8778 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

37(m)(8) Construction Loans 

1. Clear and conspicuous statement 

regarding redisclosure for construction 

loans. For construction loans in 

transactions involving new 

construction, where the creditor 

reasonably expects the settlement date 

to be 60 days or more after the provision 

of the disclosures required under 

§ 1026.19(e)(1)(i), providing the 

statement, ‘‘You may receive a revised 

Loan Estimate at any time prior to 60 

days before consummation’’ under the 

master heading ‘‘Additional Information 

About This Loan’’ and the heading 

‘‘Other Considerations’’ pursuant to 

§ 1026.37(m)(8) satisfies the 

requirements set forth in 

§ 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(F) that the statement 

be made clearly and conspicuously on 

the disclosure. 

37(n) Signature Statement 

* * * * * 

2. Multiple consumers. If there is 

more than one consumer who will be 

obligated in the transaction, the first 

consumer signs as the applicant and 

each additional consumer signs as a coapplicant. If there is not enough space 

under the heading ‘‘Confirm Receipt’’ to 

provide signature lines for every 

consumer in the transaction, the 

creditor may add additional signature 

pages, as needed, at the end of the form 

for the remaining consumers’ signatures. 

However, the creditor is required to 

disclose the heading and statement 

required by § 1026.37(n)(1) on such 

additional pages. 

* * * * * 

Section 1026.38—Content of Disclosures 

for Certain Mortgage Transactions 

(Closing Disclosure) 

* * * * * 

38(a)(3)(vi) Property 

* * * * * 

2. Multiple properties. Where more 

than one property secures the credit 

transaction, § 1026.38(a)(3)(vi) requires 

disclosure of all property addresses. If 

the addresses of all properties securing 

the transaction do not fit in the space 

allocated on the Closing Disclosure, an 

additional page with the addresses of all 

such properties may be appended to the 

end of the form. 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 38(e)(1)(iii)(A) 

1. Statements of increases or 

decreases. Section 1026.38(e)(1)(iii)(A) 

requires a statement of whether the 

amount increased or decreased from the 

estimated amount. The statement, ‘‘This 

amount increased,’’ in which the word 

‘‘increased’’ is in boldface font and is 

replaced with the word ‘‘decreased’’ as 

applicable, complies with this 

requirement. 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 38(e)(2)(iii)(A) 

* * * * * 

3. Statements regarding excess 

amount and any credit to the consumer. 

Section 1026.38(e)(2)(iii)(A) requires a 

statement that an increase in closing 

costs exceeds legal limits by the dollar 

amount of the excess and a statement 

directing the consumer to the disclosure 

of lender credits under § 1026.38(h)(3) if 

a credit is provided under 

§ 1026.19(f)(2)(v). See form H–25(F) in 

appendix H to this part for examples of 

such statements. 

* * * * * 

38(g)(2) Prepaids 

* * * * * 

4. Interest rate for prepaid interest. 

The dollar amounts disclosed pursuant 

to § 1026.38(g)(2) must be based on the 

interest rate disclosed under 

§ 1026.38(b), as required by 

§ 1026.37(b)(2). 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 18, 2015. 

Richard Cordray, 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01321 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

[Docket No. 120809321–4999–03] 

RIN 0648–BC26 

Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey 

Bay National Marine Sanctuaries 

Regulations on Introduced Species 

AGENCY: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), Department of Commerce 

(DOC). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On March 18, 2013, NOAA 

proposed to prohibit the introduction of 

introduced species into the state waters 

of Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey 

Bay national marine sanctuaries 

(GFNMS and MBNMS, respectively). 

The proposed prohibition included 

exceptions for the catch and release of 

striped bass and for introduced species 

of shellfish as part of commercial 

aquaculture activities in the Tomales 

Bay region of GFNMS (the only 

geographic area within sanctuaries 

offshore of California where aquaculture 

occurs). On March 27, 2014, NOAA 

amended the proposal to allow GFNMS 

and MBNMS to consider authorizing the 

introduction of certain introduced 

species of shellfish, those considered to 

be non-invasive, from commercial 

aquaculture culture projects in all state 

waters of the sanctuaries. NOAA’s final 

action allows MBNMS to authorize state 

of California permits or leases for 

commercial aquaculture projects in state 

waters involving introduced species of 

shellfish that a) the state management 

agencies and NOAA have determined to 

be non-invasive, and b) will not have 

significant adverse impacts to sanctuary 

resources or qualities. For GFNMS, 

NOAA will not adopt authorization 

authority for similar projects in state 

waters at this time and will revert to the 

proposal from March 2013, which 

prohibits introduction of introduced 

species, exempts state permitted 

commercial shellfish aquaculture 

activities within Tomales Bay only, and 

provides an exception for the catch and 

release of striped bass. 

DATES: Effective Date: Pursuant to 

section 304(b) of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 

1434(b)), the revised designation and 

regulations shall take effect and become 

final after the close of a review period 

of forty-five days of continuous session 

of Congress beginning on February 19, 

2015. NOAA will publish an 

announcement of the effective date of 

the final regulations in the Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dave Lott, Regional Operations 

Coordinator, West Coast Region, Office 

of National Marine Sanctuaries, 99 

Pacific Street, STE 100F, Monterey, CA 

93940. (831) 647–1920. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On November 20, 2008, NOAA issued 

a final rule associated with the Joint 

Management Plan Review (JMPR) of 

GFNMS, MBNMS, and Cordell Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary (73 FR 

70488). Among other things, the rule 

prohibited the introduction of 

introduced species within or into both 

the federal and state waters of GFNMS 

and MBNMS, except for the catch and 

release of striped bass in both 

sanctuaries and from existing 

commercial aquaculture activities 

within the Tomales Bay region of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8779 

GFNMS. In December 2008, the 

Governor of California, acting pursuant 

to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1434(b)(1)), certified that 

certain changes to each sanctuary’s 

terms of designation for regulating the 

introduction of introduced species were 

unacceptable for the state waters 

portions of GFNMS and MBNMS. As a 

result of that determination, NOAA’s 

prohibitions on introduced species 

currently apply only in the federal 

waters of MBNMS and GFNMS. 

On March 18, 2013, following 

discussions with the state of California, 

NOAA re-proposed the prohibition on 

the introduction of introduced species 

within or into the state waters of 

GFNMS and MBNMS to provide 

regulatory consistency in all waters of 

those two sanctuaries and across the 

four national marine sanctuaries along 

the California coast (78 FR 16622). The 

proposal would have expanded into 

state waters the exception for the catch 

and release of striped bass and would 

have exempted state-permitted 

mariculture activities in Tomales Bay. A 

60-day comment period on the proposed 

rule closed on May 17, 2013. (Note: 

MBNMS regulations use the term 

‘‘aquaculture’’ and GFNMS regulations 

use the term ‘‘mariculture’’ to refer to 

the same activity; accordingly, both of 

these terms are used in this final 

rulemaking.) 

NOAA received approximately 14 

comments from the public and the 

MBNMS and GFNMS Sanctuary 

Advisory Councils in support of the 

March 2013 draft proposal. NOAA also 

received comments from both the 

California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (CDFW) and aquaculture 

industry raising concerns that ONMS’s 

broad definition of ‘‘introduced species’’ 

did not recognize that a number of 

introduced species of shellfish have 

been cultivated for over 100 years in 

Tomales Bay, within GFNMS, without 

significant adverse impacts to native 

resources. The Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the 2008 Joint 

Management Plan Review recognized 

that non-native oyster species cultivated 

in Tomales Bay had not spread outside 

the aquaculture areas. Both the CDFW 

and aquaculture industry also 

commented that the proposed regulation 

did not allow NOAA to consider 

potential future permit requests from 

the industry for cultivation of such 

species. The state believed that if NOAA 

exercised the authority to permit such 

operations, in close cooperation and 

collaboration with state resource 

management entities—CDFW, California 

Fish and Game Commission (CFGC), 

and California Coastal Commission 

(CCC)—this would offer an opportunity 

for aquaculture operators and the state 

to demonstrate that expanding existing 

or developing new shellfish aquaculture 

operations involving introduced species 

of shellfish that are non-invasive would 

not harm sanctuary resources. Both 

CDFW and the aquaculture industry 

also expressed the view that this 

approach would be more consistent 

with Executive Order 13112 on the 

management of introduced species. 

In response to these concerns, on 

March 27, 2014, NOAA amended its 

proposal to provide MBNMS and 

GFNMS the regulatory authority to 

authorize state permits or leases for 

commercial aquaculture projects in state 

waters involving introduced species of 

shellfish that the state management 

agencies and NOAA have determined to 

be non-invasive and thus would not 

have significant adverse impacts to 

sanctuary resources or qualities (79 FR 

17073). Representatives from state 

agencies agreed with NOAA that 

introduced species should be managed 

uniformly throughout all state waters of 

the two sanctuaries. 

NOAA received 16 comments on this 

revised proposal, virtually all in 

opposition to granting GFNMS the 

regulatory authority to authorize state 

permits for such aquaculture projects. 

There were no comments received 

objecting to this authority for MBNMS. 

NOAA and the state of California have 

both expressed interest in entering into 

a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to 

define the roles of various state agencies 

(CDFW, CFGC, and CCC) and ONMS in 

a prescribed, collaborative process to 

determine whether an introduced 

species of shellfish could be considered 

non-invasive and potentially approved 

for cultivation within the state waters of 

either national marine sanctuary. The 

MOA would not supersede the legal 

authority of any participating agency; 

rather it would guide the collaborative 

interagency process and decision 

making timelines. The MOA would be 

necessary in response to the process 

outlined in NOAA’s proposed rule 

published on March 2013 (78 FR 16622) 

regarding consultations for aquaculture 

projects in Tomales Bay, or for the 

process described in the March 2014 

proposed rule (79 FR 17073) regarding 

the permit authorization process for the 

two national marine sanctuaries. 

II. Summary of the Revisions to 

GFNMS Terms of Designation and 

Regulations 

NOAA received few comments on the 

March 2013 proposed rulemaking 

regarding the introduced species 

regulation related to GFNMS. Both the 

GFNMS Advisory Council and several 

members of the public commented in 

strong support of the proposed rule and 

complimented the state agencies for 

recognizing the value in collaborating 

with NOAA to ensure state waters had 

additional protection from introduced 

species. However, the subsequent March 

2014 proposed rule received 

considerable criticism from the public 

due to the proposal to allow GFNMS to 

authorize other agency permits, leases 

or licenses for new or expanded 

commercial shellfish aquaculture 

projects involving non-invasive 

introduced species. GFNMS does not 

presently have this permit authority and 

many commenters objected to providing 

that authority and increasing the risk of 

an invasion by an introduced shellfish 

species in state waters of GFNMS. In a 

separate rulemaking to expand GFNMS 

boundaries (79 FR 20981), the state of 

California also requested that NOAA not 

provide GFNMS authorization authority 

at this time and that NOAA conduct a 

separate process to allow time for local 

input and education regarding such a 

regulatory change. 

As a result, NOAA will move forward 

with the regulatory proposals for 

GFNMS that were described in the 

March 2013 proposed rule. Specifically 

for GFNMS, this final rule extends the 

introduced species prohibition to all of 

GFNMS state waters, but exempts catch 

and release of striped bass and any 

existing or future commercial 

aquaculture project involving 

introduced species approved by the 

state of California in sanctuary waters of 

Tomales Bay after consulting GFNMS. 

NOAA’s final rule is responsive to 

public support; eliminates the 

authorization authority for GFNMS that 

had generated considerable public 

concern; is consistent with the state of 

California’s request to consider 

authorization authority for GFNMS in a 

separate process; and allows existing 

aquaculture projects to continue in 

Tomales Bay, the only area of either 

sanctuary where such activity presently 

occurs. 

Presently 23.6 percent of GFNMS—all 

of the state waters in sanctuary (301.5 

square statute miles)—is at risk from the 

introduction of introduced species. 

With this action, the vast majority of the 

sanctuary would be protected from such 

introductions of introduced species, 

except for less than 1 percent (10.3 

square statute miles) in sanctuary waters 

of Tomales Bay, where commercial 

aquaculture of introduced species of 

shellfish approved by the state after 

consulting with NOAA, would be 

allowed. All other vectors of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8780 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

introduction of introduced species are 

prohibited in Tomales Bay. 

Accordingly, NOAA is amending the 

GFNMS terms of designation to ensure 

that the introduction or release of an 

introduced species applies to the state 

waters of the sanctuary regardless of the 

means of introduction. The revised 

terms of designation under Article IV 

Scope of Regulations, Section 1 

Activities Subject to Regulation, 

Activity (e) will read as follows (new 

text in quotes and deleted text in 

brackets and italics): 

Article IV. Scope of Regulations 

Section 1. Activities Subject to 

Regulation 

* * * 

(e) Introducing or otherwise releasing 

from within or into [the federal waters 

of] the Sanctuary an introduced 

species 

NOAA is also changing the second 

sentence of Article V in the terms of 

designation to ensure that the intent 

NOAA has consistently described—to 

regulate introduced species consistently 

across all four national marine 

sanctuaries along the coast California, in 

both state and federal waters—is 

achieved. Additionally, NOAA’s final 

rule removes the time limitation needed 

to grandfather existing state-approved 

mariculture projects in Tomales Bay. 

Therefore, Article V. Relation to Other 

Regulatory Programs, Section 1, will 

read as follows (new text in quotes and 

deleted text in brackets and italics): 

Article V. Relation to Other Regulatory 

Programs 

Section 1. Fishing and Waterfowl 

Hunting 

The regulation of fishing, including 

fishing for shellfish and invertebrates, 

and waterfowl hunting, is not 

authorized under Article IV. However, 

fishing vessels may be regulated with 

respect to vessel operations in 

accordance with Article IV, section 1, 

paragraphs (b) and (h), and mariculture 

activities involving alterations of or 

construction on the seabed, or 

‘‘introduction or’’ release of introduced 

species by mariculture activities [not 

covered by a valid lease from the State 

of California and in effect on the 

effective date of the final regulation], 

can be regulated in accordance with 

Article IV, section 1, paragraph (c) and 

(e). All regulatory programs pertaining 

to fishing, and to waterfowl hunting, 

including regulations promulgated 

under the California Fish and Game 

Code and Fishery Management Plans 

promulgated under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 

will remain in effect, and all permits, 

licenses, and other authorizations 

issued pursuant thereto will be valid 

within the Sanctuary unless authorizing 

any activity prohibited by any 

regulation implementing Article IV. The 

term ‘‘fishing’’ as used in this Article 

includes mariculture. 

In addition, for the purpose of this 

regulation NOAA is codifying the 

northern geographical extent of Tomales 

Bay via the same demarcation line that 

is already used in the International 

Regulations for Preventing Collision at 

Sea 1972 (COLREGS): the line runs from 

Avalis Beach east to Sand Point. These 

geographic coordinates have been added 

as Appendix D to Subpart H of Part 922. 

Parts of the western and southern 

shoreline of Tomales Bay solely within 

Point Reyes National Seashore are not 

subject to this regulation. 

Last, as described in new § 922.85, 

NOAA intends to enter into a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

with the state of California to implement 

the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 

commitment to consult with NOAA 

whenever a future commercial shellfish 

aquaculture project permit application 

within Tomales Bay is received and 

being considered by the state. 

III. Summary of the Revisions to 

MBNMS Terms of Designation and 

Regulations 

NOAA received few comments on the 

March 2013 proposed rulemaking 

regarding the introduced species 

regulation related to MBNMS. The 

MBNMS Advisory Council and several 

members of the public commented in 

strong support of the proposed rule. The 

comments received for the March 2014 

proposed rule generally focused on the 

GFNMS regulations, however the 

aquaculture industry commented in 

support of allowing MBNMS (as well as 

GFNMS) to consider a permit 

authorization for future commercial 

shellfish aquaculture projects involving 

non-invasive introduced species. 

NOAA is implementing the regulatory 

proposals for MBNMS that were 

described in the March 2014 proposed 

rule. As with GFNMS, NOAA believes 

there is urgency and need to extend 

from federal waters into state waters the 

full protection of sanctuary regulations 

prohibiting the introduction or release 

of introduced species. Accordingly, 

NOAA is modifying the MBNMS terms 

of designation and regulations to 

prohibit the introduction or other 

release of introduced species from 

within or into the state waters of the 

sanctuary. The revised terms of 

designation under Article IV Scope of 

Regulations, Section 1 Activities Subject 

to Regulation, Activity (l) will read as 

follows (deleted text in brackets and 

italics): 

Article IV. Scope of Regulations 

Section l. Activities Subject to 

Regulation 

* * * 

(l) Introducing or otherwise releasing 

from within or into [the federal waters 

of] the Sanctuary an introduced species. 

This final rule also provides MBNMS 

with the authority to authorize a valid 

permit, license or other authorization 

issued by the state of California for 

commercial shellfish aquaculture 

activities conducted in state waters of 

MBNMS involving introduced species 

of shellfish that NOAA and the state 

have determined are non-invasive and 

that will not cause significant adverse 

effects to sanctuary resources or 

qualities. MBNMS regulations already 

allow the ONMS Director the ability to 

authorize state of California (or other 

agency) permits for certain activities 

that are otherwise prohibited in the 

sanctuary. This authority is delegated 

from the ONMS Director to the 

sanctuary Superintendent. 

NOAA intends to enter into an MOA 

with the state of California to describe 

how NOAA and the state agencies— 

CFGC, CDFW and CCC—will coordinate 

on any future proposal to develop any 

commercial shellfish aquaculture 

project in state waters of MBNMS 

involving a non-invasive introduced 

species. Similar to other MOAs with 

state agencies, this MOA requirement 

will be reflected in MBNMS regulations 

(see § 922.134(a)). 

IV. Response to Comments 

NOAA conducted two comment 

periods on separate proposed rules 

between March 2013 and March 2014 

and received a total of 29 comments 

from 33 groups, agencies or individuals. 

The comments and responses have been 

segregated below to reflect the two 

different proposed rules. 

Comments and Responses Submitted on 

the March 2013 Proposed Rule 

General Support for the Proposed Rule 

1. Comment: Commenters generally 

supported the 2013 proposal, noting the 

cooperation of NOAA and the state 

agencies in coming to terms that would 

protect the national marine sanctuaries 

from the threat of introduced species. 

Response: NOAA agrees there was 

ongoing need to address the unresolved 

issue of leaving the state waters portions 

of the two national marine sanctuaries 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8781 

vulnerable to introduction of introduced 

species. This final rule incorporates 

aspects of both the 2013 and 2014 

proposed rules, and relies on increased 

collaboration among the state of 

California agencies and NOAA. The 

final rule specifically includes the 

ability for aquaculture operators to seek 

a permit from the state (within Tomales 

Bay in GFNMS) and from the state and 

NOAA (within MBNMS). 

The Proposed Rule Does Not Recognize 

That Some Introduced Species Are NonInvasive 

2. Comment: NOAA should revise the 

proposed rule to recognize that some 

introduced species are not a threat to 

sanctuary resources because they do not 

reproduce or otherwise affect the 

natural ecosystem of the sanctuary if 

released. NOAA should consider 

provisions for allowing culturing of 

introduced shellfish species approved 

by the state of California and proven to 

pose no significant threat to native 

ecological processes within the 

sanctuaries. 

Response: National marine 

sanctuaries are designated, in part, to 

maintain ‘‘natural biological 

communities . . . and to protect, and 

where appropriate, restore and enhance 

natural habitats, populations, and 

ecological processes’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1431(b)(3)). In short, national marine 

sanctuaries are mandated by law to 

preserve the natural character of 

national marine sanctuary ecosystems, 

similar to the manner that terrestrial 

ecosystems have been preserved and 

protected by the national parks system. 

Any proposed alteration of the natural 

biological community (e.g. introduction 

of a foreign species) is contrary to the 

purpose of sanctuary designation. 

Therefore, the proposed introduction of 

species not native to a national marine 

sanctuary places the burden of proof on 

the project sponsor to demonstrate to 

NOAA and state management agencies 

that no significant harm will result from 

any such proposal. NOAA 

acknowledges that there have been some 

introduced species of shellfish 

cultivated in GFNMS which have not, to 

date, had significant adverse effects on 

sanctuary resources. In discussions with 

the three state management entities with 

regulatory control over aquaculture 

projects in state waters—the Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, the Fish and Game 

Commission and the California Coastal 

Commission—it is clear to NOAA that 

state management entities are also 

concerned about the impact invasive, 

introduced species can have on an 

ecosystem. These agencies have taken 

steps to eliminate, or at least greatly 

reduce the risk of an invasion from such 

species grown in aquaculture projects. 

Based on these comments and further 

analysis, NOAA issued a revised 

proposed rule in March 2014 which 

proposed to allow the ONMS Director to 

consider authorization of state permits 

or leases for a very limited scope of 

aquaculture projects—state-approved 

aquaculture in state waters of GFNMS 

(including Tomales Bay) or MBNMS 

involving an introduced species of 

shellfish that the state and NOAA 

determined would not be invasive or 

otherwise damage sanctuary resources 

(authority to issue an authorization is 

delegated from the ONMS director to a 

sanctuary superintendent). NOAA 

proposed to develop an MOA with the 

state agencies to lay out how such joint 

review would take place for any future 

aquaculture project. MBNMS already 

has authorization authority, but cannot 

issue a permit for an introduced species 

projects. GFNMS does not have 

authorization authority, so this would 

have been new authority for GFNMS. 

The final rule expands MBNMS’s 

existing authorization authority to 

include this limited scope of regulatory 

action—the potential authorization of 

state permits or leases that would allow 

development of new aquaculture 

projects in state waters involving 

introduced shellfish species the state 

and NOAA have determined are noninvasive and will not harm sanctuary 

resources or qualities. For GFNMS, 

NOAA has adjusted the final rule to 

conform to a request from the state of 

California as part of a separate 

rulemaking on boundary expansion of 

that sanctuary to not include 

authorization authority in GFNMS at 

this time. NOAA intends to begin 

implementing a separate public process, 

including consultation with affected 

agencies, on the topic of authorization 

after the finalization of the sanctuary 

expansion action. 

Future Growth of Shellfish Industry 

3. Comment: The proposed rule 

eliminates sites for future growth of the 

shellfish industry in California, conflicts 

with other federal policies and goals, 

and should be withdrawn for further 

consideration and revision. 

Response: NOAA disagrees. The final 

rule does not prohibit aquaculture. It 

prohibits the introduction of introduced 

species within or into nationally 

protected marine ecosystems. The final 

rule now allows the consideration of 

non-invasive introduced species as part 

of a commercial shellfish aquaculture 

operation in state waters of MBNMS, 

provided that both the state and NOAA 

determine cultivation of the species 

would have no significant adverse 

effects to sanctuary resources or 

qualities. Furthermore, the final rule 

includes no regulatory restrictions by 

GFNMS for any new or expanded 

aquaculture project cultivating 

introduced species in Tomales Bay, the 

only area of either sanctuary where such 

activity is currently conducted. 

Expansion would be possible in 

Tomales Bay, provided applicants 

received appropriate state permits or 

leases. The final rule specifically 

includes the ability for aquaculture 

operators to seek a permit from the state 

(within Tomales Bay in GFNMS) and 

from the state and NOAA (within 

MBNMS). 

Exempting Tomales Bay Increases 

Permitting Burden 

4. Comment: The proposed exemption 

of Tomales Bay from ONMS regulations 

would cause undue and additional 

regulatory burden on aquaculture 

operators seeking new permits from the 

state. The proposed Memorandum of 

Agreement between NOAA and the state 

agencies would cause undue delay. 

Response: NOAA disagrees. The 

exemption to the introduced species 

regulation for mariculture in Tomales 

Bay will not cause a burden on an 

operator proposing a new or expanded 

aquaculture project. The MOA will 

outline and clarify agency roles and 

anticipated timelines in the consultation 

process that state agencies would 

normally conduct with other agencies, 

in this case GFNMS. 

Proposed Rule Eliminates Jobs 

5. Comment: The proposed rule will 

result in elimination of green jobs and 

sustainable small businesses associated 

with shellfish aquaculture, and create a 

greater seafood trade imbalance. 

Response: The final rule will not 

eliminate any existing aquaculture 

operation or associated green jobs in 

GFNMS, and exempts from sanctuary 

regulation the only area in that 

sanctuary where aquaculture presently 

occurs. For MBNMS, the final rule 

allows the sanctuary superintendent to 

consider authorization of a state permit 

or lease for a future commercial 

shellfish aquaculture project in state 

waters cultivating an introduced species 

that NOAA and the state determine is 

non-invasive and will not adversely 

affect sanctuary resources or qualities. 

Presently there are no such introduced 

species aquaculture projects in MBNMS 

and hence no jobs that could be lost due 

to the final rule. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8782 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Proposed Action Is More Consistent 

With Coastal Act 

6. Comment: The proposed rule is 

more consistent with the past decision 

by the California Coastal Commission 

regarding the final rule NOAA 

submitted to the state in 2008. (The 

current status is inconsistent with that 

decision, with the state waters 

completely unprotected from 

introduction of introduced species.) 

Response: NOAA agrees. 

Effect of Regulation on Research on 

Introduced Species 

7. Comment: Clarify how the 

proposed regulation affects research on 

introduced species. 

Response: The final rule applies to 

state waters of both GFNMS and 

MBNMS and would make the 

restrictions on introduction of 

introduced species consistent within 

state and federal waters of those 

sanctuaries. Specifically, sanctuary 

regulations will prohibit introducing or 

otherwise releasing an introduced 

species into the sanctuary, and thus any 

research that includes or results in the 

release or other introduction of an 

introduced species would not be 

allowed. Regulations for both sites 

would not allow a superintendent to 

issue a permit for such research. 

Research on introduced species already 

existing within the sanctuary would not 

generally be prohibited unless such 

research involved relocation, moving, or 

otherwise distributing individuals or 

propagules of the existing introduced 

species. 

Memorandum of Agreement 

8. Comment: The MOA between 

NOAA and the state of California 

regarding introduced species 

aquaculture should be circulated for 

public comment so the public can be 

assured that the MOA’s design 

adequately satisfies the intent of the 

proposed rule. 

Response: Interagency MOA are not 

generally circulated for public review 

before they are signed. The MOA will 

establish procedures for the agencies to 

work collaboratively pursuant to and 

consistent with the respective legal 

authorities of each participating agency. 

In no case will the MOA supersede 

NOAA’s regulatory authority. The final, 

signed agreement will be available to 

the public. 

Comments and Responses Submitted for 

Second Proposed Rule, March 2014 

No Introduced Species Should Be 

Allowed 

9. Comment: Introduced species pose 

a threat to native species diversity and 

endangered species, ecosystem integrity, 

and the composition and resilience of 

natural biological communities as well 

as the commercial and recreational uses 

that depend on these resources. GFNMS 

and MBNMS should revise sanctuary 

regulations to consistently protect all 

sanctuary and associated state marine 

waters and habitats from negative 

ecological and socio-economic impacts 

caused by the introduction of 

introduced species. 

Response: NOAA agrees. The 

introduction of introduced species to 

marine waters can disrupt native 

ecological processes, resulting in altered 

trophic relationships and habitat 

modification. Introduced species can 

spread unabated in areas where no 

natural predators exist, and eradication 

of these species may become impossible 

once they disperse. Propagation of 

invasive introduced species can lead to 

socio-economic impacts, such as 

changes in fisheries, fouling of 

infrastructure and seawater intakes, and 

aesthetic changes that impact tourism. 

The final rule prohibits all forms of 

introducing or releasing an introduced 

species into state waters of both 

sanctuaries, with three exceptions: 

(1) Within both sanctuaries, catch and 

release of an introduced species, striped 

bass, already established in marine 

waters and part of an active recreational 

fishery. State-imposed size limits could 

result in striped bass being caught and 

released while fishing in either 

sanctuary; (2) within GFNMS, existing 

commercial shellfish aquaculture 

operations in Tomales Bay permitted by 

the state that cultivate introduced 

species which have not, to date, invaded 

native ecosystems and caused 

significant adverse harm to sanctuary 

resources and qualities; and, (3) within 

MBNMS, introduction of introduced 

species from commercial shellfish 

aquaculture projects in state waters that 

NOAA and the state have determined 

are non-invasive and will not cause 

adverse harm to sanctuary resources and 

qualities. NOAA will work very closely 

with the state resource management 

entities to ensure any new, expanded or 

future aquaculture project will not 

result in a release of an invasive species 

that will cause harm to sanctuary, and 

state, resources. All other forms of 

introduction or release of an introduced 

species will be strictly prohibited. 

Catch and Release of State Approved 

Non-Native Species 

10. Comment: Regulation of 

introduced species by MBNMS and 

GFNMS should include provisions for 

continued catch and release of striped 

bass (Marone saxatilis), a fish stock 

historically managed by the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(CDFW). 

Response: As in the original final rule 

issued on November 20, 2008, catch and 

release of striped bass (Marone saxatilis) 

in both state and federal waters of 

GFNMS and MBNMS is exempt from 

this regulation (73 FR 70488). 

General Opposition to the Amended 

Rule 

11. Comment: The proposal to allow 

authorization of state-permitted 

commercial shellfish aquaculture 

operations in GFNMS would give 

deference to the aquaculture industry 

over the national marine sanctuaries’ 

resource protection mandate. 

Response: As a result of the 

Governor’s objection in 2008, there are 

currently no sanctuary regulations 

protecting state waters of these two 

national marine sanctuaries from the 

introduction of introduced species. This 

final rule closes that regulatory gap and 

prohibits the introduction of introduced 

species in the state waters of the 

sanctuaries from all other pathways of 

introductions except for the three 

exceptions described in response to 

comment 9 above. For GFNMS, the final 

rule does not add authorization 

authority to that sanctuary’s regulations. 

However, any expanded or new 

aquaculture operation within Tomales 

Bay in GFNMS would have to be 

permitted by several state resource 

management agencies, who would 

consult with GFNMS before issuing any 

permit. In addition, the authority to 

authorize another agency’s permit, 

which MBNMS could exercise through 

this final rule, gives complete discretion 

to the MBNMS superintendent to 

approve with conditions or deny a 

potential future aquaculture project in 

state waters of MBNMS cultivating 

introduced shellfish species that NOAA 

and the state have found to be noninvasive and to not adversely affect 

sanctuary resources and qualities. 

Authorization Authorities 

12. Comment: NOAA should not 

adopt the proposed authorization 

authority because it provides essentially 

a rubber stamp approval to future 

activities involving introduced species. 

Response: NOAA disagrees. The final 

regulation allows MBNMS to consider 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8783 

the authorization of aquaculture 

operations within very narrow 

parameters (to approve, condition, or 

deny state issued permits for 

commercial shellfish aquaculture in 

state waters of MBNMS determined by 

NOAA and state management agencies 

to be not invasive and not cause 

significant adverse effects to sanctuary 

resources or qualities). Authorization 

authority has existed in MBNMS and 

five other national marine sanctuaries 

for many years and has been used 

successfully and consistent with the 

purposes and policies of the NMSA. 

13. Comment: The authority to 

authorize other agencies’ permits found 

in 15 CFR 922.49 is deficient in that it 

lacks administrative procedure for 

public oversight and comment, and for 

public appeals, and it is not directly 

connected to the conditions for 

sanctuary permits found in 15 CFR 

922.83 and 15 CFR 922.133 

Response: The final rule does not add 

permit authorization authority to 

GFNMS regulations at this time. For 

MBNMS, which has had authorization 

authority since 1992, the issues of 

public review have not arisen in large 

part because projects MBNMS has 

considered for authorization have had 

extensive public review by another 

local, state or federal agencies. 

14. Comment: NOAA should not 

adopt authorization authority because 

this adds another layer of bureaucracy 

to an already-complicated, multi-state 

agency review process, impeding future 

growth of the industry. 

Response: NOAA disagrees that the 

authorization process adds another layer 

of bureaucracy. The authorization 

process is intended to improve 

administrative efficiency by allowing 

NOAA to review and approve, deny or 

condition other agencies’ permits. This 

simplifies the application process for a 

permit applicant and promotes 

cooperative efforts among NOAA and 

other regulatory agencies. 

Grandfathering Existing State Leases 

15. Comment: NOAA should not 

‘‘grandfather’’ existing or heretofore 

undisclosed leases, permits, and 

pending modifications of existing 

activities within Tomales Bay. NOAA 

should obtain full and complete copies 

of those leases before the effective date 

of the regulation, and they should be 

identified in the Federal Register 

announcement at the time the final rule 

is published. 

Response: The grandfathering of 

existing aquaculture leases has been 

removed from the final rule and will not 

occur within GFNMS. Instead, NOAA is 

exempting from regulation the sanctuary 

waters of Tomales Bay, where existing 

aquaculture projects occur, as described 

in the 2013 proposed rule. In MBNMS 

there are no existing aquaculture 

operations, thus there are no 

undisclosed leases or permits and no 

projects will be grandfathered. The 

existing state review process continues 

in these areas and any major state action 

on an aquaculture operation in Tomales 

Bay will proceed consistent with 

existing public review processes, 

including public hearings before the 

California Fish and Game Commission 

or the California Coastal Commission. 

Memorandum of Agreement 

16. Comment: The MOA between 

NOAA and the state of California, and 

NOAA’s authorization authority 

regarding introduced species 

aquaculture, should in no way expand 

from bivalve mariculture to finfish 

aquaculture. 

Response: NOAA agrees. The 

authorization authority for MBNMS is 

narrowly defined to only allow MBNMS 

to consider authorizing state of 

California permits or leases for 

commercial shellfish aquaculture 

projects in state waters involving 

introduced species of shellfish that the 

state management agencies and NOAA 

have determined will not have 

significant adverse impacts to sanctuary 

resources or qualities. For Tomales Bay, 

the state will continue to have primary 

jurisdictional authority for aquaculture, 

consulting with GFNMS before issuing 

any new permits or leases. All other 

introductions of introduced species in 

state and federal waters of GFNMS and 

MBNMS, except for the catch and 

release of striped bass, are prohibited. 

Furthermore, the state of California has 

a current legislative prohibition on nonnative finfish aquaculture in state 

waters. 

Collaboration Between State and 

Federal Agencies 

17. Comment: Too much of the 

proposal is predicated on promises of 

future collaborations and agreements. 

Recent history suggests that the state is 

incapable of shared jurisdictional 

authority when managing aquaculture. 

Response: NOAA believes the 

collaborative process developed for both 

GFNMS and MBNMS will allow the 

state and NOAA to work cooperatively 

to prevent the introduction of 

introduced species into state waters of 

the sanctuaries. The state will consult 

with GFNMS prior to issuing any new 

permits in Tomales Bay. However, in all 

other state waters of GFNMS, 

introduced species aquaculture will not 

be allowed. In MBNMS, the state and 

NOAA will each have jurisdiction over 

commercial aquaculture projects in state 

waters involving introduced species of 

shellfish. 

Scientific Data 

18. Comment: NOAA should not 

adopt the proposed rule (March 2014) to 

consider permitting aquaculture projects 

in GFNMS with non-invasive, 

introduced species because lack of 

scientific data on the significant impacts 

of invasive species, a lack of data on 

native and non-native species 

abundance and condition, and on crossvector influences. 

Response: NOAA agrees that impacts 

from introduced species can pose a 

major threat to sanctuary resources and 

qualities. However, in Tomales Bay, the 

only location in sanctuaries offshore of 

California where commercial cultivation 

of introduced species currently occurs, 

state management agencies have 

regulated these types of aquaculture 

operations for many years. In this final 

rule, NOAA is not expanding the ability 

to develop new introduced species 

aquaculture projects in GFNMS beyond 

Tomales Bay and will defer to state 

management agencies for aquaculture 

projects within Tomales Bay. 

NEPA Compliance 

19. Comment: NOAA has not 

adequately complied with the National 

Environmental Policy Act for proposed 

rule because it relied on analysis from 

2008, and did not conduct a new 

environmental review. 

Response: NOAA is relying on the 

FEIS as prepared for the 2008 JMPR 

because the baseline conditions have 

not changed. That is, there has been no 

change in the number of mariculture 

operations or leases in Tomales Bay and 

NOAA is unaware of any change in the 

environmental effects of those species in 

Tomales Bay. With this rule, the 

introduction of introduced species, 

including the use of non-native shellfish 

in commercial aquaculture operations, 

is being prohibited in state waters of 

both sanctuaries, with the exception of 

Tomales Bay. The 2008 FEIS 

specifically identified that the 

prohibition of the introduction of 

introduced species would lead to 

beneficial impacts to Biological 

Resources and Water Quality Resources 

and would not cause any adverse 

impacts to existing shellfish aquaculture 

operations. 

The final rule adopts a regulatory 

regime slightly different from that 

reviewed in 2008 because it will allow 

commercial shellfish aquaculture to 

continue using introduced species in 

Tomales Bay that have been shown to be 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8784 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

non-invasive and will allow the State of 

California to demonstrate on a case-bycase basis with NOAA concurrence that 

commercial shellfish operations using 

certain non-invasive shellfish species 

may be safely established in state waters 

of MBNMS. NOAA believes this action 

is within the range of alternatives 

considered in 2008 and will result in 

nearly the same level of beneficial 

impacts that were identified in 2008. 

Further, NOAA is adopting final 

regulations that would not affect 

existing aquaculture projects in Tomales 

Bay that are conducted pursuant to a 

valid lease, permit, license or other 

authorization issued by the state of 

California. 

NOAA has added authorization 

authority for MBNMS to consider 

authorizing state of California permits or 

leases for commercial aquaculture 

projects in state waters involving 

introduced species of shellfish that the 

state management agencies and NOAA 

have determined will not have 

significant adverse impacts to sanctuary 

resources or qualities. This process will 

require additional NEPA and California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

review to be triggered on a case by case 

basis if new aquaculture projects were 

to be proposed in the state waters of 

MBNMS. NOAA has complied with 

NEPA for this action. 

Species May Become Invasive Over 

Time Due to Climate Change 

20. Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concerns that cultivated 

species currently not considered by the 

state of California to be invasive, such 

as Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), 

have the potential to be invasive in 

other environments and situations, and 

may become invasive in California 

under global climate change scenarios 

where warmer waters allow unassisted 

reproduction. 

Response: NOAA is also concerned 

about how climate change will impact 

introduced species aquaculture. In this 

action, NOAA is implementing a final 

rule which does not allow introduced 

species aquaculture in state waters of 

GFNMS except in Tomales Bay and only 

with a state lease or permit. Aquaculture 

operators will be required to follow the 

state’s public process through the CA 

Fish and Game Commission and the CA 

Coastal Commission. The results of 

studies in the United States and 

elsewhere as to how species may 

become invasive will be considered by 

the state and NOAA in making any 

future determinations. 

Parasites and Other Impacts 

21. Comment: NOAA’s final action 

needs to account for the likelihood that 

these shellfish species would 

themselves attract or carry other exotic 

species, thereby causing 

environmentally detrimental impacts. 

Response: In GFNMS, only those 

aquaculture operations in Tomales Bay 

with a valid lease or permit from the 

state of California would be exempt. If 

a commercial shellfish aquaculture 

project involving introduced species is 

proposed in MBNMS, as part of the 

permit authorization state management 

agencies and NOAA must determine the 

project will not have significant adverse 

impacts to sanctuary resources or 

qualities. In this review process, NOAA 

and state management agencies will 

consider not only the proposed 

introduced species themselves, but also 

the threats from parasites, project siting, 

the financial capability of the applicant, 

among other factors. 

Monitoring and Management 

22. Comment: NOAA should clarify 

how it or the state will monitor and 

prevent accidental introductions of 

diseases, parasites and hitch-hikers on 

aquaculture species within sanctuary 

waters. No protocol for monitoring or 

management of new or expanded 

aquaculture operations is referenced in 

the proposed regulation amendment. 

Response: For Tomales Bay in 

GFNMS, commercial shellfish 

aquaculture will remain under the 

primary management authority of state 

management agencies and their public 

processes at this time. The MOA will 

outline how GFNMS can raise concerns 

to the state and seek their inclusion of 

permit conditions that ensure adequate 

enforcement and monitoring. For state 

waters of MBNMS, ONMS may 

condition or deny a potential permit 

authorization request if NOAA finds the 

applicant and the state management 

agencies do not adequately monitor and 

manage a proposed commercial 

shellfish aquaculture project involving 

introduced species. Monitoring and 

enforcement protocols could be added 

to permit conditions as part of an 

authorization, and would ideally be 

discussed, reviewed, and planned for on 

a case by case basis, and considered 

during the NEPA and CEQA process. 

Other Federal Jurisdictions 

23. Comment: NOAA’s proposed rule 

does not recognize the regulatory role of 

the National Park Service (NPS). NPS 

national policy prohibits introductions 

of non-native species in NPS waters, 

including waters which overlap with 

national marine sanctuaries, the 

introduction of non-native species 

within national parks is inconsistent 

with the NPS Organic Act of 1916 (as 

amended and supplemented). 

Response: NOAA and NPS have some 

jurisdictional overlap in GFNMS. Where 

there is jurisdictional overlap, NOAA’s 

final regulations in this action do not 

usurp other federal regulations, 

including those of the National Park 

Service. As discussed in the preamble to 

this rule above, due to the previous 

Governor’s objection in December 2008, 

there are currently no sanctuary 

regulations regarding introduced species 

in state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS 

(including waters adjacent to national 

parks). NOAA believes this final action 

will close that regulatory gap by 

prohibiting virtually all of the 

mechanisms that could result in the 

introduction of an introduced species. 

The final rule will only allow 

introduced species shellfish aquaculture 

within sanctuary waters of Tomales Bay 

operating with a valid permit of lease 

from the state. This final action will 

support the goals of the National Park 

Service to prevent the introduction of 

introduced species. 

Weakens ONMS Authority 

24. Comment: NOAA’s proposed 

action weakens the authority of the 

national marine sanctuaries to control 

invasive non-native species that 

potentially may be introduced by new 

aquaculture operations. In so doing, 

NOAA delegates to the state the 

authority to define invasive species and 

bypasses a process for environmental 

review and compliance, including the 

participation of other potentially 

impacted federal agencies, such as 

national parks as well as the public. 

Response: NOAA disagrees. 

Currently, there are no introduced 

species regulations in state waters of 

GFNMS or MBNMS and this final rule 

provides that regulatory protection by 

prohibiting the introduction of 

introduced species in all state waters of 

MBNMS and nearly all state waters of 

GFNMS. Any state review of an existing, 

expanded or new aquaculture project in 

Tomales Bay in GFNMS will include 

compliance with CEQA, consultation 

with affected agencies, and public 

review, including hearings, as 

prescribed by agency procedures when 

issuing leases and permits. Any new 

project in MBNMS will also require 

compliance with NEPA. While the final 

rule exempts the need for a permit 

authorization from GFNMS in Tomales 

Bay it includes extensive consultation 

with GFNMS prior to the state’s issuing 

permits or leases as outlined in the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8785 

MOA. Therefore, additional public 

review consistent with state and federal 

law and procedures will be provided 

and comments considered on any such 

action in either sanctuary, if proposed 

in the future. 

Existing Operations 

25. Comment: NOAA should require 

ONMS review for any change to an 

existing lease where the grower 

proposes to cultivate new non-native 

shellfish species on their farm. 

Response: The grandfathering option 

for GFNMS discussed in the March 2013 

proposal was adopted by NOAA and 

will exempt existing and future 

commercial shellfish aquaculture 

operations in Tomales Bay with a valid 

state of California permit or lease. The 

MOA will outline how the state will 

consult with GFNMS on expansion of 

existing leases or future proposals to 

cultivate new species. 

Extending the Public Comment Period 

26. Comment: NOAA should extend 

the short comment period of the 

amended proposed rule. The release of 

the Federal Register notice reopening 

this issue, and the subsequent comment 

deadline for this reversal by the agency 

was conducted in such manner as to 

preclude the public from having timely 

access to the necessary information and 

supporting documents, and the 

necessary time for review. 

Response: The comment period for 

the March 2013 proposed rule was 60 

days and generated very few public 

comments. The comments received in 

2013 were mostly in support—including 

those received from the GFNMS and 

MBNMS Sanctuary Advisory Councils— 

of NOAA’s proposed action which is 

being implemented for GFNMS in this 

final rule. Based on this information, 

NOAA did not anticipate receiving 

many public comments for the March 

27, 2014 amended proposed rule, and 

therefore NOAA established a 15 day 

comment period. Upon receiving a 

request for an extension, NOAA reopened the comment period for an 

additional 24 days until May 5, 2017. 

Based on the comments received during 

these two comment periods, NOAA 

believes this final rule-making has 

provided the public with timely 

involvement and the opportunity to 

review and comment on this action. 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Report (pEIR) 

27. Comment: The rule is premature 

because this current NOAA comment 

period predates a pending state of 

California Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Report (pEIR) on aquaculture 

issues expected to be inclusive of many 

of the same types of invasive species 

questions brought forward by expanded 

aquaculture proposals in state waters. 

Response: This comment is beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. The state’s 

programmatic environmental impact 

report being prepared pursuant to CEQA 

is unrelated to this final action 

promulgated by NOAA. This regulation 

has a long history, and is designed to 

extend existing sanctuary introduced 

species prohibitions from federal waters 

into state waters of GFNMS and 

MBNMS. Future state action may 

further assist the state and federal 

regulatory agencies in protecting coastal 

waters from the invasive impacts of 

introduced species. 

GFNMS Boundary Expansion 

28. Comment: NOAA should not take 

any action on the introduced species 

rule until the public hearings and 

written comments on the draft 

environmental impact Statement (DEIS) 

and accompanying regulations for 

boundary expansion for GFNMS has 

been subjected to sufficient public 

review. 

Response: This comment is beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. However, 

we note the proposed rule for GFNMS 

expansion recognizes that there is a 

separate rulemaking process the 

introduced species. The rules will be 

codified accordingly, in the order they 

are finalized. 

Oil Drilling 

29. Comment: NOAA should 

specifically exclude oil drilling from the 

list of otherwise prohibited activities 

that could be authorized by NOAA 

(922.132(1)) within GFNMS. 

Response: This comment is beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

Nevertheless, as noted previously, the 

Final Rule does not add authorization 

authority to GFNMS regulations. 

V. Miscellaneous Rulemaking 

Requirements 

A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

Section 301 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 

1434) provides authority for 

comprehensive and coordinated 

conservation and management of 

national marine sanctuaries in 

coordination with other resource 

management authorities. When 

changing a term of designation of a 

National Marine Sanctuary, section 304 

of the NMSA requires the preparation of 

a draft environmental impact statement 

(DEIS), as provided by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and that the DEIS 

be made available to the public. NOAA 

prepared a draft and final management 

plan and a draft and final EIS on the 

initial proposal and final rule for the 

Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR). 

Copies are available at the address and 

Web site listed in the ADDRESSES section 

of this proposed rule. Responses to 

comments received on March 18, 2013 

proposed rule and on the March 27, 

2014 proposed revision to the 

regulations have been analyzed and 

published in the preamble to this final 

rule and discussed in the record of 

decision. NOAA has made available the 

2008 final environmental impact 

statement (FEIS) for the JMPR that was 

previously available to the public, and 

which analyzes the environmental 

effects of the introduced species 

regulations as they are now finalized by 

this action. (For a copy of the FEIS, 

please visit www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/

jointplan.) 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

In the 2008 FEIS for the JMPR, NOAA 

identified a preferred action which was 

to modify the terms of designation and 

regulations for GFNMS and MBNMS to, 

among other things, prohibit the 

introduction of introduced species (with 

limited exceptions) throughout the 

sanctuaries, and NOAA endorses that 

action as re-proposed and as amended 

in the notices of proposed rulemaking 

associated with this final rule. The 2008 

FEIS specifically identified that the 

prohibition of the introduction of 

introduced species would lead to 

beneficial impacts to Biological 

Resources and Water Quality Resources 

and would not cause any adverse 

impacts to existing shellfish aquaculture 

operations. The final rule adopts a 

regulatory regime slightly different from 

that reviewed in 2008, however, this 

action is within the range of alternatives 

considered in 2008 and will result in 

nearly the same level of beneficial 

impacts that were identified in 2008. 

Further, NOAA is adopting final 

regulations that would not affect 

existing aquaculture projects in Tomales 

Bay that are conducted pursuant to a 

valid lease, permit, license or other 

authorization issued by the state of 

California. NOAA further believes there 

has not been a significant change to the 

environmental conditions or the 

potential environmental effects of the 

preferred alternative. NOAA has 

determined that a supplement to the 

FEIS is not required for this final action. 

Pursuant to a MOA that would be 

executed, the state would consult with 

NOAA prior to any new or amended 

state-issued lease and permits. In 

addition, through this action NOAA 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8786 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

would exercise limited authorization 

authority with respect to commercial 

shellfish aquaculture activities in state 

waters of MBNMS involving cultivation 

of introduced species of shellfish that 

NOAA and the State have determined 

are non-invasive and would not cause 

significant adverse effects. Any future 

proposal or amendments to existing 

state leases for an aquaculture project 

involving cultivation of introduced 

shellfish species would undergo 

environmental review pursuant to the 

California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) and NEPA for MBNMS and 

CEQA for GFNMS on a case-by-case 

basis to consider project-specific effects 

of that action. NOAA may refuse to 

authorize a project in MBNMS that 

would not comply with terms or 

conditions required by NOAA. 15 CFR 

922.49(a). 

Copies of the FEIS, the record of 

decision and other related materials that 

are specific to this action are available 

at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/

jointplan/feis/feis.html, or by contacting 

NOAA at the address listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION section of this 

final rule. Comments regarding the 

introduction of introduced species 

portion of the original FEIS are analyzed 

and responded to above, in the 

Response to Comments section. 

C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Impact 

This rule has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Assessment 

NOAA has concluded that this 

regulatory action falls within the 

definition of ‘‘policies that have 

federalism implications’’ within the 

meaning of Executive Order 13132. 

NOAA’s previous proposed rule and 

subsequent amended proposed rule 

were conducted in cooperation with the 

State of California, and pursuant to 

Section 304(b) of the NMSA. Since the 

proposed rule was issued on March 18, 

2013, further consultations have 

occurred with the State of California, 

and the proposed changes contained in 

the March 27, 2014 notice reflect 

cooperative negotiations reached in 

those consultations. It is NOAA’s view 

that, due to these negotiations, the state 

will not object to the amended 

regulations finalized in this action. In 

keeping with the intent of the Executive 

Order, NOAA consulted with a number 

of entities within the state which 

participated in development of the 

initial rule, including but not limited to, 

the California Coastal Commission, the 

California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, and the California Natural 

Resources Agency. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration at the 

proposed rule stage that this rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The factual basis for this 

certification was discussed in the 

proposed rule issued on March 18, 

2013, and the March 27, 2014 amended 

proposal, where the conclusion 

remained the same. No comments were 

received on that certification. No other 

law requires a regulatory flexibility 

analysis so none is required and none 

has been prepared. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule does not contain 

information collections that are subject 

to the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 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. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aquaculture, Catch and 

release, Environmental protection, Fish, 

Harbors, Introduced species, 

Mariculture, Marine pollution, Marine 

resources, Natural resources, Noninvasive, Penalties, Recreation and 

recreation areas, Research, Water 

pollution control, Water resources, 

Wildlife. 

W. Russell Callender, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, National 

Ocean Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

above, 15 CFR part 922 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 922—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 922 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 922.82, revise paragraph (a)(10) 

to read as follows: 

§ 922.82 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities. 

(a) * * * 

(10) Introducing or otherwise 

releasing from within or into the 

Sanctuary an introduced species, 

except: 

(i) Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) 

released during catch and release 

fishing activity; or 

(ii) Species cultivated by commercial 

shellfish mariculture activities in 

Tomales Bay pursuant to a valid lease, 

permit, license or other authorization 

issued by the state of California. 

Tomales Bay is defined in § 922.80. The 

coordinates for the northern terminus of 

Tomales Bay are listed in appendix D to 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add new § 922.85 to read as 

follows: 

§ 922.85 Review of State permits and 

leases for certain mariculture projects. 

NOAA has described in a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

with the State of California how the 

State will consult and coordinate with 

NOAA to review any new, amended or 

expanded lease or permit application for 

mariculture projects in Tomales Bay 

involving introduced species. 

■ 4. Add Appendix D to subpart H of 

part 922, to read as follows: 

Appendix D to Subpart H of Part 922— 

Northern Extent of Tomales Bay 

For the purpose of § 922.82(a)(10)(ii), 

NOAA is codifying the northern geographical 

extent of Tomales Bay via a line running 

from Avalis Beach (Point 1) east to Sand 

Point (Point 2). Coordinates listed in this 

Appendix are unprojected (geographic) and 

based on the North American Datum of 1983. 

Point ID No. 

Tomales Bay 

boundary 

Latitude Longitude 

1 ..................... 38.23165 ¥122.98148 

2 ..................... 38.23165 ¥122.96955 

■ 5. Revise § 922.132, paragraph (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 922.132 Prohibited or otherwise 

regulated activities. 

* * * * * 

(e) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (a)(8) of this section, and 

(a)(12) of this section regarding any 

introduced species of shellfish that 

NOAA and the State of California have 

determined is non-invasive and will not 

cause significant adverse effects to 

sanctuary resources or qualities, and 

that is cultivated in state waters as part 

of commercial shellfish aquaculture 

activities, do not apply to any activity 

authorized by any lease, permit, license, 

approval, or other authorization issued 

after the effective date of Sanctuary 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8787 

designation (January 1, 1993) and issued 

by any Federal, State, or local authority 

of competent jurisdiction, provided that 

the applicant complies with 15 CFR 

922.49, the Director notifies the 

applicant and authorizing agency that 

he or she does not object to issuance of 

the authorization, and the applicant 

complies with any terms and conditions 

the Director deems necessary to protect 

Sanctuary resources and qualities. 

Amendments, renewals, and extensions 

of authorizations in existence on the 

effective date of designation constitute 

authorizations issued after the effective 

date of Sanctuary designation. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 922.134, revise the section 

heading and add new paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 922.134 Review of certain State permits 

and leases. 

(a)(1) NOAA has described in a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

with the State of California how NOAA 

will coordinate review of any 

introduction of non-invasive introduced 

species from a proposed shellfish 

aquaculture project when considering 

an authorization under § 922.132(e). 

(2) The MOA specifies how the 

process of 15 CFR 922.49 will be 

administered within State waters within 

the sanctuary in coordination with State 

permit and lease programs as 

administered by the California Fish and 

Game Commission, the Department of 

Fish and Wildlife and the California 

Coastal Commission. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–03486 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2015–0025] 

Safety Zone, Sag Harbor COC Winter 

Harbor Frost Fireworks, Sag Harbor, 

NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

one safety zone for a fireworks display 

in the Sector Long Island Sound area of 

responsibility on the dates and times 

listed in the table below. This action is 

necessary to provide for the safety of life 

on navigable waterways during the 

event. During the enforcement period, 

no person or vessel may enter the safety 

zone without permission of the Captain 

of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island 

Sound or designated representative. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

165.151 will be enforced on February 28 

(rain date March 1), 2015 from 6:15 p.m. 

to 6:45 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or email Petty Officer Ian Fallon, 

Waterways Management Division, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound; 

telephone 203–468–4565, email 

Ian.M.Fallon@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the safety zone listed 

in 33 CFR 165.151 on the specified date 

and time as indicated in the following 

Table. If the event is delayed by 

inclement weather, the regulation will 

be enforced on the rain date indicated 

in the Table. 

TABLE

Sag Harbor COC Winter Harbor Frost Fireworks • Date: February 28, 2015. 

• Rain Date: March 1, 2015. 

• Time: 6:15 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. 

• Location: Waters of Sag Harbor off Long Wharf St. Pier in Sag Harbor, NY in approximate 

position 41°00′16.82′′ N, 072°17′43.78′′ W (NAD 83). 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

165.151, the fireworks display listed 

above in DATES is established as a safety 

zone. During the enforcement period, 

persons and vessels are prohibited from 

entering into, transiting through, 

mooring, or anchoring within the safety 

zone unless they receive permission 

from the COTP or designated 

representative. 

This document is issued under 

authority of 33 CFR 165 and 5 U.S.C. 

552 (a). In addition to this notification 

in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard 

will provide the maritime community 

with advance notification of this 

enforcement period via the Local Notice 

to Mariners or marine information 

broadcasts. If the COTP determines that 

the safety zone need not be enforced for 

the full duration stated in this 

document, a Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners may be used to grant general 

permission to enter the regulated area. 

Dated: February 3, 2015. 

E.J. Cubanski, III, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector Long Island Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03333 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0489; FRL–9922–27– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR29 

Revisions to the Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements: Revisions to 

Lead (Pb) Reporting Threshold and 

Clarifications to Technical Reporting 

Details 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes changes 

to the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) emissions inventory 

reporting requirements. This action 

lowers the threshold for reporting lead 

(Pb) emissions sources as point sources, 

eliminates the requirement for reporting 

emissions from wildfires and prescribed 

fires, and replaces a requirement for 

reporting mobile source emissions with 

a requirement for reporting the input 

parameters that can be used to run the 

EPA models that generate emissions 

estimates. This action also reduces the 

reporting burden on state, local, and 

tribal agencies by removing the 

requirements to report daily and 

seasonal emissions in their submissions 

under this rule, while clarifying the 

requirement to report these emissions 

under pollutant-specific regulations. 

Lastly, this action modifies some 

emissions reporting requirements which 

we believe are not necessary for 

inclusion in the Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements (AERR) rule or 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES