Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31337 

1See 42 U.S.C. 4011(a). 

2See 42 U.S.C. 4022(a)(1). 

3Although 44 CFR 59.30(a) only lists Monroe 

County and the Village of Islamorada, Florida, the 

section provides that the pilot inspection procedure 

will cover areas within Monroe County that 

incorporate on or after January 1, 1999. The City of 

Marathon was incorporated on Nov. 30, 1999, and 

was therefore also covered by the program. See City 

of Marathon Charter § 3, at https://

library.municode.com/fl/marathon/codes/code_of_

ordinances?nodeId=PTICHRELA_SPACH_

S3INMUCOLI. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Parts 59, 61 

[Docket ID FEMA–2018–0027] 

RIN 1660–AA93 

National Flood Insurance Program: 

Removal of Monroe County Pilot 

Inspection Program Regulations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is revising 

its regulations to remove a pilot 

inspection program under the National 

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This 

pilot inspection program applied to 

Monroe County, Florida. FEMA 

terminated this program on June 28, 

2013, and is now removing the 

applicable regulations from the Code of 

Federal Regulations because they are no 

longer necessary. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 5, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking is available for inspection 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov and can be 

viewed by following that website’s 

instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liza 

Davis, Associate Chief Counsel, 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Chief 

Counsel, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20472, 202–646–4046, 

or (email) liza.davis@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Discussion of the 

Rule 

The National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968, as amended (NFIA), Title 42 of the 

United States Code (U.S.C.) 4001 et seq., 

authorizes the Administrator of the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) to establish and carry out a 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) to enable interested persons to 

purchase insurance against loss 

resulting from physical damage to or 

loss of property arising from floods in 

the United States.1 Under the NFIA, 

FEMA may only grant flood insurance 

to properties within communities that 

have adopted adequate land use and 

control measures.2 FEMA implemented 

a pilot inspection program on June 27, 

2000, at 44 CFR 59.30, which applied to 

structures located in Monroe County, 

the Village of Islamorada in Monroe 

County, and the City of Marathon 3 in 

Monroe County, Florida. 65 FR 39725, 

39748 (June 27, 2000). The pilot 

program was designed to help the 

communities verify that structures in 

these locations complied with the 

community’s floodplain management 

ordinances and to help FEMA ensure 

that property owners paid flood 

insurance premiums to the NFIP 

commensurate with their flood risk. See 

44 CFR 59.30(a); 79 FR 2468 (Jan. 14, 

2014). FEMA consulted with the 

participating communities during the 

pilot program and in 2013 determined 

that the communities had fulfilled the 

requirements of the inspection 

procedure. As a result, FEMA notified 

the three participating communities that 

the pilot inspection procedure under 44 

CFR 59.30 would terminate on June 28, 

2013, pursuant to 44 CFR 59.30(c)(1), 

which authorizes the Federal Insurance 

Administrator to establish the 

termination date for the pilot program. 

FEMA published a notice in the Federal 

Register on January 14, 2014, 

announcing that the pilot inspection 

program was terminated for Monroe 

County, the Village of Islamorada, and 

the City of Marathon, Florida. See 79 FR 

2468 (Jan. 14, 2014). FEMA is now 

removing section 59.30 as it is no longer 

necessary. FEMA is also removing 

Appendices A(4) through A(6) of 44 

CFR part 61, which contain the 

individual endorsements for these three 

communities to the Standard Flood 

Insurance Policy (SFIP), indicating their 

participation in the pilot program. 

II. Regulatory Analysis 

A. Administrative Procedure Act 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires agencies to 

publish a notice of proposed rulemaking 

in the Federal Register and provide 

interested persons the opportunity to 

submit comments. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b) 

and (c). The APA provides an exception 

to this prior notice and comment 

requirement for rules of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice. 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This final rule is a 

procedural rule promulgated for agency 

efficiency purposes. FEMA is removing 

regulations related to the Monroe 

County pilot inspection program which 

has been terminated. Thus, removing 

these regulations reflects FEMA’s 

current authority and will not affect the 

substantive rights or interests of the 

public. 

The APA also provides an exception 

from notice and comment procedures 

when an agency finds for good cause 

that those procedures are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). FEMA 

finds good cause to issue this rule 

without prior notice or comment, as 

such procedures are unnecessary. The 

removal of these regulations will have 

no substantive effect on the public 

because the authority for the pilot 

program has terminated. 

Further, the APA generally requires 

that substantive rules incorporate a 30- 

day delayed effective date. 5 U.S.C. 

553(d). This rule, however, is merely 

procedural and does not impose 

substantive requirements; thus, FEMA 

finds that a delayed effective date is 

unnecessary. 

B. Executive Orders 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’, 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’, and 13771, ‘‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs’’ 

Executive Orders 13563 (‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’) 

and 12866 (‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’) direct agencies to assess the 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. Executive 

Order 13771 (‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs’’) directs 

agencies to reduce regulation and 

control regulatory costs and provides 

that ‘‘for every one new regulation 

issued, at least two prior regulations be 

identified for elimination, and that the 

cost of planned regulations be prudently 

managed and controlled through a 

budgeting process.’’ 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has not designated this rule a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, the rule has not been 

reviewed by OMB. As this rule is not a 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31338 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

4Although the NFIP does not explicitly reference 

Tribal governments, FEMA includes Tribal nations 

in its definition of a community. See 44 CFR 59.1. 

significant regulatory action, this rule is 

exempt from the requirements of 

Executive Order 13771. See OMB’s 

Memorandum ‘‘Guidance Implementing 

Executive Order 13771, Titled 

‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs’’’ (April 5, 2017). 

FEMA is issuing a final rule that will 

remove the pilot inspection program at 

44 CFR 59.30, which describes 

inspection procedures to apply to 

Monroe County, Florida. The pilot 

program was designed to help the 

community verify that structures in this 

community complied with the 

community’s floodplain management 

ordinances and help the NFIP ensure 

that property owners paid flood 

insurance premiums to the NFIP 

commensurate with their flood risk. 

FEMA terminated the pilot program on 

June 28, 2013. FEMA therefore now 

removes it from regulation. 

This rulemaking does not impose any 

changes to current programs and FEMA 

believes there would not be any costs 

imposed on State, Federal, Tribal or 

industry partners or stakeholders as a 

result of this rule. 

The benefits of this rule result from 

removing the codification of a 

terminated pilot program. This will 

simplify the CFR and reduce confusion, 

and further align the regulations with 

FEMA’s current exercises of its 

authority. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), and section 213(a) of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 847, 

858—9 (Mar. 29, 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601 

note) require that special consideration 

be given to the effects of regulations on 

small entities. The RFA applies only 

when an agency is ‘‘required by section 

553 . . . to publish general notice of 

proposed rulemaking for any proposed 

rule.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603(a). An RFA analysis 

is not required for this rulemaking 

because FEMA is not required to 

publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 658, 1501–1504, 1531– 

1536, 1571, pertains to any rulemaking 

which is likely to result in the 

promulgation of any rule that includes 

a Federal mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million (adjusted 

annually for inflation) or more in any 

one year. If the rulemaking includes a 

Federal mandate, the Act requires an 

agency to prepare an assessment of the 

anticipated costs and benefits of the 

Federal mandate. The Act also pertains 

to any regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Before establishing 

any such requirements, an agency must 

develop a plan allowing for input from 

the affected governments regarding the 

requirements. 

FEMA has determined that this 

rulemaking will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, nor by 

the private sector, of $100,000,000 or 

more in any one year as a result of a 

Federal mandate, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions are 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. 

104–13, 109 Stat. 163, (May 22, 1995) 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), FEMA may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless FEMA obtains 

approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for the collection and 

the collection displays a valid OMB 

control number. FEMA has determined 

that this rulemaking does not contain 

any collections of information as 

defined by that Act. 

F. Privacy Act/E-Government Act 

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 

U.S.C. 552a, an agency must determine 

whether implementation of a proposed 

regulation will result in a system of 

records. A ‘‘record’’ is any item, 

collection, or grouping of information 

about an individual that is maintained 

by an agency, including, but not limited 

to, his/her education, financial 

transactions, medical history, and 

criminal or employment history and 

that contains his/her name, or the 

identifying number, symbol, or other 

identifying particular assigned to the 

individual, such as a finger or voice 

print or a photograph. See 5 U.S.C. 

552a(a)(4). A ‘‘system of records’’ is a 

group of records under the control of an 

agency from which information is 

retrieved by the name of the individual 

or by some identifying number, symbol, 

or other identifying particular assigned 

to the individual. An agency cannot 

disclose any record which is contained 

in a system of records except by 

following specific procedures. 

The E-Government Act of 2002, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 note, also requires specific 

procedures when an agency takes action 

to develop or procure information 

technology that collects, maintains, or 

disseminates information that is in an 

identifiable form. This Act also applies 

when an agency initiates a new 

collection of information that will be 

collected, maintained, or disseminated 

using information technology if it 

includes any information in an 

identifiable form permitting the 

physical or online contacting of a 

specific individual. 

The system of record for the NFIP, 

DHS/FEMA–0003—National Flood 

Insurance Program Files, was published 

in the Federal Register on May 19, 2014 

(79 FR 28747). This rule does not 

impact this existing system of record, 

nor does it create a new system of 

record. Therefore, this rule does not 

require coverage under an existing or 

new Privacy Impact Assessment or 

System of Records Notice. 

G. Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ 

Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments,’’ 65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000, applies to agency regulations 

that have Tribal implications, that is, 

regulations that have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian Tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes. Under 

this Executive Order, to the extent 

practicable and permitted by law, no 

agency shall promulgate any regulation 

that has Tribal implications, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs on Indian Tribal governments, and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

funds necessary to pay the direct costs 

incurred by the Indian Tribal 

government or the Tribe in complying 

with the regulation are provided by the 

Federal government, or the agency 

consults with Tribal officials. 

Although Tribes that meet the NFIP 

eligibility criteria can participate in the 

NFIP in the same manner as 

communities,4 FEMA has reviewed this 

final rule under Executive Order 13175 

and has determined that it does not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 31339 

This rule removes the pilot inspection 

program concerning Monroe County, 

Florida, which FEMA has terminated. 

The removal of these regulations 

therefore will have no substantive effect 

on the public and will not affect the 

substantive rights or interests of Indian 

Tribal governments. 

H. Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999, sets forth 

principles and criteria that agencies 

must adhere to in formulating and 

implementing policies that have 

federalism implications, that is, 

regulations that have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. Federal 

agencies must closely examine the 

statutory authority supporting any 

action that would limit the 

policymaking discretion of the States, 

and to the extent practicable, must 

consult with State and local officials 

before implementing any such action. 

FEMA has determined that this 

rulemaking does not have a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and therefore does 

not have federalism implications as 

defined by the Executive Order. 

I. Executive Order 11988, ‘‘Floodplain 

Management’’ 

Pursuant to Executive Order 11988, 

each agency must provide leadership 

and take action to reduce the risk of 

flood loss and to minimize the impact 

of floods on human safety, health and 

welfare. In addition, each agency must 

restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains 

in carrying out its responsibilities for (1) 

acquiring, managing, and disposing of 

Federal lands and facilities; (2) 

providing Federally undertaken, 

financed, or assisted construction and 

improvements; and (3) conducting 

Federal activities and programs affecting 

land use, including but not limited to 

water and related land resources 

planning, regulating, and licensing 

activities. In carrying out these 

responsibilities, each agency must 

evaluate the potential effects of any 

actions it may take in a floodplain; 

ensure that its planning programs and 

budget requests reflect consideration of 

flood hazards and floodplain 

management; and prescribe procedures 

to implement the policies and 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

Before promulgating any regulation, 

an agency must determine whether the 

proposed regulations will affect a 

floodplain(s), and if so, the agency must 

consider alternatives to avoid adverse 

effects and incompatible development 

in the floodplain(s). If the head of the 

agency finds that the only practicable 

alternative consistent with the law and 

with the policy set forth in Executive 

Order 11988 is to promulgate a 

regulation that affects a floodplain(s), 

the agency must, prior to promulgating 

the regulation, design or modify the 

regulation in order to minimize 

potential harm to or within the 

floodplain, consistent with the agency’s 

floodplain management regulations and 

prepare and circulate a notice 

containing an explanation of why the 

action is proposed to be located in the 

floodplain. This rule removes from 

regulation a previously-terminated pilot 

program. It is therefore procedural and 

will not have an effect on land use or 

floodplain management. 

J. Executive Order 11990, ‘‘Protection of 

Wetlands’’ 

Executive Order 11990, ‘‘Protection of 

Wetlands,’’ 42 FR 26961, May 24, 1977, 

sets forth that each agency must provide 

leadership and take action to minimize 

the destruction, loss or degradation of 

wetlands, and to preserve and enhance 

the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands in carrying out the agency’s 

responsibilities for (1) acquiring, 

managing, and disposing of Federal 

lands and facilities; and (2) providing 

Federally undertaken, financed, or 

assisted construction and 

improvements; and (3) conducting 

Federal activities and programs affecting 

land use, including but not limited to 

water and related land resources 

planning, regulating, and licensing 

activities. Each agency, to the extent 

permitted by law, must avoid 

undertaking or providing assistance for 

new construction located in wetlands 

unless the head of the agency finds (1) 

that there is no practicable alternative to 

such construction, and (2) that the 

proposed action includes all practicable 

measures to minimize harm to wetlands 

which may result from such use. 

In carrying out the activities described 

in Executive Order 11990, each agency 

must consider factors relevant to a 

proposal’s effect on the survival and 

quality of the wetlands. Among these 

factors are: Public health, safety, and 

welfare, including water supply, 

quality, recharge and discharge; 

pollution; flood and storm hazards; and 

sediment and erosion; maintenance of 

natural systems, including conservation 

and long term productivity of existing 

flora and fauna, species and habitat 

diversity and stability, hydrologic 

utility, fish, wildlife, timber, and food 

and fiber resources; and other uses of 

wetlands in the public interest, 

including recreational, scientific, and 

cultural uses. Because this rule removes 

from regulation a previously-terminated 

pilot program, it is procedural and will 

not have an effect on land use or 

wetlands. 

K. National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) 

Under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., an agency must 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement for any 

rulemaking that could significantly 

affect the quality of the human 

environment. FEMA has determined 

that this rulemaking does not 

significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment and consequently 

has not prepared an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement. 

Rulemaking is a major Federal action 

subject to NEPA. Categorical exclusion 

A3 included in the list of exclusion 

categories at Department of Homeland 

Security Instruction Manual 023–01– 

001–01, Revision 01, Implementation of 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

Appendix A, issued November 6, 2014, 

covers the promulgation of rules, 

issuance of rulings or interpretations, 

and the development and publication of 

policies, orders, directives, notices, 

procedures, manuals, and advisory 

circulars if they meet certain criteria 

provided in A3(a–f). This rule meets 

Categorical Exclusion A3(a), which 

covers rules of a strictly administrative 

or procedural nature. 

L. Congressional Review of Agency 

Rulemaking 

Under the Congressional Review of 

Agency Rulemaking Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 

801–808, before a rule can take effect, 

the Federal agency promulgating the 

rule must submit to Congress and to the 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) a copy of the rule; a concise 

general statement relating to the rule, 

including whether it is a major rule; the 

proposed effective date of the rule; a 

copy of any cost-benefit analysis; 

descriptions of the agency’s actions 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; 

and any other information or statements 

required by relevant executive orders. 

FEMA has sent this final rule to the 

Congress and to GAO pursuant to the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
31340 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

CRA. The rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

within the meaning of the CRA. It will 

not have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; it 

will not result in a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions; and it will not have 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Parts 59 and 

61 

Flood insurance, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency amends 44 CFR 

Chapter I as follows: 

PART 59—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 59 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 

41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 

12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 

1979 Comp., p. 376. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—Pilot Inspection Program 

[Removed] 

■ 2. Remove subpart C, consisting of 

§ 59.30. 

* * * * * 

PART 61—INSURANCE COVERAGE 

AND RATES 

■ 3. The authority citation for Part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 43 FR 

41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 

12127 of Mar. 31, 1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 

1979 Comp., p. 376. 

* * * * * 

Appendix A(4) to Part 61 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove Appendix A(4) to Part 61. 

Appendix A(5) to Part 61 [Removed] 

■ 5. Remove Appendix A(5) to Part 61. 

Appendix A(6) to Part 61 [Removed] 

■ 6. Remove Appendix A(6) to Part 61. 

Brock Long, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14477 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–52–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

RIN 0648–XF559 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Essential Fish Habitat 

Amendments 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of agency decision. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the 

approval of Amendment 115 to the 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area, 

Amendment 105 to the FMP for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska, 

Amendment 49 to the FMP for Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 

Crabs, Amendment 13 to the FMP for 

the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off 

Alaska, and Amendment 2 to the FMP 

for Fish Resources of the Arctic 

Management Area, (collectively 

Amendments). These Amendments 

revise the FMPs by updating the 

description and identification of 

essential fish habitat (EFH), and 

updating information on adverse 

impacts to EFH based on the best 

scientific information available. This 

action is intended to promote the goals 

and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, the FMPs, and other applicable 

laws. 

DATES: The amendments were approved 

on May 31, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

Amendments, maps of the EFH areas, 

the Environmental Assessment (EA), 

and the Final EFH 5-year Summary 

Report (Summary Report) prepared for 

this action may be obtained from 

www.regulations.gov. The Summary 

Report is also available at ftp://

ftp.library.noaa.gov/noaa_

documents.lib/NMFS/TM_NMFS_

AFKR/TM_NMFS_FAKR_15.pdf. The 

2017 Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat 

from Non-fishing Activities in Alaska 

Report (Non-fishing Effects Report) is 

available at ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/ 

noaa_documents.lib/NMFS/TM_NMFS_

AFKR/TM_NMFS_FAKR_14.pdf. Stone 

(2014) is available at https://

spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/pp16.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Mackey, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that 

each regional fishery management 

council submit any FMP amendment it 

prepares to NMFS for review and 

approval, disapproval, or partial 

approval by the Secretary of Commerce. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act also 

requires that NMFS, upon receiving an 

FMP amendment, immediately publish 

a notification in the Federal Register 

announcing that the amendment is 

available for public review and 

comment. 

The Notification of Availability for 

the Amendments was published in the 

Federal Register on March 5, 2018 (83 

FR 9257), with a 60-day comment 

period that ended on May 4, 2018. 

NMFS received five comments during 

the public comment period on the 

Notification of Availability for the 

Amendments. NMFS is not 

disapproving any part of these 

amendments in response to these 

comments. NMFS summarized and 

responded to these comments under 

Comment and Responses, below. 

NMFS determined that the 

Amendments are consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws, and the Secretary of 

Commerce approved the Amendments 

on May 31, 2018. The March 5, 2018, 

Notiication of Availability contains 

additional information on this action. 

No changes to Federal regulations are 

necessary to implement the 

Amendments. 

The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

prepared the FMPs under the authority 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. 

fisheries and implementing the FMPs 

appear at 50 CFR parts 600, 679, and 

680. Section 303(a)(7) of the MagnusonStevens Act requires that each FMP 

describe and identify EFH, minimize to 

the extent practicable the adverse effects 

of fishing on EFH, and identify other 

measures to promote the conservation 

and enhancement of EFH. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as 

‘‘those waters and substrate necessary to 

fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity.’’ Implementing 

regulations at § 600.815 list the EFH 

contents required in each FMP and 

direct regional fishery management 

councils to conduct a complete review 

of all EFH information at least once 

every five years (referred to here as ‘‘the 

5-year review’’). 

The Council developed the 

Amendments as a result of new 

information available through the 5-year 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES