ships (e.g., SRVs), allowing efficient functions would be manned 24 hours and Hillsborough Bay. The project area access to stranded reserves of natural per day; other functions would be would only extend to Port Manatee, gas that cannot be transported by accomplished on a regular, scheduled within Lower Tampa Bay, near the conventional pipelines. basis. outlet of the bay into the GOM. The bay This proposed STL buoy system The SRVs would have two thrusters covers an area of 1,030 km2 within differs from other common LNG offload forward and could have one or two Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas technologies insofar as it does not thrusters aft. Thrusters allow precise counties. Freshwater inflow to the bay involve any permanent storage or control of positioning while mooring occurs through four major river systems regasification facility at the DWP, thus with the STL buoy. The dynamic (Alafia, Hillsborough, Little Manatee, minimizing required infrastructure at positioning system would be used while and Manatee), as well as more than a the DWP itself. Rather, STL buoys retrieving the submerged unloading hundred minor creeks and rivers. receive SRVs that contain onboard LNG buoy handling line and moving onto the Water circulation within the bay is vaporization equipment. After mooring, buoy. The system normally would not driven by freshwater inflow, tides, and LNG is vaporized onboard the vessel be used while the SRV is moored to the winds. The bay has an average depth of and discharged via the unloading buoy unloading buoy. SRVs would be 3.5 to 4 m. There is well-developed and a flexible riser into the subsea equipped with an acoustic position horizontal stratification in the bay, with pipeline. Because the LNG is vaporized reporting system that would monitor the fresh water flowing along the surface with the SRV’s onboard equipment, no buoy’s draft and position before and out to sea, and denser saline water permanent fixed or floating storage or during connection/disconnection; this flowing into the bay along the bottom. vaporization facilities are required. would be enabled by six transponders The Tampa Bay area has a population However, this means that the offload located on the buoy itself. of more than two million people, and process can take 5 to 8 days, as Seawater would be used to ballast the tributaries, habitat, runoff patterns, and compared with a standard offload of 18 SRV, cool the dual-fuel diesel engines water quality are all affected by hours or less. As a result of this trade- supplying power for the regasification urbanization. Specific actions that have off, continuous off-loading operations process, and condense the steam affected the bay include removal of are essential to minimize fluctuations in produced by the boilers supplying heat mangroves, dumping of sewage, the throughput of natural gas. The SRVs to the vaporization process. Ballasting artificial filling, and modification of proposed for use would be equipped to the SRV is required to maintain proper runoff from paved surfaces (Peene et al., transport, store, vaporize, and meter buoyancy as the LNG is vaporized and 1992). natural gas. A closed-loop, glycol/water- offloaded through the pipeline. Water brine heat transfer system would be intake for ballasting the SRV would Dates of Activity used to vaporize the LNG. Closed-loop require an average intake of 360 m3 per Port Dolphin has requested systems burn vaporized LNG in order to hour (2.3 MGD) over the vaporization regulations governing the incidental heat an intermediate fluid (e.g., glycol/ cycle. The cooling water system would take of marine mammals for the five- water-brine), which warms the LNG. require an additional intake of year period from June 2013 through May The closed-loop system results in approximately 1,520 m3 per hour (9.5 2018. Construction and installation of reduced environmental impacts on MGD) and would take in seawater the port and pipeline would last water quality and marine resources; through one of two sea chests, each approximately 11 months, with although these systems do require measuring 1.5 x 2.0 m (4.9 x 6.6 ft). subsequent operations (i.e., SRV seawater for use in cooling electrical Water velocity through the lattice docking and regasification) occurring for generating equipment (resulting in screens at the hull side shell would not the remainder of the specified time subsequent entrainment of fish eggs and exceed 0.15 m/s (0.49 ft/s) at the period. plankton, as well as discharge of water maximum flow rate of 1,520 m3 per at elevated temperatures), such usage is hour. LNG and SRVs significantly reduced from that required Cooling water discharges would be The DWPA establishes a licensing in an open-loop system. made at points removed from the intake system for ownership, construction, and SRVs with approximate cargo sea chests to avoid recirculating warmed operation of deepwater ports in waters capacities of either 145,000 m3 or water through the cooling system. All of beyond the territorial limits of the 217,000 m3 (189,653–283,825 yd3) the cooling water would be discharged
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55649
at a temperature of approximately 10 °C pipe riser, and one electrohydraulic supply boat, a crew transfer boat, and a (18 °F) above the ambient water control umbilical from the unloading tug. Buoy anchors would likely be temperature. Although the seawater buoy to the riser manifold. When not installed via impact pile driving. system would be equipped with a connected to a SRV, STL buoys would Pipeline Installation—The pipeline chlorination system to prevent be submerged 60 to 70 ft (18 to 21 m) would be laid on the seafloor by a biofouling of heat transfer surfaces and below the sea surface. A concrete or pipelaying barge and then buried, system components, the chlorination steel landing pad would be fixed to the typically using a plowing technique. system would not be used while the sea floor by means of a skirted mud mat Other techniques, such as dredging and SRVs are approaching the Port or to allow lowering of the STL buoy to the HDD, are planned to be used in certain moored at the buoys. ocean floor when it is not in use. areas depending on the final The mooring lines would be designed geotechnical survey, engineering Port Construction so that the SRV could remain moored in considerations, and equipment In-water construction of Port Dolphin non-hurricane 100-year storm selection. At the western (seaward) end, is expected to begin in June 2013 and conditions, and would vary in length, the pipeline would consist of two 36-in last a total of approximately 11 months. from 1,800 to 4,000 ft (549 to 1,219 m) (0.9-m) flowlines connected to the north Construction would include siting the for the northern unloading buoy and and south PLEMs, which would connect STL buoys and associated equipment from 2,500 to 3,600 ft (762 to 1,097 m) at a Y-connection approximately 3.2 km and laying the marine pipeline. for the southern buoy. The mooring (2 mi) away (see Figure 1–1 in Port Construction is assumed to be lines would consist of 132-mm (5.2-in) Dolphin’s application). From the Y- continuous from mobilization to chain and 120-mm (4.7-in) spiral-strand connection a 36-in (0.9-m) gas demobilization with no work stoppages wire rope. The riser system for each transmission line would travel due to weather or other issues. Please unloading buoy would consist of one approximately 74 km (46 mi) to see Table 2–1 of Port Dolphin’s 16-in interior diameter flexible riser in interconnections with the Gulfstream application for a graphical depiction of a steep-wave configuration. Total length and TECO pipeline systems. The the complete timeline of proposed of the riser would be approximately 82 pipelines would have a nominal outer construction activities. Port Dolphin m (269 ft). The riser would be directed diameter of 36 in, with a coating of anticipates that construction/ between two of the mooring lines, and fusion-bonded epoxy and a concrete installation would be accomplished in would lie on the seafloor when not in weight coating thickness of 11.4 cm (4.5 the following sequence: use. in). • Install the Port Manatee HDD The two PLEMs near the unloading Pipeline trenching and burial section, with installation proceeding buoys would connect the flexible risers requirements are governed by from onshore to the offshore location. to the flowlines and a Y-connection that Department of the Interior regulations at • Install the anchor piles and the would connect the two flowlines to the 30 CFR 250 Subpart J, which requires mooring lines using the main new gas transmission pipeline. Each of pipelines and all related appurtenances installation vessel at the DWP. the two PLEMs would be approximately to be protected by 3 ft (0.9 m) of cover • Construction and installation of the 75 m (246 ft) offset from the proposed for all portions in water depths less than HDD pipe sections for the segments unloading buoy locations. The purpose 200 ft (61 m). Portions of the pipeline under the existing Gulfstream pipeline. of a PLEM is to provide an interface that travel through hard-bottom areas • Install seabed pipe segments between the pipeline system and the may not be able to be buried to the full between the Port Manatee HDD segment flexible riser, isolate the riser between 3 ft depth. In these areas, flexible and the Gulfstream HDD segments. gas unloading operations, and attach a concrete mattresses or other cover • Install the Skyway Bridge section of subsea pig launcher or receiver as would be used to cover the pipeline. In the pipe (requiring dredging through the necessary. ‘‘Pigs,’’ or ‘‘pipeline places where the pipeline crosses causeway). inspection gauges,’’ travel remotely shipping lanes, it would be buried 10 ft • Install the STL Buoys. through a pipeline to conduct (3 m) deep if the sea floor permits • Install the two risers from the inspections of or clean the pipeline and plowing. Burying the pipeline and PLEMs. collect data about conditions in the flowlines would protect them from • Install the north and south PLEMs. pipeline. Each PLEM would include a potential damage from anchors and • Perform pipelay and diving flange connection for attaching the trawls and avoid potential fouling, loss, operations towards the Y-connector. flexible riser or the subsea pig launcher/ or damage of fishermen’s trawls. The • Install the flowlines on the seafloor. receiver and a full-bore subsea pipeline construction corridor would be • Complete tie-ins and bury or armor hydraulic control valve and 3,000 ft (914 m) wide in offshore areas. the pipeline, as necessary. electrohydraulic umbilical termination The permanent in-water right-of-way for • Conduct testing of the pipeline assembly. Each PLEM would have a the pipeline would be 200 ft (61 m) upon completion of burial operations. mud mat foundation to provide a stable wide. These components of in-water base for bearing PLEM and riser weight Under the plowing method, the construction are discussed in greater and to resist sliding and overturning pipeline is lowered below seabed level detail in the following subsections. forces. Please see Figure 1–1 in Port by shearing a V-shaped ditch DWP Construction/Installation—As Dolphin’s application for a conceptual underneath it. The plow is towed along described previously, the Port would diagram of the DWP. and underneath the pipeline by the include two STL unloading buoy Offshore installation activities at the burial barge. As the ditch is cut, systems, separated by a distance of DWP would begin with installation of sediment is removed and passively approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) in a water the PLEMs at both STL buoy locations pushed to the side by specially shaped depth of approximately 31 m (100 ft). (north and south), followed by moldboards that are fitted to the main Each unloading buoy would have eight placement of the buoy anchors, mooring plowshare. The trench is then backfilled mooring lines, consisting of wire rope lines, buoys, and risers. Installation with a subsequent pass of the plow. The and chain, connecting to eight driven- activities at both STL buoy locations estimated width of the trench (including pile anchor points on the sea floor, one would require a cargo barge, supported sediments initially pushed to each side) 16-in (0.4-m) inside diameter flexible by anchor-handling support vessels, a is 67 ft (20.4 m) (see Figure 1–2 in Port
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55650 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Dolphin’s application for a conceptual passing a larger cutting tool known as a There are eleven locations where tie- diagram of this process). reamer. This would involve using in operations would be required to piece In areas that cannot be plowed (e.g., progressively larger drill strings to the pipeline sections together. This due to hard/live bottom) or complete eventually produce a drill bore 48 in mechanical operation is accomplished burial cannot be achieved, the pipeline (1.22 m) in diameter. The third stage with specially designed connectors and would be covered with an external places the product or casing pipe in the a manned diving rig. This common cover (e.g., concrete mattresses or rock enlarged hole by way of the drill steel operation does not require welding. Tie- armoring). Although plowing is the and is pulled behind the reamer to ins would be required at each end of all preferred methodology for pipeline allow centering of the pipe in the newly HDD crossings, the Y-connection, and burial, other techniques such as reamed path. Simultaneously, bucket the PLEMs. dredging and HDD would be used where dredging would be employed to produce Construction Vessels—A shallow- required. Figure 1–3 of Port Dolphin’s an exit hole at the end of the bore. In- water lay barge, spud barge and water HDD may involve significant application uses color coding of the clamshell dredge, and a jack-up barge distance between the seabed and the proposed pipeline route to show where would be mobilized for offshore pipe- drilling rig, and so a casing pipe may be these various methodologies would be laying activities. Jack-up barges are required during the initial pilot hole used, based on bottom structure and mobile work platforms that are fitted drilling to provide some rigidity to the other barriers. The total length of the with long support legs that can be raised drill pipe as it is pushed ahead by the pipeline route is 74 km. Burial or lowered; upon arrival at the work rig. Structures known as ‘‘goal posts’’ techniques to be used along the pipeline location the legs would be lowered and provide support for the casing pipe and route and their relative lengths are the barge itself raised above the water are typically comprised of two driven characterized as follows: such that wave, tidal and current • piles with cross members set at Plowing/trenching soft sediments: loading acts only on the relatively 39.6 km (24.6 mi; 53.2 percent of total predetermined elevations. Port Dolphin has identified the need slender legs and not on the barge hull. pipeline length); A spud barge is a type of jack-up barge • Plowing/external cover: 23.3 km to install goal posts as part of the HDD that typically offers increased stability (14.5 mi; 31.4 percent); drilling effort at the two water-to-water but does not raise the hull above the • External cover (concrete mattress/ HDD locations. One potential option is water. This equipment would be used rock armoring): 8.5 km (5.3 mi; 11.7 that the goal posts are designed to self- where conventional installation percent); install; however, another option is that • Clamshell dredging/dragline burial: drilling may be required. Further, at the methods are anticipated. An HDD 0.3 km (0.2 mi; 0.5 percent); and shore-to-water transition HDD, Port spread, including four jack-up barges, • HDD: 2.4 km (1.5 mi; 3.2 percent). Dolphin would need to install sheet three hopper barges (designed to carry HDD would be employed for piling to form a coffer dam, designed to materials), and two tugs for barge installation of the pipeline at three contain the HDD exit pit so as to not towing, would be used for the three locations along the inshore portion of impact nearby aquatic vegetation. Sheet planned HDD segments. Four diving the route. The proposed HDD locations pile segments would be installed by support vessels would also support tie- include drilling from land to water at vibratory means. in and mattressing operations. the Port Manatee shore approach and Clam shell dredging would be Construction equipment would make from water-to-water at two crossings of required for passage under the Skyway one round-trip to the project location, the existing Gulfstream pipeline. The Bridge and would be performed from a staying on location for the duration of eastern HDD crossing would be 898 m fixed working platform. Although construction activity. Work crew vessels (2,947 ft) in length, and the western dredging, followed by conventional lay and supply vessels would make on HDD crossing would be 407 m (1,335 ft) and bury, is the most likely scenario, average two trips a day for the duration in length. Both crossings would be in a HDD remains a possibility for this of offshore construction. Work crew and water depth of 6.4 m (21 ft). The Port segment. In the area near Manbirtee supply vessels are expected to make Dolphin pipeline would be drilled to a Key, a flotation ditch—dredging between 420 and 450 round-trips to the depth of approximately 6 m (20 ft) operations may require such a ditch offshore construction location from below the existing Gulfstream Pipeline when the minimum water depth shore-based facilities for the duration of (Port Dolphin, 2007b). necessary to safely float equipment is the project. HDD is a steerable method of not present—would be dredged using Table 1 details the vessels that would installing pipelines underground along conventional dredging equipment (i.e., be used during the DWP and pipeline a prescribed bore path, with minimal the same barge that would be used to construction and installation activities. impact on the surrounding area. The pull-in the shore approach HDD). The The projected duration and duty load of process starts with location of entry and anticipated locations where the various each vessel are also provided. Duty load exit points. The first stage drills a pilot methods of pipeline installation would is a primary consideration when hole on the designed path, and the be used are shown in Figure 1–3 of Port characterizing project-related sound second stage enlarges the hole by Dolphin’s application. sources.
TABLE 1—VESSELS TO BE EMPLOYED DURING PORT DOLPHIN CONSTRUCTION AND/OR FACILITY INSTALLATION OPERATIONS
Operation Auxiliary equipment/notes Engine specifications 1 Operational usage 2
Construction/Installation at DWP
Barge ...... N/A ...... 3.5 months at 100%. Anchor-handling support vessels...... ROV winches, hydraulic pumps, thrusters, 2 × 3,750-hp. sonar, survey equipment. Supply boat ...... Bow thruster ...... 671-hp.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55651
TABLE 1—VESSELS TO BE EMPLOYED DURING PORT DOLPHIN CONSTRUCTION AND/OR FACILITY INSTALLATION OPERATIONS—Continued
Operation Auxiliary equipment/notes Engine specifications 1 Operational usage 2
Crew transfer boat ...... 671-hp. Tug ...... 800-hp. Impact hammer ...... N/A ...... As required.
Pipeline installation
Jack-up: Port Manatee HDD ...... Jack-up ...... 3,000-hp ...... 27 days at 50%. Spud lay barge: Shallow lay operation; no pro- Tug ...... 1,200-hp ...... 59.4 days at 75%. pulsion; uses two tugs. Tug ...... 1,200-hp. East jack-ups ...... Jack-up ...... 3,000-hp ...... 27 days at 75%. Jack-up ...... 3,000-hp. West jack-ups ...... Jack-up ...... 3,000-hp ...... 27 days at 75%. Jack-up ...... 3,000-hp. Pipelay barge: Large lay barge operation; no Tug ...... 2,000-hp ...... 37 days at 85%. propulsion; uses two tugs. Tug ...... 2,000-hp. Dragline barge ...... 600-hp ...... 6 days at 100%. Plow lay barge: Plow burial operation; no pro- Tug ...... 2,000-hp ...... 113 days at 85%. pulsion; uses two tugs. Tug ...... 2,000-hp. DSVs for mattress armoring ...... Vessel ...... 1,000-hp ...... 108 days at 100%. Vessel ...... 1,000-hp. DSVs for mattress armoring ...... Vessel ...... 1,000-hp ...... 12 days at 15%...... 1,000-hp. Vessel ...... 1,000-hp...... 1,000-hp. Pipeline gauge, fill, test, dewater, and drying .. Vessel ...... 300-hp ...... 13 days at 35%...... 300-hp. Vessel ...... 300-hp...... 300-hp. Survey vessel ...... Vessel ...... 1,000-hp ...... 54 days at 50%. Vessel ...... 1,000-hp. Spud lay barge: Shallow lay barge operation; Tug ...... 1,200-hp ...... 6.6 days at 15%. no propulsion; uses two tugs. Tug ...... 1,200-hp. East jack-ups ...... Jack-up ...... 2,000-hp ...... 3 days at 15%. Jack-up ...... 2,000-hp. West jack-ups ...... Jack-up ...... 2,000-hp ...... 3 days at 15%. Jack-up ...... 2,000-hp. Pipelay barge: Large lay barge operation; no Tug ...... 2,000-hp ...... 4 days at 15%. propulsion; uses two tugs. Tug ...... 2,000-hp. Dragline barge ...... Barge ...... 600-hp ...... 1 day at 15%. Plow lay barge: Plow burial operation; no pro- Tug ...... 2,000-hp ...... 13 days at 15%. pulsion; uses two tugs. Tug ...... 2,000-hp. DSVs for mattress armoring ...... Vessel ...... 1,000-hp ...... 12 days at 15%...... 1,000-hp. Vessel ...... 1,000-hp...... 1,000-hp. Pipeline gauge, fill, test, dewater, and drying .. Vessel ...... 300-hp ...... 1 day at 15%...... 300-hp. Vessel ...... 300-hp...... 300-hp. Survey vessel ...... Vessel ...... 1,000-hp ...... 6 days at 15%.
HDD operations
Jack-up: Port Manatee HDD ...... Jack-up ...... 3,000-hp ...... 3 days at 15%. Spud barge ...... Crane-mounted drill and vibratory drill; ancil- N/A ...... Maximum 4 days for lary equipment includes welding equip- vibratory drilling at ment, air compressor, and generator. each HDD location. Tug ...... 800-hp ...... Maximum 4 days for vibratory drilling at each HDD location. DSV = Diving spread vessels 1 All specifications are for diesel engines. 2 All figures assume 24 hrs/day; percentages refer to percent maximum duty load.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55652 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Port Operations maneuvering speed. However, once thrusters. Expected SRV transit, approaching the vicinity of the DWP— approach, and maneuvering/docking The proposed DWP operations would within approximately 16 to 25 km (10– characteristics are outlined in Table 2. include SRV maneuvering/docking, 16 mi) of the DWP—the SRVs would Only the maneuvering/docking regasification of LNG cargo, and begin approach by slowing to about half activities and their associated sound debarkation. The SRVs are expected to speed, and then to slow ahead. Inside of sources (i.e., thrusters) are considered in approach the DWP from the south. In 5 km (3.1 km) from the DWP, the SRVs’ this document; transit and approach the open ocean, the SRVs typically main engines would be placed in dead maneuvers are considered part of travel at speeds of up to 19.5 kn (36.1 slow ahead and decreased upon routine vessel transit and are not km/hr), reducing to less than 14 kn (25.9 approach to dead slow, with final considered further. km/hr) while maintaining full positioning and docking to occur using
TABLE 2—SRV SPEEDS AND THRUSTER USE DURING TRANSIT, APPROACH, AND MANEUVERING/DOCKING OPERATIONS AT THE DWP
Zone Speed limit Thrusters in use?
>33 km from DWP ...... Full service speed (19.5 kn) ...... No 25–33 km from DWP ...... Full maneuvering speed (<14 kn) ...... No 16–25 km from DWP ...... Half ahead (<10 kn) ...... No 5–16 km from DWP ...... Slow ahead (<6 kn) ...... No Inside 5 km from DWP ...... Dead slow ahead (<4.5 kn, decreasing to <3 kn) ...... Bow and stern thrusters Docking ...... Dead slow ...... Two bow thrusters; possibly one or two stern thrusters
Based on a regasification cycle of TABLE 3—PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION, sound would be created by propulsion approximately 8 days and projected INSTALLATION, AND OPERATIONS AC- machinery, thrusters, generators, and DWP throughput during the first several TIVITIES, BY SEASON hull vibrations and would vary with years of 400 MMscfd, vessel traffic vessel and engine size. Machinery during operations is projected to consist Activity Season sound from underwater construction of a maximum of 46 SRV trips per year. would be transmitted through water and During DWP operations, sound would Construction and installation would vary in duration and intensity. be generated by the maneuvering of Port construction (i.e., field construction Buoy installation ...... Summer 2013 and installation operations) would SRVs upon approach to the Port, Offshore impact ham- Summer 2013 regasification of LNG aboard the SRVs, mering. require approximately 11 months. and subsequent debarkation from the Pipelaying offshore ... Late Summer 2013 While the main sound source during Port. through early Win- SRV transit and approach to the DWP ter 2013–14 would originate from the SRV main Once an SRV is connected to a buoy, Pipelaying inshore ..... Late Summer 2013 engines (i.e., predominantly in low the vaporization of LNG and send-out of through early Win- frequencies), the primary sound source natural gas can begin. Each SRV would ter 2013–14 during maneuvering and docking would be equipped with up to five Offshore pipeline bur- Fall 2013 through be the SRV thrusters. An additional vaporization units, each with the ial. Winter 2013–14 Inshore pipeline burial Fall 2013 through underwater sound source would be the capacity to vaporize 250 MMscfd. Under Winter 2013–14 sound produced by the flow of gas normal operation, two or more units HDD ...... Summer 2013 through the proposed pipeline, although would be in service simultaneously, HDD vibratory driving Summer 2013 very little sound would be expected to with at least one unit on standby mode. result (JASCO, 2008); therefore, this Operations source is not considered further. Method of Incidental Taking SRV maneuvering/ Year-round; max- Description of Sound Sources Incidental take is anticipated to result docking. imum 46 visits per from elevated levels of sound year Sound travels in waves, the basic introduced into the marine environment Regasification ...... Year-round; 8 days components of which are frequency, estimated per visit wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. by the construction and operation of the Frequency is the number of pressure DWP, as described in preceding During construction, underwater waves that pass by a reference point per sections. Specifically, sound from pile sound would be produced by unit of time and is measured in hertz driving, drilling, dredging, and vessel construction vessels (e.g., barges, (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is operations during the construction and tugboats, and supply/service vessels) the distance between two peaks of a installation phase, and sound from SRV and machinery (e.g., pile driving and sound wave; lower frequency sounds maneuvering, docking, and pipe laying equipment, trenching have longer wavelengths than higher regasification during operations would equipment, and goal post installation frequency sounds, which is why the likely result in the behavioral equipment at the HDD locations) lower frequency sound associated with harassment of marine mammals present operating either intermittently or the proposed activities would attenuate in the vicinity. Table 3 shows these continuously throughout the area during more rapidly in shallower water. proposed activities by the time of year the construction period. Vessel traffic Amplitude is the height of the sound they are anticipated to occur. associated with construction would be a pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ of a relatively continuous sound source sound and is typically measured using during the construction phase. Vessel the decibel (dB) scale. A dB is the ratio
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55653
between a measured pressure (with are created. These waves alternately main source of naturally occurring sound) and a reference pressure (sound compress and decompress the water as ambient sound for frequencies between at a constant pressure, established by the sound wave travels. Underwater 200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In scientific standards), and is a sound waves radiate in all directions general, ambient sound levels tend to logarithmic unit that accounts for large away from the source (similar to ripples increase with increasing wind speed variations in amplitude; therefore, on the surface of a pond), except in and wave height. Surf sound becomes relatively small changes in dB ratings cases where the source is directional. important near shore, with correspond to large changes in sound The compressions and decompressions measurements collected at a distance of pressure. When referring to sound associated with sound waves are 8.5 km (5.3 mi) from shore showing an pressure levels (SPLs; the sound force detected as changes in pressure by increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz per unit area), sound is referenced in the aquatic life and man-made sound band during heavy surf conditions. context of underwater sound pressure to receptors such as hydrophones. • Precipitation sound: Sound from 1 microPascal (mPa). One pascal is the The underwater acoustic environment rain and hail impacting the water pressure resulting from a force of one consists of ambient sound, defined as surface can become an important newton exerted over an area of one environmental background sound levels component of total sound at frequencies square meter. The source level (SL) lacking a single source or point above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 represents the sound level at a distance (Richardson et al., 1995). The ambient Hz during quiet times. of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1 underwater sound level of a region is • Biological sound: Marine mammals mPa). The received level is the sound defined by the total acoustical energy can contribute significantly to ambient level at the listener’s position. being generated by known and sound levels, as can some fish and Root mean square (rms) is the unknown sources, including sounds shrimp. The frequency band for quadratic mean sound pressure over the from both natural and anthropogenic biological contributions is from duration of an impulse. Rms is sources. These sources may include approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. calculated by squaring all of the sound physical (e.g., waves, earthquakes, ice, • Anthropogenic sound: Sources of amplitudes, averaging the squares, and atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., ambient sound related to human activity then taking the square root of the sounds produced by marine mammals, include transportation (surface vessels average (Urick, 1975). Rms accounts for fish, and invertebrates), and and aircraft), dredging and construction, both positive and negative values; anthropogenic sound (e.g., vessels, oil and gas drilling and production, squaring the pressures makes all values dredging, aircraft, construction). Even in seismic surveys, sonar, explosions, and positive so that they may be accounted the absence of anthropogenic sound, the ocean acoustic studies (Richardson et for in the summation of pressure levels sea is typically a loud environment. A al., 1995). Shipping sound typically (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This number of sources of sound are likely to dominates the total ambient sound for measurement is often used in the occur within Tampa Bay and the frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In context of discussing behavioral effects, adjoining shelf, including the following general, the frequencies of in part because behavioral effects, (Richardson et al., 1995): anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz which often result from auditory cues, • Wind and waves: The complex and, if higher frequency sound levels may be better expressed through interactions between wind and water are created, they would attenuate averaged units than by peak pressures. surface, including processes such as (decrease) rapidly (Richardson et al., When underwater objects vibrate or breaking waves and wave-induced 1995). Typical SPLs for various types of activity occurs, sound-pressure waves bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a ships are presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4—UNDERWATER SPLS FOR REPRESENTATIVE VESSELS
Vessel description Frequency (Hz) Source level (dB)
Outboard drive; 23 ft; 2 engines @ 80 hp ...... 630 156 Twin diesel; 112 ft ...... 630 159 Small supply ships; 180–279 ft ...... 1,000 125–135 (at 50 m) Freighter; 443 ft ...... 41 172 Source: Richardson et al., 1995.
The sum of the various natural and floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a waters in the western GOM and anthropogenic sound sources at any result of the dependence on a large reported median ambient sound levels given location and time—which number of varying factors, the ambient of 77–80 dB re: 1 mPa2/Hz. These levels comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ sound levels at a given frequency and are likely to be somewhat lower than sound—depends not only on the source location can vary by 10–20 dB from day those occurring in the vicinity of Tampa levels (as determined by current to day (Richardson et al., 1995). Bay, due in large part to the reduced weather conditions and levels of Very few measurements of ambient contribution from surf in deep water. biological and shipping activity) but sound from Tampa Bay and the adjoining shelf are available. There are Known sound levels and frequency also on the ability of sound to propagate no specific data on ambient underwater ranges associated with anthropogenic through the environment. In turn, sound sound levels for the area of the proposed sources similar to those that would be propagation is dependent on the Port and pipeline route. Shooter et al. used for this project are summarized in spatially and temporally varying (1982) analyzed approximately 12 hours Table 5. Details of each of the sources properties of the water column and sea of data collected in deep (3,280 m) are described in the following text.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55654 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—ANTICIPATED SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION/INSTALLATION AND OPERATIONS AT THE PORT DOLPHIN DWP
Maximum broadband Source Activity Location source level (re: 1 μPa)
Barge ...... Anchor installation operations ...... STL buoys (DWP) ...... 177 dB Tug ...... Anchor installation operations ...... STL buoys (DWP) ...... 205 dB Impact hammer 1 ...... Pile driving ...... STL buoys (DWP) ...... 217 dB Barge ...... Pipe laying ...... Pipeline corridor, DWP to shore ...... 174 dB Tug ...... Transit ...... Offshore/Inshore ...... 191 dB Dredge ...... Dredging ...... Likely inshore, offshore if necessary ...... 188 dB HDD ...... Drilling ...... Two locations in Tampa Bay ...... 157 dB Vibratory driving ...... Sheet pile installation ...... Two locations in Tampa Bay ...... 186 dB SRV ...... Maneuvering/docking, with thrusters ...... DWP ...... 183 dB SRV ...... Regasification ...... DWP ...... 165 dB Source: JASCO, 2008, 2010. 1 Source level for impact hammer estimated assuming pulse length of 100 ms.
The sounds produced by these using thrusters is intermittent (i.e., comparable levels of sound attenuation activities fall into one of two sound every 8 days) and of short duration (i.e., for pile driving. Port Dolphin proposes types: Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined 10 to 30 minutes). to implement one or more of these in next paragraph). The distinction For this project, the only pulsive techniques during the pile driving between these two general sound types sounds are associated with pile driving activities needed to install components is important because they have differing activities at the offshore Port location of the STL buoys and will make a final potential to cause physical effects, (i.e., associated with anchor installation decision with regard to the technology particularly with regard to hearing (e.g., activities). Impact hammers (proposed to be used prior to beginning work. Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). for use in driving buoy anchors) operate Bubble curtains create a column of air Please see Southall et al. (2007) for an by repeatedly dropping a heavy piston bubbles rising around a pile from the in-depth discussion of these concepts. onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate to the water surface. The air Pulsed sounds (e.g., explosions, substrate. Sound generated by impact bubbles absorb and scatter sound waves gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile hammers is characterized by rapid rise emanating from the pile, thereby driving) are brief, broadband, atonal times and high peak levels, a potentially reducing the sound energy. Bubble transients (ANSI, 1986; Harris, 1998) injurious combination (Hastings and curtains may be confined or unconfined. and occur either as isolated events or Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers, An unconfined bubble curtain may repeated in some succession. Pulsed which would be used to install sheet consist of a ring seated on the substrate sounds are all characterized by a pile and possibly pilings for goal posts and emitting air bubbles from the relatively rapid rise from ambient inshore, install piles by vibrating them bottom. A confined bubble curtain pressure to a maximal pressure value and allowing the weight of the hammer contains the air bubbles within a followed by a decay period that may to push them into the sediment. flexible or rigid sleeve made from include a period of diminishing, Vibratory hammers produce plastic, cloth, or pipe. Confined bubble oscillating maximal and minimal significantly less sound than impact curtains generally offer higher pressures. Pulsed sounds generally have hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 dB or attenuation levels than unconfined an increased capacity to induce physical greater but are generally 10 to 20 dB curtains because they may physically injury as compared with sounds that lower than SPLs generated during block sound waves and they prevent air lack these features. impact pile driving of the same-sized bubbles from migrating away from the Non-pulse (intermittent or pile (Caltrans, 2009). Rise time is pile. For this reason, the confined continuous) sounds can be tonal, slower, reducing the probability and bubble curtain is commonly used in broadband, or both. Some of these non- severity of injury (USFWS, 2009), and areas with high current velocity pulse sounds can be transient signals of sound energy is distributed over a (Caltrans, 2009). short duration but without the essential greater amount of time (Nedwell and properties of pulses (e.g., rapid rise Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2001). An isolation casing is a hollow pipe time). Examples of non-pulse sounds that surrounds the pile, isolating it from include those produced by vessels, Sound Attenuation Devices the in-water work area. The casing is aircraft, machinery operations such as Sound levels can be greatly reduced dewatered before pile driving. This drilling or dredging, vibratory pile during impact pile driving using sound device provides levels of sound driving, and active sonar systems. The attenuation devices. There are several attenuation similar to that of bubble duration of such sounds, as received at types of sound attenuation devices curtains (Caltrans, 2009). Sound levels a distance, can be greatly extended in a including bubble curtains, cofferdams, can be reduced by 8 to 14 dB. Cushion highly reverberant environment. Many and isolation casings (also called blocks consist of materials (e.g., wood, of the sounds produced by the project temporary sound attenuation piles nylon) placed atop piles during impact would be transient in nature (i.e., the [TNAP]), and cushion blocks. Port pile driving activities to reduce source source moves), such as during vessel Dolphin considers the installation of levels. Typically sound reduction can docking. Regasification sounds are cofferdams to be infeasible for this range from 4 to a maximum of 26 dB. continuous (while the SRV is docked) project. The information available Both environmental conditions and and stationary. The positioning suggests that bubble curtains, cushion the characteristics of the sound (maneuvering and docking) of SRVs blocks and caps, and TNAP design offer attenuation device may influence the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55655
effectiveness of the device. According to difficulty in properly installing and relevant regulatory sound thresholds for Caltrans (2009): operating in-water attenuation devices. the specified activities. NMFS has • In general, confined bubble curtains As a general rule, reductions of greater determined that this information attain better sound attenuation levels in than 10 dB cannot be reliably predicted represents the best information available areas of high current than unconfined (Caltrans, 2009). for project sound sources and has used bubble curtains. If an unconfined device the information to develop mitigation Sound Thresholds is used, high current velocity may measures and to estimate potential sweep bubbles away from the pile, Since 1997, NMFS has used generic incidental take in this document. The resulting in reduced levels of sound sound exposure thresholds to determine modeling scenarios considered all attenuation. when an activity in the ocean that sound sources associated with the • Softer substrates may allow for a produces sound might result in impacts project and were developed to better seal for the device, preventing to a marine mammal such that a take by thoroughly characterize the various leakage of air bubbles and escape of harassment or injury might occur construction/installation and operation sound waves. This increases the (NMFS, 2005b). To date, no studies have activities expected. The relevant effectiveness of the device. Softer been conducted that examine impacts to information is summarized in Table 6. substrates also provide additional marine mammals from which empirical The equipment list associated with each attenuation of sound traveling through sound thresholds have been established. activity is based on current construction the substrate. Current NMFS practice regarding plans for the Port (Ocean Specialists, • Flat bottom topography provides a exposure of marine mammals to high 2007). For each piece of equipment better seal, enhancing effectiveness of level sounds is that cetaceans exposed specified, proxy vessels were selected the sound attenuation device, whereas to impulsive sounds of 180 dB rms or from JASCO Research’s database of sloped or undulating terrain reduces or above are considered to have been taken underwater sound measurements. The eliminates its effectiveness. by Level A (i.e., injurious) harassment. sound propagation model used several • Air bubbles must be close to the Behavioral harassment (Level B) is parameters, including expected water pile; otherwise, sound may propagate considered to have occurred when column sound speeds, bathymetry into the water, reducing the marine mammals are exposed to sounds (water depth and shape of the ocean effectiveness of the device. at or above 160 dB rms for impulse bottom), and bottom geoacoustic • Harder substrates may transmit sounds (e.g., impact pile driving) and properties (which indicate how much ground-borne sound and propagate it 120 dB rms for continuous sound (e.g., sound is reflected off of the ocean into the water column. vessel sound, vibratory pile driving) but bottom), to estimate the radii of sound The literature presents a wide array of below injurious thresholds. impacts (JASCO, 2008). Modeling observed attenuation results for bubble scenario locations are depicted in Figure Distance to Sound Thresholds curtains (see, e.g., WSF, 2009; WSDOT, 1–4 of Port Dolphin’s application. 2008; USFWS, 2009; Caltrans, 2009). This section details sound source Please see Appendices C and D in Port The variability in attenuation levels is modeling produced under contract by Dolphin’s application for a detailed due to variation in design, as well as the applicant (JASCO, 2008, 2010) and description of this sound source differences in site conditions and describes the predicted distances to modeling.
TABLE 6—REPRESENTATIVE SCENARIOS MODELED DURING THE PORT DOLPHIN SOUND SOURCE ANALYSIS AND RADIAL DISTANCE TO THRESHOLDS
Approximate area Activity Source Modeled location Distance to thresh- encompassed by old 1,2 threshold 2
Buoy installation..... Crane vessel, cargo barge, support North STL buoy; offshore DWP site ... 180 dB: <0.2 km ... 180 dB: <0.13 km 2 vessel. 120 dB: 3.9 km ..... 120 dB: 48 km 2 Impact hammering Impact hammer ...... Y-connector; offshore DWP site ...... 180 dB: 0.18 km ... 180 dB: 0.10 km 2 160 dB: 4.5 km ..... 160 dB: 64 km 2 Pipelaying, offshore Barge, two anchor handling tugs, sup- 15-m isobath ...... 180 dB: <0.2 km ... 180 dB: <0.13 km 2 port tug. 120 dB: 7.5 km ..... 120 dB: 177 km 2 Pipelaying, inshore Barge, two anchor handling tugs, sup- Tampa Bay ...... 180 dB: <0.2 km ... 180 dB: <0.13 km 2 port tug. 120 dB: 6.0 km ..... 120 dB: 113 km 2 Pipeline burial, off- Plow system, two anchor handling 15-m isobath ...... 180 dB: <0.2 km ... 180 dB: <0.13 km 2 shore. tugs. 120 dB: 8.4 km ..... 120 dB: 222 km 2 Pipeline burial, Plow system, two anchor handling Tampa Bay ...... 180 dB: <0.2 km ... 180 dB: <0.13 km 2 inshore. tugs. 120 dB: 6.7 km ..... 120 dB: 141 km 2 HDD ...... Floating spud barge, crane mounted Tampa Bay ...... 180 dB: <0.01 km 180 dB: <0.00 km 2 drill, welding equipment, air com- 120 dB: 0.24 km ... 120 dB: 0.2 km 2 pressor, generator. HDD vibratory driv- Floating spud barge, vibrator, welding Tampa Bay ...... 180 dB: <0.01 km 180 dB: <0.00 km 2 ing. equipment, air compressor, gener- 120 dB: 12.6 km ... 120 dB: 499 km 2 ator. Docking at buoy, SRV ...... STL buoy; offshore DWP site ...... 180 dB: <0.01 km 180 dB: <0.00 km 2 dead slow, two 120 dB: 3.6 km ..... 120 dB: 41 km 2 bow thrusters and one stern thruster. Regasification ...... SRV ...... STL buoy; offshore DWP site ...... 180 dB: 0.00 km ... 180 dB: <0.00 km 2 120 dB: 0.17 km ... 120 dB: 0.09 km 2 Source: JASCO, 2008, 2010. 1 All distances are unweighted, 95th percentile radial distances. 2 For distances not given precisely (e.g., <0.2 km) area of ensonification was modeled using a radial distance of 200 m. Although the distance to threshold would be less than 200 m, it is not possible to specifically calculate the distance because the scenarios involve multiple vessel components.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55656 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Note that in many cases the scenarios specific acoustic monitoring conducted primarily during fall and winter. involve multiple pieces of equipment. during the specified activities. Pipeline burial would be used Although equipment spacing would Buoy Installation—Proxies were infrequently during the construction vary during the course of operations, a selected for the crane and support period. Similarly to pipe laying, pipe single layout must be assumed for vessels based on vessel specifications. burial using a trenching plow system modeling purposes. As such, where While a cargo barge may be present on- would consist of an anchored barge multiple vessels were involved in the site for a portion of the operations, Port accompanied by two anchor handling scenarios listed in Table 6 the following Dolphin assumed that this barge would tugs. In addition, sound would be layout was assumed: typically not be under power. generated by the plow used to bury the • The barge used for the main Installation of the buoys at the Port pipeline. Detailed source level data operation in each scenario (e.g., crane would produce continuous sound for a were not available for plow operations. vessel, pipe laying barge, pipe burial relatively short period of time during However, Aspen Environmental Group barge) was set in the middle of the summer, with the 120-dB isopleth (2005) reported a broadband source group of vessels. located 3.9 km (2.4 mi) from each STL level of 185 dB. Based on this • For four or fewer tugs (anchor buoy location. information, similar source levels from handling and/or support), tugs were Impact Pile Driving—During the dredge operations (Greene, 1987) were spaced at a range of 100 m (328 ft) from construction period, impact hammering used for the applicant’s modeling the center of the barge. Note that the would produce the loudest sound levels purposes. Note that the dredge source pipe laying/burial barge itself is 122 m but would likely occur only for short levels include the sound from the barge long x 30 m wide (400 x 100 ft). periods of time. The source depth for upon which the dredge is operated; pile driving was set to approximately The radii to sound thresholds vary for consequently, a separate barge is not half the local water depth. In actuality, the same activity depending on water specified for plowing operations in sound would radiate from all portions of depth, because the transmission of Table 6. The modeling scenario used the the pilings; this midwater column value lower-frequency sound waves can be depth of the barge hull under the water is a precautionary estimate of the depth significantly reduced in shallower as the sound source depth, rather than for an equivalent point source, as losses water. As a result, the radii to the Level the depth of the actual dredge work. due to bottom and surface interactions A and Level B harassment isopleths in This is because observations from would be less for a source at mid-depth Tampa Bay (i.e., shallower water) are clamshell dredging show that the than for one near the sea floor or shorter than those that would occur highest levels of underwater sound are surface. Impact hammering operations emitted from equipment on the barge offshore. In addition, much of the would involve a pipe lay barge and tugs, energy from the vessels associated with (propagating through the hull) rather similar to pipe laying operations. than from the scraping sounds of the pipelaying occurs at low frequencies However, because the potential impact and would propagate poorly in dredge itself (Richardson et al., 1995). to marine mammals is different for Pipeline burial using the plow system shallower water. impulsive and continuous sources, produces sound attenuating to the 120- Although sounds created by impact hammering sound (an impulsive dB isopleth at 6.7 km (4.2 mi) inshore construction equipment and vessels source) is considered separately from and 8.4 km (5.2 mi) offshore. would be continuous during pipeline vessel sound (non-pulsed sources). Note HDD—HDD within Tampa Bay would installation, activities would progress that the source levels from impact produce continuous sound levels and is slowly along the pipeline route as the hammering are much higher than those expected to occur during summer. pipeline is laid and buried and the from the vessels that are likely to be on- Installation of the goal posts (described trench backfilled. Any one area would site. Impact hammering offshore would previously under ‘‘Pipeline be subject to the maximum sound levels encompass an area with a radius of Installation’’) at each HDD location for only 1 to 2 days at a time as the approximately 180 m (591 ft) to the would produce a continuous sound for construction activities pass that area. Level A threshold; radii to the 160-dB a relatively short period of time and Sound modeling indicates that, overall, isopleths for this impulsive source would only occur during summer. HDD operational sound associated with the would be at 4.5 km (2.8 mi). would be employed for installation of proposed project is consistent with Pipe Laying—Pipe laying activities the pipeline at a number of locations other man-made underwater sound would generate continuous, transient, along the inshore portion of the route, sources in the area (e.g., commercial and variable sound levels during including the Port Manatee shore shipping and dredging). Appendix E of construction predominantly during fall, approach and two crossings of the Port Dolphin’s application presents with some activity during late summer existing Gulfstream pipeline. Drilling Level B harassment sound field graphics and early winter. Two sites were and vibratory driving (for goal posts/ for construction activities. selected for pipe laying: one sheet pile) would be conducted from a Specific Activity Descriptions—As approximately midway along the floating spud barge approximately 41 m described previously, the applicant offshore portion of the pipeline and in length. Drilling would involve a provided detailed sound source another along the inshore portion. crane-mounted drill, suspended from a modeling for all sound-producing Equipment lists for the offshore and crawler crane on the barge. The barge activities associated with the project. In inshore sites are identical: a pipe laying would also be equipped with welding the following sections, each specific barge, two tugs involved in re-setting of equipment, an air compressor, and a type of activity is described in terms of anchors, and a third tug in transit. generator. the modeling scenario; the type, Sound impacts from pipelaying would Source levels for drilling of the pilot duration, and timing of sound produced produce a 6.0 or 7.5 km (3.7–4.7 mi) holes are based on measurements made by the activity; and the radial distances radius to the 120-dB isopleth inshore by Greene (1987) during drilling to relevant sound thresholds. All radial and offshore, respectively. operations in the Beaufort Sea. As with distances to thresholds presented in the Pipe Burial—Pipeline burial using the drilling from a barge, these following sections are modeled, and plow system would generate measurements include contributions may be different from the actual continuous, transient, and variable from both the drill assembly itself and distances as determined through site- sound levels during construction, from equipment on the drill platform
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55657
(e.g., generators). Because the dominant procedures, the sample situation Measurements taken by JASCO during sound source is equipment located on described in Table 6 was selected for operation of a clamshell dredge the drilling vessel (Richardson et al., modeling; i.e., docking at the northern indicated source levels of approximately 1995) rather than the drilling or buoy, using both bow thrusters and one 150–155 dB, i.e., roughly 20 dB lower scraping itself, a source level height of stern thruster. than the source levels associated with 2.2 m was used, as it was for other Very little information is available on the barge used during pipe laying barge-mounted activities modeled by the underwater sound levels produced operations. As such, dredging may be JASCO. by LNG carriers. However, some data considered an insignificant source of Source levels for the vibratory driver and empirical formulas have been sound compared with operation of the were derived from measurements made developed for large tankers in general. barges that would also be present. by JASCO. The vibratory driver was At typical cruising speeds, source levels • mounted on a moored barge during the from such vessels are dominated by Transponders: Once the port is measurements, and so sound propeller cavitation (Sponagle, 1988; operational, an additional source of contributions from equipment on the Seol et al., 2002). As described by LGL underwater sound in the vicinity of the barge are included in the source level and JASCO (2005), an empirical unloading buoys would be the acoustic estimates. The measured driver is larger expression for the source spectrum level transponders installed on the buoys. than the vibratory driver planned for (1 Hz bandwidth) in the frequency range Information was not available on the use at Port Dolphin. However, very few between 100 Hz and 10 kHz is specific transponders intended for use measurements of underwater sound SL = 163 + 10 log BD4N3 f¥2 at the DWP; however, specifications exist for pile drivers of this size, and in where B is the number of blades, D is from commercially available buoy most cases the available reports do not positioning transponders indicate describe the vibratory driver used. the propeller diameter in meters, N is the number of propeller revolutions per operating frequencies of a few tens of Additionally, scaling by vibratory driver kHz, and source levels of approximately specifications (e.g., the eccentric second, and f is the frequency in Hz. For 190 dB. Given this estimated broadband moment) is made difficult by the fact frequencies less than 100 Hz, the source source level, we may estimate ranges to that pile driving source levels depend level is assumed to be constant at the not only on the equipment but also on 100 Hz level. In the case of ducted various threshold values assuming propellers (e.g., bow and stern simple spherical spreading, i.e., RL = SL the piling, substrate and environment. ¥ As such, JASCO’s un-scaled thrusters), the constant is approximately 20log10(r). Solving for r shows that measurements of underwater sound are 7 dB larger. Specifications for the main received levels would drop to 180 dB at used here as a conservative estimate of propulsion system are based on a a range of approximately 3 m, and to the sound likely to be generated during typical carrier, and are similar to those 160 dB at a range of approximately 32 installation of the goal posts/sheet pile. described by LGL and JASCO (2005). m; further, this sound source would be As for the impact pile driving described Bow and stern thrusters are expected to highly intermittent, as the transponders previously, the source depth for pile be single-speed, controllable-pitch would only transmit, briefly, when driving was conservatively set to half devices, with power ratings of 2,000 kW interrogated by the SRV-based the local water depth, i.e., 3.5 m. each for the bow thrusters and 1,200 kW command unit. As such, only marine Modeling results (JASCO, 2010) each for the stern thrusters. Based on mammals passing very near the indicate that the 120-dB isopleth would these values, diameters and rates of unloading buoys during the brief period revolution for the thrusters were based extend 240 m (787 ft) from the drilling of transmittance would potentially be on specifications for the most common operation, while the 120-dB isopleth for affected, and effects from these sources models currently available. The above HDD vibratory driving would extend may be considered discountable. 12.6 km (7.8 mi) from the source. model is not able to take into account SRV Docking—Once the SRV the reduction in source levels that Comments and Responses completes its approach to Port Dolphin would result from a change in pitch at and is within approximately 5.6 km (3.5 lower power outputs; hence, the On March 1, 2011, NMFS published mi) of the Port, bow and stern thrusters modeled source levels are conservative a notice of receipt of an application for would be utilized. Thruster use would (i.e., represent maximum expected a Letter of Authorization (LOA) in the vary, operating for 10 to 30 minutes to levels of underwater sound). Federal Register (76 FR 11205) and allow for the proper positioning of the Regasification—The SRV would requested comments and information vessel and for connection to the STL regasify its LNG cargo while moored at from the public for 30 days. NMFS did buoy. Docking or berthing would occur the STL buoy. Sound levels for not receive any substantive comments. at alternate STL buoys approximately regasification are low, and the modeling Description of Marine Mammals in the every 8 days. Sound modeling, assessing predicts that the 120-dB isopleths Area of the Specified Activity the periodic use of the thrusters (i.e., would be only 170 m (558 ft) from the Twenty-nine marine mammals (28 every 8 days) producing an intermittent source. and moving sound, indicated that the The following additional sources of cetaceans and the Florida manatee 120-dB isopleth would occur at 3.6 km underwater sound are expected to be [Trichechus manatus]) have (2.2 mi) from the SRV. present during construction of the DWP, documented occurrences in the GOM Operational procedures for the SRVs but were not modeled: (Wursig et al., 2000). The manatee is specify probable use of thrusters during • Dredging: Dredging would be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish approach and docking. Speed is involved in a few stages of construction, and Wildlife Service, and will not be gradually reduced as the SRV including HDD (discussed later) and discussed further in this document. Of approaches the unloading buoys, until pipelaying at the Sunshine Bridge the cetaceans, seven are mysticetes main propulsion is at dead slow. Bow crossing (Ocean Specialists, 2007). This (baleen whales) and 21 are odontocetes and stern thrusters are used during would involve a clamshell or bucket- (toothed whales, including dolphins). docking. Once moored, ship’s style dredge, operated from a barge Table 7 contains a summary of relevant propulsion is not required for while one or more additional barges information for each of these 28 species. positioning. Based on these operational carry out other tasks nearby.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:05 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55658 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMALS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
Typical habitat Species Status a Occurrence b Coastal Shelf Slope/Deep
Order Cetacea
Suborder Mysticeti
Family Balaenidae: North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) ...... E 1 ...... X X Family Balaenopteridae. Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) ...... E 1 ...... X X Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) ...... 3 ...... X X Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) ...... E 2 ...... X X Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) ...... E 2 ...... X X Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) ...... 2 ...... X X Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) ...... E 2 ...... X X
Suborder Odontoceti
Family Physeteridae: Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) ...... 3 ...... X X Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) ...... 3 ...... X X Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) ...... E 4 ...... X X
Family Ziphiidae: Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) ...... 2 c ...... X X Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) ...... 2 c ...... X X Gervais’ beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus) ...... 3 c ...... X X Sowerby’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon bidens) ...... 1 c ...... X X Family Delphinidae: Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) ...... 4 X X X Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) ...... 4 X X X Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene) ...... 4 ...... X X False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) ...... 3 ...... X X Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) ...... 4 ...... X X Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ...... 3 ...... X Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra) ...... 4 ...... X Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) ...... 4 ...... X X Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) ...... 3 ...... X X Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) ...... 4 ...... X X Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) ...... 4 ...... X X Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) ...... 4 ...... X X Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) ...... 4 ...... X X Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) ...... 4 ...... X X Source: Wu¨rsig et al., 2000 a Status: E = Listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. b Occurrence: 1 = extralimital; 2 = rare; 3 = uncommon; 4 = common. c Beaked whales in the GOM may be somewhat more common than survey data indicate, as beaked whales are difficult to sight and identify to species. Most surveys have been conducted in sea states that are not optimal for sighting beaked whales.
Of these 28 cetacean species, based on regularly in waters around and seaward edge and within the deeper waters of available survey data, only the of the continental shelf break (Mullin the continental slope, the cetacean bottlenose dolphin and Atlantic spotted and Fulling, 2003a; Mullin et al., 2004). community typically includes nineteen dolphin are likely to occur regularly in As a result, the potential effects of the species, including the Bryde’s whale, the vicinity of the project area (i.e., specified activity are analyzed only for sperm whale, pygmy and dwarf sperm coastal and shelf waters of the eastern these five species. As the species to be whales, three species of beaked whales, GOM) (Fulling et al., 2003). Because a most affected by the specified activity, and twelve species of oceanic dolphins. small portion of the sound produced by bottlenose and spotted dolphin Oceanographic and bathymetric features the activity is predicted to extend into occurrences relative to the project area (e.g., eddies, water temperature, the mid-shelf depth stratum, three other are discussed in more detail in the salinity) are important factors in species of cetacean—pygmy and dwarf following paragraphs. determining the distribution of marine sperm whales and the rough-toothed The cetacean fauna of the northern mammals, in large part because the dolphin—could be affected. Other and eastern GOM continental shelf, presence of prey is frequently species of dolphins and an occasional including the project area, typically influenced by such features (Katona and whale are sometimes observed in consists of the bottlenose dolphin and Whitehead, 1988; Biggs et al., 2000; nearshore GOM waters and might the Atlantic spotted dolphin (Davis and Wormuth et al., 2000; Davis et al., infrequently strand, but these are not Fargion, 1996; Jefferson and Schiro, 2002). The presence of specific considered normal occurrences for those 1997; Davis et al., 1998; Davis et al., hydrographic and/or bathymetric deepwater species that occur more 2000; Wu¨ rsig et al., 2000). At the shelf features and discontinuities (e.g., abrupt
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55659
temperature differentials, current edges, records, although high numbers of continental slope. Congregations of upwelling areas, sea mounts, banks, cetacean occurrence records were also sperm whales are common along the shoals, the continental shelf edge) may noted for summer; continental shelf edge in the vicinity of also affect marine mammal distribution • Fall and winter are the two seasons the Mississippi River delta in water (USDON, 2003). with the lowest number of occurrence depths of 500 to 2,000 m (1,640–6,562 The following discussions of the records and total number of cetaceans; ft). As a result of these consistent population status of GOM marine • Higher numbers in spring and sightings, it is believed that there is a mammals use categories adapted from summer are possibly due to the higher resident population of sperm whales in Wu¨ rsig et al. (2000): survey effort usually expended during the Gulf consisting of adult females, • Common: A species that is those months (when sighting conditions calves, and immature individuals abundant and widespread throughout are optimal); and (Brandon and Fargion, 1993; Mullin et • the region in which it occurs; There are fewer sighting records in al., 1994; Sparks et al., 1993; Jefferson • Uncommon: A species that does not fall than in the other seasons, likely and Schiro, 1997). Though most occur in large numbers and may or may attributable to suboptimal survey odontocetes (including delphinids) are not be widely distributed throughout conditions (i.e., reduction in considered common in the GOM, they the region in which it occurs; sightability). • prefer waters of the continental shelf Rare: A species present in such edge (approximately 200 m [656 ft]) or small numbers throughout the region Mysticetes The Bryde’s whale is the most deeper waters of the continental slope. that it is seldom seen; and Therefore, it is unlikely that these • Extralimital: A species known on frequently sighted mysticete in the Gulf, species would occur within the project the basis of few records that are though considered uncommon. area (i.e., Tampa Bay and nearshore probably the result of unusual Strandings and sightings data suggest movements of few individuals into the that this species may be present waters). Due to the rarity of the majority region. throughout the year, generally in the of odontocete species, as well as the Data historically acquired during northeastern Gulf near the 100-m (328- mysticetes discussed previously, in the aerial and shipboard surveys conducted ft) isobath between the Mississippi proposed project area and the remote within the eastern GOM were analyzed River delta and southern Florida (Davis chance they would be affected by Port by marine mammal researchers and et al., 2000; Wu¨ rsig et al., 2000). The Dolphin’s proposed port operations, summarized in USDON (2003). To remaining six mysticete whales (blue, these species are not considered further increase the utility of the species fin, humpback, minke, sei, and North in this analysis. sightings data, marine mammal Atlantic right whales) are considered The most commonly sighted occurrence and distribution data were rare or extralimital in the GOM cetaceans on the GOM continental shelf partitioned into both seasonal and water (Jefferson, 1996; Jefferson and Schiro, (in terms of numbers of individual depth categories. This partitioning is 1997). Mysticete whales, including the sightings) during systematic surveys supported by distribution patterns (e.g., Bryde’s whale, could occur within the conducted in the mid to late 1990s (i.e., sightings over the continental shelf, project area although such occurrence GulfCet II) were bottlenose dolphins and sightings beyond the continental shelf) would be extremely unlikely. Atlantic spotted dolphins. Brief observed during large-scale surveys discussions of these commonly sighted (e.g., Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Odontocetes marine mammal species are provided in Program [CETAP] surveys; CETAP, Bottlenose dolphins and spotted the following subsections. 1982; Hain et al., 1985; Winn et al., dolphins are known to occur regularly Bottlenose dolphins—The bottlenose 1987). Seasonal categories included in in the project area and are the species dolphin is a common inhabitant of both USDON (2003) and employed in this to be most affected by the project. In the continental shelf and slope in the analysis were: addition, there is some possibility that GOM, generally in waters less than 20 • Winter: December 21 through pygmy and dwarf sperm whales and m (66 ft) (Griffin and Griffin, 2003). The March 20; rough-toothed dolphins could occur in species is also distributed throughout • Spring: March 21 through June 20; deeper waters ensonified by some the bays, sounds, and estuaries of the • Summer: June 21 through offshore project activities. Most of the GOM (Mullin et al., 1990). Bottlenose September 20; and • odontocetes known to occur within the dolphins are opportunistic feeders, Fall: September 21 through Gulf (Table 7) are considered common. taking a wide variety of fish, December 20. Exceptions include the beaked whales, cephalopods, and shrimp (Wells and Water depth categories, or depth with most being rare or extralimital, and Scott, 1999) and using a wide variety of strata, included in USDON (2003) and the dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, feeding strategies (Shane, 1990). In the employed in this analysis were as which are considered uncommon. The GOM, bottlenose dolphins often feed in follows: • Nearshore: 0 to 120 ft (0 to 36.6 m); frequency of occurrence of beaked association with shrimp trawlers (Fertl • Mid-shelf: 120 to 300 ft (36.6 to 91.4 whales and dwarf and pygmy sperm and Leatherwood, 1997). In addition to m); whales are most likely underestimated the use of active echolocation to find • Shelf-edge: 300 to 6,600 ft (91.4 to because these cryptic species are food, bottlenose dolphins likely detect 2,000 m); and submerged much of the time and avoid and orient to fish prey by listening for • Slope: > 6,600 ft (> 2,000 m). aircraft and ships (Wu¨ rsig et al., 1998). the sounds prey produce—so-called The U.S. Department of the Navy Consequently, these species may be ‘passive listening’ (Barros and Myrberg, (USDON, 2003) reviewed available somewhat more common than is 1987; Gannon et al., 2005). Nearshore marine mammal survey data for the indicated by survey data but are still bottlenose dolphins prey predominately eastern GOM and summarized species likely to be relatively uncommon. The on coastal fish and cephalopods, while presence and distribution on a seasonal sperm whale is considered common in offshore individuals prey on pelagic basis. Relevant findings pertinent to the Gulf (Jefferson, 1996; Jefferson and cephalopods and a large variety of epi- marine mammals include the following: Schiro, 1997; Davis et al., 2000; Waring and mesopelagic fish species (Van • Spring is the season with the et al., 2006). Sightings data suggest a Waerebeek et al., 1990; Mead and highest number of cetacean occurrence Gulf-wide distribution on the Potter, 1995).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55660 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
NMFS recognizes several stocks of These ‘‘communities’’ include the importance of these distinctions to bottlenose dolphins in the GOM, resident dolphins that regularly share stock designations remains including a northern oceanic stock; a large portions of their ranges, exhibit undetermined. For Tampa Bay, Urian et continental shelf and slope stock; similar distinct genetic profiles, and al. (2009) recently described fine-scale western, northern, and eastern coastal interact with each other to a much population structuring into five discrete stocks; and a group of 32 bay, sound, greater extent than with dolphins in communities (including the adjacent and estuarine stocks (Blaylock et al., adjacent waters. While these Sarasota Bay community) that differed 1995; Waring et al., 2006). Bottlenose communities do not constitute closed in their social interactions and ranging dolphins likely occur within both demographic populations, the patterns. Structure was found despite a offshore and nearshore waters of the geographic nature of these areas and lack of physiographic barriers to project area. Bottlenose dolphins long-term, multi-generational stability of movement within this large, open present in the project area would likely residency patterns suggest that they may embayment. be represented by individuals from the exist as discrete, functioning units of In the vicinity of the action area, there eastern coastal stock and the relevant their ecosystems. Members of these are distinct geographic subdivisions bay, sound, and estuarine stocks. stocks emphasize use of the bay, sound, with year-round resident animals from Bottlenose dolphins along the U.S. or estuary waters, with limited Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte coastline are believed to be organized movements through passes to the GOM Harbor as well as a seasonal coastal into local populations, or stocks, each (Shane, 1977, 1990; Gruber, 1981; Irvine stock (discussed previously; 1 to 12 km occupying a small region of coast with et al., 1981; Maze and Wu¨ rsig, 1999; [0.6–7.5 mi] offshore) with mixing on a some migration to and from inshore and Lynn and Wu¨ rsig, 2002; Fazioli et al., limited basis (Wells et al., 1996; Wells offshore waters (Schmidly, 1981). The 2006). These habitat use patterns are and Scott, 2002; Sellas et al., 2005). The seaward boundary for coastal stocks, the reflected in the ecology of the dolphins Sarasota community’s range extends 20-m (66-ft) isobath, generally in some areas; for example, residents of from southern Tampa Bay southward corresponds to survey strata (Scott, Sarasota Bay, Florida, lack squid in their through Sarasota Bay, and into the GOM 1990; Blaylock and Hoggard, 1994; diet, unlike non-resident dolphins about 1 km offshore. Waring et al. Fulling et al., 2003) and represents a found stranded on nearby Gulf beaches (2010) identified the animals in Tampa management boundary rather than an (Barros and Wells, 1998). Bay as having a best estimate of ecological boundary. Both ‘‘coastal/ Genetic exchange occurs between abundance of 559 individuals (based on resident communities; hence the 1994 data) and those in Sarasota Bay as nearshore’’ and ‘‘offshore’’ ecotypes of application of the demographically and having a best abundance estimate of 160 bottlenose dolphins (Hersh and behaviorally-based term ‘‘community’’ individuals (based on 2007 data). The Duffield, 1990) occur in the GOM rather than ‘‘population’’ (Wells, 1986a; status of the stock relative to OSP is (LeDuc and Curry, 1998), and both Sellas et al., 2005). A variety of potential unknown. Because most of the stock could potentially occur in coastal exchange mechanisms occur in the Gulf. sizes are currently unknown, but likely waters. The best abundance estimate Small numbers of inshore dolphins small, and relatively few mortalities or available for the northern GOM eastern traveling between regions have been serious injuries would exceed PBR, coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins is reported, with patterns ranging from NMFS considers that each of these 7,702, with a minimum population traveling through adjacent communities stocks is a strategic stock under the estimate of 6,551. The status of the (Wells, 1986b; Wells et al., 1996a,b) to MMPA (Waring et al., 2010). eastern coastal stock relative to movements over distances of several Atlantic spotted dolphins—Atlantic optimum sustainable population (OSP) hundred kilometers in Texas waters spotted dolphins are widely distributed level is not known and population (Gruber, 1981; Lynn and Wu¨ rsig, 2002). in warm temperate and tropical waters trends cannot be determined due to In many areas, year-round residents co- of the Atlantic Ocean, including the insufficient data. The eastern coastal occur with non-resident dolphins, GOM (Waring et al., 2006). In the stock is not considered a strategic stock providing potential opportunities for northern Gulf, these animals occur under the MMPA because the stock’s genetic exchange. Non-residents exhibit mainly on the continental shelf average annual human-related mortality a variety of patterns, ranging from (Jefferson and Schiro, 1997). During and serious injury does not exceed apparent nomadism recorded as GulfCet II aerial and shipboard surveys potential biological removal (PBR) transience to apparent seasonal or non- in the northern GOM, Atlantic spotted (Waring et al., 2010). seasonal migrations. Passes, especially dolphins were seen at water depths Bottlenose dolphins are distributed the mouths of the larger estuaries, serve ranging from 22 to 222 m (72–728 ft) throughout the bays, sounds and as mixing areas. For example, several (Mullin and Hoggard, 2000). On the estuaries of the GOM (Mullin, 1988). communities mix at the mouth of shelf, they were second in abundance to The identification of biologically- Tampa Bay (Wells, 1986a). Seasonal bottlenose dolphins. Atlantic spotted meaningful ‘‘stocks’’ of bottlenose movements of dolphins into and out of dolphins can be expected to occur on dolphins in these waters is complicated some of the bays, sounds and estuaries the continental shelf during all seasons. by the high degree of behavioral provide additional opportunities for However, they may be more common variability exhibited by this species genetic exchange with residents, and during spring (Jefferson and Schiro, (Shane et al., 1986; Wells and Scott, complicate the identification of stocks 1997; Mullin and Hoggard, 2000). It is 1999; Wells, 2003), and by the lack of in coastal and inshore waters. expected that Atlantic spotted dolphins requisite information for much of the In larger bay systems (e.g., Tampa could occur within offshore waters of region. However, distinct stocks are Bay), seasonal changes in abundance the project area. provisionally identified in each of 32 suggest possible migrations, and fall/ Atlantic spotted dolphins in the areas of contiguous, enclosed or semi- winter increases in abundance have northern GOM are abundant in enclosed bodies of water adjacent to the been noted for Tampa Bay (Scott et al., continental shelf waters from between northern GOM. Bay, sound, and 1989). A number of geographically and 10 and 200 m (33 to 656 ft) to slope estuarine dolphins found in the project socially distinct subgroupings of waters < 500 m (1,640 ft) (Fulling et al. area would likely be from Tampa Bay or dolphins in some regions, including 2003; Mullin and Fulling, 2003a). Sarasota Bay. Tampa Bay, have been identified, but Griffin and Griffin (2003) reported that
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55661
on the west Florida Shelf they are more waters until entering Tampa Bay and Potential Effects of the Specified common in waters from 20 to 180 m (66 subsequently making landfall. However, Activity on Marine Mammals to 591 ft), while Mullin et al. (2004) while the actual construction activities Potential effects of Port Dolphin’s found that Atlantic spotted dolphins will be entirely contained within the proposed port construction and were sighted in waters with a bottom nearshore stratum, the sound field subsequent operations are likely to be depth typically < 300 m (984 ft). Griffin produced by certain construction acoustic in nature. In-water construction and Griffin (2004) reported higher activity, and thus the area of effect, activities (e.g., pile driving, pipeline abundances of spotted dolphins on the extends into the mid-shelf depth installation) and LNG port operations west Florida Shelf between the months stratum (37 to 91 m). Most sound would introduce sound into the marine of November and May than during the be contained within the nearshore environment and have the potential to rest of the year. stratum. The one exception is for the have adverse impacts on marine Atlantic spotted dolphins in the GOM offshore pipelaying activity, which mammals. The potential effects of sound have been seen feeding cooperatively on would occur only from late summer clupeid fishes (e.g., herring, sardine) from the proposed activities associated 2013 through early winter 2013–14. The with the Port might include one or more and are known to feed in association Level B sound field for this activity with shrimp trawlers (Fertl and Wu¨ rsig, of the following: Tolerance, masking of would be 99.9 percent contained within natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, 1995; Fertl and Leatherwood, 1997, the nearshore stratum, with 0.1 percent respectively). In the Bahamas, this non-auditory physical effects, and potentially entering the mid-shelf temporary or permanent hearing species has been observed to chase and stratum. catch flying fish (MacLeod et al., 2004). impairment (Richardson et al., 1995). The only information on dive depth for Background on Marine Mammal However, for reasons discussed later in this species is based on a satellite-tagged Hearing this document, Port Dolphin’s activities individual from the GOM (Davis et al., would not likely cause any cases of non- 1996). This individual made short, Different kinds of marine life are auditory physical effects or temporary shallow dives (more than 76 percent of sensitive to different frequencies of or permanent hearing impairment. As the time to depths < 10 m) over the sound. Based on available behavioral outlined in previous NMFS documents, continental shelf, although some dives data, audiograms derived using auditory the effects of sound on marine mammals were as deep as 40 to 60 m (Davis et al., evoked potential techniques, anatomical are highly variable and can be 1996). modeling, and other data, Southall et al. categorized as follows (based on The GOM population is considered a (2007) designated functional hearing Richardson et al., 1995): • separate stock for management groups for marine mammals and The sound may be too weak to be purposes. The most recent abundance estimated the lower and upper heard at the location of the animal (i.e., estimate for Atlantic spotted dolphin in frequencies of functional hearing of the lower than the prevailing ambient the GOM, based on pooled survey data groups. The functional groups and the sound level, the hearing threshold of the from 2000 and 2001, was 37,611 associated frequencies are indicated animal at relevant frequencies, or both); • (Waring et al., 2009). These animals below (though animals are less sensitive The sound may be audible but not were found entirely in OCS waters; the to sounds at the outer edge of their strong enough to elicit any overt abundance estimate for oceanic waters, behavioral response; functional range and most sensitive to • from surveys conducted in 2003–04, sounds of frequencies within a smaller The sound may elicit reactions of was zero. There is insufficient range somewhere in the middle of their varying degrees and variable relevance information for this stock to determine functional hearing range): to the well-being of the marine mammal. PBR or its status relative to OSP. Despite Reactions can range from temporary • Low-frequency cetaceans an undetermined PBR and unknown alert responses to active avoidance (mysticetes): Functional hearing is population size, the GOM stock is not reactions such as vacating an area until estimated to occur between considered a strategic stock under the the stimulus ceases, but potentially for approximately 7 Hz and 22 kHz; MMPA because previous estimates of longer periods of time; population size have been large • Mid-frequency cetaceans (dolphins, • Upon repeated exposure, a marine compared to the number of cases of larger toothed whales, beaked and mammal may exhibit diminishing documented human-related mortality bottlenose whales): Functional hearing responsiveness (habituation), or and serious injury. is estimated to occur between disturbance effects may persist; the In addition to bottlenose and spotted approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; latter is most likely with sounds that are dolphins, three other species that • High-frequency cetaceans (true highly variable in characteristics and frequent the mid-shelf stratum could be porpoises, river dolphins, Kogia sp.): unpredictable in occurrence, and exposed to sound from certain project Functional hearing is estimated to occur associated with situations that a marine activities and the potential for mammal perceives as a threat; between approximately 200 Hz and 180 • incidental harassment of these species kHz; and Any anthropogenic sound that is has been evaluated (see ESTIMATED • strong enough to be heard has the INCIDENTAL HARASSMENT). Dwarf Pinnipeds in water: Functional potential to result in masking, or reduce and pygmy sperm whales and rough- hearing is estimated to occur between the ability of a marine mammal to hear toothed dolphins may be expected to approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with biological sounds at similar frequencies, occur in the mid-shelf stratum on a the greatest sensitivity between including calls from conspecifics and seasonal basis. The area of actual approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz. underwater environmental sounds such construction and operations for Port As mentioned previously in this as surf sound; Dolphin is entirely contained within the document, two species of cetacean, • If mammals remain in an area for nearshore depth stratum (0 to 37 m; bottlenose and Atlantic spotted feeding, breeding, or some other depth strata were listed earlier). dolphins, are likely to occur in the biologically important purpose even Maximum depth at the DWP is project area. These two species are both though there is chronic exposure to approximately 31 m, while the pipeline classified as mid-frequency cetaceans sound, the possibility exists for sound- route transits increasingly shallower (Southall et al., 2007). induced physiological stress; this might
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55662 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
in turn have negative effects on the when that signal is above its absolute unless the overall received level is at well-being or reproduction of the hearing threshold. Even in the absence least 140 dB, although the limited animals involved; and of anthropogenic sound, the marine available data indicate that the sperm • Very strong sounds have the environment is often loud. Natural whale is sometimes, though not always, potential to cause a temporary or ambient sound includes contributions more responsive to underwater sounds permanent reduction in hearing from wind, waves, precipitation, other than other toothed whales. Baleen sensitivity, also referred to as threshold animals, and thermal sound, at whales, with better hearing sensitivities shift. In terrestrial mammals, and frequencies above 30 kHz, resulting at lower sound frequencies, have been presumably marine mammals, received from molecular agitation (Richardson et shown in several studies to react to sound levels must far exceed the al., 1995). continuous sounds at received sound animal’s hearing threshold for there to In general, masking effects are levels of approximately 120 dB. Toothed be any temporary threshold shift (TTS). expected to be less severe when sounds whales appear to exhibit a greater For transient sounds, the sound level are transient than when they are variety of reactions to anthropogenic necessary to cause TTS is inversely continuous. The majority of sound underwater sound than do baleen related to the duration of the sound. produced during the construction of whales. Toothed whale reactions can Received sound levels must be even Port Dolphin would be transient. vary from attraction (e.g., bow riding) to higher for there to be risk of permanent Masking is typically of greater concern strong avoidance, while baleen whale hearing impairment (PTS). In addition, for those marine mammals that utilize reactions range from neutral (little or no intense acoustic or explosive events low-frequency communications, such as change in behavior) to strong avoidance. may cause trauma to tissues associated baleen whales and, as such, is not likely Potential disturbance reactions of with organs vital for hearing, sound to occur for the mid-frequency cetaceans odontocetes are discussed in somewhat production, respiration, and other in the project area. more detail. functions. This trauma may include In their comprehensive literature Disturbance minor to severe hemorrhage. review, Southall et al. (2007) reported Behavioral disturbance is one of the that combined field and laboratory data Tolerance primary potential impacts of for mid-frequency cetaceans exposed to Numerous studies have shown that anthropogenic sound on marine non-pulse sounds did not lead to clear underwater sounds from industrial mammals. Disturbance can result in a conclusions about behavioral responses activities are often readily detectable by variety of effects, such as subtle or that may be expected from given marine mammals in the water at dramatic changes in behavior or received levels of sound. In some distances of many kilometers. However, displacement but may be highly settings, individuals in the field showed other studies have shown that marine dependent upon the context in which significant behavioral responses to mammals at distances more than a few the potentially disturbing stimulus exposures from 90 to 120 dB, while kilometers away often show no apparent occurs. For example, an animal that is others failed to exhibit such responses response to industrial activities of feeding may be less prone to for exposure to received levels from 120 various types (Miller et al. 2005). This disturbance from a given stimulus than to 150 dB. Species differences, as well is often true even in cases when the one that is not. For many species and as uncontrolled contextual variables sounds must be readily audible to the situations, there is no detailed other than exposure, are the likely animals based on measured received information about reactions to sound. reasons for this variability. Captive levels and the hearing sensitivity of that While there are no specific studies of subjects were often directly reinforced mammal group. Although various the reactions of marine mammals to with food for tolerating exposure to high baleen whales, toothed whales, and (less sounds produced by the construction or levels of sound, which likely explains frequently) pinnipeds have been shown operation of a LNG facility, information the disparity seen in results from field to react behaviorally to underwater from studies of marine mammal and laboratory settings—where sound from sources such as airgun reactions to other types of continuous exposures typically exceeded 170 dB pulses or vessels under some and transient anthropogenic sound (e.g., before inducing behavioral responses. conditions, at other times, mammals of drillships) are described here as a proxy. Dolphins and other toothed whales all three types have shown no overt Behavioral reactions of marine may show considerable tolerance of reactions (e.g., Malme et al., 1986; mammals to sound are difficult to floating and bottom-founded drill rigs Richardson et al., 1995; Madsen and predict because they are dependent on and their support vessels, though Mohl, 2000; Croll et al., 2001; Jacobs numerous factors, including species, reactions are variable. Kapel (1979) and Terhune, 2002; Madsen et al., 2002; maturity, experience, activity, reported that pilot whales congregated Miller et al., 2005). In general, small reproductive state, time of day, and within visual range of drillships and odontocetes seem to be more tolerant of weather. If a marine mammal does react their support vessels off of Greenland. exposure to some types of underwater to an underwater sound by changing its Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) sound than are baleen whales. behavior or moving a small distance, the have been observed swimming within impacts of that change may not be 100–150 m (328–492 ft) of an artificial Masking important to the individual, the stock, island while drilling was underway and Masking is the obscuring of sounds of or the species as a whole. However, if within 1 mi (1.6 km) of a drillship interest to an animal by other sounds, a sound source displaces marine engaged in active drilling (Fraker and typically at similar frequencies. Marine mammals from an important feeding or Fraker, 1979, 1981). However, other mammals are highly dependent on breeding area for a prolonged period, belugas, when exposed to playbacks of sound, and their ability to recognize impacts on the animals could be drilling sounds, showed avoidance sound signals amid other sound is important. reactions, including altering course, important in communication and Based on the literature reviewed in increased swimming speed, and detection of both predators and prey. Richardson et al. (1995), most small and reversed direction of travel (Stewart et Background ambient sound may medium-sized toothed whales exposed al., 1982; Richardson et al., 1995). interfere with or mask the ability of an to prolonged or repeated underwater Reactions of beluga whales to semi- animal to detect a sound signal even sounds are unlikely to be displaced submersible drillship sound were less
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55663
pronounced than were their reactions to mammals exposed to strong underwater by Kastak et al. (2007) on a single motorboats with outboard engines sound. Possible types of non-auditory California sea lion exposed to airborne (Thomas et al., 1990). There may be a physiological effects or injuries that may octave-band sound (centered at 2.5 significant contextual element to these occur in mammals close to a strong kHz), concluded that for all sound reactions. sound source include stress, exposure situations, the equal energy Morton and Symonds (2002) used neurological effects, bubble formation, relationship may not be the best census data on killer whales in British and other types of organ or tissue indicator to predict TTS onset levels. Columbia to evaluate avoidance of non- damage. Some marine mammal species Generally, with sound exposures of pulse acoustic harassment devices (e.g., beaked whales) may be especially equal energy, quieter sound exposures (AHDs). Avoidance ranges around the susceptible to injury and/or stranding (lower SPL) with longer duration were AHDs were about 2.5 mi (4 km). Also, when exposed to strong pulsed sounds, found to induce TTS onset more than there was a dramatic reduction in the particularly at higher frequencies. Non- those of louder (higher SPL) and shorter number of days resident killer whales auditory physiological effects are not duration. Given the available data, the were sighted during AHD-active periods anticipated to occur as a result of the received level of a single seismic pulse compared to pre- and post-exposure proposed activities, which largely do (with no frequency weighting) might periods and a nearby control site. not include strong pulsed sounds. The need to be approximately 186 dB SEL in Some species of small toothed whales following subsections discuss in more order to produce brief, mild TTS. avoid vessels when they are approached detail the possibilities of TTS and PTS. Data on TTS from continuous sound to within 0.5–1.5 km (0.31–0.93 mi), TTS—TTS, reversible hearing loss (such as that produced by Port with occasional reports of avoidance at caused by fatigue of hair cells and Dolphin’s proposed activities) are greater distances (Richardson et al., supporting structures in the inner ear, is limited, so the available data from 1995). Some toothed whale species, the mildest form of hearing impairment seismic activities are used as a proxy. especially beaked whales and belugas, that can occur during exposure to a Exposure to several strong seismic appear to be more responsive than strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While pulses that each have received levels others. However, dolphins may tolerate experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold near 175–180 dB SEL might result in vessels of all sizes, often approaching rises, and a sound must be stronger in slight TTS in a small odontocete, and riding the bow and stern waves order to be heard. TTS can last from assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first (Shane et al., 1986). At other times, minutes or hours to (in cases of strong approximation) a function of the total dolphin species that are known to be TTS) days. For sound exposures at or received pulse energy. Given that the attracted to vessels will avoid them. somewhat above the TTS threshold, SPL is approximately 10–15 dB higher Such avoidance is often linked to hearing sensitivity in both terrestrial than the SEL value for the same pulse, previous vessel-based harassment of the and marine mammals recovers rapidly an odontocete would need to be animals (Richardson et al., 1995). after exposure to the sound ends. exposed to a SPL of 190 dB in order to Coastal bottlenose dolphins that are the NMFS considers TTS to be a form of incur TTS. object of dolphin-watching activities Level B harassment rather than injury, TTS was measured in a single, captive have been observed to swim erratically as it consists of fatigue to auditory bottlenose dolphin after exposure to a (Acevedo, 1991), remain submerged for structures rather than damage to them. continuous tone with maximum SPLs at longer periods of time (Janik and The NMFS-established 180-dB injury frequencies ranging from 4 to 11 kHz Thompson, 1996; Nowacek et al., 2001), criterion is considered to be the that were gradually increased in display less cohesiveness among group received level above which, in the view intensity to 179 dB and in duration to members (Cope et al., 1999), whistle of a panel of bioacoustics specialists 55 minutes (Nachtigall et al., 2003). No more frequently (Scarpaci et al., 2000), convened by NMFS before TTS threshold shifts were measured at SPLs and rest less often (Constantine et al., measurements for marine mammals of 165 or 171 dB. However, at 179 dB, 2004) when vessels were nearby. became available, one could not be TTSs greater than 10 dB were measured Pantropical spotted dolphins and certain that there would be no injurious during different trials with exposures spinner dolphins in the Eastern Tropical effects, auditory or otherwise, to ranging from 47 to 54 minutes. Hearing Pacific, where they have been targeted cetaceans. Few data on sound levels and sensitivity apparently recovered within by commercial fishing vessels because durations necessary to elicit mild TTS 45 minutes after sound exposure. of their association with tuna, display have been obtained for marine Although underwater sound levels avoidance of survey vessels of up to mammals, and none of the published produced by the Port Dolphin project 11.1 km (6.9 mi; Au and Perryman, data concern TTS elicited by exposure may exceed levels produced in studies 1982; Hewitt, 1985), whereas spinner to multiple pulses of sound. that have induced TTS in odontocetes, dolphins in the GOM were observed Human non-impulsive sound there is a general lack of controlled, bow riding the survey vessel in all exposure guidelines are based on quantifiable field studies related to this fourteen sightings during one survey exposures of equal energy (the same phenomenon, and existing studies have (Wu¨ rsig et al., 1998). As evidenced by sound exposure level [SEL]; SEL is had varied results (Southall et al., 2007). these observations, the level of response reported here in dB re: 1 mPa2-s for in- Therefore, it is difficult to extrapolate of odontocetes to vessels is thought to water sound) producing equal amounts from these data to site-specific be partly a learned behavior, e.g., a of hearing impairment regardless of how conditions for the Port Dolphin project. function of habituation or a response to the sound energy is distributed in time For example, because most of the some previous negative interaction. (NIOSH, 1998). Until recently, previous studies have been conducted in marine mammal TTS studies have also laboratories, rather than in field settings, Hearing Impairment and Other generally supported this equal energy the data are not conclusive as to Physiological Effects relationship (Southall et al., 2007). whether elevated levels of sound will Temporary or permanent hearing Three newer studies, two by Mooney et cause odontocetes to avoid the project impairment is a possibility when marine al. (2009a,b) on a single bottlenose area, thereby reducing the likelihood of mammals are exposed to very strong dolphin either exposed to playbacks of TTS, or whether sound will attract sounds. Non-auditory physiological U.S. Navy mid-frequency active sonar or them, increasing the likelihood of TTS. effects might also occur in marine octave-band sound (4–8 kHz) and one In any case, there are no universally
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55664 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
accepted standards for the amount of result in the onset of PTS in mid- communities for food and/or shelter; exposure time likely to induce TTS. frequency cetaceans when levels reach these fish may in turn be preyed upon While it may be inferred that TTS could 230 dB peak or 198 dB SEL; non-pulsed by marine mammals. Immediately upon theoretically result from the proposed (continuous) sound would require levels cessation of disturbance, the substrate activities, it is impossible to exactly of 230 dB peak or 215 dB SEL (Southall would be available for recruitment of quantify the magnitude of exposure, the et al., 2007). Sound levels this high are benthic organisms and reestablishment duration of the effect, or the number of not expected to occur as a result of the of the community. individuals likely to be affected. proposed activities. The areas affected by seafloor Exposure is likely to be brief because The potential effects to marine disturbance are essentially negligible in the majority of proposed activities mammals described in this section of comparison with the habitat available to would be transient. It is expected that the document do not take into marine mammals in the surrounding elevated sound would have only a consideration the proposed monitoring area. The pipeline route was selected to negligible probability of causing TTS in and mitigation measures described later avoid marine protected areas and areas individual odontocetes because (1) of in this document (see the PROPOSED of submerged aquatic vegetation to the the relatively low SPLs produced by MITIGATION and PROPOSED extent possible. During and shortly after most project activities; (2) the transient MONITORING AND REPORTING installation of the buoy array nature of most sounds produced by the sections). Because of the characteristics components and the pipeline, marine activities; (3) the short duration of of sound produced by most construction mammal prey species are expected to certain activities that are expected to activities (i.e., they are typically low avoid feeding in the immediate vicinity produce higher SPLs (i.e., offshore pile intensity, non-pulsed, and transient), it of the project area, thus reducing the driving); and (4) the location of the is highly unlikely that marine mammals utility of habitat in the area. Displaced project in, primarily, offshore open would receive sounds strong enough organisms would likely return to the waters where marine mammals may (and over a sufficient duration) to cause area shortly after construction activities easily avoid areas of ensonification. PTS (or even TTS). When taking the cease. PTS—When PTS occurs, there is mitigation measures proposed for physical damage to the sound receptors inclusion in the regulations into Turbidity in the ear. In some cases, there can be consideration (e.g., shutdown zones to Turbidity refers to any insoluble total or partial deafness, whereas in prevent Level A harassment), it is highly particulate matter suspended in the other cases the animal has an impaired unlikely that any type of hearing water column that impedes light ability to hear sounds in specific impairment would occur as a result of passage by scattering and absorbing frequency ranges. the proposed activities. light energy. Decreased light penetration There is no specific evidence that exposure to underwater industrial Anticipated Effects on Habitat reduces the depth of the photic zone, in sounds can cause PTS in any marine The proposed activities could have turn reducing the depth at which mammal (see Southall et al., 2007). some impacts on marine mammal primary productivity could occur. However, given the possibility that habitat, primarily by producing Impacts to marine mammals would be marine mammals might incur TTS, temporary disturbances through indirect, resulting from impacts to prey there has been further speculation about elevated levels of underwater sound, species. Water turbidity appears to have the possibility that some individuals and to a lesser extent, temporarily little or no direct impact on bottlenose occurring very close to industrial reduced water quality and temporary dolphins, which are regularly seen in activities might incur PTS. Richardson and permanent physical habitat turbid waters. Turbidity may adversely et al. (1995) hypothesized that PTS alteration. These impacts would not be affect prey species by direct mortality or caused by prolonged exposure to expected to have tangible direct effects reduction of growth rates, modifying continuous anthropogenic sound is to marine mammals, but could result in migration patterns, reducing available unlikely to occur in marine mammals, at minor effects to fish or other elements food abundance or habitat (in part by least for sounds with source levels up to of the marine mammal prey base. reducing primary production), or burial approximately 200 dB. Single or Elevated levels of sound may be of benthic shellfish. occasional occurrences of mild TTS are considered to affect the habitat of However, these potential impacts not indicative of permanent auditory marine mammals through impacts to would be spatially limited and short- damage in terrestrial mammals. acoustic space (described in previous term in nature, as the suspended Relationships between TTS and PTS sections) or via impacts to prey species. sediment would redeposit soon after the thresholds have not been studied in The direct loss of habitat available buoy system array and pipeline marine mammals but are assumed to be during construction due to sound components were installed. similar to those in humans and other impacts is expected to be minimal. Seawater Intake and Discharge terrestrial mammals. PTS might occur at a received sound level at least several Seafloor Disturbance During the construction phase, decibels above that inducing mild TTS. Installation of port components and seawater would be used for hydrostatic Southall et al. (2007) propose that pipelines would cause short- and long- testing of the offshore pipeline and sound levels inducing 40 dB of TTS term disruption of benthic habitat in the flowlines. Hydrostatic testing is a one- may result in onset of PTS in marine immediate vicinity of the construction time temporary event that would require mammals. The authors present this areas; permanent alteration of benthic filling the pipeline twice; a total of threshold with precaution, as there are habitat would result from buoy anchor approximately 24 million gallons would no specific studies to support it. sweep during port operations. be used. Hydrostatic integrity testing Because direct studies on marine Destruction of bottom habitat, along could nevertheless indirectly impact mammals are lacking, the authors base with resident benthic organisms within marine mammals, because plankton and these recommendations on studies the area, is an unavoidable component fish larvae and eggs could be entrained performed on other mammals. of pipeline installation. This affects not and subsequently killed by the seawater Additionally, the authors assume that only the benthic communities, but also intake system. This could have either multiple pulses of underwater sound the fish assemblages that rely on those primary or secondary indirect impacts
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55665
on marine mammals through impacts to short- and long-term turbidity increases responsibilities, communication prey species. caused by construction and operations. procedures, marine mammal monitoring During regasification, seawater would • Seawater intake and discharge: This protocol, and operational procedures. be taken into an SRV through one of two activity, primarily occurring during • Port Dolphin would comply with sea chests covered with a lattice screen. regasification, would result in the all applicable equipment sound Similar to uptake described for entrainment and destruction of plankton standards and ensure that all hydrostatic testing, marine mammals and larvae and discharge of heated construction equipment has sound may be indirectly impacted through the seawater. The resulting adverse impact control devices no less effective than entrainment of plankton and fish eggs to the prey base would be negligible. those provided on the original and larvae. Cooling water would be • Sound disturbance: Elevated levels equipment. In addition, vessel crew and discharged at 10 °C (18 °F) above of sound during construction would contractors would be required to ambient seawater temperature, and cause temporary modification of habitat minimize sound to the extent possible. would affect a relatively small area. The and could harm prey species, Equipment and/or procedures used may discharge would produce detectable potentially reducing utility of habitat for include the use of enclosures and temperature increases over a maximum marine mammal foraging. Elevated mufflers on equipment, minimizing the radius of 106 m (348 ft). The cooling levels of sound during operation of the use of thrusters, and turning off engines water discharge is not expected to reach DWP would result in essentially and equipment when not in use. the seafloor, and would thus not impact permanent habitat modification to a Additional mitigation measures, benthic communities. The cooling water limited area in the immediate vicinity of which are discussed in greater detail plume would affect a relatively small each STL buoy. below, include the following: area. Considering the short-term nature In conclusion, NMFS has • Visual monitoring program (marine of impacts and the overall amount of preliminarily determined that Port mammal watch); plankton and fish eggs and larvae in the Dolphin’s proposed activities are not • Vessel strike avoidance measures; area, these impacts may be considered expected to have any habitat-related • Line and cable entanglement negligible. effects that could cause significant or avoidance measures; and long-term consequences for individual • Marine debris and waste Sound Disturbance marine mammals or on the food sources management protocols. Elevated levels of sound produced by that they utilize. Monitoring and Shutdown port construction and operation could potentially directly impact marine Proposed Mitigation The modeling results for acoustic mammals by reducing the attractiveness In order to issue an incidental take zones of influence (ZOIs; described in of a given area for foraging, i.e., marine authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) following sections) were used to mammals may be less likely to forage in of the MMPA, NMFS must, where develop mitigation measures for the a given area in the presence of elevated applicable, set forth the permissible proposed activities. Those zones would levels of sound. In addition, sound may methods of taking pursuant to such initially be set at the distances derived indirectly impact marine mammals activity, and other means of effecting through modeling (or be larger than through effects to fish or other prey the least practicable adverse impact on those distances), but may be adjusted as species. However, sound produced by such species or stock and their habitat, necessary on the basis of acoustic project activities is unlikely to be of paying particular attention to rookeries, monitoring conducted by Port Dolphin sufficient intensity or duration to result mating grounds, and areas of similar in order to verify source levels and local in significant pathological, significance, and on the availability of acoustic propagation characteristics (see physiological, or behavioral effects to such species or stock for taking for Proposed Monitoring and Reporting, fish. certain subsistence uses (where later in this document). The ZOIs All of the potential adverse impacts to relevant). NMFS and Port Dolphin effectively represent the mitigation zone marine mammal habitat would likely be worked to devise a number of mitigation that would be established around each indirect, and would result from impacts measures designed to minimize impacts activity to prevent Level A harassment on the food web (i.e., adverse impacts to marine mammals to the level of least and to monitor authorized Level B directly to marine mammal prey species practicable adverse impact, described in harassment of marine mammals. or to species lower in the food chain) the following and in Port Dolphin’s For each of the described proposed from the proposed activities. The impact Marine Protected Species Management activities, a shutdown zone (to include to marine mammals of temporary and Plan; please see Appendix B of Port areas where SPLs equal or exceed 180 permanent habitat changes from the Dolphin’s application to review that dB rms) and a disturbance zone (defined proposed activities is expected to be plan in detail. as where SPLs equal or exceed 120 dB minimal. Any potential impacts would In addition to the measures described or 160 dB rms for non-pulsed or pulsed likely be negligible relative to the later, Port Dolphin would employ the sound sources, respectively) would be amount of habitat available on the west following standard mitigation measures: established. Shutdown zones include all Florida Shelf or in adjacent nearshore • All work would be performed areas where the underwater SPLs are waters. These effects are summarized according to the requirements and anticipated to equal or exceed the Level here: conditions of the regulatory permits A (injury) harassment criteria for marine • Seafloor disturbance and turbidity: issued by federal, state, and local mammals and are used in concert with Marine mammals could be indirectly governments. mitigation monitoring in order to impacted if benthic prey species were • Briefings would be conducted prevent the occurrence of Level A displaced or destroyed. Affected species between the Port Dolphin project harassment. Disturbance zones typically would be expected to recover after construction supervisors and the crew, include all areas where the underwater construction ceased, and would protected species observer(s) (PSO), and SPLs are anticipated to equal or exceed represent only a small portion of food acoustical monitoring team (when the Level B (behavioral) harassment available to marine mammals in the present) prior to the start of all discrete criteria. These are intended as zones in area. Indirect adverse impacts of limited construction activities, and when new which occurrence of marine mammals spatial extent could occur as a result of personnel join the work, to explain would be noted and recorded as
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55666 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
incidental take while also alerting PSOs disturbance zones (as described determining the observation location to potential close approach to the previously) for all concurrent specified and distance to marine mammals and shutdown zone. In actual practice, the construction activities during daylight sound sources. disturbance zones are often so large as hours (civil dawn to civil dusk). PSOs • Each PSO would have a dedicated to make comprehensive monitoring and would have no other duties for the two-way radio for contact with the other fine-scale behavioral observation duration of the watch. Shutdown and PSO or field operations manager. impracticable. The initial shutdown and disturbance zones would be monitored Whenever a marine mammal species disturbance zones would be established from an appropriate vantage point that is observed, the PSO will note and based on the worst-case underwater affords the PSOs an optimal view of the monitor the position (including relative sound modeled as described, although sea surface while not interfering with bearing and estimated distance to the shutdown zones may be larger than the operation of the vessel or in-water animal) until the animal dives or moves actual modeled distances. Please see the activities. Full observation of the out of visual range of the PSO. The PSO discussion of ‘‘Distance to Sound shutdown zone would occur for the will continue to observe for additional Thresholds’’ under ‘‘Description of duration of the activity. animals that may surface in the area. Sound Sources,’’ previously in this Monitoring would occur before, Often, there are numerous animals that document. during, and after specified construction may surface at varying time intervals. Conservative shutdown zones would activity, beginning 30 minutes prior to Records will be maintained of all be employed in most instances. Impact initiation and concluding 30 minutes marine mammal species sightings in the pile driving (described later) and non- after the activity ends. If marine area, including date and time, weather stationary activities would employ mammals are present within the conditions, species identification, zones larger than what is predicted for shutdown zone prior to initiation, the approximate distance from the activity, the Level A harassment threshold. start would be delayed until the animals direction and heading in relation to the Radial distances to shutdown zones for leave the shutdown zone of their own activity, and behavioral correlation to HDD activities were predicted to be less volition, or until 30 minutes elapse the activity. For animals observed in the than 10 m. For all activities, and without resighting the animal(s). PSOs shutdown zone, additional information regardless of modeled shutdown zone will be on watch at all times during regarding actions taken, such as (applicable to HDD activities), all daylight hours when in-water duration of the shutdown, behavior of equipment would be shut down if any operations are being conducted, unless the animal, and time spent in the marine mammal enters a precautionary conditions (e.g., fog, rain, darkness) shutdown zone will be recorded. During 100 yd (91 m) zone in order to avoid make observations impossible. If pile driving activities, data regarding the potential risk of vessel strike or direct conditions deteriorate during daylight type of pile driven (e.g., material interaction with equipment. However, hours such that the sea surface construction and pile dimensions), type these shutdown requirements would not observations are halted, visual and power of the hammer used, number be required for cases in which observations must resume as soon as of cold starts, strikes per minute, and delphinids voluntarily make such close conditions permit. While activities will duration of the pile driving activities approaches to vessels (e.g., for bow be permitted during low-visibility will be recorded. riding). In addition, for scenarios in conditions, they (1) must have been Monitoring would be conducted by which the modeled sound source is a initiated following proper clearance of qualified PSOs. In order to be spread of vessels employed for a given the ZOI under acceptable observation considered qualified, PSOs must meet construction task, the shutdown/ conditions; and (2) must be restarted, if the following criteria: disturbance zone would be measured halted for any reason, using the • Visual acuity in both eyes from the central vessel in the spread, or appropriate ZOI clearance procedures. (correction is permissible) sufficient for the vessel that is the primary sound If a marine mammal is observed discernment of moving targets at the producer if it is not the central vessel. approaching or entering the shutdown water’s surface with ability to estimate In most cases, the disturbance zone is of zone, the PSO will call for the target size and distance; use of sufficient size to make comprehensive immediate shutdown of in-water binoculars may be necessary to correctly monitoring impracticable, although operations. The equipment operator identify the target. PSOs would be aware of the size and must comply with the shutdown order • Advanced education in biological location of the modeled zone and would unless human safety is at risk. Any science, wildlife management, record any observations made within disagreement must be resolved after the mammalogy, or related fields (bachelor’s the zone as takes. Radial distances to shutdown takes place. Construction degree or higher is required). Level B thresholds range up to 12.6 km; operations would be discontinued until • Experience and ability to conduct please refer to Table 6 for those the animal has moved outside of the field observations and collect data distances. shutdown zone. The animal would be according to assigned protocols (this determined to have moved outside the may include academic experience). Monitoring Protocols shutdown zone through visual • Experience or training in the field The established zones would be confirmation by a qualified PSO or after identification of marine mammals, monitored by qualified PSOs for 15 minutes have elapsed since the last including the identification of mitigation purposes, as described here. sighting of the animal within the behaviors. Port Dolphin’s marine mammal shutdown zone. The following • Sufficient training, orientation, or monitoring plan (see Appendix B of Port additional measures would apply to experience with the construction Dolphin’s application) would be visual monitoring: operation to provide for personal safety implemented, requiring collection of • Monitoring would be conducted during observations. sighting data for each marine mammal using binoculars and the unaided eye. • Writing skills sufficient to prepare a observed during the proposed The limits of the designated ZOI will be report of observations, including, but construction activities described in this determined using binocular reticle or not limited to, the number and species document. other equipment (e.g., electronic of marine mammals observed; dates and At least two PSOs would conduct rangefinder, range stick). A GPS unit or times when in-water construction monitoring of shutdown and range finder would be used for activities were conducted; dates and
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55667
times when in-water construction driving activities or if pile driving has 100 yd of an active construction or activities were suspended to avoid ceased for more than 1 hour. support vessel underway, the vessel potential incidental injury from • If a vibratory driver is used, would cease power to the propellers as construction sound of marine mammals contractors would be required to initiate long as sea conditions permit for safety. observed within a defined shutdown sound from vibratory hammers for 15 After the marine mammal leaves the zone; and marine mammal behavior. seconds at reduced energy followed by area the vessel would proceed with • Ability to communicate orally, by a 1-minute waiting period. The caution, following the guidelines below: radio or in person, with project procedure would be repeated two D Resume vessel at slow speeds while personnel to provide real-time additional times before full energy may avoiding abrupt changes in direction, information on marine mammals be achieved. D Stay on parallel course with the • observed in the area as necessary. If a non-diesel impact hammer is marine mammal, following behind or used, contractors would be required to next to at an equal or lesser speed, Pile Driving provide an initial set of strikes from the D Do not cross the path of the animal, D Mitigation measures specific to pile impact hammer at reduced energy, Do not attempt to steer or direct the marine mammal away, driving would include use of (1) a followed by a 1-minute waiting period, D If a marine mammal exhibits sound attenuation device and (2) ramp- then two subsequent sets. • If a diesel impact hammer is used, evasive or defensive behavior, stop the up procedures. In addition, the power of vessel until the marine mammal has left impact hammers will be reduced to contractors would be required to turn on the sound attenuation device (e.g., the immediate area, and minimum energy levels required to D Do not allow the vessel to come drive a pile, thus reducing the amount bubble curtain or other approved sound attenuation device) for 15 seconds prior between a mother and her calf. of sound produced in the marine • Cetaceans can surface in environment. As for other construction to initiating pile driving to flush marine mammals from the area. unpredictable locations or approach activities, vibratory pile driving may slowly moving vessels. When an animal continue into nighttime hours/low- Vessel Strike Avoidance is sighted in the vessel’s path or in close visibility conditions only if ramp-up Several construction and support proximity to a moving vessel, the Master protocols have been conducted under vessels will be used during offshore would reduce speed and shift the engine acceptable observation conditions. construction activities. Certain vessel to neutral and would not engage the Impact pile driving may occur only activities, including transits, may not be engines until the animals are clear of the during daylight hours of good visibility. subject to the visual monitoring and area. In the event of a shutdown during low- • shutdown protocols described If a sighted marine mammal is visibility conditions, the pile driving previously in this section. believed to be a North Atlantic right cannot resume until visual monitoring Consequently, there is the possibility for whale, federal regulation requires a activities are resumed under acceptable vessel strike of protected species to minimum distance of 500 yd (457 m) observation conditions. The minimum occur within the project area. Port from the animal be maintained (50 CFR shutdown zone for impact pile driving Dolphin would inform all personnel 224.103 (c)). would be established conservatively at • Practical speeds would be associated with the project of the 250 m. maintained to the extent possible. potential presence of protected species. Guidelines for speeds include the One or more sound attenuation device All vessel crew members and following: will be utilized during all impact pile contractors would participate in training driving activities needed to install D Reduce vessel speed to 10 kn or less for protected species presence and when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large components of the STL buoys at the emergency procedures in the unlikely deepwater port. The sound attenuation assemblages of cetaceans are observed event a protected species is struck by a near an underway vessel, when safety device(s) will be selected and designed vessel. Construction and support vessels by the marine construction and design permits. A single cetacean at the surface will follow the NMFS Vessel Strike can indicate the presence of submerged contractor(s), but would likely be either Avoidance Measures and Reporting for a bubble curtain or a temporary sound animals in the vicinity of the vessel; Mariners. Standard measures would be therefore, prudent precautionary attenuation pile (TNAP), potentially implemented to reduce the risk used in conjunction with cushion block. measures should always be exercised. associated with vessel strikes. D No wake/idle speeds where the Please see the discussion of ‘‘Sound The following vessel strike mitigation Attenuation Devices’’ under draft of the vessel provides less than a measures for cetaceans for active 4-ft (1.2-m) clearance from the bottom. ‘‘Description of Sound Sources,’’ construction/installation vessel previously in this document. All vessels would follow deep-water operations would be implemented routes whenever possible. The objective of a ramp-up is to alert during project activities: D All construction vessels transiting any animals close to the activity and • Vessel operators and crews must to and from the port from shore would allow them time to move away, which maintain a vigilant watch for marine not exceed 14 kn during regular would expose fewer animals to loud mammals and slow down or stop their operations. sounds. This procedure also ensures vessels, to the extent possible as D Avoid sudden changes in speed and that any marine mammals missed dictated by safety concerns, to avoid direction. during shutdown zone monitoring striking sighted protected species. D Speeds approaching and departing would move away from the activity and • Construction or support vessels, the buoys would be reduced to 10 kn not be injured. The following ramp-up while underway, would remain 100 yd maximum. procedures would be used for in-water (91 m) from all marine mammals to the D Speeds during installation would be pile installation: extent possible. well under 14 kn; vessels may be • To allow any marine mammals that • If a marine mammal is within 15 m stationary during certain phases of may be in the immediate area to leave of a construction or support vessel installation. before pile driving reaches full energy, underway, all operations will cease • If a collision seems likely, a ramp-up technique would be used at until it is > 100 yd from the vessel. If emergency collision procedures would the beginning of each day’s in-water pile the marine mammal is observed within be followed.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55668 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
• Members of the vessel crew would barriers would not be made of any adverse impact on the affected marine be encouraged to undergo NMFS materials in which a protected species mammal species and stocks and their training prior to activity, including can become entangled (e.g., habitat. Our evaluation of potential instruction in reporting procedures, monofilament), would be properly measures included consideration of the collision emergency procedures, and secured, and would be regularly following factors in relation to one marine mammal presence detection monitored to avoid protected species another: (surfacing near wake). entrapment. • The manner in which, and the • During construction of the facility, Marine Debris—BMPs would be degree to which, the successful an Environmental Coordinator would be implemented to prevent potential implementation of the measure is on site and responsible for impacts to protected species from debris expected to minimize adverse impacts communicating with NMFS and other discarded within any construction area, to marine mammals; relevant agencies, as appropriate. including mandatory marine debris • The proven or likely efficacy of the • During construction/installation, training consistent with Bureau of specific measure to minimize adverse transiting vessels would have lookouts Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, impacts as planned; and • required to scan for surfacing marine and Enforcement (BOEMRE) NTL 2007– The practicability of the measure mammals and report sightings to the G03 Marine Trash and Debris for applicant implementation. Master, who would notify the Awareness and Elimination (http:// Based on our evaluation of the Environmental Coordinator. www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/ applicant’s proposed measures and the • Offshore vessel activities not regulate/regs/ntls/2007NTLs/07-g03. measures added by NMFS, NMFS has required to implement visual pdf). preliminarily determined that the monitoring protocols described Turbidity—Measures related to mitigation measures proposed by both previously in this document would be turbidity are designed to reduce project NMFS and Port Dolphin provide the temporarily terminated if marine impacts to water quality in the marine means of effecting the least practicable mammals were observed in the area and environment. These include adverse impact on marine mammal there is the potential for harm of an requirements to reduce sediment species or stocks and their habitat, individual. The Environmental resuspension from pipeline trenching paying particular attention to rookeries, Coordinator would be called in to and burial through the use of certain mating grounds, and areas of similar determine the appropriate course of technology. significance. action. The proposed rule comment period Benthic Habitat will afford the public an opportunity to Best Management Practices • Anchor locations would be submit recommendations, views, and/or Port Dolphin, in conjunction with optimized to minimize impacts on concerns regarding this action and the NMFS and other regulatory agencies, benthic habitat; avoidance zones would proposed mitigation measures. While has proposed a number of BMPs that be identified of critical habitat areas for NMFS has determined preliminarily will reduce project environmental placement of installation barge anchors. that the proposed mitigation measures impacts. Although these measures are An anchoring plan would be developed presented in this document would effect not designed specifically to reduce that would provide procedures for the least practicable adverse impact on project impacts on marine mammals to anchor deployment to minimize impacts the affected species or stocks and their the level of least practicable adverse on hard- and live-bottom habitat. habitat, NMFS will consider all public impact, they do have the effect of either • Required vessels would be selected comments to help inform the final directly or indirectly reducing the to minimize the number and type of decision. Consequently, the proposed potential for adverse effects to marine anchors, where possible, while still mitigation measures may be refined, mammals. These BMPs are briefly providing vessels adequate to perform modified, removed, or added to prior to described here. See Port Dolphin’s the work. the issuance of the final rule based on application or Environmental Impact • Midline buoys would be utilized to public comments received, and where Statement for more details about these the extent practicable on anchor chains appropriate, further analysis of any measures. to reduce the amount of anchor chain additional mitigation measures. Lighting—BMPs would be sweep. Proposed Monitoring and Reporting implemented to minimize the attraction • A Mitigation Plan to compensate for of marine mammals to the project area unavoidable impacts on hard bottom In order to issue an incidental take and prevent potential impacts to would be developed. authorization (ITA) for an activity, protected species from nighttime Pelagic Habitat—As described section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states lighting. Lighting would be down- previously in this document, SRV that NMFS must, where applicable, set shielded to prevent unnecessary upward seawater intake/discharge and other forth ‘‘requirements pertaining to the illumination while illuminating the vessel discharge protocols would be monitoring and reporting of such vessel decks only. To the extent designed to minimize impacts to water taking.’’ The MMPA implementing possible, they would not illuminate column habitat by reducing seawater regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) surrounding waters. Lighting used intake requirements, creating limits for indicate that requests for ITAs must during all activities would be regulated seawater intake velocity and discharge include the suggested means of according to USCG requirements, temperature, and reducing other vessel accomplishing the necessary monitoring without using excessive wattage or discharges. and reporting that would result in quality of lights. Once an activity is increased knowledge of the species and completed, all lights used only for that Conclusions of the level of taking or impacts on activity would be extinguished. NMFS has carefully evaluated the populations of marine mammals that are Entanglement—BMPs would be applicant’s proposed mitigation expected to be present in the proposed implemented to prevent entanglement measures and considered a range of action area. in any lines or cables or siltation other measures in the context of Port Dolphin proposed a protected barriers used in any construction area. ensuring that NMFS prescribes the species monitoring plan in their For example, lines, cables, and in-water means of effecting the least practicable application (see Appendix B of Port
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55669
Dolphin’s application). The plan may be construction and operation of the • Representative range of frequency modified or supplemented based on deepwater port and appurtenant marine spectra; 1/3rd octave band center comments or new information received facilities. Please see Port Dolphin’s frequency SPLs dB re:1 mPa measured from the public during the public Sound Level Verification Plan (see over the frequency range of 10 Hz to comment period. All monitoring Supplemental Information) for more 64,000 Hz; and methods identified herein have been detail. The objectives of this program • Peak SPL (dB re: 1 mPa; the largest developed through coordination are to: (1) Empirically measure the absolute value of the instantaneous between NMFS and Port Dolphin. The sound source levels associated with sound pressure over the minimum methods are based on the parties’ project activities and verify estimated frequency range of 10 Hz to 64,000 Hz). professional judgment supported by source levels used in modelling, and (2) The maximum and representative range their collective knowledge of marine empirically determine ranges to relevant of peak SPLs would be recorded for mammal behavior, site conditions, and threshold levels, verifying the accuracy each activity. proposed project activities. Any of the acoustic propagation model that The activities to be monitored are: modifications to this protocol would be was used to predict the size of sound • Pipelaying activities; coordinated with NMFS. A summary of fields generated by construction and • Pipeline burial using the plow the plan, as well as the proposed operation of the port. Ambient sound system and dredging; • levels would also be measured when no Pile driving at the buoy locations; reporting requirements, is contained • here. project activities are occurring. Installation of the STL buoys; • HDD within Tampa Bay; The intent of the monitoring plan is Source level measurements would be • to: made using a combination of bottom Vibratory driving (if conducted); • and Comply with the requirements of deployed autonomous multi-channel • the MMPA Letter of Authorization as acoustic recorders (AMARs) and cabled SRV maneuvering and docking. Verification of sound source levels well as the ESA section 7 consultation; acoustic data acquisition and emitted by each of the various activities • Avoid injury to marine mammals monitoring systems (ADAMs), and is required. Although most types of through visual monitoring of identified would require that accurate construction activity would be shutdown zones; and measurements of distance from source conducted at more than one location • To the extent possible, record the to the monitoring hydrophones be and on more than one occasion during number, species, and behavior of marine made. Range measurements are required mammals in disturbance zones for the for scaling the measured levels to a the construction period, it is only proposed activities. standard reference range (typically one necessary to determine their sound As described previously, monitoring meter from the source). Range source level once because local acoustic for marine mammals would be measurements would be performed propagation characteristics should have conducted in specific zones established using a combination of GPS, radar and little effect on the source level to avoid or minimize effects of elevated laser range finders. Both systems would calculation. Some construction levels of sound created by the specified obtain measurements at 1.5 m (5 ft) activities are of long duration and may activities. Initial shutdown and above the sea floor, with the depth of vary in source level during the disturbance zones would be based on the hydrophones determined using operation. For these longer-duration the applicant’s modeled values. collocated pressure-sensitive depth activities (i.e., pipelaying and burial, Shutdown zones for non-stationary gauges. The hydrophone depth HDD), a sound level monitoring activities would conform to NMFS measurement is accurate to within 1 m. program of 7 days of continuous Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures and Received sound levels would be recording at a sample rate of 128 kHz Reporting for Mariners (i.e., 100 yd)—a measured at pre-determined distances would be implemented to capture and distance much larger than actual areas (as specified here) and would be used to consider potential variability when ensonified to 180 dB rms or greater. determine site-specific propagation determining the source level associated However, shutdown requirements characteristics and verify ranges to the with these activities. During the 7-day would not be triggered upon voluntary relevant sound exposure thresholds. program, logs of the various activities approach by small marine mammals The recording system would have a would be collected, permitting a (i.e., delphinids). The actual zone frequency response of ±3 dB from 10 Hz correlation between the activities monitored for disturbance would be to 64,000 Hz over the anticipated occurring and the sound levels based upon logistical considerations, as measurement range of 100 dB to 220 dB recorded. For all construction activities, described previously in this document, (linear peak re: 1 mPa). Hydrophones sound level monitoring stations would as the full disturbance zones would be with differing sensitivities may be consist of bottom deployed autonomous so large as to make monitoring required at different locations recorders at ranges of 500, 1,000 and impracticable. Zones may be modified depending upon the acoustic 1,500 m, perpendicular to the on the basis of actual recorded SPLs environment and source to be measured. construction spread’s direction of travel from acoustic monitoring. Analysis of the recorded data would when applicable. In addition a cabled Port Dolphin proposed a visual determine the amplitude, time history, recording system would be deployed monitoring program in its application. and frequency of sounds associated with from the appropriate vessel in order to In cooperation with NMFS, Port construction activity. Acoustic data to capture close range data suitable for Dolphin has supplemented that plan be reported include: determining a source level estimate. The with an acoustic monitoring program • Mean squared pressure (integral of distances and directions of any of these that would be conducted primarily to the squared pressure for duration of sound monitoring locations from the verify the sound source levels and local impulse, divided by the impulse activity may be changed if, in the acoustic propagation characteristics that duration; dB re: 1 mPa2/s, rms) for opinion of either Port Dolphin or the were assumed in the acoustic modeling. pulsed sounds; marine construction contractors, • SPL (dB re: 1 mPa, rms) for non- activities at the planned monitoring Acoustic Monitoring pulsed sounds; locations could pose health and safety Port Dolphin would implement an • The maximum averaging time and risks or impede vessels or construction. acoustic monitoring program during representative range of SPLs; If the locations must be changed, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55670 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
monitoring would occur at the safest set at 1,500 m (4,925 ft) from both the described previously. Topics would location that is closest to the proposed northern and southern STL buoy. include, at minimum, implementation location that would not interfere with For the SRV maneuvering to docking/ of the monitoring protocol, vessels or construction. Specific details undocking at and departure from the identification of marine mammals, and of monitoring locations for each activity two STL buoys, the sound level reporting requirements. All monitoring type are discussed in the next verification measurements would be personnel would be provided a copy of paragraph. taken at the boundary of the ATBA. the LOA. Monitoring personnel must For dredging, Port Dolphin is Three bottom-deployed autonomous read and understand the contents of the planning to monitor the operation at recording stations would therefore be LOA as they relate to coordination, either the exit or entry pit dredges of the set at a distance of 1,500 m from the communication, and identifying and western Gulfstream HDD. The proposed STL buoys. This would ensure that reporting incidental harassment of HDD locations are drilling from land to sufficient data is collected regardless of marine mammals. All sightings must be water at the Port Manatee shore the SRV’s specific approach to the STL recorded on approved marine mammal approach and from water-to-water at buoy. In addition, a fourth autonomous field sighting logs. system would be deployed on a two crossings of the Gulfstream Proposed Reporting pipeline. Port Dolphin is planning to platform directly below the STL buoy. monitor the HDD operations at the entry The recording system used here would Reports of data collected during ± pit of the western Gulfstream HDD. For have a frequency response of 1 dB from monitoring would be submitted to the pipeline laying, plowing and 10 Hz to 20,000 Hz over the anticipated NMFS weekly. In addition, a final report backfilling the pipeline trench, Port measurement range of 100 dB to 220 dB summarizing all marine mammal Dolphin plans to conduct the sound (linear peak re: 1 mPa) due to the lower monitoring and construction activities level verification in the Sarasota Bay frequencies expected. would be submitted to NMFS annually. Estuarine System. During these The report would include: Visual Monitoring • activities, the construction spread All data described previously under Visual monitoring of relevant zones monitoring, including observation dates, would be moving relative to the acoustic would be conducted as described monitoring stations. This would provide times, and conditions; and previously (see ‘Proposed Mitigation’). • Correlations of observed behavior a more detailed record of data on Shutdown or delay of activities would received sounds levels as a function of with activity type and received levels of occur as appropriate. The monitoring sound, to the extent possible. range and direction from the biologists would document all marine construction spread. Port Dolphin would also submit a mammals observed in the monitoring report(s), as necessary, concerning the The commissioning of a new SRV area. Data collection would include a results of all acoustic monitoring. The type (i.e., different cargo containment count of all marine mammals observed final report for acoustic monitoring of capacity) at the port may involve the by species, sex, age class, their location construction activities would be unloading of more than one shipment of within the zone, and their reaction (if provided at the completion of all marine LNG through the port. The sound level any) to construction activities, including construction activities. Reporting for verification program is planned to be direction of movement, and type of acoustic monitoring of operational implemented only once for each new construction that is occurring, time that activities would be provided at the SRV type during the approach, activity begins and ends, any acoustic or completion of the commissioning period unloading, and departure during the visual disturbance, and time of the for each new SRV servicing the port. first commissioning shipment. Once the observation. Environmental conditions Port Dolphin would to submit these SRV completes its approach to Port such as wind speed, wind direction, reports to NMFS within 60 working Dolphin and is within approximately visibility, and temperature would also days of the completion of each 5.6 km of the Port, bow and stern be recorded. No monitoring would be monitoring event. thrusters would be utilized. Thruster conducted during inclement weather Acoustic monitoring reports would use would vary, operating for 10 to 30 that creates potentially hazardous include: minutes to allow for the proper conditions, as determined by the • A detailed description of the positioning of the vessel and allow for PSO(s). No monitoring would be monitoring protocol; connection to the STL buoy. Docking or conducted when visibility is • A description of the sound berthing is expected to occur at alternate significantly limited, such as during monitoring equipment; STL buoys approximately every 8 days. heavy rain or fog. During these times of • Documentation of calibration The monitoring program would consist inclement weather, in-water work that activities; of a similar combination of autonomous may produce sound levels in excess of • The depth of water at the and cabled acoustic recorders as 180 dB rms may continue, but may not hydrophone locations and the depth of outlined here. be started. Impact pile driving shall not the hydrophones; For SRV maneuvering (i.e., approach, occur when visibility is significantly • The background SPL reported as the docking, unloading, undocking and limited. 50 percent cumulative density function; departure) operations, Port Dolphin All monitoring personnel must have • A summary of the data recorded would establish four sound level appropriate qualifications as identified during monitoring; and measuring stations. As part of the DWPL previously. These qualifications include • Analysis of the recorded data and issued by the MarAd, a safety zone, an education and experience identifying conclusions. area to be avoided (ATBA), and a no- marine mammals and the ability to Analysis of the data should include anchoring zone have been established understand and document marine the frequency spectrum, ranges and around the deepwater port. The mammal behavior. All monitoring means including the standard deviation/ boundary of the safety zone has been set personnel would meet at least once for error for the peak and rms SPLs, and an at a distance of 850 m (2,790 ft) from a training session provided by Port estimation of the distance at which rms both the northern and southern STL Dolphin, and Port Dolphin would be values reach the relevant marine buoys. The boundaries of both the responsible for verifying to NMFS that mammal thresholds and background ATBA and no-anchoring zone have been PSOs meet the minimal qualifications sound levels. Vibratory driving results
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55671
would include the maximum and In the event that an injured or dead the end of the period of effectiveness of overall average rms calculated from 30- marine mammal is discovered, and the the regulations. s rms values during driving of the pile. lead PSO determines that the cause of Adaptive Management In addition, for pile driving, the report the injury or death is unknown and the would include: death is relatively recent (i.e., in less The final regulations governing the • Size and type of any piles driven, than a moderate state of decomposition take of marine mammals incidental to correlated with SPLs; as described in the next paragraph), Port the specified activities at Port Dolphin • A detailed description of any sound Dolphin will immediately report the would contain an adaptive management attenuation device used, including incident to NMFS, Office of Protected component. In accordance with 50 CFR design specifications; Resources. The report must include the 216.105(c), regulations for the proposed • The impact hammer energy rating same information identified in the activity must be based on the best used to drive the piles, make and model preceding paragraph. However, activity available information. As new of the hammer(s), and description of the may continue while NMFS reviews the information is developed, through vibratory hammer; circumstances of the incident, and monitoring, reporting, or research, the • The physical characteristics of the NMFS will work with Port Dolphin to regulations may be modified, in whole bottom substrate into which the piles determine whether modifications to the or in part, after notice and opportunity were driven; and activities are appropriate. If the lead for public review. The use of adaptive • The total number of strikes to drive PSO determines that the discovered management would allow NMFS to each pile. animal is not associated with or related consider new information from different During all phases of construction to project activities (e.g., previously sources to determine if mitigation or activities and operation, sightings of any wounded animal, carcass with moderate monitoring measures should be injured or dead marine mammals will to advanced decomposition, scavenger modified (including additions or be reported immediately (except as damage), Port Dolphin would report the deletions) if new data suggest that such described later in this section) to the incident to NMFS, Office of Protected modifications are appropriate for NMFS Southeast Region Marine Resources, within 24 hours of the subsequent LOAs. discovery. Port Dolphin should provide The following are some of the Mammal Stranding Network, regardless photographs or video footage (if possible sources of applicable data: of whether the injury or death is caused available) or other documentation of the • Results from Port Dolphin’s by project activities. In addition, if a sighting. Activities may continue while monitoring from the previous year; marine mammal is struck by a project NMFS reviews the circumstances of the • Results from general marine vessel (e.g., SRV, support vessel), or in incident. mammal and acoustics research; or the unanticipated event that project An annual report on marine mammal • Any information which reveals that activity clearly resulted in the injury, monitoring and mitigation would be marine mammals may have been taken serious injury, or death (e.g., gear submitted to NMFS, Office of Protected in a manner, extent or number not interaction, and/or entanglement) of a Resources, and NMFS, Southeast authorized by these regulations or marine mammal, USCG and NMFS must Regional Office, each year. The weekly subsequent LOAs. be notified immediately, and a full and annual reports would include data If, during the effective dates of the report must be provided to NMFS, collected for each distinct marine regulations, new information is Southeast Regional Office, and NMFS, mammal species observed in the project presented from monitoring, reporting, or Office of Protected Resources. The area. Description of marine mammal research, these regulations may be report must include the following behavior, overall numbers of modified, in whole, or in part after information: (1) The time, date, and individuals observed, frequency of notice and opportunity of public review, location (latitude/longitude) of the observation, and any behavioral changes as allowed for in 50 CFR 216.105(c). In incident; (2) the name and type of vessel and the context of the changes relative addition, LOAs would be withdrawn or involved, if applicable; (3) the vessel’s to activities would also be included in suspended if, after notice and speed during and leading up to the the annual reports. Additional opportunity for public comment, the incident, if applicable; (4) a description information that would be recorded Assistant Administrator finds, among of the incident; (5) water depth; (6) during activities and contained in the other things, that the regulations are not environmental conditions (e.g., wind reports include: date and time of marine being substantially complied with or speed and direction, sea state, cloud mammal detections, weather conditions, that the taking allowed is having more cover, visibility); (7) the species species identification, approximate than a negligible impact on the species identification or description of the distance from the source, and activity at or stock, as allowed for in 50 CFR animal(s) involved; (8) the fate of the the construction site when a marine 216.106(e). That is, should substantial animal(s); and (9) photographs or video mammal is sighted. changes in marine mammal populations footage of the animal (if equipment is In addition to annual reports, Port in the project area occur or monitoring available). Following such an incident, Dolphin would submit a draft and reporting show that Port Dolphin activities must cease until NMFS is able comprehensive final report to NMFS, actions are having more than a to review the circumstances of the Office of Protected Resources, and negligible impact on marine mammals, incident. NMFS would work with Port NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 180 then NMFS reserves the right to modify Dolphin to determine what is necessary days prior to the expiration of the the regulations and/or withdraw or to minimize the likelihood of further regulations. This comprehensive suspend LOAs after public review. prohibited take and ensure MMPA technical report would provide full compliance. Port Dolphin may not documentation of methods, results, and Estimated Take by Incidental resume activity until notified to do so interpretation of all monitoring during Harassment by NMFS. If a prohibited take should the first 4.5 years of the regulations. A Except with respect to certain occur, the NMFS Office of Law revised final comprehensive technical activities not pertinent here, the MMPA Enforcement and the Florida Fish and report, including all monitoring results defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: ‘‘any act of Wildlife Conservation Commission law during the entire period of the pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) enforcement would be notified. regulations would be due 90 days after has the potential to injure a marine
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55672 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mammal or marine mammal stock in the detailed description of this sound consideration of Level A harassment is wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has source modeling and Appendix E for a not relevant. the potential to disturb a marine graphical depiction of the sound fields • HDD vibratory driving: Installation mammal or marine mammal stock in the from various activities. Results of the of the goal posts at each HDD location wild by causing disruption of behavioral modeled underwater analysis for Port would produce continuous, non-pulsed patterns, including, but not limited to, Dolphin construction and operation are sound for a relatively short period of migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, summarized as follows: time, exclusively during summer. The feeding, or sheltering [Level B • Buoy installation: Installation of the 120-dB isopleth for HDD vibratory harassment].’’ Take by Level B buoys at the Port would produce driving would extend 12.6 km from the harassment only is anticipated as a continuous, transient (non-pulsed) source, encompassing approximately result of Port Dolphin’s proposed sound for a relatively short period of 499 km2. The 180-dB isopleths would activities. Take of marine mammals is time during summer, with 120-dB be less than 10 m from the source. • anticipated to occur as a result of isopleths located 3.9 km from each STL SRV maneuvering: Once an SRV elevated levels of sound from the buoy location and corresponding completes its approach to Port Dolphin previously described activities ensonification of approximately 48 km2. and is within approximately 5.6 km of associated with construction and At 200 m distance, sound produced by the port, bow and stern thrusters would installation of the port and from port buoy installation would attenuate to less be utilized. Thruster use would vary, operations. No take by injury, serious than 150 dB. operating for 10 to 30 minutes to allow injury, or death is anticipated. • Pipelaying: Pipelaying activities for the proper positioning of the vessel As described previously in the would generate continuous (non-pulsed) and connection to the STL buoy. ‘‘Distance to Sound Thresholds’’ section sound, and would be transient as the Docking or berthing would occur at of this document, JASCO Research pipelaying operation moved along the alternate STL buoys approximately modeled a series of scenarios that pipeline route. Construction is expected every 8 days. The periodic use of the thoroughly characterize the various to occur during summer and fall. thrusters would produce continuous, non-pulsed sound that would be construction/installation and operation Depending on location, the 120-dB transient as the vessel moves, with the activities expected. JASCO used proxy isopleth for pipelaying activities would 120-dB isopleth occurring at 3.6 km sound sources selected from a database extend either 6.0 (offshore) or 7.5 km from the SRV, encompassing of underwater sound measurements. (inshore) from the source, encompassing approximately 41 km2. The 180-dB The selected proxy sound sources were approximately 113 or 178 km2, isopleths would be less than 10 m from input to a sound propagation model respectively. At 200 m distance, sound the source. with multiple parameters, including produced by pipelaying would attenuate expected water column sound speeds, • Regasification: SRVs would regasify to less than 160 dB. bathymetry, and bottom geoacoustic LNG cargo while docked at a STL buoy, • Pipeline burial: Pipeline burial properties, to estimate the radii of sound producing continuous, non-pulsed using the plow system would generate impacts (JASCO, 2008, 2010). Note that sound. Sound levels for regasification continuous, transient sound during for some scenarios, 180-dB threshold are low, with the 120-dB isopleth at 170 construction similar to pipelaying and is values only occur in the immediate m from the source, encompassing vicinity of individual pieces of expected to occur during fall and approximately 0.09 km2. Calculations equipment that combine to form a winter. Pipeline burial would only be based on this area of ensonification construction ‘‘spread,’’ or modeled used in those locations with suitable indicate that no marine mammals would scenario, with little or no overlap of the substrate conditions. Distances to the be harassed as a result of this activity. sound fields from neighboring vessels. 120-dB isopleth would be 6.7 (offshore) Source levels for this activity are below These scenarios are for transient or 8.4 km (inshore) from the source and the 180-dB threshold. activities—for example, pipelaying and would encompass approximately 141 or Density of marine mammals in the 2 burial activities require a spread of 222 km . At 200 m distance, sound project area was derived from a U.S. vessels and equipment (e.g., barges, produced by pipeline burial would Navy review of available marine tugs) rather than a single point source of attenuate to less than 160 dB. mammal survey data for the eastern Gulf • sound. These modeled scenarios Pile driving: Offshore installation of of Mexico which summarized species combine the sound output from anchors via impact pile driving is slated presence and distribution on a seasonal multiple vessels/pieces of equipment. to occur during summer. This impulsive basis (USDON, 2003). As described The overall radius depends primarily on sound source would produce a 160-dB previously, marine mammal densities the spacing between the vessels, and a isopleth at 4.5 km from each STL buoy are determined on the basis of both single scenario-specific radius for the location, encompassing approximately seasonality and depth stratum. While 180-dB threshold cannot sensibly be 64 km2. The 180-dB isopleths would the area of actual construction and defined. All activity types considered extend to 180 m from the source, operations for Port Dolphin is entirely here would produce sound source levels encompassing approximately 0.1 km2. contained within the nearshore depth attenuating to less than 180 dB within • HDD: Horizontal directional drilling stratum (0 to 37 m), the sound field from 200 m; thus, 200 m is used as a within Tampa Bay would produce certain construction activity, and thus conservative estimator for 180-dB area continuous, non-pulsed sound and is the area of effect, extends into the mid- calculations in most cases. expected to occur during summer. The shelf depth stratum (37 to 91 m). This JASCO’s modeling reports the radial 120-dB isopleth would extend 240 m has implications for the species of distance from each modeled source to from the drilling operation, marine mammals that may potentially received levels in 10 dB increments (i.e., encompassing approximately 0.2 km2. be affected by the activity. Almost all from 120 dB through 180 dB), and this Calculations based on the area of sound produced by construction information is used here to report the ensonification for HDD indicate that no activities would occur within the intensity of sound source levels relative marine mammals would be harassed as nearshore stratum. The only activity to this 200 m radius in subsequent a result of this activity. Source levels for with a sound field extending to the mid- sections. Please see Appendices C and this activity are expected to be below shelf depth stratum is offshore D in Port Dolphin’s application for a the 180-dB threshold; therefore, pipelaying, which would occur only
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55673
during construction, from would be 99.9 percent contained within be affected by the proposed activities approximately late summer 2013 the nearshore stratum, with 0.1 percent are presented in Table 8. through early winter 2013–14. The projected to enter the mid-shelf stratum. Level B sound field for this activity Densities for marine mammals that may
TABLE 8—DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR MARINE MAMMALS IN THE NEARSHORE AND MID-SHELF DEPTH STRATA, EASTERN GOM
Density (Individuals/100 km2 (39 mi2)) Species Winter Spring Summer Fall
Nearshore depth stratum: Atlantic spotted dolphin ...... 2.243 10.752 2.524 10.752 Bottlenose dolphin ...... 10.913 21.986 8.241 26.744 Mid-shelf depth stratum: Atlantic spotted dolphin ...... 11.630 21.699 17.354 22.916 Bottlenose dolphin ...... 7.410 2.588 11.707 10.856 Dwarf/pygmy sperm whale ...... 0.000 0.011 0.011 0.000 Rough-toothed dolphin...... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.400 Source: USDON, 2003.
Incidental take estimates are long (37 km offshore, 35 km inshore). approximately 12 percent of effort is calculated based on: (1) The number of For these transient activities, the overall expected to occur during fall and 88 marine mammals that occur within each area of effect (i.e., distance × width of percent occurring during winter. The respective depth stratum, using species- ensonified area) is used in calculating inshore portion would occur entirely and season-specific density estimates; estimated incidental take. during winter. For stationary activities, season- (2) the percentage of sound field within For offshore pipelaying, the estimated each depth stratum, by source (this is specific estimated take was determined take within each depth stratum was relevant for offshore pipelaying only); by first multiplying the modeled ZOI then integrated into the seasonal, (3) the areal extent of Level A and Level (i.e., the area ensonified using the species-specific calculations. B sound fields, by sound source; and (4) appropriate thresholds) and the the time or distance component of the appropriate species-specific seasonal Calculations indicate that, on the basis activity. Areas of ensonification, by densities within each depth stratum of the densities shown in Table 8 and appropriate threshold, are presented in (USDON, 2003). These results were then the 0.1 percent of the sound field for Table 6. With regard to the fourth rounded to the nearest whole number pipelaying that would occur in the mid- component (time/distance), there are and multiplied by the estimated number shelf depth stratum, no incidental take two types of construction activities: of days of effect to provide an estimate of dwarf/pygmy sperm whales (i.e., stationary and transient. Stationary of take. Kogia spp.) or rough-toothed dolphins activities would occur near specific sites For transient activities, season- would occur. Similarly, take of spotted (e.g., locations for buoy installation), specific estimated take was determined and bottlenose dolphins would occur while transient activities would occur by multiplying the overall area of effect only in the nearshore depth stratum while traveling along a pre-determined for offshore and inshore portions, (i.e., the 0.1 percent of effect occurring trackline (i.e., the pipeline route). respectively, by the appropriate density in the mid-shelf depth stratum would Incidental take associated with and, because some of these activities are not add to the total take). Dwarf/pygmy stationary activities is determined by expected to occur during multiple sperm whales and rough-toothed considering the estimated number of seasons, by the proportion of trackline dolphins are not covered by this days of effect. Buoy installation, impact expected to be completed during a given proposed rule because incidental take is pile driving, and vibratory pile driving season. For offshore pipelaying, not anticipated, and no incidental take activities are expected to take 6, 32, and approximately 43 percent of effort is is proposed to be authorized. The 8 days, respectively. The pre- expected to occur during summer and results of take estimation calculations determined pipeline route along which 57 percent occur during fall. The for bottlenose dolphins and spotted the pipelaying and burial activities inshore portion would occur entirely dolphins for construction activities are would occur is approximately 72 km during fall. For offshore pipe burial, shown in Table 9.
TABLE 9—ESTIMATED INCIDENTAL TAKE, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Species Activity Season Atlantic spot- Bottlenose ted dolphin dolphin
Buoy installation ...... Summer ...... 6 24 Impact pile driving ...... Summer ...... 64 160 Pipelaying—Offshore ...... Summer ...... 6 20 Fall ...... 34 85 Pipelaying—Inshore ...... Fall ...... 45 112 Pipeline burial—Offshore ...... Fall ...... 8 20 Winter ...... 12 60 Pipeline burial—Inshore ...... Winter ...... 11 51
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55674 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9—ESTIMATED INCIDENTAL TAKE, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES—Continued
Species Activity Season Atlantic spot- Bottlenose ted dolphin dolphin
Vibratory pile driving ...... Summer ...... 104 328
Total, by species ...... 290 860
When the Port reaches operational summer seasons and 11 visits per take. The results of take estimation status, an estimated 46 SRV visits would season during spring and fall. Each visit calculations for operational activities, occur per year. Visits would be equally includes arrival and departure of the for a given year, are shown in Table 10. distributed across seasons, with 12 SRV, so 46 visits would result in 92 visits expected during winter and episodes that may result in incidental
TABLE 10—ESTIMATED YEARLY INCIDENTAL TAKE, PORT OPERATIONS
Atlantic spotted dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Activity Season Trips Single visit 1 Seasonal Single visit 1 Seasonal
SRV maneuvering ...... Summer ...... 12 2 24 7 84 Fall ...... 11 9 99 22 242 Winter ...... 12 2 24 9 108 Spring ...... 11 9 99 18 198
Totals 2 ...... 46 ...... 246 ...... 632 1 Single-visit take calculated by multiplying appropriate density and appropriate area, then doubling the result to account for arrival and depar- ture of the SRV in a single trip. 2 Total represents the single visit take multiplied by the total number of trips.
Assuming that this proposed harassment in the form of behavioral For the greater portion of the life of rulemaking would be in effect during 1 disturbance resulting in, for example, this proposed rule (i.e., 4 years year of construction and 4 years of changed direction or speed, or remaining after the first year of operations, the total estimated taking, by temporary avoidance of an area. construction), only port operations Level B harassment only, would be Anticipated behavioral disturbance is would occur. Each episode of SRV 1,274 Atlantic spotted dolphins and likely to be of low intensity due to the arrival/departure (requiring thruster use 3,388 bottlenose dolphins. sound source characteristics—the for a period of several hours) would be separated by approximately 8 days of Negligible Impact and Small Numbers majority of activities considered here would produce low source levels of regasification, an activity not expected Analysis and Preliminary to result in incidental take. The likely Determination non-pulsed sound that would be either intermittent or transient—and relatively effects of behavioral disturbance from NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible short in duration associated with the port operations are minor, as many impact’’ in 50 CFR 216 as ‘‘* * * an specified activities. For the same animals perform vital functions, such as impact resulting from the specified feeding, resting, traveling, and reasons, no individual marine mammals activity that cannot be reasonably socializing, on a diel (24-hour) cycle. are expected to incur any hearing expected to, and is not reasonably likely Behavioral reactions to sound exposure impairment, whether temporary or to, adversely affect the species or stock (such as disruption of critical life through effects on annual rates of permanent in nature. That is, non- functions, displacement, or avoidance of recruitment or survival.’’ In making a pulsed sound does not produce the important habitat) are more likely to be negligible impact determination, NMFS rapid rise times that are more likely to significant if they last more than one considers a variety of factors, including produce hearing impairment in marine diel cycle or recur on subsequent days but not limited to: (1) The number of mammals, and the low intensity of the (Southall et al., 2007). Operational anticipated mortalities; (2) the number sources would result in Level A activities would occur on a single day and nature of anticipated injuries; (3) isopleths within a short distance. (i.e., arrival or departure of a SRV), the number, nature, intensity, and Several activities would produce source would not recur for a period of 8 days, duration of Level B harassment; and (4) levels below those considered capable and, as for the majority of construction the context in which the takes occur. of causing hearing impairment, even in activities, would produce only low Incidental take, in the form of Level close proximity to marine mammals. levels of non-pulsed sound. NMFS’ B harassment only, is likely to occur The shutdown zone monitoring current criterion for Level B harassment primarily as a result of marine mammal proposed as mitigation, and the small from non-pulsed, underwater sound exposure to elevated levels of sound size of the zones in which injury may levels (the vast majority of sound resulting from the specified activities. occur, further reduces the potential for produced by the proposed activities) is No take by injury, serious injury, or any injury of marine mammals, making 120 dB rms. However, not all marine death is anticipated or proposed for the possibility of hearing impairment mammals react to sounds at this low authorization. The expected impacts extremely unlikely and therefore level, and many will not show strong from this activity would be Level B discountable. reactions (and in some cases any
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55675
reaction) until sounds are much experienced by bay dolphins from this Endangered Species Act (ESA) stronger. activity would be of very short duration. On August 4, 2009, NMFS concluded Neither the bottlenose dolphin nor In addition, Tampa Bay is significantly consultation with MarAd and USCG spotted dolphin is listed under the ESA. industrialized and urbanized and is under section 7 of the ESA on the However, NMFS considers the bay, heavily used by recreational boaters. proposed construction and operation of sound, and estuarine stock of bottlenose Bottlenose dolphins occurring in Tampa the Port Dolphin LNG facility. The dolphins (of which the Tampa Bay/ Bay are somewhat acclimated to result of that consultation was NMFS’ Sarasota Bay populations are a disturbance and would not be expected concurrence with Port Dolphin’s component) to be strategic under the to experience significant disruption to determination that the proposed MMPA. NMFS is in the process of behavioral patterns on the basis of short- activities may affect, but are not likely writing individual stock assessment term and low intensity disturbance, to adversely affect, listed species under reports for each of the 32 bay, sound such as is proposed for this project. The NMFS’ jurisdiction. NMFS does not and estuary stocks of bottlenose proposed activities would not take place propose to authorize incidental take of dolphins, but none has been completed in areas known to be of special any ESA-listed marine mammal species. for the Tampa Bay/Sarasota Bay significance for feeding or breeding. No listed species will be impacted by populations. There is insufficient data the specified activities. to determine population trends or status In summary, NMFS believes that of the relevant stocks relative to potential impacts to bay dolphins National Environmental Policy Act optimum sustainable population. represent a negligible impact for the (NEPA) following reasons: (1) Only a subset of Population estimates for these species The USCG and the MarAd initiated project activities have the potential to were provided earlier in this document the public scoping process in July 2007, (see the ‘‘Description of Marine affect bay dolphins; (2) any takes would with the publication of a Notice of Mammals in the Area of the Specified be of low intensity (resulting from Intent (NOI) to prepare an Activity’’ section). exposure to low levels of non-pulsed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) The maximum estimated take per year sound over a limited duration) and in the Federal Register. The NOI of Atlantic spotted dolphins (290) likely would not result in significant included information on public would be small relative to the stock size alteration of dolphin behavior in the meetings and informational open (37,611; 0.1 percent); this would decline heavily urbanized/industrialized area houses; requested public comments on for subsequent years of operations. As a where the activity would occur; (3) any the scope of the EIS; and provided result, only small numbers of Atlantic takes are likely to represent repeated information on how the public could spotted dolphins would be taken. For takes of individuals using the area submit comments. A Notice of bottlenose dolphins, the maximum where the activity is occurring, rather Availability for the Draft EIS was estimated total take per year for all than each take being of a new published in the Federal Register in bottlenose dolphins (860) is small individual; and (4) an unknown, but April 2008. Subsequently, a final EIS relative to the coastal stock size (7,702; possibly large, number of coastal stock was published in July 2009. MarAd 11 percent); this would decline for dolphins may be mixing in inshore issued a Record of Decision (ROD) subsequent years of operations. As a waters at any given time, and it is not approving, with conditions, the Port result, only small numbers of bottlenose possible to accurately determine how Dolphin Energy Deepwater Port License dolphins from the coastal stock could be many of the takes may occur to application on October 26, 2009. taken. However, it is difficult to individuals of the coastal stock versus Because NMFS was a cooperating partition potential takings between the individuals of the bay stock. Finally, agency in the development of the Port coastal stock (7,702) and the smaller following the initial year of Dolphin EIS, NMFS will adopt the EIS bay, sound, and estuarine stock (719) construction, all operations would occur and, if appropriate, issue its own ROD because the possibility for mixing of the offshore, and there would be no for issuance of authorizations pursuant stocks precludes any quantitative potential for incidental take of bay to section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for understanding of how the total dolphins. the activities proposed by Port Dolphin. estimated taking might be apportioned Based on the analysis contained between stocks. Information Solicited herein of the likely effects of the Although it is not possible to predict NMFS requests interested persons to that portion of overall incidental take specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into submit comments, information, and that might accrue to bay dolphin suggestions concerning the request and populations, NMFS believes that the consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, the content of the proposed regulations potential effects of the proposed to authorize the taking (see ADDRESSES). activities represent a negligible impact NMFS preliminarily finds that for bay dolphins. Only a subset of the construction and operation of Port Classification specified activities has the potential to Dolphin would result in the incidental The Office of Management and Budget affect bay dolphins. Buoy installation take of small numbers of marine (OMB) has determined that this and impact pile driving, as well as the mammals, by Level B harassment only, proposed rule is not significant for entire offshore portion of pipelaying and and that the total taking from Port purposes of Executive Order 12866. burial, would occur offshore and would Dolphin’s proposed activities would Pursuant to section 605(b) of the not have the potential to affect the bay have a negligible impact on the affected Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the dolphin populations. Vibratory pile species or stocks. Chief Counsel for Regulation of the driving would occur entirely within Impact on Availability of Affected Department of Commerce has certified Tampa Bay, as would a portion of Species or Stock for Taking for to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the inshore pipelaying and burial, and Subsistence Uses Small Business Administration that this could impact the bay populations. proposed rule, if adopted, would not Vibratory pile driving would occur for There are no relevant subsistence uses have a significant economic impact on only 8 days (at two piles per day), of marine mammals implicated by this a substantial number of small entities. meaning that any harassment action. Port Dolphin Energy LLC is the only
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55676 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
entity that would be subject to the 217.153 Permissible methods of taking. (b) Take any marine mammal requirements in these proposed 217.154 Prohibitions. specified in § 217.153(b) of this chapter regulations. Port Dolphin is ultimately 217.155 Mitigation. other than by incidental, unintentional owned by the Norway-based shipping 217.156 Requirements for monitoring and Level B Harassment; reporting. (c) Take a marine mammal specified company Ho¨egh LNG AS, which is itself 217.157 Letters of Authorization. held by Leif Ho¨egh & Co, a global 217.158 Renewals and Modifications of in § 217.153(b) of this chapter if such shipping company. Therefore, it is not Letters of Authorization. taking results in more than a negligible a small governmental jurisdiction, small impact on the species or stocks of such organization, or small business, as Subpart P—Taking Marine Mammals marine mammal; or defined by the RFA. Because of this Incidental to Construction and (d) Violate, or fail to comply with, the certification, a regulatory flexibility Operation of a Liquefied Natural Gas terms, conditions, and requirements of analysis is not required, and none has Deepwater Port in the Gulf of Mexico this subpart or a LOA issued under been prepared. § 216.106 and § 217.157 of this chapter. Notwithstanding any other provision § 217.151 Specified activity and specified § 217.155 Mitigation. of law, no person is required to respond geographical region. to nor shall a person be subject to a (a) Regulations in this subpart apply (a) When conducting the activities penalty for failure to comply with a only to Port Dolphin Energy LLC (Port identified in § 217.151(a) of this chapter, collection of information subject to the Dolphin) and those persons it authorizes the mitigation measures contained in requirements of the Paperwork to conduct activities on its behalf for the any LOA issued under § 216.106 and Reduction Act (PRA) unless that taking of marine mammals that occurs § 217.157 of this chapter must be collection of information displays a in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of implemented. These mitigation currently valid OMB control number. this section and that occur incidental to measures include but are not limited to: This proposed rule contains collection- construction and operation of the Port (1) General Conditions: (i) Briefings shall be conducted of-information requirements subject to Dolphin Deepwater Port (Port). between the Port Dolphin project the provisions of the PRA. These (b) The taking of marine mammals by construction supervisors and the crew, requirements have been approved by Port Dolphin may be authorized in a protected species observer(s) (PSO), and OMB under control number 0648–0151 Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it acoustic monitoring team prior to the and include applications for regulations, occurs in the vicinity of the Port start of all construction activity, and subsequent LOAs, and reports. Send Dolphin Deepwater Port in the eastern when new personnel join the work, to comments regarding any aspect of this Gulf of Mexico or along the associated explain responsibilities, communication data collection, including suggestions pipeline route. procedures, protected species for reducing the burden, to NMFS and § 217.152 Effective dates. monitoring protocol, and operational the OMB Desk Officer (see ADDRESSES). [Reserved] procedures. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217 (ii) Port Dolphin shall comply with all § 217.153 Permissible methods of taking. Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, applicable equipment sound standards Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, (a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to and ensure that all construction Reporting and recordkeeping § 216.106 and § 217.157 of this chapter, equipment has sound control devices no requirements, Seafood, Transportation. the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter ‘‘Port less effective than those provided on the Dolphin’’) may incidentally, but not original equipment. Vessel crew and Dated: September 4, 2012. intentionally, take marine mammals contractors shall minimize the Alan D. Risenhoover, within the area described in production of underwater sound to the Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, § 217.151(b) of this chapter, provided extent possible. Equipment and/or performing the functions and duties of the the activity is in compliance with all procedures used may include the use of Deputy Assistant Administrator for terms, conditions, and requirements of enclosures and mufflers on equipment, Regulatory Programs, National Marine the regulations in this subpart and the minimizing the use of thrusters, and Fisheries Service. appropriate LOA. turning off engines and equipment For reasons set forth in the preamble, (b) The incidental take of marine when not in use. 50 CFR part 217 is proposed to be mammals under the activities identified (iii) All vessels associated with Port amended as follows: in § 217.151(a) of this chapter is limited Dolphin construction and operations to the following species and is limited shall comply with NMFS Vessel Strike PART 217—REGULATIONS to Level B Harassment: Avoidance Measures and Reporting for GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE (1) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops Mariners and applicable regulations. All MAMMALS INCIDENTAL TO truncatus)—3,388 (860 the first year and vessels associated with Port Dolphin SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES an average of 632 annually thereafter) construction and operations shall 1. The authority citation for part 217 (2) Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella remain 500 yd (457 m) away from North continues to read as follows: frontalis)—1,274 (290 the first year and Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena an average of 246 annually thereafter) glacialis) and 100 yd (91 m) away from Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. all other marine mammals, except in 2. Subpart P is added to part 217 to § 217.154 Prohibitions. cases where small marine mammals read as follows: Notwithstanding takings (i.e., delphinids) voluntarily approach Subpart P—Taking Marine Mammals contemplated in § 217.151 of this within 100 yd or unless constrained by Incidental to Construction and Operation of chapter and authorized by a LOA issued human safety concerns or navigational a Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port in under § 216.106 and § 217.157 of this constraints. the Gulf of Mexico chapter, no person in connection with (2) Shutdown and Monitoring: Sec. the activities described in § 217.151 of (i) Shutdown zone: For all activities, 217.151 Specified activity and specified this chapter may: shutdown zones shall be established. geographical region. (a) Take any marine mammal not These zones shall include all areas 217.152 Effective dates. specified in § 217.153(b) of this chapter; where underwater sound pressure levels
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55677
(SPLs) are anticipated to equal or exceed 15 minutes has elapsed. If a marine (C) If a non-diesel impact hammer is 180 dB re: 1 mPa rms, as determined by mammal is observed within the used, contractors shall be required to modeled scenarios approved by NMFS disturbance zone, a take shall be provide an initial set of strikes from the for each specific activity. The actual size recorded and behaviors documented. impact hammer at reduced energy, of these zones shall be empirically (C) PSOs shall be on watch at all followed by a 1-minute waiting period, determined and reported by Port times during daylight hours when then two subsequent sets. Dolphin. For all non-stationary in-water operations are being (D) If a diesel impact hammer is used, activities (e.g., pipeline burial, shuttle conducted, unless conditions (e.g., fog, contractors shall be required to turn on regasification vessel (SRV) rain, darkness) make observations the sound attenuation device for 15 maneuvering), Port Dolphin shall impossible. If conditions deteriorate seconds prior to initiating pile driving. maintain a minimum 100 yd (91 m) during daylight hours such that the sea (v) No impact pile driving shall occur distance from marine mammals, with surface observations are halted, visual when visibility in the shutdown zone is the exception that voluntary approach observations must resume as soon as significantly limited, such as during (e.g., bow riding) within the 100 yd zone conditions permit. While activities will heavy rain or fog. by delphinids shall not trigger be permitted to continue during low- (4) Additional mitigation measures: shutdown requirements. visibility conditions, they (1) must have (i) Use of lights during construction (ii) Disturbance zone: For all been initiated following proper activities shall be limited to areas where activities, disturbance zones shall be clearance of the shutdown zone under work is actually occurring, and all other established. For impact pile driving, acceptable observation conditions; and lights must be extinguished. Lights must these zones shall include all areas (2) must be restarted, if halted for any be shielded such that they illuminate where underwater SPLs are anticipated reason, using the appropriate shutdown the deck and do not intentionally to equal or exceed 160 dB re: 1 mPa rms. zone clearance procedures as described illuminate surrounding waters, to the For all other activities these zones shall in § 217.155(a)(2)(iii)(B) of this chapter. extent possible. include all areas where underwater (3) Pile driving: (ii) Additional mitigation measures as SPLs are anticipated to equal or exceed (i) A minimum shutdown zone of 250 contained in a LOA issued under 120 dB re: 1 mPa rms. These zones shall m radius shall be established around all § 216.106 and § 217.157 of this chapter. be established on the basis of modeled impact pile driving activity. (b) [Reserved] scenarios approved by NMFS for each (ii) Contractors shall reduce the power specific activity. The actual size of of impact hammers to minimum energy § 217.156 Requirements for monitoring disturbance zones shall be empirically levels required to drive a pile. and reporting. determined and reported by Port (iii) Port Dolphin shall use a sound (a) Visual monitoring program: Dolphin, and on-site PSOs shall be attenuation measure for impact driving (1) Port Dolphin shall employ, at aware of the size of these zones. of pilings. Prior to beginning minimum, two qualified PSOs during However, because of the large size of construction, Port Dolphin must provide specified construction-related activities these zones, monitoring of the zone is information to NMFS about the device at each site where such activities are required only to maximum line-of-sight to be used, including technical occurring. All PSOs must be selected in distance from established monitoring specifications. NMFS must approve use conformance with NMFS’ minimum locations. of the device before construction may qualifications, as described in the (iii) Monitoring of shutdown and begin. If a bubble curtain or similar preamble to this rule, and must receive disturbance zones shall occur for all measure is used, it shall distribute small training sponsored by Port Dolphin, activities. The following measures shall air bubbles around 100 percent of the with topics to include, at minimum, apply: piling perimeter for the full depth of the implementation of the monitoring (A) Shutdown and disturbance zones water column. Any other attenuation protocol, identification of marine shall be monitored from the appropriate measure (e.g., temporary sound mammals, and reporting requirements. vessel or work platform, or other attenuation pile) must provide 100 The PSOs shall be responsible for suitable vantage point. Port Dolphin percent coverage in the water column visually locating marine mammals in shall at all times employ, at minimum, for the full depth of the pile. Prior to the shutdown and disturbance zones two PSOs in association with each any impact pile driving, a performance and, to the extent possible, identifying concurrent specified construction test of the sound attenuation device the species. PSOs shall record, at activity. must be conducted in accordance with minimum, the following information: (B) The shutdown zone shall be a NMFS-approved acoustic monitoring (i) A count of all marine mammals monitored for the presence of marine plan. If a bubble curtain or similar observed by species, sex, and age class, mammals before, during, and after measure is utilized, the performance test when possible. construction activity. For all activities, shall confirm the calculated pressures (ii) Their location within the the shutdown zone shall be monitored and flow rates at each manifold ring. shutdown or disturbance zone, and their for 30 minutes prior to initiating the (iv) Ramp-up: reaction (if any) to construction start of activity and for 30 minutes (A) A ramp-up technique shall be activities, including direction of following the completion of activity. If used at the beginning of each day’s in- movement. marine mammals are present within the water pile driving activities and if pile (iii) Activity that is occurring at the shutdown zone prior to initiating driving resumes after it has ceased for time of observation, including time that activity, the start shall be delayed until more than 1 hour. activity begins and ends, any acoustic or the animals leave the shutdown zone of (B) If a vibratory driver is used, visual disturbance, and time of the their own volition or until 15 minutes contractors shall be required to initiate observation. has elapsed without observing the sound from vibratory hammers for 15 (iv) Environmental conditions, animal. If a marine mammal is observed seconds at reduced energy followed by including wind speed, wind direction, within or approaching the shutdown a 1-minute waiting period. The visibility, and temperature. zone, activity shall be halted as soon as procedure shall be repeated two (2) Port Dolphin shall sponsor a it is safe to do so, until the animal is additional times before full energy may training course to designated crew observed exiting the shutdown zone or be achieved. members assigned to vessels associated
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 55678 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules
with construction activities or support distances to relevant sound thresholds. resume their activities until notified by of operations who will have Measurements shall be carefully NMFS. responsibilities for watching for marine coordinated with sound-producing (ii) In the event that Port Dolphin mammals. This course shall cover topics activities. discovers an injured or dead marine including, but not limited to, (3) [Reserved] mammal, and the lead PSO determines descriptions of the marine mammals (c) Reporting—Port Dolphin must that the cause of the injury or death is found in the area, mitigation and implement the following reporting unknown and the death is relatively monitoring requirements contained in a requirements: recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state LOA, sighting log requirements, (1) A report of data collected during of decomposition), Port Dolphin shall provisions of NMFS Vessel Strike monitoring shall be submitted to NMFS immediately report the incident to the Avoidance Measures and Reporting for following conclusion of construction Chief of the Permits and Conservation Mariners, and procedures for reporting activities. Subsequent reports Division, Office of Protected Resources, injured or dead marine mammals. concerning Port operations shall be NMFS, and the Southeast Regional (3) Monitoring shall be conducted submitted annually. The reports shall Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The using appropriate binoculars, such as include: report must include the same 8x50 marine binoculars. When possible, (i) All data required to be collected information identified in digital video or still cameras shall also during monitoring, as described under 217.156(b)(3)(i) of this chapter. be used to document the behavior and 217.156(a) of this chapter, including Activities may continue while NMFS response of marine mammals to observation dates, times, and reviews the circumstances of the construction activities or other conditions; incident. NMFS will work with Port disturbances. (ii) Correlations of observed behavior Dolphin to determine whether (4) Each PSO shall have two-way with activity type and received levels of additional mitigation measures or communication capability for contact sound, to the extent possible; and modifications to the activities are with other PSOs or work crews. PSOs (iii) Estimations of total incidental appropriate. shall implement shut-down or delay take of marine mammals, extrapolated (iii) In the event that Port Dolphin procedures when applicable by calling from observed incidental take. discovers an injured or dead marine for the shut-down to the equipment/ (2) Port Dolphin shall also submit a mammal, and the lead PSO determines vessel operator. report(s) concerning the results of all that the injury or death is not associated (5) A GPS unit and/or appropriate acoustic monitoring. Acoustic with or related to the activities range finding device shall be used for monitoring reports shall include authorized in the LOA (e.g., previously determining the observation location information as described in a NMFS- wounded animal, carcass with moderate and distance to marine mammals, approved acoustic monitoring plan. to advanced decomposition, or vessels, and construction equipment. (3) Reporting injured or dead marine scavenger damage), Port Dolphin shall (6) During arrival and departure of mammals: report the incident to the Chief of the SRVs and regasification, qualified PSOs (i) In the unanticipated event that the Permits and Conservation Division, may not be required. During SRV arrival specified activity clearly causes the take Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and departure, while thrusters are of a marine mammal in a manner and the Southeast Regional Stranding engaged for maneuvering, an additional prohibited by a LOA (if issued), such as Coordinator, NMFS, within 24 hours of lookout shall be designated to an injury (Level A harassment), serious the discovery. Port Dolphin shall exclusively and continuously monitor injury, or mortality, Port Dolphin shall provide photographs or video footage or for marine mammals. All sightings of immediately cease the specified other documentation of the stranded marine mammals by the designated activities and report the incident to the animal sighting to NMFS. lookout, individuals posted to Chief of the Permits and Conservation (4) Annual Reports. navigational lookout duties, or any other Division, Office of Protected Resources, (i) A report summarizing all marine crew member while the SRV is NMFS, and the Southeast Regional mammal monitoring and construction maneuvering or in transit to or from the Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. The activities shall be submitted to NMFS, Port shall be immediately reported to report must include the following Office of Protected Resources, and the watch officer who shall then alert information: NMFS, Southeast Regional Office the Master. The SRV must report to Port (A) Time and date of the incident; (specific contact information to be Dolphin any observations of marine (B) Description of the incident; provided in LOA) following the mammals while maneuvering with (C) Environmental conditions (e.g., conclusion of construction activities. thrusters. wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea Thereafter, Port Dolphin shall submit (b) Acoustic monitoring program: state, cloud cover, and visibility); annual reports summarizing marine (1) Port Dolphin must provide NMFS (D) Description of all marine mammal mammal monitoring and operations with an acoustic monitoring plan observations in the 24 hours preceding activities. describing the planned measurement of the incident; (ii) The annual reports shall include underwater sound pressure levels from (E) Species identification or data collected for each distinct marine designated construction and operation description of the animal(s) involved; mammal species observed in the project activities as well as the characterization (F) Fate of the animal(s); and area. Description of marine mammal of site-specific sound propagation. (G) Photographs or video footage of behavior, overall numbers of NMFS must approve this plan before the animal(s). individuals observed, frequency of activities may begin, and acoustic Activities shall not resume until observation, and any behavioral changes monitoring must be conducted in NMFS is able to review the and the context of the changes relative accordance with the plan. circumstances of the prohibited take. to activities shall also be included in the (2) Port Dolphin shall provide NMFS NMFS will work with Port Dolphin to reports. Additional information that with empirically measured source level determine what measures are necessary shall be recorded during activities and data for designated sources of sound to minimize the likelihood of further contained in the reports include: Date associated with Port construction and prohibited take and ensure MMPA and time of marine mammal detections, operation activities and shall verify compliance. Port Dolphin may not weather conditions, species
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Proposed Rules 55679
identification, approximate distance (2) Means of effecting the least analysis of the change, and solicit from the source, and activity at the practicable adverse impact (i.e., public comment before issuing the LOA. construction site when a marine mitigation) on the species, its habitat, (c) A LOA issued under § 216.106 and mammal is sighted. and on the availability of the species for § 217.157 of this chapter for the activity (5) Five-year Comprehensive Report. subsistence uses; and identified in § 217.151(a) of this chapter (i) Port Dolphin shall submit a draft (3) Requirements for monitoring and may be modified by NMFS under the comprehensive final report to NMFS, reporting. following circumstances: Office of Protected Resources, and (f) Issuance of the LOA shall be based (1) Adaptive Management—NMFS NMFS, Southeast Regional Office on a determination that the level of may modify (including augment) the (specific contact information to be taking will be consistent with the existing mitigation, monitoring, or provided in LOA) 180 days prior to the findings made for the total taking reporting measures (after consulting expiration of the regulations. This allowable under these regulations. with Port Dolphin regarding the comprehensive technical report shall (g) Notice of issuance or denial of a practicability of the modifications) if provide full documentation of methods, LOA shall be published in the Federal doing so creates a reasonable likelihood results, and interpretation of all Register within 30 days of a of more effectively accomplishing the monitoring during the first 4.5 years of determination. goals of the mitigation and monitoring the activities conducted under the set forth in the preamble for these regulations in this Subpart. § 217.158 Renewals and modifications of regulations. (ii) Port Dolphin shall submit a Letters of Authorization. (i) Possible sources of data that could revised final comprehensive technical (a) A LOA issued under § 216.106 and contribute to the decision to modify the report, including all monitoring results § 217.157 of this chapter for the activity mitigation, monitoring, or reporting during the entire period of the LOAs, 90 identified in § 217.151(a) of this chapter measures in an LOA: days after the end of the period of shall be renewed or modified upon (A) Results from Port Dolphin’s effectiveness of the regulations to request by the applicant, provided that: monitoring from the previous year(s). NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (1) The proposed specified activity and (B) Results from other marine and NMFS, Southeast Regional Office mitigation, monitoring, and reporting mammal and/or sound research or (specific contact information to be measures, as well as the anticipated studies. provided in LOA). impacts, are the same as those described (C) Any information that reveals § 217.157 Letters of Authorization. and analyzed for these regulations marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not (a) To incidentally take marine (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in authorized by these regulations or mammals pursuant to these regulations, subsequent LOAs. Port Dolphin must apply for and obtain § 217.158(c)(1) of this chapter), and (2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, (ii) If, through adaptive management, a LOA. the modifications to the mitigation, (b) A LOA, unless suspended or monitoring, and reporting measures monitoring, or reporting measures are revoked, may be effective for a period of required by the previous LOA under substantial, NMFS will publish a notice time not to exceed the expiration date these regulations were implemented. of proposed LOA in the Federal of these regulations. (b) For LOA modification or renewal Register and solicit public comment. (c) If an LOA expires prior to the requests by the applicant that include (2) Emergencies—If NMFS determines expiration date of these regulations, Port changes to the activity or the mitigation, that an emergency exists that poses a Dolphin must apply for and obtain a monitoring, or reporting (excluding significant risk to the well-being of the renewal of the LOA. changes made pursuant to the adaptive (d) In the event of projected changes management provision in species or stocks of marine mammals to the activity or to mitigation and § 217.158(c)(1) of this chapter) that do specified in § 217.153(b) of this chapter, monitoring measures required by an not change the findings made for the an LOA may be modified without prior LOA, Port Dolphin must apply for and regulations or result in no more than a notice or opportunity for public obtain a modification of the LOA as minor change in the total estimated comment. Notice would be published in described in § 217.158 of this chapter. number of takes (or distribution by the Federal Register within 30 days of (e) The LOA shall set forth: species or years), NMFS may publish a the action. (1) Permissible methods of incidental notice of proposed LOA in the Federal [FR Doc. 2012–22092 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am] taking; Register, including the associated BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:22 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10SEP3.SGM 10SEP3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 i
Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 175 Monday, September 10, 2012
CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING SEPTEMBER
Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. 21 CFR Presidential Documents 3 CFR Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 Executive Orders: 510...... 55413 520...... 55414 The United States Government Manual 741–6000 13642...... 54779 13625...... 54783 522...... 55413, 55414 Other Services 556...... 55414 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 7 CFR Proposed Rules: Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 Proposed Rules: 73...... 54862 Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 1710...... 54839 172...... 53801 TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 1717...... 54839 23 CFR 1721...... 54839 1724...... 54839 Proposed Rules: ELECTRONIC RESEARCH 1730...... 54839 172...... 53802 World Wide Web 10 CFR 24 CFR Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 5...... 55120 is located at: www.fdsys.gov. 2...... 53769 171...... 53769 200...... 55120 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public Proposed Rules: 207...... 55120 Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: 26...... 55429 232...... 55120 www.ofr.gov. 50...... 54839 26 CFR E-mail 12 CFR 1...... 54808 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is Proposed Rules: an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital Proposed Rules: 1...... 54482, 54862 form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form 34...... 54722 164...... 54722 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 29 CFR PDF links to the full text of each document. 226...... 54722 722...... 54722 Proposed Rules: To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 1026 ...... 54722, 54843, 54844, 1610...... 53814 Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 55272 30 CFR (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 1222...... 54722 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail Proposed Rules: service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 14 CFR 901...... 54490 904...... 55430 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 39 ...... 54353, 54787, 54791, 944...... 54491 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 54793, 54796, 54798, 54800, the instructions. 54803, 55411 71...... 54804, 54805 33 CFR FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 121...... 55105 100...... 55138 respond to specific inquiries. 129...... 55105 117...... 55416 Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 420...... 55108 151...... 55417 Federal Register system to: [email protected] Proposed Rules: 165 ...... 53769, 54811, 54813, 54815, 55139, 55141, 55143 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 39 ...... 54846, 54848, 54850, Proposed Rules: regulations. 54854, 54856, 55159, 55163, 55166 100...... 55436 Reminders. Effective January 1, 2009, the Reminders, including 71...... 54859, 54860 110...... 54493 Rules Going Into Effect and Comments Due Next Week, no longer 235...... 53779 161...... 55439 appear in the Reader Aids section of the Federal Register. This 165...... 54495 information can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov. 15 CFR 34 CFR CFR Checklist. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFR Checklist no Proposed Rules: longer appears in the Federal Register. This information can be 1400...... 53780 Proposed Rules: found online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/. Ch. I ...... 53819 16 CFR Proposed Rules: 36 CFR FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, SEPTEMBER 1240...... 53781 Proposed Rules: 7...... 53826 53769–54352...... 4 17 CFR 54353–54786...... 5 4...... 54355 37 CFR 54787–55104...... 6 232...... 54806 1...... 54360 55105–55410...... 7 Proposed Rules: 41...... 54360 55411–55680...... 10 230...... 54464 Proposed Rules: 239...... 54464 1...... 55028 41...... 55028 19 CFR 42...... 55028 4...... 54808 202...... 53829
VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:14 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\10SECU.LOC 10SECU srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS ii Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Reader Aids
38 CFR 761...... 54863 47 CFR Proposed Rules: 26...... 54952 1...... 54367 42 CFR 101...... 54421 17...... 54368 Proposed Rules: 270...... 55372 412...... 53968 101...... 54511 573...... 55606 39 CFR 413...... 53968 577...... 55606 Proposed Rules: 495...... 53968 578...... 55175 111...... 53830 48 CFR 43 CFR 579...... 55606 966...... 53830 3052...... 54835 3000...... 55420 Proposed Rules: 40 CFR 50 CFR 44 CFR 8...... 54864, 54872 52 ...... 53772, 53773, 55417, 9...... 54872 17...... 54434, 55530 55419 64...... 53775 12...... 54864 20...... 54451 70...... 54382 45 CFR 15...... 54864 622...... 53776 86...... 54384 17...... 54864 660...... 55153, 55426 180...... 54402 162...... 54664 42...... 54864 679...... 54837, 54838 228...... 55144 170...... 54163 49...... 54864 761...... 54818 Proposed Rules: 46 CFR 52...... 54872 Proposed Rules: 17 ...... 54294, 54332, 54517, 52...... 55168, 55171 162...... 55417 54548 122...... 53834 Proposed Rules: 49 CFR 217...... 55646 725...... 54499 10...... 55174 571...... 54836 622...... 55448
VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:24 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\10SECU.LOC 10SECU srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Reader Aids iii
(phone, 202–512–1808). The Services Employment and text will also be made Reemployment Rights Act. LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS available on the Internet from (Aug. 16, 2012; 126 Stat. Public Laws Electronic GPO’s Federal Digital System 1306) This is a continuing list of (FDsys) at http://www.gpo.gov/ Notification Service H.R. 4240/P.L. 112–172 public bills from the current fdsys. Some laws may not yet (PENS) session of Congress which be available. Ambassador James R. Lilley have become Federal laws. It and Congressman Stephen J. may be used in conjunction H.R. 1402/P.L. 112–170 Solarz North Korea Human with ‘‘P L U S’’ (Public Laws To authorize the Architect of Rights Reauthorization Act of PENS is a free electronic mail Update Service) on 202–741– the Capitol to establish battery 2012 (Aug. 16, 2012; 126 notification service of newly 6043. This list is also recharging stations for Stat. 1307) enacted public laws. To available online at http:// privately owned vehicles in subscribe, go to http:// www.archives.gov/federal- parking areas under the S. 3510/P.L. 112–173 listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ register/laws. jurisdiction of the House of To prevent harm to the publaws-l.html The text of laws is not Representatives at no net cost national security or published in the Federal to the Federal Government. endangering the military Note: This service is strictly Register but may be ordered (Aug. 16, 2012; 126 Stat. officers and civilian employees for E-mail notification of new in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual 1303) to whom internet publication of laws. The text of laws is not pamphlet) form from the H.R. 3670/P.L. 112–171 certain information applies, available through this service. Superintendent of Documents, To require the Transportation and for other purposes. (Aug. PENS cannot respond to U.S. Government Printing Security Administration to 16, 2012; 126 Stat. 1310) specific inquiries sent to this Office, Washington, DC 20402 comply with the Uniformed Last List August 16, 2012 address.
VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:14 Sep 07, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\10SECU.LOC 10SECU srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS