        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 226
        [Docket No. 020124019-2019-01, I.D. 030601D]
        Endangered and Threatened Species; Determination on a Petition to Revise Critical Habitat for Northern Right Whales in the Pacific

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Response to petition; final determination.

          SUMMARY:
          On October 13, 2000, NMFS received a petition dated October 4, 2000, requesting that NMFS revise the present critical habitat designation for the northern right whale under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by designating a new area within the eastern Bering Sea as critical habitat for right whales in the North Pacific.  NMFS has determined that the petition is not warranted at this time.  NMFS recognizes that the revision of critical habitat may be prudent, but finds that the extent of critical habitat cannot be determined at this time because the essential biological requirements of the population in the North Pacific Ocean are not sufficiently understood.  NMFS will continue to analyze issues raised by the petition following the completion of planned 2002 right whale surveys and research.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments and requests for copies of this determination should be addressed to the Division Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bradley Smith, Alaska Regional Office, NMFS, Anchorage, AK, (907) 271-5006; Michael Payne, Alaska Regional Office, NMFS, Juneau, AK, (907) 586-7236; or Caroline Good, Marine Mammal Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, Silver Spring, MD, (301) 713-2322.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Right whales in the North Pacific are one of three populations of endangered right whales worldwide.  The other populations occur in the North Atlantic and the Southern Hemisphere.  The southern right whale is recognized as a separate species but the North Atlantic and North Pacific stocks have heretofore been described as a single species.  Recent genetic studies, however, provide conclusive evidence supporting separate species status for these populations, one in the North Atlantic and another in the North Pacific.  The International Whaling Commission's (IWC) Scientific Committee formally recognized a three species classification for right whales at its 2000 meeting in Adelaide, Australia.  NMFS has reviewed and concurs with the taxonomic changes suggested by the IWC and is working to have the right whale populations listed as distinct species under the Endangered Species Act.
        Status of the North Pacific Right Whale

          Exploitation:  Right whales in the North Pacific historically occurred across the Pacific Ocean north of 35 degrees North latitude, with concentrations in the Gulf of Alaska, eastern Aleutian Islands, southcentral Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, and the Sea of Japan.  They were heavily exploited by commercial whaling in the western North Pacific in the 18th and 19th centuries from the Sea of Japan into the Okhotsk Sea, and along the east side of the Kamchatka peninsula.  Considerable offshore hunting also occurred eastward of the Kurile Islands as far as 170 degrees East longitude.  Right whales were harvested in the eastern North Pacific from the southeastern Bering Sea to, and throughout, the Gulf of Alaska in the 19th and 20th centuries.  In the mid 1900s illegal whaling by the Soviets is believed to have decimated the remaining population of right whales in the eastern North Pacific (Doroshenko 2000).  Practically all right whaling in the northern hemisphere occurred during summer months.

          Abundance and Trends:  Data are insufficient to estimate the pre-exploitation size of this population of right whales.  However, based upon catch levels, right whale abundance likely exceeded 10,000 animals in the North Pacific.  This stock was severely depleted due to commercial and illegal whaling and remains so today.  No reliable population estimate presently exists for this stock.  Rice (1974) stated that only a few hundred individuals remained in the North Pacific stock and that for all practical purposes this stock was extinct because no sightings of a cow with a calf have been confirmed since 1900.  This number has remained in the literature as the maximum number estimated for this stock although fewer than several hundred are believed to remain in the eastern North Pacific.  Ferrero et al. (2000) indicated that only 14 individual animals were photographed from 1998 though 2000 with 2 re-sightings.  This paucity of sightings and re-sightings, despite considerable survey effort, suggests that the population is indeed very small, perhaps in the tens of animals.

          Recent Sightings:  Prior to 1996 right whale sightings were so rare in the eastern North Pacific that single sightings have resulted in scientific publications (e.g. Carretta et al. 1994; Rowlett et al. 1994).  The paucity of sightings of right whales in the eastern North Pacific was apparent despite high levels of survey effort in the region, notably from Japanese sighting surveys (Miyashita et al. 1995).  Recent summer sightings of right whales in the eastern Bering Sea (Goddard and Rugh 1998; Tynan 1998, 1999; Tynan et al. 2001; Moore et al. 2000; LeDuc et al. 2001) represent the first reliable observations of associated groups in the eastern Bering Sea since the 1960s.

        Several right whales have been seen each year from NMFS survey platforms since 1996 (NMFS 2000; LeDuc et al. 2001).  A group of 3-4 right whales was seen on July 30, 1996, in western Bristol Bay, AK (Goddard and Rugh 1998).  This group may have included a juvenile animal.  In July 1997, a group of 4-5 individuals was encountered in Bristol Bay, followed by a second sighting of 4-5 whales the following morning in approximately the same location and considered to be the same whales (Tynan 1999).  Five, six and 13 whales respectively were again found in the same general region of the southeastern Bering Sea in July 1998, July 1999, and July 2000 (LeDuc et al. 2001).  Genetic samples taken from 6 whales in 1997 (3 individuals) and 1999 (4 individuals with one re-capature) indicated they were all males (LeDuc et al. 2001).  Of all whales photographed, three each from 1998 and 1999, and seven from 2000 were adequate for individual identification.  Among these, the only resightings were a single whale seen in all three years (LeDuc et al. 2001) and one whale seen in 1998 and 1999.  Additionally, two right whales were observed during a vessel-based survey in the central Bering Sea in July 1999.  Eight right whales were seen in July 2000; six were previously unobserved individuals, one was a re-sight and one could not be reliably identified.

          Seasonal Movements and Habitat Use:  Historical whaling records provide the only information on possible migration patterns and habitat for North Pacific right whales.  During the summer whales were found in the Gulf of Alaska, along both coasts of the Kamchatka Peninsula, the Kuril Islands, the Aleutian Islands, the southeastern Bering Sea, and in the Okhotsk Sea.  The whales were the most widely dispersed in fall and spring with whales occurring in mid-ocean waters and extending from the Sea of Japan to the eastern Bering Sea.  In winter, right whales were found in the Ryukyu Islands (south of Kyushu, Japan), the Bonin Islands, the Yellow Sea, and the Sea of Japan.  Current distribution patterns and migration routes of these whales are not known.  Historical concentrations of sightings in the Bering Sea together with the recent sightings indicate that this region remains an important summer habitat for eastern North Pacific right whales (Tynan et al. 2001).  Little is known, however, regarding the current migration patterns of the eastern North Pacific population.

          Breeding and Calving: The location of calving grounds for this stock is unknown.  Breeding and calving of North Pacific right whales were assumed to have occurred during winter, outside Alaskan waters.  Recent observations of courtship behavior do not necessarily indicate this area is used for breeding.

          Prey:  Right whales in the North Pacific probably feed almost exclusively on calanoid copepods, a type of zooplankton.  High concentrations of copepods have been recorded in zooplankton samples collected in 1997 and 1999 near right whales in the North Pacific.  Based on historical information, foraging observations, and current information on the foraging distribution of North Atlantic right whales, it is likely that the area where right whales have been observed in the eastern Bering Sea is used for foraging.

          Distribution of Feeding Observations Relative to Recent Oceanographic Changes in the Eastern Bering Sea:  The Bering Sea has undergone large changes in recent years, attributed in part to climatic change which has resulted in a general warming pattern since the mid 1970s.  Unusual blooms of zooplankton have been noted here.  Copepod concentrations in the middle shelf domain of the eastern Bering Sea in 1997 were the highest recorded since the early 1980s (Napp and Hunt 2001).  A sustained phytoplankton bloom occurred in the southeastern Bering Sea (Napp and Hunt 2001) in 1997.  Both of these features persisted at least through 2000.  This increased concentration of zooplankton may have attracted feeding right whales to this area.  However, the petitioner notes that the presence of these whales in subsequent years, when phytoplankton blooms were not evident, suggests these waters provide productive foraging habitat under varying oceanic conditions.  Tynan et al. (2001) suggested that right whales in the Bering Sea may have shifted their foraging ground (from the shelf break and deeper waters) in response to the increased densities of prey in the middle shelf.
        Status of North Pacific Right Whales Under the Endangered Species Act
        Right whales in U.S. waters were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act, the precursor to the ESA, on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495; codified at 50 CFR Section 17.11).  The species was subsequently listed as endangered under the ESA in 1973, and as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the same year.  NMFS has the lead responsibility for the recovery program for this species.

        NMFS published a Final Recovery Plan for Northern Right Whales (Recovery Plan) in 1991.  The 1991 Recovery Plan recommended that a separate plan be prepared for the North Pacific stock “when population numbers are available” and further stated that the plan should identify habitats essential or important to survival and recovery.  A draft Recovery Plan for the North Pacific population of right whales (NMFS, unpublished) is being prepared and much of the scientific information in this Federal Register notice comes from information in the draft Recovery Plan.
        NMFS designated critical habitat for northern right whales on June 3, 1994 (59 FR 28793; codified at 50 CFR 226.203).  NMFS designated 3 areas in the North Atlantic Ocean off the eastern United States: two feeding and nursery areas in waters off the northeastern United States, and a winter calving and nursery area in waters off the southeastern United States.  Not enough information was available to consider critical habitat designation for any other stock of northern right whale including that in the North Pacific at the time of the 1994 designation.  The western North Atlantic population was considered the population that stood to benefit most from recovery actions (NMFS 1991).
        Response to the Comments Received on the Petition

        Section 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the ESA requires that NMFS, to the maximum extent practicable after receiving a petition to revise existing critical habitat, make a finding as to whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information to demonstrate that the petitioned action may be warranted and publish the finding in the Federal Register.  If the finding is that substantial scientific information is presented, NMFS is required, within 12 months of the date the petition was received, to make a determination on how to proceed with the requested revision and promptly publish notice of such intention in the Federal Register.
        On June 1, 2001 (66 FR 29773), NMFS published a notice finding the subject petition contained substantial scientific information indicating that revision of critical habitat for the right whale may be warranted and inviting interested persons to submit comments and information concerning revision.  NMFS received over 1,000 letters on the petition during the comment period.  The comments are addressed in the following paragraphs.

          Comment 1: NMFS received many letters from the public stating that the petitioned area meets the definition of critical habitat because the area is used annually by right whales as an important feeding and courtship area.

          Response: Recent NMFS surveys have documented right whales in a relatively small area of the southeastern Bering Sea within the area petitioned as critical habitat (LeDuc et al. 2001).  Feeding behavior and possible courtship behavior have been observed.  While repeated sightings of right whales during NMFS surveys have occurred within the southeastern Bering Sea, NMFS does not find that these observations allow for any extrapolation into the broader area recommended by the petitioner.  Rather, the discreteness of the area where right whales have been observed suggests that the entire region is not a biologically homogeneous habitat and, therefore, an assumption cannot be made that right whales would occur throughout a larger area.
        The Bering Sea has undergone profound ecological changes over the past decades.  These changes have likely resulted in subsequent changes in species composition and distribution among the zooplankton which comprise the primary prey of right whales.  Plankton blooms in the eastern Bering Sea have been observed since 1996 and may be the principle reason that right whales have concentrated in this area in recent years.  Therefore, the current sighting aggregations may be the result of conditions that have been present for only a few years.  Data are very limited on this subject, but the current sighting distribution data do not support the assertion that the entire area proposed by the petitioner as critical habitat contains the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of right whales.

          Comment 2: Many commenters indicated that a revision to critical habitat is appropriate because critical habitat would protect right whales from major sources of mortality such as ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear.

          Response: Mortality due to ship strikes and fishing gear entanglement are the two known human-related causes of mortality in the North Atlantic right whale population and are believed to be slowing the recovery of North Atlantic right whales.  The commenters, however, assumed that human activities which affect right whales off the eastern United States are the same as those currently affecting right whales in the eastern Bering Sea.  The petitioners made similar assumptions.
        The distribution of right whales off the eastern United States is congruent with several major shipping ports including the ports of Boston, New York and Jacksonville, among others.  Furthermore the areas designated as critical habitat all have major shipping channels running through them.
        The likelihood of a vessel striking a right whale in these areas sometime throughout the year, or throughout the lifetime of a whale, is extremely high and this is reflected in the mortality data from recent years.  The whales are exposed to a high level of vessel traffic because major shipping channels overlap with  calving and foraging grounds.
        Conditions in the eastern Bering Sea differ from the East Coast. There are no major ports and no dredged shipping lanes in the area.  The major shipping channel runs from Unimak Pass westward below the Pribilof Islands.  This is south of the petitioned area and the area where right whales have been sighted in recent years.  However, the lack of shipping lanes within the petitioned area does not mean that the whales are free from the risk of ship strike in the surrounding area.  Right whales may cross through the Unimak pass shipping lane as they migrate in and out of the Bering Sea.  No incident of a ship striking a whale in the eastern Bering Sea has been recorded.  The only vessels that routinely operate within the petitioned area are fishing vessels which have no history of striking right whales in the Pacific Ocean.
        Many commenters and the petitioner also made similar comments with regard to the likelihood of entanglement in the eastern Bering Sea.  Again, most right whales in the North Atlantic have scarring from having been entangled in or come into contact with gillnets or lobster gear.  The sighting data in the eastern Bering Sea do not indicate that these whales have similar scarring patterns.  No gillnets are used within the petitioned area since they are prohibited by law beyond State waters in Alaska.  The principal fisheries in the eastern Bering Sea are the pelagic trawl and crab fisheries.  Many of the larger fishing vessels in the eastern Bering Sea are required to have observers, and these observers have never reported an entanglement of a right whale in fishing gear in the eastern Bering Sea.  The petitioners refer to an entangled right whale off Kamchatka, Russia; however, NMFS has no information on the circumstances or the gear type that was involved in that entanglement.

          Comment 3: Several commenters called for the development of a recovery plan for this species.

          Response: NMFS is currently preparing a Recovery Plan for the North Pacific right whale.  That plan will present the current status of the species, and provide guidelines for management and research actions necessary to conserve and recover the North Pacific right whale.  A draft plan is expected to be available for public comment in 2002.

          Comment 4: Several commenters urged NMFS to evaluate and possibly revise the current designated critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale.

          Response: NMFS appreciates the comment to review the current critical habitat designation for the right whale in the North Atlantic.  Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(g) provide for revisions to existing critical habitat designations as new data become available.  This recommendation, however, falls outside of the scope of the petitioned action under consideration at this time.  NMFS may consider this request following review of existing information under a separate action but it will not be considered as part of this action.

          Comment 5: One commenter stated that if additional sightings of right whales are made outside the proposed critical habitat, the boundaries should be altered accordingly.

          Response: NMFS cannot concur that any future sightings of right whales would automatically require further revision of the proposed critical habitat.  This is inconsistent with the ESA, as critical habitat must meet the definition within that act, as well as being prudent and determinable.  The presence of an animal in a given area does not necessarily support designation or revision.  NMFS will, however, review any future sightings in light of the ESA criteria to determine if a revision or designation of critical habitat is warranted.

          Comment 6: Two commenters stated that recent sightings of right whales in the southeastern Bering Sea allow for the delineation of an area essential to the species which was not known at the time the 1991 Right Whale Recovery Plan was written.

          Response: NMFS agrees that designation of critical habitat may be a necessary component of any effort to conserve and recover this species.  The ESA contains language that directs NMFS to identify and designate critical habitat, and to revise that designation when necessary.  However, NMFS does not believe that a revision of critical habitat is possible at this time based upon existing information identified in the petition.

          Comment 7: Several commenters encouraged NMFS to conduct more research, increase funding for this effort, and work toward defining the extent of habitat used by this species.

          Response: NMFS agrees that continued research is necessary to fully describe the biology of this species and to identify important and critical habitats.  NMFS anticipates that the recent survey effort will continue at similar levels, and that the scope of future investigation may include tagging studies, genetic analyses, photo-identification, long-term acoustic recordings through the use of autonomous bottom-founded hydrophones, and distributional surveys in the Bering Sea outside of the area surveyed during recent efforts.

          Comment 8: One commenter urged NMFS to develop regulations for protecting right whales in the North Pacific.

          Response: NMFS can consider rule-making independent of a critical habitat designation should such a regulation be required or deemed necessary.  However, there is no need for a regulation at this time because there are no activities known to have an adverse effect on right whales in this area.

          Comment 9: One commenter stated that the criteria for critical habitat have not been met and that designation is not warranted.  The commenter argued that the paucity of sightings and the level of information presently available to describe the biological needs of this species confound any assessment of the petitioned area's importance to the conservation of the right whale.

          Response: NMFS agrees that the level of knowledge regarding the biology and habitat needs of the North Pacific right whale are not sufficiently understood to determine whether the physical and biological factors that are essential to the conservation of this species are found throughout the petitioned area.  Recent sightings in the southeastern Bering Sea have involved only a relatively small number of whales; however, these individuals may comprise a significant percentage of the remaining population (which may number only in the tens of animals).  The presence of these animals within a relatively small region of the Bering Sea over several years strongly suggests that an area considerably smaller than the petitioned area may contain physical features which result in prey aggregations in densities sufficient to be considered essential for the conservation of the North Pacific right whale.  However, the extent and persistence of such prey aggregations are unknown at this time.  NMFS recognizes that further research is needed to refine the habitat value of the sightings area and the larger continental shelf province.

          Comment 10: One commenter disputed the petition's arguments regarding the presence or significance of threats due to ship strikes, entanglement, and habitat degradation.

          Response: In addition to collisions with vessels and entanglements, the petition states that dredging, disturbance due to oil and gas development, and industrial noise also pose threats to right whales in this area. (Potential threats posed by shipping and fishing activities are addressed in the response to comment 2.)  No dredging occurs in this area and outer continental shelf lease sale activity (for oil and gas development) has not occurred and will not be considered again during the 5-year period from 2002 through 2007.  Finally, NMFS completed a comprehensive consultation under section 7 of the ESA in November 2000 on the effects of the groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea on species listed under the ESA (NMFS 2001).  Neither cumulative nor action-specific threats were identified in that opinion that would adversely affect the likelihood of survival or recovery for any of the large whale species occurring in this area.
        Therefore, NMFS is in general agreement with the commenter's conclusions that the potential threats identified in the petition do not occur presently within the petitioned area at levels that require special management or protective measures.  If necessary, protective measures could be enacted through formal or informal consultation under section 7 of the ESA or through regulation independent of critical habitat designation.  However, as understanding of North Pacific right whales increases (and if human activity in the area changes) special management considerations may be necessary to protect areas essential to the whale's survival.

          Comment 11: One commenter also presented several recommendations for future research on the biology of the North Pacific right whale and the habitat value of the Bering Sea.

          Response: NMFS appreciates the recommendations for continued research and for outreach programs to alert fishermen to the significance of right whales in the Bering Sea.  Several of these measures have already been incorporated into our research efforts, and others may be considered as the North Pacific Right Whale Recovery Plan is finalized.
        Determination on the Petition
        The natural history information presented in the petition is largely factual and represents a thorough review of existing data.  NMFS, however, disagrees with most of the conclusions and statements made by the petitioners based on that review.
        The petition largely bases its recommendations for critical habitat revision on the following points: (1) the Right Whale Recovery Plan calls for the protection of habitat essential to the survival and recovery of this stock; (2) revision would benefit the stock, as it would provide an added layer of protection against harm; and (3)the revision is prudent and determinable as defined under 50 CFR 424.12.  Further, in the Executive Summary, the petitioners state that “the [right whale] recovery team recommended that once areas essential to the conservation of Pacific right whales were identified, those areas should be designated as critical habitat and protected to the full extent of the law.”
        NMFS concurs with the first two of these statements, but disagrees that the revision is determinable at this time.  Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the ESA defines critical habitat as specific areas (I) “essential to the conservation of the species” and (II) “which may require special management considerations or protection”.

        With regard to section 3(5)(A)(i)(I) most of the information on the distribution and abundance of this species comes from historical whaling records and survey sightings since 1996.  NMFS has a paucity of information upon which to determine whether the extent of the area petitioned contains “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species.”  Based upon the repeated observations of right whales within a relatively small area of the southeastern Bering Sea, NMFS could perhaps conclude that physical features exist within this area that have resulted in biological features (concentrations of prey) that are essential to the successful foraging of the few right whales that have been sighted in recent years.  No data exist, however, to indicate from the sighting distribution or known biology that these features (i.e., prey densities sufficient to lead to right whale aggregations) are found throughout the remainder of the area identified in the petition to designate critical habitat.  In fact, the sighting distribution suggests that the essential features attracting right whales are not distributed throughout the petitioned area, and may be unique to specific locations in the eastern Bering Sea.
        The most reasonable conclusion is that a much smaller area than that petitioned may contain physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, but information is insufficient to extrapolate that conclusion to the entire area petitioned.  The lack of a more widespread distribution of these sightings within the petitioned area (or more specifically, the definite clustering of these whales at the same locations since 1996), indicates that the area of sightings is different with regard to successful foraging than the remainder of the area that was identified in the petition.
        Another pertinent issue is whether these physical and biological features are permanent or ephemeral.  It is not known, based on the literature, whether the zooplankton densities present since 1996 occurred in that location in previous years and, therefore, whether right whale aggregations likewise occurred.  Given current population levels, right whales are challenging to detect under almost any circumstances.  Nonetheless, right whales have been seen in this area since 1996, and the lack of sightings from any source (there have been numerous vessel surveys in this area since the 1970s that included seabird and marine mammal observers) prior to the mid-1990s would support a conclusion that the whales have recently moved into this area.
        If right whales have recently moved into this area, it is possible that the present conditions, which provide sufficient prey densities for foraging, are ephemeral.  It would be neither prudent nor beneficial to the species to specify an area as critical habitat only to have the whales aggregate in other unprotected areas in the future.  Thus, while the locations where essential features can be found are reasonably well known for the North Atlantic population, such locations and the fidelity of right whales to those locations have not been well established for North Pacific right whales.
        With regard to the requirements of section 3(5)(A)(i)(II), NMFS has reviewed all the activities that are present, or may be present, in the petitioned area in the foreseeable future and cannot conclude that the area may require special management considerations.  Potential threats from fishing activity, shipping, and oil and gas development do not appear to present any immediate threat to right whales.
        Gillnets and lobster gear are the principal gear types implicated in entanglements on the eastern seaboard.  Gillnets are not used to fish outside of State of Alaska waters, and are not fished during the period when whales are known to be present in the petitioned area.  Therefore, they are unlikely to pose a threat in the petitioned area.  Pot gear used in the Bering Sea crab fishery is different from the lobster pot gear that has entangled whales on the East coast.  Lobster pots are connected using small-diameter, floating polypropylene line that has a track record of entangling right whales.  Bering sea crab gear is different.  The pots are much larger, requiring heavier line, and the gear generally does not contain the “entangling” features of lobster gear.
        Dredging is not an issue in the eastern Bering Sea.  Vessel traffic is not a significant issue in the eastern Bering Sea or the petitioned area.  Most large vessels move south of the Pribilof Islands.  Finally, lease sales for oil and gas exploration are not scheduled for the 2002-2007 period.
        NMFS has stated that the primary benefit of specifying critical habitat is notification to Federal agencies that a certain area is crucial to a listed species, allowing agencies to plan projects while considering the listed species and its needs.  The principal activity in this petitioned region is a Federally-managed groundfish fishery.  NMFS completed a comprehensive consultation under section 7 of the ESA in November 2000 on the effects of the groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea on species listed under the ESA.  There were neither cumulative nor action-specific threats identified in that opinion that would adversely affect the likelihood of survival or recovery for any of the large whales in this area.
        Until such time that more information becomes available on the occurrence and distribution of this species, NMFS' conclusion is that no special management considerations apply to the entire area being petitioned for critical habitat designation at this time.  However, NMFS does recognize that this situation can change.  Potential critical habitat may not require special management measures now, but may require special management sometime in the future.
        The question then remains whether those features essential to the conservation of the species exist throughout the petitioned area and whether they are “determinable”.
        Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that a designation of critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
        (i)  Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or
        (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
        NMFS believes that all required analyses of impacts could be performed.  However, NMFS lacks sufficient knowledge of the species' needs to identify critical habitat.  Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12 indicate that physical and biological features essential for the conservation of the species include feeding sites.  The regulations further state that each critical habitat will be defined by specific limits using reference points and lines as found on standard maps of the area.  Ephemeral reference points cannot be used in defining critical habitat.
        The area petitioned for critical habitat revision is recognized as a region of the Bering Sea where right whales occurred historically.  Also, small, but significant, groups of right whales have been observed in a relatively small area of the southeastern Bering Sea since 1996, and feeding and possible courtship behaviors have been observed.  However, the area of the sightings cannot be compared with the area petitioned for revision, or the remainder of the range of the North Pacific right whale, without more comprehensive survey data.  Nor could an assessment that this area is essential to the species' conservation be supported.
        Given the available information, NMFS concludes that:  (1) the information does not indicate that physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species exist throughout the petitioned area; and (2) a much smaller area than the petitioned area may contain such essential features, but the geographic boundaries within which such essential features exist are presently indeterminable.  Therefore, at this time NMFS cannot conclude that the petitioned area or any specific region within the petitioned area constitutes critical habitat.  The scientific information necessary to make critical habitat “determinable” for the eastern Bering Sea stock of right whales is not currently available.  Based on the best available information, NMFS has determined that the petitioned action is not warranted at this time.
        How Does NMFS Intend to Proceed?

        Section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the ESA requires that NMFS, within 12 months of the date the petition was received, make a determination on how to proceed with the requested revision and promptly publish notification of such intention in the Federal Register.  NMFS made that determination in a previous paragraph of this notice, however, the agency will continue to analyze the issues raised in the petition in the following manner.
        NMFS will continue with planned research activities during 2002 and evaluate any new information to better define the boundaries of an area that may be considered critical.  In addition, NMFS will, through the ESA section 7 consultation process, continue to evaluate whether the area may require special management considerations.
        To further define an area that might be essential to this population NMFS intends to:
        (1) Conduct an extensive vessel-based survey in the eastern Bering Sea during July-August 2002 using experienced observers trained in the use of “Big Eye” (5X) binoculars.  Additionally, passive acoustic techniques (moored-buoys) will be used to detect whales.  If right whales continue to be sighted in the relatively limited area identified by prior sightings then the boundaries of what might be considered essential will be revisited.  It is probable that the summer foraging season will be the only season for which NMFS can obtain further information on this population during the next 12 month period.
        (2) If feasible, attempt to satellite-tag North Pacific right whales to determine movement patterns and distribution, at least during late summer and fall.  NMFS anticipates that the whales are not going to remain in one spot as the foraging season ends and fall-winter movements occur.  However, whether the population remains in the petitioned area or moves south off the shelf is not known.
        (3) Re-examine all genetic information to determine whether the eastern Bering Sea stock and Sea of Okhotsk stock of North Pacific right whales can be differentiated genetically.  However, it should be re-emphasized that these stocks are currently considered one species under the ESA and treated as such.  There are so few samples available for such an analysis that it is doubtful that NMFS will be able to determine any further similarities or dissimilarities between the two stocks even if they exist.
        (4) Conduct an economic analysis (as required by the ESA) on any critical habitat area that may be proposed by NMFS.
        (5) Continue to examine historical and newly acquired data to determine whether any area, not just the petitioned area, should be proposed as critical habitat for North Pacific right whales.
        All references are available upon request (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.

          Dated: February 13, 2002.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-4087 Filed 2-19-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 167
        [USCG-2018-1058]
        Extension of Comment Period for the Port Access Route Study: Alaskan Arctic Coast

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The United States Coast Guard is extending the comment period for the notice of study and request for comments for the Port Access Route Study: Alaskan Arctic Coast that we published on December 21, 2018. This action will provide the public with additional time and opportunity to provide the Coast Guard with information regarding the Port Access Route Study: Alaskan Arctic Coast. The comment period is extended until January 30, 2020.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 30, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-1058 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions about this notice, please contact LCDR Michael Newell, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpw), at telephone number (907) 463-2263 or email Michael.D.Newell@uscg.mil, or Mr. David Seris, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpw), at telephone number (907) 463-2267 or email to David.M.Seris@uscg.mil, or LT Stephanie Bugyis, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpw), at telephone number (907) 463-2265 or email to Stephanie.M.Bugyis@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

         On December 21, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of study and request for comments for the Port Access Route Study: Alaskan Artic Coast (83 FR 65701). The comment period in that document closed September 1, 2019. In this action, the Coast Guard is providing notice that the public comment period is extended until January 30, 2020. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by searching the docket number “USCG-2018-1058”.
        This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c) and 5 U.S.C. 552.

          Dated: August 29, 2019.
          Matthew T. Bell, Jr.,
          Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District.

      [FR Doc. 2019-19080 Filed 9-3-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D.  032103A]
        New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a 1-day Council meeting on April 15, 2003, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

          DATES:
          The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 15, 2003.  The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. on Tuesday.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Ferncroft, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923; telephone 978/777-2500.  Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone (978) 465-0492.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, (978) 465-0492.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Tuesday, April 15, 2003
        Following introductions, the Council will reconsider and finalize Groundfish Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan  reference point and rebuilding alternatives and control rules. In considering options, the Council will review rebuilding projections prepared by the Plan Development Team (PDT), and NMFS and peer review reports and add to or reduce the number of alternatives.  The Council will also finalize Total Allowance Catch (TAC) management alternatives including defining and controlling directed and incidental catch; review and approval of Groundfish Committee suggestions for clarifying Amendment 13 management measures and finalize alternatives to implement the U.S. Canada Resource Sharing Agreement including the handling of TAC coverages and overages.  The Council meeting will adjourn following the conclusion of any other outstanding business.
        Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting.  Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
        Special Accommodations

        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

          Dated:  March 25, 2003.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-7646 Filed 3-28-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA 2001-8953]
        Monitoring the Performance of Advanced Air Bags and Developing Data for Potential Future Air Bag Rulemakings

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          This document requests comments on NHTSA's plan for monitoring the performance of advanced air bags and developing data for potential future air bag rulemakings. The document presents the agency's proposed actions in monitoring the real-world crash performance of advanced air bags, performing compliance testing, conducting research to evaluate the performance of advanced air bags, and evaluating the costs of advanced air bag systems. NHTSA seeks public review and comment on the planning document. Comments received will be evaluated and incorporated, as appropriate, into the planned agency activities.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than August 9, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit written comments to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, PL 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should refer to the Docket Number (NHTSA 2001-8953) and be submitted in two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.

          Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help & Information” to obtain instructions for filing the comment electronically. In every case, the comment should refer to the docket number.

          The Docket Management System is located on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building at the Department of Transportation at the above address. You can review public dockets there between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You can also review comments on-line at the DOT Docket Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          William H. Walsh, Office of Plans and Policy, NPP-01, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5208, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-2550.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Final Rule and Interim Final Rule for Advanced Air Bags (65 FR 30680, May 12, 2000), amended our occupant crash protection standard to require that future air bags be designed to create less risk of serious air bag-induced injuries than current air bags, particularly for small statured adults and young children; and provide improved frontal crash protection for all occupants, by means that include advanced air bag technology. To achieve these goals, it added a wide variety of new requirements, test procedures, and injury criteria, using an assortment of new dummies. The rule will ensure that advanced air bag technologies are installed across the full spectrum of future fleets of motor vehicles. As a result, we expect that the air bags in these newer vehicles will be even more effective than the current redesigned air bags in saving lives. At the same time, we also expect that these newer air bags will be much less likely than those redesigned air bags to cause deaths or serious injuries.
        The provisions of this rule, particularly the maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid barrier test, reflect the uncertainty associated with simultaneously achieving the twin goals of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This uncertainty led us to take an approach that best assures improved air bag protection for occupants of all sizes, without compromising efforts to reduce the risks of injury to vulnerable occupants, including children and small statured adults seated very close to air bags and out-of-position occupants. In light of that uncertainty, we selected the lower of two proposed speeds as the maximum test speed for the unbelted rigid barrier crash test and issued that part of the rule as an interim final rule. To resolve that uncertainty, we are planning a multi-year effort to obtain additional data.
        Monitoring Approach
        In the Preamble for the Final Rule and Interim Final Rule, NHTSA discussed monitoring the performance of advanced air bags and potential future rulemakings. The overall goal is to monitor the performance of advanced air bags: (1) in low speed crashes with at-risk populations and (2) in high speed crashes (particularly those involving unbelted front seat occupants) to support future decision making on the high speed unbelted test requirement. This paper provides a general discussion of the agency's plans for accomplishing these tasks.
        In the Preamble, NHTSA identified the following approaches:
        • Evaluate real-world crash performance of advanced air bags in both low and high speed crashes.
        • Perform compliance testing to assure safe performance of advanced systems and consider publishing an annual compliance margin report.
        • Conduct research to:
        (1) Evaluate the performance of advanced systems, including unbelted barrier tests at various speeds;
        (2) Continue research into the technology of advanced air bags; and
        (3) Conduct biomechanics research on the correlation between Injury Assessment Research Values (IARV) and real world injuries.
        • Monitor the introduction, public acceptance, and effectiveness of technology to encourage seat belt use.
        • Evaluate the costs of advanced air bag systems.
        I. Real World Performance of Advanced Air Bags
        We are considering various approaches to monitor how well advanced air bags are protecting occupants of different sizes and ages, at different speeds, belted/child restraint and unbelted. The approach will be to compare the performance of advanced air bag systems with the performance of previous generation air bag systems. It is important to understand that significant introduction of vehicles certified to the advanced air bag standard will not occur until Model Year 2004 when 35% of the new vehicle fleet must be so equipped. At the end of that model year, less than 5% of the on-road fleet will be equipped with advanced air bag systems. At the end of the phase-in Model Year 2006 less than 20% of the on-road fleet will be equipped with advanced air bag systems. Unless there are significant changes in the effectiveness of the advanced air bag systems, it will be several years later before any statistical understanding of system effectiveness will be possible. In the interim, NHTSA will continue to support special studies of crash experience and rely on anecdotal and engineering analysis to address real world performance issues.
        Data Sources
        • We are planning to develop a database that describes air bag design features by make/model/model year; registration data; and key performance attributes (e.g., dual speed inflators, occupant position sensors, deployment thresholds) of advanced air bag systems. Manufacturers that submit information to the agency and wish to seek confidential treatment for the information must submit a request for confidential treatment in accordance with the procedures set forth in the agency's regulations governing Business Confidential Information, 49 CFR Part 512. Any information contained in this database that is entitled to confidential treatment will not be released to the public.

        • In-depth crash data will be available from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS), the Special Crash Investigation (SCI) Program, and the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN). These databases can be used for statistical analysis and engineering analysis of air bag system performance. A key initiative under development is to work with manufacturers to secure data from on-board crash recorders, which would improve our understanding of crash severity and pre-crash maneuvers.

        • NHTSA has already instituted two special studies related to air bags. The Redesigned Air Bag Special Study was begun in October 1997 to collect data on crashes involving depowered air bags (air bags which have been redesigned in response to an amendment to FMVSS 208 in 1997 that authorized certification through use of a sled test rather than a crash test into a rigid barrier). The objective of this study is to collect data on crashes of high interest (children, out of position occupants, high damage severity, and multiple injured occupants) involving vehicles equipped with a redesigned air bag system in which the air bag has deployed. In September 1999, the NHTSA initiated the Advanced Occupant Protection Special Study to collect data on crashes involving MY 2000 (and later) vehicles equipped with air bag systems with certain advanced design features (e.g., dual speed inflators, weight sensors, seat position sensors).
        • Databases, without in-depth crash investigation data, such as the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) will be evaluated for statistical analysis of system performance.
        • Industry data will be used as it becomes available. The automobile manufacturers have stated their intention to supplement NHTSA data with a significant investment in crash reconstruction data. Insurance industry data will also be used as available.
        Analytic Agenda
        • Low Speed Crashes (0-25 mph delta V): The primary interest in low speed crashes will be focused on out-of-position occupants. We will try to understand how dual speed air bags, low risk deployment air bags, various occupant position/size sensors, deployment thresholds, restraint use and overall system designs affect the occurrence and severity of injuries at different crash severities under 25 mph delta V. We will be looking at drivers and passengers considering their size and age and restraint usage. We will also be looking at small children and the type of child restraint used. We will also be evaluating in-position occupants in a similar fashion.
        • Higher Speed Crashes (25 mph delta V and greater): The analytic approach will be similar in the high speed regime, but the focus will be different. We will attempt to understand how the deployment threshold design, the “power” in the second stage of dual speed advanced air bags, the position of the driver/passenger, and restraint usage contribute to system performance. A key issue will be how advanced air bags protect unrestrained occupants in higher speed crashes. Again, we will be looking at drivers and passengers considering their size and age.
        II. Compliance Testing
        NHTSA will conduct a significant amount of compliance testing of vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements (Model Year 2004 when 35% of the new vehicle fleet must be certified). Data from this testing program will be integrated with research tests to monitor the performance of advanced air bag systems. We will consider publishing an annual report, using manufacturer test data as well as NHTSA compliance tests, indicating the extent to which vehicles exceed the performance requirements in the standard. We will first evaluate whether consumers could effectively use this information as an indicator of the relative performance of restraint systems in different vehicles along with other consumer information distributed by this agency, such as results from the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
        Data Sources
        NHTSA routinely tests vehicles to the test procedures specified in the federal motor vehicle safety standards. We also routinely receive certification data from manufacturers as we develop our test program for each year. We can also request information about other testing conducted by manufacturers, in addition to the tests used for certification purposes. Manufacturers that submit information to the agency and wish to seek confidential treatment for the information must submit a request for confidential treatment in accordance with the procedures set forth in the agency's regulations governing Business Confidential Information, 49 CFR Part 512. Specific tests include:
        • Low speed tests (Static Out-of-Position, Static Suppression).
        • High speed tests (25 mph Offset Deformable Barrier—Belted 5th female, 25 mph Rigid Barrier—Unbelted 5th female and 50th male, 30 mph Rigid Barrier—Belted 5th female, 35 mph Rigid Barrier—Belted 50th male starting in MY 2007).
        III. Research Related to Advanced Air Bag Systems
        a. Research Testing
        We plan to conduct research to evaluate advanced air bag systems introduced into the fleet.
        Tests on newly introduced systems will be performed to provide data for potential future rulemakings and to provide information that will help monitor the progress of the industry in maximizing occupant protection. A coordinated research program will be developed which is complementary to the testing conducted in our New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and our compliance program. We plan to evaluate how well advanced air bags are protecting occupants of different sizes, at different speeds, belted/child restraint and unbelted in both passenger cars and light trucks. Key issues include: (1) the appropriate speed for the unbelted rigid barrier test, which is currently set at 25 mph; (2) raising the speed for restrained testing with the 5% dummy to 35 mph; and (3) evaluating design approaches for achieving low risk deployments for out-of-position occupants. This research effort will complement the analysis of real world performance of air bags described in Section I.
        Data Sources
        Tests being considered include:
        • 15-20 mph Rigid Barrier Tests—Unbelted 5th female and possibly 3 and 6 year old.
        • 25-35 mph Rigid Barrier—Unbelted 5th female and 50th male.
        • 35 mph Rigid Barrier—Belted 5th female.
        • 37.5-40 mph Offset Deformable Barrier—Belted 5th female and 50th male.
        • A variety of tests with the 95th male dummy.
        B. Research Into the Technology of Future Advanced Air Bags
        The agency plans to conduct research on advanced air bag technology that would be considered for installation 3-5 years into the future.
        • Survey suppliers for ideas about long range enhancements to air bag technologies and their willingness to participate in cooperative research agreements
        • Select technologies of interest and appropriate vendors to develop technology; e.g. advanced sensors, dynamic suppression, advanced algorithms, tailored belt loading, etc.
        • Test and evaluate advanced technology and compare it to the performance of advanced air bag systems evaluated in testing described in Section IIIa.
        C. Biomechanics Research on Injury Assessment Research Values (IARV)

        The agency will conduct biomechanics research to confirm the relationship between IARVs and real world injuries. We also will conduct additional validation of dummies/injury criteria (especially neck). We also plan to do further work on pediatric injury criteria through scaling for the full range of child dummies. Data sources include CIREN, NASS and computer modeling.
        IV. Monitor Education Programs and Technology To Increase Seat Belt Use
        The agency will continue its public education campaigns. We will monitor the effectiveness of the campaign that children 12 years of age and younger should ride in the back seat. Educational information will be developed and disseminated on how different advanced air bag systems work. Consumer information will continue to be disseminated through a variety of media (e.g. Internet, Hotline, consumer advisories, etc.). We will also monitor the introduction by manufacturers of technology to encourage belt use.
        Data Sources
        • Use the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) and analyses of various crash data sources to evaluate seating position of children by age and air bag system;
        • Monitor attitudes toward advanced air bag systems and misconceptions on their performance using telephone surveys, Hotline contacts, news articles and focus groups;
        • Identify, using an industry survey, those seat belt systems designed to encourage belt use. Monitor seat belt use for these systems using observation studies and crash data.
        V. Evaluate Costs of Advanced Air Bag Systems
        We plan to monitor the cost of air bag systems using market surveys, information from manufacturers, and special engineering cost studies. These data will be used in subsequent analysis of the costs and benefits of the advanced air bag rule.
        How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket number of this document (NHTSA 2001-8953) in your comments.

        Please send two paper copies of your comments to Docket Management or submit them electronically. The mailing address is U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. If you submit your comments electronically, log onto the Docket Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov and click on “Help & Information” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions.
        How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?
        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NCC-01, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
        In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
        Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

        In our response, we will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
        Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
        How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?
        You may read the comments by visiting Docket Management in person at Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
        You may also see the comments on the Internet by taking the following steps:

        1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov).
        2. On that page, click on “search.”
        3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search) type in the four-digit Docket number shown at the beginning of this document (8953). Click on “search.”
        4. On the next page, which contains Docket summary information for the Docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also download the comments.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 30111, 30117, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

          William H. Walsh,
          Associate Administrator for Plans and Policy.

      [FR Doc. 01-15814 Filed 6-22-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0036]
        RIN 2127-AM00
        Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems; Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); Extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          In response to a request from the public, NHTSA is announcing a 30-day extension of the comment period on the ANPRM on Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated Driving Systems. The comment period for the ANPRM was originally scheduled to end on July 29, 2019. It will now end on August 28, 2019.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the ANPRM published on May 28, 2019 at 84 FR 24433 is extended. Written comments on the ANPRM must be received on or before August 28, 2019 in order to be considered timely.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments must be submitted by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251.
          Regardless of how you submit your comments, they must include the docket number identified in the heading of this notice.

          Not that all comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Please see the “Privacy Act” heading below.
          You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9324.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. We will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          David Hines, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Telephone: (202) 366-1810. Facsimile: (202) 366-7002. Sara Bennett, Attorney-Advisor, Vehicle Rulemaking and Harmonization, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On May 28, 2019, NHTSA published an ANPRM to obtain public comments on the near- and long-term challenges of testing and verifying compliance with existing crash avoidance (100-series) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Automated Driving System-Dedicated Vehicles that lack traditional manual controls necessary for a human driver to maneuver the vehicle and other features intended to facilitate operation of a vehicle by a human driver, but that are otherwise traditional vehicles with typical seating configurations. The ANPRM stated that the closing date for comments is July 29, 2019.
        On July 15, 2019, NHTSA received a request from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) for a 60-day extension of the comment period. The request can be found in the docket for the ANPRM identified in the heading of this notice. NHTSA has considered this request and believes that a 30-day extension beyond the original due date appropriately balances NHTSA's interest in providing the public with sufficient time to comment on the complex and novel questions raised in the ANPRM, with its interest in safely addressing regulatory barriers in a timely manner. This is to notify the public that NHTSA is extending the comment period on the ANPRM, and allowing it to remain open until August 28, 2019.
        We note that, in addition to requesting an extension of the ANPRM comment period, APTA also requested NHTSA hold a public meeting or webinar on the issues raised in the ANPRM. NHTSA is considering whether to hold a public meeting or webinar on the issues raised in the ANPRM, and will decide whether to do so once the agency has considered the comments received during the full extended comment period.

          Authority:
          Delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.

          Heidi Renate King,
          Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

      [FR Doc. 2019-16040 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 226
        [Docket No. 100924467-0467-02]
        RIN 0648-XZ26
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Designating Critical Habitat for the Endangered North Atlantic Right Whale

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of 90-day petition finding, and notice of 12-month determination.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), announce our 90-day finding and 12-month determination on how to proceed with a petition to revise critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The petition seeks to revise the existing critical habitat designation by expanding the areas designated as critical feeding and calving habitat areas for the North Atlantic right whale. Additionally, the petition seeks to include a migratory corridor as part of the critical habitat designation for the North Atlantic right whale. Our 90-day finding is that the petition, in conjunction with the information readily available in our files, presents substantial scientific information indicating that the requested revision may be warranted. Our 12-month determination on how to proceed with the petition is that we intend to continue our ongoing rulemaking process with the expectation that a proposed critical habitat rule for the North Atlantic right whale will be submitted to the Federal Register for publication in the second half of 2011.

          DATES:
          The finding announced in this document was made on October 6, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/regs/com.html. Supporting documentation used to prepare this finding is available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, by telephone at 978-281-9328; or by facsimile at 978-281-9394.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mary Colligan, Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office; by mail (see
            ADDRESSES): by telephone at 978-281-9328; or facsimile at 978-281-9394; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, HQ, at 301-713-1401.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On October 1, 2009, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Defenders of Wildlife, Humane Society of the United States, Ocean Conservancy, and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (the Petitioners) to revise the designated critical habitat of the North Atlantic right whale (CBD et al., 2009). On October 27, 2009, we sent a letter to the petitioners acknowledging receipt of the petition.
        Background
        Critical habitat is defined under section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as: “(i)The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (III) specific areas outside the geographical areas occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential to the conservation of the species.”
        Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us to designate and make revisions to critical habitat for listed species on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude any particular area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines that the failure to designate such areas as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned. The ESA provides that NMFS may revise critical habitat from time-to-time as appropriate (section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii)).

        Section 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving a petition to revise critical habitat, the Secretary make a finding as to whether a petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the revision may be warranted. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14) define “substantial information” as the “amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted.” Our regulations provide further that, in making a 90-day finding on a petition to revise critical habitat, we shall consider whether a petition includes substantial information indicating that: (i) Areas contain physical and biological features essential to, and that may require special management to provide for the conservation of the species; or (ii) areas designated as critical habitat do not contain resources essential to, or do not require special management to provide for, the conservation of the species. In determining whether substantial information exists, we take into account several factors, including information submitted with, and referenced in, the petition and all other information readily available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, this finding is to be made within 90 days of the receipt of the petition, and the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register. If we find that a petition presents substantial information indicating that the revision may be warranted, within 12 months after receiving the petition, we are required to determine how we intend to proceed with the requested revision and promptly publish notice of such intention in the Federal Register. The statute says nothing more about options or considerations regarding the Secretary's 12-month determination, nor does it prescribe any procedures or timelines for acting on petitions beyond the 12-month finding. See ESA Section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii).
        Listing and Designated Critical Habitat History
        In 1970, right whales, Eubalaena spp. were listed as endangered (35 FR 18319; December 2, 1970). We consider this listing to have included two species of right whales, the northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and the southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) (71 FR at 77706; December 27, 2006). Until the listing was changed in 2008, we considered the northern right whale species (Eubalaena glacialis) to consist of two populations—one occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean and the other in the North Pacific Ocean. In 1994, we designated critical habitat for the northern right whale in the North Atlantic Ocean (59 FR 28805; June 3, 1994). This critical habitat designation includes portions of Cape Cod Bay and Stellwagen Bank, the Great South Channel (each off the coast of Massachusetts), and waters adjacent to the coasts of Georgia and the east coast of Florida. These areas were determined to provide critical feeding, nursery, and calving habitat for the North Atlantic population of northern right whales.

        In 2006, we published a comprehensive status review report for the northern right whale, which concluded recent genetic data provided unequivocal support to distinguish three right whale lineages as separate phylogenetic species (Rosenbaum et al., 2000): (1) The North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) ranging in the North Atlantic Ocean; (2) the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) ranging in the North Pacific Ocean; and (3) the southern right whale (Eubalaena australis), historically ranging throughout the oceans of the southern hemisphere. Based on these findings, we published proposed and final determinations listing right whales in the North Atlantic and North Pacific as separate endangered species under the ESA (71 FR 77704, December 27, 2006; 73 FR 12024, March 6, 2008). As stated previously, these individual species were previously encompassed in the broader listing of northern right whales, and the 1994 designation of critical habitat for the northern right whale analyzed and included only areas in the North Atlantic Ocean. The population analyzed in the critical habitat designation was right whales in the North Atlantic Ocean. Since the biological basis and analysis for the 1994 critical habitat designation was based on the North Atlantic population of right whales, we believe that analysis and designation applies to the North Atlantic right whales as they were subsequently listed as a separate species in 2008. We, therefore, consider the 1994 designation legally valid and applicable until it is revised when the ongoing analysis is completed through rulemaking.
        Analysis of Petition and 90-Day Finding
        As discussed above, petitioners seek to include expanded areas off the coast of New England and the Southeast United States, as well as new areas within the mid-Atlantic region, as critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale. The petition contains information on the natural history, status, and threats to the North Atlantic right whale.

        To support the requested revision, the petition provides summaries of several analyses conducted by NMFS as well as additional published and unpublished sighting survey data. The first is a 2008 evaluation of foraging habitat and of potential overwintering habitat in the Gulf of Maine (Pace and Merrick, 2008). The second is a 2007 NOAA Technical Memorandum detailing the results of a habitat model that evaluated the correlation between selected habitat features and right whale sightings in the southeastern U.S. (Garrison, 2007). The petition also discusses the NMFS summary of sightings data from 1972 to 2000 provided in the 2008 ship speed rule (73 FR 60173; October 10, 2008) and Environmental Impact Statement for that rule (2008). The petition also provides information from two separate analyses of North Atlantic right whale sightings data and migration (Firestone et al., 2008; Schick et al., 2009) to support the request for revising designated critical habitat to include a migratory corridor.
        Based on the above information and information readily available in our files related to an ongoing rulemaking effort for critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale, and pursuant to criteria specified in 50 CFR 424.14(c), we find the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the requested revision may be warranted.
        12-Month Determination

        As indicated above, the ESA provides us with broad discretion respecting revision of designated critical habitat, allowing us to determine when revision is appropriate, and affording us wide latitude to determine how to respond to a petition to revise critical habitat designations. In this instance, we received the petition while conducting an ongoing analysis and evaluation of new information available since the 1994 designation that indicates the designation should be revised. We are in the process of evaluating the nature and extent of physical or biological features that may be considered essential to the conservation of the North Atlantic right whale, and which may require special management consideration or protections, and identifying specific areas on which such features are found. We have also begun preparing the impacts analysis required under 4(b)(2) of the ESA, which will take into consideration the economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant impacts of designating any particular area as critical habitat. Our analysis will include an evaluation of the information provided in the petition. Therefore, it is our intention to proceed with the petition by completing our ongoing rulemaking. Based on an updated assessment of the time required for completing the rulemaking, we expect to submit a proposed rule to the Federal Register in the second half of 2011.
        Petition 12-Month Determination
        Based on the information above, pursuant to the provisions of the ESA respecting revision of critical habitat and petitions for revision, we have determined it is timely and appropriate to revise the 1994 designation of critical habitat for northern right whales by continuing our ongoing rulemaking process for designating critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale. When we complete our analysis, we will publish a proposed rule and will solicit public comments. Those comments will be considered in preparing a final determination. Until we are able to revise the critical habitat designation for the North Atlantic right whale, the currently designated critical habitat, as well as those areas that support North Atlantic right whales but are outside of the current critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. Federal agency actions are subject to the regulatory protections afforded by section 7(a)(2), which requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
        References Cited

        A complete list of all references is available upon request from the Protected Resources Division of the NMFS Northeast Regional Office (see
          ADDRESSES).

          Authority:

           The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: October 1, 2010.
          Eric C. Schwaab,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2010-25214 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P