Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur Seals on the Pribilof Islands, 40192-40211 [2018-17117]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40192-40211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17117]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 216

[Docket No. 170908881-8680-01]
RIN 0648-BH25


Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur Seals on the Pribilof Islands

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to modify the subsistence use regulations for 
the Eastern Pacific stock of northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) 
in response to a petition from the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island, 
Tribal Government (ACSPI). The Fur Seal Act (FSA) prohibits all taking 
of northern fur seals except in accordance with regulations authorizing 
Alaska Natives who reside on the Pribilof Islands (Pribilovians) to 
take northern fur seals for subsistence uses in compliance with a 
number of explicit regulatory restrictions. The proposed rule would 
simplify the existing regulations and would enable Pribilovians on St. 
Paul Island to resume traditional cultural practices that are 
prohibited by existing regulations, with no adverse consequences to 
northern fur seals at the population level. The proposed rule would 
streamline and simplify the regulations and otherwise eliminate several 
duplicative and unnecessary regulations governing St. Paul and St. 
George Islands.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than September 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2017-0117 by either of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0117, click the 
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or 
attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Jon Kurland, Assistant 
Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, Alaska Region NMFS, 
Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 
99802-1668.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, 
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender 
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter 
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
    A 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Setting Annual 
Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur Seals on the Pribilof Islands 
(EIS), 2014 Final Supplemental EIS for Management of Subsistence 
Harvest of Northern Fur Seals on St. George Island (SEIS), and 2017 
Draft Supplemental EIS for Management of Subsistence Harvest of 
Northern Fur Seals on St. Paul Island (DSEIS) are available on the 
internet at the following address under the NEPA Analyses tab: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/fur-seal.
    Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) prepared 
for this proposed action are available at: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/fur-seal.
    A list of all the references cited in this proposed rule may be 
found on www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/fur.htm.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by 
email to Error! Hyperlink reference not 
valid.[email protected], or fax to (202) 395-5806.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Williams, NMFS Alaska Region, 
(907) 271-5117, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    St. Paul Island and St. George Island are remote islands located in 
the Bering Sea populated by Alaska Native residents who rely upon 
marine mammals as a major food source and cornerstone of their culture. 
The taking of North Pacific fur seals (northern fur seals) is 
prohibited by the FSA unless expressly authorized by the Secretary of 
Commerce through regulation. Pursuant to the FSA (16 U.S.C. 1151-1175), 
it is unlawful, except as provided in the chapter or by regulation of 
the Secretary of Commerce, for any person or vessel subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United

[[Page 40193]]

States to engage in the taking of fur seals in the North Pacific Ocean 
or on lands or waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. (16 
U.S.C. 1152). Section 105(a) of the FSA authorizes the promulgation of 
regulations with respect to the taking of fur seals on the Pribilof 
Islands as the Secretary of Commerce deems necessary and appropriate 
for the conservation, management, and protection of the fur seal 
population (16 U.S.C. 1155(a)). Regulations issued under the authority 
of the Fur Seal Act authorize Pribilovians to take fur seals on the 
Pribilof Islands if such taking is for subsistence uses and not 
accomplished in a wasteful manner (50 CFR 216.71).
    The residents of St. Paul are currently authorized by regulations 
under the FSA Section 105 (16 U.S.C. 1155) to harvest male fur seals 
124.5 cm or less in length for subsistence uses each year from June 23 
until August 8 using traditional methods (50 CFR 216.72(e)). The 
residents of St. George are currently authorized to harvest male fur 
seals 124.5 cm or less in length for subsistence use each year from 
June 23 to August 8. The residents of St. George are also authorized to 
harvest male young of the year each year from September 16 through 
November 30 (50 CFR 216.72(d)).
    For both Islands, the number of fur seals authorized to be 
harvested annually is currently established every three years, in 
accordance with 50 CFR 216.72(b), based on an estimate of the number of 
fur seals expected to satisfy the Pribilovians' subsistence 
requirements (e.g., 82 FR 39044, August 17, 2017). Prior to 1985, the 
subsistence needs of the Pribilovians were met by utilization of the 
meat from the carcasses remaining after the commercial harvest for 
skins, which occurred from 1911 to 1984 (Veltre and Veltre 1987). After 
the end of the commercial harvest, the Pribilovians were prohibited 
from taking northern fur seals for subsistence uses in the absence of 
regulation promulgated under Section 105(a) of the FSA. NMFS 
promulgated the emergency interim rule for subsistence use of northern 
fur seals by Pribilovians in 1985 (50 FR 27914, July 8, 1985) and the 
emergency final rule for subsistence use of northern fur seals by 
Pribilovians in 1986 (51 FR 24828, July 9, 1986). The history of 
subsequent regulatory revisions can be found in the DSEIS for the 
management of the subsistence harvest of northern fur seals on St. Paul 
Island, Alaska, and in the 2014 SEIS for management of subsistence 
harvest of northern fur seals on St. George Island, Alaska (see 
ADDRESSES).
    Northern fur seals were killed for their skins for at least 200 
years on the Pribilof Islands (Scheffer et al., 1984, and NMFS 2007). 
Northern fur seal population trends are most closely related to the 
number of females because a single territorial adult male inseminates 
multiple reproductive females. Thus, the number of males in the 
population is much less important to the stability of the population. 
This understanding of population dynamics provided the basis for the 
commercial harvest levels established under the FSA (Scheffer et al., 
1984). Gentry (1998) and NMFS (2007) summarized the extensive research 
on the direct and indirect effects of the commercial harvest on fur 
seal behavior and the population. NMFS has examined the abundance and 
trend of the population compared to the number of sub-adult male fur 
seals killed or harassed during the historical commercial harvest and 
later subsistence harvests. The harvest management and intensity of 
harvest changed drastically during the transition to subsistence use on 
St. George. Seals were harvested commercially five days a week during 
the month of July from all haulout areas through 1972, all harvests 
were prohibited from 1973-1975, and then, beginning in 1976, no more 
than four subsistence harvests were allowed per week from one or two 
haulout areas for a total of less than 300 sub-adult males harvested 
per year. The subsistence harvest beginning in 1976 took less than 
three percent of the average commercial harvest and did not change the 
population trend on St. George Island, indicating that the take of sub-
adult males did not measurably affect the production of pups, 
distribution of seals, or other indices of the population (Gentry 
1998).
    Likewise, the transition from the commercial harvest to the 
subsistence harvest on St. Paul Island after 1984 indicated the 
subsistence harvests of sub-adult male fur seals did not adversely 
impact the production of pups, distribution of seals, or other indices 
of the population. The average number of sub-adult males killed 
annually in the subsistence harvest on St. Paul Island (an average of 
924 fur seals annually over the period of 1985 to 2016) is less than 4 
percent of the average number of males killed annually during the 
commercial harvest (25,176 fur seals from 1975 to 1984). The abrupt 
reduction from commercial harvest levels to subsistence harvest levels 
did not result in a corresponding change in the estimates of the number 
of pups born on St. Paul Island.
    If the harvest of sub-adult males had an adverse effect on the fur 
seal population, NMFS would have expected to observe a change in 
estimated production of pups on St. Paul following the end of the 
commercial harvest in 1984. NMFS did not observe a statistically 
significant change in the estimate of pup production until after 1994. 
Thus, for both St. Paul and St. George Islands, when the harvest of 
sub-adult males was reduced by over 90 percent, there was no change in 
the trend of number of pups born, regardless of whether the underlying 
population trend was declining (as on St. George Island) or stable (as 
on St. Paul Island). Therefore, NMFS concluded in the 2014 St. George 
SEIS and the 2017 St. Paul DSEIS that subsistence harvest mortality of 
sub-adult male fur seals has not contributed to a detectable change in 
the population trends since the implementation of the subsistence use 
regulations. NMFS also assumes that some level of harassment occurs 
during the subsistence take of fur seals. NMFS analyzed the impact of 
harassment on non-harvested seals and concluded in the 2014 St. George 
SEIS and the 2017 St. Paul DSEIS that harassment associated with 
subsistence take would have minor short-term energetic effects on those 
seals.
    Further, NMFS (2014, 2017), Fowler et al. (2009), and Towell and 
Williams (2014, unpublished) analyzed the direct mortality and 
harassment associated with authorizing the Pribilovians to take male 
pups for subsistence uses. Based on our understanding of fur seal 
ecology and modeling the response of the population to subsistence 
mortality of pups, these analyses conclude that the mortality of male 
pups results in fewer population consequences than a similar harvest of 
males older than two years because pups have a high level of natural 
mortality after weaning. NMFS therefore does not expect a detectable 
change in population trends from future subsistence harvests authorized 
under this proposed rule of up to 500 sub-adult male fur seals 124.5 cm 
or less in length (i.e., sub-adult) on St. George (of which up to 3 may 
be female fur seals and of which up to 150 may be male pups authorized 
for harvest in 50 CFR 216.72(d)(6)-(d)(10)), which would continue the 
currently authorized methods and level of subsistence use. NMFS also 
does not expect a detectable change in population trends from future 
subsistence use authorized under this proposed rule of up to 2,000 
juvenile fur seals on St. Paul (of which any number may be pups, but of 
the 2,000 authorized for subsistence use only up

[[Page 40194]]

to 20 may be female fur seals), which would continue the currently 
authorized level of subsistence use and modify methods and seasons, as 
explained further below.
    For St. George Island, NMFS will continue to use the term ``sub-
adult'' to refer to those fur seals authorized for subsistence use in 
the sub-adult season (50 CFR 216.72(d)(1) through (5)) and will 
continue to use the term ``young of the year'' to refer to those fur 
seals authorized for subsistence use in the male young of the year 
season (50 CFR 216.72(d)(6) through (10)). For St. Paul, NMFS proposes 
to authorize in 50 CFR 216.72(e) take by hunt and harvest of juvenile 
male fur seals, and NMFS proposes to define juvenile as non-breeding 
male fur seals less than seven years old (i.e., including pups).

Petition for Rulemaking To Change Management on St. Paul Island

    The process to change subsistence use management of northern fur 
seals on St. Paul Island began on February 16, 2007, with the receipt 
of tribal resolution 2007-09 from ACSPI. In that resolution, ACSPI 
requested NMFS immediately start the process to impose a moratorium on 
the regulations at 50 CFR 216, Subpart F or revise the regulations. On 
May 7, 2007, NMFS determined that an immediate moratorium was not 
warranted and that the co-management process described in the agreement 
between NMFS and ACSPI was the best means to determine what regulatory 
changes were needed to allow the community to meet its subsistence 
needs while continuing to promote the conservation of northern fur 
seals on St. Paul Island consistent with the MMPA and FSA.
    On October 21, 2009, ACSPI submitted resolution 2009-57 with 
supporting information to NMFS as a basis to modify the regulations 
governing the subsistence use of northern fur seals on St. Paul Island. 
NMFS evaluated the resolution and worked with ACSPI over the next two 
years to clarify details of the request and supporting documents. Based 
on those clarifications, NMFS determined that there was adequate 
information to publish a notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking 
and opportunity for public comment under the Administrative Procedure 
Act (77 FR 41168; July 12, 2012). ACSPI subsequently approved 
resolution 2015-04, amending resolution 2009-57 to assist NMFS to 
respond to comments received on the petition. NMFS then published a 
Notice of Intent to prepare an SEIS to evaluate alternatives to 
managing the subsistence use of northern fur seals on St. Paul Island 
(80 FR 44057; July 24, 2015), and completed the DSEIS for public 
comment (82 FR 4336; January 13, 2017).
    The DSEIS (NMFS 2017) analyzes the effects of the status quo, the 
petitioned alternative, and alternative subsistence use management 
regimes, and concludes that the subsistence use of up to 2,000 juvenile 
northern fur seals, of which up to 20 may be females killed during the 
subsistence use seasons, would have a minor effect on the population of 
about 483,086 fur seals residing seasonally on St. Paul Island and on 
the northern fur seal stock of about 620,660 animals total (Muto et 
al., 2018). ACSPI petitioned NMFS to define the seals that may be taken 
for subsistence uses as ``juvenile'' male fur seals. A ``juvenile'' 
would be defined as seals less than 7 years old inclusive of pups. This 
proposed rule would not designate pups as a separate sub-category of 
juveniles because that distinction is unnecessary from a conservation 
perspective (per the analysis in NMFS 2017) and ACSPI seeks flexibility 
to harvest any male seals less than 7 years old. ACSPI also petitioned 
NMFS to remove a restriction on the length of seal that may be taken 
for subsistence use. The current regulations for St. Paul Island 
identify seals that may be taken for subsistence use as males 124.5 cm 
or less in length, and prohibit the subsistence use of pups. This 
length of male seal (124.5 cm or less) corresponds to an age range of 
two to four years old, and is called a ``sub-adult'' male in reference 
to those seals taken typically in the past commercial and subsistence 
harvests.
    ACSPI petitioned NMFS to revise the subsistence use regulations, 
suggesting that four regulatory provisions were necessary to improve 
management of the subsistence use of northern fur seals on St. Paul 
Island: (1) Subsistence use of up to 2,000 juvenile male fur seals 
annually; (2) hunting of juvenile male fur seals from January 1 to May 
31 annually using firearms; (3) harvesting of juvenile male fur seals 
from June 23 to December 31 annually without the use of firearms; and 
(4) co-management of subsistence use by ACSPI and NMFS under the co-
management agreement. Subsequent discussions with ACSPI clarified that 
their request was to revise the co-management agreement signed in 2000 
and to establish in a revised agreement a process to cooperatively 
manage and restrict subsistence use, such as location and frequency of 
harvesting and hunting, without additional regulatory provisions.
    NMFS entered into a co-management agreement with the ACSPI in 2000 
under Section 119 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1388). The co-management 
agreement (available at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/fur-seal) 
established a Co-management Council with equal membership between NMFS 
and ACSPI to work cooperatively in the conservation and management of 
fur seals and Steller sea lions on St. Paul Island. The co-management 
agreement includes a guiding principle ``that provides for full 
participation by the Unangan of St. Paul, through the ACSPI, in 
decisions affecting the management of marine mammals used for 
subsistence purposes,'' including the management of subsistence use of 
northern fur seals. NMFS and ACSPI intend to revise and align the co-
management agreement with the proposed rule. Specifically, the Co-
management Council will use an adaptive management framework to make 
non-regulatory in-season adjustments to the locations, timing, and 
methods of subsistence use, within the regulatory parameters allowed by 
this proposed rule. The Co-management Council will use environmental, 
community, and subsistence use data and information to make in-season 
decisions regarding how the harvest is prosecuted, ensuring adherence 
to the regulatory limit on the subsistence use of up to 2,000 juvenile 
fur seals, of which up to 20 may be female fur seals killed during the 
subsistence use seasons.

Changes to Management on St. George Island

    In 2006, the Traditional Council of St. George Island, Tribal 
Government (Traditional Council) petitioned NMFS to change the 
subsistence use management of northern fur seals on St. George. NMFS 
worked with the Traditional Council to clarify the petitioned changes 
and authorize the annual harvest of up to 150 male pups during a second 
season from September 16 to November 30 within the limits already 
established every three years under 50 CFR 216.72(b). The action 
included changes to the authorized subsistence use locations on St. 
George applicable to both pup and sub-adult harvests, as well as other 
regulatory provisions for conservation of fur seals.
    In 2014, NMFS finalized the rule that authorized on St. George the 
harvest of up to 150 male pups, allowed harvests of sub-adults and pups 
at all areas capable of sustaining a harvest, added a harvest 
suspension provision if two females were killed during the year, and 
specified termination of the subsistence use seasons for the remainder 
of the year if three females were killed (79 FR 65327, November 4, 
2014). NMFS

[[Page 40195]]

changed 50 CFR 216.74 to reflect that the Traditional Council and NMFS 
had developed a different subsistence management relationship under 
Section 119 of the MMPA. At that time, NMFS did not change the process 
used to establish the subsistence needs of the Pribilovians on St. 
George, so we continued to specify in the triennial notice in the 
Federal Register the lower and upper limit of the number of seals 
required to meet the subsistence needs on both Islands, per 50 CFR 
216.72(b).
    ACSPI petitioned the removal of 50 CFR 216.72(b), which is 
applicable to both Islands. In this proposed rulemaking, NMFS proposes 
to set in regulation the maximum number of seals that may be harvested 
on St. George Island (500), which is based on the upper limit 
established by NMFS (82 FR 39044, August 17, 2017) and agreed to by the 
Traditional Council since 1990. NMFS also proposes to remove 
duplicative or unnecessary regulations applicable to subsistence use on 
St. George based on the determination that the statutory take 
prohibition in the FSA does not also require regulatory prohibitions.

Population and Demographics

    NMFS currently manages the northern fur seal population as two 
stocks in the U.S.: The Eastern Pacific and the San Miguel stocks. The 
Eastern Pacific stock includes northern fur seals breeding on St. Paul, 
St. George, and Bogoslof islands and Sea Lion Rock, AK. NMFS designated 
the Pribilof Islands northern fur seal population as depleted under the 
MMPA on May 18, 1988 (53 FR 17888). Loughlin et al. (1994) estimated 
approximately 1.3 million northern fur seals existed worldwide in 1992, 
and the Pribilof Islands (which later was designated the Eastern 
Pacific stock) accounted for about 982,000 seals (74 percent of the 
worldwide total). In 1995, NMFS included fur seals breeding on Bogoslof 
Island in the estimate of 1,019,192 northern fur seals for the Eastern 
Pacific stock (Small and DeMaster 1995). The population has decreased 
since then, and the 2017 estimate for the Eastern Pacific stock 
(including fur seals breeding on St. Paul, St. George, and Bogoslof 
islands and Sea Lion Rock) was 620,660 northern fur seals (Muto et al., 
2018). The annual pup production trends for the breeding islands in the 
Eastern Pacific stock from 1998 to 2016 vary between Islands: Pup 
production is declining (-4.12 percent) for St. Paul, stable with no 
trend for St. George, and increasing (+10.1 percent) for Bogoslof (Muto 
et al., 2018). The causes of the different trends among breeding areas 
are unknown.
    Northern fur seals seasonally occupy specific breeding and non-
breeding sites. The age and breeding status of the seals are the main 
determinants of where they are found on land during the breeding and 
non-breeding season. Non-breeding males occupy resting sites commonly 
called ``hauling grounds or haulout areas'' during the breeding season 
and are excluded from the breeding sites (i.e., rookeries) by adult 
males. Adult males defend territories on these breeding sites where 
females return from their winter migration to give birth, nurse their 
young, rest, and breed. Pregnant adult females begin to arrive from 
their winter migration as early as mid-June. The majority of adult 
females arrive around the second week of July. Older females arrive 
before younger females, and pregnant females arrive before non-pregnant 
females. Adult females land on the rookeries (breeding sites) where 
adult males immediately herd and retain them in territories until they 
give birth within two days after their arrival on land. After they give 
birth and remain on land for about six days, they enter estrous and 
breed before departing on their first of many multi-day foraging trips 
to sea and return to nurse their pups (Gentry 1998).
    Territorial breeding males arrive on island in May and remain on 
the rookeries until mid-August, when most pregnant females have arrived 
and have given birth. Territorial adult males depart the rookery in 
August and are replaced by non-territorial, non-breeding adult males of 
similar size on the rookeries. Adult females and the pups remain at the 
rookeries until December, but they occupy a larger area that includes 
the rookery and haulout areas after territorial males have left the 
Islands for their migration.
    Beginning about September 1, non-breeding males of all sizes can be 
found inter-mixed with breeding aged females and nursing pups on both 
rookeries and haulout areas. Scientists consider the non-breeding 
season to last from September through December. Thus from September 
through December all fur seals generally occupy similar terrestrial 
habitat, and there is little if any predictable separation among males 
and females as is found earlier in the year.
    Pups begin to occupy separate areas from non-pups in September, and 
make daily transits among these areas while spending progressively more 
time in the water prior to weaning (Baker and Donahue 2000). Pups wean 
themselves beginning in late October, by leaving their birth site and 
spending the next 20-24 months at sea. All pups have left the islands 
where they were born by early December, and breeding-age females leave 
their breeding islands a few days after pups have departed on their 
winter migration. NMFS estimates that less than 10 percent of pups born 
die before weaning (MML unpublished data). NMFS also estimates that 50 
to 80 percent of pups die after weaning and before they are two years 
old, which is when they would first return to the islands (Lander 1981, 
MML unpublished data).
    Most fur seals first return to the islands when they are two years 
old, intermittently occupying non-breeding terrestrial sites from July 
through December. Older, non-breeding male seals arrive at the 
beginning of the terrestrial season earlier than younger seals. Non-
breeding male fur seals rest on shore for about seven to ten days 
followed by intermittent at-sea foraging trips ranging from eight to 
twenty-nine days (Sterling and Ream 2004). All non-breeding fur seals 
migrate from their land resting sites (including on the Pribilof 
Islands) to the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, where the fur seals 
are located from about December to June, when fur seals begin their 
annual return migration to their breeding and non-breeding, resting 
terrestrial sites (including those on the Pribilof Islands).
    Male fur seals are sexually mature and begin to show secondary 
sexual characteristics (e.g., growth of mane, prominent saggital crest, 
extreme growth of shoulders and neck) at about seven years old (Gentry 
1998). Males are not physically capable of holding territories until 
they are eight years old, and most males that hold successful breeding 
territories are nine years old and hold breeding territories for about 
one season (Gentry 1998). About one-third of territorial males 
successfully breed, but about ten percent of the breeding males account 
for over 50 percent of all breeding each year (Gentry 1998). This 
information shows that very few adult males successfully defend and 
hold territories on land, even fewer breed, and fewer still account for 
most of the annual reproductive effort. In the following year, about 70 
percent of those territorial adult males from the previous year will be 
replaced by new males and will not be the fathers of those pups who are 
born within the territories they hold.
    Female fur seals can be distinguished from male fur seals based on 
size, canine tooth size, and whisker color. Male fur seals are larger 
at all ages, beginning at birth. Males grow faster

[[Page 40196]]

and larger than females. As male and female fur seals age their 
whiskers change color from all black (pup) to mixed black and white 
(two to seven years old) to all-white (older than seven). This whisker 
color distinction is important because a four-year-old male is similar 
in size to a six-year-old or older female, but the female's whiskers 
will be all-white and the male's whiskers will be mixed black and 
white. The size difference between males and females from birth to two 
years old is difficult to visually distinguish from a distance. Upon 
close inspection, the lower canine teeth of females are relatively 
narrower than a male's lower canine teeth. There are also some 
differences in fur coloration, head shape, and behavior between two- to 
four-year old males and females, but these characteristics are highly 
variable and prone to misclassification when considered alone.

Deregulation of the Subsistence Use of Northern Fur Seals

    NMFS is proposing to remove duplicative and unnecessary regulatory 
restrictions, as detailed below. NMFS will continue to regulate the 
subsistence taking of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands by sex, age, 
and season, as contemplated in the emergency final rule that NMFS 
promulgated after the cessation of the commercial harvest of northern 
fur seals in 1984 (51 FR 24828, July 9, 1986). Subsistence use of 
northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands will be subject to any 
changes proposed in this rule that become final.

Removal of Duplicative Regulatory Provisions Governing Subsistence Use 
on St. Paul and St. George Islands

    Section 102 of the FSA broadly prohibits the ``taking'' of northern 
fur seals (16 U.S.C. 1152). The regulations governing subsistence 
harvest for St. Paul and St. George Islands include specific 
prohibitions on the take of certain age classes of fur seals and the 
intentional take of female fur seals (50 CFR 216.72(d)(5), (d)(9), 
(e)(4)). NMFS has determined that these specific regulatory provisions 
prohibiting take are duplicative of the more general statutory 
prohibition on ``taking'' in Section 102 of the FSA, and thus this 
proposed rule would remove these sections from 50 CFR 216.72:
    (d)(5) Any taking of adult fur seals, or young of the year, or the 
intentional taking of sub-adult female fur seals is prohibited;
    (d)(9) Any taking of sub-adult or adult fur seals, or the 
intentional harvest of young of the year female fur seals is 
prohibited; and
    (e)(4) Any taking of adult fur seals or pups, or the intentional 
taking of sub-adult female fur seals is prohibited.
    The removal of these duplicative regulatory restrictions will not 
result in any changes to subsistence use of northern fur seals on St. 
George Island or St. Paul Island.
    NMFS has determined that the following provisions for St. Paul and 
St. George Islands are duplicative of the regulations (50 CFR 216.41) 
promulgated for permitting scientific research under the MMPA (16 
U.S.C. 1361-1407) and authorizing stranding response under Section 403 
of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1421b), and thus these sections are proposed to 
be removed from 50 CFR 216.72:
    (d)(3) seals with tags and/or entangling debris may only be taken 
if so directed by NMFS scientists, and
    (e)(6) seals with tags and/or entangling debris may only be taken 
if so directed by NMFS scientists.
    When NMFS promulgated the above provisions in the subsistence 
harvest regulations, NMFS did not contemplate that the Pribilovians 
would apply for and obtain permits to conduct scientific research on 
fur seals or obtain authorization to respond to northern fur seals 
entangled in marine debris (51 FR 24828, 24836, 24838-39; July 9, 
1986). Congress amended the MMPA to authorize the Marine Mammal Health 
and Stranding Program in 1992, and the regulatory process to obtain a 
scientific research permit was not completed until 1996 (61 FR 21926, 
May 10, 1996). NMFS therefore proposes to remove these provisions, 
relying instead on those regulatory processes established under the 
MMPA more recently to authorize taking associated with response to fur 
seals entangled in marine debris or previously tagged for scientific 
research. The removal of these duplicative regulatory restrictions will 
not result in any changes to the process to receive authorization for 
take associated with response to fur seals entangled in marine debris 
or previously tagged for scientific research.

Removal of Unnecessary Regulatory Provisions Governing Subsistence Use 
on St. Paul and St. George Islands

    NMFS proposes to specify in regulation the maximum number of fur 
seals that may be killed for subsistence uses annually on each Island. 
The proposed rule would specify in 50 CFR 216.72(e) that Pribilovians 
on St. Paul may take by hunt and harvest up to 2,000 juvenile (less 
than 7 years old, including pups) fur seals per year for subsistence 
uses over the course of the hunting and harvest seasons, including up 
to 20 female fur seals per year. The proposed rule would specify in 50 
CFR 216.72(d) that Pribilovians on St. George may take by harvest for 
subsistence uses up to 500 fur seals per year over the course of the 
sub-adult male harvest and the young of the year harvest, including up 
to 3 female fur seals per year. The proposed maximum harvest of fur 
seals to be authorized is based on the currently established upper 
limit of the subsistence need for each Island (82 FR 39044, August 17, 
2017), which has been unchanged since 1992 for St. Paul Island and 
since 1990 for St. George Island.
    NMFS also proposes to cease using a lower limit of the subsistence 
need and to eliminate references to the lower limit of the harvest 
range for regulations governing harvest on St. George of sub-adult male 
fur seals (50 CFR 216.72(d)(1)) and male young of the year fur seals 
(50 CFR 216.72(d)(6)); to eliminate in its entirety the provision at 50 
CFR 216.72(b), which applies to both Islands and which establishes a 
process to re-assess every three years the subsistence requirements of 
the Pribilovians residing on St. Paul and St. George Islands; and to 
remove the provisions at 50 CFR 216.72(f)(1)(iii) and 216.72(f)(3), 
which are associated with the suspension of subsistence use when the 
lower limit of the range of the subsistence need is reached. NMFS also 
proposes to remove the provision in 50 CFR 216.72(f)(1)(i) that allows 
for the suspension of subsistence harvest on St. Paul Island or St. 
George Island if NMFS determines that the subsistence needs of the 
Pribilovians on that Island have been satisfied, and to remove the 
provision in 50 CFR 216.72(g)(2) that requires the termination of the 
subsistence harvest if NMFS determines that the upper limit of the 
subsistence need has been reached or if NMFS determines that the 
subsistence needs of the Pribilovians on either Island have been 
satisfied. NMFS proposes to revise the subsistence use termination 
provisions at 50 CFR 216.72(g) to be consistent with the proposed 
seasons for St. Paul and the subsistence use limits for each Island.
    NMFS has determined that the existing regulatory approach to 
establishing the subsistence need on St. Paul and St. George Islands is 
no longer necessary for the following reasons: (1) The estimates of 
yield of edible meat per fur seal, which were used to approximate the 
number of seals thought to fulfill subsistence needs, overstated the 
actual yield of meat, and are no longer germane factors when evaluating 
the subsistence needs of Pribilovians; (2) the use of the lower and

[[Page 40197]]

upper limit of the subsistence requirement has not provided the 
expected flexibility to the Pribilovians to meet their annual 
subsistence needs and has proven to be an unnecessary restriction; (3) 
estimating the subsistence need based on nutritional, socio-economic, 
and cultural factors, as NMFS has done in more recent triennial 
estimates of subsistence need, results in a more realistic assessment 
of subsistence need than the exclusive use of nutritional factors as 
envisioned in the existing regulations; and (4) given the consistency 
of the determination of Pribilovians' subsistence needs for more than 
25 years, codifying the maximum subsistence use levels in regulation 
would be much more efficient than continuing to revisit the subsistence 
need every three years. We explain each of these reasons below, which 
justify setting authorized take for subsistence use in regulation for 
each Island and which justify the additional regulatory provisions that 
NMFS proposes to modify or eliminate.

Biases in Estimated Edible Yield of Subsistence Harvested Fur Seals

    As explained in this subsection, estimates of yield of edible meat 
per fur seal and percent-use were the basis for determining the number 
of seals for annual subsistence needs and were the basis for 
determining whether the subsistence harvest was being accomplished in a 
wasteful manner. However, the estimates of yield of edible meat per fur 
seal and percent-use overstated the actual yield of meat due to bias 
and inaccurate assumptions and are subject to continuing bias that NMFS 
cannot correct. NMFS therefore will no longer analyze subsistence need 
solely based on estimates of yield of edible meat and percent-use, and 
ACSPI and NMFS will work within the Co-management Council to identify 
and address any instances of wasteful taking. In addition, we remind 
readers that when referencing past taking for subsistence uses, we use 
the term ``sub-adult males'' to refer to two- to four-year old fur 
seals which generally fit the size limit in the regulations of 124.5 cm 
or less in length and that, while pups are less than 124.5 cm in 
length, they were prohibited from subsistence use for St. George until 
2014 and are currently prohibited from subsistence use for St. Paul (50 
CFR 216.72(e)(4)).
    In 1985 and 1986, when the subsistence harvest was first being 
authorized, NMFS did not have any reliable means to establish the 
number of seals required to meet the subsistence needs of either St. 
George Island or St. Paul Island. As described in the emergency final 
rule regarding the subsistence taking of North Pacific fur seals (51 FR 
24828, July 9, 1986), the commercial harvest for fur seal skins prior 
to 1985 had created an excess of meat for the subsistence needs of both 
communities, and disrupted the subsistence use patterns when compared 
to other Alaska Native communities (Veltre and Veltre 1987). For 
subsistence needs, NMFS used estimates of the yield of meat from an 
``average'' commercially harvested seal as the basis for the 
subsistence levels established in the early years of the subsistence 
harvest regulations. NMFS assumed that a sub-adult male seal yielded a 
certain amount of meat, which was then used to calculate how many seals 
were needed to satisfy the nutritional needs of Pribilovians each year. 
The original estimate of the yield of meat per seal was from 
congressional testimony in 1914 that a sub-adult male fur seal dresses 
to 25 pounds of meat (50 FR 27914, 27916; July 8, 1985) and the May 7, 
1987 notice (52 FR 17307) from measurements of harvested seals in 1985 
(28.5 lbs) and in 1986 (24.4 lbs).
    Public comments received by NMFS in the late 1980s questioned the 
Pribilovians' harvest practices and estimates of their subsistence 
need, and included accusations of wasteful taking and criticisms of the 
Pribilovians' use of the ``butterfly cut'' of seals. At the same time, 
the Pribilovians expressed frustration regarding the intrusive nature 
of harvest sampling, characterization of their subsistence use based on 
``percent-use'' of the carcass, and the process to establish their 
subsistence need (55 FR 30919, July 30 1990). On August 1, 1991, the 
Humane Society of the United States filed an unsuccessful petition for 
a temporary restraining order to suspend the subsistence harvest (56 FR 
42032).
    In an attempt to resolve the controversy, NMFS and the ACSPI 
measured the percent use of the ``butterfly cut'' and ``whole cut'' 
from northern fur seal carcasses in terms of the actual yield of meat 
in 1992. This unpublished study measured the mass of meat, bone, and 
blubber from all body parts of the carcasses of three sub-adult males. 
One seal was three years old, the other was two years old, and the 
third was of unknown age. The actual yield of edible meat ranged from 
11.9 to 15.9 pounds for seals that weighed from 44.6 to 58.1 pounds 
(NMFS unpublished data). The estimated yield of meat from this work in 
1992 shows that the 1985 and 1986 estimates of yield of meat over-
estimated the actual yield of edible meat by 35 to 52 percent depending 
on the size of the seal.
    Further evaluation of the data from 1985 through 1991 that were 
used to estimate the yield of meat indicate previous weights reported 
were actually estimates of the total mass of the butterfly cut or whole 
cut, which included bones, fat, and connective tissue. In addition, the 
measures of edible meat from 1985 and 1986 do not account for the 
subsistence use of blubber, tongues, or flippers, items that are 
consumed in varying amounts locally (Veltre and Veltre 1987), but were 
not considered consistently by NMFS in the estimates of percent-use or 
yield. In the 1985 and 1986 estimates, NMFS measured and reported the 
percentage use of the carcass as the product of the mass of meat and 
bone of cuts divided by the total mass of the carcass. NMFS's approach 
resulted in a mean of 29.1 percent-use for the butterfly cut and 53.3 
percent-use for the whole cut, a difference of about 24.2 percent, 
which was perceived as an indication of waste when using the butterfly 
cut versus using the whole cut.
    By using the data of the actual edible meat (excluding bone) from 
1992, the percent-use of meat divided by the total carcass weight would 
have ranged from about 18 percent-use for the ``butterfly cut'' to 27 
percent-use for the whole cut. The traditional butterfly cut resulted 
in only a 9 percent difference (or about one pound of meat based on the 
average total seal weight) in the actual edible portion of meat when 
compared to the whole cut, which indicated the distinction between cuts 
was not significant or necessarily representative of waste. These 
results indicate that the old percent-use method overstated the amount 
of edible meat per seal by an even greater amount than acknowledged by 
NMFS based on data from all years prior to 1992. These results also 
support the Pribilovians' position that their subsistence use was not 
wasteful contrary to accusations of wasteful take that were based on 
the percent-use method (57 FR 34081, August 3, 1992).
    NMFS also made inaccurate assumptions in the beginning of the 
subsistence period about the age of seals likely to be harvested for 
subsistence needs, which further biases the estimates of the number of 
seals needed for subsistence. Hanson et al. (1994) showed that St. Paul 
subsistence sealers chose to harvest three- and four-year old seals 
that were statistically smaller than the average sized seal of the same 
age in the population, which indicates sealers were selecting the 
smallest seals of those available. The selection of smaller seals for 
subsistence uses further reduces NMFS's previous over-estimates of 
yield of meat derived from the

[[Page 40198]]

commercial harvest. In addition, St. Paul and St. George residents have 
indicated they prefer a ``two-year old'' sized seal, an assertion that 
was confirmed using 1986 subsistence harvest data (Zimmerman and 
Melovidov 1987). Subsistence harvest monitoring data reported by Hanson 
et al., (1994) indicated a continued preference for two-year old seals. 
The results of Hanson et al. (1994) have been confirmed by recent 
analysis of the average age of subsistence harvested seals from 1986-
2016 on St. Paul Island (2.6 years) compared to commercially harvested 
seals from 1956-1984 (3.3 years) (MML unpublished data). On St. George 
Island, the subsistence harvest has occurred for 10 years longer than 
on St. Paul, and the average age of sub-adult males in the commercial 
harvest was 3.4 years versus 2.5 years in the subsistence harvest (MML 
unpublished data).
    The proportion of two-year-old seals in the subsistence harvest for 
both Islands combined is about 47 percent, whereas during the 
commercial harvest two-year old seals represented about 8 percent of 
the total harvest for both Islands (MML unpublished data). Similarly, 
the proportion of four-year-olds decreased from about 32 percent of the 
commercial harvest to about 4 percent of the subsistence harvest based 
on data from both Islands (MML unpublished data). Thus smaller, younger 
seals represent a larger proportion of those seals taken in the 
subsistence harvest than the commercial harvest. Younger, smaller seals 
provide a lower yield of meat than the older, larger seals harvested 
commercially, and represent another uncorrected bias in the previous 
estimates of yield per seal and in the process to estimate the number 
of seals necessary to meet the Pribilovians' subsistence need.
    Even if NMFS were to correct for age-related bias and fix 
inaccurate assumptions in previous methodologies to calculate future 
estimates of yield of meat to estimate the number of seals for 
subsistence needs, such estimates would remain biased and inaccurate. 
Baker et al. (1994) reported that particular year classes showed 
statistically different rates of body mass increase in the first few 
years of life. For example, three year old male fur seals born in 1987 
were significantly lighter than three year olds born in 1988 and 1989 
(Baker et al. 1994). Caruso and Baker (1996) compared the weights of 
two-, three-, and four-year old males from the subsistence harvest and 
found that two- and three-year old males from 1992 were significantly 
heavier (1.4 kg heavier for a two-year old) than similar-aged seals 
harvested in 1991, 1993, or 1994. Thus, environmental conditions can 
influence the size and growth of young seals and bias estimates of the 
yield of meat per seal among year classes. NMFS currently does not have 
a means to correct estimates of growth or average size at age to 
account for environmental variation.
    Based on this analysis of the yield of edible meat from the 
subsistence harvest and the lack of information to correct the biases 
identified in the estimates of percent-use and yield of meat, NMFS no 
longer sees value in characterizing the subsistence need based on 
percent-use or yield of edible meat. Instead, as explained later in 
this proposed rule, NMFS will consider a combination of nutritional, 
socio-economic, and cultural factors, as well as the consistency of 
prior determinations of subsistence needs over time, to estimate and 
set in regulation through this proposed rule the number of seals needed 
annually for subsistence purposes on St. Paul and St. George Islands. 
Furthermore, ACSPI has instituted a practice whereby the whole cut is 
removed from the killing field in all instances, and the butterfly cut 
is no longer used (62 FR 17775, April 11, 1997). With regard to 
concerns about the potential for wasteful harvest practices in the 
future, NMFS will work within the Co-management Councils for St. Paul 
and St. George to ensure accurate monitoring to detect and address 
whether subsistence use is being accomplished in a wasteful manner. In 
addition, this proposed action does not change the regulatory provision 
that the take of fur seals must be consistent with 50 CFR 216.71 (i.e., 
(a) for subsistence uses, and (b) not accomplished in a wasteful 
manner).

NMFS's Use of the Upper and Lower Limit of the Estimated Subsistence 
Need

    The existing regulations call for establishing the upper and lower 
limit (i.e., the range) of the subsistence need in order to provide 
flexibility to the Pribilovians while also limiting the harvest to the 
legitimate subsistence need within that range (51 FR 24828, July 9, 
1986). The lower limit, if reached, results in a 48-hour temporary 
suspension, but the lower limit could be exceeded if NMFS is given 
written notice by the Pribilovians seeking additional seals for 
subsistence uses as described in 50 CFR 216.72(f)(3). As explained 
next, this regulatory approach has not provided flexibility in the 
timing of the harvest and the availability of harvesters to ensure that 
Pribilovians can fulfill their subsistence needs. In addition, this 
regulatory approach has proven burdensome for both Pribilobians and 
NMFS to administer and manage. NMFS therefore proposes to eliminate in 
its entirety the provision at 50 CFR 216.72(b), as well as related 
regulatory provisions regarding the lower and upper limits and the 
associated suspension and termination provisions.
    Since 1985, NMFS has used numerous methods to establish the range, 
but has frequently received public comments indicating disagreements 
about the consistency of implementation (e.g., 55 FR 30919, July 30, 
1990). The Pribilovians have requested additional seals above the lower 
limit twice each on St. Paul (in 1987 and 1991) and St. George (in 1991 
and 1993). In 1990, NMFS reduced the subsistence needs of the 
Pribilovians to the lowest level during the subsistence period to range 
from 181 to 500 on St. George and 1,145 to 1,800 on St. Paul (55 FR 
30919, July 30, 1990). In 1991, NMFS proposed the range of subsistence 
need at the 1990 levels (56 FR 19970, May 1, 1991). NMFS was unable to 
establish a method acceptable to all stakeholders to determine the 
Pribilovians' subsistence need, and in the final notice, NMFS used the 
1990 range of the subsistence need for 1991 (56 FR 36735, August 1, 
1991). The Tribal Governments from St. Paul and St. George requested 
additional seals above the lower end of their respective ranges in 
1991. NMFS authorized the Pribilovians to continue harvesting up to 100 
additional seals on St. George and 500 additional seals on St. Paul 
from July 31 until August 8, 1991 (56 FR 42032, August 26, 1991).
    The Humane Society of the United States filed a motion for a 
Temporary Restraining Order on August 1, 1991, which challenged the 
August 1 final notice for subsistence use in 1991 (56 FR 36735). The 
order was denied on August 5, 1991: the court upheld NMFS's 
determination that the harvest was not being conducted in a wasteful 
manner and that the accusations of waste were overstated (Humane Soc'y 
of the United States v. Mosbacher, Civ. A. No. 91-1915, 1991 WL 166653 
(D.D.C. Aug. 5, 1991); 56 FR 42032, August 26, 1991). NMFS held a 
workshop in November 1991 and determined the household survey conducted 
by the tribal councils would be the agreed-upon method to establish the 
subsistence need (57 FR 22450, May 28, 1992).
    NMFS established the 1992 subsistence need based on household 
surveys by the Tribal Governments of St. Paul and St. George, but in 
addition requested that the Pribilovians

[[Page 40199]]

substantiate any request to exceed the lower limit of the range (57 FR 
34081, August 3, 1992). NMFS questioned the estimates of subsistence 
need from household surveys in 1992 and 1993, because the tribal 
government could not survey all households in advance of each harvest 
season. The Pribilovians extrapolated the subsistence need to account 
for the un-surveyed/non-responsive households, but a final method to 
account for these households could not be agreed upon.
    The St. George Traditional Council indicated on February 10, 1993 
that they would require 407 seals to meet their subsistence need (58 FR 
32892, June 14 1993). NMFS concluded that since St. George harvested 
fewer seals (194) than the lower level of the estimated 1992 range of 
subsistence need (281) and the average harvest over the past 5 years 
was 187, that NMFS would not use the 1993 St. George subsistence needs 
request based on their household survey data and instead used the lower 
level of the range from 1992. The community of St. George harvested 298 
seals by August 3, 1993 (17 seals greater than the lower level of the 
range), and the Traditional Council requested additional seals during 
the temporary harvest suspension (58 FR 58297, November 1, 1993). NMFS 
approved the harvest of 44 more seals by St. George (325 total seals) 
after requesting and receiving information to substantiate their 
request (58 FR 32892, June 14 1993). St. George harvested 319 seals by 
August 8, 1993.
    In the 1993 household survey of subsistence needs on St. Paul, 
about one-third of the households responded to the tribal government's 
survey, resulting in an estimate of 842 seals needed to meet their 
stated subsistence need. NMFS did not extrapolate to account for non-
responsive households on St. Paul and instead indicated that there had 
not been significant changes in demography or economics in 1993 
compared to 1991 and 1992 to warrant such a dramatic reduction in need, 
and NMFS determined that the estimated subsistence need for St. Paul 
would remain 1,645 to 2,000 in 1993 (58 FR 32892, June 14, 1993). St. 
Paul harvested 1,518 seals in 1993.
    In 1994, NMFS set the range based on household survey results from 
the tribal governments that indicated similar results from previous 
years and thus the range of the subsistence need was set at the same 
level as in 1993, but applied through 1996 (59 FR 35471, July 12, 
1994). In December 1996, after NMFS requested the tribal governments 
indicate their subsistence needs for the 1997-1999 period, ACSPI 
indicated their subsistence need range could remain the same (1,645 to 
2,000 seals), and the St. George Traditional Council requested the 
lower limit be increased from 281 to 300 seals and the upper limit be 
retained at 500 seals (62 FR 33374, June 19, 1997). The tribal 
governments from both Islands indicated to NMFS in 1999, 2002, 2005, 
2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017 that the subsistence ranges should be 
maintained at these lower and upper limits to meet their subsistence 
needs (see https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/fur-seal). After NMFS 
had signed cooperative agreements with the tribal governments on St. 
Paul and St. George Islands, the subsistence needs were discussed 
annually during co-management meetings and considered in a more 
collaborative and holistic process.
    The lower limit and regulatory suspension process required under 
the existing regulations have proven to be barriers to harvesting 
within the range established as ``meeting the subsistence need'' at the 
peak of community participation and availability of preferred seals. If 
the lower limit of the subsistence need is reached, NMFS must suspend 
the harvest for up to 48 hours per 50 CFR 216.72(f)(1)(iii). 
Practically, this usually occurs in early August after most harvests 
have occurred and as the number of two-year-old males landing on the 
hauling grounds is rapidly increasing (Bigg 1986). Thus, the preferred 
age-class (two years old) is more easily available to subsistence users 
at this time, but very little time remains in August to harvest this 
preferred age-class and to meet the subsistence need of the 
Pribilovians.
    Once the lower limit is reached, NMFS must determine whether the 
subsistence needs of the Pribilovians have been satisfied, and if not, 
must provide a revised estimate of the number of seals required to meet 
those subsistence needs (50 CFR 216.72(f)(3)). Thus, when the lower 
limit is reached, Pribilovians must collect information through 
surveying or querying the community and provide that information in 
writing to support that their subsistence need falls above the lower 
limit but below the upper limit of the range previously established as 
meeting their subsistence need (e.g., 56 FR 36736, August 1, 1991). In 
those years when the actual subsistence use reached the lower limit of 
the range of the subsistence need established previously in the Federal 
Register notice, it was in the Pribilovians' best interest to conduct 
an additional house-to-house survey to establish an interim limit less 
than the upper limit to substantiate their subsistence need (59 FR 
35474, July 12, 1994).
    After the Pribilovians submit information to NMFS, NMFS must then 
substantiate the request to exceed the lower limit by making the 
determination that the Pribilovians (1) have not yet satisfied their 
subsistence need, (2) have not conducted wasteful take, and (3) have 
identified the number of seals required to meet the additional need (56 
FR 36736, August 1, 1991). Often this process was too cumbersome 
administratively, for both NMFS and the Pribilovians. The 48-hour 
suspension when the lower limit was reached would occur during the last 
few days of the season, requiring Pribilovians to document their needs 
above the lower limit and NMFS to determine those newly documented 
needs were justified before the end of the season. This caused 
administrative delays that left too few days for additional harvesting 
of seals, including the harvest of the preferred age of seal. Such a 
process does not create flexibility that would allow the Pribilovians 
to meet their subsistence needs when the lower limit is reached.
    Finally, a fundamental problem with using the previous year's 
actual harvest or an average of prior harvests to establish the 
allowable future harvest is that it creates an incentive for users to 
harvest as much as allowed in order to maintain future food security, 
particularly because many factors can force Pribilovians to harvest 
fewer seals each year, regardless of their particular annual needs. 
Decreased harvest levels in a given year would effectively reduce the 
lower limit in subsequent years, while ignoring factors that affect 
harvest levels, including: Normal year-to-year variability in seal 
size; the Pribilovians' preference for smaller seals; the limited 
availability of two-year-old seals until late in the harvest season; 
the availability of wage earning jobs on both Islands that conflicts 
with the subsistence season; and the availability of experienced 
sealers (58 FR 32892, June 13, 1993). These factors may result in 
diminished allowable harvest over time that could amplify the perverse 
incentive to harvest more seals than necessary in a given year to 
preserve the allowable harvest level for future years.
    To avoid these problems, NMFS proposes to stop publishing a range 
with a lower limit of subsistence need. Instead NMFS proposes to set a 
fixed harvest limit that accounts for expected and unexpected year-to-
year variability in the availability of fur seals based on 
environmental factors and the availability of subsistence users to 
participate based on economic, social,

[[Page 40200]]

and other factors. Because NMFS would cease using a range with a lower 
limit, NMFS proposes to eliminate references to the lower limit of the 
range in the regulations governing use on St. George of sub-adult male 
fur seals (50 CFR 216.72(d)(1)) and male young of the year fur seals 
(50 CFR 216.72(d)(6)). NMFS also proposes to remove the requirements in 
50 CFR 216.72(f)(1)(iii) and (f)(3) for NMFS to determine whether the 
Pribilovians' subsistence needs have been satisfied because they will 
already be established in the regulations. The proposed regulatory 
changes will reduce the household survey burden for Pribilovians on 
both St. Paul and St. George Islands and will also remove the 
cumbersome administration of the harvest suspension provisions and 
determinations that apply when the lower limit of the range was 
reached. NMFS would still annually evaluate whether the subsistence 
uses are being accomplished in a wasteful manner (per 50 CFR 
216.71(b)), and the proposed rule does not eliminate the existing 
regulatory provision that allows the suspension of the subsistence 
harvest if the harvest is being conducted in a wasteful manner (50 CFR 
216.72(f)(1)(ii)).

Estimating the Subsistence Need Should Include Consideration of 
Nutritional, Socio-Economic, and Cultural Factors

    NMFS has determined that to satisfy the Pribilovians' subsistence 
requirement for northern fur seals, estimates of subsistence need must 
reflect a combination of nutritional, socio-economic, and cultural 
needs (see Veltre and Veltre 1987). During the late 1980s, NMFS used 
simple nutritional factors to estimate the subsistence needs of the 
Pribilovians. As described previously, NMFS used historical information 
from the villages of St. Paul and St. George and from other Alaska 
Native communities to estimate a range of the amount of meat required 
as a product of the yield and number of seals killed. NMFS has 
continued to estimate annual subsistence harvest based on the 
nutritional needs of the Pribilovians, while recognizing that other 
factors should be considered.
    After the petition for a temporary restraining order and a 
subsequent subsistence workshop in 1991, NMFS acknowledged that 
subsistence need includes cultural aspects of the use of fur seals by 
Alaska Natives, as well as providing a traditional food (57 FR 22450, 
May 28, 1992). Pribilovians have indicated most recently in their 
comments on the DSEIS that the overlap in the timing of the local 
halibut fishery and current 47-day fur seal harvest season forces 
families to choose between producing income in the halibut fishery and 
obtaining fur seals. In the late 1980s the Pribilovians did not have 
the resources (i.e., large enough boats or gear) or opportunity (i.e., 
fishing was managed as limited entry until the passage of the Fisheries 
Conservation and Management Act in 1976) to participate in local 
commercial halibut fisheries, so they fished for subsistence when 
practical. In the late 1980s through 1992 there were on average 16 fur 
seal harvests on St. Paul Island per year, which has gradually 
diminished such that from 2002 to the present the Pribilovians averaged 
eight harvests per year. In 1995, Pribilovians were authorized to 
commercially fish for halibut through individual fishing quotas and 
later community development quotas. Thus, fur seal harvests changed 
from commercial to subsistence activities, and halibut fishing changed 
from subsistence to commercial economic enterprises. Because the 
subsistence season for fur seals overlaps with the commercial halibut 
season, many Pribilovians have no choice but to limit the time they 
spend obtaining fur seals for subsistence uses while they pursue cash-
paying jobs in the halibut fishery. Other regulatory limits that 
prescribe who may harvest, where, and how further undermine the 
opportunities for Pribilovians to engage in the subsistence harvest of 
fur seals. As their sealing opportunities have diminished under the 
current regulations, Pribilovians have lost opportunities to share with 
elders and the community at large, teach harvesting and hunting skills 
to the next generation, collect seal parts for the creation of 
authentic Native handicrafts, and participate in cultural ceremonial 
events. As these ties to their culture have waned, it becomes more 
difficult to foster cultural traditions and instill the associated 
values within the community. The proposed creation of two seasons and 
multiple methods to take fur seals recognizes the important cultural 
values of the hunting and harvesting of fur seals, and will provide 
Pribilovians more flexibility to foster their own cultural traditions 
and values.
    The Pribilof Islands are considered a hybrid economy (Huskey 2004) 
where subsistence use, market forces, and government transfers 
contribute to a village's ability to maintain a self-sufficient 
economy. Members of the public who live in rural areas like the 
Pribilof Islands value (nutritionally and socio-economically) wild and 
store bought foods differently than residents from urban areas. NMFS 
(2017) has evaluated how the concept of food security provides a more 
balanced approach to estimating the subsistence need in coastal 
communities such as St. Paul and St. George. From the aspect of 
nutrition and food security, fur seals represent an available, 
accessible, fresh, and safe source of traditional food for 
Pribilovians. Subsistence opportunities connect community members and 
relatives through food sharing and cooperative hunting and harvesting 
efforts. Opportunities for subsistence use of fur seals preserve the 
Pribilovians' traditional skills, cultural values, and knowledge, and 
enable the passing of cultural values on to younger subsistence users. 
Thus, unnecessarily restricting the opportunities for subsistence 
communities to obtain wild resources, such as fur seals, would not only 
result in the deterioration of nutrition, public health, and social 
stability, but also a critical component of their unique local culture. 
This combination of traditional and modern lifestyles helps to sustain 
the Pribilof cultural identity and provides a measure of economic and 
food security by providing an alternative to obtain food in newly 
emerging cash- and wage-based economic systems (Huskey 2004). The 
proposed approach to addressing the subsistence needs of Pribilovians 
is more environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable, and 
safeguards food security, cultural traditions, and economic surety by 
allowing the Pribilovians a greater role in the in-season monitoring 
and management (see following Co-management discussion). This approach 
to establishing the subsistence need improves upon the one previously 
used by NMFS that relied exclusively on the nutritional aspects.
    Based on the cultural values of subsistence use and the need for 
food security for the Pribilovians, NMFS proposes to codify a 
regulatory threshold of 2,000 fur seals less than 7 years old, of which 
up to 20 may be females killed during the subsistence use seasons 
annually, for St. Paul. Similarly for St. George, the regulatory 
threshold will be 500 male fur seals during the subsistence use seasons 
annually, of which up to 3 may be females killed, and which also would 
include in each year up to 150 male pups (see 50 CFR 216.72(d)(6)-
(d)(10)). This approach maintains the maximum harvest level that has 
been authorized every year since 1992 for St. Paul and since 1990 for 
St. George (82 FR 39044, August 17, 2017), and maintains the allowable 
pup harvest for St. George (79

[[Page 40201]]

FR 65327, November 4, 2014), but better reflects a holistic 
consideration of nutritional, socio-economic, and cultural factors of 
subsistence use. In addition, this approach will streamline the 
administration of the harvest, reduce the household survey burden on 
St. Paul and St. George, and provide a sustainable maximum harvest 
level that accounts for the prevailing socio-economic conditions and 
abundance of the fur seal population on the Pribilof Islands. As 
addressed earlier in the BACKGROUND section, NMFS does not expect a 
detectable change in population trends from take associated with future 
subsistence use of hunting or harvesting up to the annual regulatory 
thresholds for each Island.
    The actual number of seals killed for subsistence uses in a given 
year can be dependent upon the seasonal availability of fur seals and 
other food resources, as well as average body mass of harvested seals, 
environmental variability, and the availability of harvesters. If 
socio-economic conditions or the fur seal population status change, 
NMFS can evaluate whether a change in the regulatory limits of the 
subsistence use is warranted.

Simplification of Regulation of Subsistence Use Based on Consistency of 
the Determination of Pribilovians' Subsistence Needs for More Than 
Twenty-Five Years

    The Pribilovians have stated in their past public comments that 
their harvest was not wasteful. They have also indicated that efforts 
to institute intrusive sampling during early years of the subsistence 
harvest, perceived micro-managing of the harvest method, and 
inconsistent application of methods to determine the subsistence need 
ultimately resulted in reduced estimates of their subsistence need over 
time, even though biologically the harvest of males would be 
sustainable at levels higher than proposed in this rule (52 FR 26479, 
July 15, 1987; 56 FR 36739, August 1, 1991; 77 FR 41168, July 12, 2012; 
75 FR 21243, April 23, 2010). To respond to concerns of perceived 
micro-managing and alleged inconsistent methodologies to determine 
subsistence need, NMFS proposes to simplify and streamline the existing 
regulatory approach by establishing in regulation the subsistence need 
for both St. Paul and St. George Island, by removing an annual harvest 
suspension determination that was based on whether subsistence need 
that year was satisfied, and by revising harvest termination provisions 
to be consistent with proposed changes to seasons and subsistence use 
limits.
    Codification in regulation of the maximum level of subsistence use 
is based in part on the consistency of the prior determinations of 
subsistence needs over time, as well as on the consideration of other 
nutritional, socio-economic, and cultural factors (addressed above). 
Under 50 CFR 216.72(b), every three years NMFS must publish in the 
Federal Register a summary of the Pribilovians' fur seal harvest for 
the previous three-year period and an estimate of the number of fur 
seals expected to satisfy the subsistence requirements of Pribilovians 
in the subsequent three-year period. Through that process, NMFS has set 
the maximum allowable harvest at 500 seals per year for St. George 
Island every year since 1990 and 2,000 seals per year for St. Paul 
Island every year since 1992. NMFS has set the annual maximum allowable 
use of fur seals for subsistence uses based on NMFS's consistent 
determination of the number of seals that would satisfy the subsistence 
requirements for each Island. Given the consistent determination on the 
upper limit of subsistence needs for the two communities and the 
sustainable nature of that level of harvest (NMFS 2014, NMFS 2017), 
codifying the allowable harvest levels in regulation would be more 
efficient than continuing to revisit the subsistence need every three 
years. If NMFS finalizes this new and more streamlined approach to the 
regulations and circumstances later change, NMFS can initiate 
rulemaking to revisit the allowable harvest levels under the authority 
of the FSA. Under the Co-management Agreements, the ACSPI and NMFS will 
continue to cooperatively manage subsistence use on St. Paul Island, 
and the St. George Traditional Council and NMFS will continue to 
cooperatively manage subsistence use on St. George Island.
    In addition, NMFS proposes to remove the provision at 50 CFR 
216.72(f)(1)(i), which allows for the suspension of subsistence harvest 
on St. Paul Island or St. George Island if NMFS determines that the 
subsistence needs of the Pribilovians on that Island have been 
satisfied. Under this proposed rule, NMFS would set in regulation the 
annual subsistence needs of each Island, which will reflect and respect 
the many factors that influence subsistence need on each Island. Based 
on the proposed codification in regulation of annual subsistence need, 
the regulatory provisions that currently require NMFS to determine if 
subsistence needs are satisfied, suspend the harvest, and notify the 
Pribilovians of this suspension would be unnecessary and irrelevant, 
and removal of this provision (50 CFR 216.72(f)(1)(i)) will further 
simplify and streamline the regulations.
    Finally, NMFS proposes to revise the subsistence use termination 
provisions at 50 CFR 216.72(g) to be consistent with the new seasons 
for St. Paul and the subsistence use limits for each Island. Currently, 
50 CFR 216.72(g)(1) terminates the harvest seasons for St. Paul and St. 
George Islands on August 8 and for the St. George male young of the 
year harvest season on November 30 and requires NMFS to determine 
whether the annual subsistence needs on both Islands have been 
satisfied. Currently, 50 CFR 216.72(g)(2) requires the termination of 
the subsistence seasons on either Island if NMFS determines that the 
upper limit of the subsistence need has been reached or if NMFS 
determines that the subsistence needs of the Pribilovians on that 
Island have been satisfied.
    Under this proposed rule, 50 CFR 216.72(g)(1) would be revised to 
apply only to St. Paul Island and: (i) For the hunting of juvenile male 
fur seals with firearms, would terminate the season at the end of the 
day on May 31 or when 2,000 fur seals have been killed during the year, 
whichever comes first; (ii) for the harvest of juvenile male fur seals 
without firearms, would terminate the season at the end of the day on 
December 31 or when 2,000 fur seals have been killed during the year, 
whichever comes first; or (iii) would terminate the subsistence use 
seasons when 20 female fur seals have been killed during the year.
    In addition, 50 CFR 216.72(g)(2) would be revised to apply only to 
St. George Island and: (i) For the sub-adult male harvest, would 
terminate the season at the end of the day on August 8 or when 500 sub-
adult male seals have been harvested during the year, whichever comes 
first; (ii) for the male young of the year harvest, would terminate the 
harvest at the end of the day on November 30 or earlier if the first of 
either the following occurs: 150 Male young of the year fur seals have 
been harvested or a total of 500 sub-adult male fur seals and male 
young of the year fur seals have been harvested during the year; or 
(iii) would terminate the subsistence harvest seasons when 3 female fur 
seals have been killed during the year.
    The Assistant Administrator would no longer need to make an annual 
determination of whether the subsistence needs of the Pribilovians have 
been satisfied, because the proposed rule would establish annual limits 
for St. Paul Island and St. George Island, including the limit on the

[[Page 40202]]

number of female fur seals that may be killed during the year for St. 
Paul and St. George Islands, and would set two seasons for St. Paul 
Island, as discussed next.

Regulatory Changes to the Management of Subsistence Use on St. Paul 
Island

    NMFS established in the emergency final rule (51 FR 24828, July 9, 
1986) that the original harvest season would occur from June 30 through 
August 8, with the opportunity to extend the harvest until September 30 
if certain conditions were met. The ACSPI and Tanadgusix Corporation 
(the local Alaska Native Corporation created by Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act) requested a season from June 30 through September 30, 
in order to meet their subsistence need (51 FR 24828, July 9, 1986). 
NMFS removed the provisions to extend the subsistence harvest in 1992, 
citing the inability of Pribilovians to distinguish and avoid immature 
females during previous harvest extensions and authorized the season to 
start a week earlier on June 23 (57 FR 33900, July 31, 1992). The 
current subsistence regulations for St. Paul Island define a single 
season from June 23 through August 8 to harvest male fur seals 124.5 cm 
long or less (50 CFR 216.72(e)(2), (e)(5), (g)(1)).
    During the 1980s and 1990s, NMFS and the Pribilovians were 
adjusting to the subsistence regulatory process and its implementation 
on both islands. NMFS and ACSPI signed the Co-management Agreement in 
2000, which provided the opportunity to adaptively manage female 
mortality during subsistence activities. The St. Paul Co-management 
Agreement includes a female mortality threshold of five that, if 
reached, would result in temporary harvest suspension and a review of 
the circumstances of those mortalities. The St. Paul Co-management 
Agreement also includes a second threshold of eight female mortalities 
(i.e., three more than the temporary suspension), that, if reached, 
results in termination of the harvest for the season. The Pribilovians 
have not reached these thresholds during any harvest season on St. Paul 
since signing of the Co-management Agreement in 2000.
    NMFS proposes to create two seasons on St. Paul for subsistence use 
of fur seals differentiated by the allowable methods that may be used 
during each season. The first season would authorize Pribilovians to 
kill juvenile fur seals (defined as less than 7 years old) using 
firearms to hunt from land on St. Paul Island from January 1 through 
May 31, hereafter referred to as the proposed ``hunting season.'' The 
second season would authorize the Pribilovians to kill juvenile fur 
seals without the use of firearms on St. Paul Island from June 23 
through December 31, hereafter referred to as the proposed ``harvest 
season.'' It is not known whether pups would be available for 
subsistence uses during the hunting season, but the proposed rule would 
not preclude Pribilovians from taking pups during either of the two 
proposed seasons. The limited available evidence suggests that pups 
likely would not be available to hunters during the proposed hunting 
season.
    NMFS proposes to remove the regulatory provision at 50 CFR 
216.72(e)(5) that requires the taking of fur seals 124.5 cm or less in 
length, and NMFS instead proposes to allow take by hunting and 
harvesting of juvenile seals (defined as seals under 7 years old) 
through the regulatory changes that would provide that (1) juvenile fur 
seals may be killed with firearms from January 1 through May 31 
annually; and (2) juvenile fur seals may be killed without the use of 
firearms from June 23 through December 31 annually. The proposed rule 
would authorize harvest during the associated season by traditional 
methods which involve herding and stunning followed immediately by 
exsanguination. The proposed rule would also authorize up to 20 female 
fur seals to be killed per year to account for incidental or accidental 
take of females. This amount of female mortality associated with the 
hunting and harvesting seasons is higher than allowed under the current 
Co-management Agreement, but at one percent of the proposed annual 
limit on subsistence use, it is a conservative limit that will 
incentivize avoiding incidental take of females and other causes of 
accidental mortality and will not have negative consequences at a 
population level (NMFS 2017).
    NMFS also proposes to remove the regulatory provision at 50 CFR 
216.72(e)(2) that no fur seal may be taken before June 23 and to revise 
the regulatory provision at 50 CFR 216.72(g)(1) that currently 
terminates the annual take on August 8 for sub-adult males on St. Paul. 
As explained earlier, this proposed rule would revise the suspension 
and termination provisions at 50 CFR 216.72(f) and (g) to be consistent 
with the new seasons and limits for St. Paul Island, which are 
discussed in detail further below. This revision would include a 
termination provision of subsistence hunting and harvest seasons for 
the remainder of the year if 20 female fur seals are killed at any 
point during the year.
    Finally, the proposed rule would set the total number of seals 
authorized for subsistence use in both the hunting and harvest seasons, 
including female fur seals killed during those seasons, at 2,000 
juvenile fur seals per year. As explained earlier and in the DSEIS 
(NMFS 2017), NMFS does not expect a detectable change in population 
trends from killing up to 2,000 juvenile fur seals on St. Paul during 
the hunting and harvest seasons annually in the future to be authorized 
under this proposed rule.

Age Class

    ACSPI petitioned NMFS to define the age class of male fur seals 
allowed for subsistence use as those less than seven years old (i.e., 
juveniles), rather than those 124.5 cm or less as currently described 
at 50 CFR 216.72(e)(5). In addition, the proposed rule includes pups in 
the definition of ``juvenile'' at ACSPI's request, and would remove the 
current prohibition at 50 CFR 216.72(e)(4). For the reasons detailed 
below, NMFS proposes to allow the subsistence use of juvenile fur seals 
less than seven years old, which reflects an age class distinction that 
the Pribilovians can use in the field to reliably determine eligibility 
for subsistence use before taking the animals, rather than a measure of 
length, which can only be verified after-the-fact. These age classes 
are relevant to the two proposed seasons because of the different 
availability of the age classes of seals being targeted for subsistence 
use. The oldest seals are available in limited numbers during the 
hunting season, and the youngest seals (pups) are available during the 
latter portion of the harvest season. The limited available evidence 
suggests that pups do not linger offshore near the Pribilofs after 
weaning, as they start their migration in approximately December (Lea 
et al., 2009), and thus likely would not be available to hunters during 
the start of the proposed hunting season (January 1). In addition, 
because a significant portion of breeding females do not return to the 
Pribilofs to pup until July, most, if not all, pups born in that year 
will not be born until after the end of the proposed hunting season 
(May 31).

Subsistence Use of Pups

    NMFS reexamined the record behind the existing prohibition on the 
taking of pups for subsistence purposes. During the original rulemaking 
to authorize the subsistence harvest, we incorrectly stated, without 
explanation, that a harvest of pups could have a disastrous effect on 
the already declining fur seal population (50 FR 27915, July 8, 1985; 
51 FR 24829, July 9, 1986). NMFS has subsequently explained, in the 
context

[[Page 40203]]

of the rulemaking to authorize the harvest of pups on St. George 
Island, that a regulated harvest of male pups would not have a negative 
effect on the population (79 FR 43007, August 6, 2014; 79 FR 65327, 
November 4, 2014). The simple explanation for why harvesting pups is 
not a biological concern for the fur seal population is that pups have 
a high natural mortality rate, and thus removing a given number of pups 
from the population has less of a negative effect than taking the same 
number of older fur seals. NMFS (2014, 2017) analyzed numerous lines of 
harvest evidence including the harvest of northern fur seal pups from 
their Russian breeding islands (Kuzin 2010, Ream and Burkanov pers. 
comm.), survival models (Towell 2007, Fowler et al., 2009), and a model 
of the proposed St. Paul harvest levels and associated population 
effects (Towell and Williams, unpublished data) and concluded that the 
population level effects of the subsistence harvest of 2,000 6 year old 
males (i.e., the oldest age in the ``juvenile'' category) would be 
higher than the harvest of 2,000 male pups, but neither would have 
significant negative population consequences (NMFS 2017).
    Under the proposed rule, the highest permissible yearly pup harvest 
on St. Paul (2,000 fur seals) is 2.4 percent of the 2016 pup production 
estimate (80,614), but a more likely harvest level is about half of 
that and either level represents an insignificant proportion of the pup 
production. A more extreme example of the sustainability of a pup 
harvest comes from the average annual Russian commercial harvest of 
about 4,300 pups from 1987-2006. This level of harvest represents about 
11 percent of annual pup production on Bering Island each year during 
this 20-year period (Ream and Burkanov pers. comm.). The Bering Island 
harvest of pups included only males from 1987-1992, and averaged over 
6,000 annually during that time period (14.6 percent of annual pup 
production). Ten years after the initiation of the male pup harvest on 
Bering Island, the trend in pup production was not statistically 
different from zero (Ream and Burkanov pers. comm.). These results 
support NMFS's determination that a male pup harvest of up to 2,000 
pups, or currently approximately 2.4 percent of annual production, 
would not have any detectable direct or indirect population level 
effects.

Subsistence Use of Juveniles

    In the emergency final rule (51 FR 24828, 24836, 24840; July 9, 
1986), NMFS promulgated the restriction at 50 CFR 216.72(e)(5) that 
``[o]nly sub-adult male fur seals 124.5 cm or less in length may be 
taken'' with the intent of having the subsistence harvest replicate the 
commercial harvest and associated research as closely as practical to 
allow for continued research comparisons among sites with different 
harvest levels. NMFS discussed this in the emergency interim rule: It 
should be stressed that this rule authorizes only the subsistence 
taking of fur seals even though the methods and schedule employed are 
derived from the commercial harvest (50 FR 27914, 27918; July 8, 1985). 
In the emergency final rule, NMFS noted that the result is to confine 
the harvest to primarily 2, 3, and 4-year-old males (51 FR 24828, 
24836; July 9, 1986). Maintaining comparability to the size of 
commercially-harvested seals (124.5 cm or less in length) has proven 
not to be an issue because Pribilovians prefer and choose smaller seals 
for subsistence needs.
    Zimmerman and Lechter (1986) and Zimmerman and Melovidov (1987) 
weighed approximately 950 seals from the 1985 and 1986 subsistence 
harvests to estimate percentage use, but made no reference to obtaining 
lengths from the same sample of harvested seals to confirm seals were 
less than 124.5 cm or whether the harvest selected seals according to 
their relative abundance in the population. Zimmerman and Lechter 
(1986) noted that about 80 percent of the seals harvested in 1985 were 
three-year-old males. Zimmerman and Melovidov (1987) reported that 54 
percent of the seals harvested in 1986 were three-year-old males, and 
noted that this likely represented an Aleut preference for younger 
seals for food. Hanson et al. (1994) and Caruso and Baker (1996) showed 
the Aleut preference for younger seals is likely closer to a two-year-
old sized seal. NMFS has analyzed the age data of harvested male seals 
on St. Paul, and the data indicate about 42 percent of the subsistence 
harvested seals in recent years are two-year-old males versus 13 
percent during the last 10 years of the commercial harvest (MML 
unpublished). Since the emergency final rule in 1986, the Aleuts have 
never indicated an interest in the subsistence harvest of larger older 
male seals. Accordingly, authorizing the subsistence use for both 
hunting and harvesting of juvenile seals (less than seven years old, 
including pups), rather than dictating a length limit, better 
accommodates and respects the traditional and cultural preferences of 
the Aleuts; moreover, the Aleuts' preference to target two to three 
year old seals in past subsistence harvests indicates that it is not 
likely that older seals will be targeted in future harvests.
    In addition, harvesters use length in combination with coloration, 
behavior, and head shape to simultaneously make a harvest choice. A 
length restriction would not be useful for managing the proposed 
subsistence hunting season from January 1 through May 31. NMFS and 
ACSPI do not have a clear understanding of the sizes (or ages) of seals 
available at this time of year, and it is unrealistic to expect hunters 
to estimate the length of a mostly-submerged seal before pulling the 
trigger of a firearm. This is also true for the harvest season since a 
precise measurement of a moving seal on land among ten or more seals of 
similar size cannot be taken until after the seal is dead. At age seven 
most male fur seals show secondary sexual characteristics such as 
growth of a mane and broadening of the sagittal crest, neck, and 
shoulders (Scheffer 1962) that provide a reliable means for subsistence 
users to distinguish adult males from juveniles during both the hunting 
season and the harvest season. Thus, rather than being regulated by a 
precise length limitation that can only be confirmed after the fact, 
Pribilovians will be able to take seals under seven years old based on 
broad age distinctions that can be used in the field to reliably 
determine eligibility for subsistence use during either the hunting or 
harvesting season before taking the animals.
    Accordingly, the proposed rule would remove the provision at 50 CFR 
216.72(e)(5) that only subadult male fur seals 124.5 cm or less in 
length may be taken. Instead, the proposed rule would authorize the 
subsistence use to include both hunting and harvesting of juvenile 
seals (those less than seven years old), including pups. The 
subsistence harvest regulations for St. George Island (50 CFR 
216.72(d)) will retain the 124.5 cm length restriction and will 
continue to use the term sub-adult male to refer to animals less than 
that size. St. George harvesters take younger seals on average than St. 
Paul, and this length restriction has had no impact on their 
subsistence use. If petitioned to do so or if warranted, NMFS may 
propose changing those provisions for St. George via subsequent 
rulemaking.

Hunting Season

    The proposed rule would authorize Pribilovians on St. Paul to kill 
juvenile northern fur seals from January 1 through May 31 by using 
firearms only, although alternative hunting methods

[[Page 40204]]

consistent with the FSA and 50 CFR 216.71 could be developed by NMFS 
and ACSPI through the Co-management Council. Northern fur seals are not 
observed on land for most (January 1 through May 1) of the proposed 
hunting season (Bigg 1990, NMFS 2017), so ACSPI petitioned NMFS to 
allow Pribilovians to hunt from land on St. Paul Island for animals in 
or adjacent to the water using firearms. NMFS proposes to define 
firearm in the same manner as NMFS has previously defined the term. In 
a regulatory prohibition on discharge of firearms at or within 100 
yards of a Steller sea lion west of 144[deg] W longitude (see 50 CFR 
224.103(d)(1)(i)), NMFS has defined a firearm as any weapon, such as a 
pistol or rifle, capable of firing a missile using an explosive charge 
as a propellant. NMFS proposes to adopt the same definition in 50 CFR 
216.72(e)(1) for the St. Paul hunting season. Pribilovians currently 
hunt with firearms to take Steller sea lions for subsistence uses 
during this time of year. During scoping and public comments on the 
DSEIS, Pribilovians indicated that they historically hunted fur seals 
at this time of year and this would not only allow them to restore 
traditional cultural practices but also allow them to secure fresh fur 
seal meat from January to May, thereby promoting greater food security 
year-round on St. Paul Island since other sources of fresh meat 
(including sea lions) are limited during those months.
    NMFS has not considered the use of firearms to take northern fur 
seals for subsistence uses from January through May in previous 
rulemakings. A primary rationale for why the proposed take of fur seals 
using firearms would be a sound practice for subsistence use is that 
fur seal behavior and ecology are substantially different in the winter 
and spring versus the summer and autumn. Fur seals spend most of their 
lives at sea and are not reliably available on the Pribilof Islands in 
the winter and spring, indicating that the hunt is not likely to take 
breeding fur seals, is not likely to take a significant number of fur 
seals, and is not likely to incidentally harass non-harvested seals 
(NMFS 2017), as discussed next.
    Adult male northern fur seals land on the Pribilof Islands to breed 
beginning in early May (Bigg 1986, Gentry 1998). Pribilovians have 
observed small numbers (fewer than 20 per month in any year) of 
juvenile and adult male northern fur seals swimming in the nearshore 
waters on the Pribilof Islands during the winter and spring, and these 
observations are substantiated by satellite telemetry data (NMFS 2017). 
A few fur seals are observed on land in the winter, but unlike their 
behavior in the summer they are typically found very close to the 
water's edge and cannot be approached closely (NMFS 2017). 
Progressively younger males arrive and land on the Pribilof Islands 
from May through December, though there are no data to determine the 
ages of seals arriving in May (Bigg 1986). The satellite telemetry data 
also indicate that female fur seals are not observed within 100 
nautical miles of the Pribilof Islands from January through May, 
indicating the probability of accidentally taking female fur seals 
during the hunting season would be very low (NMFS 2017). Because there 
is a small likelihood that breeding fur seals are present on or near 
St. Paul and would be taken during the hunting season, the hunt of fur 
seals from January 1 to May 31 is not expected to impact the breeding 
population of northern fur seals or population trends over time.
    NMFS (2017) analyzed the potential subsistence mortality of six-
year old males during the hunting season. The best available data to 
estimate the probable mortality rate for fur seals comes from the 
hunting effort (i.e., available weather days to hunt) and success rates 
(i.e., struck and lost at sea) for Steller sea lions. NMFS (2017) 
combined these two sources of information from sea lion hunting to 
estimate that about 20 to 40 fur seals may be killed during the 
subsistence hunting season. This represents a practical estimate, 
without any direct data about fur seal hunting or fur seal availability 
at this time of the year. We assumed that the number of hunting days 
and hunter success was most influenced by weather, and that the species 
(sea lion versus fur seal) would have less influence. We do not know 
the probability of hunters encountering four-, five-, or six-year-old 
seals while hunting, but would predict based on the preferences 
identified during the earlier subsistence harvests (Zimmerman and 
Melovidov, 1987; Hansen et al., 1992) that hunters would choose the 
smallest (i.e., youngest) of those juveniles available while they are 
hunting. Bigg (1986) described the timing of arrival of different aged 
male fur seals on St. Paul based on the kill data from the commercial 
harvest that generally started on July 1. Thus, Bigg's (1986) analysis 
is informative, but there are no data from observations of known-aged 
individuals from January through May.
    While the most likely outcome of the hunting season will be 
mortality of a mixed number of four-, five-, and six-year old males, 
NMFS (2017) and Towell and Williams (unpublished) took a conservative 
approach and modeled the mortality of 2,000 six-year old males for 25 
years. This modeling approach is conservative in evaluating the 
population consequences for several reasons. The longer an individual 
survives the more likely it will survive to reproduce and contribute to 
the population. And because survival increases as animals approach 
sexual maturity, the use of the oldest available seals (six-year-olds) 
would be removing the seals more likely to successfully contribute to 
reproduction once sexually mature. A six-year old seal has a higher 
probability of surviving to the next year than a younger seal. For 
example, if killing 2,000 four-year-olds, 15-20 percent of them (400) 
would have died naturally. Modeling for the mortality of six-year-old 
seals that had survived to near-sexual maturity represents the maximum 
effect to reproduction and the population. Any hunting mortality of 
younger seals (four- or five-year-olds), which is likely, would reduce 
the effect relative to the possible (but unlikely) hunting mortality of 
exclusively six-year-olds. NMFS (2017) model results indicated a one to 
two percent reduction in the estimated number of adult males counted in 
July in the population due to a possible kill of 2,000 six-year-old 
males compared to a kill of 2,000 males less than 124.5 cm (i.e., males 
two to four years old). This low percent reduction (one to two percent) 
is not likely to impact the northern fur seal population overall.
    The incidental harassment of non-targeted northern fur seals during 
the hunting season is not likely to affect many seals. NMFS (2017) 
reported that due to their general solitary nature and rare occurrence 
on the Pribilof Islands during the majority of the hunting season, the 
level of incidental harassment of fur seals on or near St. Paul Island 
due to the use of firearms to hunt seals on St. Paul Island would be 
very low. NMFS (2017) reported that the average number of seals 
observed on St. Paul for the months of January through May was 19, 3, 
1, 19, and 42 fur seals each month, respectively. Supporting the on-
land observations, NMFS (2017) also estimated that fur seals spend 
significantly more time in the North Pacific Ocean than in the Bering 
Sea during the months of January, February, March and April, and May. 
Thus, on any particular day when a hunter would be hunting, there would 
be few if any seals on land (likely less than 42), and possibly a 
slightly higher number in the water. This alleviates concerns about the 
possibility of noise from firearms

[[Page 40205]]

disturbing or harassing a significant number of seals or causing seals 
onshore to stampede offshore. The breeding season starts in late June 
and, as discussed earlier, female seals are not present and breeding 
males are not usually present on St. Paul Island between January and 
May. Therefore, limiting the use of firearms to January 1 through May 
31 alleviates concerns about the possibility of harassing breeding fur 
seals on land. Also, limiting the use of firearms to January 1 through 
May 31 alleviates concerns about the safety of fur seal researchers and 
tourists since few, if any, researchers or visitors would be present 
during that timeframe.
    Public comments received on the DSEIS expressed concern that the 
use of firearms to kill fur seals for subsistence is a wasteful manner 
of taking, as this method increases the likelihood of struck and lost 
seals. NMFS has evaluated the taking of fur seals with firearms, and 
there is no viable alternative method to obtain fur seals at the time 
of year proposed. The traditional harvest method (see next section) is 
not practical in the winter and spring because the few fur seals that 
are present on land from January through May are not found in the 
inland areas typically occupied during the summer and autumn. If the 
proposed rule is finalized, NMFS will work with ACSPI and hunters both 
independently and within the co-management framework to monitor and 
characterize number of fur seals struck and lost and, if necessary, 
identify measures to reduce the number of seals lost. These estimated 
numbers and rates of struck and lost fur seals will be compared to 
those obtained for Steller sea lions and other marine mammals to 
determine whether the take may be considered wasteful (i.e., not likely 
to assure the killing and retrieval of the fur seal (51 FR 24828, 
24834; July 9, 1986)), and whether the Co-management Council should 
consider modifying hunting practices to address waste. In addition, 
NMFS and ACSPI through the Co-management Council could develop 
alternative hunting methods. Any alternative methods would need to be 
non-wasteful and otherwise consistent with Section 105(a) of the FSA 
and 50 CFR 216.71, and would need to result in substantially similar 
effects (including, but not limited to, levels of harassment of non-
hunted seals). Because alternative methods for hunting seals may have 
different effects than the methods analyzed by NMFS, NMFS would 
consider whether any such differences warrant additional rulemaking and 
NEPA analysis before being implemented.

Harvest Season

    The proposed rule would authorize Pribilovians on St. Paul to kill 
juvenile northern fur seals from June 23 through December 31 by 
harvesting. The proposed rule specifies that subsistence harvest would 
be without the use of firearms and may be by traditional harvest 
methods of herding and stunning followed immediately by exsanguination, 
although alternative harvest methods consistent with the FSA and 50 CFR 
216.71 could be developed by NMFS and ACPSI through the Co-management 
Council. The proposed harvest season is significantly longer than the 
currently authorized season from June 23 through August 8. When viewed 
in conjunction with the proposed hunting season from January 1 through 
May 31 and the proposed limit of 2,000 fur seals for subsistence use, 
the net effect is to allow the hunting and harvest of the same maximum 
number of fur seals annually as has been authorized under existing 
regulations, but spread over a longer period of time. This would allow 
subsistence users to obtain fresh fur seal meat during more of the 
year, increasing food security for ACSPI. ACSPI also has indicated they 
prefer the flexibility of one harvest season defined in the regulations 
rather than multiple regulated harvest seasons for different ages of 
available seals as NMFS promulgated for St. George in 2014 (79 FR 
65327, November 4, 2014). This proposed rule provides for that 
flexibility by setting one harvest season from June 23 to December 31 
for any male fur seals less than 7 years old (i.e., juvenile).
    NMFS distinguishes the harvest as a coordinated and organized 
effort during the harvest season of multiple subsistence users to 
provide many seals to meet the subsistence needs of many community 
members at one time, rather than individual hunters obtaining one seal 
at a time during the hunting season for use by a small number of 
individuals. Unlike the hunting season, the proposed rule would not 
authorize the use of firearms during the harvest season. Instead, the 
harvest season will continue to use methods consistent with those 
described as ``traditional harvesting techniques'' (see 51 FR 24828, 
July 9, 1986). Thus, the harvest of juvenile fur seals will continue to 
be by traditional harvest methods of herding and stunning followed 
immediately by exsanguination.
    In addition, NMFS and ACSPI through the Co-management Council could 
develop alternative harvesting methods. Any alternative methods would 
need to be non-wasteful and otherwise consistent with Section 105(a) of 
the FSA and 50 CFR 216.71, and would need to result in substantially 
similar effects (including, but not limited to, levels of harassment of 
non-harvested seals). Because alternative methods for harvesting seals 
may have different effects from the methods analyzed by NMFS, NMFS 
would consider whether any such differences warrant additional 
rulemaking and NEPA analysis before being implemented. This approach 
would allow for the development of alternative harvest methods through 
the Co-management Council, rather than NMFS attempting to dictate all 
aspects of harvest methods in regulation. This approach facilitates 
cooperative management of an important subsistence resource for 
Pribilovians and ensures Pribilovians who harvest seals will have a 
role in developing harvest methods that are consistent with the 
allowable take of fur seals at 50 CFR 216.71.
    In addition, the proposed approach recognizes the significant role 
the commercial harvest and Federal management has played in shaping 
subsistence use of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands and in 
defining a particular harvest method as ``traditional.'' The 
``traditional harvesting techniques'' described in the 1986 rule were 
based on the commercial method of visiting a particular non-breeding 
fur seal resting area, preventing those seals present on land from 
escaping into the water, and slowly moving those seals into a group 
from the resting area to an area inland. The inland area was called the 
killing field and all seals within the harvestable size limits were 
killed (Bigg 1986). This was possible because it was estimated that 
about 80 percent of non-breeding males are not on shore on any 
particular harvest day (Gentry 1981), and thus escaped the commercial 
harvest. It was estimated that on average the commercial harvest killed 
about 41 percent of the three-year old males and 53 percent of the 
four-year old males available in the population (Marine Mammal 
Biological Lab 1972). NMFS maintained this level of commercial harvests 
of sub-adult males for over 30 consecutive years until the herd 
reduction program was instituted (NMFS 2007, 2014, 2017). This aspect 
of the ``traditional harvesting technique'' is known as a round-up and 
drive, and has been modified for subsistence uses by allowing both 
excess seals for the daily subsistence need or unwanted seals

[[Page 40206]]

(e.g., large males or females) to escape prior to them being driven to 
the killing field. The accepted method of taking on the killing field 
has included seals being stunned unconscious by a blow to the head with 
a club and exsanguinated by severing the aorta (51 FR 24828, July 9, 
1986). An independent panel of veterinarians reviewed this method of 
killing and determined it to be painless and humane (51 FR 24828, July 
9, 1986).
    The harvest season would continue the established subsistence 
method as has occurred in the past on St. Paul Island and would also 
authorize harvesting pups using the same technique, though adapted to 
pup behavior. This approach would enable ACSPI to resume a traditional 
cultural practice (the subsistence use of fur seal pups) that is 
prohibited by existing regulations (for more background on the 
traditional harvest of pups, see the preamble to the St. George 
proposed rule at 79 FR 43007, 43010-11; July 24, 2014). As explained 
earlier, NMFS (2014, 2017) has shown that a harvest of pups has a lower 
biological effect on the population than a similar harvest of sub-adult 
or juvenile males because at least 50 percent of pups do not survive 
their first two years at sea after weaning (Lander 1981). NMFS (2017) 
modeled the mortality of 2,000 male pups, 2,000 two- to four-year-old 
males, and 2,000 six-year-old males annually for 25 years and estimated 
a possible reduction in the number of adult males in the twenty-fifth 
year of about four, six, and eight percent, respectively when compared 
to a population with no harvest mortality.
    ACSPI has indicated an interest in harvesting male pups during the 
latter half of the proposed harvest season. ACSPI did not identify 
specific regulatory dates or other regulatory restrictions to harvest 
pups, but instead wanted to retain the flexibility of allowing 
subsistence users to determine the best times, locations, and 
modifications to the methods to harvest pups. The proposed rule does 
not limit the opportunities to harvest male pups during the harvest 
season. Adult male fur seals' territorial behavior in July and August 
limits safe access by humans into areas occupied by pups. Adult males 
typically prevent entry of people or other seals into breeding areas 
until late August, when most females are no longer coming into estrous 
(Gentry 1998). Subsistence users can handle pups safely up until 
weaning in order to distinguish male from female seals prior to 
harvest, but this and other restrictions will be managed and monitored 
within the co-management process, not by regulations.
    NMFS has worked with the Traditional Council of St. George Island 
since 2014 to implement the regulations authorizing the harvest of pups 
on St. George Island (79 FR 65327, November 4, 2014). NMFS has 
independently monitored all pup harvests from 2014 through 2017. No 
female pups have been accidentally harvested by the Pribilovians on St. 
George Island during this timeframe. If the proposed rule is finalized, 
NMFS expects similar cooperation with ACSPI and a similarly low level 
of accidental female pup mortality on St. Paul Island.

Authorized Mortality of Females During the Hunting and Harvest Seasons

    The 1986 emergency final rule included two harvest termination 
provisions regarding the taking of females during the subsistence 
harvest of male fur seals (51 FR 24828, July 9, 1986). The first 
provision established a termination threshold of one-half of one 
percent of the total number of seals harvested per island. Therefore, 
the harvest termination thresholds in 1986 based on the harvest range 
of 2,400 to 8,000 males would have been 12 to 40 females. The second 
provision established a termination threshold when the number of 
females harvested during any consecutive seven-day period after August 
8 exceeds five. Both of these provisions were removed in 1992 when NMFS 
removed the option to extend the harvest after August 8 (57 FR 33900, 
July 31, 1992). The probability of encountering immature female fur 
seals on the hauling grounds increases after August 1 (57 FR 33900, 
July 31, 1992). Non-breeding female fur seals arrive on the hauling 
grounds later than similarly-aged males (Bigg 1986).
    NMFS and ACSPI are still concerned about the killing of females 
during the subsistence use seasons on St. Paul Island and the ability 
of subsistence users to distinguish young females from young males. 
However, rather than preclude subsistence opportunities in an attempt 
to prevent any female mortality, NMFS is proposing a safe threshold for 
female mortality associated with the subsistence hunting and harvest 
seasons and a female mortality termination provision similar to the 
previous termination provision (51 FR 24828, July 9, 1986) to minimize 
population consequences. Since the duration of the combined proposed 
hunting and harvest seasons would be longer than the current 
subsistence harvest season, NMFS is proposing to authorize for 
subsistence use the incidental mortality of up to 20 female fur seals 
each year (i.e., one percent of the allowable mortality). NMFS also 
proposes to include a provision to terminate the subsistence use on St. 
Paul for the rest of the year if 20 female fur seals are killed at any 
point during a calendar year. Although it is more likely female fur 
seals would be encountered and killed during the harvest season, the 
subsistence limit and termination provision apply once 20 female fur 
seals are killed at any point during a calendar year.
    The authorized level of female mortality (20) is higher than 
allowed under the current Co-management Agreement (8). NMFS and ACSPI 
will revise the Co-management Agreement so that it is consistent with 
the proposed regulation if it is finalized. The annual limit on female 
mortality will incentivize avoiding incidental take of females and 
other causes of accidental mortality and will not have negative 
consequences at a population level. NMFS modeled the potential 
population impact of the different female mortality thresholds of all 
the alternatives in the DSEIS (NMFS 2017, Towell and Williams 
unpublished report). NMFS modeled the mortality of 20 female pups and 
20 juvenile females (less than six years old) and reported that effects 
included both lost adult females and changes in reproduction. For the 
mortality of 20 female pups per year over 25 years, that effect was 
estimated as a 0.04 percent loss in adult females and 0.04 percent 
reduction in reproduction using two different historical estimates of 
female survival (Towell and Williams unpublished report). For the 
mortality of 20 juvenile females per year over 25 years, that effect 
was estimated to range from a 0.07 to 0.12 percent loss in adult 
females and a 0.12 to 0.39 percent reduction in reproduction using two 
different historical estimates of female survival (Towell and Williams 
unpublished report). The use of two different estimates of female 
survival was not expected to show any difference when considering the 
mortality of female pups, but was expected to provide the range 
observed for the mortality of up to 20 juvenile females. This low 
percent reduction in adult females and in reproduction is not likely to 
impact the northern fur seal population overall.
    The Co-management Council may establish interim thresholds of 
female mortality below the regulatory limit of 20 in order to adjust 
subsistence use practices. The intent is for the revised Co-management 
Agreement to incentivize avoiding incidental take and mortality of 
females, and other sources of accidental mortality. Thus the non-
regulatory measures within the management plans developed in the Co-

[[Page 40207]]

management process would further reduce the likelihood of reaching the 
limit of 20 female mortalities.

Implementation of a Revised Co-Management Agreement and Subsistence 
Management Plan for St. Paul Island

    NMFS evaluated ACSPI's petition for rulemaking along with other 
alternatives in a DSEIS (82 FR 22797, January 13, 2017) and determined 
that the ``taking'' of fur seals, including incidental taking of 
females, must be authorized by regulation (16 U.S.C. 1152, 1155(a)). As 
noted previously, the proposed rule adds a regulatory provision to the 
petitioned alternative to authorize the incidental or accidental 
mortality of up to 20 female fur seals each year. ACSPI petitioned NMFS 
to include a regulatory provision under the FSA that would allow ACSPI 
to co-manage subsistence use of northern fur seals under a co-
management agreement. The proposed rule does not include this 
petitioned regulatory provision because co-management of subsistence 
use is authorized under Section 119 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1388) and so 
no implementing regulations under the FSA are necessary to allow for 
co-management between NMFS and ACSPI. ACSPI will be able to continue 
co-management with NMFS under the MMPA.
    If the proposed rule is finalized, NMFS and ACSPI would revise the 
Co-management Agreement to reflect the new regulatory framework 
governing the subsistence take of fur seals on St. Paul Island. NMFS 
and ACSPI would also finalize an in-season monitoring and management 
plan, which would specify details of hunting and harvest management 
that the Co-management Council would implement via consensus within the 
parameters of the regulations. For example, the in-season monitoring 
and management plan could include non-regulatory provisions that limit 
the hunting and harvest of fur seals to particular sites, or suspend 
the hunting and harvest seasons temporarily if a certain number of 
females (below the regulatory limit of 20) are killed. This approach 
would strengthen co-management consistent with Section 119 of the MMPA 
(16 U.S.C. 1388), insofar as ACSPI would be an equal partner with NMFS 
in determining the details of how the subsistence use seasons are 
managed under the regulations. ACSPI would monitor the juvenile male 
hunting and harvest seasons with occasional independent monitoring by 
NMFS representatives. NMFS and ACPSI would monitor the pup harvest and 
hunting season consistent with the intent of the revised Co-management 
Agreement, while ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements and 
any restrictions or limitations identified in the in-season monitoring 
and management plan.

Additional Regulatory Changes for St. Paul and St. George Islands

    NMFS proposes to remove 50 CFR 216.74(b), which states that 
Pribilovians who engage in the harvest of seals are required to 
cooperate with scientists who may need assistance in recording tag or 
other data and collecting tissue or other fur seal samples for research 
purposes and that Pribilovians who take fur seals for subsistence uses 
must cooperate with NMFS representatives on the Pribilof Islands who 
are responsible for compiling harvest information. These requirements 
reflected NMFS's relationship with St. Paul subsistence users in the 
1980s, but the relationship has evolved through co-management to be 
collaborative and cooperative, rather than hierarchical, and thus the 
regulatory mandates in 50 CFR 216.74(b) are unnecessary. Instead, NMFS 
proposes to remove the heading ``St. George Island'' from current 
section 216.74(a), which describes the co-management process and the 
respective roles of NMFS and the tribes, to clarify that 50 CFR 
216.74(a) applies to both St. George and St. Paul. Thus, section 216.74 
would no longer have subsections.

Additional Regulatory Changes Related to St. Paul Subsistence Co-
Management Agreement

    NMFS proposes to replace the regulatory restriction at 50 CFR 
216.72(e), which states that seals on St. Paul Island may only be 
harvested from the Zapadni, English Bay, Northeast Point, Polovina, 
Lukanin, Kitovi, and Reef haulout areas and that no haulout area may be 
harvested more than once per week. When NMFS promulgated this 
regulation, NMFS did not indicate why haulout areas on St. Paul Island 
required additional protection regarding the frequency of harvest (once 
per week) when compared to those areas on St. George that could be 
harvested twice per week (51 FR 24828, July 9, 1986). It appears NMFS 
was simply continuing the frequency of commercial harvests on St. Paul 
as noted in the emergency interim rule (50 FR 27914, July 8, 1985). 
NMFS's decision about the frequency of subsistence harvests appears to 
have been influenced by concerns about overharvest and disturbance on 
the Islands (51 FR 24837, July 9, 1986), but those concerns were not 
explained relative to differences in effort (and presumably effects) 
between the commercial harvest and subsistence harvest and relative to 
different authorized practices (frequency of harvest allowed) between 
St. Paul Island and St. George Island. The 1986 subsistence harvest on 
St. Paul Island was limited in the regulations to one harvest per 
hauling ground for a total of 2,400-8,000 seals less than 124.5 cm in 
length over 19 harvest days. When examined in the context of the actual 
harvest effort in 1984 and 1986, and the data collected and analyzed in 
1978 and 1979 by Gentry (1981) and Griben (1979) showing that there 
were no movements of seals from harvested areas or any evidence of a 
lack of seals at the end of the commercial harvest season, this concern 
about disturbance during the subsistence harvest appears without basis. 
It is also not clear whether disturbance to the rookeries from the 
subsistence harvest on haulout areas would be any different than that 
observed for the much larger commercial harvest.
    In addition, the final rule did not include a rationale for the 
designation of the harvestable haulout areas (51 FR 24828, July 9, 
1986), and some of the place names are problematic. Northeast Point is 
a geographic region on St. Paul Island, not a haulout area. Northeast 
Point includes two rookeries, named Vostochni and Morjovi, both of 
which include at least three separate haulout areas. English Bay refers 
to a body of water on the southern coast of St. Paul Island, not a 
haulout area. Four different rookeries around English Bay are occupied 
by fur seals: Tolstoi, Zapadni Reef, Little Zapadni, and Big Zapadni. 
Each of these rookeries include at least one separate haulout area that 
was commercially harvested. Reef is a peninsula of land on the 
southeast coast that includes three rookeries named Reef, Gorbatch, and 
Ardiguen. Reef and Gorbatch rookeries each include at least two 
separate haulout areas, and Ardiguen is separated by a cliff on the 
inland side with no associated harvestable haulout area. These 
discrepancies and inconsistencies in identifying the haulout areas in 
50 CFR 216.72(e), combined with the unclear original rationale, render 
that regulatory provision ineffective today. Moreover, there is no 
present rationale to dictate harvest frequency and location by 
regulation, particularly in light of the preference of NMFS and ACSPI 
to manage the subsistence use of fur seals through a non-regulatory, 
yet effective, co-management process. In lieu of identifying in 
regulation the specific sites where subsistence use may occur,

[[Page 40208]]

the proposed rule would leave in-season management of the hunting and 
harvest seasons to the Co-management Council, including the scheduling 
and identification of locations and frequency of hunting and harvesting 
through an annual in-season monitoring and management plan, thereby 
supporting co-management of the subsistence use of marine mammals by 
Alaska Natives per Section 119 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1388).
    NMFS proposes to replace 50 CFR 216.72(e)(1), which states that the 
scheduling of the harvest is at the discretion of the Pribilovians, but 
must minimize stress to the harvested fur seals, and that the 
Pribilovians must give adequate advance notice of their harvest 
schedules to NMFS representatives. The existing regulatory language 
that requires the Pribilovians to notify NMFS of their harvest 
schedules was based on the premise that NMFS would provide the 
exclusive harvest monitoring. However, under the existing Co-management 
Agreement, the Pribilovians on St. Paul Island have taken 
responsibility for regular monitoring of subsistence use, and have 
identified and implemented measures to reduce stress to harvested and 
unharvested seals. Under the Co-management agreement, they have re-
instituted morning harvests, slowed the driving times from the haulout 
areas to the killing fields, and canceled harvests when weather 
conditions create a high risk for seals overheating. ACSPI has also 
instituted cool-down periods after the initial drive of seals to the 
killing fields, in between periods of stunning on the killing field, or 
if other unforeseen circumstances warrant. There have been no cases of 
seals overheating during the harvest in the past decade, in contrast to 
the commercial harvest and the first twenty years of the subsistence 
harvest (see annual harvest reports https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/fur-seal). Under the proposed rule, the Pribilovians would continue 
to work with NMFS on the cooperative management of the proposed 
subsistence use seasons, and the Co-management Council would schedule 
subsistence use and identify the locations and frequency of hunting and 
harvesting in the annual in-season monitoring and management plan. 
These measures would help improve the quality of the meat collected for 
subsistence use. Moreover, allowing the Co-management Council to 
develop measures for the location, frequency, and timing of subsistence 
use would respect the cultural identity of the Pribilovians and their 
stewardship responsibility towards fur seals.
    NMFS proposes to replace 50 CFR 216.72(e)(3), and revise 50 CFR 
216.72(e)(2) to authorize subsistence harvests without the use of 
firearms by traditional methods of herding and stunning followed 
immediately by exsanguination. Currently, 50 CFR 216.72(e)(3) 
prescribes that no fur seal may be taken except by experienced sealers 
using the traditional harvesting methods. The rationale for this 
provision was based on the determination by NMFS in the first years of 
the subsistence harvest that the traditional method of harvest was 
certified as humane and the premise that only experienced sealers would 
be able to maintain the high level of performance required to meet the 
humane standard. However, experienced sealers are often not available 
during the current subsistence season on St. Paul Island, which 
coincides with other limited employment opportunities on the Island, 
such as commercial fishing (56 FR 36735, 36739; August 1, 1991). A 
consequence of the regulatory requirement for experienced sealers 
resulted in a canceled harvest on the last day of the 1992 season (58 
FR 32893; June 14, 1993). Specifically, a harvest of approximately 100 
seals was scheduled to occur on St. Paul on August 8, 1992, the last 
available date of the 1992 harvest season. However, due to a family 
emergency the harvest foreman and other family members had to leave the 
Island on that date. Thus a lack of available experienced sealers 
caused the harvest to be canceled.
    NMFS (2017) evaluated the tradeoffs of using regulatory 
requirements to prescribe the methods, scheduling, and personnel for 
the subsistence use seasons on St. Paul Island, compared to whether 
NMFS and ACSPI could effectively use a more collaborative non-
regulatory approach to meet the regulatory requirement of ensuring the 
subsistence use is not accomplished in a wasteful manner (50 CFR 
216.71(b)). NMFS (2017) determined that subsistence use activities on 
St. Paul Island, including the individuals authorized to participate in 
the hunting and harvest seasons, would be more effectively managed by 
the St. Paul Co-management Council, rather than prescribed by 
regulation. Such a process will allow the Co-Management Council to 
manage the hunting and harvest seasons to accommodate the diversity of 
subsistence use activities on St. Paul Island. The Co-management 
Council can consider the availability of subsistence users to 
participate at different times, while ensuring that Pribilovians can 
preserve their cultural practices and environmental stewardship of fur 
seals.

Request for Comments

    NMFS developed the proposed northern fur seal subsistence use 
regulations to accomplish the intent of the ACSPI's petition, remove 
duplicative and unnecessary regulatory provisions for Pribilovians on 
St. George Island, and enhance the conservation and management of 
northern fur seals. NMFS solicits public comment on the proposed 
regulations and on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
prepared for this proposed rule.

Classification

National Environmental Policy Act

    NMFS prepared a DSEIS evaluating the impacts of the subsistence 
harvest of northern fur seals on St. Paul Island on the human 
environment, and will complete a final SEIS prior to issuing a final 
rule. NMFS will also prepare a Supplemental Information Report to the 
St. George Final SEIS prior to issuing a final rule.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR or Analysis)

    An RIR was prepared to assess the costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives. A copy of this Analysis is available from NMFS 
(see ADDRESSES). NMFS recommends this action based on those measures 
that maximize net benefits to the Nation. Specific aspects of the 
economic analysis related to the impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities are discussed below in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis section.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared 
for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603), to describe the economic impact 
this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. An IRFA 
describes why this action is being proposed; the objectives and legal 
basis for the proposed rule; the number of small entities to which the 
proposed rule would apply; any projected reporting, recordkeeping, or 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule; any overlapping, 
duplicative, or conflicting Federal rules;

[[Page 40209]]

and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would 
accomplish the stated objectives, consistent with applicable statutes, 
and that would minimize any significant adverse economic impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities. Descriptions of this proposed rule, 
its purpose, and the legal basis are contained earlier in this preamble 
and are not repeated here.
    NMFS prepared an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA) that carefully examined the potential impacts, including possible 
economic benefits and costs, and potential adverse economic burdens 
that may accrue uniquely to small entities, attributable to the action 
described above. NMFS affirms that the analysts have used the best 
available scientific data and commercial information to examine the 
possibility that a small entity, directly regulated by the proposed 
action, may potentially incur a significant adverse economic impact 
attributable to adoption of this action.

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Proposed 
Rule

    The harvest of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, 
is for subsistence purposes only by Pribilovians. This action directly 
regulates the subsistence use of northern fur seals by Alaska Natives 
residing in the community of St. Paul and St. George (i.e., 
Pribilovians). Individual Pribilovians, through the coordination of 
their Tribal Governments, organize volunteer crews to take northern fur 
seals for subsistence use consistent with the regulations. The RFA 
recognizes and defines three kinds of small entities: (1) Small 
businesses; (2) small non-profit organizations; and (3) and small 
government jurisdictions. Thus, subsistence harvesters do not meet the 
RFA definition of small entities.
    NMFS has identified two small entities that may be affected by this 
action--the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island, Tribal Government 
(ACSPI), and the Traditional Council of St. George Island, Tribal 
Government (Traditional Council) (i.e., both Federally-recognized 
tribal governments). The tribal governments on behalf of their members 
report on the level of the subsistence use of northern fur seals to 
NMFS and therefore may represent an affected small government 
jurisdiction.

Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts 
on Small Entities

    No significant alternatives were identified that would accomplish 
the stated objectives for deregulating the subsistence use of northern 
fur seals in the Pribilof Islands, are consistent with applicable 
statutes, that would reduce costs to potentially affected small 
entities more than the proposed rule and that is directly responsive to 
the ACSPI petition.
    The Alaska Native residents of St. Paul and St. George rely on a 
traditional subsistence lifestyle. The proposed rule would improve the 
management of fur seal subsistence use on St. Paul and St. George and 
would improve the ability of Pribilovians on both Islands to meet their 
subsistence needs. For both Islands, the proposed rule removes or 
reduces regulatory burdens on NMFS and Pribilovians by removing a 
requirement for NMFS to publish every three years subsistence 
determinations for each year, by ceasing to use a lower and upper limit 
to specify harvest levels, and by eliminating or revising regulations 
related to the lower and upper limit and the suspension and termination 
of the subsistence use season. For both Islands, the proposed rule also 
removes duplicative and therefore unnecessary regulations. The proposed 
rule balances an approach to streamline and simplify the regulations 
that govern the subsistence use of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, 
while recognizing that a non-regulatory approach would prevent the 
subsistence use of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. Under the FSA, 
all taking of fur seals is prohibited, unless authorized in regulations 
deemed necessary and appropriate for the conservation, management, and 
protection of the fur seal population (16 U.S.C. 1155(a)). NMFS will 
continue to regulate some aspects of subsistence use because an 
exclusively non-regulatory approach is not appropriate to ensure both 
the conservation goals for fur seals on the Pribilof Islands and the 
continued subsistence use of fur seals by Pribilovians. As discussed 
next, however, the preferred alternatives for each Island will 
streamline and simplify the regulations and have conservation value, 
while providing positive and beneficial effects for the communities of 
St. Paul and St. George Islands.
    For St. Paul Island, Alternative 2 (Preliminary Preferred/
Petitioned Alternative) addresses the subsistence need of the St. Paul 
community expressed in their petition. The Petitioned Alternative 
recognizes a formal request by the ACSPI to maximize the use of co-
management (i.e., non-regulatory) rather than Federal regulations to 
restrict and manage subsistence practices. Alternative 2 addresses the 
petition of ACSPI to reinitiate the pup harvest and winter hunting of 
fur seals, and Alternative 2 delegates authority to the St. Paul Co-
Management Council to develop a process and implement practical, 
locally-supported conservation controls. These controls may include 
measures to manage and minimize incidental or accidental mortality of 
females, monitor and report the subsistence use during all seasons, and 
prohibit subsistence use at breeding locations where the annual pup 
production may not sustain such use. Alternative 2 increases 
opportunities for using fur seals by authorizing harvests of juvenile 
fur seals from June 23 through December 31, and by adding a hunting 
season for juvenile fur seals from January 1 through May 31 every year. 
As a result of this change, the availability of fresh fur seal meat 
outside the current summer harvest season and the opportunities to co-
manage the subsistence use are improved. During the hunting season, 
firearms would be a permitted method to pursue fur seals on land or in 
the water. By allowing subsistence use of different age classes of fur 
seals at more locations on St. Paul, the community would have greater 
community resilience in meeting the demands of changing future 
environmental conditions to meet their subsistence need. For example, 
increasing ambient air temperatures on the Pribilof Islands increases 
the probability of over-heating seals during the round-up process in 
the summer, and may result in more canceled harvests. The tribal 
governments on both islands have begun to collect data to quantify the 
effects of changing environmental conditions on their ability to meet 
their subsistence needs. Fur seals may begin to spend more time in the 
Bering Sea in the winter as less seasonal sea ice forms. As a result 
they may haul out more frequently on the Pribilof Islands. Alternative 
2 would best balance meeting the subsistence needs of the community 
with the conservation and management of the fur seal population. 
Alternative 2 also expands co-management of a resource of significant 
value to the community of St. Paul Island. Therefore, Alternative 2 is 
believed to have major beneficial effects to the Pribilovians of St. 
Paul Island. NMFS' preliminary preferred alternative is Alternative 2 
due to the high likelihood of positive or beneficial effects on the 
community, and similar environmental consequences to all other 
alternatives.
    For St. George Island, Alternative 2 will remove duplicative and 
unnecessary regulations on the take of

[[Page 40210]]

fur seals and will streamline and simplify the regulations by setting a 
sustainable maximum harvest level in regulation. Setting in regulation 
a fixed maximum harvest level for St. George Island will account for 
the prevailing socio-economic conditions and abundance of the fur seal 
population on the Pribilof Islands, as well as the variability in the 
availability of fur seals based on environmental factors and the 
availability of subsistence users to participate in the subsistence 
harvests. Alternative 2, as compared to Alternative 1, will reduce 
current survey burdens on the subsistence harvest on St. George Island 
while emphasizing a broader consideration of the economic, social, and 
environmental factors affecting the subsistence use. The result of the 
regulatory streamlining will improve access and utilization of 
subsistence resources on St. George Island. This will positively impact 
food security, availability, and stability for the Pribilovians on St. 
George Island. Therefore, Alternative 2 is believed to have major 
beneficial effects to the Pribilovians of St. George Island. NMFS' 
preliminary preferred alternative is Alternative 2 due to the high 
likelihood of positive or beneficial effects on the community, and 
similar environmental consequences to all other alternatives.
    NMFS determined that disproportionality is the appropriate standard 
given the regulated entities are small government jurisdictions. No 
large entities are allowed to hunt or harvest northern fur seals; 
therefore the regulatory allowance for tribal members of either the 
Traditional Council of St. George or the Aleut Community of St. Paul 
Island to use northern fur seals for subsistence does not create a 
disproportionate impact that would disadvantage them. NMFS expects this 
action to have positive economic impacts to the small governmental 
entities affected by the rule; no negative economic impacts are 
expected. Based on this analysis, NMFS preliminarily determines that, 
while there may be two directly regulated small entities that may be 
beneficially affected by this proposed rule, those entities would not 
be significantly affected by this proposed rule. However, NMFS has 
prepared this IRFA to comply with the RFA and to provide potentially 
affected entities an opportunity to provide comments on this IRFA. NMFS 
will evaluate any comments received on the IRFA and may consider 
certifying under section 605 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 605) that this action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities prior to publication of the final rule.

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

    This proposed rule revises an existing collection-of-information 
requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA), although certain collection-of-information 
requirements would remain in place for both Islands. NMFS obtained OMB 
control number 0648-0699 for the regulations at 50 CFR 216.71-74, which 
apply to both Islands. For St. Paul Island, public reporting burden for 
hunt and harvest reporting for ACSPI is estimated to average 40 hours 
per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information. There are no 
significant changes in the collection-of-information requirements for 
St. George as part of this action.
    Under the existing regulatory structure, NMFS is required to 
suspend the subsistence use season for each Island when the lower limit 
of subsistence use for that Island is reached, and if allowing the 
season to resume, NMFS is required to determine the number of seals 
needed to satisfy subsistence need. NMFS substantiates the number of 
seals needed above the lower limit based on additional information 
provided from the Pribilovians. Under the proposed rule, these 
regulatory requirements would be eliminated; therefore, the proposed 
rule would reduce the burden on the Pribilovians on both Islands to 
collect and submit additional household surveys or additional 
information to justify their annual subsistence need.

Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed rule and 
existing Federal rules has been identified.

Executive Order 13175--Native Consultation

    The ACSPI petitioned NMFS to revise the northern fur seal 
subsistence use regulations. NMFS worked with ACSPI and contacted their 
local Native Corporation (Tanadgusix) about revising the regulations 
regarding the subsistence use of northern fur seals on St. Paul Island. 
Their input is incorporated herein. NMFS contacted the tribal 
government of St. George Island and their local Native Corporation 
(Tanaq) about revisions to the regulations applicable to the 
subsistence use of northern fur seals on St. George Island. Their input 
is incorporated herein. This proposed rule was developed through timely 
and meaningful consultation and collaboration with the tribal 
governments of St. Paul and St. George Islands and the local Native 
Corporations (Tanadgusix and Tanaq).

Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This proposed rule revises a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). NMFS obtained OMB control 
number 0648-0699 for the regulations at 50 CFR 216.71-74, which apply 
to both St. Paul and St. George Islands. For St. Paul Island, public 
reporting burden for hunt and harvest reporting is estimated to average 
40 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 
There are no significant changes in the collection-of-information 
requirements for St. George as part of this action.
    NMFS seeks public comment regarding: Whether this revised 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at 
the ADDRESSES above, and email to [email protected] or fax to 
(202) 395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

    Dated: August 6, 2018.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 216

    Alaska, Marine Mammals, Pribilof Islands, Reporting and 
Recordkeeping Requirements.


[[Page 40211]]


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

PART 216--SUBPART F, PRIBILOF ISLANDS, TAKING FOR SUBSISTENCE 
PURPOSES

0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 216 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec.  216.72:
0
a. Revise the section heading;
0
b. Remove and reserve paragraphs (b);
0
c. Revise paragraphs (d) introductory text and (d)(1);
0
d. Remove and reserve paragraphs (d)(3), (d)(5);
0
e. Revise paragraphs (d)(6);
0
f. Remove and reserve paragraph (d)(9) and
0
g. Revise paragraphs (e), (f), and (g).
    The revisions are to read as follows:


Sec.  216.72   Restrictions on subsistence use of fur seals.

* * * * *
    (d) St. George Island. The subsistence fur seal harvest 
restrictions described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this 
section apply exclusively to the harvest of sub-adult fur seals; 
restrictions that apply exclusively to the harvest of young of the year 
fur seals can be found in paragraphs (d)(6) through (d)(11) of this 
section. For the taking of fur seals for subsistence uses, Pribilovians 
on St. George Island may harvest up to a total of 500 male fur seals 
per year over the course of both the sub-adult male harvest and the 
male young of the year harvest. Pribilovians are authorized each year 
up to 3 mortalities of female fur seals associated with the subsistence 
seasons, which will be included in the total authorized subsistence 
harvest of 500 fur seals per year.
    (1) Pribilovians may only harvest sub-adult male fur seals 124.5 
centimeters or less in length from June 23 through August 8 annually on 
St. George Island.
* * * * *
    (3) [RESERVED]
* * * * *
    (5) [RESERVED]
    (6) Pribilovians may only harvest male young of the year from 
September 16 through November 30 annually on St. George Island. 
Pribilovians may harvest up to 150 male fur seal young of the year 
annually.
* * * * *
    (9) [RESERVED]
* * * * *
    (e) St. Paul Island. For the taking of fur seals for subsistence 
uses, Pribilovians on St. Paul Island are authorized to take by hunt 
and harvest up to 2,000 juvenile (less than 7 years old, including 
pups) male fur seals per year.
    (1) Juvenile male fur seals may be killed with firearms from 
January 1 through May 31 annually, or may be killed using alternative 
hunting methods developed through the St. Paul Island Co-management 
Council if those methods are consistent with Sec.  216.71 and result in 
substantially similar effects. A firearm is any weapon, such as a 
pistol or rifle, capable of firing a missile using an explosive charge 
as a propellant.
    (2) Juvenile male fur seals may be harvested without the use of 
firearms from June 23 through December 31 annually. Authorized harvest 
may be by traditional harvest methods of herding and stunning followed 
immediately by exsanguination, or by alternative harvest methods 
developed through the St. Paul Island Co-management Council if those 
methods are consistent with Sec.  216.71 and result in substantially 
similar effects.
    (3) Pribilovians are authorized each year up to 20 mortalities of 
female fur seals associated with the subsistence seasons, which will be 
included in the total number of fur seals authorized per year for 
subsistence uses (2,000).
    (f) Harvest suspension provisions.
    (1) The Assistant Administrator is required to suspend the take 
provided for in Sec.  216.71 on St. George and/or St. Paul Islands, as 
appropriate, when:
    (i) He or she determines that the harvest is being conducted in a 
wasteful manner; or
    (ii) With regard to St. George Island, two female fur seals have 
been killed during the subsistence seasons on St. George Island.
    (2) A suspension based on a determination under paragraph (f)(1)(i) 
of this section may be lifted by the Assistant Administrator if he or 
she finds that the conditions that led to the determination that the 
harvest was being conducted in a wasteful manner have been remedied.
    (3) A suspension based on a determination under paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii) of this section may be lifted by the Assistant Administrator 
if he or she finds that the conditions that led to the killing of two 
female fur seals on St. George Island have been remedied and additional 
or improved methods to detect female fur seals during the subsistence 
seasons are being implemented.
    (g) Harvest termination provisions. The Assistant Administrator 
shall terminate the annual take provided for in Sec.  216.71 on the 
Pribilof Islands, as follows:
    (1) For St. Paul Island:
    (i) For the hunting of juvenile male fur seals with firearms, at 
the end of the day on May 31 or when 2,000 fur seals have been killed, 
whichever comes first;
    (ii) For the harvest of juvenile male fur seals without firearms, 
at the end of the day on December 31 or when 2,000 fur seals have been 
killed, whichever comes first; or
    (iii) When 20 female fur seals have been killed during the 
subsistence seasons.
    (2) For St. George Island:
    (i) For the sub-adult male harvest, at the end of the day on August 
8 or when 500 sub-adult male seals have been harvested, whichever comes 
first;
    (ii) For the male young of the year harvest, at the end of the day 
on November 30 or earlier when the first of the either occurs: 150 Male 
young of the year fur seals have been harvested or a total of 500 male 
sub-adult and male young of the year fur seals have been harvested; or
    (iii) When 3 female fur seals have been killed during the 
subsistence seasons.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec.  216.74 to read as follows:


Sec.  216.74  Cooperation between fur seal harvesters, tribal and 
Federal Officials.

    Federal scientists and Pribilovians cooperatively manage the 
subsistence harvest of northern fur seals under section 119 of the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1388). The Federally recognized 
tribes on the Pribilof Islands have signed agreements describing a 
shared interest in the conservation and management of fur seals and the 
designation of co-management councils that meet and address the 
purposes of the co-management agreements for representatives from NMFS, 
St. George and St. Paul tribal governments. NMFS representatives are 
responsible for compiling information related to sources of human-
caused mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. The Pribilovians 
are responsible for reporting their subsistence needs and actual level 
of subsistence take. This information is used to update stock 
assessment reports and make determinations under Sec.  216.72. 
Pribilovians who take fur seals for subsistence uses collaborate with 
NMFS representatives and the respective Tribal representatives to 
consider best harvest practices under co-management and to facilitate 
scientific research.

[FR Doc. 2018-17117 Filed 8-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P