Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Notices 40793 

process that leaves the identity of the article 

intact. See United States v. Gibson-Thomsen 

Co., 27 C.C.P.A. 267 (1940); and National 

Juice Products Ass’n v. United States, 628 

F.Supp. 978 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986). 

In determining whether a substantial 

transformation occurs in the manufacture of 

chemical products such as pharmaceuticals, 

CBP has consistently examined the 

complexity of the processing and whether the 

final article retains the essential identity and 

character of the raw material. To that end, 

CBP has generally held that the processing of 

pharmaceutical products from bulk form into 

measured doses does not result in a 

substantial transformation of the product. 

See, e.g., Headquarters Ruling (‘‘HQ’’) 

561975, dated April 3, 2002; HQ 561544, 

dated May 1, 2000; HQ 735146, dated 

November 15, 1993; HQ H267177, dated 

November 5, 2016; HQ H233356, dated 

December 26, 2012; and, HQ 561975, dated 

April 3, 2002. 

For example, in HQ H267177, CBP held 

that Indian- and Chinese-origin Acyclovir 

was not substantially transformed in the 

United States when it was combined with 

excipients and processed into tablets. In that 

case, the Indian or Chinese Acyclovir was the 

only active pharmaceutical ingredient in the 

final product. Accordingly, we found that the 

processing performed in the United States 

did not result in a change in the medicinal 

use of the finished product. Furthermore, the 

Acyclovir maintained its chemical and 

physical characteristics and did not undergo 

a change in name, character, or use. 

Consistent with our previous rulings, we 

held that processing the Acyclovir into 

dosage form and packaging it for sale in the 

United States did not constitute a substantial 

transformation. Accordingly, the country of 

origin of the final product for purposes of 

U.S. Government procurement was either 

China or India, where the active ingredient 

was produced. 

Similarly, in HQ H233356, CBP held that 

the processing and packaging of imported 

mefenamic acid into dosage form in the 

United States did not constitute substantial 

transformation. Based on previous CBP 

rulings, we found that the specific U.S. 

processing—which involved blending the 

active ingredients with inactive ingredients 

in a tumbler and then encapsulating and 

packaging the product—did not substantially 

transform the mefenamic acid because its 

chemical character remained the same. 

Accordingly, we held that the country of 

origin of the final product was India, where 

the mefanamic acid was produced. 

In HQ 561975, we also held that the 

processing of imported bulk Japanese-origin 

anesthetic drugs into dosage form in the 

United States did not constitute substantial 

transformation. Although the bulk form of 

the drug underwent testing operations, 

filtering, and packaging in the United States, 

these processes did not change the chemical 

or physical properties of the drug. 

Furthermore, there was no change in the 

product’s name, which was referred to as 

sevoflurane in both its bulk and processed 

form. Additionally, because the imported 

bulk drug had a predetermined medicinal use 

as an anesthetic drug, the processing in the 

United States did not result in a change in 

the product’s use. The country of origin of 

the finished product was therefore Japan. 

Here, as in the cases cited above, the 

processing of bulk imported pharmaceuticals 

into dosage form will not result in a 

substantial transformation. In this case, the 

processing begins with Taiwanese-origin 

bulk pravastatin sodium and, after this 

product is combined with inactive 

ingredients in India, results in pravastatin 

sodium tablets in individual doses of 10, 20, 

40, or 80 milligrams. Because the product is 

referred to as ‘‘pravastatin sodium’’ both 

before and after the Indian processing, no 

change in name occurs in India. Furthermore, 

no change in character occurs in India 

because the pravastatin sodium maintains the 

same chemical and physical properties both 

before and after the Indian processing. 

Finally, because the imported, bulk-form 

pravastatin sodium had a predetermined 

medicinal use as an antilipimic agent that is 

used to reduce the risk of myocardial 

infarction, no change in use occurs after 

processing in India. Under these 

circumstances, and consistent with previous 

CBP rulings, we find that the country of 

origin of the final product is Taiwan, where 

the active ingredient was produced. 

HOLDING: 

The country of origin of the pravastatin 

sodium tablets for purposes of U.S. 

Government procurement is Taiwan. 

Notice of this final determination will be 

given in the Federal Register, as required by 

19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other 

than the party which requested this final 

determination may request, pursuant to 19 

CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter 

anew and issue a new final determination. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-atinterest may, within 30 days of publication 

of the Federal Register Notice referenced 

above, seek judicial review of this final 

determination before the Court of 

International Trade. 

Sincerely, 

Alice A. Kipel, 

Executive Director, 

Regulations & Rulings, 

Office of Trade. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18205 Filed 8–25–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: September 6, 2017, 

11:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. 

PLACE: Via tele-conference hosted at 

Inter-American Foundation, 1331 

Pennsylvania Ave. Suite 1200, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. 

STATUS: Meeting of the Board of 

Directors, Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Next steps 

for updating advisory council 

membership. 

The role of the Board in funding 

decisions. 

FOR DIAL-IN INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen 

Vargas, Executive Assistant, (202) 524– 

8869. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Paul Zimmerman, General Counsel, 

(202) 683–7118. 

Paul Zimmerman, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18263 Filed 8–24–17; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R8–ES–2017–N084; FF08EVEN00– 

FXFR1337088SSO0] 

Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock 

Assessment Report for the Southern 

Sea Otter in California 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; response 

to comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended (MMPA), and its 

implementing regulations, we, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 

announce that we have revised our 

stock assessment report (SAR) for the 

southern sea otter stock in the State of 

California, including incorporation of 

public comments. We now make our 

final revised SAR available to the 

public. 

ADDRESSES: Document Availability: You 

may obtain a copy of the SAR from our 

Web site at https://www.fws.gov/ 

ventura/endangered/species/info/ 

sso.html. Alternatively, you may contact 

the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 

Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 

93003; telephone: 805–644–1766. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the methods, data, and 

results of the stock assessment, contact 

Lilian Carswell by telephone (805–677– 

3325) or by email (Lilian_Carswell@

fws.gov). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

announcing the availability of the final 

revised SAR for the southern sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris nereis) stock in the State 

of California. 

Background 

Under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) and its implementing regulations 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
40794 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Notices 

in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) at 50 CFR part 18, we regulate the 

taking; import; and, under certain 

conditions, possession; transportation; 

purchasing; selling; and offering for 

sale, purchase, or export, of marine 

mammals. One of the goals of the 

MMPA is to ensure that stocks of marine 

mammals occurring in waters under 

U.S. jurisdiction do not experience a 

level of human-caused mortality and 

serious injury that is likely to cause the 

stock to be reduced below its optimum 

sustainable population (OSP) level. OSP 

is defined under the MMPA as ‘‘the 

number of animals which will result in 

the maximum productivity of the 

population or the species, keeping in 

mind the carrying capacity of the habitat 

and the health of the ecosystem of 

which they form a constituent element’’ 

(16 U.S.C. 1362(9)). 

To help accomplish the goal of 

maintaining marine mammal stocks at 

their OSPs, section 117 of the MMPA 

requires the Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to 

prepare a SAR for each marine mammal 

stock that occurs in waters under U.S. 

jurisdiction. Each SAR must include: 

1. A description of the stock and its 

geographic range; 

2. A minimum population estimate, 

current and maximum net productivity 

rate, and current population trend; 

3. An estimate of annual humancaused mortality and serious injury by 

source and, for a strategic stock, other 

factors that may be causing a decline or 

impeding recovery of the stock; 

4. A description of commercial fishery 

interactions; 

5. A categorization of the status of the 

stock; and 

6. An estimate of the potential 

biological removal (PBR) level. 

The MMPA defines the PBR as ‘‘the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its [OSP]’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1362(20)). The PBR is the product of the 

minimum population estimate of the 

stock (Nmin); one-half the maximum 

theoretical or estimated net productivity 

rate of the stock at a small population 

size (Rmax); and a recovery factor (Fr) of 

between 0.1 and 1.0. This can be written 

as: 

PBR = (Nmin)(1⁄2 of the Rmax)(Fr) 

Section 117 of the MMPA requires the 

Service and NMFS to review the SARs 

(a) at least annually for stocks that are 

specified as strategic stocks, (b) at least 

annually for stocks for which significant 

new information is available, and (c) at 

least once every 3 years for all other 

stocks. If our review of the status of a 

stock indicates that it has changed or 

may be more accurately determined, 

then the SAR must be revised 

accordingly. 

A strategic stock is defined in the 

MMPA as a marine mammal stock ‘‘(A) 

for which the level of direct humancaused mortality exceeds the [PBR] 

level; (B) which, based on the best 

available scientific information, is 

declining and is likely to be listed as a 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [as 

amended] (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) [the 

‘‘ESA’’], within the foreseeable future; 

or (C) which is listed as a threatened 

species or endangered species under the 

[ESA], or is designated as depleted 

under [the MMPA]’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1362(19)). 

Stock Assessment Report History for 

the Southern Sea Otter in California 

The southern sea otter SAR was last 

revised in 2014. Because the southern 

sea otter qualifies as a strategic stock 

due to its listing as a threatened species 

under the ESA, the Service reviewed the 

stock assessment in 2015. The review 

concluded that the status had not 

changed, nor could it be more 

accurately determined. However, upon 

review in 2016, the Service determined 

that revision was warranted. 

Before releasing our draft SAR for 

public review and comment, we 

submitted it for technical review 

internally and for scientific review by 

the Pacific Regional Scientific Review 

Group, which was established under the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1386(d)). In a 

December 6, 2016 (81 FR 87951), 

Federal Register notice, we made our 

draft SAR available for the MMPArequired 90-day public review and 

comment period. Following the close of 

the comment period, we revised the 

SAR based on public comments we 

received (see Response to Public 

Comments) and prepared the final 

revised SAR. Between publication of the 

draft and final revised SARs, we have 

not revised the status of the stock itself 

(the southern sea otter continues to 

retain its status as a strategic stock). 

However, we have updated the SAR to 

include the most recent information 

available. 

Summary of Final Revised Stock 

Assessment Report for the Southern Sea 

Otter in California 

The following table summarizes some 

of the information contained in the final 

revised SAR for southern sea otters in 

California, which includes the stock’s 

Nmin, Rmax, Fr, PBR, annual estimated 

human-caused mortality and serious 

injury, and status: 

SUMMARY—FINAL REVISED STOCK ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE SOUTHERN SEA OTTER IN CALIFORNIA

Southern sea otter 

stock NMIN RMAX FR PBR Annual estimated human-caused mortality and serious injury Stock status 

Mainland .............. 3,194 0.06 0.1 9.58 Figures by specific source, where 

known, are provided in the SAR.

Strategic. 

San Nicolas Island 78 0.13 0.1 0.51 

Summary ...... 3,272 ........................ ........................ 10 

Response to Public Comments 

We received comments on the draft 

SAR from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission), Friends of 

the Sea Otter, and the Humane Society 

of the United States. We present 

substantive issues raised in those 

comments that are pertinent to the SAR, 

edited for brevity, along with our 

responses below. 

Comment 1: Without adequate 

observer coverage to document the rate 

at which sea otters are being caught in 

crab and lobster gear, it is not possible 

to know if modifications to these traps 

should be required. Therefore, the 

Commission recommends that the 

Service collaborate with NMFS and the 

California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (CDFW) to (1) establish an 

observer program with adequate 

coverage to obtain reliable information 

on the rate and circumstances under 

which sea otters are being taken in crab 

and lobster trap fisheries operating 

within the range of the southern sea 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Notices 40795 

otter, or (2) implement a precautionary 

requirement for all trap gear to be 

modified to reduce the probability of sea 

otter bycatch to near zero. 

Response: We recognize that the 

probability of bycatch in trap fisheries 

will rise as the southern sea otter 

expands its range to the north, 

increasing overlap with the Dungeness 

crab fishery, and to the south, increasing 

overlap with the spiny lobster fishery 

and finfish trap fishery in southern 

California. We will continue to work 

with CDFW and other partners to assess 

the best means of testing and, if 

appropriate, implementing 

precautionary trap modifications in the 

fisheries that may interact with sea 

otters. We note that, based on tests that 

have occurred to date, relatively minor 

modifications to Dungeness crab traps 

(reducing the fyke opening from 4 × 9 

inches (10.2 × 22.9 cm) to 3 × 9 inches 

(7.6 × 22.9 cm)) would exclude most 

independent (post-weaning) sea otters 

while not impeding the capture of crabs 

(Hatfield et al. 2011). Comparable 

modifications have not been identified 

for spiny lobster traps or the large-fyke 

finfish traps used in southern California. 

While observer programs would 

increase our opportunity to detect 

bycatch, analyses indicate that high 

levels of observer effort would be 

required to avoid false-negative 

conclusions, even if the rate of bycatch 

mortality is substantial enough to 

reduce the population growth rate 

(Hatfield et al. 2011). We will continue 

to work with USGS, NMFS, and CDFW 

to explore options for assessing sea otter 

bycatch. 

Comment 2: Figure 3 in the draft SAR 

shows an increasing trend in the 

number of strandings as a proportion of 

the spring count of sea otters (termed 

‘‘relative mortality’’ in the report), from 

roughly 5 percent in the late 1980s to 12 

percent in the past 4 years. The draft 

SAR attributes this pattern largely to the 

increase in shark-bite mortality at the 

peripheries of the southern sea otter’s 

range. However, this interpretation 

assumes that search effort and stranding 

rates have not increased, an assumption 

that is not addressed in the report. The 

Service should address all of the factors 

that could explain the apparent increase 

in the relative number of strandings. 

Response: We have added a 

discussion of other factors that could 

explain the increase in the relative 

number of strandings and the relative 

frequency of shark-bitten carcasses. 

Comment 3: The Service should place 

greater emphasis on the fact that the 

‘‘relative mortality’’ rate is an 

underestimate of the true mortality rate 

because a substantial portion of 

carcasses likely never strand or are 

never found, as has been demonstrated 

in this and other sea otter populations. 

Response: We have added text 

emphasizing that relative mortality is an 

index of mortality and an underestimate 

of the true mortality rate. 

Comment 4: An effective opportunity 

for public review and comment cannot 

occur if the public does not have access 

to all of the sources of information used 

to produce a draft stock assessment. The 

draft SAR contains numerous references 

to sources of information that are not 

easily available to the public. The 

Service should consider implementing a 

policy regarding the use of different 

data/information sources that would 

ensure that those sources have been 

reviewed and are easily available to the 

public. The Commission understands 

that in some cases the best available 

science has not been reviewed and 

published. In those cases, if the Service 

uses such information in an SAR, it 

should make the information easily 

available to the public. 

Response: We utilize peer-reviewed 

publications whenever possible. 

However, when the best available 

science on a topic of direct importance 

to the SAR has not yet been reviewed 

and published, we believe it is 

preferable to present that information to 

the public rather than to withhold it. We 

may cite an informal source when new 

scientific information becomes available 

and update the citation in a subsequent 

revision of the SAR when that 

information has been reviewed and 

published. We have updated several 

such citations in the final SAR. Our 

notice of availability (81 FR 87951; 

December 6, 2016) includes contact 

information, which is made available for 

the use of anyone wishing to obtain 

additional information, including any of 

the sources of information referenced in 

the SAR. 

Comment 5: In accordance with 

section 117(c)(1)(A) of the MMPA, the 

Service may review a stock’s status 

annually and update its stock 

assessment report only when it 

considers it appropriate to do so. 

However, given the rapid changes that 

are ongoing within the current and 

historical range of the southern sea 

otter, the failure of the population to 

expand its range significantly in the past 

20 years, and the sudden shifts in count 

trajectories in different parts of the 

range over the last few years, the 

Commission recommends that the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service make its stock 

assessment reviews available yearly to 

the appropriate Scientific Review Group 

(SRG) and the Commission, at a 

minimum, from this point forward. 

Response: We typically provide a 

presentation to the Pacific SRG on the 

status of the southern sea otter even in 

years when we determine that a revision 

of the SAR is not warranted. We will 

continue to make such presentations 

and, from this point forward, will 

provide our reasoning to the Pacific SRG 

and Commission in years when we 

determine that a revision of the SAR is 

not warranted. 

Comment 6: ‘‘Stock definition and 

geographic range’’ must be expanded to 

include the importance of range 

expansion in southern sea otter survival 

and recovery. 

Response: We have added text 

emphasizing the importance of range 

expansion to recovery of the southern 

sea otter and referencing Service 

documents that discuss the subject in 

greater detail. 

Comment 7: ‘‘Current population 

trend’’ should be revised to include the 

declining trend in the southern portion 

of the range due to shark bite mortality. 

Response: We have added text that 

describes the regional declining trends 

and their relationship to increases in 

shark bite mortality. 

Comment 8: The SAR should identify 

shark bite mortality as a factor impeding 

the recovery of the southern sea otter 

and encourage the close monitoring of 

this significant trend. The Service 

should confirm that delisting would not 

be appropriate even if the delisting 

threshold of 3,090 animals is met for 3 

consecutive years unless the threat 

posed by shark bites has been 

addressed. 

Response: We will continue to 

monitor shark-bite mortality through the 

stranding and necropsy programs led by 

USGS and CDFW, and we have added 

text that makes more explicit the 

relationship between high rates of 

shark-bite mortality and the lack of 

range expansion. However, we do not 

believe that the SAR is the appropriate 

document in which to discuss threats to 

the species in comprehensive detail or 

to make recommendations regarding 

delisting. We will update our 

assessment of the status of the southern 

sea otter in relation to the five threat 

factors described in section 4(a)(l) of the 

ESA in the next 5-year review. 

Comment 9: ‘‘Status of Stock’’ should 

be discussed in relation to the five 

statutory delisting criteria and the 

recovery plan, in addition to optimum 

sustainable population (OSP) under the 

MMPA, noting that OSP has been 

discussed for the California coast but 

should also be considered on a rangewide basis, after accounting for the 

possible need to avoid interbreeding 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
40796 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 165 / Monday, August 28, 2017 / Notices 

between northern and southern sea 

otters. 

Response: As noted in our response to 

Comment 8, we do not believe that the 

SAR is the appropriate document in 

which to discuss threats to the species 

in comprehensive detail. However, we 

have added text that references our most 

recent 5-year review (Service 2015). We 

have also added text clarifying that a 

formal determination of OSP will be 

developed with reference to the entire 

historic range of the subspecies. 

Comment 10: ‘‘Habitat issues’’ should 

be revised to include (1) the spatial 

structure of southern sea otter habitat 

and its contribution in preventing 

recovery of the species and (2) a 

detailed discussion of the risk posed by 

oil spills. 

Response: We have added text 

clarifying the relationship between the 

pace of range expansion, the spatial 

structure of sea otter habitat, and oil 

spill risk. However, as noted in our 

response to Comments 8 and 9, we do 

not believe that the SAR is the 

appropriate document in which to 

discuss threats to the species in 

comprehensive detail. We address oil 

spill risk and the effects of the spatial 

structure of sea otter habitat on 

population growth in our most recent 5- 

year review (Service 2015). We will 

update our assessment of these and 

other factors in the next 5-year review. 

Comment 11: There are recent reports 

of what appear to be increasing rates of 

shooting-related incidents. For example, 

in 2016 alone there were reports of at 

least three sea otters being shot. In 2015, 

a California man was sentenced for 

shooting an air rifle at sea otters. While 

these incidents are more recent than the 

time period of the SAR, which is largely 

through 2014, they do represent the 

most recent available information and 

should be considered for inclusion since 

the Service provided information on 

some deaths as recently as 2016. 

Response: We have added text stating 

that three sea otters died of gunshot 

wounds in 2016. However, we do not 

include these mortalities in the current 

calculation of mean annual mortality 

because they occurred outside the 5- 

year analysis window (2011–2015). 

Additional References Cited 

Chinn, S.M., M.A. Miller, M.T. Tinker, M.M. 

Staedler, F.I. Batac, E.M. Dodd, L.A. 

Henkel. 2016. The high cost of 

motherhood: end-lactation syndrome in 

southern sea otters. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases 52:307–318. doi: 10.7589/2015– 

06–158. 

Lafferty, K.D. M.T. and Tinker. 2014. Sea 

otters are recolonizing southern 

California in fits and starts. Ecosphere 

5:50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13- 

00394.1. 

Tinker, M.T. 2014. Models and sea otter 

conservation. Pp. 257–300 in Larson, S., 

G. VanBlaricom and J. Bodkin, eds., Sea 

Otter Conservation. New York: Elsevier. 

Tinker, M.T., and B.B. Hatfield. 2016. 

California sea otter (Enhydra lutris 

nereis) census results, spring 2016. U.S. 

Geological Survey Data Series 1018. 10 

pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds1018. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 

Dated: July 26, 2017. 

Gregory Sheehan, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18169 Filed 8–25–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–IA–2017–0054; 

FXIA16710900000–156–FF09A30000] 

Foreign Endangered Species and 

Marine Mammals Issuance of Permits 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), have issued 

the following permits to conduct certain 

activities with endangered species, 

marine mammals, or both. We issue 

these permits under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 

ADDRESSES: Documents and other 

information submitted with these 

applications are available for review, 

subject to the requirements of the 

Privacy Act and Freedom of Information 

Act, by any party who submits a written 

request for a copy of such documents to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Management Authority, 

Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; 

fax (703) 358–2281. To locate the 

Federal Register notice that announced 

our receipt of the application for each 

permit listed in this document, go to 

www.regulations.gov and search on the 

permit number provided in the tables in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Russell, (703) 358–2023 

(telephone); (703) 358–2281 (fax); or 

DMAFR@fws.gov (email). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On the 

dates below, as authorized by the 

provisions of the ESA, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we issued 

requested permits subject to certain 

conditions set forth therein. For each 

permit for an endangered species, we 

found that (1) the application was filed 

in good faith, (2) the granted permit 

would not operate to the disadvantage 

of the endangered species, and (3) the 

granted permit would be consistent with 

the purposes and policy set forth in 

section 2 of the ESA. 

Permit No. Applicant Receipt of application Federal Register 

notice 

Permit issuance 

date 

Endangered Species 

50819A .......... Zoological Society of San Diego/San Diego Zoo Global ........ 82 FR 24381; May 26, 2017 .......................... June 30, 2017. 

18137C .......... University of Wisconsin-Madison ............................................ 82 FR 24381; May 26, 2017 .......................... July 3, 2017. 

75285A .......... Michael Ryckamn .................................................................... 82 FR 24381; May 26, 2017 .......................... June 29, 2017. 

14745C .......... Cleveland Metroparks Zoo ...................................................... 82 FR 24381; May 26, 2017 .......................... July 11, 2017. 

06369C .......... Indiana Purdue University ....................................................... 82 FR 14742, March 22, 2017 ....................... July 3, 2017. 

Marine Mammals 

80164B .......... North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management ... 81 FR 95628; December 28, 2016 ................. July 3, 2017. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES