61642 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

allocation or apportionment of a target 

species specified under paragraph (c) of 

this section has been or will be reached, 

the Regional Administrator may 

establish a directed fishing allowance 

for that species or species group. 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) Retention of incidental species. 

Except as described in § 679.20(e)(3)(iii), 

if directed fishing for a target species or 

species group is prohibited, a vessel 

may not retain that incidental species in 

an amount that exceeds the maximum 

retainable amount, as calculated under 

paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, at 

any time during a fishing trip. 

* * * * * 

(2) Groundfish as prohibited species 

closure. When the Regional 

Administrator determines that the TAC 

of any target species specified under 

paragraph (c) of this section, or the 

share of any TAC assigned to any type 

of gear, has been or will be achieved 

prior to the end of a year, NMFS will 

publish notification in the Federal 

Register requiring that target species be 

treated in the same manner as a 

prohibited species, as described under 

§ 679.21(b), for the remainder of the 

year. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 679.25, revise paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii)(D) to read as follows: 

§ 679.25 Inseason adjustments. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(D) Reopening of a management area 

or season to achieve the TAC or gear 

share of a TAC for any of the target 

species. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Revise Table 2a to part 679 to read 

as follows: 

TABLE 2A TO PART 679—SPECIES

CODES: FMP GROUNDFISH

Species description Code 

Atka mackerel (greenling) .................. 193 

Flatfish, miscellaneous (flatfish species without separate codes) .......... 120 

Flounder: 

Alaska plaice ................................... 133 

Arrowtooth and/or Kamchatka ........ 121 

Starry ............................................... 129 

Octopus, North Pacific ........................ 870 

Pacific cod .......................................... 110 

Pollock ................................................ 270 

Rockfish: 

Aurora (Sebastes aurora) ............... 185 

Black (BSAI) (S. melanops) ............ 142 

Blackgill (S. melanostomus) ........... 177 

Blue (BSAI) (S. mystinus) ............... 167 

Bocaccio (S. paucispinis) ................ 137 

TABLE 2A TO PART 679—SPECIES

CODES: FMP GROUNDFISH—Continued 

Species description Code 

Canary (S. pinniger) ........................ 146 

Chilipepper (S. goodei) ................... 178 

China (S. nebulosus) ...................... 149 

Copper (S. caurinus) ....................... 138 

Darkblotched (S. crameri) ............... 159 

Dusky (S. variabilis) ........................ 172 

Greenstriped (S. elongatus) ............ 135 

Harlequin (S. variegatus) ................ 176 

Northern (S. polyspinis) .................. 136 

Pacific Ocean Perch (S. alutus) ..... 141 

Pygmy (S. wilsoni) .......................... 179 

Quillback (S. maliger) ..................... 147 

Redbanded (S. babcocki) ............... 153 

Redstripe (S. proriger) .................... 158 

Rosethorn (S. helvomaculatus) ...... 150 

Rougheye (S. aleutianus) ............... 151 

Sharpchin (S. zacentrus) ................ 166 

Shortbelly (S. jordani) ..................... 181 

Shortraker (S. borealis) ................... 152 

Silvergray (S. brevispinis) ............... 157 

Splitnose (S. diploproa) .................. 182 

Stripetail (S. saxicola) ..................... 183 

Thornyhead (all Sebastolobus species) ............................................. 143 

Tiger (S. nigrocinctus) ..................... 148 

Vermilion (S. miniatus) .................... 184 

Widow (S. entomelas) ..................... 156 

Yelloweye (S. ruberrimus) .............. 145 

Yellowmouth (S. reedi) ................... 175 

Yellowtail (S. flavidus) ..................... 155 

Sablefish (blackcod) ........................... 710 

Sculpins .............................................. 160 

Sharks: 

Other (if salmon, spiny dogfish or 

Pacific sleeper shark—use specific species code) ....................... 689 

Pacific sleeper ................................. 692 

Salmon ............................................ 690 

Spiny dogfish .................................. 691 

Skates: 

Whiteblotched (Bathyraja maculata) 705 

Aleutian (B. aleutica) ....................... 704 

Alaska (B. parmifera) ...................... 703 

Big (Raja binoculata) ...................... 702 

Longnose (R. rhina) ........................ 701 

Other (if Whiteblotched, Aleutian, 

Alaska, Big, or Longnose—use 

specific species code listed 

above) .......................................... 700 

Sole: 

Butter ............................................... 126 

Dover ............................................... 124 

English ............................................ 128 

Flathead .......................................... 122 

Petrale ............................................. 131 

Rex .................................................. 125 

Rock ................................................ 123 

Sand ................................................ 132 

Yellowfin .......................................... 127 

Squid, majestic ................................... 875 

Turbot, Greenland .............................. 134 

[FR Doc. 2010–25202 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3310–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 0911031392–0457–02] 

RIN 0648–AY34 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Modified Nonpelagic 

Trawl Gear and Habitat Conservation 

in the Bering Sea Subarea 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS hereby issues a final 

rule that implements Amendment 94 to 

the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP). Amendment 94 requires 

participants using nonpelagic trawl gear 

in the directed fishery for flatfish in the 

Bering Sea subarea to modify the trawl 

gear to raise portions of the gear off the 

ocean bottom. Amendment 94 also 

changes the boundaries of the Northern 

Bering Sea Research Area to establish 

the Modified Gear Trawl Zone (MGTZ) 

and to expand the Saint Matthew Island 

Habitat Conservation Area. Nonpelagic 

trawl gear also is required to be 

modified to raise portions of the gear off 

the ocean bottom if used in any directed 

fishery for groundfish in the MGTZ. 

This action is necessary to reduce 

potential adverse effects of nonpelagic 

trawl gear on bottom habitat, to protect 

additional blue king crab habitat near 

St. Matthew Island, and to allow for 

efficient flatfish harvest as the 

distribution of flatfish in the Bering Sea 

changes. This action is intended to 

promote the goals and objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, the 

FMP, and other applicable laws. 

DATES: Effective January 20, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of 

Amendment 94, maps of the action area, 

the Environmental Assessment/ 

Regulatory Impact Review/Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/ 

RIR/IRFA), and Environmental 

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/ 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(EA/RIR/FRFA) prepared for this action 

may be obtained from NMFS Alaska 

Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802, or from the Alaska Region Web 

site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melanie Brown, 907–586–7228. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61643 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Bering Sea groundfish fisheries are 

managed under the FMP. In 1981, the 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) prepared the FMP 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). Regulations implementing the 

FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General 

regulations governing U.S. fisheries also 

appear at 50 CFR part 600. 

The Council submitted Amendment 

94 for review by the Secretary of 

Commerce, and a notice of availability 

of Amendment 94 was published in the 

Federal Register on June 29, 2010, (75 

FR 37371). The proposed rule was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 15, 2010 (75 FR 41123). Comments 

on the amendment and the proposed 

rule were invited through August 30, 

2010. The amendment to the FMP was 

approved by the Secretary of Commerce 

on September 17, 2010. 

Background 

Amendment 94 requires participants 

in the directed fishery for flatfish in the 

Bering Sea subarea to use modified 

nonpelagic trawl gear. It also changes 

the boundaries of the Northern Bering 

Sea Research Area (NBSRA) to establish 

the MGTZ, and expands the Saint 

Matthew Island Habitat Conservation 

Area (SMIHCA). Four minor changes to 

the FMP also are made, three of which 

do not require regulatory changes. 

(Details on these minor changes are in 

the EA/RIR/FRFA for this action (see 

ADDRESSES), and in the notice of 

availability for Amendment 94 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 29, 2010 (75 FR 37371)). One 

minor technical amendment for the 

NBSRA requires a regulatory 

amendment. The background on the 

regulatory amendments, including 

details on the development of the 

modified nonpelagic trawl gear and 

performance standards, is further 

explained in the proposed rule for this 

action (75 FR 41123, July 15, 2010). 

Regulatory Amendments 

1. Section 679.2 is revised to add a 

definition for the MGTZ, and to add text 

to several definitions to support the 

requirement to use modified nonpelagic 

trawl gear to meet the gear standards at 

§ 679.24. The definition for ‘‘directed 

fishing’’ is revised by adding a 

subparagraph specific to directed 

fishing for flatfish in the Bering Sea 

subarea. This revision requires the use 

of modified nonpelagic trawl gear for 

the directed flatfish fishery in the Bering 

Sea subarea and lists the species that are 

flatfish for purposes of the modified 

nonpelagic trawl gear requirement. The 

definition for ‘‘federally permitted 

vessel’’ is revised to include the fishery 

restrictions that are established for the 

MGTZ, and for modified nonpelagic 

trawl gear fishing in the Bering Sea 

subarea. This revision identifies vessels 

that need to comply with the modified 

nonpelagic trawl gear requirements. The 

definition for ‘‘fishing trip’’ is revised to 

apply to vessels that are directed fishing 

for flatfish based on a fishing trip and 

the species composition of the catch, as 

described in the definition for directed 

fishing for flatfish. The fishing trip 

definition also applies to recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in § 679.5. 

The heading for the first definition of a 

fishing trip is revised to add 

‘‘recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements under § 679.5’’ to reflect 

the full scope of this definition in 50 

CFR part 679. A definition for the 

‘‘Modified Gear Trawl Zone’’ is added to 

define this fishery management area 

consistent with other fishery 

management area definitions and for use 

under the revised definition for 

‘‘federally permitted vessels.’’ 

2. Subparagraph (5) is added to 

§ 679.7(c) to prohibit directed fishing for 

Bering Sea flatfish without modified 

nonpelagic trawl gear that meets the 

standards specified at § 679.24(f). This 

revision is needed to require the use of 

modified nonpelagic trawl gear for 

directed fishing for flatfish in the Bering 

Sea subarea, for directed fishing for 

groundfish with nonpelagic trawl gear 

within the MGTZ, and to ensure the 

modified nonpelagic trawl gear meets 

the standards specified at § 679.24(f). 

Subparagraphs (3) and (4) are added and 

reserved to allow for future rulemaking 

recommended by the Council for Pacific 

cod fishing in the BSAI parallel 

fisheries. 

3. Figure 17 to part 679 and Table 43 

to part 679 is revised to show the 

boundaries of the NBSRA. Figure 17 to 

part 679 is revised to remove the area 

that becomes the MGTZ, and to remove 

the area that becomes part of the eastern 

portion of the SMIHCA. The northern 

portion of Figure 17 to part 679 also is 

revised to include the area of the Bering 

Sea subarea near the Bering Strait that 

was open to nonpelagic trawling (Figure 

2) but that will now be closed. The 

coordinates in Table 43 to part 679 are 

revised to delineate the new boundaries 

of the NBSRA. These revisions are 

necessary to implement the Council’s 

recommended changes in the 

boundaries of the NBSRA and the 

SMIHCA, and to remove the portion of 

the NBSRA that is the MGTZ. 

4. Table 46 to part 679 is revised to 

delineate the new boundaries of the 

SMIHCA. The coordinates in Table 46 to 

part 679 are changed to reflect the 

extension of the eastern boundary to the 

12-nm Territorial Sea. This revision is 

necessary to establish the new 

boundaries of the SMIHCA. 

5. Table 51 to part 679 is added to 

delineate the coordinates of the MGTZ. 

Because the MGTZ area is a simple 

shape and easily identified, no figure is 

added to the regulations. This revision 

is necessary to identify the boundaries 

of the MGTZ. 

6. Section 679.22 lists the closure 

areas for the Alaska groundfish 

fisheries. Because the MGTZ is closed to 

nonpelagic trawling, except for directed 

fishing with modified nonpelagic trawl 

gear, this section is revised to add the 

MGTZ. This revision is necessary to 

identify the area and the gear type that 

is required in this area. 

7. Paragraph (f) is added to § 679.24 

to establish enforceable standards for 

modified nonpelagic trawl gear. The 

standards include a minimum clearance 

for the sweeps and a minimum and 

maximum distance between elevating 

devices. The standards also describe the 

measuring locations to determine 

compliance with the clearance 

requirement and cross section 

limitations for the line between 

elevating devices. This revision is 

necessary to ensure that standards are 

described in the regulations to facilitate 

construction, maintenance, and 

inspection of modified nonpelagic trawl 

gear that meet the intent of the Council 

to reduce potential adverse impacts on 

bottom habitat from nonpelagic trawl 

gear. 

8. Figures 25, 26, and 27 to part 679 

are added to describe the measuring 

locations for determining compliance 

with the clearance standards, and to 

describe the location of the elevating 

devices that is required under 

§ 679.24(f). Section 679.24(f) refers to 

these figures to better describe how the 

modified nonpelagic trawl gear is to be 

configured and how to comply with the 

clearance standard for the gear. This 

revision is necessary to facilitate 

compliance with the gear standards for 

those who may be constructing, 

maintaining, or inspecting the modified 

nonpelagic trawl gear. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

A change was made in 

§ 679.24(f)(3)(iii)(B) to clarify the 

spacing to which the elevating device 

minimum clearance applied. The 

proposed rule stated that paragraph (B) 

would apply to ‘‘elevating devices 

spaced 66 feet (19.8 m) to 95 feet (29 m) 

* * *.’’ The final rule was changed to 

apply paragraph (B) to elevating devices 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

61644 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

spaced greater than 65 feet (19.8 m) to 

95 feet (29 m). This change to paragraph 

(B) in the final rule ensures that 

elevating devices spaced more than 65 

feet (19.8 m) but less than 66 feet (20.12 

m) are required to meet the minimum 

clearance described in paragraph (B). 

Other minor changes with no 

substantive effects were made in the 

final rule from the proposed rule. These 

changes clarified the notes to Tables 43, 

46, and 51. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received 4 letters of comments 

on the notice of availability for 

Amendment 94 (75 FR 37371, June 29, 

2010) and on the proposed rule (75 FR 

41123, July 15, 2010). Comments were 

received from an organization that 

provides services to Bering Sea tribes, a 

private individual, and the fishing 

industry. No changes were made in the 

final rule from the proposed rule in 

response to public comment. The 

following summarizes and responds to 

the 10 unique comments received on 

this action. 

Comment 1: Ban all nonpelagic 

trawling, establish habitat conservation 

zones, and go back to individual fishing. 

Response: Nonpelagic trawling is the 

most effective method for harvesting 

certain groundfish species in the Bering 

Sea. These species include flatfish and 

other species which occur on or near the 

ocean bottom. Banning nonpelagic 

trawling would not meet NMFS’s 

responsibility to sustainably manage 

fisheries, given the best scientific 

information available regarding impacts 

on the marine environment and impacts 

on the fish stocks. Selective restrictions 

on the use of nonpelagic trawl gear 

where impacts are most likely to be a 

concern are more appropriate. This 

action prohibits nonpelagic trawling in 

the expanded SMIHCA, as described in 

the preamble. 

The Council and NMFS implemented 

Amendment 89, which established 

several habitat conservation areas in the 

Bering Sea to protect bottom habitat 

from the potential effects of bottom 

trawling (73 FR 43362, July 25, 2008). 

Prohibiting all bottom trawling and 

limiting fishing to individuals is not 

consistent with the national standards 1 

and 5 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

which require the prevention of 

overfishing while achieving optimum 

yield from each fishery and 

consideration of efficiency in the use of 

fish resources. 

Comment 2: We support requiring 

modified nonpelagic trawl sweeps for 

all vessels fishing for flatfish in the 

Bering Sea subarea, and reopening the 

MGTZ to nonpelagic trawling with 

modified gear. Even though the 

modified gear will have an economic 

impact on the flatfish vessel fleet, the 

industry’s participation in the modified 

gear development process shows the 

industry’s commitment to responsible 

fishing practices. The research indicated 

that modified nonpelagic trawl gear had 

reduced effects on bottom habitat 

compared to conventional nonpelagic 

trawl gear. 

The MGTZ is an historically 

important fishing area for Bering 

flounder, flathead sole, and rock sole 

harvest because of the high 

concentration of these species and low 

concentration of Pacific halibut that 

may be incidentally taken during the 

flatfish fisheries. Establishing the MGTZ 

meets the Council’s goals and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act national 

standards 1 and 9 to achieve optimum 

yield and to reduce bycatch. 

The western boundary of the MGTZ 

addresses potential blue king crab 

bycatch in the flatfish fishery by 

protecting blue king crab habitat within 

the SMIHCA. Tribal subsistence 

concerns are also addressed by the 

eastern boundary of the MGTZ by 

providing a buffer between the MGTZ 

and the Nunivak Island, Etolin Strait, 

and Kuskokwim Bay Habitat 

Conservation Area. This action by the 

Council was based solely on public 

testimony, and no analysis of this 

change was available for the Council to 

consider in this decision. 

The research indicates that 

nonpelagic trawling in sand and mud 

substrate of the Bering Sea produces an 

indiscernible effect to essential fish 

habitat. The modified nonpelagic trawl 

gear required to be used in the MGTZ 

would have insignificant effects on the 

bottom habitat. The habitat substrate in 

the MGTZ is similar to bottom habitat 

to the south of this area that is currently 

open to nonpelagic trawling. The 

modified nonpelagic gear requirement 

will ensure less impact on the bottom 

habitat than nonpelagic trawl impacts 

that have occurred in the past. 

Response: Support noted. Regarding 

the eastern boundary of the MGTZ, the 

Council had sufficient information in 

the EA/RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) to 

understand the potential effects of 

recommending the location of this 

boundary based on public testimony. 

The EA/RIR/IRFA was further revised 

based on the Council’s recommended 

action to provide the public and the 

Secretary of Commerce an analysis of 

the likely impacts of the preferred 

alternative. 

Comment 3: We support the eastern 

expansion of the SMIHCA and the 

northern expansion of the NBSRA to 

include Little Diomede. These changes 

to the boundaries of these areas would 

protect subsistence resources from the 

potential impacts of nonpelagic 

trawling. 

Response: Your support of this action 

is noted. 

Comment 4: We are opposed to the 

MGTZ and are concerned that the 

Council offered commercial bottom 

trawling in the NBSRA as an incentive 

for the development of the modified 

nonpelagic trawl gear. Many Alaska 

Natives in the Bering Strait region have 

voiced their opposition to any 

nonpelagic trawling in the northern 

Bering Sea, including research trawling 

that may support future commercial 

nonpelagic trawling. NMFS has failed to 

adequately respond to multiple tribal 

consultation requests regarding 

nonpelagic trawling in the Bering Sea. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

commentor’s concerns regarding any 

nonpelagic trawling in the northern 

Bering Sea and the process used for 

developing the MGTZ. The process used 

to develop this action is described 

Section 2 and Appendices C and D in 

the EA/RIR/FRFA for this action (see 

ADDRESSES). 

The tribal consultations regarding 

Amendment 94 are described in the 

Classifications section of this rule. 

NMFS discussed Amendment 94 during 

a tribal consultation with tribal 

representatives from Bering Sea 

communities in Unalakleet on February 

16, 2010. NMFS also received requests 

for tribal consultation on research that 

was conducted in the summer of 2010 

in the northern Bering Sea with vessels 

using nonpelagic trawl gear that meet 

research standards. Each tribal 

consultation request received by NMFS 

was responded to in writing with an 

offer of further discussion. Commercial 

and research nonpelagic trawling in the 

northern Bering Sea was discussed 

during meetings with NMFS and tribal 

representatives in Anchorage in 

February 2010. NMFS also held a 

teleconference on July 7, 2010, open to 

all tribes who had requested 

consultation on the research trawling 

and to other parties interested in the 

issue. NMFS followed up the research 

teleconference with daily reports to all 

meeting participants while the research 

activities were conducted. Additional 

information on NMFS tribal outreach 

activities are on the NMFS Alaska 

Region Web site at http:// 

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/tc/. 

Comment 5: The purpose of the 

NBSRA is to provide a location where 

studies of the effects of nonpelagic 

trawling could be conducted. The 

NMFS summer trawl survey in the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61645 

NBSRA did not collect data that could 

be used for studies on the effects of 

nonpelagic trawling. None of the 

research and testing for the 

development of the modified nonpelagic 

trawl gear was conducted in the 

NBSRA. The Council is only interested 

in expanding commercial bottom trawl 

fisheries. 

Response: The purpose of the NMFS 

summer trawl survey in the northern 

Bering Sea was to provide information 

for the Loss of Sea Ice study to 

understand the potential effects of 

climate change on the Bering Sea 

ecosystem. Information collected can be 

used in the development of the NBSRA 

research plan including that portion of 

the research plan that will define the 

design of studies on the impacts of 

nonpelagic trawl gear on bottom habitat. 

The Council and NMFS sponsored a 

subsistence and community workshop 

in February 2010, to discuss the 

development of the NBSRA research 

plan. The results of this workshop are 

available at the NMFS Alaska Region 

Web site at http:// 

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/tc/bs/ 

2010_workshop_minutes.pdf. 

Comment 6: No action should be 

taken by NMFS before careful and 

complete analysis of the impacts on 

subsistence users has been undertaken, 

in collaboration with subsistence users. 

Response: NMFS uses the best 

available scientific information to 

inform fishery management decisions. 

The EA/RIR/IRFA describes the 

potential impacts of the action on 

environmental components of the 

northern Bering Sea, including marine 

mammals and bottom habitat that 

support subsistence marine resources. 

Even though adverse effects may occur 

in the MGTZ from modified nonpelagic 

trawling compared to prohibiting 

nonpelagic trawling, these impacts are 

not expected to cause substantial 

impacts on subsistence resources. 

NMFS’s outreach activity with 

subsistence users in relation to this 

action are further described in the 

section on tribal consultation in the 

Classification section and in response to 

Comment 4. 

Comment 7: The EA/RIR socioeconomic analysis ignores the impacts 

on fishing communities immediately 

adjacent to the NBSRA, but examines 

communities that are dependent on the 

commercial fisheries that may be 

conducted in the northern Bering Sea. 

Fishing communities are defined by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act as ‘‘a community 

which is substantially dependent on or 

substantially engaged in the harvest or 

processing of fishery resources to meet 

social and economic needs * * *’’ 

Communities in the northern Bering Sea 

are dependent on marine resources for 

subsistence, traditional Alaska Native 

culture, and commercial uses. NMFS 

has ignored the importance of the 

northern Bering Sea fishery resources 

for Bering Sea communities. The failure 

of NMFS to include any of the 

subsistence-based communities in the 

Bering Strait region in the analysis for 

this proposed action while focusing 

almost exclusively on commercial 

fisheries is in direct conflict with 

national standards 6 and 8 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS must 

consider the impacts to all types of 

activities potentially affected by this 

action in their analysis, including 

subsistence activities. NMFS must also 

include all subsistence activities in the 

socio-economic analysis, and not 

exclude the value of subsistence and 

related cultural activities. 

Response: National standard 6 

requires that conservation and 

management take into account and 

allow for variations among, and 

contingencies in, fisheries, fishery 

resources, and catches. Among other 

things, national standard 8 requires 

conservation and management measures 

to take into account the importance of 

fishery resources to fishing 

communities, to provide sustained 

participation of such communities, and 

to the extent practicable, minimize 

adverse economic impacts. The EA/RIR 

includes an analysis of impacts on 

subsistence resources. No substantial 

impacts on subsistence resources for 

each of the environmental components 

were found, and therefore, no further 

discussion of effects on communities 

dependent on subsistence resources was 

developed. If potential impacts to 

subsistence resources had been 

identified, additional analysis on 

subsistence-based communities would 

have been included in the EA/RIR/ 

IRFA. If substantial impacts on 

subsistence resources had been 

identified that would have affected 

subsistence practices, these would have 

been addressed in the socio-economic 

section of the document. 

Comment 8: Any development of 

commercial nonpelagic trawl fisheries 

in the northern Bering Sea is 

irresponsible because of the lack of 

understanding and research about the 

natural and human activity changes and 

potential impacts in the northern Bering 

Sea and on the marine resources. 

Response: Enough information is 

available regarding the northern Bering 

Sea environment to analyze the 

potential impacts of this action and to 

make a decision on commercial fisheries 

management in this area. NMFS agrees 

that more research would improve the 

understanding of natural and human 

activity impacts on the marine 

environment in the northern Bering Sea. 

Comment 9: NMFS does not have 

enough supportive data to allow 

commercial nonpelagic trawling in the 

MGTZ. Half of the MGTZ is not part of 

the NMFS bottom trawl survey. The EA/ 

RIR shows the lack of research and 

poorly understood ecosystem processes 

in the northern Bering Sea, but then 

arbitrarily states that impacts are likely 

to be insignificant based on almost no 

data. The amount of data that NMFS is 

using to justify this action is 

inappropriate to the scope and 

implications of the action. 

Response: Sufficient data is available 

to provide for the sustainable 

management of the Bering Sea flatfish 

fishery, including allowing fishing 

inside the MGTZ. The EA/RIR/IRFA 

describes the bottom habitat inside the 

MGTZ, historical catch, NMFS trawl 

surveys, and fishing activities inside 

and outside the MGTZ. This 

information can be used to manage 

fishing activities within and outside the 

MGTZ. NMFS agrees that additional 

information regarding the northern 

Bering Sea ecosystem would be 

desirable but this additional information 

is not required to implement this action. 

Comment 10: The EA/RIR states that 

continuing fishing activity and 

continued subsistence harvest are 

potentially the most important sources 

of additional annual adverse impacts on 

marine mammals. Expanding 

commercial bottom trawling northward 

into the northern Bering Sea may result 

in unknown effects on marine 

mammals. Harvest activities analyzed 

are not determined to be a threat to 

marine mammal populations. The value 

of subsistence harvests outweighs the 

short term gain from commercial fish 

harvest. The EA/RIR fails to put a value 

on the potential loss of subsistence or 

culture as a result of expansion of 

nonpelagic trawling into the northern 

Bering Sea and its impacts. The EA/RIR 

also does not recognize climate changes 

and other developmental impacts as 

additional annual adverse impacts on 

marine mammals. 

Response: In section 5.4 of the EA/ 

RIR/IRFA, the analysis of marine 

mammals examines three types of 

potential impacts of the fisheries: 

incidental takes, prey availability, and 

disturbance. The impacts of incidental 

takes are examined in the context of 

other types of human caused mortality 

on marine mammals. For marine 

mammals harvested for subsistence, the 

amount of subsistence harvests is much 

greater than the amount of incidental 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

61646 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

takes in the fisheries, but these 

combined amounts are a small enough 

percentage of the population not to pose 

a biological threat to the stock. For these 

marine mammals, the continued 

subsistence harvest and fisheries 

incidental takes compose the majority of 

the human caused injury and mortality 

and are therefore the most important 

factors to consider when analyzing 

incidental takes of marine mammals. 

NMFS agrees that the continued 

subsistence harvest of marine mammals 

at the current levels does not pose a 

threat to the marine mammal 

populations. 

Enough information is available to 

determine the potential effects of 

opening the MGTZ to nonpelagic 

trawling with modified gear. 

Information on the sediment types, fish 

stocks, impacts of the gear on bottom 

habitat, and the potential dependence of 

marine mammals on the location 

provide enough information in the EA/ 

RIR/IRFA to determine the potential 

effects of the action. 

The EA/RIR/IRFA did not find that 

this action would cause a loss in the 

potential use of subsistence resources 

due to the opening of the MGTZ. The 

MGTZ eastern boundary was adjusted to 

accommodate a buffer between this zone 

and the Nunivak Island, Etolin Strait, 

and Kuskokwim Bay Habitat 

Conservation Area where subsistence 

activities occur. No information was 

available that indicates that activity in 

the MGTZ directly or indirectly impacts 

important subsistence resources. 

Section 5.7 of the EA/RIR/IRFA 

contains a cumulative effects discussion 

including the impacts of climate change 

and other developmental impacts on all 

of the environmental components 

analyzed, including marine mammals. 

This section describes the potential 

effects of climate change on the Bering 

Sea environment, including marine 

mammals and diving seabirds. The 

cumulative effects were considered with 

the direct and indirect effects on each 

environmental component to determine 

the significance of effects of the action. 

Classification 

The Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS, determined that Amendment 94 

is necessary for the conservation and 

management of the groundfish fisheries 

and that it is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

A final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) was prepared for this rule. The 

FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of 

the significant issues raised by the 

public comments in response to the 

IRFA, NMFS responses to those 

comments, and a summary of the 

analyses completed to support the 

action. Descriptions of the action, the 

reasons it is under consideration, and its 

objectives and legal basis are included 

earlier in the preamble and in the 

SUMMARY section of the preamble. A 

copy of the FRFA is available from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

A summary of the IRFA was provided 

in the classification section to the 

proposed rule (75 FR 41123, July 15, 

2010), and the public was notified of 

how to obtain a copy of the IRFA. The 

public comment period ended on 

August 30, 2010. No comments were 

received on the IRFA. A summary of the 

FRFA follows. 

In 2007, all of the catcher/processors 

(CPs) targeting flatfish in the Bering Sea 

subarea (46 vessels) exceeded the $4.0 

million threshold that the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) uses to 

define small fishing entities. Due to 

their combined groundfish revenues, the 

CPs would be considered large entities 

for purposes of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA). However, based 

on their combined groundfish revenues, 

none of the four catcher vessels that 

participated in 2007 exceeded the SBA’s 

small entity threshold, and these vessels 

are considered small entities for 

purposes of the RFA. It is likely that 

some of these vessels also are linked by 

company affiliation, which may then 

categorize them as large entities, but 

there is no available information 

regarding the ownership status of these 

vessels at an entity level. Therefore, the 

FRFA may overestimate the number of 

small entities directly regulated by this 

action. 

This regulation does not impose new 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements on the regulated small 

entities. 

The Council considered three 

alternatives, an option, and a set of 

minor changes for this action. 

Alternative 1 is the status quo, which 

does not meet the Council’s 

recommendations to further protect 

Bering Sea bottom habitat. Both 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would require 

modified nonpelagic trawl gear for 

vessels directly fishing for flatfish in the 

Bering Sea subarea. Additionally, under 

Alternative 3, which is the preferred 

alternative, an area that is currently 

closed to nonpelagic trawling would be 

opened to vessels using modified 

nonpelagic trawl gear. Alternative 2 

does not provide fishing opportunity 

within the MGTZ, and therefore does 

not minimize the potential economic 

impact on small entities in the same 

manner as provided by Alternative 3. 

The SMIHCA option has no economic 

effect on small entities as this area is 

currently closed to nonpelagic trawling 

as part of the NBSRA. The minor 

changes ensure the FMP is easier to read 

and understand, and that the FMP 

accurately reflects the Council’s intent 

and the provisions of the MagnusonStevens Act. 

The modified nonpelagic trawl gear 

component of Alternatives 2 and 3 

contains explicit provisions regarding 

mitigating potential adverse economic 

effects on directly regulated entities, the 

vast majority of which are large entities. 

Performance standards (rather than 

design standards) would be required for 

the modified nonpelagic trawl gear. Use 

of performance standards simplifies 

compliance requirements for directly 

regulated entities, including small 

entities, while still maintaining the 

ability of NMFS to enforce the 

regulation. 

Additionally, the Council has 

recommended that NMFS implement 

the amendment on a timeline that takes 

into account the resources available to 

directly regulated entities. NMFS has 

determined that implementation will 

not occur sooner than the beginning of 

the 2011 fishing year. Such a timetable 

is important to allow sufficient time for 

any vessels that require re-engineering 

to accommodate the modified 

nonpelagic trawl gear to schedule 

shipyard time without having to forego 

participation in the fishery. The 

preferred alternative (Alternative 3) and 

option reflect the least burdensome of 

available management structures in 

terms of directly regulated small 

entities, while fully achieving the 

conservation and management purposes 

articulated by the Council and 

consistency with applicable statutes. 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare a FRFA, the agency 

shall publish one or more guides to 

assist small entities in complying with 

the rule, and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity compliance 

guides.’’ The agency shall explain the 

actions a small entity is required to take 

to comply with a rule or group of rules. 

As part of this rulemaking process, 

NMFS Alaska Region has developed a 

Web site that provides easy access to 

details of this final rule, including links 

to the final rule, maps of closure areas, 

and frequently asked questions 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61647 

regarding essential fish habitat. The 

relevant information available on the 

Web site is the Small Entity Compliance 

Guide. The Web site address is http:// 

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/ 

efh.htm. Copies of this final rule are 

available upon request from the NMFS, 

Alaska Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Tribal Summary Impact Statement 

(E.O. 13175) 

Executive Order 13175 of November 

6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the 

Executive Memorandum of April 29, 

1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), and the 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

Policy of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (March 30, 1995) outline the 

responsibilities of NMFS in matters 

affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of 

Public Law 108–199 (188 Stat. 452), as 

amended by section 518 of Public Law 

109–447 (118 Stat. 3267), extends the 

consultation requirements of Executive 

Order 13175 to Alaska Native 

corporations. 

Executive Order 13175 requires 

Federal agencies to establish regular and 

meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials in the 

development of Federal policies that 

have tribal implications. 

Section 5(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 

13175 requires NMFS to prepare a tribal 

summary impact statement as part of the 

final rule. This statement must contain: 

(1) A description of the extent of the 

agency’s prior consultation with tribal 

officials; (2) a summary of the nature of 

their concerns; (3) a statement of the 

extent to which the concerns of tribal 

officials have been met; and (4) the 

agency’s position supporting the need to 

issue the regulation. 

A Description of the Extent of the 

Agency’s Prior Consultation With 

Tribal Officials 

On October 13, 2009, NMFS received 

a request from the Native Village of 

Unalakleet for tribal consultation on a 

number of fishery management issues 

regarding the Bering Sea. On February 

16, 2010, NMFS met with tribal 

representatives from the Native Village 

of Unalakleet, Koyuk, Stebbins, Elim, 

Gambell, Savoonga, Saint Michael, 

Shaktoolik, and King Island in 

Unalakleet, AK. Among other issues, 

proposed Amendment 94 was 

discussed. On July 15, 2010, NMFS 

provided opportunity for further 

discussion on this action by contacting 

all tribal governments and Alaska 

Native corporations that may be affected 

by the action and providing them with 

a copy of the proposed rule. No 

additional response from tribal 

governments or Alaska Native 

corporations was received regarding this 

action. 

Among the recommendations 

provided to NMFS from the Unalakleet 

tribal consultation and in March 2010 

letters from Shishmaref, King Island, 

Saint Michael, Solomon, Koyuk, Wales, 

Brevig Mission, and Savoonga, the tribal 

representatives requested that 

nonpelagic trawling not be allowed to 

expand northward into the northern 

Bering Sea. This limit on expansion 

would include not establishing the 

MGTZ. NMFS responded to the 

recommendations from the Unalakleet 

tribal consultation in writing to all 

participants, and this report is available 

from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site 

at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ 

tc/unalakleet/report0210.pdf. 

A Statement of the Extent To Which the 

Concerns of Tribal Officials Have Been 

Met 

Except for the area used to establish 

the MGTZ, the NBSRA remains closed 

to commercial nonpelagic trawl fishing. 

The final rule allows for modified 

nonpelagic trawl gear to be used in the 

MGTZ. Tribal officials have stated that 

they want no nonpelagic trawling in the 

NBSRA. Allowing any commercial 

nonpelagic trawling in the NBSRA does 

not meet the concerns of tribal officials. 

This action reduces the size of the 

NBSRA approximately 5 percent by 

establishing the MGTZ. NMFS 

understands that the concern of the 

tribal representatives is primarily on the 

potential adverse impact that 

nonpelagic trawling may have on 

bottom habitat, and particularly bottom 

habitat that supports subsistence 

resources. Because the regulations 

require the use of modified nonpelagic 

trawl gear in the MGTZ, the potential 

effects on bottom habitat in the MGTZ 

from nonpelagic trawling is reduced. 

The rest of the NBSRA remains closed 

to commercial nonpelagic trawling. 

NMFS’ Position Supporting the Need To 

Issue the Regulation 

This final rule is needed to implement 

Amendment 94, a precautionary 

management measure to reduce the 

potential impacts of nonpelagic trawling 

on benthic habitat. NMFS recognizes the 

tribes’ concerns regarding the expansion 

of bottom trawling into the NBSRA with 

the establishment of the MGTZ. NMFS 

is balancing the recommendation by the 

Council to open this area to ensure 

efficient flatfish harvest with the 

requirement that nonpelagic trawl gear 

be modified. The potential impacts on 

the bottom habitat from trawling in this 

area are mitigated by requiring modified 

nonpelagic trawl gear in the MGTZ. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: October 1, 2010. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

■ For reasons set out in the preamble, 

NMFS amends 50 CFR part 679 as 

follows: 

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 679 

continues to read as follows: 

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

seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447. 

■ 2. In § 679.2, revise the definition for 

‘‘Federally permitted vessel’’ and the 

introductory text of paragraph (1) of the 

definition of ‘‘Fishing trip,’’ and add, in 

alphabetical order, paragraph (5) to 

‘‘Directed fishing,’’ and the definition for 

‘‘Modified Gear Trawl Zone’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 679.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Directed fishing * * * 

* * * * * 

(5) With respect to the harvest of 

flatfish in the Bering Sea subarea, for 

purposes of nonpelagic trawl 

restrictions under § 679.22(a) and 

modified nonpelagic trawl gear 

requirements under §§ 679.7(c)(5) and 

679.24(f), fishing with nonpelagic trawl 

gear during any fishing trip that results 

in a retained aggregate amount of 

yellowfin sole, rock sole, Greenland 

turbot, arrowtooth flounder, flathead 

sole, Alaska plaice, and other flatfish 

that is greater than the retained amount 

of any other fishery category defined 

under § 679.21(e)(3)(iv) or of sablefish. 

* * * * * 

Federally permitted vessel means a 

vessel that is named on either a Federal 

fisheries permit issued pursuant to 

§ 679.4(b) or on a Federal crab vessel 

permit issued pursuant to § 680.4(k) of 

this chapter. Federally permitted vessels 

must conform to regulatory 

requirements for purposes of fishing 

restrictions in habitat conservation 

areas, habitat conservation zones, 

habitat protection areas, and the 

Modified Gear Trawl Zone; for purposes 

of anchoring prohibitions in habitat 

protection areas; for purposes of 

requirements for the BS nonpelagic 

trawl fishery pursuant to § 679.7(c)(5) 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

61648 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

and § 679.24(f); and for purposes of 

VMS requirements. 

* * * * * 

Fishing trip * * * 

(1) With respect to retention 

requirements (MRA, IR/IU, and pollock 

roe stripping), recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements under § 679.5, 

and determination of directed fishing 

for flatfish. 

* * * * * 

Modified Gear Trawl Zone means an 

area of the Bering Sea subarea specified 

at Table 51 to this part that is closed to 

directed fishing for groundfish with 

nonpelagic trawl gear, except by vessels 

using modified nonpelagic trawl gear 

meeting the standards at § 679.24(f). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 679.7, add and reserve 

paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4), and add 

paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 679.7 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) [Reserved] 

(5) Conduct directed fishing for 

flatfish as defined in § 679.2 with a 

vessel required to be federally permitted 

in any reporting area of the Bering Sea 

subarea as described in Figure 1 to this 

part without meeting the requirements 

for modified nonpelagic trawl gear 

specified in § 679.24(f). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 679.22, add paragraph (a)(21) to 

read as follows: 

§ 679.22 Closures. 

(a) * * * 

(21) Modified Gear Trawl Zone. No 

vessel required to be federally permitted 

may fish with nonpelagic trawl gear in 

the Modified Gear Trawl Zone specified 

at Table 51 to this part, except for 

federally permitted vessels that are 

directed fishing for groundfish using 

modified nonpelagic trawl gear that 

meets the standards at § 679.24(f). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 679.24, add paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 679.24 Gear limitations. 

* * * * * 

(f) Modified nonpelagic trawl gear. 

Nonpelagic trawl gear modified as 

shown in Figure 26 to this part must be 

used by any vessel required to be 

federally permitted and that is used to 

directed fish for flatfish, as defined in 

§ 679.2, in any reporting areas of the BS 

or directed fish for groundfish with 

nonpelagic trawl gear in the Modified 

Gear Trawl Zone specified in Table 51 

to this part. Nonpelagic trawl gear used 

by these vessels must meet the 

following standards. 

(1) Elevated section minimum 

clearance. Except as provided for in 

paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section, 

elevating devices must be installed on 

the elevated section shown in Figure 26 

to this part to raise the elevated section 

at least 2.5 inches (6.4 cm), as measured 

adjacent to the elevating device 

contacting a hard, flat surface that is 

parallel to the elevated section, 

regardless of the elevating device 

orientation, and measured between the 

surface and the widest part of the line 

material. Elevating devices must be 

installed on each end of the elevated 

section, as shown in Figure 26 to this 

part. Measuring locations to determine 

compliance with this standard are 

shown in Figure 25 to this part. 

(2) Elevating device spacing. Elevating 

devices must be secured along the entire 

length of the elevated section shown in 

Figure 26 to this part and spaced no less 

than 30 feet (9.1 m) apart; and either 

(i) If the elevating devices raise the 

elevated section shown in Figure 26 to 

this part 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) or less, the 

space between elevating devices must 

be no more than 65 feet (19.8 m); or 

(ii) If the elevating devices raise the 

elevated section shown Figure 26 to this 

part more than 3.5 inches (8.9 cm), the 

space between elevating devices must 

be no more than 95 feet (29 m). 

(3) Clearance measurements and line 

cross sections. (i) The largest cross 

section of the line of the elevated 

section shown in Figure 26 to this part 

between elevating devices shall not be 

greater than the cross section of the 

material at the nearest measurement 

location, as selected based on the 

examples shown in Figure 25 to this 

part. The material at the measurement 

location must be— 

(A) The same material as the line 

between elevating devices, as shown in 

Figures 25a and 25d to this part; 

(B) Different material than the line 

between elevating devices and used to 

support the elevating device at a 

connection between line sections (e.g., 

on a metal spindle, on a chain), as 

shown in Figure 25b to this part; or 

(C) Disks of a smaller cross section 

than the elevating device, which are 

strung continuously on a line between 

elevating devices, as shown in Figure 

25c to this part. 

(ii) Portions of the line between 

elevating devices that are braided or 

doubled for section terminations or used 

for line joining devices are not required 

to be a smaller cross section than the 

measuring location. 

(iii) Required minimum clearance for 

supporting material of a larger cross 

section than the cross section of the line 

material. When the material supporting 

the elevating device has a larger cross 

section than the largest cross section of 

the line between elevating devices, 

except as provided for in paragraph 

(f)(3)(ii) of this section, based on 

measurements taken in locations shown 

in Figure 27 to this part, the required 

minimum clearance shall be as follows: 

(A) For elevating devices spaced 30 

feet (9.1 m) to 65 feet (19.8 m), the 

required minimum clearance is ≥ [2.5 

inches ¥ ((support material cross 

section ¥ line material cross section)/ 

2)], or 

(B) For elevating devices spaced 

greater than 65 feet (19.8 m) to 95 feet 

(29 m), the required minimum clearance 

is ≥ [3.5 inches ¥((support material 

cross section ¥ line material cross 

section)/2)]. 

■ 6. Figure 17 to part 679 is revised to 

read as follows: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61649 

■ 7. Figure 25 to part 679 is added to 

read as follows: 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULESER06OC10.048</GPH>
61650 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 8. Figure 26 to part 679 is added to 

read as follows: 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULESER06OC10.049</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61651 

■ 9. Figure 27 to part 679 is added to 

read as follows: 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULESER06OC10.050</GPH>
61652 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Note: The location for measurement of 

maximum line material cross section does 

not include any devices or braided or 

doubled material used for section 

termination. 

■ 10. Table 43 to part 679 is revised to 

read as follows: 

TABLE 43 TO PART 679—NORTHERN

BERING SEA RESEARCH AREA

Longitude Latitude 

168 ........ 7.41 W 65 .......... *37.91 N 

165 ........ 1.54 W 60 .......... 45.54 N 

167 ........ 59.98 W 60 .......... 45.55 N 

169 ........ 00.00 W 60 .......... 35.50 N 

169 ........ 00.00 W 61 .......... 00.00 N 

171 ........ 45.00 W 61 .......... 00.00 N 

171 ........ 45.00 W 60 .......... 54.00 N 

174 ........ 1.24 W 60 .......... 54.00 N 

176 ........ 13.51 W 62 .......... 6.56 N 

172 ........ 24.00 W 63 .......... 57.03 N 

172 ........ 24.00 W 62 .......... 42.00 N 

168 ........ 24.00 W 62 .......... 42.00 N 

168 ........ 24.00 W 64 .......... 0.00 N 

172 ........ 17.42 W 64 .......... 0.01 N 

168 ........ 58.62 W 65 .......... 30.00 N 

168 ........ 58.62 W 65 .......... **49.81 N 

Note: The area is delineated by connecting 

the coordinates in the order listed by straight 

lines except as noted by * below. The last set 

of coordinates for the area is connected to the 

first set of coordinates for the area by a 

straight line. The projected coordinate system 

is North American Datum 1983, Albers. 

* This boundary extends in a clockwise direction from this set of geographic coordinates 

along the shoreline at mean lower-low tide line 

to the next set of coordinates. 

** Intersection of the 1990 United States/ 

Russia maritime boundary line and a line from 

Cape Prince of Wales to Cape Dezhneva 

(Russia) that defines the boundary between 

the Chukchi and Bering Seas, Area 400 and 

Area 514, respectively. 

■ 11. Table 46 to part 679 is revised to 

read as follows: 

TABLE 46 TO PART 679—ST. MATTHEW ISLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION AREA

Longitude Latitude 

171 ........ 45.00 W 60 .......... 54.00 N 

171 ........ 45.00 W 60 .......... 6.15 N 

174 ........ 0.50 W 59 .......... 42.26 N 

174 ........ 24.98 W 60 .......... 9.98 N 

174 ........ 1.24 W 60 .......... 54.00 N 

Note: The area is delineated by connecting 

the coordinates in the order listed by straight 

lines. The last set of coordinates for the area 

is connected to the first set of coordinates for 

the area by a straight line. The projected coordinate system is North American Datum 

1983, Albers. 

■ 12. Tables 48 through 50 to part 679 

are added and reserved. 

■ 13. Table 51 to part 679 is added to 

read as follows: 

TABLE 51 TO PART 679—MODIFIED

GEAR TRAWL ZONE

Longitude Latitude 

171 ........ 45.00 W 61 .......... 00.00 N 

169 ........ 00.00 W 61 .......... 00.00 N 

169 ........ 00.00 W 60 .......... 35.48 N 

171 ........ 45.00 W 60 .......... 06.15 N 

Note: The area is delineated by connecting 

the coordinates in the order listed by straight 

lines. The last set of coordinates for the area 

is connected to the first set of coordinates for 

the area by a straight line. The projected coordinate system is North American Datum 

1983, Albers. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25211 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULESER06OC10.051</GPH>