        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        [I.D. 060100B]
        South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Hearing

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

          ACTION:
          Public hearing; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene an additional public hearing regarding the draft Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico (draft FMP). The overall goal of the FMP is to provide a comprehensive management structure for dolphin and wahoo in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The FMP will take a precautionary approach in conserving these fishery resources, achieving optimum yield (OY), and maintaining current allocations among user groups. The hearing dates and locations for the Council's other hearings on the draft FMP were announced in an earlier Federal Register document (65 FR 20428, April 17, 2000).

          DATES:
          The hearing will be held on June 25, 2000. The Council will accept written comments on the draft FMP through July 7, 2000. See

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        for the specific date and time of the public hearing.

        ADDRESSES:

        Written comments should be sent to Bob Mahood, Executive Director, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699. Copies of the draft FMP are available from Kim Iverson, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; telephone: 843-571-4366. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific hearing location.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kim Iverson, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699; telephone: 843-571-4366; fax: 843-769-4520; email address: kim.iverson@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Proposed FMP Management Measures
        The draft FMP provides for the following: Establishment of management units for dolphin and wahoo; proposed dealer, vessel and operator permit requirements; reporting requirements; establishment of a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and OY; definition of overfishing for dolphin and wahoo; and the establishment of a framework procedure for regulatory adjustments without requiring FMP amendments.

        The following proposed management measures are under consideration for dolphin and wahoo in the Atlantic EEZ: (1) Prohibition of the sale of recreationally caught fish in the Atlantic EEZ; (2) a limit on the percent of dolphin harvested in the Atlantic EEZ by the recreational fishery and the commercial fishery, at 87 percent and 13 percent, respectively. (Note: Should either sector's catch exceed these percentages, the Council will review the data and evaluate the need for additional regulations which may be established through the FMP's framework procedures); (3) a recreational bag limit of 5 to 10 dolphins per person per day, excluding the captain and crew of for-hire boats in the Atlantic EEZ; (4) a commercial dolphin trip limit of 1,000 to 5,000 lb (453.6 to 2268.0 kg) or an equivalent number of fish, with no transfer at sea allowed in the Atlantic EEZ; (5) no minimum size limit for dolphin in the Atlantic EEZ; (6) a commercial trip limit for wahoo of 500 lb (226.8 kg) or an equivalent number of fish, with no transfer at sea allowed in the Atlantic EEZ; (7) no minimum size limit for wahoo in the Atlantic EEZ; (8) a recreational bag limit of two wahoo per person per day for the recreational fishery, excluding the captain and crew of for-hire boats in the Atlantic EEZ; (9) specification of allowable gear for dolphin and wahoo in the Atlantic EEZ as surface longline and as hook-and-line gear including manual, electric, or hydraulic rod and reels, bandit gear, and spearfishing gear; (10) prohibition of the use of pelagic longline gear for dolphin and wahoo concurrent with time/area closures to the use of such gear for highly migratory pelagic species in the Atlantic EEZ; (11) establish a fishing year of January 1 to December 31 for the dolphin and wahoo fishery; (12) identification of essential fish habitat (EFH) for dolphin and wahoo in the Atlantic; and (13) identification of EFH—Habitat Areas of Particular Concern for dolphin and wahoo in the Atlantic.
        Time and Location for the Public Hearing
        The public hearing regarding the draft FMP for Dolphin/Wahoo will be held at the following date, time, and location.
        June 25, 2000, 7:00 p.m., Quality Inn Lake Wright, 6280 Northhampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23502, Telephone: 757-461-6251.

        Copies of the draft FMP can be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        Special Accommodations

        These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) by June 19, 2000.

          Dated: June 12, 2000.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director , Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-15305 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 216
        [Docket No. 0002180448-0295-02; I.D. 013100A]
        RIN 0648-AN59
        Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Naval Activities

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy for a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to take a small number of marine mammals incidental to shock testing the USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL (DDG-81) in the offshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean off either Mayport, FL, or Norfolk, VA or the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico off Pascagoula, MS.  In order to authorize the take, NMFS must determine that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species and stocks of marine mammals and issue regulations governing the take.  NMFS proposes regulations to govern the take and invites comment on the application and the proposed regulations.

          DATES:
          Comments and information must be postmarked no later than January 26, 2001.Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          ADDRESSES:

          Address comments to Donna Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226.  A copy of the application and/or a list of references used in this document may be obtained by writing to this address, or by telephoning the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).  A limited number of copies of the Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for conducting the shock trial are also available through this contact.  To be placed on the mailing list for receiving a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), please contact Will Sloger, U.S. Navy, at (843) 820-5797.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kenneth R. Hollingshead (301) 713-2055, ext. 128.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) (MMPA) directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations governing the taking are issued.
        Permission may be granted for periods of 5 years or less if the Secretary finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if regulations are prescribed setting forth the permissible methods of taking and the requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
        Summary of Request
        On January 12, 2000, NMFS received an application for an LOA under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA from the U.S. Navy to take a small number of marine mammals incidental to shock testing the USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL in the offshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean off either Mayport, FL, or Norfolk, VA or the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico off Pascagoula, MS.  A final decision on the location for the shock trial will be made by the Navy, based, in part, on findings and determinations made under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

        Section 2366, Title 10, United States Code (10 U.S.C. 2366) requires realistic survivability testing of a covered weapon system to ensure the vulnerability of that system under combat conditions is known.  (In this case, the covered weapon system is the USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL.)  Realistic survivability testing means testing for the vulnerability of the ship in combat by firing munitions likely to be encountered in combat with the ship configured for combat.  This testing is commonly referred to as "Live Fire Test & Evaluation"(LFT&E).  Realistic testing by firing live ammunition at the ship or detonating a real mine against the ship’s hull, however, could result in the loss of a multi-million dollar Navy asset.  Therefore, the Navy has established an approved LFT&E program to complete the vulnerability assessment of ships as required by 10 U.S.C. 2366.  The LFT&E program includes three major areas that together provide for a complete and comprehensive evaluation of the survivability of ships in a near miss, underwater explosion environment.  These areas are computer modeling and analysis, component testing, and an at-sea ship shock trial.  While computer modeling and laboratory testing provide useful information, they cannot substitute for shock testing under realistic, offshore conditions as only the at-sea shock trial can provide the real-time data necessary to fully assess ship survivability.
        A shock test is a series of underwater detonations that propagate a shock wave through a ship's hull under deliberate and controlled conditions.  Shock tests simulate near misses from underwater explosions similar to those encountered in combat.  Shock testing verifies the accuracy of design specifications for shock testing ships and systems, uncovers weaknesses in shock sensitive components that may compromise the performance of vital systems, and provides a basis for correcting deficiencies and upgrading ship and component design specifications.  To minimize cost and risk to personnel, the first ship in each new class is shock tested and improvements are applied to later ships of the class.
        The USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL is the third ship in a new Flight of 23 ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51)-class guided missile destroyers being acquired by the Navy.  (A Flight is a subset of a class of ships to which significant modifications/upgrades have been made.)  These ships are referred to as the Flight IIA ships and they represent the largest single upgrade to the original DDG 51-class destroyer.
        The USS JOHN PAUL JONES (DDG 53) was shock tested off the coast of California in June 1994 to assess the survivability of the original DDG 51-class destroyer.  Flight IIA ships are significantly different from the original DDG 51-class destroyers in their design.  Major structural changes include the addition of a helicopter hangar, Vertical Launch System foundation changes, and raising the aft radar arrays.  Major equipment changes include the addition of a ship-wide Fiber Optic Data Multiplexing System, a Zonal Electrical Power Distribution System involving the addition of switchboards and load centers throughout the ship, and the widespread use of commercial equipment in various mission critical systems to reduce the cost of the ships.  Typically the lead ship of a new class or major upgrade is shock tested.  The USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL was selected as the shock trial ship because it has additional design changes that will not be included in the first two Flight IIA ships, and therefore, it is more representative of the Flight.
        The Navy’s proposed action is to conduct a shock trial of the USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL at an offshore, deep-water location.  The ship would be subjected to a series of three-four 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) explosive charge detonations sometime between 1 May and 30 September, 2001.  Three detonations are needed to collect adequate data on survivability.  A fourth detonation would be conducted by the Navy only if one of the planned three detonations fails to provide technically acceptable data (e.g., due to equipment failure or some other technical problem).
        The ship and the explosive charge would be brought closer together with each successive detonation to increase the severity of the shock.  This gradation in severity would ensure that the survivability of the ship and its systems is fully assessed and the point at which failure modes begin is accurately determined.  It would also reduce the chance of significant damage at the highest severity detonation.  The shock trial would be conducted at a rate of one detonation per week to allow time to perform detailed inspections of the ship’s systems prior to the ship experiencing the next level of shock intensity.
        Comments and Responses
        On March 3, 2000 (65 FR 11542), NMFS published a notice of receipt of the Navy's application for a small take exemption and requested comments, information and suggestions concerning the request and the structure and content of regulations to govern the take.  During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and the Commonwealth of Virginia (Commonwealth).  Because the MMC and the Commonwealth concerns were limited to statements made in the Navy's DEIS for shock testing, and not on the content of the Navy’s LOA application, their concerns will be addressed in the Navy’s FEIS for shock testing and not in this document.

          Comment 1:  The HSUS strongly objects to the Navy’s de facto establishment of a physiological sound pressure level (SPL) definition of Level B (acoustic) harassment under the MMPA.  The HSUS considers that temporary threshold shift (TTS) in the hearing of marine mammals subjected to noise from the detonation should be considered Level A harassment (i.e., injury), not Level B.  The HSUS believes that cetaceans suffering from TTS could for some time fail to hear approaching boats or predators or fail to detect prey or mates.  This, HSUS contends is clearly more than Level B harassment, which is any act that merely has the potential to disturb.  The HSUS claims that this determination is precedent-setting.

          Response:  While NMFS agrees the Navy's establishment of an SPL definition for Level B harassment is precedent-setting, NMFS believes that TTS should be considered as Level B harassment.  This is fully supported by the science as described in detail in the Navy DEIS and this document, and proceeds logically from the criteria used by the Navy in the FEIS for the USS SEAWOLF shock trial based upon scientific documentation provided in that latter document.  In that regard, NMFS recommends reviewers compare the Navy's FEIS for the USS SEAWOLF shock trial and the DEIS for the USS WINSTON CHURCHILL shock trial.
        NMFS scientists and other scientists are in general agreement that TTS is not an injury (i.e., does not result in tissue damage), but is a temporary impairment to hearing that may last from a few minutes to a few days, depending upon the level and duration of exposure.  The Navy, in its DEIS and small take application, states that TTS could temporarily affect an animal’s ability to hear calls, echolocation sounds, and other ambient sounds.  That these short-term effects would lead to increased  mortality is speculative and, to our knowledge, unsupported scientifically.  Lost feeding and mating opportunities is considered by NMFS to be Level B harassment takings if the response is significant for these biologically important activities.

        Although science supports that TTS is not an injury (i.e., Level A harassment), because scientists have noted that a range of only 15-20 dB may exist between onset TTS and the onset of a permanent elevation in hearing sensitivity (termed permanent threshold shift (PTS)), which NMFS considers to be an injury (Level A harassment), TTS must be considered to be in the upper portion of the Level B harassment zone (near the lower level of the Level A harassment zone).  However, even though TTS is not an injury placing it in the upper level of the Level B harassment zone is precautionary.
        NMFS recommends that commenters review Appendix E of the Navy's DEIS for the scientific basis supporting its determination that TTS is a Level B harassment taking and PTS is Level A harassment and provide NMFS with comments on this determination for consideration during this rulemaking.

          Comment 2:  The HSUS contends that neither the Navy’s use of a received level of 182 dB (re 1 uPa2-sec) as the SPL that will induce TTS, nor that it represents a de facto definition of Level B harassment, has been subject to public notice or public comment prior to this Letter of Authorization (LOA) request.

          Response:  The use of an energy-based TTS-criterion of 182 dB (re 1 μPa2-sec) has been subject to public review previously. The rulemaking for the USS SEAWOLF shock trial (63 FR 66069, December 1, 1998), resulted in an improvement on the determinations made in regard to the shock trial for the USS JOHN PAUL JONES (59 FR 5111, February 3, 1994).  In the USS SEAWOLF shock trial rulemaking NMFS concurred with the Navy's findings that, in terms of mammal hearing, a better measure for determining impacts may be total energy received in 1/3-octave frequency bands (i.e., the approximate filter bandwidth of the hearing system) within the integration time of the ear.  NMFS determined that, as pulsed sound sources with differing peak pressures could deliver the same energy over a certain time period, the acoustic harassment criterion could be improved over the standard 160 dB (re 1 μPa @ 1 m) impulse measurement used during shock testing the USS JOHN PAUL JONES and other explosive detonation events.  In the USS SEAWOLF rulemaking, NMFS determined that TTS meets the definitions of both Level A and Level B harassment found in the MMPA since, on a cellular level, TTS could be considered a very slight “injury” (i.e., Level A harassment) in the sense of damage to hair cells in the ear and since TTS is a temporary hearing loss, it could also lead to a temporary disruption of behavioral patterns (Level B harassment).  Under the 182 dB (re 1 uPa2-sec (energy)) criterion, separate harassment ranges were calculated for odontocetes and mysticetes based on their differing sensitivity to low frequencies.
        Following the USS SEAWOLF small take rulemaking, NMFS published a notice of issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the U.S. Air Force for taking small numbers of dolphins incidental to explosives testing at Eglin Air Force Base (63 FR 67669, December 8, 1998).  That document noted that NMFS considers harassment of marine mammals to occur (from an explosive-generated shockwave and its acoustic signature) between 5 psi-msec out to a transmission distance where a noise level of 180 dB re 1 uPa2-sec.  (It should be noted that the Air Force used a level of 180 dB (re 1 uPa2-sec), because that was the level it used in its modeling for determining distances for safety zones.)  Therefore, the area between those two levels (i.e., 5 psi-msec and 182 dB re 1 uPa2-sec) was considered as the zone of incidental harassment which would result in a non-injurious physiological response on the part of the mammals.
        What is new in the current rulemaking is the Navy's interpretation that TTS should be considered only as Level B harassment and not as both a Level A and Level B harassment.  That approach is fully explained in the Navy’s DEIS, and especially in Appendix E of that document.  NMFS believes that the information contained in the Navy's DEIS is the best scientific information to date on this subject and therefore concurs with the Navy's determination.  During this rulemaking, NMFS welcomes comments relating to scientific determinations made on this issue.

          Comment 3:  HSUS is disturbed that NMFS has accepted the Navy’s 182 dB criterion for TTS and that this indicates a change in its implementation of the MMPA, since the only previous mention of it was in a response to a comment on a proposed rule for shock testing the USS SEAWOLF.

          Response:  See the previous comment.  Using 182 dB as the criterion for determining TTS was an integral part of the rulemaking for the USS SEAWOLF shock trial small take authorization.  The Navy provided significant detail in its USS SEAWOLF DEIS and small take application to explain why using the 182 dB criterion was considered an improvement over use of a pressure-induced criterion of 160 dB, used previously for the shock trial of the USS JOHN PAUL JONES (59 FR 5111, February 3, 1994).  NMFS subsequently adopted this information as the best scientific information available for assessing harassment impacts on marine mammal stocks from explosions during the shock trial of the USS SEAWOLF.

          Comment 4:  Based on the statement made in the previous two comments, the HSUS believes that this represents a significant change in implementation of the MMPA, and that prior notice and opportunity for public comment should have been given for this change pursuant to the requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)).  The HSUS states that NMFS’ “acceptance” or “concurrence” with the Navy definition falls squarely within the definition of a “rule” in section 552 of the APA.  To permit the continued acceptance and subsequent use of this standard is to acquiesce to a continuing violation of the letter and spirit of the APA.

          Response:  Because part of this proposed rulemaking is the criterion NMFS proposes to use to determine levels of harassment and injury incidental to takings of marine mammals by the USS WINSTON CHURCHILL shock trial there is no violation of section 553(b) of the APA.  NMFS invites comment on the criterion for assessing impacts from explosives on marine mammals.

          Comment 5:  The HSUS also notes that the Navy is using a received level of 182 dB (re 1 uPa2-sec) as the SPL that will induce TTS in cetaceans and therefore is the outer SPL for Level B harassment.  This SPL is unsubstantiated empirically (i.e., the  threshold of hearing in many cetaceans is unknown and certainly the SPL that will induce TTS has never been measured).

          Response:  NMFS clarifies that it and the Navy are using a dual criterion of (1) an energy-based TTS criterion of 182 dB (re 1 uPa2-sec) in any 1/3 octave band, and (2) 12 psi peak pressure, cited by Ketten (1995) as associated with “a safe outer limit for the 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) charge for minimal, recoverable auditory trauma” (i.e., TTS).  The harassment range is the minimum distance at which neither criterion is exceeded.  However, the 182 dB energy criterion is usually the determining factor in the calculated ranges (Navy, 1999, Appendix E).

        While NMFS agrees that the SPL that would cause TTS in cetaceans by explosives has not been tested empirically on live cetaceans, for reasons explained in the application and in detail in the Navy’s DEIS on this action, the Navy has calculated TTS from explosives based upon empirical research on bottlenose dolphins and white whales conducted by Ridgway et al. (1997) and Schlundt et al. (2000).  NMFS believes that this is the best scientific information available to date on this issue.  Because Ridgway et al. (1997) and Schlundt et al. (2000) determined the SPL where TTS first begins (i.e., full recovery of hearing occurred within a few minutes), NMFS believes that establishing a level for TTS at onset of that impairment, is precautionary.

          Comment 6:  The HSUS requests NMFS deny the Navy’s LOA request until such time as the Navy completes a revised DEIS and in fact completes a FEIS.

          Response:  NMFS does not believe that delaying the small take authorization process until completion of NEPA documentation, as suggested by the HSUS, would be appropriate.  Both the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.5(d)) and NOAA’s NEPA guidelines provide for proposed regulations to accompany a draft NEPA document.  As a cooperating agency in the preparation of the DEIS, which NMFS may adopt as its own NEPA document, the Navy's DEIS is the key NEPA document for the NMFS action.  Not beginning the small take authorization/regulatory process until completion of NEPA requirements would lead to unnecessary and potentially extensive delays in processing applications, a key problem previously recognized by Congress in 1994, when it amended the MMPA to expedite small take authorizations.  However, under NEPA, NMFS may not make final regulations governing the taking of marine mammals, incidental to the shock testing the USS WINSTON CHURCHILL, effective for at least 30 days after the U.S. Navy releases a FEIS for the shock trial.
        Description of Habitat and Marine Mammals Affected by Shock Testing

        A description of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coast environment, its marine life and marine mammal abundance, distribution and habitat can be found in the DEIS on this subject and is not repeated here.  Additional information on Atlantic and Gulf coast marine mammals can be found in Waring et al. (1999).
        Affected Marine Mammals
        A summary of the marine mammal species found in each of the three areas which may be selected by the Navy for shock testing is presented here.  A complete list of potentially affected marine mammal species can be found later in this document.  For more detail on marine mammal abundance, density and the methods used to obtain this information, reviewers are requested to refer to either the Navy application or the Navy's DEIS.
        Mayport, FL
        Up to 29 marine mammal species may be present in the waters off Mayport, FL, including seven mysticetes and 22 odontocetes.  Mysticetes are unlikely to occur at Mayport during the May through September time period.  Odontocetes may include the sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whale, four species of beaked whales, and 15 species of dolphins and porpoises.
        Norfolk, VA
        Up to 35 marine mammal species may be present in the waters off Norfolk, VA, including 7 mysticetes, 27 odontocetes, and 1 pinniped.  The fin whale is the mysticete most likely to occur in the test area.  Odontocetes may include the sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whale, six species of beaked whales, and 18 species of dolphins and porpoises.
        Pascagoula, MS
        Up to 29 marine mammal species may occur in the waters off Pascagoula, MS, including seven mysticetes, 21 odontocetes, and one exotic pinniped.  With the exception of Bryde’s whale, mysticetes are considered unlikely to occur at Pascagoula.  Odontocetes may include the sperm whale, dwarf and pygmy sperm whale, four species of beaked whales, and 14 species of dolphins and porpoises.
        Potential Impacts to Marine Mammals
        Mortality and Injury
        Potential impacts on several marine mammal species known to occur in these areas from shock testing include both lethal and non-lethal injury, as well as harassment.  Marine mammals may be killed or injured as a result of the explosive blast due to the response of air cavities in the body, such as the lungs and bubbles in the intestines.  Effects are more likely to be most severe in near surface waters above the detonation point where the reflected shock wave creates a region of negative pressure  called “cavitation.”  This is a region of near total physical trauma within which no animals would be expected to survive.  Based on calculations in Appendix D of the Navy's DEIS, the maximum horizontal extent of the cavitation region is estimated to be 683 meters (m) (2,240 ft).  This region would extend from the surface to a maximum depth of about 23 m (77 ft).  A second criterion for mortality is the onset of extensive lung hemorrhage.  Extensive lung hemorrhage is considered debilitating and potentially fatal. Suffocation caused by lung hemorrhage is likely to be the major cause of marine mammal death from underwater shock waves.  The estimated range for the onset of extensive lung hemorrhage to marine mammals varies depending upon the animal’s weight, with the smallest mammals having the greatest potential hazard range.  The range predicted for a small marine mammal (e.g., a dolphin calf) is 1.35 kilometers (km) (0.73 nautical miles (nm)) from the detonation point.  For estimating the impact from the detonation(s), NMFS and the Navy presume that 100 percent of the marine mammals within this radius would be killed, even though larger mammals may survive their injury from the shock wave.
        NMFS and the Navy have established a dual criteria for determining non-lethal injury: (1) The onset of slight lung hemorrhage, and (2) a 50-percent probability level for eardrum rupture.  These are injuries from which animals would be expected to recover on their own.  The range predicted for the onset of slight lung hemorrhage is 2.25 km (1.22 nm).  The range predicted for 50-percent probability of eardrum rupture varies with the mammal’s depth in the water column; the highest value being 2.16 km (1.17 nm) for a mammal at a depth of 335 m (1,100 ft).  The criterion with the greater range (onset of slight lung hemorrhage) was used to estimate the number of potential non-lethal injuries.  It is presumed that 100 percent of the marine mammals within this radius would be injured.
        Some percentage of the animals with eardrum rupture or slight lung hemorrhage could eventually die from their injuries.  However, as noted previously, the mortality calculation based on extensive lung hemorrhage presumes that 100 percent of the animals within a radius of 1.35 km (0.73 nm) would be killed.  At that range, the probability of eardrum rupture would be less than 50 percent and the threshold for onset of slight lung hemorrhage would be exceeded only in the upper 61 m (200 ft) of the water column (Navy, 2000).  While all animals within this radius are assumed to be killed, in reality some are unlikely to be even injured.
        Finally, the Navy believes it is very unlikely that injury will occur from exposure to the chemical by-products released into the surface waters, and no permanent alteration of marine mammal habitat would occur.
        Incidental Harassment
        TTS has been defined by NMFS as one form of harassment (60 FR 28379, May 31, 1995).  TTS is a change in the threshold of hearing (the quietest sound an animal can hear), which could temporarily affect an animal’s ability to hear calls, echolocation sounds, and other ambient sounds.  As such, it could result in a temporary disruption of behavioral patterns, as specified in the statutory definition of Level B harassment.

        Since the small take authorization and Navy's FEIS for the USS SEAWOLF shock trial (63 FR 66069, December 1, 1998), the Navy has conducted an extensive analysis of the scientific literature, producing a good perspective on the physiological effects of TTS as well as its use in human damage risk criteria (DRC) by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH) Criteria for Recommended Noise Standard (NIOSH, 1998).  The best research to date indicates that the distortion and dysfunction of sensory tissue observed during TTS are only temporary and fully reversed upon recovery (i.e., occasional TTS produces no permanent tissue damage to the ear, only the temporary nondestructive impairment of tissue that fully recovers).  This type of temporary nondestructive impairment as well as the use of TTS in human DRC are the scientific basis for no longer considering TTS as Level A harassment.  Therefore, NMFS and the Navy concur that an impairment of hearing-related behavior during periods of TTS is the most reliable and meaningful estimate of Level B harassment for explosive detonation events.

        Based upon information provided in the Navy's application for a small take authorization and in greater detail in Appendix E of the Navy's DEIS, a dual criterion for Level B acoustic harassment has been developed: (1) an energy-based TTS criterion of 182 dB re 1 uPa2-sec derived from experiments with bottlenose dolphins (Ridgway et al., 1997; Schlundt et al., 2000); and (2) 12 lbs/in2 (psi) peak pressure cited by Ketten (1995) as associated with a “safe outer limit for the 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) charge for minimal, recoverable auditory trauma” (i.e., TTS).  The harassment range, therefore, is the minimum distance at which neither criterion is exceeded.
        Using the 182 dB (re 1 uPa2-sec) criterion, the Navy calculated separate ranges for odontocetes and mysticetes based on their differing sensitivity to low frequency sounds.  For those odontocetes which are “high-frequency specialists,” all frequencies greater than or equal to 100 Hz were included.  For mysticetes, which are “low-frequency specialists,” the frequency range was extended down to 10 Hz.  Water depth is also an important factor in calculating harassment ranges.  However, regardless of water depth, the Navy chose the highest values for TTS harassment ranges.  Expected numbers of marine mammals within these radii (and thereby potentially receiving a TTS harassment impact) were calculated using the mean densities for the species expected in each area, and adjusting those estimates to account for submerged (undetectable) individuals.  These ranges are as follows:

              Odontocetes

              Mysticetes

            Mayport
            13.3 - 25.2 km
            24.7 - 27.8 km

            (7.2 - 13.6 nm)
            (13.0 - 15.0 nm)

            Norfolk
            16.7 - 32.8 km
            25.9 - 42.6 km

            (9.0 - 17.7 nm)
            (14.0 - 23.0 nm)

            Pascagoula
            15.9 - 24.6 km
            22.8 - 29.6 km

            (8.6 - 13.3 nm)
            (12.3 - 16.0 nm)

        Estimated Level of Marine Mammal Takings
        While the Navy does not expect that any lethal takes will result from these detonations (because of mitigation measures taken), calculations indicate that the Mayport site has the potential to result in up to 4 mortalities, 6 non-serious injuries, and 2,885 takings by harassment.  The Norfolk site has the potential to result in 7 mortalities, 12 non-serious injuries, and 14,640 takings by harassment.  The Pascagoula site has the potential to result in up to 3 mortalities, 4 injuries, and 3,132 takings by harassment.
        Summary of Proposed Mitigation and Monitoring Measures
        The Navy's proposed action includes mitigation and monitoring that would minimize risk to marine mammals and sea turtles. These mitigation and monitoring measures are as follows:
        (1) Through pre-detonation aerial surveys, the Navy would select a primary and two secondary test sites within the test area where potentially, marine mammals and sea turtle populations are the lowest, based on the results of aerial surveys conducted one to two days prior to the first detonation;
        (2) Pre-detonation aerial monitoring would be conducted on the day of each detonation to evaluate the primary test site and verify that the safety range and buffer zone are free of visually detectable marine mammals and other critical marine life (If marine mammals are detected in the primary test area, the Navy proposes to survey the secondary areas for marine mammals, and may move the shock test to one of the other two sites);
        (3) Independent marine mammal biologists and acousticians  would monitor the area visually (aerial and shipboard monitoring) and acoustically before each test and postpone detonation if (a) any marine mammal, sea turtle, large sargassum raft or large concentration of jellyfish is visually detected within a safety zone of 3.7 km (2.0 nm), (b) any marine mammal is acoustically detected within a safety zone of 4.16 km (2.25 nm), or (c) any large fish school, or flock of seabirds is detected within a safety zone of 1.85 km (1 nm);
        (4) The area would be monitored visually (aerial and shipboard monitoring) and acoustically before each test and detonation would not occur if any marine mammal or sea turtle is within a buffer zone of an additional 1.85-km (1.0-nm) buffer zone, unless the marine mammals are on a course within the buffer zone that is taking them away from the 3.7-km (2.0-nm) safety zone, except that detonation would not occur if a listed marine mammal is detected within the buffer zone, and subsequently cannot be detected, until sighting and acoustic teams have searched the area for 2.5 hours (approximately 3 times the typical large whale dive duration).  If a northern right whale is seen, detonation would not occur until the animal is positively reacquired outside the buffer zone and at least one additional aerial monitoring of the safety range and buffer zone shows that no other right whales are present;
        (5) Detonation would not occur if the sea state exceeds 3 (i.e., whitecaps on 33 to 50 percent of surface; 0.6 m (2 ft) to 0.9 m (3 ft) waves), or the visibility is not 5.6 km (3 nm) or greater, and the ceiling is not 305 m (1,000 ft) or greater;
        (6) Detonation would not occur earlier than 3 hours after sunrise or later than 3 hours prior to sunset to ensure adequate daylight for pre- and post-detonation monitoring; and

        (7) The area would be monitored for 48 hours after each detonation, and for 7 days following the last detonation, to find, document and track any injured animals.  If post-detonation monitoring shows that marine mammals or sea turtles were killed or injured as a result of the test, or if any marine mammals or sea turtles were observed in the safety range immediately after a detonation, testing would be halted until procedures for subsequent detonations could be reviewed and changed as necessary.
        Detailed descriptions of the measures for mitigation and monitoring the shock test can be found in Section 5 of the Navy's DEIS.
        Reporting
        Within 120 days of the completion of shock testing, the Navy would submit a final report to NMFS.  This report would include the following information: (1) Date and time of each of the detonations; (2) a detailed description of the pre-test and post-test activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of explosives detonation on marine mammals and their populations; (3) the results of the monitoring program, including numbers by species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result of the detonations and numbers that may have been harassed due to undetected presence within the safety zone; and (4) results of coordination with coastal marine mammal/sea turtle stranding networks.
        Costs and Benefits
        In addition to allowing the Navy to take a small number of marine mammals incidental to conducting the shock trial, this rule would require the Navy to provide NMFS and the public with information on the shock trial’s effect on the marine environment, especially on marine mammals.  Besides the improved survivability of U.S. armed forces at sea and the Navy's multi-billion dollar ship assets, this rule would result in NMFS and the public being provided this information.  NMFS believes that obtaining this information is extremely important because shock trials are not the only explosive noise source in the world’s oceans, and the scientific findings resulting from monitoring is likely to be directly applicable to future activities.  Also, the  mitigation measures for protecting marine mammals, sea turtles and other marine life that would be required by the rule will result in a substantial reduction in impacts on these animals.  Without these regulations, these mitigation measures could not be required to be undertaken by the U.S. Navy.  Also, the cost to the Navy to comply with the mitigation and monitoring measures that would be required by this rule cannot be fully determined at this time.  NMFS believes that the cost would be approximately $1 million.
        NEPA

        On December 10, 1999 (64 FR 69267), a notice of availability of the Navy DEIS was published.  The public comment for that document was extended until March 31, 2000, by notification in the Federal Register (65 FR 4236).  NMFS is a cooperating agency, as defined by the CEQ (40 CFR 1501.6), in the preparation of this DEIS.
        Endangered Species Act (ESA)
        The U.S. Navy requested consultation with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA on this action.  In that regard, NMFS concluded consultation with the Navy on this activity on October 10, 2000.  If an authorization to incidentally take listed marine mammals is issued under the MMPA for this action, NMFS will complete consultation under the ESA on the regulations and the LOA and issue an Incidental Take Statement under section 7 of the ESA.
        Preliminary Conclusions
        Based on the scientific analyses detailed in the ONR DEIS and the Scripp' application, NMFS has preliminarily concluded that the incidental taking of marine mammals resulting from the shock trial of the USS WINSTON CHURCHILL in the offshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean off either Mayport, FL, or Norfolk, VA or the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico off Pascagoula, MS would result in only small numbers (as the term is defined in § 216.103) of marine mammals being taken, have no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks or habitats and not have an unmitigable adverse impact on Arctic subsistence uses of marine mammals.
        Information Solicited
        NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments on the proposed regulations and on the Navy's application for taking marine mammals incidental to conducting the shock trial.  NMFS requests that commenters review the Navy's application and not just submit comments based solely on this document.
        Classification
        This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since it would apply only to the U.S. Navy and would have no effect, directly or indirectly, on small businesses.  It will also affect a small number of contractors providing services related to reporting the impact of the shock trial on marine mammals.  Some of the affected contractors may be small businesses, but the number involved would not be substantial.  Further, since the monitoring and reporting requirements are what would lead to the need for their services, the economic impact on them would be beneficial.  Accordingly, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply and a a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 216

        Administrative practice and procedure, Imports, Indians, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

          Dated: December 6, 2000.
          William T. Hogarth,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, Natioal Marine Fisheries Service.

          For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 216 is proposed to be amended as follows:

            PART 216—REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS

          1. The authority citation for part 216 continues to read as follows:

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

          2. Subpart N is revised to read as follows:

            PART 216—REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS

            Sec.

              Subpart N—Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Shock Testing the USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL by Detonation of Conventional Explosives in the Offshore Waters of the U.S. Atlantic Coast

            216.151
            Specified activity, geographical region, and incidental take levels.
            216.152
            Effective dates.
            216.153
            Permissible methods of taking; mitigation.
            216.154
            Prohibitions.
            216.155
            Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
            216.156
            Modifications to the Letter of Authorization.

            Subpart N—Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Shock Testing the USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL by Detonation of Conventional Explosives in the Offshore Waters of the U.S. Atlantic Coast

            § 216.151
            Specified activity, geographical region, and incidental take levels.
            (a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the incidental taking of marine mammals specified in paragraph (b) of this section by U.S. citizens engaged in the detonation of conventional military explosives within the waters of the U.S. Atlantic Coast or Gulf of Mexico offshore Mayport, FL, Norfolk, VA, or Pascagoula, MS, for the purpose of shock testing the USS SEAWOLF.

            (b) The incidental take of marine mammals under the activity identified in paragraph (a) of this section is limited to the following species:  Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus); fin whale (B. physalus); sei whale (B. borealis); Bryde's whale (B. edeni); minke whale (B. acutorostrata); humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae); northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis); sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus); dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus); pygmy sperm whale (K. breviceps); pilot whales (Globicephala melas, G. macrorhynchus); Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis); Pantropical spotted dolphin (S. attenuata); striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba); spinner dolphin (S. longirostris); Clymene dolphin (S. clymene); bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus); Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus); rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis); killer whale (Orcinus orca); false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens); pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata); Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei); harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra); northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus); Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris), Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris); Gervais' beaked whale (M. europaeus); Sowerby's beaked whale (M. bidens); True's beaked whale (M. mirus); common dolphin (Delphinus delphis); Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus); and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina).
            (c) The incidental take of marine mammals identified in paragraph (b) of this section is limited to a total of no more than 7 mortalities, 12 injuries, and 14,640 takings by harassment for detonations in the Norfolk, VA area; 4 mortalities, 6 injuries, and 2,885 takings by harassment in the Mayport area; or 3 mortalities, 4 injuries, and 3,132 takings by harassment at the Pascagoula site, except that the taking by serious injury or mortality for species listed in paragraph (b) of this section that are also listed as threatened or endangered under § 17.11 of this title, is prohibited.

            § 216.152
            Effective dates.
            Regulations in this subpart are effective from April 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001.

            § 216.153
            Permissible methods of taking; mitigation.
            (a)  Under a Letter of Authorization issued pursuant to § 216.106, the U.S. Navy may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals by harassment, injury or mortality in the course detonating up to 4 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) conventional explosive charges within the area described in § 216.151(a) provided all terms, conditions, and requirements of these regulations and such Letter of Authorization are complied with.
            (b) The activity identified in paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted in a manner that minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.  When detonating explosives, the following mitigation measures must be utilized:
            (1) If marine mammals are observed within the designated safety zone prescribed in the Letter of Authorization, or within the buffer zone prescribed in the Letter of Authorization and on a course that will put them within the safety zone prior to detonation, detonation must be delayed until the marine mammals are no longer within the safety zone or on a course within the buffer zone that is taking them away from the safety zone.
            (2) If a marine mammal listed under the Endangered Species Act is detected within the buffer zone, and subsequently cannot be detected, detonation must not occur until sighting and acoustic teams have searched the area for 2.5 hours.
            (3) If a northern right whale is seen, detonation must not occur until the animal is positively reacquired outside the buffer zone and at least one additional aerial monitoring of the safety range and buffer zone shows that no other right whales are present;
            (4) If weather and/or sea conditions as described in the Letter of Authorization preclude adequate aerial surveillance, detonation must not occur until conditions improve sufficiently for aerial surveillance to be undertaken.
            (5) If post-test surveys determine that an injurious or lethal take of a marine mammal has occurred, the test procedure and the monitoring methods must be reviewed and appropriate changes must be made prior to conducting the next detonation.

            § 216.154
            Prohibitions.

          Notwithstanding takings authorized by § 216.151(b) and by a Letter of Authorization issued under § 216.106, the following activities are prohibited:
          (a) The taking of a marine mammal that is other than unintentional.
          (b) The violation of, or failure to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this part or a Letter of Authorization issued under § 216.106.
          (c) The incidental taking of any marine mammal of a species not specified in this subpart.

            § 216.155
            Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
            (a) The holder of the Letter of Authorization is required to cooperate with the National Marine Fisheries Service and any other Federal, state or local agency monitoring the impacts of the activity on marine mammals.  The holder must notify the appropriate Regional Director at least 2 weeks prior to activities involving the detonation of explosives in order to satisfy paragraph (f) of this section.
            (b) The holder of the Letter of Authorization must designate qualified on-site individuals, as specified in the Letter of Authorization, to record the effects of explosives detonation on marine mammals that inhabit the Atlantic Ocean test area.
            (c) The test area must be surveyed by marine mammal biologists and other trained individuals, and the marine mammal populations monitored, 48-72 hours prior to a scheduled detonation, on the day of detonation, and for a period of time specified in the Letter of Authorization after each detonation.  Monitoring shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, aerial and acoustic surveillance sufficient to ensure that no marine mammals are within the designated safety zone nor are likely to enter the designated safety zone prior to or at the time of detonation.
            (d) Under the direction of a certified marine mammal veterinarian, examination and recovery of any dead or injured marine mammals will be conducted.  Necropsies will be performed and tissue samples taken from any dead animals.  After completion of the necropsy, animals not retained for shoreside examination will be tagged and returned to the sea.  The occurrence of live marine mammals will also be documented.

            (e) Activities related to the monitoring described in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, or in the Letter of Authorization issued under § 216.106, including the retention of marine mammals, may be conducted without the need for a separate scientific research permit.  The use of retained marine mammals for scientific research other than shoreside examination must be authorized pursuant to subpart D of this part.
            (f) In coordination and compliance with appropriate Navy regulations, at its discretion, the National Marine Fisheries Service may place an observer on any ship or aircraft involved in marine mammal reconnaissance, or monitoring either prior to, during, or after explosives detonation in order to monitor the impact on marine mammals.
            (g) A final report must be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, no later than 120 days after completion of shock testing the USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL.  This report must contain the following information:
            (1) Date and time of all detonations conducted under the Letter of Authorization.
            (2) A description of all pre-detonation and post-detonation activities related to mitigating and monitoring the effects of explosives detonation on marine mammal populations.
            (3) Results of the monitoring program, including numbers by species/stock of any marine mammals noted injured or killed as a result of the detonation and numbers that may have been harassed due to presence within the designated safety zone.
            (4) Results of coordination with coastal marine mammal/sea turtle stranding networks.

            § 216.156
            Modifications to the Letter of Authorization.
            (a) In addition to complying with the provisions of  § 216.106, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no substantive modification, including withdrawal or suspension, to the Letter of Authorization issued pursuant to § 216.106 and subject to the provisions of this subpart shall be made until after notice and an opportunity for public comment.

            (b) If the Assistant Administrator determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in § 216.151(b), or that significantly and detrimentally alters the scheduling of explosives detonation within the area specified in § 216.151(a), the Letter of Authorization issued pursuant to § 216.106 may be substantively modified without prior notice and an opportunity for public comment.  Notification will be published in the Federal Register subsequent to the action.

      [FR Doc. 00-31624 Filed 12-11-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE: 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 92
        [Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0082; 91200-1231-9BPP-L2]
        RIN 1018-AX30
        Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest in Alaska; Harvest Regulations for Migratory Birds in Alaska During the 2011 Season

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) proposes migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations in Alaska for the 2011 season. These regulations will enable the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska and prescribe regional information on when and where the harvesting of birds may occur. These regulations were developed under a co-management process involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Native representatives. The rulemaking is necessary because the regulations governing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are subject to annual review. This rulemaking proposes region-specific regulations that go into effect on April 2, 2011, and expire on August 31, 2011.

          DATES:

          We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before December 27, 2010. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by December 10, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0082.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9-MB-2010-0082; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comment Procedures section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Fred Armstrong, (907) 786-3887, or Donna Dewhurst, (907) 786-3499, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, Anchorage, AK 99503.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comment Procedures
        To ensure that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be as accurate and as effective as possible, we request that you send relevant information for our consideration. The comments that will be most useful and likely to influence our decisions are those that you support by quantitative information or studies and those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. Please make your comments as specific as possible and explain the basis for them. In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

        You must submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed above in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information, such as your address, telephone number, or e-mail address—will be posted on the Web site. Please note that comments submitted to this Web site are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be publicly viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several days after submission.

        If you mail or hand-carry a hardcopy comment directly to us that includes personal 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. To ensure that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

        In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection in two ways:
        (1) You can view them on http://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R9-MB-2010-0082, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
        (2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to view the comments and materials in person at the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4501 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 4107, Arlington, VA 22203-1610.
        Public Availability of Comments
        As stated above in more detail, before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
        Why is this rulemaking necessary?
        This rulemaking is necessary because, by law, the migratory bird harvest season is closed unless opened by the Secretary of the Interior, and the regulations governing subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska are subject to public review and annual approval. This rule proposes regulations for the taking of migratory birds for subsistence uses in Alaska during the spring and summer of 2011. This rule proposes a list of migratory bird season openings and closures in Alaska by region.
        How do I find the history of these regulations?

        Background information, including past events leading to this rulemaking, accomplishments since the Migratory Bird Treaties with Canada and Mexico were amended, and a history addressing conservation issues can be found in the following Federal Register documents:

            Date

              Federal Register Citation

            August 16, 2002
            67 FR 53511

            July 21, 2003
            68 FR 43010

            April 2, 2004
            69 FR 17318

            April 8, 2005
            70 FR 18244

            February 28, 2006
            71 FR 10404

            April 11, 2007
            72 FR 18318

            March 14, 2008
            73 FR 13788

            May 19, 2009
            74 FR 23336

            April 13, 2010
            75 FR 18764

        These documents, which are all final rules setting forth the annual harvest regulations, are available at http://alaska.fws.gov/ambcc/regulations.htm.

        What is the process for issuing regulations for the subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska?
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) proposes migratory bird subsistence harvest regulations in Alaska for the 2011 season. These regulations enable the continuation of customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds in Alaska and prescribe regional information on when and where the harvesting of birds may occur. These regulations were developed under a co-management process involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and Alaska Native representatives.

        We opened the process to establish regulations for the 2011 spring and summer subsistence harvest of migratory birds in Alaska in a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2010 (75 FR 32872). While that proposed rule dealt primarily with the regulatory process for hunting migratory birds for all purposes throughout the United States, we also discussed the background and history of Alaska subsistence regulations, explained the annual process for their establishment, and requested proposals for the 2011 season. The rulemaking processes for both types of migratory bird harvest are related, and the June 10, 2010 proposed rule explained the connection between the two.
        The Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council (Co-management Council) held a meeting in April 2010 to develop recommendations for changes that would take effect during the 2011 harvest season. These recommendations were presented first to the Flyway Councils and then to the Service Regulations Committee at the committee's meeting on July 28 and 29, 2010.
        Who is eligible to hunt under these regulations?

        Eligibility to harvest under the regulations established in 2003 was limited to permanent residents, regardless of race, in villages located within the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Archipelago, the Aleutian Islands, and in areas north and west of the Alaska Range (50 CFR 92.5). These geographical restrictions opened the initial subsistence migratory bird harvest to about 13 percent of Alaska residents. High populated areas such as Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna and Fairbanks North Star boroughs, the Kenai Peninsula roaded area, the Gulf of Alaska roaded area, and Southeast Alaska were excluded from eligible subsistence harvest areas.
        Based on petitions requesting inclusion in the harvest, in 2004, we added 13 additional communities based on criteria set forth in 50 CFR 92.5(c). These communities were Gulkana, Gakona, Tazlina, Copper Center, Mentasta Lake, Chitina, Chistochina, Tatitlek, Chenega, Port Graham, Nanwalek, Tyonek, and Hoonah, with a combined population of 2,766. In 2005, we added three additional communities for glaucous-winged gull egg gathering only, based on petitions requesting inclusion. These southeastern communities were Craig, Hydaburg, and Yakutat, with a combined population of 2,459.
        In 2007, we enacted the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's request to expand the Fairbanks North Star Borough excluded area to include the Central Interior area. This action excluded the following communities from participation in this harvest: Big Delta/Fort Greely, Healy, McKinley Park/Village, and Ferry, with a combined population of 2,812. These removed communities reduced the percentage of the State population included in the subsistence harvest to 13 percent.
        How will the service ensure that the subsistence harvest will not raise overall migratory bird harvest or threaten the conservation of endangered and threatened species?
        We have monitored subsistence harvest for the past 25 years through the use of annual household surveys in the most heavily used subsistence harvest areas, such as the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. In recent years, more intensive surveys combined with outreach efforts focused on species identification have been added to improve the accuracy of information gathered from regions still reporting some subsistence harvest of listed or candidate species.
        Spectacled and Steller's Eiders
        Spectacled eiders (Somateria fischeri) and the Alaska-breeding population of Steller's eiders (Polysticta stelleri) are listed as threatened species; their migration and breeding distribution overlap with where the spring and summer subsistence migratory bird hunt is open in Alaska. Both species are closed to hunting, although harvest surveys and Service documentation indicate both species have been taken in several regions of Alaska.
        The Service has dual goals and responsibilities for authorizing a subsistence harvest while protecting migratory birds and threatened species. Although these goals continue to be challenging, they are not irreconcilable, providing sufficient recognition is given to the need to protect threatened species, measures to remedy documented threats are implemented, and the subsistence community and other conservation partners commit to working together. With these dual goals in mind, the Service, working with partners, developed measures in 2009 to further reduce the potential for shooting mortality or injury of closed species. These conservation measures included: (1) Increased waterfowl hunter outreach and community awareness partnering with the North Slope Migratory Bird Task Force; (2) continued enforcement of the migratory bird regulations that are protective of listed eiders; and (3) in-season Service verification of the harvest to detect Steller's eider mortality.
        This proposed rule continues to focus on the North Slope from Barrow through Point Hope because Steller's eiders from the listed Alaska breeding population, are known to breed and migrate there. The proposed regulations address several ongoing eider management needs by continuing to restrict hunting to times of day with sufficient daylight to improve a hunter's ability to distinguish between species and minimize shooting species closed for harvest; clarifying for subsistence users that Service law enforcement personnel have authority to verify species of birds possessed by hunters; clarifying that it is illegal to possess any bird closed to harvest; and describing how the Service's existing authority of emergency closure would be implemented, if necessary, to protect Steller's eiders. These proposed regulations, implemented in accordance with the Endangered Species Act consultation, are considered the principal means by which the threat from shooting mortality of threatened eiders will be reduced. In addition, the emergency closure authority provides another level of assurance if an unexpected amount of Steller's eider shooting mortality occurs (50 CFR 92.21 and 50 CFR 92.32).
        In-season harvest monitoring information will be used to independently evaluate harvest survey reports, as well as evaluate the efficacy of regulations, conservation measures, and outreach efforts. On the North Slope in 2009 and 2010, no Steller's eider harvest was reported, and no Steller's eiders were found shot during in-season verification of the subsistence harvest. However, 2009 was a non-nesting year for Steller's eiders on the North Slope, and in 2010, only one active nest was found in the Barrow area. Based on these relative successes, the Service will continue the same regulations for the 2011 season. The 2010 conservation measures will also be continued, although there will be some modification of the amount of effort and emphasis each will receive. Specifically, as local communities develop greater responsibility for taking actions to ensure Steller's and spectacled eider conservation and recovery, and hunters demonstrate greater compliance with hunting regulations, the Service's Office of Law Enforcement plans to continue to monitor the threat of unlawful harvest of eiders on the North Slope and maintain a presence in Barrow as needed.
        The longstanding general emergency closure provision at 50 CFR 92.21 specifies that the harvest may be closed or temporarily suspended upon finding that a continuation of the regulation allowing the harvest would pose an imminent threat to the conservation of any migratory bird population. With regard to Steller's eiders, the regulation at 50 CFR 92.32, carried over from the past two years, would clarify that we will take action under 50 CFR 92.21 as is necessary to prevent further take of Steller's eiders, and that action could include temporary or long-term closures of the harvest in all or a portion of the geographic area open to harvest. If mortality of threatened eiders occurs, we will evaluate each mortality event by criteria such as cause, quantity, sex, age, location, and date. We will consult with the Co-management Council when we are considering an emergency closure. If we determine that an emergency closure is necessary, we will design it to minimize its impact on the subsistence harvest.
        Yellow-Billed Loon and Kittlitz's Murrelet
        Yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii) and Kittlitz's murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) are listed as candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as emended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Their migration and breeding distribution overlaps with where the spring and summer migratory bird hunt is open in Alaska. Both species are closed to hunting, and there is no evidence Kittlitz's murrelets are harvested. On the other hand, harvest surveys have indicated that harvest of yellow-billed loons on the North Slope and St. Lawrence Island does occur. Most of the yellow-billed loons reported harvested on the North Slope were found to be entangled loons salvaged from subsistence fishing nets as described below. The Service will continue outreach efforts in both areas in 2011, engaging partners to improve harvest estimates and decrease take of yellow-billed loons.

        Consistent with the request of the North Slope Borough Fish and Game Management Committee and the recommendation of the Co-management Council, this proposed rule would continue into 2011 the provisions originally established in 2005 to allow subsistence use of yellow-billed loons (Gavia adamsii) inadvertently entangled in subsistence fishing (gill) nets on the North Slope. Yellow-billed loons are culturally important for the Inupiat Eskimo of the North Slope for use in traditional dance regalia. A maximum of 20 yellow-billed loons may be caught in 2011 under this provision. This provision does not authorize intentional harvest of yellow-billed loons, but allows use of those loons inadvertently entangled during normal subsistence fishing activities. Service support of this proposal is contingent upon the North Slope Region representative collaborating with the Service and Co-management Council to design and implement a scientifically defensible survey to estimate entanglement of yellow-billed loons by North Slope subsistence fishers starting in 2011. Additional information is needed relative to species and number entangled in subsistence nets, distribution of harvest across the North Slope Region, age of birds entangled (adult vs. young-of-year), and time of harvest. These data will allow the Service to better assess the potential effects of harvest on this species. Currently, individual reporting to the North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife is required by the end of each season. In 2009, two yellow-billed loons were reported entangled and found dead in fishing nets, while two others were released from fishing nets by the North Slope Borough staff.
        Endangered Species Act Consideration

        Prior to issuance of annual spring and summer subsistence regulations, we will consult under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to ensure that the 2011 subsistence harvest is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species designated as endangered or threatened, or modify or destroy its critical habitats, and that the regulations are consistent with conservation programs for those species. Consultation under section 7 of the Act for the annual subsistence take regulations may cause us to change these regulations. Our biological opinion resulting from the section 7 consultation is a public document available from either person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        What is different in the region-specific regulations for 2011?
        We are proposing no changes from the 2010 region-specific regulations.
        Statutory Authority
        We derive our authority to issue these regulations from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. 712(1), which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with the treaties with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia, to “issue such regulations as may be necessary to assure that the taking of migratory birds and the collection of their eggs, by the indigenous inhabitants of the State of Alaska, shall be permitted for their own nutritional and other essential needs, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, during seasons established so as to provide for the preservation and maintenance of stocks of migratory birds.”
        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
        (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
        (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions.
        (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
        (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). An initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required. The rule legalizes a pre-existing subsistence activity, and the resources harvested will be consumed by the harvesters or persons within their local community.
        Clarity of the Rule
        We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
        (a) Be logically organized;
        (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
        (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
        (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
        (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

        If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
        This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
        (a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It will legalize and regulate a traditional subsistence activity. It will not result in a substantial increase in subsistence harvest or a significant change in harvesting patterns. The commodities being regulated under this rule are migratory birds. This rule deals with legalizing the subsistence harvest of migratory birds and, as such, does not involve commodities traded in the marketplace. A small economic benefit from this rule derives from the sale of equipment and ammunition to carry out subsistence hunting. Most, if not all, businesses that sell hunting equipment in rural Alaska would qualify as small businesses. We have no reason to believe that this rule will lead to a disproportionate distribution of benefits.
        (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This rule does not deal with traded commodities and, therefore, does not have an impact on prices for consumers.

        (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This rule deals with the harvesting of wildlife for personal consumption. It does not regulate the marketplace in any way to generate effects on the economy or the ability of businesses to compete.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

        We have determined and certified under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) that this rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local, State, or tribal governments or private entities. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required. Participation on regional management bodies and the Co-management Council will require travel expenses for some Alaska Native organizations and local governments. In addition, they will assume some expenses related to coordinating involvement of village councils in the regulatory process. Total coordination and travel expenses for all Alaska Native organizations are estimated to be less than $300,000 per year. In a Notice of Decision (65 FR 16405; March 28, 2000), we identified 12 partner organizations (Alaska Native nonprofits and local governments) to administer the regional programs. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game will also incur expenses for travel to Co-management Council and regional management body meetings. In addition, the State of Alaska will be required to provide technical staff support to each of the regional management bodies and to the Co-management Council. Expenses for the State's involvement may exceed $100,000 per year, but should not exceed $150,000 per year. When funding permits, we make annual grant agreements available to the partner organizations and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to help offset their expenses.
        Takings (Executive Order 12630)
        Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule is not specific to particular land ownership, but applies to the harvesting of migratory bird resources throughout Alaska. A takings implication assessment is not required.
        Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
        Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. We discuss effects of this rule on the State of Alaska in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act section above. We worked with the State of Alaska to develop these regulations. Therefore, a Federalism Assessment is not required.
        Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
        The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that it will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
        Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments
        Because eligibility to hunt under these regulations is not limited to tribal members, but rather extends to all indigenous inhabitants of the subsistence harvest areas, we are not required to engage in formal consultation with tribes. However, in keeping with the spirit of the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), and Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 6, 2000), concerning consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, we conducted meetings with the affected tribes and tribal nonprofit organizations to discuss the changes in the regulations and determine possible effects on tribes or trust resources, and have determined that there are no significant effects. The rule will legally recognize the subsistence harvest of migratory birds and their eggs for indigenous inhabitants including tribal members.

        In 1998, we began a public involvement process to determine how to structure management bodies in order to provide the most effective and efficient involvement of subsistence users. We began by publishing in the Federal Register stating that we intended to establish management bodies to implement the spring and summer subsistence harvest (63 FR 49707, September 17, 1998). We held meetings with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Native Migratory Bird Working Group to provide information regarding the amended treaties and to listen to the needs of subsistence users. The Native Migratory Bird Working Group was a consortium of Alaska Natives formed by the Rural Alaska Community Action Program to represent Alaska Native subsistence hunters of migratory birds during the treaty negotiations. We held forums in Nome, Kotzebue, Fort Yukon, Allakaket, Naknek, Bethel, Dillingham, Barrow, and Copper Center. We led additional briefings and discussions at the annual meeting of the Association of Village Council Presidents in Hooper Bay and for the Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes in Juneau.
        On March 28, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 16405) a Notice of Decision entitled, “Establishment of Management Bodies in Alaska To Develop Recommendations Related to the Spring/Summer Subsistence Harvest of Migratory Birds.” This notice described the way in which management bodies would be established and organized. Based on the wide range of views expressed on the options document, the decision incorporated key aspects of two of the modules. The decision established one Statewide management body consisting of 1 Federal member, 1 State member, and 7-12 Alaska Native members, with all components serving as equals.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        This rule has been examined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain any new collections of information that require Office of Management and Budget approval. OMB has approved our collection of information associated with the voluntary annual household surveys used to determine levels of subsistence take. The OMB control number is 1018-0124, which expires April 30, 2013. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
        National Environmental Policy Act Consideration

        The annual regulations and options were considered in the environmental assessment, “Managing Migratory Bird Subsistence Hunting in Alaska: Hunting Regulations for the 2011 Spring/Summer Harvest,” October 18, 2010. Copies are available from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at http://www.regulations.gov.

        Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)

        Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This is not a significant regulatory action under this Executive Order; it would allow only for traditional subsistence harvest and would improve conservation of migratory birds by allowing effective regulation of this harvest. Further, this rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 92
          Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Subsistence, Treaties, Wildlife.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend title 50, chapter I, subchapter G, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 92—MIGRATORY BIRD SUBSISTENCE HARVEST IN ALASKA
          1. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            16 U.S.C. 703-712.

            Subpart D—Annual Regulations Governing Subsistence Harvest

          2. In subpart D, add § 92.31 to read as follows:

            § 92.31
            Region-specific regulations.
            The 2011 season dates for the eligible subsistence harvest areas are as follows:
            (a) Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Region.

            (1) Northern Unit (Pribilof Islands):
            (i) Season: April 2-June 30.
            (ii) Closure: July 1-August 31.
            (2) Central Unit (Aleut Region's eastern boundary on the Alaska Peninsula westward to and including Unalaska Island):
            (i) Season: April 2-June 15 and July 16-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: June 16-July 15.
            (iii) Special Black Brant Season Closure: August 16-August 31, only in Izembek and Moffet lagoons.
            (iv) Special Tundra Swan Closure: All hunting and egg gathering closed in units 9(D) and 10.
            (3) Western Unit (Umnak Island west to and including Attu Island):
            (i) Season: April 2-July 15 and August 16-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: July 16-August 15.
            (b) Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta Region.

            (1) Season: April 2-August 31.
            (2) Closure: 30-day closure dates to be announced by the Service's Alaska Regional Director or his designee, after consultation with local subsistence users, field biologists, and the Association of Village Council President's Waterfowl Conservation Committee. This 30-day period will occur between June 1 and August 15 of each year. A press release announcing the actual closure dates will be forwarded to regional newspapers and radio and television stations and posted in village post offices and stores.
            (3) Special Black Brant and Cackling Goose Season Hunting Closure: From the period when egg laying begins until young birds are fledged. Closure dates to be announced by the Service's Alaska Regional Director or his designee, after consultation with field biologists and the Association of Village Council President's Waterfowl Conservation Committee. A press release announcing the actual closure dates will be forwarded to regional newspapers and radio and television stations and posted in village post offices and stores.
            (c) Bristol Bay Region.

            (1) Season: April 2-June 14 and July 16-August 31 (general season); April 2-July 15 for seabird egg gathering only.
            (2) Closure: June 15-July 15 (general season); July 16-August 31 (seabird egg gathering).
            (d) Bering Strait/Norton Sound Region.

            (1) Stebbins/St. Michael Area (Point Romanof to Canal Point):
            (i) Season: April 15-June 14 and July 16-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: June 15-July 15.
            (2) Remainder of the region:
            (i) Season: April 2-June 14 and July 16-August 31 for waterfowl; April 2-July 19 and August 21-August 31 for all other birds.
            (ii) Closure: June 15-July 15 for waterfowl; July 20-August 20 for all other birds.
            (e) Kodiak Archipelago Region, except for the Kodiak Island roaded area, which is closed to the harvesting of migratory birds and their eggs. The closed area consists of all lands and waters (including exposed tidelands) east of a line extending from Crag Point in the north to the west end of Saltery Cove in the south and all lands and water south of a line extending from Termination Point along the north side of Cascade Lake extending to Anton Larson Bay. Waters adjacent to the closed area are closed to harvest within 500 feet from the water's edge. The offshore islands are open to harvest.
            (1) Season: April 2-June 30 and July 31-August 31 for seabirds; April 2-June 20 and July 22-August 31 for all other birds.
            (2) Closure: July 1-July 30 for seabirds; June 21-July 21 for all other birds.
            (f) Northwest Arctic Region.

            (1) Season: April 2-June 9 and August 15-August 31 (hunting in general); waterfowl egg gathering May 20-June 9 only; seabird egg gathering May 20-July 12 only; hunting molting/non-nesting waterfowl July 1-July 31 only.
            (2) Closure: June 10-August 14, except for the taking of seabird eggs and molting/non-nesting waterfowl as provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
            (g) North Slope Region.

            (1) Southern Unit (Southwestern North Slope regional boundary east to Peard Bay, everything west of the longitude line 158°30′ W and south of the latitude line 70°45′ N to the west bank of the Ikpikpuk River, and everything south of the latitude line 69°45′ N between the west bank of the Ikpikpuk River to the east bank of Sagavinirktok River):
            (i) Season: April 2-June 29 and July 30-August 31 for seabirds; April 2-June 19 and July 20-August 31 for all other birds.
            (ii) Closure: June 30-July 29 for seabirds; June 20-July 19 for all other birds.
            (iii) Special Black Brant Hunting Opening: From June 20-July 5. The open area would consist of the coastline, from mean high water line outward to include open water, from Nokotlek Point east to longitude line 158°30′ W. This includes Peard Bay, Kugrua Bay, and Wainwright Inlet, but not the Kuk and Kugrua river drainages.
            (2) Northern Unit (At Peard Bay, everything east of the longitude line 158°30′ W and north of the latitude line 70°45′ N to west bank of the Ikpikpuk River, and everything north of the latitude line 69°45′ N between the west bank of the Ikpikpuk River to the east bank of Sagavinirktok River):
            (i) Season: April 6-June 6 and July 7-August 31 for king and common eiders; April 2-June 15 and July 16-August 31 for all other birds.
            (ii) Closure: June 7-July 6 for king and common eiders; June 16-July 15 for all other birds.
            (3) Eastern Unit (East of eastern bank of the Sagavanirktok River):
            (i) Season: April 2-June 19 and July 20-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: June 20-July 19.
            (4) All Units: yellow-billed loons. Annually, up to 20 yellow-billed loons total for the region may be inadvertently entangled in subsistence fishing nets in the North Slope Region and kept for subsistence use.
            (5) North Coastal Zone (Cape Thompson north to Point Hope and east along the Arctic Ocean coastline around Point Barrow to Ross Point, including Iko Bay, and 5 miles inland).
            (i) Migratory bird hunting is permitted from one-half hour before sunrise until sunset, during August.
            (ii) No person may at any time, by any means, or in any manner, possess or have in custody any migratory bird or part thereof, taken in violation of subpart C and D of this part.

            (iii) Upon request from a Service law enforcement officer, hunters taking, attempting to take, or transporting migratory birds taken during the subsistence harvest season must present them to the officer for species identification.
            (h) Interior Region.

            (1) Season: April 2-June 14 and July 16-August 31; egg gathering May 1-June 14 only.
            (2) Closure: June 15-July 15.
            (i) Upper Copper River Region (Harvest Area: Units 11 and 13) (Eligible communities: Gulkana, Chitina, Tazlina, Copper Center, Gakona, Mentasta Lake, Chistochina and Cantwell).
            (1) Season: April 15-May 26 and June 27-August 31.
            (2) Closure: May 27-June 26.
            (3) The Copper River Basin communities listed above also documented traditional use harvesting birds in Unit 12, making them eligible to hunt in this unit using the seasons specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
            (j) Gulf of Alaska Region.

            (1) Prince William Sound Area (Harvest area: Unit 6 [D]), (Eligible Chugach communities: Chenega Bay, Tatitlek).
            (i) Season: April 2-May 31 and July 1-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: June 1-30.
            (2) Kachemak Bay Area (Harvest area: Unit 15[C] South of a line connecting the tip of Homer Spit to the mouth of Fox River) (Eligible Chugach Communities: Port Graham, Nanwalek).
            (i) Season: April 2-May 31 and July 1-August 31.
            (ii) Closure: June 1-30.
            (k) Cook Inlet (Harvest area: portions of Unit 16[B] as specified below) (Eligible communities: Tyonek only).
            (1) Season: April 2-May 31—That portion of Unit 16(B) south of the Skwentna River and west of the Yentna River, and August 1-31—That portion of Unit 16(B) south of the Beluga River, Beluga Lake, and the Triumvirate Glacier.
            (2) Closure: June 1-July 31.
            (l) Southeast Alaska.

            (1) Community of Hoonah (Harvest area: National Forest lands in Icy Strait and Cross Sound, including Middle Pass Rock near the Inian Islands, Table Rock in Cross Sound, and other traditional locations on the coast of Yakobi Island. The land and waters of Glacier Bay National Park remain closed to all subsistence harvesting (50 CFR Part 100.3(a)).
            (i) Season: glaucous-winged gull egg gathering only: May 15-June 30.
            (ii) Closure: July 1-August 31.
            (2) Communities of Craig and Hydaburg (Harvest area: small islands and adjacent shoreline of western Prince of Wales Island from Point Baker to Cape Chacon, but also including Coronation and Warren islands).
            (i) Season: glaucous-winged gull egg gathering only: May 15-June 30.
            (ii) Closure: July 1-August 31.
            (3) Community of Yakutat (Harvest area: Icy Bay (Icy Cape to Point Riou), and coastal lands and islands bordering the Gulf of Alaska from Point Manby southeast to Dry Bay).
            (i) Season: glaucous-winged gull egg gathering: May 15-June 30.
            (ii) Closure: July 1-August 31.
            3. In subpart D, add § 92.32 to read as follows:

            § 92.32
            Emergency regulations to protect Steller's eiders.

            Upon finding that continuation of these subsistence regulations would pose an imminent threat to the conservation of threatened Steller's eiders (Polysticta stelleri), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Regional Director, in consultation with the Co-management Council, will immediately under § 92.21 take action as is necessary to prevent further take. Regulation changes implemented could range from a temporary closure of duck hunting in a small geographic area to large-scale regional or State-wide long-term closures of all subsistence migratory bird hunting. These closures or temporary suspensions will remain in effect until the Regional Director, in consultation with the Co-management Council, determines that the potential for additional Steller's eiders to be taken no longer exists.

            Dated: October 7, 2010.
            Thomas L. Strickland,
            Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2010-27016 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P