40192 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: July 30, 2018. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17357 Filed 8–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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/#!docket

Detail;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.OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

(202) 395–5806. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Williams, NMFS Alaska 

Region, (907) 271–5117, 

michael.williams@noaa.gov. 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 subadult 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 subadult 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 subadult 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40194 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonbreeding 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 subcategory 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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. Nonbreeding 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, nonbreeding 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, nonbreeding 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 nonbreeding 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 onethird 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40196 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 subadult 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 subadult 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 Comanagement 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 ‘‘subadult 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40198 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 subadult 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-yearolds 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 agerelated 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 similaraged 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 agreedupon 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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/nonresponsive 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 comanagement 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-yearold 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 houseto-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, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40200 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 selfsufficient 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 wagebased 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 Comanagement 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 socioeconomic 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 micromanaging 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, socioeconomic, 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 Comanagement 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 subadult 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40202 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 Comanagement Agreement in 2000, which 

provided the opportunity to adaptively 

manage female mortality during 

subsistence activities. The St. Paul Comanagement 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 subadult 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 afterthe-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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 mostlysubmerged 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40204 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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° 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 sixyear 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 (fouror 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 nontargeted 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 Comanagement 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 nonharvested 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 Comanagement 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 nonbreeding 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40206 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

(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 subadult 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 nonregulatory measures within the 

management plans developed in the CoVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Aug 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14AUP1.SGM 14AUP1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40207 

management process would further 

reduce the likelihood of reaching the 

limit of 20 female mortalities. 

Implementation of a Revised CoManagement 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 comanagement agreement. The proposed 

rule does not include this petitioned 

regulatory provision because comanagement 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 comanagement 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 Comanagement 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 comanagement 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 comanagement 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 comanagement 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, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40208 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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 Comanagement agreement, they have reinstituted 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 Comanagement 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 nonregulatory 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 Comanagement 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; 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 CoManagement 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 comanage 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 comanagement 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40210 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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-ofinformation 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 OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov 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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. In § 216.72: 

■ a. Revise the section heading; 

■ b. Remove and reserve paragraphs (b); 

■ c. Revise paragraphs (d) introductory 

text and (d)(1); 

■ d. Remove and reserve paragraphs 

(d)(3), (d)(5); 

■ e. Revise paragraphs (d)(6); 

■ f. Remove and reserve paragraph 

(d)(9) and 

■ g. Revise paragraphs (e), (f), and (g). 

The revisions are to read as follows: 

§ 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 subadult 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 216.74 to read as follows: 

§ 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 comanagement councils that meet and 

address the purposes of the comanagement 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 § 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1