88216 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 18 

[Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2024–0140; 

FXES111607MRG01–245–FF07CAMM00] 

RIN 1018–BI09 

Marine Mammals; Incidental Take of 

Polar Bears During Specified 

Activities; North Slope, Alaska 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

draft environmental assessment; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, propose to revise a 

portion of our regulations under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

pertaining to incidental take of marine 

mammals. Existing regulations 

authorize the nonlethal, incidental, 

unintentional take by harassment of 

small numbers of polar bears from the 

Southern Beaufort Sea stock and Pacific 

walruses during year-round oil and gas 

industry activities in the Beaufort Sea 

(Alaska and the Outer Continental 

Shelf) and adjacent northern coast of 

Alaska. Such take may result from oil 

and gas exploration, development, 

production, and transportation activities 

occurring through August 5, 2026. The 

proposed revisions would authorize 

incidental take by Level A harassment 

of polar bears in addition to the 

incidental Level B harassment of polar 

bears and Pacific walruses already 

authorized in the existing regulations. 

No lethal take is or would be 

authorized. We request comments on 

these proposed regulations. 

DATES: Comments on these proposed 

revisions to our incidental take 

regulations and the accompanying draft 

supplemental environmental assessment 

will be accepted on or before December 

9, 2024. 

Information Collection Requirements: 

If you wish to comment on the 

information collection requirements in 

this proposed rule, please note that the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) is required to make a decision 

concerning the collection of information 

contained in this proposed rule between 

30 and 60 days after publication of this 

proposed rule in the Federal Register. 

Therefore, comments should be 

submitted to OMB by January 6, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: 

Document availability: You may view 

this proposed rule, the associated draft 

supplemental environmental 

assessment, comments received, and 

other supporting material at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R7–ES–2024–0140, or these 

documents may be requested as 

described under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Comment submission: You may 

submit comments on this proposed rule 

and draft supplemental environmental 

assessment by one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic submission: Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2024–0140. 

Comments submitted electronically 

must be received by 11:59 p.m. eastern 

time on the closing date. 

• U.S. mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–R7– 

ES–2024–0140, Policy and Regulations 

Branch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 5275 Leesburg Pike, 

Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We will post all comments at https:// 

www.regulations.gov. You may request 

that we withhold personal identifying 

information from public review; 

however, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. See Request for 

Public Comments for more information. 

Information collection requirements: 

Send your comments on the information 

collection request to the Service 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

by email to Info_Coll@fws.gov; or by 

mail to 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB 

(JAO/3W), Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. Please include ‘‘1018–0070’’ in 

the subject line of your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Burgess, Marine Mammals 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS–341, 

Anchorage, AK 99503, Telephone 907– 

786–3844, or email: R7mmmregulatory@

fws.gov. Individuals in the United States 

who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, 

or have a speech disability may dial 711 

(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point of 

contact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2024–0140 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In accordance with the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 

amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1371 et 

seq.), and its implementing regulations, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) finalized incidental take 

regulations in 2021 (2021–ITRs) in 

response to a request from the Alaska 

Oil and Gas Association (AOGA). The 

request was for regulations to provide 

for the issuance of letters of 

authorization (LOA) for incidental take 

of small numbers of Pacific walruses 

and Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar 

bears during specified oil and gas 

industry (‘‘Industry’’) activities in the 

Beaufort Sea and adjacent northern 

coast of Alaska over a 5-year period (86 

FR 42982, August 5, 2021). The 

regulations were added to title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 

part 18 at subpart J and expire August 

5, 2026. The 2021–ITRs authorize, via 

Service-issued LOAs, the incidental 

Level B harassment of up to 15 Pacific 

walruses and 92 SBS polar bears each 

year. The 2021–ITRs do not authorize 

(or facilitate the authorization of) any 

incidental Level A harassment or lethal 

take of any marine mammals during 

specified Industry activities, and any 

such take remains prohibited by the 

MMPA. 

The term ‘‘take’’ as defined by the 

MMPA, means to harass, hunt, capture, 

or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, 

capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 

U.S.C. 1362(13)). Harassment, as 

defined by the MMPA, for activities 

other than military readiness activities 

or scientific research conducted by or 

on behalf of the Federal Government, 

means ‘‘any act of pursuit, torment, or 

annoyance which (i) has the potential to 

injure a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild’’ (the MMPA 

defines this as Level A harassment); or 

‘‘(ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering’’ (the MMPA defines this as 

Level B harassment) (16 U.S.C. 

1362(18)). 

The 2021–ITRs, along with the 

accompanying National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) environmental 

assessment and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) biological opinion, were 

challenged in litigation that commenced 

in the United States District Court for 

the District of Alaska (District Court). 

On March 30, 2023, the District Court 

issued summary judgment in favor of 

the Service upholding the 2021–ITRs. 

Portions of this ruling were appealed to 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit (Appellate Court). On 

March 19, 2024, a three-judge panel of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88217 

the Appellate Court issued an order that 

affirmed in part, and reversed in part, 

the District Court ruling. The Appellate 

Court panel declined to vacate the 

2021–ITRs but issued a remand that 

requires the Service to conduct 

additional analysis and, depending on 

the results, potentially take regulatory 

action. In their remand order, specific 

only to polar bears, the Court directed 

(omitting internal references): ‘‘We . . . 

remand to the Service to offer a fuller 

explanation for its determination that no 

Level A incidents are expected during 

the period covered by the 2021 

ITR. . . . In assessing the ‘negligible 

impact’ prong on remand, the Service 

may, consistent with its expertise, 

emphasize certain outputs over others. 

However, given the MMPA’s two-part 

conception of take, it must determine 

whether aggregating serious and nonserious Level A take yields a ‘reasonably 

likely’ result. . . . If so (as the 75 

percent figure proffered by Plaintiffs 

suggests), the Service will then need to 

determine (i) whether any Level A take 

predicted will affect only ‘small 

numbers’ of bears and have a ‘negligible 

impact’ on the subpopulation and, if so, 

(ii) whether to issue an updated ITR 

covering Level A take or no ITR at all.’’ 

The Court further stated, ‘‘Hence, we 

. . . remand to the Service so that it 

may (i) aggregate serious and nonserious Level A take together . . . and 

(ii) determine whether the five-year risk 

of such take of a denning cub is 

‘reasonably likely’. . . . To the extent 

that it is, the Service must then evaluate 

whether the five-year impacts of Level 

A take is ‘negligible’ and whether such 

take will be of ‘small numbers’ of bears 

and possibly amend or reverse the 2021 

ITR.’’ 

Accordingly, the Service has 

conducted additional analysis 

consistent with the Appellate Court’s 

direction. As discussed below, this new 

analysis has resulted in preliminary 

determinations that, while no lethal take 

is predicted to occur, it is likely that 

Level A harassments of polar bears will 

occur, and that authorizing such take is 

consistent with MMPA standards. 

Therefore, this proposed rule, if 

finalized, would amend the 2021–ITRs 

to allow the issuance of LOAs 

authorizing take by Level A harassment 

of polar bears that may result from 

Industry activities. 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA 

gives the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) the authority to allow the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals, in 

response to requests by U.S. citizens (as 

defined in 50 CFR 18.27(c)) engaged in 

a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographic region. The Secretary has 

delegated authority for implementation 

of the MMPA to the Service. According 

to the MMPA, the Service shall allow 

this incidental taking if we find the total 

of such taking for a 5-year period or less: 

(1) will affect only small numbers of 

marine mammals of a species or 

population stock; 

(2) will have no more than a 

negligible impact on such species or 

stocks; 

(3) will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence use by Alaska Natives; and 

(4) we issue regulations that set forth: 

(a) permissible methods of taking; 

(b) other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

species or stock and its habitat, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for subsistence uses; and 

(c) requirements for monitoring and 

reporting of such taking. 

If final regulations allowing such 

incidental taking are issued, we may 

then subsequently issue LOAs, upon 

request, to authorize incidental take 

during the specified activities. 

The terms ‘‘negligible impact’’ and 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ are 

defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (the Service’s 

regulations governing small takes of 

marine mammals incidental to specified 

activities). ‘‘Negligible impact’’ is an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. ‘‘Unmitigable 

adverse impact’’ means an impact 

resulting from the specified activity (1) 

that is likely to reduce the availability 

of the species to a level insufficient for 

a harvest to meet subsistence needs by 

(i) causing the marine mammals to 

abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) 

directly displacing subsistence users, or 

(iii) placing physical barriers between 

the marine mammals and the 

subsistence hunters; and (2) that cannot 

be sufficiently mitigated by other 

measures to increase the availability of 

marine mammals to allow subsistence 

needs to be met. 

The term ‘‘small numbers’’ is also 

defined in § 18.27. However, we do not 

rely on that definition here as it 

conflates ‘‘small numbers’’ with 

‘‘negligible impacts.’’ We recognize 

‘‘small numbers’’ and ‘‘negligible 

impacts’’ as two separate and distinct 

requirements for promulgating 

incidental take regulations (ITRs) under 

the MMPA (see Natural Res. Def. 

Council, Inc. v. Evans, 232 F. Supp. 2d 

1003, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2003)). Instead, for 

our small numbers determination, we 

estimate the likely number of takes of 

marine mammals and evaluate if that 

take is small relative to the size of the 

species or stock. 

The term ‘‘least practicable adverse 

impact’’ is not defined in the MMPA or 

its enacting regulations. The Service 

ensures the least practicable adverse 

impact by requiring mitigation measures 

that are effective in reducing the impact 

of Industry activities but are not so 

restrictive as to make Industry activities 

unduly burdensome or impossible to 

undertake and complete. 

The MMPA does not require Industry 

to obtain an incidental take 

authorization; however, any taking that 

occurs without authorization is a 

violation of the MMPA. Since 1993, the 

oil and gas industry operating in the 

Beaufort Sea and the adjacent northern 

coast of Alaska has requested, and we 

have issued, ITRs for the incidental take 

of Pacific walruses and polar bears 

within a specified geographic region 

during specified activities. For a 

detailed history of our current and past 

Beaufort Sea ITRs, refer to the Federal 

Register at 81 FR 52276, August 5, 2016; 

76 FR 47010, August 3, 2011; 71 FR 

43926, August 2, 2006; and 68 FR 

66744, November 28, 2003. The current 

regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 

18, subpart J (§§ 18.121 through 18.129), 

and were published in the Federal 

Register on August 5, 2021 (86 FR 

42982). 

Proposed Changes to 50 CFR Part 18, 

Subpart J 

Our reanalysis, as discussed in detail 

below, indicates that Level A 

harassment of polar bears is reasonably 

likely to occur during the 5-year 

effective period of the 2021–ITRs. 

Therefore, we are proposing revisions to 

our regulations that, if finalized, would 

allow the Service to authorize take by 

both Level A and Level B harassment of 

polar bears. The lethal incidental take of 

polar bears would continue to be 

prohibited under this proposed revision, 

as would any Level A harassment or 

lethal take of Pacific walrus. 

New Information and Analysis 

Aggregated Level A Harassment Across 

5-Year Period 

In conducting the additional analysis 

required by the Court’s remand, the 

Service utilized best available scientific 

evidence. New information has been 

acquired and several advancements in 

the Service’s analytical methods have 

been made subsequent to the 

promulgation of the 2021–ITRs. Many of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88218 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

these advancements were recently 

described and considered in an 

incidental harassment authorization that 

was issued by the Service to the Bureau 

of Land Management (88 FR 88943, 

December 26, 2023). 

Specifically, the denning analysis 

described in the 2021–ITRs was 

conducted using the simulation of 

annual land-based maternal polar bear 

dens, spatially and temporally explicit 

descriptions of Industry activity, and 

predictions of polar bear response 

rooted in distributions established from 

den disturbance case studies (see 86 FR 

42982, August 5, 2021). For each of the 

five winter seasons analyzed in the 

2021–ITRs, a series of dens were 

simulated by assigning each a location 

on the landscape, the sow’s entrance 

date, the number of cubs she bore, the 

cub(s)’ birthdate, den emergence date, 

and den departure date. We then 

overlaid the season’s Industry activity 

across the same landscape and 

simulated whether polar bears within 

maternal dens that fell within a mile of 

activity responded to Industry-caused 

disturbances, and if so, how. Potential 

responses include disturbance of the 

sow inside the den, den abandonment, 

early emergence from the den, and early 

departure from the den site. Polar bear 

disturbance responses that occurred 

during the den establishment period 

were estimated to result in Level B 

harassment of the sow (no cubs are 

present during this period). Responses 

that occurred during the early denning 

period were estimated to result in Level 

B harassment of the sow and lethal take 

of the cub(s). Responses that occurred 

during the late denning period were 

estimated to result in Level B 

harassment of the sow and ‘‘serious 

Level A harassment’’ (i.e., likely to 

result in cub mortality) of the cub(s). 

Responses during the post-emergence 

period were estimated to result in Level 

B harassment of the sow and ‘‘nonserious Level A harassment’’ (i.e., not 

likely to result in cub mortality) of the 

cub(s). 

The denning model was created to 

assess individual denning seasons and 

has included several levels of 

assumptions that generate an estimate of 

the potential annual impacts to denning 

polar bears that is somewhat 

conservative in that it is more likely to 

overstate, rather than understate, 

potential impacts. Use of this 

methodology achieved the objective of 

ensuring that actual impacts would not 

exceed what was contemplated in the 

incidental take authorization and would 

remain consistent with applicable 

MMPA thresholds. However, when 

applied to activities spanning a 5-year 

period, conservative aspects of certain 

model assumptions are amplified in a 

manner that risks unduly overstating 

projected aggregate impacts, raising the 

possibility that incidental take resulting 

from specified activities with acceptable 

levels of impacts could not be 

authorized, a scenario that would be 

inconsistent with the intent of section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. Thus, in 

complying with the remand’s direction 

to aggregate Level A harassment 

estimates over a 5-year period, we 

reexamined the denning model to 

incorporate newly available scientific 

evidence and further refine certain 

model assumptions where appropriate 

to achieve greater accuracy. 

Since 2021, LOA applicants have 

annually provided the Service with 

revised project descriptions and 

geospatial files that more precisely 

reflected the scope of their planned 

activities to be conducted during the 

ensuing (1-year) LOA period, as 

compared with the descriptions of 

specified activities provided during 

development of the 5-year ITRs. We 

used the revised files in the present 

analysis as they constitute the best 

available information concerning the 

scope of Industry’s specified activities. 

We also account for AOGA’s 

clarification that no onshore terrestrial 

seismic surveys will occur during the 

winter of 2024–2025. Potential seismic 

surveys in the winter of 2025–2026 

remain within the scope of AOGA’s 

specified activities and were analyzed 

during our re-analysis. 

As a condition of their authorizations, 

LOA holders also submit records of all 

polar bear encounters during their 

activities. Using this information, and 

records from separate activities that 

were not operating under the 2021– 

ITRs, we incorporated data from 

recently observed dens into our 

disturbance probabilities and litter size 

distributions, modified the model to 

incorporate newly published data that 

describes the relationship between den 

emergence date, den departure time, 

and litter survival (Andersen et al. 

2024), and updated the simulation of 

dens across the landscape to now 

include several previously unidentified 

areas that may sustain polar bear dens. 

Four known dens (monitored in 2022 

and 2023) have occurred near human 

activity since the promulgation of the 

2021–ITRs. Of the four newly observed 

dens, three were extremely close to 

human activity (<50 meters), yet the 

sows remained in their dens until the 

late denning period. We updated polar 

bear disturbance probabilities and litter 

size distributions with the information 

from these dens, then reexamined the 

historic dens that were used to create 

disturbance probabilities. We found that 

the distances between human activity 

and polar bear dens that experienced an 

observed disturbance response during 

the early denning period were 

considerably closer than those dens that 

experience an observed disturbance 

response during other denning periods. 

Specifically, of the 15 dens within the 

case studies that were exposed to 

human activity during the early denning 

period, only 1 was potentially disturbed 

at a distance greater than 800 meters. 

This single den record also had 

imprecise information on the distance to 

human activity, so activity was assumed 

to occur within 1,610 meters of the den 

and was likely closer. 

The historic dens analyzed during the 

den establishment, late denning, and 

post-emergence periods did not follow 

this pattern. For those dens, disturbance 

distances commonly exceeded 805 

meters. Evidence derived from dens 

exposed to human activity during the 

early denning period, including both 

new den records and historic dens, 

illustrates the reluctance of sows to 

abandon their maternal den/cubs in 

response to exposure to stimuli from 

nearby activity and support the concept 

that sows may be more risk tolerant 

during the early denning period. 

Additionally, sows may be less affected 

by sound from outside activities during 

the early denning period because dens 

are typically closed during that time, 

which can reduce propagation of noise 

into the den (Owen et al. 2021). Given 

this evidence, we modified the denning 

analysis model to adjust the impact area 

for the early denning period to range 

from 0 to 805 meters. As a result, dens 

that were simulated to be within 805 

meters of human activity could be 

disturbed during all denning periods, 

while dens between 806–1,610 meters of 

human activity could be disturbed only 

during the den establishment, late 

denning, and post-emergence periods. 

Finally, the method for categorizing 

certain disturbance responses was 

modified to comply with the Court’s 

direction to provide aggregated 

estimates of Level A harassment and to 

better align the model results with the 

categories of ‘‘take’’ defined in the 

MMPA. In the preamble to the 2021– 

ITRs, we drew a distinction between 

‘‘serious Level A’’ and ‘‘non-serious 

Level A’’ harassment and largely 

addressed these categories separately. If 

a sow and cub(s) emerged early (i.e., 

during the late denning period), the 

litter was assigned serious Level A 

harassment(s). If the sow and cub(s) 

departed the den site early (i.e., during 

the post-emergence period), the litter 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88219 

was assigned non-serious Level A 

harassment(s). These categories were 

based on the historic den disturbance 

case studies. Now we omit the 

‘‘serious’’/‘‘non-serious’’ dichotomy and 

instead report results that aggregate all 

estimated Level A harassments. If an 

exposure resulted in disturbance during 

either of these periods, we assigned a 

Level A harassment to each cub in the 

litter (table 1). 

TABLE 1—PROBABILITY OF SIMULATED EXPOSURES RESULTING IN DISTURBANCE RESPONSE TO DENNING POLAR BEARS

[MMPA Level A and Level B harassment and lethal take] 

Denning period None 

(sow or cub(s)) 

Level B 

(sow) 

Level B 

(cub(s)) 

Level A 

(cub(s)) 

Lethal 

cub(s) 

Den establishment ............................................................. 0.750 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Early denning ..................................................................... 0.870 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.130 

Late denning ...................................................................... 0.510 0.490 0.000 0.490 0.000 

Post emergence—previously undisturbed den .................. 0.000 1.000 0.200 0.800 0.000 

Post emergence—previously disturbed den ...................... 0.000 1.000 0.474 0.526 0.000 

We also use newly described 

relationships between den emergence 

date, den departure time, and litter 

survival (Andersen et al. 2024) to assign 

litter survival rates to simulated dens 

that experienced Level A harassment, a 

method used in recent polar bear take 

authorizations (88 FR 88943, December 

26, 2023). If an exposure resulted in a 

disturbance response during the late 

denning period, we first assigned that 

den a new random earlier emergence 

date. We then simulated whether that 

den was disturbed during the postemergence period. Dens that were 

disturbed during the post-emergence 

period were also assigned a new random 

earlier den departure date. We relied on 

estimates of litter survival derived from 

empirical data from approximately 100 

days post emergence (Andersen et al. 

2024) to determine the fitness 

consequence of the Level A harassment, 

and we consider this information below 

when addressing the MMPA’s negligible 

impact standard. This revised 

methodology provides a clearer and 

more in-depth understanding of the 

potential fitness consequence of polar 

bear disturbance. 

As in the existing 2021–ITRs, some 

concepts and mitigation measures could 

potentially reduce impacts to polar 

bears, but they are not reflected in our 

take estimates because their mitigative 

benefit is not quantifiable. For example, 

LOA holders must train their staff to 

identify the characteristics of a polar 

bear den, and if a suspected den is 

identified, they must cease operations 

and notify the Service. However, the 

efficacy of this technique cannot be 

quantified and could not be accounted 

for in the model results. Consideration 

of the conservative nature of certain 

model assumptions along with 

qualitative factors suggests that if the 

actual number of Level A harassment 

events does not align with the median 

model output, the actual number of 

Level A harassment events would be 

fewer than modeled. However, we 

preliminarily find, based on best 

professional judgment, that Level A 

harassment is reasonably likely to occur, 

and is anticipated, during the 5-year 

period of the 2021–ITRs (table 2). 

TABLE 2—ANTICIPATED LEVEL A HARASSMENT OVER THE 5-YEAR PERIOD OF THE 2021–ITRS

Type of take Probability Mean Median 95% CI * 

Level A harassment ......................................................................................... 0.93 5.04 5 0–13 

* Confidence interval (CI). 

We base this conclusion on the 

strength of the modeled probability of 

Level A harassment (0.93), the estimated 

median number of harassments (5), and 

denning observations that have occurred 

within the area of the 2021–ITRs 

subsequent to the promulgation of the 

regulations in 2021. Of the four dens 

that have been observed within 1 mile 

of the human activity since 2021, two 

polar bear family groups appear to have 

spent less time at the den site during the 

post emergence period than average. 

Following the relationship between den 

emergence date and den departure date 

described by Andersen et al. (2024), the 

cubs in the early departing family 

groups may have experienced a 

reduction in fitness and, as a result, a 

temporary decrease in their probability 

of survival. The Service considers such 

reductions in fitness as ‘‘injuries’’ for 

the purposes of interpreting the 

MMPA’s definition of Level A 

harassment. 

Updated and Revised Findings 

Our reanalysis has led to the 

conclusion that Level A harassment of 

polar bears is reasonably likely to occur 

during the 5-year effective period of the 

2021–ITRs. Due to this conclusion, and 

in light of the Court’s remand, we 

propose to revise aspects of the 2021– 

ITRs that pertain to polar bears (but not 

Pacific walruses). 

Updated ‘‘Small Numbers’’ and 

‘‘Negligible Impact’’ Determinations 

In conducting analysis for this 

proposed revision to the 2021–ITRs, we 

began by focusing on the impact of 

AOGA’s specified activities that may 

occur during the 2 remaining years of 

the 2021–ITRs (which expire August 5, 

2026), i.e., the activities to which 

revised regulations would apply. Using 

the updated information and denning 

model methodology described above, 

we estimated the potential Level B 

harassment, Level A harassment, and 

lethal take of denning polar bears that 

may occur as a result of these specified 

activities (table 3). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88220 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—ANNUAL AND AGGREGATE ESTIMATES OF MMPA TAKE OF DENNING POLAR BEARS UNDER THE 2021–ITRS

AUGUST 6, 2024, THROUGH AUGUST 5, 2026 

Type of take Probability Mean Median 95% CI 

Level B harassment: 2-year ............................................................................ 0.97 4.27 4 0–10 

Level B harassment: 1-year ............................................................................ 0.86 2.45 2 0–7 

Level A harassment: 2-year ............................................................................ 0.71 2.31 2 0–8 

Level A harassment: 1-year ............................................................................ 0.49 1.27 0 0–6 

Lethal take: 2-year ........................................................................................... 0.45 1.05 0 0–5 

Lethal take: 1-year ........................................................................................... 0.31 0.65 0 0–4 

Small Numbers 

We propose a determination that 

AOGA’s specified activities between 

December 1, 2024, and August 5, 2026, 

would incidentally take small numbers 

of SBS polar bears. For this 

determination, we consider whether the 

estimated number of marine mammals 

to be subjected to incidental take is 

small relative to the population size of 

the species or stock. 

1. Within the specified geographical 

region, the area of Industry activity is 

expected to be small relative to the 

range of polar bears. SBS polar bears 

range well beyond the boundaries of the 

Beaufort Sea 2021–ITRs region. As such, 

the region represents only a subset of 

the potential area in which SBS polar 

bears may occur. Further, only seven 

percent of the 2021–ITRs area (518,800 

ha of 7.9 million ha) is estimated to be 

impacted by Industry activities, even 

accounting for a disturbance zone 

surrounding industrial facility and 

transit routes. Thus, the area of Industry 

activity will be relatively small 

compared to the range of polar bears. 

We expect that only small numbers of 

the SBS polar bear stock would be taken 

by the Industry activities specified in 

the 2021–ITRs because SBS polar bears 

are widely distributed throughout their 

expansive range, which encompasses 

areas beyond the Beaufort Sea 2021– 

ITRs region, meaning only a small 

proportion of the SBS polar bear stock 

will occur in the areas where Industry 

activities will occur, and the estimated 

number of polar bears that could be 

impacted by the specified activities is 

small relative to the size of the stock. 

2. The estimated number of polar 

bears that will be harassed by Industry 

activity is small relative to the number 

of animals in their stocks. The Beaufort 

Sea 2021–ITRs region is completely 

within the range of the SBS stock of 

polar bears, and during some portions of 

the year polar bears can be frequently 

encountered by Industry. From 2014 

through 2018, Industry made 1,166 

polar bear reports comprising 1,698 

bears. However, when we evaluated the 

effects upon the 1,698 bears observed, 

we found that 84 percent (1,434) did not 

experience take. Over those 5 years, 

Level B harassments of polar bears 

totaled 264, approximately 15.5 percent 

of the observed bears. No other forms of 

take or harassment were observed. 

Annually an average of 340 polar bears 

were observed during Industry 

activities. The number of observed Level 

B harassment events averaged 53 per 

year from 2014 to 2018. We conclude 

that over the remaining 2 years of the 

2021–ITRs, Industry activities will 

result in a similarly small number of 

incidental harassments of polar bears. 

Based on this information derived 

from Industry observations, along with 

the results of the Service’s own 

predictive modeling analysis described 

above, we estimate that no more than 

184 Level B harassment takes and 2 

Level A harassment takes of polar bears 

will occur during the remaining 2 years 

of the 2021–ITRs, with no more than 92 

Level B and 2 Level A harassment takes 

occurring within a single year. 

Conservatively assuming that, in a given 

year, each estimated take will accrue to 

a different individual polar bear, we 

note that take of 94 animals is 10.36 

percent of the best available estimate of 

the current stock size of 907 animals in 

the SBS stock (Bromaghin et al. 2015, 

Atwood et al. 2020) ((94 ÷ 907) × 100 ≈ 

10.36), and we propose a finding that 

this proportion represents a ‘‘small 

number’’ of polar bears of that stock. 

While we do not have data to estimate 

the frequency of repeated Level B 

harassments to the same polar bear in 

different years, polar bears exhibiting 

terrestrial habitat preferences may be 

harassed repeatedly. Thus, it is highly 

probable that the number of individuals 

experiencing Level B harassment over 

the 2024–2026 period is less than 184. 

While the Service does not propose to 

retroactively authorize any incidental 

take, we also address the remand 

directive to ‘‘evaluate the five-year 

impacts of Level A take’’ and determine 

whether that take ‘‘will be of ‘small 

numbers’ of bears.’’ Once again 

conservatively assuming that each 

estimated take over the 5-year period 

accrues to a different individual polar 

bear, we note that take is not anticipated 

to exceed 94 animals in any of the 5 

years and take of 94 animals is 10.36 

percent of the best available estimate of 

the current stock size of 907 animals in 

the SBS stock. This proportion 

represents a ‘‘small number’’ of polar 

bears of that stock. We conservatively 

base this preliminary determination on 

all the specified activities originally 

described in AOGA’s request, i.e., 

without discounting the estimated take 

associated with specified activities that 

were planned for the initial 3 years of 

the 2021–ITR but did not actually occur. 

Negligible Impact 

We proposed a determination that 

AOGA’s specific activities would result 

in a negligible impact to the SBS stock 

of polar bears. For our negligible impact 

determination finding, we consider the 

following: 

1. The number of polar bears that use 

the terrestrial habitat of the North Slope 

is small in relation to the entire SBS 

stock. The distribution and habitat use 

patterns of polar bears indicate that 

relatively few polar bears will occur in 

the specified areas of activity at any 

particular time and, therefore, few polar 

bears are likely to be affected. 

2. Mitigation measures will reduce 

potential impacts. If this proposed rule 

is finalized, the applicant will be 

required to adopt monitoring 

requirements and mitigation measures 

designed to reduce the potential impacts 

of their operations on polar bears. Den 

detection surveys for polar bears and 

adaptive mitigation and management 

responses based on real-time monitoring 

information (described in this proposed 

rule) will be used to avoid or minimize 

interactions with polar bears and, 

therefore, limit potential disturbance of 

these animals. 

3. The majority of human-polar bear 

interactions will result in no effect or 

short-term, temporary behavioral 

changes. When developing estimates for 

Level B harassment, we have 

determined that there is a 99 percent 

chance that at least 81 percent of 

encounters with bears on the surface in 

the open water season and 63 percent of 

encounters with bears on the surface in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88221 

the ice season are expected to result in 

no significant change in a biologically 

important behavior. The remainder of 

encounters are anticipated to result in 

short-term, temporary changes in 

behavior. 

4. Few dens would occur in proximity 

to Industry activities. Our denning 

simulations show that on average six 

dens are estimated to occur within 1 

mile of the specified activities during 

each of the next two denning seasons 

(2024–2025 and 2025–2026). This 

number represents roughly 5 percent of 

the approximately 120 SBS polar bear 

dens that are established each year. The 

mitigation measures required by the 

2021–ITRs reduce the estimated number 

of Level A disturbed dens to 1.8 percent 

of the land-based dens and 0.9 percent 

of all dens in the SBS stock (figure 1). 

Figure 1—Proportion of SBS land-based 

dens that are estimated to experience 

Level A disturbance each year. Landbased dens represent roughly half of 

the SBS maternal polar bear dens 

established each year. 

5. Anticipated Level A harassments 

will not alter the distribution of cub 

survival probabilities for the SBS stock. 

We anticipate two Level A harassment 

events may occur as a result of the 

specified activities over a period of 2 

years. The updated denning analysis 

model allows us to examine the 

simulated dens to estimate the 

probability of litter survival to 100 days 

using both their undisturbed and 

disturbed (if applicable) emergence and 

departure dates. With this information, 

we can determine the average decrease 

in survival probability that can be 

attributed to potential Industry 

disturbance. Only 0.9 percent of dens 

within the SBS stock are anticipated to 

experience Level A harassment 

annually. For those dens that experience 

harassment, the mean probability of 

litter survival before disturbance was 

87.3 percent. After simulating 

disturbance, the mean probability of 

litter survival was 72.8 percent, a 

decrease of 14 percent. However, given 

the low percentage of SBS dens that are 

anticipated to experience Level A 

harassment, the 14 percent decrease 

does not alter or shift the overall 

survival probability distribution for the 

SBS stock (figure 2). 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

Figure 2—Litter survival probability 

distributions for the annual landbased dens of the SBS polar bear stock 

(Graph A: Survival probabilities 

simulated with no disturbance from 

Industry; Graph B: Survival 

probabilities simulated with 

estimated Level A harassment from 

Industry activities). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP07NO24.084</GPH>

Proportion of SBS land based dens with Level A disturbance 

A dens 

98.2% 

dens 
88222 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

6. Lethal take via den abandonment is 

rare within the Southern Beaufort Sea 

stock. Records of den abandonment in 

the oilfield are rare—we have only 2 

accounts of potential den abandonment 

within the 15 case studies used to 

develop early denning period 

disturbance rates. Applying the denning 

model, the greatest annual probability of 

lethal take in the final 2 years of the 

2021–ITRs is 0.31. The aggregated 

probability of lethal take over a 2-year 

period is 0.45, indicating lethal take due 

to sow abandonment of the den and 

litter during the early denning period is 

unlikely. We do not believe the estimate 

of lethal take is inaccurate; however, it 

is potentially conservative. 

7. We do not anticipate that loss of a 

cub or litter will adversely affect annual 

recruitment rates at the population 

level. If a den is disturbed and the 

disturbance resulted in cub mortality, 

such take would not be authorized 

under the revised 2021–ITRs. Any Level 

A harassment would be limited to only 

cubs during the denning period. Impacts 

to denning females, the demographic 

group most important to annual 

recruitment, would be limited to take by 

Level B harassment. Therefore, the 

immediate number of potentially 

available reproductive females that 

would contribute to recruitment for the 

SBS stock would remain unaffected if a 

den disturbance were to result in the 

mortality of the cubs. If a den 

disturbance were to result in the 

mortality of the entire litter, the female 

would be available to breed during the 

next mating season and produce another 

litter during the next denning season. 

Cubs inherently cannot contribute to 

annual rates of recruitment until they 

have reached sexual maturity. Further, 

while adult male bears would contribute 

to the overall number of individuals in 

the population, they do not contribute 

significantly to annual rates of 

recruitment. While a very small 

decrease in the number of males in a 

breeding population may be a concern 

if the stock was at risk of inbreeding 

depression or allee effects, this is not 

the case in the SBS stock. Female cubs 

have the opportunity to reach sexual 

maturity and contribute to annual 

recruitment; however, natural rates of 

survival fluctuate in the SBS stock. As 

such, death of less than one female cub 

per year is within the natural variability 

found within the SBS stock and cannot 

be reasonably expected to cause an 

adverse impact on annual rates of 

recruitment. 

Based on the low percentage of SBS 

stock polar bears potentially being 

removed from the stock if den 

disturbance were to result in the 

mortality of the cubs, and the 

expectation that the number of 

potentially available reproductive 

females that would contribute to 

recruitment would be unaffected by den 

disturbance, the Service does not 

anticipate that the loss of a cub or litter 

would adversely affect annual 

recruitment rates at the population level 

for the SBS stock of polar bears. 

We reviewed the effects of Industry 

activities on polar bears, including 

impacts from surface interactions, 

aircraft overflights, marine vessel traffic, 

and den disturbance. Based on our 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP07NO24.085</GPH>

A) 

0 

..,.. 

0 

B) 

0.2 

Undisturbed values 

tQr sssta~dtiaseddens 

o.◄ o:'6 

litter ~1.1l'livafprobablifty 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88223 

review of these potential impacts, past 

monitoring reports, and the biology and 

natural history of polar bears, we 

conclude that any incidental take 

reasonably likely to occur as a result of 

specified activities would be limited to 

short-term behavioral disturbances and 

temporary reductions in fitness that 

would not affect the rates of recruitment 

or survival for the SBS stock of polar 

bears. 

We have analyzed the potential 

impact of the proposed taking in light of 

other factors affecting SBS polar bears, 

including subsistence harvest and other 

human-caused removals as well as 

climate change. Climate change is a 

global phenomenon and was considered 

as the overall driver of effects that could 

alter polar bear habitat and behavior. 

The Service is currently involved in 

research to understand how climate 

change may affect polar bears. As we 

gain a better understanding of climate 

change effects, we will incorporate the 

information in future authorizations. 

While climate change and other ongoing 

factors pose significant challenges to 

SBS polar bears, we do not expect them 

to influence the degree of impacts (i.e., 

short-term behavioral responses and 

temporary reductions in fitness) 

resulting from the specified activities or 

incidental harassment to be authorized 

under a revised ITR. 

Our analysis indicates that the 

impacts of these specified activities over 

the remaining 2 years addressed by the 

2021–ITRs cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and are not reasonably 

likely to, adversely affect the SBS stock 

of polar bears through effects on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival. We 

therefore propose a determination that 

the total of the taking estimated above 

and to be authorized via the revised 

2021–ITRs will have no more than a 

negligible impact on the SBS stock of 

polar bears. 

While the Service does not propose to 

retroactively authorize any incidental 

take, we also address the remand 

directive to ‘‘evaluate whether the fiveyear impacts of Level A take is 

‘negligible.’ ’’ Because we do not 

anticipate adverse effects to the SBS 

stock through effects on annual rates or 

recruitment or survival over the 

remaining 2 years, and because the 

scope of specified activities and the 

extent of estimated impacts is largely 

consistent across each year of the 5-year 

period, we propose a determination that 

the total of the taking estimated above 

over the 5-year period cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

SBS stock of polar bears through effect 

on annual rates or recruitment or 

survival, and thus will have no more 

than a negligible impact on the SBS 

stock of polar bears. We conservatively 

base this preliminary determination on 

all the specified activities originally 

described in AOGA’s request, i.e., 

without discounting the estimated 

impacts of specified activities that were 

planned for the initial 3 years of the 

2021–ITR but did not actually occur. 

Reevaluation of Other ITR Provisions 

We have not identified any means 

through which the Level A harassment 

described above, in combination with 

the Level B harassment already 

contemplated in the 2021–ITRs, is likely 

to reduce the availability of SBS polar 

bears to a level insufficient for harvest 

to meet subsistence needs. Thus, we 

preliminarily reaffirm our finding that 

the total taking will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of SBS polar bears or Pacific 

walruses for taking for subsistence uses. 

We have not identified any additional 

(i.e., not already incorporated into the 

2021–ITRs) mitigation measures that are 

effective in reducing the impact of 

Industry activities but are not so 

restrictive as to make Industry activities 

unduly burdensome or impossible to 

undertake and complete. Thus, we 

preliminarily reaffirm our finding that 

the mitigation measures required by the 

2021–ITRs will ensure the least 

practicable adverse impacts on SBS 

polar bears and Pacific walruses. 

We have not identified any additional 

(i.e., not already incorporated into the 

2021–ITRs) monitoring or reporting 

requirements to better assess the effects 

of industrial activities, ensure that the 

number of takes and the effects of taking 

are consistent with that anticipated in 

the ITR, or detect any unanticipated 

effects on SBS polar bears or Pacific 

walruses. 

Administrative Updates 

In addition to proposing amendments 

to the regulations in 50 CFR part 18 to 

accomplish the regulatory revisions 

described above, we also propose 

regulatory revisions to update our 

regulations that carry out the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.). The proposed revisions to §§ 18.4, 

18.129, and 18.152 that are set forth in 

the rule portion of this document are 

administrative and nonsubstantive. 

These proposed changes would serve 

only to update and streamline the 

regulatory text that ensures our 

regulations in 50 CFR part 18 are in 

compliance with the PRA. 

Request for Public Comments 

If you wish to comment on this 

proposed rule or the associated draft 

environmental assessment, you may 

submit your comments by any of the 

methods described in ADDRESSES. Please 

identify if you are commenting on the 

proposed regulations, draft 

environmental assessment, or both, 

make your comments as specific as 

possible, confine them to issues 

pertinent to the proposed regulations, 

and explain the reason for any changes 

you recommend. Where possible, your 

comments should reference the specific 

section or paragraph that you are 

addressing. We will consider all 

comments that are received by the close 

of the comment period (see DATES). 

Comments, including names and 

street addresses of respondents, will 

become part of the administrative 

record. Before including your address, 

telephone number, email address, or 

other personal identifying information 

in your comment, be advised that your 

entire comment, including your 

personal identifying information, may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comments 

to withhold from public review your 

personal identifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have prepared a draft 

supplemental environmental assessment 

in accordance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.). We have preliminarily 

concluded that the proposed revisions 

to additionally authorize two takes by 

Level A harassment of polar bears 

during the remaining 2 years of the 

2021–ITRs would not significantly affect 

the quality of the human environment 

and, thus, preparation of an 

environmental impact statement for this 

proposed rule is not required by section 

102(2) of NEPA or its implementing 

regulations. We are accepting comments 

on the draft environmental assessment 

as specified above in DATES and 

ADDRESSES. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) 

Under the ESA, all Federal agencies 

are required to ensure the actions they 

authorize are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any threatened 

or endangered species or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The polar bear is listed 

as a threatened species under the ESA 

at 50 CFR 17.11(h) with provisions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88224 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

issued under section 4(d) of the ESA at 

50 CFR 17.40(q) and designated critical 

habitat for polar bear subpopulations in 

the United States at 50 CFR 17.95(a). On 

August 3, 2021, the Service issued a 

biological opinion on the 2021–ITRs, 

concluding that, ‘‘[Issuance of the 2021– 

ITRs] is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of polar bears by 

appreciably reducing the likelihood of 

both survival and recovery of the 

species in the wild by reducing its 

reproduction, numbers, or distribution.’’ 

Because this proposed regulation 

change, if finalized, would allow both 

Level A and B taking of polar bears, 

whereas the 2021–ITRs provide for only 

Level B taking of polar bears, our 

Marine Mammal Management Office has 

re-initiated intra-Service ESA section 7 

consultation regarding the effects of 

these proposed regulations with our 

Fairbanks’ Ecological Services Field 

Office. We would complete the 

consultation prior to finalizing these 

proposed regulation revisions. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14904) 

Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 amends 

and reaffirms the principles of E.O. 

12866 and E.O. 13563 and states that 

regulatory analysis should facilitate 

agency efforts to develop regulations 

that serve the public interest, advance 

statutory objectives, and are consistent 

with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563, and the 

Presidential Memorandum of January 

20, 2021 (Modernizing Regulatory 

Review). Regulatory analysis, as 

practicable and appropriate, shall 

recognize distributive impacts and 

equity, to the extent permitted by law. 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

We have determined that this 

proposed rule is not a major rule under 

5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This proposed rule is not likely to result 

in a major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, or 

government agencies or have significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, productivity, innovation, 

or on the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export 

markets. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We have also determined that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Oil companies and 

their contractors conducting 

exploration, development, and 

production activities in Alaska have 

been identified as the only likely 

applicants under the regulations, and 

these potential applicants have not been 

identified as small businesses. 

Therefore, neither a regulatory 

flexibility analysis nor a small entity 

compliance guide is required. 

Takings Implications 

This proposed rule does not have 

takings implications under Executive 

Order 12630 because it authorizes the 

nonlethal, incidental, but not 

intentional, take of polar bears by 

Industry and thereby, exempts these 

companies from civil and criminal 

liability as long as they operate in 

compliance with the terms of their 

LOAs. Therefore, a takings implications 

assessment is not required. 

Federalism Effects 

This proposed rule does not contain 

policies with federalism implications 

sufficient to warrant preparation of a 

federalism assessment under Executive 

Order 13132. The MMPA gives the 

Service the authority and responsibility 

to protect polar bears. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), this proposed rule would not 

‘‘significantly or uniquely’’ affect small 

governments. A small government 

agency plan is not required. The Service 

has determined and certifies pursuant to 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that 

this rulemaking would not impose a 

cost of $100 million or more in any 

given year on local or State governments 

or private entities. Therefore, this 

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act. 

Government-to-Government 

Coordination 

It is our responsibility to 

communicate and work directly on a 

government-to-government basis with 

federally recognized Alaska Native 

Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems. We seek their full 

and meaningful participation in 

evaluating and addressing conservation 

concerns for protected species. It is our 

goal to remain sensitive to Alaska 

Native culture, and to make information 

available to Alaska Tribal organizations 

and communities. Our efforts are guided 

by the following policies and directives: 

(1) The Native American Policy of the 

Service (January 20, 2016); 

(2) The Alaska Native Relations Policy 

(currently in draft form; see 87 FR 

66255, November 3, 2022); 

(3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 

2000); 

(4) Department of the Interior 

Secretary’s Orders 3206 (June 5, 1997), 

3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 

(December 1, 2011), 3342 (October 21, 

2016), and 3403 (November 15, 2021) as 

well as Director’s Order 227 (September 

8, 2022); 

(5) The Alaska Government-toGovernment Policy (a departmental 

memorandum issued January 18, 2001); 

and 

(6) the Department of the Interior’s 

policies on consultation with Alaska 

Native Tribes and organizations. 

We have evaluated possible effects of 

the proposed rule on federally 

recognized Alaska Native Tribes and 

ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act) Corporations. The 

Service has determined that authorizing 

two takes by Level A harassment of 

polar bears during the remaining 2 years 

of the 2021–ITRs, with no more than 

two Level A harassment takes occurring 

within a single year from the SBS stock 

of polar bears, would not have any 

Tribal implications or ANCSA 

Corporation implications and, therefore, 

government-to-government consultation 

or Government-to-ANCSA Corporation 

consultation is not necessary. However, 

we invite continued discussion through 

the public comment process. 

Civil Justice Reform 

The Department’s Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that these 

proposed regulations do not unduly 

burden the judicial system and meet the 

applicable standards provided in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule requests a revision 

to an existing information collection. 

All information collections (ICs) require 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor, 

and you are not required to respond to, 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The OMB previously reviewed 

and approved the information collection 

requirements associated with incidental 

take of marine mammals in 50 CFR part 

18, subparts J and L, and assigned OMB 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88225 

Control Number 1018–0070 (expires 

July 31, 2026). 

In accordance with the PRA and its 

implementing regulations at 5 CFR 

1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general 

public and other Federal agencies with 

an opportunity to comment on our 

proposal to revise OMB Control Number 

1018–0070 and on our request for a new 

control number as described below. 

This input will help us assess the 

impact of our information collection 

requirements and minimize the public’s 

reporting burden. It will also help the 

public understand our information 

collection requirements and provide the 

requested data in the desired format. 

As part of our continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burdens, and in accordance with 5 CFR 

1320.8(d)(1), we invite the public and 

other Federal agencies to comment on 

any aspect of this proposed information 

collection, including: 

(1) Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether or not the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including through 

the use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

response. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this proposed rulemaking 

are a matter of public record. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

This is a nonform collection. 

Respondents must comply with the 

regulations at 50 CFR part 18, which 

outline the procedures and 

requirements for submitting a request. 

Specific regulations governing 

authorized incidental take of marine 

mammal activities are contained in 50 

CFR part 18, subparts J (incidental take 

of polar bears and Pacific walruses in 

the Beaufort Sea) and L (incidental take 

of northern sea otters in the Gulf of 

Alaska). These regulations provide the 

applicant with a detailed description of 

information that we need to evaluate the 

proposed activity and determine if it is 

appropriate to issue specific regulations 

and, subsequently, LOAs. We use the 

information to verify the findings 

required to issue incidental take 

regulations, to decide if we should issue 

an LOA, and (if an LOA is issued) what 

conditions should be included in the 

LOA. In addition, we analyze the 

information to determine impacts to 

polar bears, Pacific walruses, northern 

sea otters, and the availability of those 

marine mammals for subsistence 

purposes of Alaska Natives. 

In conjunction with this rulemaking, 

we propose the following revisions for 

OMB approval: 

(1) Revise and renew OMB Control 

No. 1018–0070 to retain the currently 

approved ICs and burden estimates 

associated with 50 CFR part 18, subpart 

J—Beaufort Sea—This ITR in subpart J, 

issued to the Alaska Oil and Gas 

Association (AOGA) is effective August 

5, 2021, through August 5, 2026. It 

authorizes the nonlethal incidental, but 

not intentional, take of small numbers of 

polar bear and Pacific walrus for oil and 

gas exploration, development, and 

production activities in the Beaufort Sea 

and adjacent northern coast of Alaska. 

Unless a new ITR is issued for subpart 

J, we will discontinue OMB Control No. 

1018–0070 when the ITR expires in 

2026. 

We request OMB approval to renew 

the following ICs and to adjust the 

currently approved burden associated 

with the ICs in subpart J that will 

remain in OMB Control No. 1018–0070: 

(A) Incidental Take of Marine 

Mammals—Application for 

Regulations—Regulations at 50 CFR part 

18 require the applicant to provide 

information on the activity as a whole, 

which includes, but is not limited to, an 

assessment of total impacts by all 

persons conducting the activity. 

Applicants can find specific 

requirements in 50 CFR part 18, subpart 

J. These regulations provide the 

applicant with a detailed description of 

information that we need to evaluate the 

proposed activity and determine 

whether to issue specific regulations 

and, subsequently, LOAs. The required 

information includes: 

1. A description of the specific 

activity or class of activities that can be 

expected to result in incidental taking of 

marine mammals. 

2. The dates and duration of such 

activity and the specific geographical 

region where it will occur. 

3. Based on the best available 

scientific information, each applicant 

must also provide: 

a. An estimate of the species and 

numbers of marine mammals likely to 

be taken by age, sex, and reproductive 

conditions; 

b. The type of taking (e.g., disturbance 

by sound, injury or death resulting from 

collision, etc.) and the number of times 

such taking is likely to occur; 

c. A description of the status, 

distribution, and seasonal distribution 

(when applicable) of the affected species 

or stocks likely to be affected by such 

activities; 

d. The anticipated impact of the 

activity upon the species or stocks; and 

e. The anticipated impact of the 

activity on the availability of the species 

or stocks for subsistence uses. 

4. The anticipated impact of the 

activity upon the habitat of the marine 

mammal populations and the likelihood 

of restoration of the affected habitat. 

5. The availability and feasibility 

(economic and technological) of 

equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, their habitat, and, where 

relevant, on their availability for 

subsistence uses, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. (The 

applicant and those conducting the 

specified activity and the affected 

subsistence users are encouraged to 

develop mutually agreeable mitigating 

measures that will meet the needs of 

subsistence users.) 

6. Suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species through an analysis of the 

level of taking or impacts and suggested 

means of minimizing burdens by 

coordinating such reporting 

requirements with other schemes 

already applicable to persons 

conducting such activity. 

7. Suggested means of learning of, 

encouraging, and coordinating research 

opportunities, plans, and activities 

relating to reducing such incidental 

taking from such specified activities, 

and evaluating its effects. 

8. Applicants must develop and 

implement a site-specific (or umbrella 

plan addressing site-specific 

considerations), Service-approved 

marine mammal monitoring and 

mitigation plan to monitor and evaluate 

the effectiveness of mitigation measures 

and the effects of activities on marine 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88226 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

mammals and the subsistence use of 

these species. 

9. Applicants must also provide 

trained, qualified, and Service-approved 

onsite observers to carry out monitoring 

and mitigation activities identified in 

the marine mammal monitoring and 

mitigation plan. 

This information is necessary for the 

Service to anticipate the impact of the 

activity on the species or stocks and on 

the availability of the species or stocks 

for Alaska Native subsistence uses. 

Under requirements of the MMPA, we 

cannot authorize a take unless the total 

of all takes will have a negligible impact 

on the species or stocks and, where 

appropriate, will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

subsistence uses. These requirements 

ensure that applicants are aware of 

related monitoring and research efforts 

they can apply to their situation, and 

that the monitoring and reporting that 

we impose are the least burdensome to 

the applicant. 

(B) Incidental Take of Marine 

Mammals—Requests for LOA—LOAs, 

which may be issued only to U.S. 

citizens, are required to conduct 

activities pursuant to any specific 

regulations established. Once specific 

regulations are effective, the Service 

will, to the maximum extent possible, 

process subsequent requests for LOAs 

within 30 days after receipt of the 

request by the Service. All LOAs will 

specify the period of validity and any 

additional terms and conditions 

appropriate for the specific request. 

Issuance of LOAs will be based on a 

determination that the level of taking 

will be consistent with the findings 

made for the total taking allowable 

under the specific regulations. 

(C) Incidental Take of Marine 

Mammals—Final Monitoring Report— 

The results of monitoring and mitigation 

efforts identified in the marine mammal 

monitoring and mitigation plan must be 

submitted to the Service for review 

within 90 days of the expiration of an 

LOA. Upon request, final report data 

must be provided in a common 

electronic format (to be specified by the 

Service). Information in the final (or 

annual) report must include, but is not 

limited to: 

1. Copies of all observation reports 

submitted under the LOA; 

2. A summary of the observation 

reports; 

3. A summary of monitoring and 

mitigation efforts including areas, total 

hours, total distances, and distribution; 

4. Analysis of factors affecting the 

visibility and detectability of walruses 

and polar bears during monitoring; 

5. Analysis of the effectiveness of 

mitigation measures; 

6. Analysis of the distribution, 

abundance, and behavior of walruses 

and/or polar bears observed; and 

7. Estimates of take in relation to the 

specified activities. 

(D) Polar Bear Den Detection Report— 

Holders of an LOA seeking to carry out 

onshore activities in known or 

suspected polar bear denning habitat 

during the denning season must make 

efforts to locate occupied polar bear 

dens within and near proposed areas of 

operation. They may use any 

appropriate tool, such as forwardlooking infrared imagery and/or polar 

bear scent-trained dogs, in concert with 

denning habitat maps along the Alaskan 

coast. 

1. In accordance with 50 CFR 

18.128(b)(1) and (2), LOA holders must 

report all observed or suspected polar 

bear dens to us prior to the initiation of 

activities. We use this information to 

determine the appropriate terms and 

conditions in an individual LOA in 

order to minimize potential impacts and 

disturbance to polar bears. 

2. Holders of an LOA seeking to carry 

out onshore activities during the 

denning season (November–April) must 

conduct two separate surveys for 

occupied polar bear dens in all denning 

habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of proposed 

activities using aerial infrared (AIR) 

imagery. Further, all denning habitat 

within 1.6 km (1 mi) of areas of 

proposed seismic surveys must be 

surveyed three separate times with AIR 

technology. 

3. Flight crews will record and report 

environmental parameters including air 

temperature, dew point, wind speed and 

direction, cloud ceiling, and percent 

humidity, and a flight log will be 

provided to the Service within 48 hours 

of the flight. 

(E) In-Season Monitoring—Activity 

Progress Reports—Holders of an LOA 

must: 

1. Notify the Service at least 48 hours 

prior to the onset of activities; 

2. Provide the Service weekly 

progress reports of any significant 

changes in activities and/or locations; 

and 

3. Notify the Service within 48 hours 

after ending of activities. 

(F) In-season Monitoring— 

Observation Reports—Holders of an 

LOA must report, within 48 hours, all 

observations of polar bears and potential 

polar bear dens, during any industry 

activity. Upon request, monitoring 

report data must be provided in a 

common electronic format (to be 

specified by the Service). Information in 

the observation report must include, but 

is not limited to: 

1. Date, time, and location of 

observation; 

2. Number of bears; 

3. Sex and age of bears (if known); 

4. Observer name and contact 

information; 

5. Weather, visibility, sea state, and 

sea-ice conditions at the time of 

observation; 

6. Estimated closest distance of bears 

from personnel and facilities; 

7. Industry activity at time of sighting; 

8. Possible attractants present; 

9. Bear behavior; 

10. Description of the encounter; 

11. Duration of the encounter; and 

12. Mitigation actions taken. 

(G) Notification of LOA Incident 

Report—Holders of an LOA must report, 

as soon as possible, but within 48 hours, 

all LOA incidents during any Industry 

activity. An LOA incident is any 

situation when specified activities 

exceed the authority of an LOA, when 

a mitigation measure was required but 

not enacted, or when injury or death of 

a marine mammal occurs. Reports must 

include: 

1. All information specified for an 

observation report; 

2. A complete detailed description of 

the incident; and 

3. Any other actions taken. 

(H) Mitigation—Interaction Plan—All 

holders of an LOA must have an 

approved polar bear safety, awareness, 

and interaction plan on file with the 

Service’s Marine Mammals Management 

Office and onsite and provide polar bear 

awareness training to certain personnel. 

Interaction plans must include: 

1. The type of activity and where and 

when the activity will occur (i.e., a 

summary of the plan of operation); 

2. A food, waste, and other ‘‘bear 

attractants’’ management plan; 

3. Personnel training policies, 

procedures, and materials; 

4. Site-specific walrus and bear 

interaction risk evaluation and 

mitigation measures; 

5. Bear avoidance and encounter 

procedures; and 

6. Bear observation and reporting 

procedures. 

(I) Mitigation—3rd Party 

Notifications—All applicants for an 

LOA must contact affected Alaska 

Native subsistence communities and 

hunter organizations to discuss 

potential conflicts caused by the 

activities and provide the Service 

documentation of communications. 

(J) Mitigation—Requests for 

Exemption Waivers—Exemption 

waivers to the operating conditions in 

50 CFR 18.126(c) may be issued by the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88227 

Service on a case-by-case basis, based 

upon a review of seasonal ice conditions 

and available information on walrus and 

polar bear distributions in the area of 

interest. 

(K) Mitigation—Plan of Cooperation— 

When appropriate, a holder of an LOA 

will be required to develop and 

implement a Service-approved plan of 

cooperation (POC). 

1. The POC must include a 

description of the procedures by which 

the holder of the LOA will work and 

consult with potentially affected Alaska 

Native subsistence hunters and a 

description of specific measures that 

have been or will be taken to avoid or 

minimize interference with subsistence 

hunting of otters, walruses, and polar 

bears and to ensure continued 

availability of the species for 

subsistence use. 

2. The Service will review the POC to 

ensure that any potential adverse effects 

on the availability of the animals are 

minimized. The Service will reject POCs 

if they do not provide adequate 

safeguards to ensure the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

availability of walruses and polar bears 

for subsistence use. 

(2) Revise OMB Control No. 1018– 

0070 to remove references to, and all 

burden associated with, information 

collections (ICs) in 50 CFR part 18, 

subpart K—Cook Inlet, to include 

updating the title of this collection—The 

ITR in subpart K, issued to Hilcorp 

Alaska, LLC, Harvest Alaska, LLC, and 

the Alaska Gasline Development 

Corporation on August 1, 2019, 

authorized the nonlethal, incidental, but 

not intentional, take of small numbers of 

northern sea otters (Enhydra lutris 

kenyoni) for activities associated with or 

in support of oil and gas exploration, 

development, production, and 

transportation in Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

This ITR expired on August 1, 2024, and 

is no longer active; therefore, we are 

removing the reference to the ICR, along 

with the associated burden, from OMB 

Control No. 1018–0070. 

(3) Request a new control number for 

the currently approved ICs and burden 

estimates associated with 50 CFR part 

18, subpart L—U.S. Coast Guard—We 

will submit a separate information 

collection request to OMB for approval 

that will contain the applicable ICs and 

associated burden for subpart L 

previously approved by OMB under 

OMB Control No. 1018–0070. The ITR 

in subpart L, effective May 19, 2023, 

authorizes the nonlethal, incidental, 

unintentional take by harassment of 

small numbers of northern sea otters 

(otters; Enhydra lutris kenyoni) while 

engaged in activities associated with or 

in support of marine construction 

activities in the Gulf of Alaska. Unless 

a new ITR is issued for subpart L, we 

will discontinue the newly assigned 

control number when the ITR expires on 

May 19, 2028. 

We propose to transfer the following 

currently approved ICs from OMB 

Control No. 1018–0070 into a new 

control number: 

(A) Incidental Take of Marine 

Mammals—Application for 

Regulations—Regulations at 50 CFR part 

18 require the applicant to provide 

information on the activity as a whole, 

which includes, but is not limited to, an 

assessment of total impacts by all 

persons conducting the activity. 

Applicants can find specific 

requirements in 50 CFR part 18, subpart 

J. These regulations provide the 

applicant with a detailed description of 

information that we need to evaluate the 

proposed activity and determine 

whether to issue specific regulations 

and, subsequently, LOAs. The required 

information includes: 

1. A description of the specific 

activity or class of activities that can be 

expected to result in incidental taking of 

marine mammals. 

2. The dates and duration of such 

activity and the specific geographical 

region where it will occur. 

3. Based on the best available 

scientific information, each applicant 

must also provide: 

a. An estimate of the species and 

numbers of marine mammals likely to 

be taken by age, sex, and reproductive 

conditions; 

b. The type of taking (e.g., disturbance 

by sound, injury or death resulting from 

collision, etc.) and the number of times 

such taking is likely to occur; 

c. A description of the status, 

distribution, and seasonal distribution 

(when applicable) of the affected species 

or stocks likely to be affected by such 

activities; 

d. The anticipated impact of the 

activity upon the species or stocks; and 

e. The anticipated impact of the 

activity on the availability of the species 

or stocks for subsistence uses. 

4. The anticipated impact of the 

activity upon the habitat of the marine 

mammal populations and the likelihood 

of restoration of the affected habitat. 

5. The availability and feasibility 

(economic and technological) of 

equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks, their habitat, and, where 

relevant, on their availability for 

subsistence uses, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. (The 

applicant and those conducting the 

specified activity and the affected 

subsistence users are encouraged to 

develop mutually agreeable mitigating 

measures that will meet the needs of 

subsistence users.) 

6. Suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species through an analysis of the 

level of taking or impacts and suggested 

means of minimizing burdens by 

coordinating such reporting 

requirements with other schemes 

already applicable to persons 

conducting such activity. 

7. Suggested means of learning of, 

encouraging, and coordinating research 

opportunities, plans, and activities 

relating to reducing such incidental 

taking from such specified activities, 

and evaluating its effects. 

8. Applicants must develop and 

implement a site-specific (or umbrella 

plan addressing site-specific 

considerations), Service-approved 

marine mammal monitoring and 

mitigation plan to monitor and evaluate 

the effectiveness of mitigation measures 

and the effects of activities on marine 

mammals and the subsistence use of 

these species. 

9. Applicants must also provide 

trained, qualified, and Service-approved 

onsite observers to carry out monitoring 

and mitigation activities identified in 

the marine mammal monitoring and 

mitigation plan. 

This information is necessary for the 

Service to anticipate the impact of the 

activity on the species or stocks and on 

the availability of the species or stocks 

for Alaska Native subsistence uses. 

Under requirements of the MMPA, we 

cannot authorize a take unless the total 

of all takes will have a negligible impact 

on the species or stocks and, where 

appropriate, will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

subsistence uses. These requirements 

ensure that applicants are aware of 

related monitoring and research efforts 

they can apply to their situation, and 

that the monitoring and reporting 

requirements that we impose are the 

least burdensome to the applicant. 

(B) Incidental Take of Marine 

Mammals—Requests for LOA—LOAs, 

which may be issued only to U.S. 

citizens, are required to conduct 

activities pursuant to any specific 

regulations established. Once specific 

regulations are effective, the Service 

will, to the maximum extent possible, 

process subsequent requests for LOAs 

within 30 days after receipt of the 

request by the Service. All LOAs will 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
88228 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

specify the period of validity and any 

additional terms and conditions 

appropriate for the specific request. 

Issuance of LOAs will be based on a 

determination that the level of taking 

will be consistent with the findings 

made for the total taking allowable 

under the specific regulations. 

(C) Incidental Take of Marine 

Mammals—Final Monitoring Report— 

The results of monitoring and mitigation 

efforts identified in the marine mammal 

monitoring and mitigation plan must be 

submitted to the Service for review 

within 90 days of the expiration of an 

LOA. Upon request, final report data 

must be provided in a common 

electronic format (to be specified by the 

Service). Information in the final (or 

annual) report must include, but is not 

limited to: 

1. A summary of monitoring efforts 

(hours of monitoring, activities 

monitored, number of protected species 

observers (PSOs), and, if requested by 

the Service, the daily monitoring logs). 

2. A description of all project 

activities, along with any additional 

work yet to be done. Factors influencing 

visibility and detectability of otters (e.g., 

sea state, number of observers, and fog 

and glare) will be discussed. 

3. A description of the factors 

affecting the presence and distribution 

of sea otters (e.g., weather, sea state, and 

project activities). An estimate will be 

included of the number of sea otters 

exposed to noise at received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dBRMS re: 

1 mPa (decibels root-mean squared 

referenced to 1 microPascal) (based on 

visual observation). 

4. A description of changes in sea 

otter behavior resulting from project 

activities and any specific behaviors of 

interest. 

5. A discussion of the mitigation 

measures implemented during project 

activities and their observed 

effectiveness for minimizing impacts to 

sea otters. Sea otter observation records 

will be provided to the Service in the 

form of electronic database or 

spreadsheet files. 

(D) In-Season Monitoring—Activity 

Progress Reports—Holders of an LOA 

must: 

1. Notify the Service at least 48 hours 

prior to the onset of activities; 

2. Provide the Service weekly 

progress reports of any significant 

changes in activities and/or locations; 

3. Injured, dead, or distressed sea 

otters that are not associated with 

project activities (e.g., animals known to 

be from outside the project area, 

previously wounded animals, or 

carcasses with moderate to advanced 

decomposition or scavenger damage) 

must be reported to the Service within 

24 hours of the discovery to either the 

Service MMM (1–800–362–5148, 

business hours); or the Alaska SeaLife 

Center in Seward (1–888–774–7325, 24 

hours a day); or both. Photographs, 

video, location information, or any other 

available documentation must be 

provided to the Service. 

4. Notify the Service within 48 hours 

after ending of activities. 

(E) In-season Monitoring— 

Observation Reports—Holders of an 

LOA must report, within 48 hours, all 

observations of polar bears and potential 

polar bear dens, during any Industry 

activity. Upon request, monitoring 

report data must be provided in a 

common electronic format (to be 

specified by the Service). Information in 

the observation report must include, but 

is not limited to: 

1. Date, time; the observer’s locations, 

heading, and speed (if moving); 

weather; visibility; number of animals; 

group size and composition (adults/ 

juveniles); and the location of the 

animals (or distance and direction from 

the observer); 

2. Initial behaviors of the sea otters, 

descriptions of project activities and 

underwater sound levels being 

generated, the position of sea otters 

relative to applicable monitoring and 

mitigation zones, any mitigation 

measures applied, and any apparent 

reactions to the project activities before 

and after mitigation; 

3. Distance from the vessel to the sea 

otter upon initial observation, the 

duration of the encounter, and the 

distance at last observation in order to 

monitor cumulative sound exposures; 

and 

4. Any instances of animals lingering 

close to or traveling with vessels for 

prolonged periods of time. 

(F) Notification of LOA Incident 

Report—Holders of an LOA must report, 

as soon as possible, but within 48 hours, 

all LOA incidents during any Industry 

activity. An LOA incident is any 

situation when specified activities 

exceed the authority of an LOA, when 

a mitigation measure was required but 

not enacted, or when injury or death of 

a marine mammal occurs. Reports must 

include: 

1. All information specified for an 

observation report; 

2. A complete detailed description of 

the incident; and 

3. Any other actions taken. 

(G) Mitigation—Interaction Plan—All 

holders of an LOA must have an 

approved polar bear safety, awareness, 

and interaction plan on file with the 

Service’s Marine Mammals Management 

Office and onsite and provide polar bear 

awareness training to certain personnel. 

Interaction plans must include: 

1. The type of activity and where and 

when the activity will occur (i.e., a 

summary of the plan of operation); 

2. Personnel training policies, 

procedures, and materials; 

3. Site-specific sea otter interaction 

risk evaluation and mitigation measures; 

4. Sea otter avoidance and encounter 

procedures; and 

5. Sea otter observation and reporting 

procedures. 

(H) Mitigation—3rd Party 

Notifications—All applicants for an 

LOA must contact affected Alaska 

Native subsistence communities and 

hunter organizations to discuss 

potential conflicts caused by the 

activities and provide the Service 

documentation of communications. 

(I) Mitigation—Requests for 

Exemption Waivers—Exemption 

waivers to the operating conditions in 

50 CFR 18.126(c) may be issued by the 

Service on a case-by-case basis, based 

upon a review of seasonal ice conditions 

and available information on marine 

mammal distributions in the area of 

interest. 

(J) Mitigation—Plan of Cooperation— 

When appropriate, a holder of an LOA 

will be required to develop and 

implement a Service-approved plan of 

cooperation (POC). 

1. The POC must include a 

description of the procedures by which 

the holder of the LOA will work and 

consult with potentially affected 

subsistence hunters and a description of 

specific measures that have been or will 

be taken to avoid or minimize 

interference with subsistence hunting of 

marine mammals and to ensure 

continued availability of the species for 

subsistence use. 

2. The Service will review the POC to 

ensure that any potential adverse effects 

on the availability of the animals are 

minimized. The Service will reject POCs 

if they do not provide adequate 

safeguards to ensure the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence use. 

Title of Collection: Incidental Take of 

Marine Mammals During Specified 

Activities, 50 CFR 18.27 and 50 CFR 

part 18, subpart J. 

OMB Control Number: 1018–0070. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: Oil and 

gas industry representatives, including 

applicants for ITRs and LOAs, 

operations managers, and 

environmental compliance personnel. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 61. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 216 / Thursday, November 7, 2024 / Proposed Rules 88229 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 201. 

Estimated Completion Time per 

Response: Varies from 1.25 hours to 150 

hours, depending on activity. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 1,426. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain a benefit. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour 

Burden Cost: $350,000. 

Title of Collection: Incidental Take of 

Marine Mammals During Specified 

Activities, 50 CFR 18.27 and 50 CFR 

part 18, subpart L. 

OMB Control Number: 1018–New. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Type of Review: New. 

Respondents/Affected Public: Federal 

Government—U.S. Coast Guard. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 10. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 22. 

Estimated Completion Time per 

Response: Varies from 1.25 hours to 150 

hours, depending on activity. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 325. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain a benefit. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour 

Burden Cost: None. 

Send your comments and suggestions 

on this information collection by the 

date indicated in DATES to the Service 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 

Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or 

Info_Coll@fws.gov (email). Please 

reference OMB Control Number 1018– 

New/0070 in the subject line of your 

comments. 

Energy Effects 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare statements of energy 

effects when undertaking certain 

actions. This proposed rule provides 

exceptions from the MMPA’s taking 

prohibitions for Industry engaged in 

specified oil and gas activities in the 

specified geographic region. By 

providing certainty regarding 

compliance with the MMPA, this 

proposed rule would have a positive 

effect on Industry and its activities. 

Therefore, this proposed rule is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use and does 

not constitute a significant energy 

action. No statement of energy effects is 

required. 

References 

For a list of the references cited in this 

proposed rule, see Docket No. FWS–R7– 

ES–2024–0140, available at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians, 

Marine mammals, Oil and gas 

exploration, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Service proposes to 

amend part 18, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 18—MARINE MAMMALS 

■ 1. The authority citation of part 18 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. 

§ 18.4 [Removed] 

■ 2. Remove § 18.4. 

■ 3. Revise § 18.124 to read as follows: 

§ 18.124 Authorized take allowed under a 

Letter of Authorization (LOA). 

(a) An LOA allows for the nonlethal, 

non-injurious, incidental, but not 

intentional take by Level B harassment, 

as defined in § 18.3 and under section 

3 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1362), of Pacific walruses 

while conducting oil and gas industry 

exploration, development, and 

production within the Beaufort Sea ITR 

region described in § 18.120. 

(b) An LOA allows for the nonlethal, 

incidental, but not intentional take by 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment, as defined in § 18.3 and 

under section 3 of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1362), of polar 

bears while conducting oil and gas 

industry exploration, development, and 

production within the Beaufort Sea ITR 

region described in § 18.120. 

(c) Each LOA will identify terms and 

conditions for each activity and 

location. 

■ 4. Revise § 18.125 to read as follows: 

§ 18.125 Prohibited take under a Letter of 

Authorization (LOA). 

Except as otherwise provided in this 

subpart, prohibited taking is described 

in § 18.11 as well as: 

(a) Level A harassment, as defined in 

section 3 of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1362), of 

Pacific walruses and intentional take 

and lethal incidental take of polar bears 

or Pacific walruses; and 

(b) Any take that fails to comply with 

this subpart or with the terms and 

conditions of an LOA. 

■ 5. Revise § 18.129 to read as follows: 

§ 18.129 Information collection 

requirements. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has approved the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this subpart and assigned OMB Control 

Number 1018–0070. Federal agencies 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Direct comments regarding the 

burden estimate or any other aspect of 

the information collection to the 

Service’s Information Collection 

Clearance Officer at the address 

provided at 50 CFR 2.1(b). 

§ 18.152 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 18.152 by removing the 

words, ‘‘contained in this part and 

assigned OMB Control Number 1018– 

0070’’ and adding in their place the 

words, ‘‘contained in this subpart and 

assigned OMB Control Number 1018– 

New’’. 

Shannon A. Estenoz, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25762 Filed 11–6–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1