        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 222 and 223
        [Docket No.031202301-3301-01; I.D. 111403C]
        RIN 0648-AR53
        Taking of Threatened or Endangered Species Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to prohibit shallow longline sets of the type normally targeting swordfish on the high seas in the Pacific Ocean east of 150° W. long. by vessels that are not already prohibited from making such sets under the current regulations for the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (WesPac FMP).  This action is intended to protect endangered and threatened sea turtles from the adverse impacts of shallow longline fishing by U.S. longline fishing vessels in the Pacific Ocean and operating out of the west coast instead of Hawaii.  This rule would supplement the regulations proposed to implement the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (FMP) that would prohibit shallow longline sets on the high seas in the Pacific Ocean west of 150° W. long. by vessels that would be managed under that FMP.  The FMP is currently under review by NMFS and will be approved, disapproved or partially approved in early February 2004.  Together, these two regulations are expected to conserve leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles as required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule must be received or transmitted by facsimile by 5 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, on January 16, 2004.  Comments transmitted via e-mail or the Internet will not be accepted.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be sent to Rodney R. McInnis, Acting Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA  90802, or by fax (562) 980-4027.

          Copies of the FMP, which includes an environmental impact statement (EIS) accompanied by a regulatory impact review (RIR) and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) are available on the internet at http://www.pcouncil.org/hms/hmsfmp.html or may be obtained from Daniel Waldeck, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon, 97220-1384, Daniel.Waldeck@noaa.gov, (503) 820-2280.  This proposed action corresponds to the High Seas Pelagic Longline Alternative 3 in the Council EIS, RIR, and IRFA.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Tim Price, NMFS, Southwest Region, Protected Resources Division, (562) 980-4029.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        All species of sea turtles that are known to interact with U.S. longline vessels in the Pacific Ocean are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA.  The leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtle is listed as endangered.  The loggerhead (Caretta caretta), olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles are listed as threatened, except for populations of olive ridleys on the Pacific coast of Mexico and green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered.  Under the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 223.205), taking endangered and threatened sea turtles, even incidentally, is prohibited, with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206.  The incidental taking of an endangered species of wildlife within the United States, U.S. territorial sea, or high seas is prohibited by section 9(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the ESA.  The incidental take of endangered species may be authorized only by an incidental take statement issued under section 7 of the ESA or an incidental take permit issued under section 10 of the ESA.  The incidental take of threatened species may be authorized only by an incidental take statement in a biological opinion issued pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, an incidental take permit issued pursuant to section 10 of the ESA, or regulations under section 4(d) of the ESA.  Pursuant to section 11(f) of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to promulgate regulations to enforce the requirements of the ESA.
        West Coast-Based Pelagic Longline Fishery
        Since the early 1990s, a number of longline vessels targeting swordfish and, possibly, tuna, although no sets have been documented, have unloaded their catch and re-provisioned in California ports.  Participation has declined from a peak of 43 vessels participating in the fishery in 2001 and 38 vessels in 2000, to approximately 28 vessels in 2002 and an estimated 20-25 vessels in 2003.  Almost all of these vessels had some history of fishing in the Hawaii-based longline fishery.  Participants in the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery often fish more than 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km) offshore and are generally prohibited by state regulations from fishing within 200 nautical miles (370 km) of the West Coast.  Longline vessels registered in West Coast states are allowed to land longline caught fish into West Coast ports provided that fishing takes place outside the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone.  All documented longline fishing by West Coast vessels in recent years has been out of California ports.
        NMFS began placing observers aboard West Coast-based pelagic longline fishing vessels on a voluntary basis in October 2001 and began a mandatory observer program in August 2002 under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.  From October 2001 through May 2003, 280 sets were observed on 13 trips, documenting a total of 27 sea turtle interactions, consisting of two leatherback sea turtles, 24 loggerhead sea turtles, and one olive ridley sea turtle.  All of the observed sea turtles were released alive.
        High Seas Fishing Compliance Act
        On March 22, 1996, NMFS issued an interim final rule (61 FR 11751) to implement the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995 (HSFCA).  The purpose of the HSFCA is to license U.S. vessels fishing on the high seas and to implement the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas.  The West Coast-based pelagic longline vessels are permitted under the HSFCA.  In May 2001, the Center for Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that NMFS unlawfully failed to conduct an ESA section 7 consultation on the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery when issuing the HSFCA permits for this fishery.  On November 27, 2001, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion and ruled in favor of NMFS.  In response, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2001.  On August 21, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that NMFS is required to engage in consultation under section 7 of the ESA regarding the effects on sea turtles and other listed species when issuing fishing permits under the HSFCA to West Coast-based pelagic longline fishing vessels.  Consequently, the effects of issuing of HSFCA permits that authorize fishing by West Coast-based pelagic longline vessels will be considered during the section 7 consultation that is now being conducted.  Furthermore, this proposed rule, if adopted, would be the vehicle by which NMFS imposes conditions and restrictions on the HSFCA permits (16 U.S.C. 5503(d)) held by West Coast-based pelagic longline vessels to ensure the fishery complies with the ESA.
        Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species
        On October 31, 2003, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted the FMP to NMFS for review.  After a public comment process, NMFS will approve, disapprove, or partially approve the FMP, and then implement those portions that were approved (if any).  The FMP includes management measures for the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery that would prohibit shallow longline sets of the type normally used to target swordfish on the high seas in the Pacific Ocean west of 150° W. long. by vessels managed under the new FMP.  The FMP would not prohibit West Coast-based pelagic longline vessels from targeting swordfish in waters east of 150° W. long.  It should be noted that Hawaii-based longline vessels are currently prohibited from targeting swordfish in this area, pursuant to regulations under the WesPac FMP.  Those regulations will be vacated on April 1, 2004, by Court Order.  NMFS will propose regulations with any necessary restrictions or prohibitions for vessels operating under the WesPac FMP.  The regulations that will be proposed under the WesPac FMP will be subject to NEPA review and ESA Section 7 consultation.
        In addition, to conserve sea turtles, the FMP would require West Coast-based pelagic longline vessels to have on board and to use dip nets, line cutters, and wire or bolt cutters capable of cutting through the vessel's hooks to release sea turtles with the least harm possible to the sea turtles.  NMFS issued a proposed rule to implement the FMP on December 10, 2003 (68 FR 68834).
        Estimated Sea Turtle Take Levels
        There are two sets of data from which rates of sea turtle interactions in the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery could be derived:  (1) Data from observers on Hawaii-based longline vessels operating in the same areas as the West Coast-based pelagic longline vessels; and (2) data from observers on West Coast-based pelagic longline vessels.  Vessels in the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery fish in the same manner, and frequently in the same area, as vessels that had been targeting swordfish in the Hawaii-based longline fishery.  Because of the strong similarities between these two fisheries and the limited amount of observer data available for the West Coast-based pelagic longline fleet alone, NMFS concluded that using the combined observer data from the Hawaii-based and West Coast-based longline fleets for fishing east of 150° W. long. is more likely to be representative of the sea turtle interaction rates that can be expected to occur throughout the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery.

        Using the combined observer data, NMFS developed estimates of sea turtle take levels that would result from the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery under different fishery scenarios.  Assuming that the West Coast-based pelagic longline fleet deploys 1.55 million hooks east of 150° W. longitude (the estimated fleet effort in 2002 according to the FMP), NMFS estimates the fishery under the FMP would result in the annual take of 174 loggerhead and 52 leatherback sea turtles.  For loggerhead sea turtles, NMFS estimates that 3 may be entangled and no hooking or injury will occur, 74 may be hooked externally or entangled with line left on the animal, 97 may be hooked in the mouth or ingested the hook, and 0 may be released dead.  For leatherback sea turtles, NMFS estimates that 0 may be entangled and no hooking or injury will occur, 46 may be hooked externally or entangled with line left on the animal, 6 may be hooked in the mouth or ingested the hook, and 0 may be released dead.  Applying the 27 and 42 percent post-release mortality rates developed by NMFS for sea turtles that have been hooked externally or entangled with line left on the animal and for sea turtles that have been hooked in the mouth or ingested the hook, preliminary estimates indicate that the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery under the management measures proposed by the Council would result in the annual mortality of 61 loggerhead sea turtles and 15 leatherback sea turtles.
        Impacts to Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtle Populations
        The estimated takes and mortalities of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles by the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery under the proposed FMP exceed those authorized under the ESA in other Pacific fisheries.  As an example, the agency's incidental take statement in the 2002 biological opinion on the western Pacific pelagic fisheries authorized takes in the Hawaii-based longline fishery of only 8 leatherback and 14 loggerhead turtles per year.  In contrast, as calculated above, at the estimated fishing level of 2002, longline fishing for swordfish east of 150  W long. would be expected to result in the take of 52 leatherback turtles and 174 loggerhead turtles.
        As required under the ESA, NMFS is now conducting a formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA on the Council's FMP in order to determine if fishing activities proposed under the FMP are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species under NMFS' jurisdiction.  Based on the severe decline and lack of recovery in loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles populations, and the extensive analyses conducted by the agency on existing threats to these populations, NMFS is concerned that the take levels expected to occur in the West coast-based pelagic longline fishery under the Council's FMP might be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species.  If the section 7 consultation on the Council's FMP concludes that the action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened sea turtle species, then NMFS will be unable to authorize the expected amount of incidental take by the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery under the Council's FMP.
        Until NMFS completes a full analysis of the impacts of the Council's FMP on endangered or threatened sea turtles, NMFS cannot determine what measures will be included in the final regulations of this fishery in order to conserve loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles.  The consultation could conclude that the Council's FMP is not likely to jeopardize sea turtle populations.  On the other hand, the consultation could conclude that the Council's FMP is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of sea turtle populations and include a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) that would mitigate sea turtle takes to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy.  Mitigation measures may depend on the severity of the impact to sea turtle populations and could include effort reduction or a complete prohibition of swordfish fishing.  The FMP contains framework procedures by which adjustments in conservation and management measures may be made through regulatory amendments if available information and conditions warrant it, and the RPA could provide a basis for such action.  However, promulgation of regulations to implement the RPA could take several months to complete and leave fishers in a very difficult situation in the interim because they would lack an exemption from the take prohibition specified in section 9 of the ESA.
        Given that NMFS anticipates an annual mortality of 61 loggerhead sea turtles and 15 leatherback sea turtles as a result of the West Coast-based pelagic fishery, NMFS is proposing to implement restrictions in the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery in waters east of 150° W. long. to conserve leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles as required under the ESA.  Under this rule, West Coast-based pelagic longline vessels would be prohibited from making shallow longline sets on the high seas in the Pacific Ocean east of 150° W. long.  The prohibition of shallow longline sets west of 150° W. long. proposed under the FMP would also apply, if the FMP is approved and implemented by NMFS.  The regulatory text of this proposed rule might be revised, as necessary, to comport with the RPA , if any, of the section 7 consultation on the FMP.  As a result, NMFS is requesting comments on this rulemaking and any alternative management regime to conserve sea turtles.
        There are several other factors that may ultimately affect the management of the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery.  As noted, the FMP contains framework procedures by which adjustments in conservation and management measures may be made through regulatory amendments if warranted by available information and conditions.  Further, the FMP recognizes a potential for exempted fishing permits that allow testing of alternative gear and/or techniques that might demonstrate that longline fishing can be conducted in a manner that will not adversely affect protected species or that will result in lower levels of bycatch.  NMFS is conducting research in the Atlantic Ocean into gear and techniques that might allow longline fishing for swordfish or other species with less risk to sea turtles. Preliminary results from this research indicate that the use of 18/0 circle hooks with no offset and squid bait may reduce loggerhead and leatherback sea turtle capture rates by more than 80 and 50 percent, respectively.  The use of 18/0 circle hooks with a 10 percent offset and mackerel type bait may reduce loggerhead and leatherback sea turtle capture rates by more than 90 and 65 percent, respectively.  Additional treatments are being tested using 20/0 circle hooks and mackerel which also show promise with possible significant reductions in sea turtle catch rates.  Large circle hooks have also been shown to reduce the rate of swallowed hooks which may decrease post-hooking mortality resulting from internal injuries.  The best treatments for reducing the capture of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles cannot be identified until the researchers analyze the data and their significance.  However, based on these promising results, NMFS is considering allowing the use of circle hooks and mackerel type bait to target swordfish and is soliciting public comment on this alternative.
        A similar experiment is planned for the central Pacific Ocean, pending completion of an Environmental Impact Statement.  The results of these experiments will be provided to the Council.  NMFS anticipates that the Council will review information as it is generated to consider possible changes in longline fishing regulations and may propose changes.  NMFS will consider any such proposals, which could result in lessening the burden to fishermen while maintaining adequate protection of sea turtles under these regulations.  NMFS will fully support the Council in examination and selection of appropriate protective measures.  However, the need for protection of sea turtles in the near term warrants the use of Secretarial authority under the ESA (as well as under the HSFCA, 16 U.S.C. 5503(d)) to promulgate regulations in this fishery to ensure the fishery complies with the ESA.

        Classification
        NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the ESA and other applicable laws.

        The impacts of this proposed action and alternatives are evaluated in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act as the High Seas Pelagic Longline Alternative 3 in the EIS prepared by the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule does not contain collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

        The Council prepared a combined RIR/IRFA that describes the economic impacts of the Council's FMP, which includes an analysis of this proposed action as High Seas Pelagic Longline Alternative 3.  The RIR/IRFA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).  A summary of the RIR/IRFA follows:
        The SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this proposed rule provide a description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action.  That information is not repeated here.
        A fish-harvesting business is considered a “small” business by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million.  For related fish-processing businesses, a small business is one that employs 500 or fewer persons.  For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one with annual receipts not in excess of $5.0 million.
        This regulation imposes controls on the fleet of approximately 22-25 longline vessels that fish principally out of California ports for swordfish and associated species.  A total of 28 vessels participated in the West-coast-based pelagic longline fishery during 2002, down from a peak of 43 vessels in 2001 and from 38 vessels in 2000.  All of these vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards.  Therefore, there would be no financial impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large vessels under the proposed action.  For most of the longline vessels involved, swordfish caught by longline gear makes up more than half the total revenue from fish sales.  Table 1 presents total ex-vessel revenue and dependence on swordfish landings for the 38 West coast-based vessels with high seas pelagic longline swordfish landings in 2001, broken down by the number of vessels with varying percent dependence on swordfish.  NMFS believes these data are representative of 2002 as well.

          Table 1:  Total ex-vessel revenue and dependence on swordfish for 38 West-coast-based vessels with high seas pelagic longline landings in 2001.

            Number of Vessels
            Dependence on High Seas Longline Caught Swordfish (category of swordfish revenue/total revenue)
            Average Total Ex-vessel Revenue ($/vessel)
            Average Percent Longline Swordfish (swordfish revenue/total revenue)

            4
            < 50%
            $228,951
            32.57%

            3
            50 - 70%
            $170,067
            60.99%

            3
            > 70 - 80%
            $222,089
            76.66%

            4
            > 80 - 90%
            $258,335
            86.77%

            13
            > 90 - 95%
            $182,211
            93.26%

            11
            > 95%
            $219,885
            97.57%

        The impacts of alternatives to this proposed action were evaluated in the Council's RIR/IRFA. The Council considered three alternatives for managing the high seas pelagic longline fishery.  Under Alternative 1 (Status Quo), the FMP would not impose regulations on this fishery.  The Council assumes that in the short-run, the fishery would continue to operate as it currently does, earning average annual profits of $6.7 million.  However, in the long-run, the Council expected that regulations would be established under other authorities , such that over time the fishery would disappear, and long-run profits would become zero as the fishery was phased out.
        Alternative 2 (Council Proposed Action) would maintain the fishery, allowing fishermen to continue targeting swordfish east of 150° W. long., but impose some additional costs on longliners targeting swordfish on the high seas.  Short-run average annual profits would remain at $6.7 million, minus the cost of adopting turtle and sea bird mitigation measures, accommodating observers, and using monitoring equipment.  NMFS is developing guidelines for the design and performance standards of equipment required for the handling of incidentally caught sea turtles.  The required tools can be purchased, for an estimated maximum cost of $2,000 per vessel, but vessel owners may also be able use the guidelines to fabricate the equipment with lower cost materials.  Vessel owners do not pay an observer's salary, but do bear costs associated with providing room and board for the observer.  Additionally, carrying an observer may increase the cost of insurance that the vessel carries.  Vessel monitoring equipment costs approximately $2,000 to purchase and $500 to install, and would require annual maintenance estimated to cost approximately 20 percent of the purchase price per year.  However, despite the equipment costs, the fishery would be able to land swordfish, and so over 25 years, the present value of long-run profits relative to the status quo would range between $78 and $105 million, using 7 percent and 4 percent discount rates, respectively.
        Alternative 3, which is the same as this proposed action, would prohibit fishermen from targeting swordfish east of 150° W. long.  Swordfish are the target species of this fishery.  This would effectively eliminate all but incidental swordfish landings and the short- and long-run profits currently associated with landing swordfish ($6.7 million, and $78 million to $105 million, respectively), at least until alternative fishing opportunities are identified.  This loss assumes that all vessels in this fishery cease fishing, although longline fishing targeting tuna out of West Coast ports or Hawaii may be an alternative.  However, current participants in the fishery indicate that without being able to target swordfish, the high seas longline fishery originating from West Coast ports would cease to exist.

        Although no fishery interactions with the endangered short-tailed albatrosses (Phoebastria albatrus) have been recorded to date, on September 22, 2003, NMFS initiated section 7 consultation under the ESA with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for this species.  On September 24, 2003, formal consultation with NMFS Protected Resources under the Endangered Species Act was initiated on the fisheries managed under the FMP, including the fisheries now permitted under the HSFCA.
        Based on the conclusions of the consultation, NMFS will determine if fishing activities under the FMP are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species under NMFS' jurisdiction.  The results of this consultation will determine whether NMFS needs to implement the regulations outlined in this proposed rule in order to meet the requirements of the ESA.  Based on analyses conducted during previous biological opinions, NMFS is concerned that the amount of take estimated to occur if fishing were managed under the Council's FMP might be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles.  Therefore, NMFS is proposing to implement a prohibition on shallow sets by West Coast-based pelagic longline vessels that has proven effective at reducing sea turtle encounters in the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery and the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery.
        In keeping with the intent of Executive Order 13132 to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, NMFS is conferring with the States of California, Oregon, and Washington regarding this proposed rule.  NMFS intends to continue engaging in informal and formal contacts with these States during the implementation of this proposed rule and review of the FMP.

          List of Subjects

          50 CFR Part 222

        Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Transportation.

          50 CFR Part 223

        Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine mammals, Transportation.

          Dated:   December 11, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 222 and 223 are proposed to be amended to read as follows:

          PART 222—GENERAL ENDANGERED AND THREATENED MARINE SPECIES

        1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; § 222.403 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

        2. In § 222.102, the following definitions are added alphabetically, to read as follows:

          § 222.102
          Definitions.

            Basket-style longline gear means a type of longline gear that is divided into units called baskets, each consisting of a segment of main line to which 10 or more branch lines with hooks are spliced.  The mainline and all branch lines are made of multiple braided strands of cotton or of nylon or other synthetic fibers impregnated with tar or other heavy coatings that cause the lines to sink rapidly in seawater.

            Pelagic longline gear means longline gear consisting of a main line that is suspended horizontally in the water column and not stationary or anchored, and from which dropper lines with hooks (gangions) are attached.

          PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

        3.  The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:

          16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.12 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for § 223.206(d)(9)

        4.  In § 223.206, a new paragraph (d)(9) is added to read as follows:

          § 223.206
          Exceptions to prohibitions relating to sea turtles.

          (d) * * *
          (9) Restrictions applicable to Pacific pelagic longline vessels. In addition to the general prohibitions specified in § 600.725 of Chapter VI, it is unlawful for any person who is not operating under a western Pacific longline permit under § 660.21 to do any of the following:

          (i) Direct fishing effort toward the harvest of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) using longline gear deployed on the high seas of the Pacific Ocean north of the equator (0° lat.).
          (ii) Possess a light stick on board a longline vessel when fishing on the high seas of the Pacific Ocean north of the equator.
          (iii) Possess a light stick on board a longline vessel on the high seas of the Pacific Ocean north of the equator.  A light stick as used in this paragraph is any type of light emitting device, including any flourescent glow bead, chemical, or electrically powered light that is affixed underwater to the longline gear.
          (iv) Possess more than 10 swordfish on board a longline vessel from a fishing trip where any part of the trip included fishing in the Pacific Ocean north of the equator (0° lat.).
          (v) An operator of a longline vessel subject to this section may land or possess no more than 10 swordfish from a fishing trip where any part of the trip included fishing east of 150° W. long. and north of the equator (0° N. lat.).
          (vi) Fail to employ basket-style longline gear such that the mainline is deployed slack when fishing on the high seas of the Pacific Ocean north of the equator.
          (vii) When a conventional monofilament longline is deployed by a vessel subject to this section, no fewer than 15 branch lines may be set between any two floats.  Vessel operators using basket-style longline gear must set a minimum of 10 branch lines between any 2 floats when fishing in waters north of the equator.
          (viii) Longline gear deployed by a vessel subject to this section must be deployed such that the deepest point of the main longline between any two floats, i.e., the deepest point in each sag of the main line, is at a depth greater than 100 m (328.1 ft or 54.6 fm) below the sea surface.

      [FR Doc. 03-31140 Filed 12-16-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 174 and 180
        [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0006; FRL-9959-61]
        Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

          SUMMARY:

          This document announces the Agency's receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before May 10, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
          • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Michael Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov. The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Does this action apply to me?
        You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
        • Crop production (NAICS code 111).
        • Animal production (NAICS code 112).
        • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
        • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

        If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the pesticide petition summary of interest.
        B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

        3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.
        II. What action is the Agency taking?
        EPA is requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities.
        The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.

        Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.

        As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
        New Tolerances
        1. PP 6E8492. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0495). Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201, W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of prometryn in or on the raw agricultural commodity celtuce at 0.5 parts per million (ppm). Contact: RD.
        2. PP 6E8516. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0650). Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201, W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerance in 40 CFR 180.650 by establishing tolerances for residues of isoxaben N-[3-(1-ethyl-1-methylpropyl)-5-isoxazolyl]-2, 6-dimethoxybenzamide in or on the raw agricultural commodities apple at 0.01 parts per million (ppm), the bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 0.01 ppm, the fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm and the nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm. An acceptable analytical method is available for enforcement purposes. Contact: RD.
        3. PP 6E8534. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0032). Bayer CropScience, LP., 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to establish an import tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide tebuconazole in or on ginseng, fresh at 0.15 parts per million (ppm); and ginseng, dried/red at 0.4 (ppm). An enforcement method for plant commodities has been validated on various commodities. It has undergone successful EPA validation and has been submitted for inclusion in PAM II. The animal method has also been approved as an adequate enforcement method. Contact: RD.
        New Tolerance Exemptions
        1. PP IN-11002. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0012). Spring Trading Company, LLC., (203 Dogwood Trail, Magnolia, TX 77354) on behalf of Ingevity Corporation, 5255 Virginia Avenue, North Charleston, SC 29406, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of tall oil fatty acid (CAS Reg. No. 61790-12-3) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910; application to animals under 40 CFR 180.930 and application to food-contact surface sanitizing solutions under 40 CFR 180.940. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
        2. PP IN-11004. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0780). Clariant Corporation, 4000 Monroe Road, Charlotte, NC 28205, requests to establish exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.960 for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl, polymer with oxirane, hydrogen sulfate, ammonium salt (CAS Reg. No. 57608-14-7) and oxirane, 2-methyl, polymer with oxirane, hydrogen sulfate, potassium salt (CAS Reg. No. 1838191-48-2) having a minimum number average molecular weight in (amu) of 1,800 when used as inert ingredients in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
        Amended Tolerances

          PP 6E8516. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0650). Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201, W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to remove the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.650 for residues of isoxaben N-[3-(1-ethyl-1-methylpropyl)-5-isoxazolyl]-2, 6-dimethoxybenzamide in or on the raw agricultural commodities grape at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.02 ppm; and pistachio at 0.02 ppm. An acceptable analytical method is available for enforcement purposes. Contact: RD.

          Authority:
          21 U.S.C. 346a.

          Dated: March 7, 2017.
          Hamaad Syed,
          Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

      [FR Doc. 2017-07128 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 170109046-7749-01]
        RIN 0648-XF156
        Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2017 U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes a 2017 limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific territory (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands). NMFS would allow each territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt each year to U.S. longline fishing vessels in a specified fishing agreement that meets established criteria. As an accountability measure, NMFS would monitor, attribute, and restrict (if necessary) catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna, including catches made under a specified fishing agreement. The proposed catch limits and accountability measures would support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by September 15, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0004, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0004, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5176.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS proposes to specify a 2017 catch limit of 2,000 mt of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific territory. NMFS would also authorize each U.S. Pacific territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt of its 2,000-mt bigeye tuna limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels that are permitted to fish under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). Those vessels must be identified in a specified fishing agreement with the applicable territory. The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended these specifications. The proposed catch and allocation limits and accountability measures are identical to those that NMFS specified for each U.S. territory in 2016 (81 FR 63145, September 14, 2016).
        NMFS will monitor catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna by the longline fisheries of each U.S Pacific territory, including catches made by U.S. longline vessels operating under specified fishing agreements. The criteria that a specified fishing agreement must meet, and the process for attributing longline-caught bigeye tuna, will follow the procedures in 50 CFR 665.819 (Territorial catch and fishing effort limits). When NMFS projects that a territorial catch or allocation limit will be reached, NMFS would, as an accountability measure, prohibit the catch and retention of longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels in the applicable territory (if the territorial catch limit is projected to be reached), and/or vessels in a specified fishing agreement (if the allocation limit is projected to be reached).
        On March 20, 2017, in Territory of American Samoa v. NMFS, et al. (16-cv-95, D. Haw), a Federal judge vacated and set aside a NMFS rule that amended the American Samoa Large Vessel Prohibited Area (LVPA) for eligible longliners. The Court held that the action was inconsistent with the “other applicable law” provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by not considering the protection and preservation of cultural fishing rights in American Samoa under the Instruments of Cession. The Instruments of Cession do not specifically mention cultural fishing rights, and the Court's decision, although recognizing the need to protect those rights, does not define them. The Council is currently reevaluating the LVPA rule, including options to define cultural fishing rights in American Samoa that are subject to preservation and protection. NMFS specifically invites public comments on this proposed action that address the impact of this proposed rule on cultural fishing rights in American Samoa.

        NMFS will consider public comments on the proposed action and will announce the final specifications in the Federal Register. NMFS must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES heading. NMFS may not consider any comments not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. Regardless of the final specifications, all other management measures will continue to apply in the longline fishery.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this proposed specification is consistent with the applicable FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to this proposed specification.
        In this action, NMFS proposes a 2017 limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific territory (American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)). Without this catch limit, these U.S territories would not be subject to a limit because, as Participating Territories to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), they do not have a bigeye tuna limit under international measures adopted by the WCPFC. The proposed action would also allow each territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt of its limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels in a specified fishing agreement. Each agreement must meet the established criteria in 50 CFR 665.819. As an accountability measure, NMFS would monitor, attribute, and restrict (if necessary) catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels in the applicable U.S. territory (if the territorial catch limit is projected to be reached), or by vessels operating under the applicable specified fishing agreement (if the allocation limit is projected to be reached). Payments under the specified fishing agreements support fisheries development in the U.S. Pacific territories and the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.
        This proposed action would directly apply to longline vessels permitted Federally under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (Pelagic FEP). Specifically, this action would apply to Hawaii longline limited entry, American Samoa longline limited entry, and Western Pacific general longline permit holders.
        As of July 2017, there were 145 vessels with Hawaii permits (out of 164 total) and 44 with American Samoa permits (out of 60 total). There were no Western Pacific general longline permits as of July 2017.
        Based on logbook data collected by NMFS, Hawaii longline vessels landed approximately 33,401,000 lb of fish valued at $101,582,000 in 2016. With 142 vessels making either a deep- or shallow-set trip in 2016, the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish caught by Hawaii-based longline fisheries averaged about $715,336 per vessel in 2016. Fishery performance data for the American Samoa longline fishery in 2016 is not yet available. In 2015, American Samoa-based longline vessels landed approximately 4,756,195 lb of fish, of which 4,662,869 lb was sold, valued at $4,994,004. Albacore made up the largest proportion of longline commercial landings at 3,475,497 lb. With 18 active longline vessels in 2015, the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish caught by American Samoa-based longline fisheries averaged about $277,445 per vessel in 2015.

        For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 114111) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all vessels permitted Federally under the Pelagic FEP are small entities, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting (NAICS 114111), are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $11 million. Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, the implementation of this action would not result in significant adverse economic impacts to individual vessels.
        The Pelagic FEP established a process by which NMFS could specify catch and/or effort limits for pelagic fisheries in American Samoa, Guam and CNMI, regardless of whether the WCPFC adopts a limit for those entities or not. The Pelagic FEP also allows NMFS to authorize the government of each territory to allocate a portion of their catch and/or effort limits through territorial fishing agreements. Specifically, bigeye tuna landed by vessels included in a fishing agreement are attributed to the U.S territory to which the agreement applies, and not counted towards the U.S. bigeye tuna limit established by NMFS under a separate authority in 50 CFR 300, subpart O.
        In accordance with Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300, subpart O, vessels that possess both an American Samoa and Hawaii longline permit are not subject to the U.S bigeye tuna limit. Therefore, these vessels may retain bigeye tuna and land fish in Hawaii after the date that NMFS projects the fishery would reach that limit. Further, catches of bigeye tuna made by such vessels are attributed to American Samoa, provided the fish was not caught in the EEZ around Hawaii. In 2016, all dual American Samoa/Hawaii longline permitted vessels were included in the fishing agreement with CNMI. Therefore, NMFS attributed bigeye catches by those vessels to the CNMI.
        On August 4, 2017, NMFS established a 2017 bigeye tuna catch limit of 3,138 mt applicable to U.S. longline fisheries (82 FR 36341). The 2017 limit is about 12 percent lower than the 2016 limit. It accounts for the planned reduction of the U.S. limit from 3,554 mt in 2016 to 3,345 mt in 2017, and adds a further reduction for exceeding the 2016 limit by 207 mt. Based on preliminary logbook data, NMFS expects the fishery to reach this limit in early September 2017.

        The proposed action would potentially benefit the Hawaii fishery by allowing participants to fish under specified fishing agreements with one or more territories. This could enhance the ability of these vessels to extend fishing effort in the western and central Pacific Ocean after reaching the 2017 U.S. limit and provide more domestic bigeye tuna for markets in Hawaii and elsewhere. Providing an opportunity to land bigeye tuna in Hawaii in the last quarter of the year when market demand is high would result in positive economic benefits for fishery participants and net benefits to the Nation. Allowing participating territories to enter into specified fishing agreements under this action benefits the territories by providing funds for territorial fisheries development projects. Establishing a 2,000 mt longline limit for bigeye tuna catch where territories are not subject to WCPFC longline limits is not likely to adversely affect vessels based in the territories.
        The historical catch of bigeye tuna by the American Samoa longline fleet has been less than 2,000 mt, even including the catch of vessels based in American Samoa, catch by dual permitted vessels that land their catch in Hawaii, and catch attributed to American Samoa from U.S. vessels under specified fishing agreements. No longline fishing has occurred in Guam or the CNMI since 2011.

        Under the proposed action, longline fisheries managed under the Pelagic FEP are not expected to expand substantially nor change the manner in which they are currently conducted, (i.e., area fished, number of vessels longline fishing, number of trips taken per year, number of hooks set per vessel during a trip, depth of hooks, or deployment techniques in setting longline gear), due to existing operational constraints in the fleet, the limited entry permit programs, and protected species mitigation requirements. The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on small organizations or government jurisdictions. Furthermore, there would be little, if any, disproportionate adverse economic impacts from the proposed rule based on gear type or relative vessel size. The proposed rule also will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities.
        For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This action is exempt from review under the procedures of E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: August 25, 2017.
          Chris Oliver,
          Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2017-18452 Filed 8-30-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AI 11
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Extension of Final Decision and Re-opening of Comment Period on Proposed Rule to List Beluga Sturgeon (Huso huso) as Endangered

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; 6-month extension of final decision and re-opening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 6-month extension for a final decision and re-opening of the comment period on the proposed rule to list beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) as endangered. This action is required to allow for public review of, and comment on, a report that was recently received by the Division of Scientific Authority that provides significant new information about the status of Caspian Sea beluga sturgeon stocks.

          DATES:
          Comments and information may be submitted through September 2, 2003. A final decision on the proposal will be made by January 31, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments, information, and questions should be submitted to the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority; by mail, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750; Arlington, Virginia 22203; by fax, 703-358-2276; or by e-mail, ScientificAuthority@fws.gov. Comments will be available for public inspection, by appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at this address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, at the above address (telephone, 703-358-1708).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On December 18, 2000, we received a petition to list the beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In the Federal Register of June 20, 2002 (67 FR 41918), we published concurrent 90-day and 12-month findings on the petition. The 90-day finding stated that the petition presented substantial information indicating the requested action may be warranted. The 12-month finding stated the petitioned action is warranted. Subsequently, in the Federal Register of July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49657), we published a proposed rule to list beluga sturgeon as endangered. In the notice, we requested public comments and information by October 29, 2002, and we stated that requests for a public hearing were to be received by September 16, 2002. The Division of Scientific Authority (DSA) received four requests for a public hearing. To accommodate the requests, we published a notice in the Federal Register on November 6, 2002 (67 FR 67586), of a public hearing to take place December 5, 2002. With that notice, we extended the public comment period through December 28, 2002, to allow for submission of comments during, and 15 days after, the public hearing.
        On March 11, 2003, we received a new document that may have major relevance to this decision: “Report on Results of Complex Interstate All-Caspian Sea Expedition on the Assess[ment] of Sturgeon Species Stocks” from the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The report summarizes the 2002 sturgeon stock-assessment survey for the Caspian Sea. The Secretariat's report contains substantial information that must be considered in our deliberations and should be made available to the public.
        In an effort to address Caspian Sea sturgeon conservation issues, the so-called “Paris agreement” was developed during the 45th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee (Paris, June 2001). An important provision of the agreement was implementation of annual Caspian Sea sturgeon stock-assessment surveys that were to include mandatory reports. The report submitted by the CITES Secretariat contains the results of the 2002 sturgeon stock-assessment survey. All Caspian Sea range nations (except the Islamic Republic of Iran) participated in the 2002 sturgeon stock-assessment survey. Our review of the 2002 survey report indicates that survey parameters have been substantially broadened and the scope of data collection efforts has improved considerably since completion of the initial survey mandated by the Paris agreement in 2001. The current report provides new information regarding changes in beluga sturgeon feeding habits, expanded toxicological studies, and increased stock abundance estimates that were extrapolated from the most recent raw data.

        To consider this new information, and any comments thereon, the Service has decided to extend the publication of a final rule from July 31, 2003, to January 31, 2004. We will also re-open the comment period until [the date specified above in DATES], and will provide copies of the indicated document upon request. All comments and information received will be considered in making a final decision on the proposal to list beluga sturgeon as endangered, and will be included in the administrative record.

          Authority:
          Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: June 11, 2003.
          Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
          Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-16724 Filed 7-1-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0029; FXES11130900000 189 FF09E42000]
        RIN 1018-BD46
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the American Burying Beetle From Endangered to Threatened on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife With a 4(d) Rule

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period, and announcement of a public hearing.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, recently published a proposed rule to reclassify the American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) from endangered to threatened and to adopt a rule under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, to provide for the conservation of the species. We announced a 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule, ending July 2, 2019. We now reopen the public comment period on the proposed rule for 30 days, to allow all interested parties additional time to comment on the proposed rule. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. We also announce a public informational meeting and public hearing on the proposed rule.

          DATES:

            Written comments: The comment period on the proposed rule that published May 3, 2019 (84 FR 19013), is reopened. We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before October 9, 2019. Please note that comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date, and comments submitted by U.S. mail must be postmarked by that date to ensure consideration.

            Public informational meeting and public hearing: We will hold a public informational meeting on September 24, 2019, from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.

          ADDRESSES:

            Availability of documents: You may obtain copies of the May 3, 2019, proposed rule and associated documents on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0029.

            Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS-R2-ES-2018-0029, which is the docket number for the proposed rule. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure you have found the correct document before submitting your comments. If your comments will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0029, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: JAO/1N, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
          (3) At the public hearing: Hand-deliver your prepared written comments to Service personnel at the scheduled public hearing.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all substantive comments we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

            Public informational meeting and public hearing: The public informational meeting and the public hearing will be held at the Oklahoma University, Schusterman Center, Perkins Auditorium LC1, 4502 East 41st Street, Tulsa, OK 74135. See Public Hearing, below, for more information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jonna Polk, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office, 9014 East 21st St., Tulsa, OK 74129; telephone 918-382-4500. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On May 3, 2019, we published a proposed rule (84 FR 19013) to reclassify the American burying beetle as a threatened species under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and to adopt a rule under section 4(d) of the Act (a “4(d) rule”) to provide for the conservation of the species. The proposed rule had a 60-day public comment period, ending July 2, 2019. During the comment period for the proposed rule, we received a request for a public hearing. We are, therefore, reopening the comment period on our proposed rule to reclassify the American burying beetle as a threatened species and to adopt a 4(d) rule for the species for 30 days (see DATES, above), to hold a public informational meeting and a public hearing and to allow the public an additional opportunity to provide comments on our proposal.
        For a description of previous Federal actions concerning the American burying beetle, please refer to the May 3, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 19013).
        Public Comments

        We will accept comments and information during this reopened comment period on our proposed rule to reclassify the American burying beetle as a threatened species and to adopt a 4(d) rule to provide for the conservation of the species. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from the proposal will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Our final determination will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we receive during all comment periods on the proposed rule. Therefore, the final decision may differ from the May 3, 2019, proposed rule, based on our review of all information we receive during the comment periods.

        If you already submitted comments or information on the May 3, 2019, proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. Any such comments are incorporated as part of the public record of the rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination.
        Comments should be as specific as possible. Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you assert. Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not meet the standard of best available scientific and commercial data. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is endangered or threatened must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

        You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES. You may also provide your comments through verbal testimony during the public hearing (see DATES, ADDRESSES, and Public Hearing in this document).
        If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

        Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0029, or by appointment, during normal business hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Our final determination concerning the proposed action will take into consideration all written comments we receive during the open comment periods, and comments received during the public hearing. These comments will be included in the public record for this rulemaking, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination.
        Public Hearing

        We are holding a public informational meeting followed by a public hearing on the date listed in DATES at the location listed in ADDRESSES. We are holding the public hearing to provide interested parties an opportunity to present verbal testimony (formal, oral comments) or hand-deliver their prepared written comments regarding the May 3, 2019 (84 FR 19013), proposed rule to reclassify the American burying beetle as a threatened species and to adopt a 4(d) rule to provide for the conservation of the species. A public hearing is not, however, an opportunity for dialogue with the Service or its contractors; it is a forum for accepting formal verbal testimony. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Therefore, anyone wishing to make an oral statement at the public hearing for the record is encouraged to provide a prepared written copy of their statement to us at the hearing. Speakers can sign up at the hearing if they desire to make an oral statement. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us.

        Persons with disabilities requiring reasonable accommodations to participate in the public hearing should contact the Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Reasonable accommodation requests should be received at least 3 business days prior to the hearing to help ensure availability. Please direct all requests for sign language interpreting services to the Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by close of business September 18, 2019.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are the Ecological Services staff of the Southwest Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Dated: August 29, 2019.
          Stephen Guertin,
          Deputy Director, Exercising the Authority of the Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-19245 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P