39342 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

such competition, would be to establish

time limits within the various viewing

circles to avoid the establishment of

exclusive viewing areas closest to the

whales. However, time limits would be

very difficult to implement, monitor,

and enforce.

The President has directed Federal

agencies to use plain language in their

communications with the public,

including regulations. To comply with

that directive, NMFS seeks public

comment on any ambiguity or

unnecessary complexity arising from the

language used in this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Transportation.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 224 ENDANGERED MARINE

AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

1. The authority citation for part 224

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

2. In § 224.103, paragraph (a) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 224.103 Special prohibitions for

endangered marine mammals.

(a) Approaching humpback whales—

(1) Hawaii. Except as provided part 222,

subpart C of this chapter (General

permit Procedures), it is unlawful for

any person subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States to commit, to attempt

to commit, or cause to be committed,

within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of

the Islands of Hawaii, any of the

following acts with respect to humpback

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae):

(i) Operate any aircraft within 1,000

feet (304.8 m) of any humpback whale;

(ii) Approach, by any means within

100 yards (91.4 m) of any humpback

whale;

(iii) Cause a vessel or other object to

approach within 100 yards (91.4 m) of

a humpback whale; or

(iv) Disrupt the normal behavior or

prior activity of a whale by any other act

or omission. A disruption of normal

behavior may be manifested by, among

other actions on the part of the whale,

a rapid change in direction or speed;

escape tactics such as prolonged diving,

underwater course changes, underwater

exhalation, or evasive swimming

patterns; interruptions of breeding,

nursing, or resting activities; attempts

by a whale to shield a calf from a vessel

or human observer by tail swishing or

by other protective movement; or the

abandonment of a previously frequented

area.

(2) Alaska. Except as provided in part

222, subpart C of this chapter (General

Permit Procedures), it is unlawful for

any person subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States to commit, to attempt

to commit, to solicit another to commit,

or cause to be committed, within 200

nautical miles (370.4 km) of Alaska, any

of the acts in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)

through (iii) of this section with respect

to humpback whales (Megaptera

novaeangliae):

(i) Approach, by any means, including

by interception, within 200 yards (182.8

m) of any humpback whale;

(ii) Cause a vessel or other object to

approach within 200 yards (182.8 m) of

a humpback whale; or

(iii) Disrupt the normal behavior or

prior activity of a whale by any other act

or omission, as described in paragraph

(a)(1)(iv) of this section.

(iv) These regulations shall not take

precedence over any more restrictive

conflicting Federal regulation pertaining

to humpback whales, including the

regulations at 36 CFR 13.65 that pertain

specifically to the waters of Glacier Bay

National Park and Preserve.

* * * * *

Dated: June 19, 2000.

Penelope D. Dalton,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–16113 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 300 and 679

[Docket No. 000616184–0184–01; I.D.

050500A]

RIN 0648–AK74

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Prohibition of

Groundfish Fishing and Anchoring in

the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to

implement Amendment 59 to the

Fishery Management Plan for

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP),

and to make changes to the regulations

governing the halibut fishery. This

action would designate a 2.5 square

nautical mile (nm) area of Federal ocean

water above and surrounding the

Pinnacles off Cape Edgecumbe in the

Gulf of Alaska (GOA) as the Sitka

Pinnacles Marine Reserve. This area,

which is an unusually productive and

highly fragile marine habitat, would be

closed to fishing for groundfish or

anchoring by vessels holding a Federal

fisheries permit. The area would also be

closed to commercial or sport fishing for

Pacific halibut, and to anchoring by

sport or commercial halibut vessels. The

intent of this action is to protect an area

containing important fish habitat from

degradation due to fishing and

anchoring impacts, and to create a

groundfish reserve.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

must be received by August 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to

Susan Salveson, Assistant Regional

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O.

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668,

Attn: Lori Gravel. Comments may also

be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907–586–

7465. Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-mail or Internet. Courier

or hand delivery of comments may be

made to NMFS in the Federal Building,

Room 453, Juneau, AK. Copies of

Amendment 59 and the Environmental

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/

Initial Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/

IRFA) prepared for the amendment by

the North Pacific Fishery Management

Council (Council) and NMFS are

available from the Council, 605 West 4th

Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK

99501–2252; telephone 907–271–2809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nina Mollett, 907–586–7462, fax 907–

586–7465, e-mail

nina.mollett@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations governing the domestic

groundfish fisheries appear at 50 CFR

parts 600 and 679. Regulations

governing the domestic halibut fisheries

appear at 50 CFR 300.60 to 300.65.

These regulations supplement the

annual fishery management measures

adopted by the International Pacific

Halibut Commission (IPHC) under the

Convention between the United States

and Canada for the Preservation of the

Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific

Ocean and Bering Sea.

The Council has submitted

Amendment 59 to the Secretary of

Commerce (Secretary) for review. NMFS

published a notice of availability (NOA)

of the FMP amendment on May 12, 2000

(65 FR 30559), with comments on the

FMP amendment invited through July

11, 2000. Written comments may

address the FMP amendment, the

proposed rule, or both, but must be

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 39343

received by July 11, 2000, to be

considered in the approval/disapproval

decision on the FMP amendment.

Management Background and Need for

Action

The Sitka Pinnacles area, in the

Southeast Outside District of the GOA

near Cape Edgecumbe, provides highly

productive habitat for many species at

different stages of their life cycles.

Information collected during manned

submersible surveys of groundfish

habitat by the Alaska Department of

Fish & Game (ADF&G) indicates that the

diversity and density of fish in that area

is much greater than is typical of the

eastern continental shelf. The area could

easily be overfished because of the

concentration of fishes in a relatively

small, compact space. State and Federal

biologists have recommended that the

Sitka Pinnacles and surrounding waters

be given protective status as a marine

refuge.

Accomplishing this requires

cooperation among NMFS, ADF&G, and

the IPHC, because different species are

managed under different jurisdictions

(see Table 1).

Species Agency Law

Commercial and recreational fishing for

lingcod and black rockfish

ADF&G ........................................ These fisheries are closed under 5 AAC 28.150.

Groundfish NMFS .......................................... Would be accomplished by proposed Amd. 59 and proposed

regulatory amendments at 50 CFR 679.2 and 679.22.

Halibut NMFS and IPHC ......................... Would be accomplished by proposed regulatory amendments

at 50 CFR 300.63 and 679.22.

Scallops ADF&G ........................................ Under Amd. 3 to the Fishery Management Plan for Scallop

Fisheries off Alaska, NMFS delegates responsibility to the

State for managing the scallop fishery. Scallop dredging

has been closed under 5 AAC 38.120 in the ‘‘Central

Southeast Outside’’ area, which includes the proposed reserve, since July, 1994.

Commercial and Recreational Salmon NMFS and ADF&G ..................... The Alaska State Board of Fish considered closure to salmon

fishing at its February 2000 meeting and rejected the proposal.

The Sitka Pinnacles (also called the

Cape Edgecumbe Pinnacles) consist of

two large volcanic cones that rise

abruptly off the seafloor. The top of one

is less than 70 meters below the sea

surface, and the other is less than 40

meters below the sea surface. The area

from the sea surface to the seafloor

provides a variety of rich habitat

suitable for different species. Large

numbers of juvenile and adult bottomdwelling rockfish find shelter among the

algae, anemones, and other flora and

fauna that cover portions of the rock

walls. The field of boulders on the

bottom provides a spawning bed for

lingcod and refuge for large numbers of

commercially valuable species like

yelloweye and tiger rockfish, along with

non-commercial species such as

prowfish.

Juvenile and adult rockfish and huge

concentrations of lingcod use the flat,

irregular tops of the pinnacles as a

feeding platform. Schooling species,

such as yellowtail and widow rockfish,

feed along the pinnacle walls and in the

water column between the top of the

pinnacles and the surface. The area has

been used for fishing, especially with

hook-and-line gear, for decades. In the

late 1980s, a directed fishery for lingcod

developed on the pinnacles. The high

density and aggressive feeding behavior

of lingcod made them extremely

susceptible to capture; hourly catch

rates of lingcod at the site exceeded

catch rates in the surrounding area by

threefold. In 1991, the State of Alaska

began attempting to preserve lingcod

populations in nearby State waters (the

Sitka Pinnacles are in Federal waters)

through closures during winter when

male lingcod are nest guarding, and, in

1994, through spring/summer in-season

closures of State-regulated fishing in

areas that included the pinnacles. In

1995, ADF&G included the pinnacles

area in the winter closure as well. In

1997, ADF&G issued an emergency

order closing the area to all Stateregulated groundfish fishing for the

entire season. However, the sport

fishing industry was not affected by any

of the State’s management actions and

continued to take lingcod and Pacific

halibut. In May of 1998, the commercial

and sportfish divisions of ADF&G

submitted joint proposals to the Alaska

State Board of Fish and the Council to

close the Sitka Pinnacles area. The

Board of Fish closed the area to fishing

for lingcod and black rockfish, which

are species under its jurisdiction. It took

up the question of closing the area to

commercial and recreational salmon

fishing in February 2000, but decided

against such a closure.

This action would complement State

regulations by designating a 2.5 square

nm area of Federal waters above and

surrounding the Sitka Pinnacles as the

Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve. The

area would be closed to fishing or

anchoring by vessels required to have a

Federal fisheries permit under

§ 679.4(b). The area would also be

closed to fishing for halibut or

anchoring by vessels required to have

on board an individual fishing quota

(IFQ) halibut permit under § 679.4(d). In

addition, the area would be closed to

sport fishing for halibut as defined at

§ 300.61, or anchoring by vessels having

halibut on board. The IPHC manages

Pacific halibut under the Northern

Pacific Halibut Act. The Act states that

the Regional Fishery Management

Council may develop regulations

governing U.S. waters ‘‘which are in

addition to, and not in conflict with,

regulations adopted by the

Commission’’ (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)).

The combined effect of State and

Federal regulations would be to allow

the Sitka Pinnacles ecosystem to

maintain its natural levels of production

by eliminating the harvest or bycatch of

fish during critical portions of their life

cycle. The prohibition on anchoring

would eliminate a source of potential

degradation of the area’s fragile habitat.

Classification

At this time, NMFS has not

determined that the amendment this

proposed rule would implement is

consistent with the national standards

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

applicable law. NMFS, in making that

determination, will take into account

the data, views, and comments received

during the comment period.

Nothing in this proposed action

would result in any changes in reporting

or recordkeeping requirements. The

analysis for this proposed action did not

reveal any existing Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the

actions proposed in the alternatives.

39344 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

This proposed rule has been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866.

NMFS has prepared an IRFA that

describes the impact this proposed rule,

if adopted, may have on small entities.

NMFS estimates the total number of

entities to which this rule would apply

to be 2,618, which includes 1,048 fixed

gear groundfish vessels and 1,570

halibut vessels, based on 1998 data for

vessels that fished in the GOA. This

figure does not include trawl vessels,

which are already prohibited from

fishing in this area under Amendment

41 (63 FR 8356, February 19, 1998). Of

the non-trawl vessels, the great majority

(90 percent) are catcher vessels under 60

feet in length overall. Although this rule

would apply to all vessels that can fish

in the GOA, only a portion of these

vessels have fished in the statistical area

(S.A.) the rule would affect. Therefore,

NMFS estimates that it is likely that, at

most, only 688 entities could be

affected. This number represents 224

commercial groundfish vessels, 67

halibut IFQ vessels, and 397 charter

companies that fished in the area in

1998. NMFS lacks the necessary data on

ownership, affiliation, contractual

relationships, etc., to determine which

of these operations are ‘‘small entities’’

for Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes,

and some of these 2,618 vessels might

not qualify under Small Business

Administration criteria. However, for

the purposes of the IRFA analysis,

NMFS assumes all of these groundfish

and commercial halibut vessels to be

small entities, given the nature of the

fisheries they participate in and the

unlikelihood that many of them would

reach annual gross revenues in excess of

$3 million.

The actual number of vessels affected

by this proposed rule would likely be

even smaller. Few commercial fishing

vessels currently use the area. Most, if

not all, groundfish longliners, and

halibut fishermen as well, have

voluntarily avoided the pinnacles area

for the past 2 years, since ADF&G

regulations prohibiting the take of

groundfish species under its jurisdiction

took effect.

Even if a few vessels were still fishing

in the proposed reserve, it is unlikely

that any of them would be adversely

affected by the closure to any significant

extent, as the area constitutes less than

1 percent of the grounds in S.A. 355631,

and less than a thousandth of 1 percent

of the total available fishing grounds in

the GOA (about 340,000 square nm). To

the extent that any halibut IFQ vessels

may be displaced, similar opportunities

to fish for halibut exist throughout the

area. It is unlikely that any lost fishing

opportunity or increase in fuel costs

would be incurred. For groundfish

vessels, however, there are no

comparable fishing grounds that offer

the density of groundfish that occur on

the pinnacles. To the extent that there

are any groundfish vessels targeting

rockfish other than those prohibited by

the State, this rule could result in an

unquantifiable loss of fishing

opportunity.

In addition to the commercial fishing

vessels, 588 charter vessels, owned by

397 businesses, fished for halibut in

1998 in IPHC Area 2C, in which the

Sitka Pinnacles are located. Of the

charter vessels, 364 were homeported in

Sitka, and 191 of the Sitka vessels

targeted bottomfish, including Pacific

halibut. Although the opportunity of

charter boat operators, as well as

individual anglers, to fish for Pacific

halibut could be affected by this

proposed action, few, if any, of these

charter boats have been fishing on the

pinnacles since the State closed the area

to lingcod and to State-managed

rockfish species in the summer of 1998.

The aggregations of lingcod present on

the pinnacles were an incentive to travel

to this site. Although halibut do occur

on the pinnacles, they do not aggregate

there in any greater numbers than

elsewhere in S.A. 355631. Thus, as is

the case for halibut IFQ vessels, these

vessels are not expected to experience

negative economic impacts as a result of

displacement from the pinnacles.

In summary, the cost to small entities

of the proposed closure and prohibition

on anchoring is expected to be quite

low, as the area being proposed for

closure constitutes an extremely small

percentage of available fishing grounds.

Few, if any, vessels have been fishing in

the area since ADF&G promulgated

regulations prohibiting fishing for

groundfish species under its jurisdiction

in 1998. Lingcod was the primary

incentive for charter vessels to fish in

this area, which congregated on the

pinnacles and created an easy target. For

species that may be found in the area

but not in special concentrations, such

as halibut and some groundfish species,

little if any cost would be incurred to

those vessels targeting these species to

avoid this area. There are ample fishing

grounds nearby that require no

additional fuel or other costs.

The prohibition on anchoring would

protect from damage the fragile

structures growing on the pinnacles.

NMFS considered one alternative that

could have had less economic impact on

small entities-–maintaining the status

quo. Maintaining the status quo could

minimize economic impacts on small

entities. This alternative would not

affect small entities except that some

fishermen who have been avoiding the

area because of local support for the

marine reserve might resume fishing on

the pinnacles. Some small economic

advantage might be gained by small

entities, on the theory that increasing

the options for business entities always

increases the potential for making

profit-maximizing decisions. As

previously stated, the proposed reserve

is small and other productive fishing

grounds are available and equally

accessible.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 300

Administrative practice and

procedure, Exports, Fish, Fisheries,

marine resources.

50 CFR Part 679

Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

Dated: June 20, 2000.

Penelope D. Dalton,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, 50 CFR parts 300 and 679 are

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 300—INTERNATIONAL

FISHERIES REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 300,

subpart E, continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773–773k.

2. In subpart E, Pacific Halibut

Fisheries, § 300.63, is amended by

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 300.63 Catch sharing plans, local area

management plans, and domestic

management measures.

* * * * *

(e) Prohibition on halibut fishing and

anchoring in the Sitka Pinnacles Marine

Reserve. (1) For purposes of § 300.63(e),

the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve

means an area totaling 2.5 square nm off

Cape Edgecumbe, defined by straight

lines connecting the following points in

a counterclockwise manner:

56°55.5’N lat., 135°54.0’W long;

56°57.0’N lat., 135°54.0’W long;

56°57.0’N lat., 135°57.0’W long;

56°55.5’N lat., 135°57.0’W long.

(2) No person shall engage in sport

fishing, as defined in § 300.61, for

halibut within the Sitka Pinnacles

Marine Reserve.

(3) No person shall anchor a vessel

having halibut on board in the Sitka

Pinnacles Marine Reserve.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 39345

PART 679–FISHERIES OF THE

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF

ALASKA

3. The authority citation for part 679

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., 1801 et

seq., and 3631 et seq.

4. In § 679.2, a new definition for the

‘‘Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve’’ is

added in alphabetical order, to read as

follows:

§ 679.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve means

an area totaling 2.5 square nm in the

GOA, off Cape Edgecumbe, in Statistical

Area 650. See Figure 18 to this part.

* * * * *

5. In § 679.22, paragraph (b)(5) is

added to read as follows:

§ 679.22 Closures.

* * * * *

(b)* * *

(5) Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve. (i)

No vessel required to have a Federal

fisheries permit under § 679.4(b) may

fish for groundfish or anchor in the

Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve, as

described in Figure 18 to this part.

(ii) No vessel required to have on

board an IFQ halibut permit under

§ 679.4(d) may fish for halibut or anchor

in the Sitka Pinnacles Marine Reserve,

as described in Figure 18 to this part.

* * * * *

6. In part 679, Figure 18 is added to

read as follows:

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

39346 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

a. Map

b. Coordinates

An area totaling 2.5 square nm off

Cape Edgecumbe, defined by straight

lines connecting the following points in

a counterclockwise manner:

56°55.5’N lat., 135°54.0’W long;

56°57.0’N lat., 135°54.0’W long;

56°57.0’N lat., 135°57.0’W long;

56°55.5’N lat., 135°57.0’W long.

[FR Doc. 00–16114 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F