Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod Pot Gear Fishing Closure in the Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Zone in the Bering Sea; Amendment 103, 71344-71349 [2014-28113]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71344-71349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28113]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 120706220-4964-02]
RIN 0648-BC34


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod 
Pot Gear Fishing Closure in the Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation 
Zone in the Bering Sea; Amendment 103

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

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 103 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP). This rule closes year-round the 
Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Zone (PIHCZ) to directed fishing 
for Pacific cod with pot gear to minimize bycatch and prevent 
overfishing of Pribilof Islands blue king crab (PIBKC). This action is 
intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the 
BSAI FMP, and other applicable laws.

DATES: Effective: January 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the BSAI FMP, Amendment 103 to the BSAI 
FMP, the Environmental Assessment (EA), and the Regulatory Impact 
Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for 
this action are available from https://www.regulations.gov or from the 
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cm/analyses/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Marie Eich, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries of the 
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) in the Exclusive 
Economic Zone off Alaska under the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council (Council) prepared the BSAI FMP under the authority 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. General 
regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 
CFR part 600. Regulations implementing the BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR 
part 679.
    This final rule implements Amendment 103 to the BSAI FMP. This rule 
closes the PIHCZ to directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear.
    Amendment 103 to the BSAI FMP is being implemented with Amendment 
43 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King 
and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). Amendment 43 to the Crab FMP revises the 
current rebuilding plan for PIBKC to include the Pacific cod pot gear 
prohibition that would be implemented under Amendment 103. No 
regulatory amendments are needed to implement Amendment 43. These 
amendments implemented together ensure that the PIBKC rebuilding plan 
is revised to further reduce the bycatch of PIBKC in the groundfish 
fisheries, supporting the rebuilding of the PIBKC stock in the shortest 
time possible.
    NMFS published the Notice of Availability (NOA) of Amendment 103 to 
the BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to the Crab FMP in the Federal Register 
on August 21, 2014, with a 60-day comment period that ended October 20, 
2014 (79 FR 49487). The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 103 to 
the BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to the Crab FMP on November 14, 2014. 
NMFS received two comment letters on the NOA of Amendment 103 to the 
BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to the Crab FMP. These comments raised 
identical concerns to one of the comments received on the proposed 
rule, which is summarized in the ``Comments and Responses'' section in 
this final rule.
    NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 103 to the 
BSAI FMP and the closure of the PIHCZ to directed fishing for Pacific 
cod with pot gear on August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51520). The 30-day comment 
period on the proposed rule ended September 29, 2014. NMFS received two 
comment letters during the proposed rule comment period. The comment 
letters contained three unique comments. A summary of those comments 
and NMFS' responses are provided in the ``Comments and Responses'' 
section of this preamble.
    This final rule closes the PIHCZ year-round to directed fishing for 
Pacific cod with pot gear to minimize bycatch of PIBKC in groundfish 
fisheries and prevent overfishing of PIBKC. The term ``directed 
fishing'' is defined in the groundfish fisheries regulation at Sec.  
679.2. In June 2012, the Council recommended closing the PIHCZ to 
directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear based on (1) the high 
rate of PIBKC bycatch in the PIHCZ relative to other areas outside of 
the PIHCZ; (2) the high concentration of PIBKC in the PIHCZ; (3) the 
occurrence of known PIBKC

[[Page 71345]]

habitat within the PIHCZ; (4) the high rate of PIBKC bycatch in the 
Pacific cod pot fishery relative to other groundfish fisheries; and (5) 
the limited impact the Pacific cod pot closure in the PIHCZ would have 
on the Pacific cod pot fishery relative to other groundfish fishery 
closures. The proposed rule preamble provides additional information on 
the closure, including detailed information on the development of the 
action, the impacts and effects of the action, and the Council's and 
NMFS' rationale for the action (79 FR 51520, August 29, 2014). The 
proposed rule is available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (see 
ADDRESSES).

Summary of Regulatory Provisions

    This final rule revises Sec.  679.22(a)(6) to prohibit directed 
fishing for Pacific cod using pot gear in the PIHCZ. The existing 
prohibition on the use of trawl gear in the PIHCZ is retained. In 
addition, Figure 10 to 50 CFR part 679 is revised by (1) changing the 
title from ``Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Area in the Bering 
Sea'' to read ``Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Zone (PIHCZ) in 
the Bering Sea'' to be consistent with the definition of the PIHCZ at 
Sec.  679.2, and (2) reformatting the map for greater accuracy and 
improved appearance. These format changes are non-substantive.

Changes From Proposed to Final Rule

    No changes were made from proposed to final rule.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received four comment letters during the NOA and proposed rule 
comment periods. The comment letters contained three unique comments. A 
summary of the comments and NMFS' response follows.
    Comment 1: NMFS should close all fishing in the Pribilof Islands to 
stop commercial fishermen from stealing the fish from this area and 
overfishing. NOAA is not enforcing the laws and is allowing too much 
overfishing.
    Response: As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, PIBKC 
is not subject to overfishing. The purpose of this action is to amend 
the PIBKC rebuilding plan to prevent overfishing and to rebuild the 
PIBKC stock in the shortest time possible. This final rule to implement 
Amendment 103 to the BSAI FMP closes year-round the PIHCZ to directed 
fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear. Prohibiting directed fishing for 
Pacific cod with pot gear in the PIHCZ minimizes bycatch of PIBKC to 
the extent practicable, prevents overfishing, and supports rebuilding 
of the PIBKC stock. Additional detail on the purpose of this action is 
provided in the preamble to the proposed rule and Sections 2.2 and 
4.5.5 of the EA.
    As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the Council and 
NMFS evaluated a number of additional alternatives that would close 
other groundfish fisheries to minimize PIBKC bycatch. Additional 
prohibitions on other groundfish fisheries (i.e., hook-and-line 
fisheries, and non-Pacific cod pot fisheries) were not projected to 
result in PIBKC bycatch savings, but would likely have serious adverse 
economic impacts (see Section 4.5.5.1 of the EA).
    Under the authority of the Crab FMP, NMFS and the State of Alaska 
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) have implemented a number of 
additional management measures to minimize bycatch of PIBKC. NMFS has 
classified PIBKC as a prohibited species in groundfish fisheries, which 
requires avoiding incidental catch of prohibited species and 
immediately returning prohibited species to the sea with a minimum of 
injury (Sec. Sec.  679.21 and 679.7(a)(12)). Since 1995, NMFS has 
closed the PIHCZ to groundfish trawl gear to protect blue king crab (60 
FR 4110, January 20, 1995). ADF&G closes the Pribilof Islands red king 
crab fishery as well as other crab fisheries in other areas where PIBKC 
are known to occur.
    NOAA Office of Law Enforcement monitors compliance with closure 
areas and takes enforcement action, as appropriate.
    Comment 2: The proposed closure is a strong step toward allowing 
for recovery of the PIBKC population but NMFS is urged to implement 
further measures including broader-scale ecosystem level protections in 
the Pribilof Islands region, closure of groundfish fisheries in areas 
that cover the entire distribution of PIBKC stock, increased observer 
coverage, and additional protective measures regarding bycatch.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the support for this action. NMFS notes 
that the recommendation to implement broader-scale ecosystem level 
protections in the Pribilof Islands region is outside the scope of this 
action. NMFS did evaluate the effects of this action on other marine 
resources in the Pribilof Islands region and determined that the impact 
of this action would not significantly affect other marine resources 
(see Section 5 of the EA). NMFS also evaluated the cumulative impacts 
of this action and determined that this action would not have a 
significant cumulative impact (see Section 6 of the EA).
    In response to the suggestion for further measures for groundfish 
fisheries in areas that cover the entire distribution of PIBKC stock, 
the Council and NMFS evaluated a number of additional alternatives that 
would further reduce PIBKC bycatch outside the PIHCZ. The Council did 
not recommend and NMFS did not implement closures to groundfish 
fisheries outside the PIHCZ because the PIHCZ is the area where this 
stock is concentrated. Additional closures of groundfish fisheries 
outside the habitat conservation zone could result in serious economic 
impacts to the groundfish fishery sectors without measurable 
conservation benefits for the PIBKC stock. Further, extending 
groundfish fishery closures to areas outside the PIHCZ is not viable at 
this time because of the difficulty in establishing this stock's 
boundary outside the PIHCZ and because of the current limitations in 
distinguishing bycatch of this stock from bycatch of St. Matthew Island 
blue king crab. Additional detail on the limited impact of area 
closures to groundfish fisheries outside the PIHCZ on the PIBKC stock 
is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule and in Section 4 of 
the EA.
    In response to comments recommending increased observer coverage, 
NMFS notes that it implemented Amendment 86 to the BSAI FMP on January 
1, 2013 (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012) to restructure the funding and 
deployment system for the North Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Observer 
Program (Observer Program) and expand observer coverage requirements to 
halibut vessels and vessels less than 60 ft. in length overall. Section 
3.4 of the EA prepared for this action explains that the restructured 
Observer Program provides the necessary observer coverage to implement 
this action. Therefore, additional changes to observer coverage are not 
required as part of this action. Finally, as explained in response to 
comment 1, NMFS and ADF&G have implemented a range of additional 
protective measures to minimize PIBKC bycatch.
    Comment 3: While NMFS has little control over global greenhouse gas 
emissions, it can and should manage fishing activities in order to 
avoid adverse impacts on Alaska's marine ecosystem from serious and 
lasting changes in productivity due to ocean acidification processes, 
increasing water temperatures, and changes in seawater circulation 
patterns.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that predicted changes in ocean

[[Page 71346]]

acidification, temperature, and currents will likely affect the 
biological productivity of Alaska's marine environment. The biological 
ramifications of these predicted oceanographic changes are uncertain; 
however, this comment is outside the scope of this action. The purpose 
of this action is to prevent overfishing the PIBKC stock. Nonetheless, 
NMFS and the Council consistently consider management changes to the 
fisheries under their jurisdiction and explore ways to integrate 
ecosystem considerations in fisheries management decisions.

Classification

    The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that this final 
rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the BSAI 
groundfish fishery and that it is consistent with the BSAI FMP, 
including Amendment 103, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable 
laws.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small 
entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such 
publications as ``small entity compliance guides.'' The agency shall 
explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a 
rule or group of rules. The preamble to the proposed rule and the 
preamble to this final rule serve as the small entity compliance guide. 
This rule does not require any additional compliance from small 
entities that is not described in the preamble to the proposed rule. 
Copies of the proposed rule and this final rule are available from NMFS 
at the following Web site: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

Executive Order 12866

    The final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) contains the requirements for 
the FRFA in section 604(a)(1) through (6) of the RFA. The FRFA must 
contain:
    1. A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the 
rule;
    2. A summary of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility (IRFA) 
analysis, a summary of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and 
a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of 
such comments;
    3. The response of the agency to any comments on the proposed rule 
by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration;
    4. A description and an estimate of the number of small entities to 
which the rule will apply, or an explanation of why no such estimate is 
available;
    5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the 
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and 
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 
or record; and
    6. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the 
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the 
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the 
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the 
impact on small entities was rejected.
    NMFS prepared an IRFA that addressed the requirements described in 
section 603(b)(1) through (5) of the RFA. This FRFA incorporates the 
IRFA and the summary of the IRFA in the proposed rule (79 FR 51520, 
August 29, 2014). NMFS published the IRFA in a combined document with 
the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). The RIR/IRFA is available on the 
NMFS Alaska Region Web site: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

A Succinct Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule

    A statement of the need for, and objectives of, this rule are 
explained in the preamble to this final rule and is not repeated here.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised During Public Comment

    NMFS published the proposed rule on August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51520). 
The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule closed on September 29, 
2014. NMFS received four letters of public comment on the proposed 
rule. These comment letters did not address the IRFA or the economic 
impacts of the rule generally.
The Response to Comments From Small Business Administration
    NMFS did not receive any comments on the proposed rule from the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Number and Description of Small Number and Description of Small 
Entities Regulated by the Final Rule

    The determination of the number and description of small entities 
regulated by these actions is based on small business size standards 
established by the SBA. On June 12, 2014, the SBA issued an interim 
final rule revising the small business size standards for several 
industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). The 
rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $19.0 million 
to $20.5 million, Shellfish Fishing from $5.0 million to $5.5 million, 
and Other Marine Fishing from $7.0 million to $7.5 million.
    The entities directly regulated by this action are the owners and 
operators of vessels directed fishing for Pacific cod using pot gear in 
the PIHCZ. Earnings from all Alaska fisheries for 2010, the most recent 
year of complete earnings data, were matched with the vessels that 
participated in the BSAI groundfish fisheries for that year. Based on 
the known affiliations and joint ownership of the vessels, 114 vessels 
caught, or caught and processed, less than $20.5 million ex-vessel 
value or product value of groundfish and other species in the BSAI. 
These 114 vessels are considered small entities because they all have 
annual ex-vessel revenues less than the $20.5 million standard for 
small finfish fishing vessels under the RFA. Of these 114 vessels, 34 
participated in a directed fishery for Pacific cod using pot gear, and 
all of these vessels could be regulated by this action.
    The six Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) groups and 
the 65 communities they represent are small entities under the RFA. 
Each of the CDQ groups receives annual allocations of Pacific cod in 
the BSAI. The CDQ groups harvest these allocations with vessels they 
own and vessels they contract with. The vessels owned by the CDQ groups 
and used to target Pacific cod are primarily large catcher/processors 
using hook-and-line or trawl gear. In 2012, the CDQ groups harvested 
24,402 metric tons of Pacific cod. Less than 15 percent of this catch 
was made by vessels using pot gear, none of which were owned by the CDQ 
groups (actual catch using pot gear is confidential). None of the 
Pacific cod caught by the CDQ groups was harvested within the proposed 
closure areas. As CDQ groups have never used pot gear to harvest 
Pacific cod within the proposed closure area, this final rule is not 
expected to impact the CDQ

[[Page 71347]]

groups, the CDQ communities, or the vessels that fish on their behalf.
    The impacts of the action on directly regulated small entities are 
analyzed in the IRFA. In recent years, many of the vessels identified 
in this analysis as having potential small entity impacts have become 
members of fishing cooperatives. Increased affiliation with the BSAI 
Freezer-Longline Cooperative, as well as various crab cooperatives, has 
resulted in many vessels now being classified as large entities due to 
these affiliations. This analysis has incorporated cooperative 
affiliation information to adjust the numbers of potentially directly 
regulated small entities and, thereby, the estimate of revenue at risk 
specific to small entities. The result is evident in the declining 
small entity impact estimates in 2010, where estimated impacts are near 
zero for many of the alternatives with the exception of potential CDQ 
impacts, which are, by definition, small although the vessels that 
harvest for CDQ organizations are themselves now large via 
affiliations. Thus, with increased membership in cooperatives, nearly 
all of the potentially directly regulated vessels are presently 
classified as large entities and the potential effects of the action on 
small entities appears to be de minimis.

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Compliance Requirements

    This action will not change recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements. Vessel operators will continue to be required to comply 
with the specified area closure and gear requirements.

Description of Significant Alternatives to the Final Action That 
Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities

    The EA analyzed six alternatives with components and options for 
closures in the Bering Sea to minimize the bycatch of PIBKC and reduce 
the risk of overfishing.
    The Council's preferred alternative, Alternative 2b, was selected 
as the action alternative. Alternative 2b closes year-round the PIHCZ 
to directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear to prevent 
overfishing of PIBKC and minimize bycatch of PIBKC in groundfish 
fisheries. Alternative 2b further reduces PIBKC bycatch mortality in 
groundfish fisheries, enhancing the likelihood of a successful 
rebuilding effort.
    Alternative 1 is the status quo or no action alternative, which 
would not change the closure to all trawl gear in the PIHCZ. This 
alternative does not meet the goals and objectives of the action to 
minimize bycatch of PIBKC, and would not provide further protection to 
PIBKC from the potential effects of the groundfish fisheries.
    Alternatives 2 through 6 would retain all of the current protection 
measures in place for the PIBKC stock and apply additional measures. 
These alternatives would establish closure areas for specific 
groundfish fisheries that are described in the following paragraphs for 
each alternative.
    Alternative 2 included three specific methods for closing the PIHCZ 
to directed fishing for a variety of groundfish fisheries. Alternative 
2a would close the PIHCZ on an annual basis to groundfish fisheries 
that met a threshold of PIBKC bycatch from 2003 to 2010 that is greater 
than 5 percent of the acceptable biological catch (ABC) of PIBKC. 
Fisheries that met the 5-percent threshold are the Pacific cod hook-
and-line fishery, Pacific cod pot fishery, yellowfin sole trawl 
fishery, and other flatfish trawl fishery. Alternative 2b, the 
preferred alternative implemented by this action, would close the PIHCZ 
year-round to Pacific cod pot fishing. Alternative 2c would close the 
PIHCZ to directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear if 
the total PIBKC bycatch in all groundfish fisheries in the BSAI reached 
20 percent, 30 percent, or 50 percent of the overall trigger closure 
cap of 75 percent of the ABC. Alternative 2c would also require vessels 
directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear in the PIHCZ to maintain 
100 percent observer coverage. Alternatives 2a and 2c would have a 
greater impact on small entities than Alternative 2b because more 
vessels would be subject to potential closures in the PIHCZ. 
Alternative 2c would also increase the potential costs on small 
entities by increasing observer coverage requirements for these 
vessels.
    Alternative 3 would close the existing ADF&G crab closure area 
between 168[deg] and 170[deg] West longitude, and between 57[deg] and 
58[deg] North latitude to additional fishing effort, in addition to the 
status quo groundfish trawl closure. Alternative 3a would close the 
existing ADF&G crab closure area to all groundfish fisheries that have 
contributed greater than a designated threshold to bycatch of PIBKC 
since 2003. The closure would apply to any fishery that had bycatch of 
PIBKC between 2003 and 2010 of greater than 5 percent of ABC. Under the 
5-percent threshold, the closure would apply to the following 
fisheries: yellowfin sole trawl, other flatfish trawl, Pacific cod pot, 
and Pacific cod hook-and-line. Alternative 3b would close the existing 
ADF&G crab closure area to directed fishing for Pacific cod only. 
Alternative 3a would have a greater impact on small entities than 
Alternative 3b because more vessels would be subject to potential 
closures in the PIHCZ. While Alternative 3b could potentially have less 
of an impact on small entities than the other alternatives (data is 
confidential for all years except 2005), the Alternative 3 closure 
boundaries exclude southern parts of the PIHCZ where PIBKC bycatch by 
Pacific cod pot fishing has occurred (see Figure 2-2 in the EA).
    Alternative 4 would establish a closure throughout the range of the 
PIBKC based on either the distribution of the PIBKC stock aggregated 
from 1975 to 2009, or from 1984 to 2009. This range of data represented 
recent trends of the known distribution of PIBKC based on current stock 
survey methodologies and is greater than the area closure in the PIHCZ 
and the ADF&G closures defined under Alternative 3. Alternatives 4a and 
4b would establish closures consistent with the same criteria 
established for Alternatives 2a and 2b, and 3a and 3b, respectively. 
Alternative 4 would have a greater impact on small entities due to the 
greater size of the closure.
    Alternative 5 would establish a prohibited species catch (PSC) 
limit equal to either the overfishing limit (OFL), the ABC, or a 
proportion of the ABC for the PIBKC stock. All bycatch of the PIBKC in 
all groundfish fisheries would accrue toward this PSC limit, and those 
groundfish fisheries that contributed to greater than a designated 
threshold of PIBKC bycatch since 2003 would be closed once the fishery-
wide PSC limit was reached.
    Four area closure options are included under Alternative 5: 5a, 5b, 
5c, and 5d, which correspond to the closure areas defined under 
Alternatives 1, 3, 4a, and 4b (1975 to 2009 PIBKC stock distribution 
and 1984 to 2009 PIBKC stock distribution), respectively. Under each of 
these options, the closure would be triggered by attainment of a 
fishery-wide PIBKC PSC limit set at the following options: PSC limit 
equal to the OFL, PSC limit equal to the ABC, PSC limit equal to 90 
percent of the ABC, or PSC limit equal to 75 percent of the ABC. Under 
Option 5d, under the PSC limit equal to 90 percent of the ABC and the 
PSC limit equal to 75 percent of the ABC, there would be an additional 
option for allocation of the PSC limit by gear type: 40 percent trawl 
gear, 40 percent pot gear, and 20 percent hook-and-line gear.
    Alternative 6 would have two components: (1) Establish a year-round 
closure of the PIHCZ to directed fishing

[[Page 71348]]

for Pacific cod using pot gear, and (2) establish a triggered closure 
of the area representing the distribution of the PIBKC stock from 1984 
to 2009. The PSC limit associated with the triggered closure would be 
established as a fishery-wide level at 75 percent of the ABC. The PSC 
limit would be set either in the numbers of crab based on the average 
weight in the previous season or in numbers of crab based on a rolling 
5-year average weight. The PSC limit would be further allocated to 
sectors either by gear type or to all groundfish fisheries in the 
aggregate by seasons.
    In addition, each of the alternatives included options to increase 
observer coverage that could be applied to all fisheries or a specific 
fishery.
    The Council ultimately did not consider trigger cap closures 
(Alternatives 2c, 5, and 6) viable alternatives, due to uncertainty in 
appropriate definition of the stock area and the resulting current 
limitations in the methodology for estimating mortality of PIBKC 
relative to the stock distribution (see discussion in Section 4.2.2 of 
the EA). These alternatives would not have a measurable impact that 
would minimize the bycatch of PIBKC relative to status quo. These 
alternatives could reduce the risk of overfishing, but they would not 
effectively prevent overfishing, consistent with the goals and 
objectives of this action.
    None of the viable alternatives (Alternative 2a, Alternatives 3a 
and 3b, and Alternatives 4a and 4b) could potentially have less of an 
impact on fisheries than the Council's recommended alternative, 2b. 
Table 1-34 in the IRFA (see ADDRESSES) provides a comparison of the 
potential impacts on directly regulated small entities, in terms of 
gross revenue at risk, under each of the alternatives. Based on the 
best available scientific data and information, there are no 
alternatives to the proposed action that have the potential to 
accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and any 
other applicable statutes and that have the potential to minimize any 
significant adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on directly 
regulated small entities.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries.

    Dated: November 20, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 
679 as follows:

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

0
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; 
Public Law 108-447; Public Law 111-241

0
2. In Sec.  679.22, revise paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.22  Closures.

    (a) * * *
    (6) Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Zone. Directed fishing 
for groundfish using trawl gear and directed fishing for Pacific cod 
using pot gear is prohibited at all times in the area defined in Figure 
10 to this part as the Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation Zone.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Figure 10 to part 679--including the Figure heading--to read 
as follows:

[[Page 71349]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02DE14.000

[FR Doc. 2014-28113 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P