Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Establishing Transit Areas Through Walrus Protection Areas at Round Island and Cape Peirce, Northern Bristol Bay, Alaska; Amendment 107, 194-199 [2014-30817]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
194
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6—FINAL 2015 SEASONAL APPORTIONMENTS AND ALLOCATION OF PACIFIC COD TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH
AMOUNTS IN THE GOA; ALLOCATIONS FOR THE WESTERN GOA AND CENTRAL GOA SECTORS AND THE EASTERN
GOA INSHORE AND OFFSHORE PROCESSING COMPONENTS
[Values are rounded to the nearest metric ton and percentages to the nearest 0.01. Seasonal allowances may not total precisely to annual
allocation amount.]
A Season
Regulatory area and sector
Annual allocation
(mt)
Sector % of annual non-jig TAC
B Season
Seasonal allowances (mt)
Sector % of annual non-jig TAC
Seasonal allowances (mt)
Western GOA:
Jig (2.5% of TAC) ...........................
Hook-and-line CV ...........................
Hook-and-line C/P ..........................
Trawl CV .........................................
Trawl C/P ........................................
All Pot CV and Pot C/P ..................
677
370
5,230
10,143
634
10,037
N/A
0.70
10.90
27.70
0.90
19.80
406
185
2,879
7,317
238
5,230
N/A
0.70
8.90
10.70
1.50
18.20
271
185
2,351
2,826
396
4,807
Total .........................................
27,091
60.00
16,255
40.00
10,837
Central GOA:
Jig (2.0% of TAC) ...........................
Hook-and-line <50 CV ....................
Hook-and-line ≥50 CV ....................
Hook-and-line C/P ..........................
Trawl CV .........................................
Trawl C/P ........................................
All Pot CV and Pot C/P ..................
920
6,581
3,023
2,301
18,742
1,892
12,532
N/A
9.32
5.61
4.11
21.14
2.00
17.83
552
4,199
2,528
1,851
9,526
903
8,036
N/A
5.29
1.10
1.00
20.45
2.19
9.97
368
2,383
495
450
9,216
989
4,496
Total .........................................
45,990
60.00
27,594
40.00
18,396
Eastern GOA .........................................
..............................
Inshore (90% of Annual TAC)
Offshore (10% of Annual TAC)
1,909
212
2,121
Note: Seasonal apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Classification
This action responds to the best
available information recently obtained
from the fishery. The Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA
(AA), finds good cause to waive the
requirement to provide prior notice and
opportunity for public comment
pursuant to the authority set forth at 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. This requirement is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest as it would prevent NMFS from
responding to the most recent fisheries
data in a timely fashion and would
allow for harvests that exceed the
appropriate allocations for Pacific cod
based on the best scientific information
available. NMFS was unable to publish
a notice providing time for public
comment because the most recent,
relevant data only became available as
of December 24, 2014, and additional
time for prior public comment would
result in conservation concerns for the
ESA-listed Steller sea lions.
The AA also finds good cause to
waive the 30-day delay in the effective
date of this action under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3). This finding is based upon
the reasons provided above for waiver of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
prior notice and opportunity for public
comment.
Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested
persons are invited to submit written
comments on this action to the above
address until January 16, 2015.
This action is required by § 679.20
and § 679.25 and is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 140519437–4999–02]
RIN 0648–BE24
Dated: December 29, 2014.
James P. Burgess,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Establishing Transit
Areas Through Walrus Protection
Areas at Round Island and Cape
Peirce, Northern Bristol Bay, Alaska;
Amendment 107
[FR Doc. 2014–30835 Filed 12–30–14; 4:15 pm]
AGENCY:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
PO 00000
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to
implement Amendment 107 to the
Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area
(BSAI FMP), as prepared and submitted
by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council), and
approved by the Secretary of Commerce.
This final rule allows vessels designated
on Federal Fisheries Permits (FFPs) to
SUMMARY:
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
transit through Walrus Protection Areas
in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
near Round Island and Cape Peirce from
April 1 through August 15, annually.
These actions are necessary to restore
the access of federally permitted vessels
to transit through Walrus Protection
Areas that was unintentionally limited
by regulations implementing
Amendment 83 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) and to
maintain suitable protection for
walruses on Round Island and Cape
Peirce. This final rule maintains an
existing prohibition on deploying
fishing gear in Walrus Protection Areas
by vessels designated on an FFP. This
final rule is intended to promote the
goals and objectives of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act), the BSAI FMP, and other
applicable law.
DATES:
Effective February 4, 2015.
Electronic copies of the
BSAI FMP, Amendment 107 to the BSAI
FMP, and the Environmental
Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(Analysis) prepared for this action are
available from https://
www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS
Alaska Region Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/
sustainablefisheries/.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Anne Marie Eich, 907–586–7228.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
NMFS
manages the groundfish fisheries in the
EEZ off Alaska under the GOA FMP and
the BSAI FMP. The Council prepared
these FMPs under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq. Regulations governing U.S.
fisheries and implementing the FMPs
appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
This final rule implements
management measures contained in
Amendment 107 to the BSAI FMP. This
final rule allows vessels designated on
FFPs to transit through Walrus
Protection Areas in the EEZ near Round
Island and Cape Peirce from April 1
through August 15, annually.
NMFS published the Notice of
Availability (NOA) of Amendment 107
to the BSAI FMP in the Federal Register
on September 24, 2014, with a 60-day
comment period that ended November
24, 2014 (79 FR 57041). The Secretary
of Commerce approved Amendment 107
to the BSAI FMP on December 19, 2004.
NMFS published a proposed rule to
implement management measures
contained in Amendment 107 to the
BSAI FMP on October 3, 2014 (79 FR
59733). The 30-day comment period on
the proposed rule ended November 3,
2014. NMFS received four comment
letters on Amendment 107 to the BSAI
FMP during the NOA and proposed rule
comment periods. Two comment letters
were duplicates. The comment letters
contained two unique comments. A
summary of these comments and NMFS’
responses are provided in the
‘‘Comments and Responses’’ section of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
195
this preamble. NMFS did not make any
changes in this final rule to the
regulatory text contained in the
proposed rule.
The proposed rule (79 FR 59733,
October 3, 2014) preamble provides
additional information on the
development of the action, the impacts
and effects of the action, and the
Council’s and NMFS’ rationale for the
action. The proposed rule is available
from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site
(see ADDRESSES).
Management Measures Contained in
This Final Rule
This final rule allows vessels
designated on FFPs to enter and transit
through specific areas of the Walrus
Protection Areas near Round Island and
Cape Peirce. This final rule applies to
Federal waters in northern Bristol Bay,
specifically in statistical area 514 of the
BSAI, as shown in Figure 1 to 50 CFR
part 679. This action does not apply in
State of Alaska (State) waters. The State
restricts vessel transit in State waters
around Round Island but not in State
waters elsewhere in the area. All
vessels, including vessels designated on
an FFP, can transit through State waters
around Cape Peirce and The Twins.
This action only affects vessels
designated on an FFP. Vessels that are
not designated on an FFP are not
regulated in the Walrus Protection Areas
and can enter and transit through
Walrus Protection Areas. The transit
areas implemented by this final rule are
shown in Figure 1 below.
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Transit Area Near Round Island
This final rule adds regulations at
§ 679.22(a)(4)(ii) to establish a transit
area through the Walrus Protection Area
near Round Island. This final rule
establishes a transit area in the EEZ near
Round Island from April 1 through
August 15, annually, north of a line
from 58°47.90′ N, 160°21.91′ W to
58°32.94′ N, 159°35.45′ W. (See Figure
1 of this preamble.)
This transit area is at least 3 nm from
Round Island at its closest point and is
more than 9 nm from the haulouts on
The Twins at its closest point. As noted
in Section 3.2.7.2.1 of the Analysis,
there has been no recorded visible
disturbance to walruses from vessel
traffic more than 3 nm from Round
Island, but disturbance from vessel
traffic has been documented within 3
nm from Round Island. This final rule
does not allow vessels designated on an
FFP to transit within 3 nm of Round
Island or The Twins.
This transit area is established to
maintain suitable protection for
walruses on Round Island and to allow
vessels designated on an FFP access to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
a transit route north of Round Island.
NMFS expects this transit area to reduce
the potential for vessels to transit near
Hagemeister Island, a known walrus
haulout, because vessels will be allowed
to transit north of Round Island and to
avoid the route near Hagemeister Island.
This final rule also allows vessels to
transit through Federal waters farther
from shore and thereby reduces transit
through shallower State waters that are
more difficult to navigate.
The transit area near Round Island
opens April 1 to relieve the existing
regulations that prohibit entry and
transit to vessels designated on an FFP
in Walrus Protection Areas on April 1,
the start of peak walrus use in the area.
This transit area closes on August 16
because of the following: (1) The herring
and most salmon fisheries are
completed by August 15, and tender
vessels that are designated on FFPs (i.e.,
vessels used to carry unprocessed fish to
processing facilities) are no longer
active and do not require transit through
Walrus Protection Areas after that date;
(2) vessels transiting to deliver
groundfish in northern Bristol Bay
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
typically have completed their
deliveries by August 15 and do not
require transit through Walrus
Protection Areas after that date; and (3)
limiting vessel transit by August 15 will
reduce vessel traffic near walrus
haulouts that could interfere with
vessels used for the subsistence harvest
of walruses on Round Island that begins
in September of each year. Vessels
designated on FFPs are still prohibited
from entering and transiting through the
Walrus Protection Areas near Round
Island from August 16 through
September 30. NMFS expects that this
prohibition will not adversely affect
vessels designated on FFPs because
tendering operations and groundfish
deliveries in northern Bristol Bay do not
occur between August 16 and
September 30.
Transit Area Near Cape Peirce
This rule adds regulations at
§ 679.22(a)(4)(ii) to establish a transit
areas through the Walrus Protection
Areas at Cape Peirce. This rule
establishes a transit area in the EEZ near
Cape Peirce from April 1 through
August 15, annually, east of a line from
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
ER05JA15.000</GPH>
196
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
58°30.00′ N, 161°46.20′ W to 58°21.00′
N, 161°46.20′ W. (See Figure 1 of this
preamble.) This transit area is at least 3
nm from Cape Peirce at its closest point.
The transit area through the Walrus
Protection Areas near Cape Peirce will
provide an opportunity for vessels with
FFPs to travel farther from shore while
tendering herring or salmon and avoid
transit through State waters near walrus
haulouts at Cape Peirce. NMFS expects,
based on the analyses, that the transit
area will reduce the likelihood of
disturbance to walruses at the Cape
Peirce Walrus Protection Areas.
The transit area will be open from
April 1 through August 15, annually,
consistent with the opening and closing
dates established for the Round Island
transit area. As noted in the previous
section of this preamble, these dates
facilitate vessel transits for tendering
and groundfish deliveries. Vessels
designated on FFPs are still prohibited
from entering and transiting through the
Walrus Protection Areas near Cape
Peirce from August 16 through
September 30. NMFS expects this
prohibition will not adversely affect
vessels designated on FFPs because
tendering operations and groundfish
deliveries in northern Bristol Bay do not
occur between August 16 and
September 30.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Prohibition on Vessels With FFPs
Deploying Fishing Gear in Walrus
Protection Areas
This final rule adds regulations at
§ 679.22(a)(4)(i) (incorrectly identified
in the preamble of the proposed rule as
§ 679.22(a)(4)(ii)) to prohibit vessels
designated on an FFP from deploying
fishing gear in Walrus Protection Areas
from April 1 through September 30,
annually. As noted throughout this
preamble, this rule removes a
prohibition that limits vessels from
entering and transiting through Walrus
Protection Areas. This final rule does
not allow vessels designated on FFPs to
fish in Walrus Protection Areas from
April 1 through September 30, annually.
Section 3.1 of the Analysis explains that
this final rule will not affect the timing,
duration, effort, or harvest levels in the
fisheries in northern Bristol Bay because
this final rule does not open Walrus
Protection Areas to fishing by vessels
designated on an FFP. Because vessels
designated on FFPs are already
prohibited from deploying fishing gear
in Walrus Protection Areas, this
prohibition maintains the status quo
prohibition on deploying fishing gear in
Walrus Protection Areas. Therefore, this
final rule does not affect any existing
fishing operations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
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. Two comment letters
were duplicates. The comment letters
contained two unique comments. A
summary of the comments and NMFS’
response follows.
Comment 1: Commercial fishing
vessels, tourist boats, and transit boats
should not be allowed to transit through
the walrus protected area. This area
should be nominated for a marine
protected area.
Response: As noted in the preamble to
the proposed rule and this preamble, the
purpose of this action is to allow vessels
designated on FFPs to enter and transit
through specific areas of the Walrus
Protection Areas near Round Island and
Cape Peirce. Therefore, not allowing
transit through these areas is
inconsistent with the purpose of this
action. Also, the commenter’s
recommendation to nominate these
areas as marine protected areas is
outside of the scope of this action.
NMFS notes that the Council has
recommended and NMFS has
implemented a series of closure areas,
known as Walrus Protection Areas,
around important walrus haulout sites
in Bristol Bay to reduce potential
disturbances to walruses from fishing
activities.
As noted in Section 3.2.7 of the
Analysis and in the preamble of the
proposed rule (79 FR 59733, October 3,
2014) for this action, all of the
alternative management approaches
considered, and this action specifically,
were determined to be consistent with
the best practices in the guidelines
established by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), the agency
responsible for the protection of
walruses.
Comment 2: Two commenters
provided support for Amendment 107
and its associated implementing
proposed rule for the following reasons:
(1) Fuel use and operating costs would
decrease significantly for vessels
designated on FFPs with the
implementation of this rule by reducing
transit time, (2) vessels designated on
FFPs would be less exposed to weather
by being allowed to transit through the
Walrus Protection Areas, (3) walrus
traveling from Round Island to feeding
grounds in central Bristol Bay are less
likely to encounter vessel traffic if
vessels designated on FFPs can use
alternate transit routes, and (4) vessel
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
197
traffic will decrease near the walrus
haulout on the south end of Hagemeister
Island because vessels designated on
FFPs would be less likely to transit
through this area.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this
comment and agrees with the
commenters’ support of this action.
Additional detail on the effects of this
action on vessel fuel use, exposure to
weather, and vessel traffic are provided
in preamble to the proposed rule and in
Section 3.2 of the Analysis and are not
described further here.
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 107,
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other
applicable laws.
The final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
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.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA)
Section 604 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act requires an agency to
prepare a FRFA after being required by
that section or any other law to publish
a general notice of proposed rulemaking
and when an agency promulgates a final
rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the
U.S. Code.
Section 604 describes the required
contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of
the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
(2) a statement of the significant issues
raised by the public comments in
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
198
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
response to the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, a statement 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 filed by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration in response to
the proposed rule, and a detailed
statement of any change made to the
proposed rule in the final rule as a
result of the comments; (4) a description
of 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.
Need for and Objectives of the Rule
A statement of the need for, and
objectives of, the rule is contained in the
preamble to this final rule and is not
repeated here. This FRFA incorporates
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) and the summary of the
IRFA in the proposed rule (79 FR 59733,
October 3, 2014).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy
Comments on the Proposed Rule
NMFS published the proposed rule on
October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59733). The 30day comment period on the proposed
rule closed on November 3, 2014. An
IRFA was prepared for the
‘‘Classification’’ section of the preamble
to the proposed rule.
NMFS received four letters of public
comment on the proposed rule,
containing a total of two comments. No
comments were received on the IRFA,
or on the small entity impacts of this
action. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration
(SBA) did not file any comments on the
proposed rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
Number and Description of Small
Entities Regulated by the Final Rule
The determination of the number and
description of small entities regulated
by this action 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 that will be directly
regulated by this action are those
businesses that tender herring or salmon
from fisheries to delivery locations in
northern Bristol Bay, and those
businesses that deliver processed
groundfish from the Bering Sea to
locations in northern Bristol Bay.
Vessels tendering herring or salmon are
transporting harvested fish. Because
tender vessel operators enter into
private contracts with herring and
salmon fishing vessel operators to
transport their catch, revenue
information from tenders is not
available. Based on information from
2012, the most recent year of complete
data, a maximum of 64 vessels were
estimated to have operated as tenders in
the herring and salmon fisheries in
northern Bristol Bay. These vessels
could have been designated on an FFP
and could be affected by this action.
Because no revenue information is
available on these vessels, each of these
vessels was assumed to be a small
entity.
Based on information from 2012, the
most recent year of complete data, a
maximum of 6 vessels were estimated to
have delivered processed groundfish to
locations in northern Bristol Bay. These
vessels could have been designated on
an FFP and could be affected by this
action. All of these vessels were
affiliated through common management
under cooperative fishing arrangements.
These affiliated vessels had ex-vessel
annual revenues in 2012 that exceeded
the annual revenue limit of $20.5
million used by the SBA to define a
small entity harvesting or processing
groundfish (79 FR 33647, June 12,
2014). Therefore, these vessels are
considered to be large entities.
Recordkeeping, Reporting, and
Compliance Requirements
This action will not change existing
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Description of Significant Alternatives
to the Final Action That Minimize
Adverse Impacts on Small Entities
A FRFA must describe 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 that affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.
The FRFA considered three alternatives.
Alternative 1, the no action (status
quo) alternative, would maintain the
existing closures between 3 and 12 nm
around Round Island and Cape Peirce,
and would not allow vessels designated
on an FFP to transit these areas.
Therefore, Alternative 1 represents the
most restrictive alternative considered
and the alternative with the highest
potential cost to regulated small entities.
Alternative 2 would establish a transit
area through the existing Walrus
Protection Areas near Round Island.
Alternative 2 also included three
options, Options 1, 2, and 3 to allow the
closest point of the transit area to be
within 3 nm, 4.5 nm, and 6 nm from
Round Island, respectively.
Alternative 3 would establish a transit
area through Walrus Protection Areas
near Cape Peirce.
The alternatives analyzed but not
selected are Alternative 1 (status quo, do
not allow transit through the protection
areas) and Alternative 2, Options 2 and
3. All of these alternatives and options
are more restrictive than the Council’s
preferred alternatives, which are
implemented by this final rule. The
Council’s preferred alternatives and the
actions implemented by this final rule
are Alternative 2, Option 1 and
Alternative 3. Alternative 2, Option 1
allows vessels to transit closer to Round
Island than Alternative 2, Option 2 and
Alternative 2, Option 3. Therefore,
Alternative 2, Option 1 is the least
restrictive of the three options under
Alternative 2. Alternative 3 provides a
seasonal transit area around Cape
Peirce. This final rule represents the
alternatives that minimize the potential
cost to directly regulated small entities.
The boundaries farther from Round
Island (Options 2 and 3) may
incrementally reduce the potential for
disturbance to walruses on Round
Island (see Section 3.2.7 of the
Analysis), but are not likely to
significantly affect the distances
traveled as vessels with FFPs transit the
protected area. The differences in transit
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
time or fuel costs are not likely to be
significantly different between these
options. As noted in Section 3.2.7.2.1 of
the Analysis, there has been no recorded
visible disturbance to walruses from
vessel traffic more than 3 nm from
Round Island.
The Council also considered
rescinding the protection areas around
Round Island and Cape Peirce for all or
a portion of the year, eliminating the
barriers to transiting the Walrus
Protection Areas. Rescission of the
protection areas would reduce costs to
regulated small entities more than this
action. However, these alternatives were
not analyzed because they do not meet
the purpose and need of the action to
maintain protection of walruses in these
important haulout sites.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Tribal Consultation
E.O. 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25
U.S.C. 450 note), the Executive
Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25
U.S.C. 450 note), the American Indian
and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S.
Department of Commerce (March 30,
1995), and the Department of Commerce
Tribal Consultation and Coordination
policy (78 FR 33331, June 4, 2013)
outline the responsibilities of NMFS for
Federal policies that have tribal
implications. Section 161 of Public Law
108–199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by
section 518 of Public Law 109–447 (118
Stat. 3267), extends the consultation
requirements of E.O. 13175 to Alaska
Native corporations. Under the E.O. and
agency policies, NMFS must ensure
meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials and representatives of Alaska
Native corporations in the development
of regulatory policies that have tribal
implications. NMFS provided a copy of
the proposed rule to the federally
recognized tribes and Alaska Native
corporations in the Bristol Bay area to
notify them of the opportunity to
comment or request a consultation on
this action.
Section 5(b)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175
requires NMFS to prepare a ‘‘tribal
summary impact statement’’ for any
regulation that has tribal implications,
that imposes substantial direct
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:47 Jan 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments, and is not required by
statute. The tribal summary impact
statement must contain (1) a description
of the extent of the agency’s prior
consultation with tribal officials, (2) a
summary of the nature of their concerns,
(3) the agency’s position supporting the
need to issue the regulation, and (4) a
statement of the extent to which the
concerns of tribal officials have been
met.
Tribal Summary Impact Statement
Pursuant to E.O. 13175, NMFS mailed
letters to approximately 162 federally
recognized tribes and Alaska Native
corporations in the Bristol Bay area
providing information about
Amendment 107 and the proposed rule.
The letter invited comments and
requests for consultation on this action.
NMFS received no requests for
consultation. This final rule is needed to
restore the access of federally permitted
vessels to transit through Walrus
Protection Areas that was limited by
regulations implementing Amendment
83 to the GOA FMP and to maintain
suitable protection for walruses on
Round Island and Cape Peirce. During
the development of this action, the
Council communicated with the
USFWS and the Qayassiq Walrus
Commission to avoid adverse impacts to
walruses from this action. As noted in
Section 3.2.7 of the Analysis and
discussed in the preamble of the
proposed rule for this action, all of the
alternative management approaches
considered, and this action specifically,
were determined to be consistent with
the best practices in the guidelines
established by USFWS, the agency
responsible for the protection of
walruses.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries.
Dated: December 30, 2014.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
For reasons set out in the preamble,
50 CFR part 679 is amended as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
199
PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF
ALASKA
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.; Pub. L. 108–447; Pub. L.
111–281.
2. In § 679.22, revise paragraph (a)(4)
to read as follows:
■
§ 679.22
Closures.
(a) * * *
(4) Walrus protection areas. (i) From
April 1 through September 30 of each
calendar year, vessels designated on a
Federal fisheries permit issued under
§ 679.4 are prohibited from deploying
fishing gear in that part of the Bering
Sea subarea between 3 and 12 nm
seaward of the baseline used to measure
the territorial sea around islands named
Round Island and The Twins, as shown
on National Ocean Survey Chart 16315,
and around Cape Peirce (58°33′ N. lat.,
161°43′ W. long.).
(ii) From April 1 through September
30 of each calendar year, vessels
designated on a Federal fisheries permit
issued under § 679.4 are prohibited in
that part of the Bering Sea subarea
between 3 and 12 nm seaward of the
baseline used to measure the territorial
sea around islands named Round Island
and The Twins, as shown on National
Ocean Survey Chart 16315, and around
Cape Peirce (58°33′ N. lat., 161°43′ W.
long.), except that from April 1 through
August 15 of each calendar year vessels
designated on a Federal fisheries permit
are not prohibited from entering and
transiting through waters off:
(A) Round Island, north of a straight
line connecting 58°47.90′ N. lat./
160°21.91′ W. long., and 58°32.94′ N.
lat./159°35.45′ W. long.; and
(B) Cape Peirce, east of a straight line
connecting 58°30.00′ N. lat./161°46.20′
W. long., and 58°21.00′ N. lat./
161°46.20′ W. long.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–30817 Filed 1–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\05JAR1.SGM
05JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 194-199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30817]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 140519437-4999-02]
RIN 0648-BE24
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Establishing
Transit Areas Through Walrus Protection Areas at Round Island and Cape
Peirce, Northern Bristol Bay, Alaska; Amendment 107
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 107 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP), as prepared and submitted by the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and approved by the
Secretary of Commerce. This final rule allows vessels designated on
Federal Fisheries Permits (FFPs) to
[[Page 195]]
transit through Walrus Protection Areas in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) near Round Island and Cape Peirce from April 1 through August 15,
annually. These actions are necessary to restore the access of
federally permitted vessels to transit through Walrus Protection Areas
that was unintentionally limited by regulations implementing Amendment
83 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska
(GOA FMP) and to maintain suitable protection for walruses on Round
Island and Cape Peirce. This final rule maintains an existing
prohibition on deploying fishing gear in Walrus Protection Areas by
vessels designated on an FFP. This final rule 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 law.
DATES: Effective February 4, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the BSAI FMP, Amendment 107 to the BSAI
FMP, and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) prepared for this action are
available from https://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska
Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Marie Eich, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the
EEZ off Alaska under the GOA FMP and the BSAI FMP. The Council prepared
these FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C.
1801, et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the
FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
This final rule implements management measures contained in
Amendment 107 to the BSAI FMP. This final rule allows vessels
designated on FFPs to transit through Walrus Protection Areas in the
EEZ near Round Island and Cape Peirce from April 1 through August 15,
annually.
NMFS published the Notice of Availability (NOA) of Amendment 107 to
the BSAI FMP in the Federal Register on September 24, 2014, with a 60-
day comment period that ended November 24, 2014 (79 FR 57041). The
Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 107 to the BSAI FMP on
December 19, 2004. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement
management measures contained in Amendment 107 to the BSAI FMP on
October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59733). The 30-day comment period on the
proposed rule ended November 3, 2014. NMFS received four comment
letters on Amendment 107 to the BSAI FMP during the NOA and proposed
rule comment periods. Two comment letters were duplicates. The comment
letters contained two unique comments. A summary of these comments and
NMFS' responses are provided in the ``Comments and Responses'' section
of this preamble. NMFS did not make any changes in this final rule to
the regulatory text contained in the proposed rule.
The proposed rule (79 FR 59733, October 3, 2014) preamble provides
additional information on the development of the action, the impacts
and effects of the action, and the Council's and NMFS' rationale for
the action. The proposed rule is available from the NMFS Alaska Region
Web site (see ADDRESSES).
Management Measures Contained in This Final Rule
This final rule allows vessels designated on FFPs to enter and
transit through specific areas of the Walrus Protection Areas near
Round Island and Cape Peirce. This final rule applies to Federal waters
in northern Bristol Bay, specifically in statistical area 514 of the
BSAI, as shown in Figure 1 to 50 CFR part 679. This action does not
apply in State of Alaska (State) waters. The State restricts vessel
transit in State waters around Round Island but not in State waters
elsewhere in the area. All vessels, including vessels designated on an
FFP, can transit through State waters around Cape Peirce and The Twins.
This action only affects vessels designated on an FFP. Vessels that are
not designated on an FFP are not regulated in the Walrus Protection
Areas and can enter and transit through Walrus Protection Areas. The
transit areas implemented by this final rule are shown in Figure 1
below.
[[Page 196]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA15.000
Transit Area Near Round Island
This final rule adds regulations at Sec. 679.22(a)(4)(ii) to
establish a transit area through the Walrus Protection Area near Round
Island. This final rule establishes a transit area in the EEZ near
Round Island from April 1 through August 15, annually, north of a line
from 58[deg]47.90' N, 160[deg]21.91' W to 58[deg]32.94' N,
159[deg]35.45' W. (See Figure 1 of this preamble.)
This transit area is at least 3 nm from Round Island at its closest
point and is more than 9 nm from the haulouts on The Twins at its
closest point. As noted in Section 3.2.7.2.1 of the Analysis, there has
been no recorded visible disturbance to walruses from vessel traffic
more than 3 nm from Round Island, but disturbance from vessel traffic
has been documented within 3 nm from Round Island. This final rule does
not allow vessels designated on an FFP to transit within 3 nm of Round
Island or The Twins.
This transit area is established to maintain suitable protection
for walruses on Round Island and to allow vessels designated on an FFP
access to a transit route north of Round Island. NMFS expects this
transit area to reduce the potential for vessels to transit near
Hagemeister Island, a known walrus haulout, because vessels will be
allowed to transit north of Round Island and to avoid the route near
Hagemeister Island. This final rule also allows vessels to transit
through Federal waters farther from shore and thereby reduces transit
through shallower State waters that are more difficult to navigate.
The transit area near Round Island opens April 1 to relieve the
existing regulations that prohibit entry and transit to vessels
designated on an FFP in Walrus Protection Areas on April 1, the start
of peak walrus use in the area. This transit area closes on August 16
because of the following: (1) The herring and most salmon fisheries are
completed by August 15, and tender vessels that are designated on FFPs
(i.e., vessels used to carry unprocessed fish to processing facilities)
are no longer active and do not require transit through Walrus
Protection Areas after that date; (2) vessels transiting to deliver
groundfish in northern Bristol Bay typically have completed their
deliveries by August 15 and do not require transit through Walrus
Protection Areas after that date; and (3) limiting vessel transit by
August 15 will reduce vessel traffic near walrus haulouts that could
interfere with vessels used for the subsistence harvest of walruses on
Round Island that begins in September of each year. Vessels designated
on FFPs are still prohibited from entering and transiting through the
Walrus Protection Areas near Round Island from August 16 through
September 30. NMFS expects that this prohibition will not adversely
affect vessels designated on FFPs because tendering operations and
groundfish deliveries in northern Bristol Bay do not occur between
August 16 and September 30.
Transit Area Near Cape Peirce
This rule adds regulations at Sec. 679.22(a)(4)(ii) to establish a
transit areas through the Walrus Protection Areas at Cape Peirce. This
rule establishes a transit area in the EEZ near Cape Peirce from April
1 through August 15, annually, east of a line from
[[Page 197]]
58[deg]30.00' N, 161[deg]46.20' W to 58[deg]21.00' N, 161[deg]46.20' W.
(See Figure 1 of this preamble.) This transit area is at least 3 nm
from Cape Peirce at its closest point.
The transit area through the Walrus Protection Areas near Cape
Peirce will provide an opportunity for vessels with FFPs to travel
farther from shore while tendering herring or salmon and avoid transit
through State waters near walrus haulouts at Cape Peirce. NMFS expects,
based on the analyses, that the transit area will reduce the likelihood
of disturbance to walruses at the Cape Peirce Walrus Protection Areas.
The transit area will be open from April 1 through August 15,
annually, consistent with the opening and closing dates established for
the Round Island transit area. As noted in the previous section of this
preamble, these dates facilitate vessel transits for tendering and
groundfish deliveries. Vessels designated on FFPs are still prohibited
from entering and transiting through the Walrus Protection Areas near
Cape Peirce from August 16 through September 30. NMFS expects this
prohibition will not adversely affect vessels designated on FFPs
because tendering operations and groundfish deliveries in northern
Bristol Bay do not occur between August 16 and September 30.
Prohibition on Vessels With FFPs Deploying Fishing Gear in Walrus
Protection Areas
This final rule adds regulations at Sec. 679.22(a)(4)(i)
(incorrectly identified in the preamble of the proposed rule as Sec.
679.22(a)(4)(ii)) to prohibit vessels designated on an FFP from
deploying fishing gear in Walrus Protection Areas from April 1 through
September 30, annually. As noted throughout this preamble, this rule
removes a prohibition that limits vessels from entering and transiting
through Walrus Protection Areas. This final rule does not allow vessels
designated on FFPs to fish in Walrus Protection Areas from April 1
through September 30, annually. Section 3.1 of the Analysis explains
that this final rule will not affect the timing, duration, effort, or
harvest levels in the fisheries in northern Bristol Bay because this
final rule does not open Walrus Protection Areas to fishing by vessels
designated on an FFP. Because vessels designated on FFPs are already
prohibited from deploying fishing gear in Walrus Protection Areas, this
prohibition maintains the status quo prohibition on deploying fishing
gear in Walrus Protection Areas. Therefore, this final rule does not
affect any existing fishing operations.
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. Two comment letters were duplicates. The comment
letters contained two unique comments. A summary of the comments and
NMFS' response follows.
Comment 1: Commercial fishing vessels, tourist boats, and transit
boats should not be allowed to transit through the walrus protected
area. This area should be nominated for a marine protected area.
Response: As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule and this
preamble, the purpose of this action is to allow vessels designated on
FFPs to enter and transit through specific areas of the Walrus
Protection Areas near Round Island and Cape Peirce. Therefore, not
allowing transit through these areas is inconsistent with the purpose
of this action. Also, the commenter's recommendation to nominate these
areas as marine protected areas is outside of the scope of this action.
NMFS notes that the Council has recommended and NMFS has
implemented a series of closure areas, known as Walrus Protection
Areas, around important walrus haulout sites in Bristol Bay to reduce
potential disturbances to walruses from fishing activities.
As noted in Section 3.2.7 of the Analysis and in the preamble of
the proposed rule (79 FR 59733, October 3, 2014) for this action, all
of the alternative management approaches considered, and this action
specifically, were determined to be consistent with the best practices
in the guidelines established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the agency responsible for the protection of walruses.
Comment 2: Two commenters provided support for Amendment 107 and
its associated implementing proposed rule for the following reasons:
(1) Fuel use and operating costs would decrease significantly for
vessels designated on FFPs with the implementation of this rule by
reducing transit time, (2) vessels designated on FFPs would be less
exposed to weather by being allowed to transit through the Walrus
Protection Areas, (3) walrus traveling from Round Island to feeding
grounds in central Bristol Bay are less likely to encounter vessel
traffic if vessels designated on FFPs can use alternate transit routes,
and (4) vessel traffic will decrease near the walrus haulout on the
south end of Hagemeister Island because vessels designated on FFPs
would be less likely to transit through this area.
Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment and agrees with the
commenters' support of this action. Additional detail on the effects of
this action on vessel fuel use, exposure to weather, and vessel traffic
are provided in preamble to the proposed rule and in Section 3.2 of the
Analysis and are not described further here.
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 107, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable
laws.
The final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
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.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to
prepare a FRFA after being required by that section or any other law to
publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking and when an agency
promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code.
Section 604 describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) A
statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; (2) a statement
of the significant issues raised by the public comments in
[[Page 198]]
response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement 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 filed by the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the
proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a
description of 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.
Need for and Objectives of the Rule
A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule is
contained in the preamble to this final rule and is not repeated here.
This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) and the summary of the IRFA in the proposed rule (79 FR 59733,
October 3, 2014).
Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy Comments on the Proposed Rule
NMFS published the proposed rule on October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59733).
The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule closed on November 3,
2014. An IRFA was prepared for the ``Classification'' section of the
preamble to the proposed rule.
NMFS received four letters of public comment on the proposed rule,
containing a total of two comments. No comments were received on the
IRFA, or on the small entity impacts of this action. The Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) did not file
any comments on the proposed rule.
Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by the Final Rule
The determination of the number and description of small entities
regulated by this action 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 that will be directly regulated by this action are
those businesses that tender herring or salmon from fisheries to
delivery locations in northern Bristol Bay, and those businesses that
deliver processed groundfish from the Bering Sea to locations in
northern Bristol Bay. Vessels tendering herring or salmon are
transporting harvested fish. Because tender vessel operators enter into
private contracts with herring and salmon fishing vessel operators to
transport their catch, revenue information from tenders is not
available. Based on information from 2012, the most recent year of
complete data, a maximum of 64 vessels were estimated to have operated
as tenders in the herring and salmon fisheries in northern Bristol Bay.
These vessels could have been designated on an FFP and could be
affected by this action. Because no revenue information is available on
these vessels, each of these vessels was assumed to be a small entity.
Based on information from 2012, the most recent year of complete
data, a maximum of 6 vessels were estimated to have delivered processed
groundfish to locations in northern Bristol Bay. These vessels could
have been designated on an FFP and could be affected by this action.
All of these vessels were affiliated through common management under
cooperative fishing arrangements. These affiliated vessels had ex-
vessel annual revenues in 2012 that exceeded the annual revenue limit
of $20.5 million used by the SBA to define a small entity harvesting or
processing groundfish (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). Therefore, these
vessels are considered to be large entities.
Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Compliance Requirements
This action will not change existing reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements.
Description of Significant Alternatives to the Final Action That
Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities
A FRFA must describe 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 that affect the
impact on small entities was rejected. The FRFA considered three
alternatives.
Alternative 1, the no action (status quo) alternative, would
maintain the existing closures between 3 and 12 nm around Round Island
and Cape Peirce, and would not allow vessels designated on an FFP to
transit these areas. Therefore, Alternative 1 represents the most
restrictive alternative considered and the alternative with the highest
potential cost to regulated small entities.
Alternative 2 would establish a transit area through the existing
Walrus Protection Areas near Round Island. Alternative 2 also included
three options, Options 1, 2, and 3 to allow the closest point of the
transit area to be within 3 nm, 4.5 nm, and 6 nm from Round Island,
respectively.
Alternative 3 would establish a transit area through Walrus
Protection Areas near Cape Peirce.
The alternatives analyzed but not selected are Alternative 1
(status quo, do not allow transit through the protection areas) and
Alternative 2, Options 2 and 3. All of these alternatives and options
are more restrictive than the Council's preferred alternatives, which
are implemented by this final rule. The Council's preferred
alternatives and the actions implemented by this final rule are
Alternative 2, Option 1 and Alternative 3. Alternative 2, Option 1
allows vessels to transit closer to Round Island than Alternative 2,
Option 2 and Alternative 2, Option 3. Therefore, Alternative 2, Option
1 is the least restrictive of the three options under Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 provides a seasonal transit area around Cape Peirce. This
final rule represents the alternatives that minimize the potential cost
to directly regulated small entities. The boundaries farther from Round
Island (Options 2 and 3) may incrementally reduce the potential for
disturbance to walruses on Round Island (see Section 3.2.7 of the
Analysis), but are not likely to significantly affect the distances
traveled as vessels with FFPs transit the protected area. The
differences in transit
[[Page 199]]
time or fuel costs are not likely to be significantly different between
these options. As noted in Section 3.2.7.2.1 of the Analysis, there has
been no recorded visible disturbance to walruses from vessel traffic
more than 3 nm from Round Island.
The Council also considered rescinding the protection areas around
Round Island and Cape Peirce for all or a portion of the year,
eliminating the barriers to transiting the Walrus Protection Areas.
Rescission of the protection areas would reduce costs to regulated
small entities more than this action. However, these alternatives were
not analyzed because they do not meet the purpose and need of the
action to maintain protection of walruses in these important haulout
sites.
Tribal Consultation
E.O. 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the Executive
Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the American Indian
and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department of Commerce (March 30,
1995), and the Department of Commerce Tribal Consultation and
Coordination policy (78 FR 33331, June 4, 2013) outline the
responsibilities of NMFS for Federal policies that have tribal
implications. Section 161 of Public Law 108-199 (188 Stat. 452), as
amended by section 518 of Public Law 109-447 (118 Stat. 3267), extends
the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 to Alaska Native
corporations. Under the E.O. and agency policies, NMFS must ensure
meaningful and timely input by tribal officials and representatives of
Alaska Native corporations in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications. NMFS provided a copy of the proposed
rule to the federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native corporations
in the Bristol Bay area to notify them of the opportunity to comment or
request a consultation on this action.
Section 5(b)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 requires NMFS to prepare a
``tribal summary impact statement'' for any regulation that has tribal
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal governments, and is not required by statute. The tribal
summary impact statement must contain (1) a description of the extent
of the agency's prior consultation with tribal officials, (2) a summary
of the nature of their concerns, (3) the agency's position supporting
the need to issue the regulation, and (4) a statement of the extent to
which the concerns of tribal officials have been met.
Tribal Summary Impact Statement
Pursuant to E.O. 13175, NMFS mailed letters to approximately 162
federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native corporations in the
Bristol Bay area providing information about Amendment 107 and the
proposed rule. The letter invited comments and requests for
consultation on this action. NMFS received no requests for
consultation. This final rule is needed to restore the access of
federally permitted vessels to transit through Walrus Protection Areas
that was limited by regulations implementing Amendment 83 to the GOA
FMP and to maintain suitable protection for walruses on Round Island
and Cape Peirce. During the development of this action, the Council
communicated with the USFWS and the Qayassiq Walrus Commission to avoid
adverse impacts to walruses from this action. As noted in Section 3.2.7
of the Analysis and discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule for
this action, all of the alternative management approaches considered,
and this action specifically, were determined to be consistent with the
best practices in the guidelines established by USFWS, the agency
responsible for the protection of walruses.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
Alaska, Fisheries.
Dated: December 30, 2014.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended 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.;
Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.
0
2. In Sec. 679.22, revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 679.22 Closures.
(a) * * *
(4) Walrus protection areas. (i) From April 1 through September 30
of each calendar year, vessels designated on a Federal fisheries permit
issued under Sec. 679.4 are prohibited from deploying fishing gear in
that part of the Bering Sea subarea between 3 and 12 nm seaward of the
baseline used to measure the territorial sea around islands named Round
Island and The Twins, as shown on National Ocean Survey Chart 16315,
and around Cape Peirce (58[deg]33' N. lat., 161[deg]43' W. long.).
(ii) From April 1 through September 30 of each calendar year,
vessels designated on a Federal fisheries permit issued under Sec.
679.4 are prohibited in that part of the Bering Sea subarea between 3
and 12 nm seaward of the baseline used to measure the territorial sea
around islands named Round Island and The Twins, as shown on National
Ocean Survey Chart 16315, and around Cape Peirce (58[deg]33' N. lat.,
161[deg]43' W. long.), except that from April 1 through August 15 of
each calendar year vessels designated on a Federal fisheries permit are
not prohibited from entering and transiting through waters off:
(A) Round Island, north of a straight line connecting 58[deg]47.90'
N. lat./160[deg]21.91' W. long., and 58[deg]32.94' N. lat./
159[deg]35.45' W. long.; and
(B) Cape Peirce, east of a straight line connecting 58[deg]30.00'
N. lat./161[deg]46.20' W. long., and 58[deg]21.00' N. lat./
161[deg]46.20' W. long.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-30817 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
