This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

65327 

Vol. 79, No. 213 

Tuesday, November 4, 2014 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Part 216 

[Docket No. 130404331–4881–02] 

RIN 0648–BD12 

Marine Mammals; Subsistence Taking 

of Northern Fur Seals; St. George 

Island, Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule modifies the 

subsistence harvest regulations for the 

Eastern Pacific stock of northern fur 

seals (Callorhinus ursinus) based on a 

petition from the Pribilof Island Aleut 

Community of St. George Island, 

Traditional Council (Council). The final 

rule authorizes Pribilovians of St. 

George Island to harvest up to 150 male 

young of the year fur seals annually 

during a new autumn harvest season 

from all breeding and hauling grounds, 

consistent with traditional practices, to 

meet the community’s nutritional and 

cultural needs. Harvests of sub-adult 

male fur seals will continue to be 

authorized during the summer season as 

under existing regulations, and will be 

allowed at additional locations. The 

total number of fur seals harvested 

annually will remain within the range of 

300–500 male animals that has been in 

place since 1997. Harvests will be 

coordinated between NMFS and the 

Council under an existing comanagement agreement. 

DATES: Effective October 30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (SEIS), scoping report, 

St. George Tribal Resolution, proposed 

rule, and other related documents are 

available at: http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted by mail to NMFS, 

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

AK 99802–1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, 

Records Officer; in person at NMFS, 

Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, 

Room 420A, Juneau, AK; or by email to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

to (202) 395–5806. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Williams, NMFS Alaska 

Region, 907–271–5117, 

Michael.Williams@noaa.gov; or 

Shannon Bettridge, NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources, 301–427–8402, 

Shannon.Bettridge@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NMFS published a proposed rule on 

July 24, 2014 (79 FR 43007) to modify 

the subsistence harvest regulations for 

northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands 

based on the petition from the Council 

(75 FR 21233; April 23, 2010). The 

proposed rule included several 

modifications to the existing regulations 

for the sub-adult harvest, in addition to 

proposing new regulations to authorize 

a separate young of the year harvest. 

This final rule implements the 

regulations for the young of the year 

harvest, and implements only a portion 

of the proposed modifications that 

would affect the sub-adult harvest. 

Specifically, this action removes 

restrictions on the locations available 

for the sub-adult harvest, adds a 

measure to suspend harvests if two 

females are killed, adds a measure to 

terminate harvests if three females are 

killed, and makes non-substantive 

organizational changes to other 

regulatory provisions governing the subadult harvest. This regulatory action 

affects Pribilovians on St. George Island 

and reorganizes existing regulatory text 

to separate provisions applicable only to 

St. George Island from those applicable 

only to St. Paul Island. 

St. George Island is a remote island 

located in the Bering Sea whose 

residents rely upon marine mammals as 

a major food source and cornerstone of 

their culture, and the harvest of subadult male northern fur seals has 

occurred there for well over 200 years. 

Food security for the residents of St. 

George is an ever present concern as a 

result of regular delays in barge and air 

traffic. The residents of St. George 

conduct an annual controlled 

subsistence harvest from the Northern 

fur seal stock under the authority of the 

Fur Seal Act (FSA) (16 U.S.C. 1155, 

1161) and the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 

1371(b)). Pursuant to section 119 of the 

MMPA, NMFS entered into a comanagement agreement with the Pribilof 

Islands Aleut Community of St. George 

Island in 2001 (16 U.S.C. 1388). NMFS 

is guided by this co-management 

agreement as it works with St. George to 

cooperatively implement subsistence 

harvest activities and monitoring 

programs. Regulations governing 

subsistence harvest of fur seals appear at 

50 CFR part 216, subpart F. 

The United States (U.S.) government 

began regulating the harvest of northern 

fur seals by the people of St. George 

Island in 1867 after the purchase of 

Alaska. From 1870 through 1890 the 

U.S. managed the commercial harvest of 

fur seals under a 20-year lease 

arrangement with private companies 

that were responsible for harvesting fur 

seals and selling the pelts on the world 

market. During this period, at least 

501,324 fur seals (mean annual harvest 

= 23,872) were harvested for their pelts 

from St. George Island during the 

summer. The lease arrangement also 

stipulated that the Pribilovians were 

provided a subsistence food harvest in 

the autumn, and this subsistence 

harvest was directed at male young of 

the year. The subsistence food harvest of 

young of the year was 28,064 (mean 

annual harvest = 1,477) for this 20-year 

period, and the Pribilovians were 

allowed to keep the pelts from the food 

harvest for trade and barter. A second 

20-year lease arrangement, between the 

North American Commercial Company 

and the U.S., required the Pribilovians 

to collect fresh meat from the 

commercial harvest during the summer, 

and did not allow them to obtain their 

preferred fresh fur seal meat in the 

autumn from young of the year prior to 

the fur seals’ winter migration from the 

islands. Consequently, the summer 

commercial land harvest of sub-adult 

males became the primary means for 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65328 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Pribilovians to obtain fresh meat for 

subsistence. The prohibition on 

harvesting young of the year has been 

retained to the present day. 

In 1910, after the expiration of the 

second 20-year lease, the U.S. no longer 

delegated the management of the 

commercial harvests on the Pribilof 

Islands to the lessees. The U.S. managed 

and implemented the commercial 

harvest of fur seals on the Pribilof 

Islands until 1984. The subsistence 

harvest of northern fur seals is the focus 

of this regulatory action, but NMFS’s 

understanding of harvest effects on the 

fur seal population is based on over 100 

years of commercial harvest 

management, population assessment, 

and behavioral research. The SEIS 

(NMFS, 2014) analyzes the available 

evidence of the effects of the subsistence 

harvest of male fur seals and concludes 

that the harvest of up to 350 sub-adult 

and 150 young of the year male fur seals 

would have an insignificant effect on 

the St. George population of about 

72,828 fur seals. NMFS has not detected 

a relationship between the number of 

sub-adult male fur seals killed or 

harassed during harvests and the 

abundance and trend of the population. 

NMFS commercially harvested an 

average of 8,152 sub-adult males 

annually from 1963–1972 on St. George 

Island. In 1972, the U.S. began the first 

large-scale investigation into the effects 

of commercial fur seal harvesting 

(Gentry, 1998). Since 1972, the St. 

George fur seal population decreased to 

its present size, showing no positive 

response to the reduction in the harvest 

of sub-adult male fur seals. From 1973 

through 1975, the U.S. prohibited the St. 

George commercial harvest of sub-adult 

fur seals for their pelts in order to 

conduct research on the population 

dynamics and effects of harvesting. 

NMFS provided some excess fur seal 

meat to St. George residents from the St. 

Paul commercial harvest due to the 

harvest prohibition on St. George. 

Between 1976 and 1979, NMFS 

authorized subsistence harvests on St. 

George at Northwest and Staraya Artil 

hauling grounds. From 1980 to 1984, 

NMFS allowed subsistence harvests 

only at the Northeast hauling ground. In 

1986 NMFS published fur seal 

subsistence harvest regulations (51 FR 

24828; July 9, 1986) authorizing 

harvests on St. George Island at 

Northeast and Zapadni hauling grounds. 

These restrictions on St. George Island 

subsistence harvest locations were 

intended to preserve experimental and 

control sites for scientific investigations 

during the commercial harvest period 

(Gentry, 1998), which are no longer 

being pursued. 

In 1984, the U.S. did not ratify the 

protocol to extend the Convention on 

the Conservation of Fur Seals, which 

had allowed commercial harvests of fur 

seals. This action resulted in the 

termination of the commercial harvest 

of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, and 

inadvertently changed the way either 

community could obtain fresh fur seal 

meat. NMFS published an emergency 

interim rule (50 FR 27914; July 8, 1985) 

under the FSA and the MMPA to govern 

the subsistence harvest of northern fur 

seals on the Pribilof Islands for the 1985 

season. NMFS acknowledged in the 

proposed rule (51 FR 17900; May 15, 

1986) that the additional restrictions on 

St. George may not allow Pribilovians 

on St. George to satisfy their subsistence 

needs. On July 9, 1986, NMFS 

published a final rule that restricted the 

subsistence harvest of northern fur seals 

by sex, age, and season for herd 

management purposes to limit the take 

to a sustainable level while providing 

for the legitimate subsistence needs of 

the Pribilovians (51 FR 24828). NMFS 

subsequently designated the Pribilof 

northern fur seal population as depleted 

under the MMPA in 1988 (53 FR 17888; 

May 18, 1988). In the preamble to the 

proposed rule for the depleted 

designation, NMFS stated that it did not 

contemplate further rulemaking to 

restrict Alaska Native subsistence 

harvest of fur seals as a consequence of 

a depleted designation (51 FR 47156; 

December 30, 1986). 

In 2001, NMFS and the Council 

entered into a co-management 

agreement pursuant to section 119 of the 

MMPA. The purpose of that agreement 

is to conserve northern fur seals and 

Steller sea lions through cooperative 

effort and consultation regarding 

subsistence harvests. The Council has 

sampled, managed, monitored, and 

reported the sub-adult male subsistence 

fur seal harvest independently since the 

late 1990s, consistent with current 

regulations. 

Population Status 

NMFS manages the northern fur seal 

population as two stocks in the U.S.: the 

Eastern Pacific and the San Miguel 

stocks. Neither stock is listed under the 

Endangered Species Act. The Eastern 

Pacific stock includes northern fur seals 

breeding on Sea Lion Rock and St. Paul, 

St. George, and Bogoslof islands. NMFS 

designated the Pribilof Islands northern 

fur seal population as depleted under 

the MMPA on May 18, 1988 (53 FR 

17888) after it had declined to less than 

50 percent of levels observed in the late 

1950s (about 2.1 million fur seals). 

Loughlin et al. (1994) estimated 

approximately 1.3 million northern fur 

seals existed worldwide, and the 

Pribilof Islands represented about 

982,000 (74 percent of the total) in 1992. 

The 2012 abundance of fur seals on the 

Pribilof Islands was about 44 percent 

lower (546,720 fur seals) than the 1992 

estimate (Towell et al., 2013). NMFS 

estimates an annual decline in pup 

production for the Pribilof Islands of 

about 4 percent since 1998, and the 

annual decline for St. Paul (4.84 

percent) is higher than for St. George, 

where the most recent trend (2004– 

2012) is stable and not significantly 

different from zero (Towell et al., 2013). 

The causes of the current fur seal 

decline on the Pribilof Islands are 

unknown. 

Northern fur seals seasonally occupy 

specific breeding and non-breeding sites 

on St. George. The age and breeding 

status is the main determinant of where 

male fur seals are found during the 

breeding and non-breeding season. 

During the breeding season sub-adult 

males are excluded from the breeding 

sites (i.e., rookeries) by adult males and 

occupy resting sites known as hauling 

grounds (Figure 1 to part 216). Each of 

the six breeding sites has at least one 

distinct non-breeding hauling ground 

nearby (Figure 1). During the nonbreeding season beginning about 

September 1, sub-adult males can be 

found on both rookeries and hauling 

grounds together with the remainder of 

the population. 

Petition for Rulemaking 

In September 2006, the Council 

submitted a tribal resolution to NMFS 

indicating the Federal government had 

previously allowed the community to 

harvest male fur seal young of the year 

in autumn for subsistence purposes. The 

Council requested that NMFS change 

the subsistence harvest regulations to 

allow residents of St. George the 

opportunity to return to their historic 

subsistence harvest patterns, including 

the harvesting of up to 350 sub-adult 

males in the summer and the harvesting 

of up to 150 male young of the year in 

the autumn each year. On April 23, 

2010, NMFS published a notice of 

receipt of a petition (the tribal 

resolution) from the Council to revise 

the subsistence regulations for St. 

George Island to allow taking male 

northern fur seal young of the year 

during an autumn season (75 FR 21233). 

NMFS received no comments on the 

notice. Subsequently, NMFS worked 

with the Council to clarify the petition 

to define the second harvest season from 

September 16 to November 30, to 

discuss young of the year harvest 

methods and areas, and to outline the 

process to proceed with rulemaking. In 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65329 

2011, NMFS held scoping meetings on 

St. George Island and in Anchorage, AK, 

and provided a 60-day public comment 

period to consider possible alternatives. 

NMFS received scoping input during 

the St. George Island community 

meeting, and no one commented during 

the Anchorage scoping meeting. NMFS 

received only two letters during the 

comment period and both supported the 

Council’s petition in the cultural and 

historic context of traditional and 

customary uses of marine mammals by 

Aleuts (NMFS, 2012). NMFS 

supplemented the 2005 environmental 

impact statement, and considered four 

alternatives in the SEIS to evaluate the 

impacts of the proposed action on the 

human environment (79 FR 31110; May 

30, 2014). NMFS received two comment 

letters on a draft of the SEIS and 

provided responses to those comments 

in the final SEIS (79 FR 49774; August 

22, 2014). 

Changes to the St. George Northern Fur 

Seal Harvest Regulations 

This action revises the subsistence 

harvest regulations at 50 CFR part 216, 

subpart F, to allow the harvest of 

northern fur seals to meet the 

subsistence needs of Pribilovians on St. 

George Island. This action allows St. 

George residents to carry out 

subsistence harvests focused on male 

young of the year during a second 

season (September 16 through 

November 30), in addition to the 

longstanding practice for St. George 

residents to harvest sub-adult fur seals. 

The new regulatory measures also 

implement new conservation controls 

on the St. George subsistence harvest. 

These include: (1) suspension of the 

harvest if two female fur seals are killed 

and a review of harvest practices by 

NMFS before the harvest may resume; 

(2) termination of the harvest for the 

season if three female fur seals are 

killed; (3) prohibition of take of young 

of the year fur seals from any breeding 

or resting areas when the most recent 

pup production estimate has fallen 

below levels capable of sustaining a 

harvest; and (4) equal geographic 

distribution of the young of the year 

harvest, based on the most recent 

estimate of pups born at the various 

breeding areas. The final rule provides 

increased management flexibility in the 

seasonal and geographical aspects of the 

harvest, consistent with historical and 

cultural practices on St. George. 

The final rule authorizes the 

subsistence harvests at a greater number 

of sites than under the current 

regulations governing the sub-adult 

harvest, such that the harvest effort 

would not be concentrated in time or 

space, thus minimizing effects on fur 

seals. The final rule also clarifies the 

Tribal and Federal responsibilities to comanage the subsistence harvest of fur 

seals. 

The final rule revises the following 

provisions of the existing (51 FR 24828; 

July 9, 1986) subsistence harvest 

regulations: 

50 CFR part 216 Revision 

§ 216.72(c) .......................................................... Removed and reserved. 

§ 216.72(d) .......................................................... Revised to create distinct provisions applicable to St. George Island for sub-adult harvests and 

for young of the year harvests. 

§ 216.72(d)(1) ...................................................... Renumbered and retained provisions specifying the sub-adult seal size limit, harvest season, 

and harvest suspension if the lower end of the allowable range is reached. 

§ 216.72(d)(2) ...................................................... Renumbered and retained provisions specifying the allowable sub-adult harvest locations and 

frequency of harvests. 

§ 216.72(d)(3) ...................................................... Renumbered and retained provision that only NMFS scientists can direct sealers to take seals 

with tags and/or entangling debris. 

§ 216.72(d)(4) ...................................................... Renumbered and retained provision for harvest scheduling, sealer experience requirements, 

and traditional harvest methods requirements. 

§ 216.72(d)(5) ...................................................... Renumbered and retained prohibition on taking adult fur seals or the intentional taking of subadult female fur seals. 

§ 216.72(d)(6) ...................................................... Added to define the young of the year harvest season from September 16 through November 

30. Added the young of the year harvest limit of 150 males or up to the lower end of the 

harvest range established in paragraph (b). 

§ 216.72(d)(7) ...................................................... Added to distribute the young of the year harvest equally according to population size by allowing up to 50 male young of the year from each of the three regional pairs of rookeries, 

and to describe the method of harvest as stunning and immediate exsanguination. 

§ 216.72(d)(8) ...................................................... Added to define the scheduling and methods restrictions for the young of the year harvest. 

§ 216.72(d)(9) ...................................................... Added to prohibit any harvest of sub adult or adult male fur seals or the intentional harvest of 

female fur seals. 

§ 216.72(d)(10) .................................................... Added to prohibit taking young of the year from any breeding areas when the most recent annual pup production estimate is below levels capable of sustaining harvest. 

§ 216.72(d)(11) .................................................... Added to require NMFS and the Council to review harvest practices no later than 120 days 

after the last harvest each year. 

§ 216.72(e)(1)—(e)(6) ......................................... Reorganized to retain for St. Paul Island the current sub-adult male fur seal subsistence harvest provisions. 

§ 216.72(f)(1)(i)—(f)(1)(iii) ................................... Redesignated from paragraphs (e)(1)(i)—(e)(1)(iii). 

§ 216.72(f)(1)(iv) .................................................. Added to suspend the harvest if two female fur seals of any age are killed on St. George Island. 

§ 216.72(f)(2) and (f)(3) ...................................... Redesignated from paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3). 

§ 216.72(f)(4) ....................................................... Added to review and lift suspensions issued under new paragraph (f)(1)(iv) for killing of two females if a remedy can be identified and implemented to prevent additional killings. 

§ 216.72(g) .......................................................... Redesignated from paragraph (f). 

§ 216.72(g)(1) ...................................................... Added to establish termination of the St. George young of the year harvest on November 30 

and retain termination of the sub-adult male harvest on August 8. 

§ 216.72(g)(2) ...................................................... Added to retain the termination of the harvest when subsistence needs have been satisfied or 

the upper end of the range has been reached. 

§ 216.72(g)(3) ...................................................... Added to terminate the harvest on St. George when three female fur seals of any age have 

been killed during harvest on St. George. 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65330 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

50 CFR part 216 Revision 

§ 216.74 .............................................................. Revised to create separate subsections for St. George and St. Paul, and to describe in the St. 

George subsection the co-management relationship between NMFS and the Council under 

section 119 of the MMPA and efforts by NMFS to partner with the tribal government to consider best harvest practices and facilitate scientific research. 

The current subsistence fur seal 

harvest range is 300–500 male fur seals 

annually on St. George Island (79 FR 

45728; August 6, 2014). Of the total 

potential harvest limit of 500 male fur 

seals, this action authorizes the 

subsistence harvest of 150 young of the 

year males from September 16 through 

November 30 each year. Thus, if the 

Pribilovians on St. George intend to 

satisfy their subsistence needs in a given 

year by harvesting the full 150 young of 

the year during the autumn harvest 

season, they should harvest no more 

than 350 sub-adult male fur seals from 

June 24 through August 8. If the lower 

end of the subsistence harvest range for 

St. George is reached (currently set at 

300; 79 FR 45728), and the Pribilovians 

have not satisfied their subsistence 

needs, the rule enables the Council on 

behalf of the Pribilovians to request that 

NMFS allow harvest up to the upper 

limit of the harvest range. At the point 

when the lower end of the harvest range 

is reached, the harvest is suspended for 

no more than 48 hours for NMFS and 

the Council to discuss and determine 

within the co-management structure the 

revised estimate of the number of seals 

required to satisfy the St. George 

residents’ subsistence need and how 

many seals from each age class they 

intend to harvest. 

Taking Male Young of the Year 

The historical Aleut harvest of young 

of the year fur seals was discussed in 

the preamble to the proposed rule (79 

FR 43007; July 24, 2014). The estimated 

annual total subsistence harvest level 

for St. George Island would remain 

consistent with the subsistence harvest 

range estimates of 300 to 500 male fur 

seals that NMFS evaluated in 2005 

under the preferred alternative in the 

environmental impact statement for 

setting annual subsistence harvest levels 

(NMFS 2005) and again in the 2014 

SEIS (NMFS 2014). The harvest level 

would also remain consistent with 

NMFS’s most recent estimate of the 

annual subsistence needs of Pribilovians 

on St. George (79 FR 45728; August 6, 

2014). 

NMFS does not expect that the 

harvest of young of the year males will 

have adverse effects on the fur seal 

population. As described in the 

preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 

43007; July 24, 2014), direct evidence 

from Russian harvests of young of the 

year fur seals and population modeling 

conducted by NMFS both indicate that 

a male young of the year harvest with 

the control measures contained in this 

final rule will be sustainable. In 

summary, NMFS (2014) analyzed 

numerous lines of harvest evidence 

including the harvest of northern fur 

seal pups from their Russian breeding 

islands (Kuzin 2010, Ream and 

Burkanov pers. comm.), survival models 

(Towell 2007, Fowler et al., 2009), and 

simplified direct additive losses (which 

assume all harvested males four years 

and younger would have survived to 

become reproductively active harem 

males) and concluded that no 

population level effects of the 

subsistence harvest of sub-adult and 

young of the year males are anticipated. 

Evidence provided in the SEIS and in 

the preamble to the proposed rule (79 

FR 43007; July 24, 2014) indicates that 

efforts to protect female fur seals, 

whether or not they are sexually mature, 

are the most likely to have direct 

conservation value for the fur seal 

population. NMFS has included 

measures in the final rule, as 

summarized below, to keep the 

accidental mortality of females as close 

to zero as practical. 

Establishment of a Second Harvest 

Season 

The final rule establishes the second 

season, exclusively for male young of 

the year fur seals, from September 16 

until November 30. Those dates ensure 

the young of the year harvest occurs 

after the breeding season, which ends in 

August, and thus provide protection for 

late-breeding young fur seals. The 

timing of the second season also allows 

for young of the year to begin using sites 

separate from those used by lactating 

adult female and sub-adult fur seals. 

Young of the year wander and spend 

time away from the rookeries and 

hauling grounds (Figure 1), thereby 

providing the opportunity for the 

harvest to reduce incidental harassment 

of older seals still using the rookeries 

and hauling grounds during the second 

harvest season. The end date of the 

second subsistence harvest season 

coincides with the time when the 

majority of the fur seal population 

migrates away from the Pribilof Islands, 

which typically occurs by early 

December. 

The final rule does not alter the 

requirement to terminate the existing 

sub-adult male harvest by August 8 of 

each year. As discussed in the preamble 

to the proposed rule (79 FR 43007; July 

24, 2014), ending the sub-adult harvest 

by August 8 minimizes the chance of 

accidentally taking young female fur 

seals. 

Distributing the Harvest 

The young of the year harvest will 

occur during the non-breeding season in 

locations that earlier in the year were 

both breeding and non-breeding areas. 

Young of the year harvests could occur 

in any areas occupied by young of the 

year. The final rule distributes the 

young of the year harvest into three 

regions (North, East, and South) of fur 

seal breeding to avoid concentrating 

harvest pressure on a subset of the 

population and to provide adequate 

opportunity for the community to 

satisfy its subsistence needs. Each 

region contains two breeding areas and 

at least two hauling grounds. The North 

region includes two separate and 

adjacent breeding areas (North and 

Staraya Artil rookeries) that make up 

32.9 percent of the island population 

based on the most recent estimate of 

pups born. The East region includes 

East Reef and East Cliffs rookeries, 

which account for 33.3 percent, and the 

South region includes South and 

Zapadni rookeries which account for the 

remaining island pup production (33.7 

percent). Under the final rule, up to 50 

male pups could be harvested from each 

region (i.e., equal distribution based pup 

production), reducing the possibility for 

concentration of lethal or sub-lethal 

effects in particular areas. 

Prohibition on Taking From Small 

Breeding Areas 

Approximately 16,000 pups were 

born on St. George Island in 2012; 

however, the numbers born at each 

breeding area vary widely (Towell et al., 

2013). Northern fur seals exhibit strong 

site fidelity (i.e., repeatedly return to a 

site over years) and philopatry (i.e., 

return to the place of birth) (Gentry, 

1998). These two behavioral tendencies 

have allowed humans to harvest and 

study fur seals for many decades and are 

summarized in the preamble to the 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65331 

proposed rule (79 FR 43007; July 24, 

2014) and described more fully in the 

SEIS (NMFS, 2014). 

The final rule prohibits young of the 

year harvests at breeding locations 

determined to be at risk of reaching 

unsustainable population levels due to 

low pup production. As discussed in 

the preamble to the proposed rule (79 

FR 43007; July 24, 2014), NMFS will use 

an annual minimum pup production 

threshold of 500 to indicate breeding 

areas and their associated hauling 

grounds at which young of the year 

harvest would not be allowed. NMFS’s 

determination is based on modelling 

and empirical evidence. NMFS first 

evaluated models that consider the 

maintenance of genetic diversity in a 

population (effective population size, 

Ne) and the effects of demography and 

environmental variability on population 

persistence (minimum viable 

population size, MVP). Adapting model 

estimates from Olesiuk (2012), NMFS 

calculated minimum sustainable pup 

production levels for the breeding sites, 

and these ranged from 300 (Ne model) 

to 600 (MVP model) pups born (Johnson 

2014). NMFS then evaluated historical 

pup production data from 1912–1922, 

when the population was recovering 

from its lowest levels in recorded 

history, to provide an empirical estimate 

of minimum viable pup production. 

NMFS identified only four rookeries 

that during the 1912–1922 period had 

declined to (or below) the range of 300 

to 600 pups born; of these, three 

rookeries increased and remained above 

that range, and one went extinct. NMFS 

records show the lowest number of pups 

born during the period at Zapadni Reef, 

Ardiguen, and East Reef rookeries was 

186, 417, and 469, respectively. Each of 

these rookeries fell within the modeled 

minimum viable population range of 

300–600 and all recovered to the 

present. Lagoon rookery fell to 388 pups 

born, increased to 500 during the 

period, and subsequently went extinct 

in the early 1940s. As new fur seal data 

or models become available, NMFS may 

refine this threshold. 

To evaluate whether the smallest 

breeding areas are susceptible to 

extinction, NMFS will project estimated 

biennial pup production at each 

breeding area 10 years into the future 

(see Johnson, 2014). If the projections 

indicate a greater than 5 percent 

probability that pup production at a 

breeding site will fall below 500 within 

the ten-year time horizon, no young of 

the year harvest will be allowed at that 

site. The ten-year time horizon allows 

for natural variability of pup production 

into the future. Pup production for each 

rookery is estimated separately every 

two years, and therefore rookeryspecific young of the year harvests can 

be managed separately during this 

period. For example, using 2012 data 

the quasi-extinction analysis of pup 

production and trend for Staraya Artil 

rookery indicates that the population at 

that rookery has over a 65 percent 

probability of falling below 500 during 

the next 10 years, and none of the other 

breeding areas have greater than a 5 

percent probability of reaching 500 

(Johnson, 2014). NMFS adopted a 5 

percent probability of reaching the 

quasi-extinction threshold within ten 

years based on analysis from Gerber and 

DeMaster (1999) and considers this 

threshold to be conservative. Based on 

the quasi-extinction analysis using 

methods from Johnson (2014), this 

action effectively prohibits all young of 

the year harvests at Staraya Artil 

rookery until pup production from that 

rookery increases to a level at which 

there is a 5 percent or lower probability 

of pup production being below 500 

during the next 10 years. 

The final rule distributes the young of 

the year harvest limit equally across the 

three regions of two rookeries each. 

Thus, while Staraya Artil rookery and 

its single hauling ground remains closed 

to young of the year harvests at this 

time, harvesters could take up to 50 

male young of the year from the other 

rookery (North Rookery) in the North 

Region. This geographic dispersion of 

effort and prohibition on the taking from 

areas with small population size will 

allow NMFS and the Council to ensure 

that individual breeding locations do 

not reach population sizes low enough 

that recovery is highly uncertain. NMFS 

and the Council will review and update 

the statistical analysis as new data are 

available, and during annual comanagement meetings will determine 

the locations where young of the year 

harvests can occur based on the updated 

analysis. 

Suspension or Termination of the 

Harvest 

Historically, the northern fur seal 

population has declined during periods 

when there were no prohibitions on 

intentional or un-intentional harvest of 

females. The northern fur seal 

population declined through 1979, well 

beyond expectations of the member 

nations to the Fur Seal Treaty of 1911 

(York and Hartley, 1981), as a result of 

female harvests. Trites and Larkin 

(1989) estimated that an annual 2 to 5 

percent reduction in adult female 

survival over the period of 1950 to 1987 

was the most likely contributor to the 

lack of recovery by the Pribilof fur seal 

population. NMFS population modeling 

indicates female young of the year may 

have at least five to six times higher 

reproductive value than male young of 

the year (NMML unpublished data), 

primarily due to their reproductive 

ecology whereby one male inseminates 

many females. 

The final rule maintains all 

prohibitions on taking during the subadult male harvest season. The final rule 

creates new prohibitions on the harvest 

of sub-adults, adults, or the intentional 

harvest of young of the year female fur 

seals during the male young of the year 

harvest season. From 1985 to 2013, five 

sub-adult females were harvested 

accidentally on St. George Island out of 

a total harvest of 4,994 seals (0.1 percent 

accidental sub-adult female harvest 

rate). 

Under the final rule, NMFS would 

suspend the harvest in the event of two 

female mortalities and terminate the 

harvest in the event of a third female 

mortality in a given calendar year. 

These measures create a powerful 

incentive for St. George harvesters to 

spend adequate time to identify sex 

correctly and avoid killing females. 

NMFS’s intent in defining the upper 

limit of female mortalities at three per 

year is to encourage harvesters to 

develop and improve best practices as 

part of the young of the year harvest to 

ensure that the accidental female 

harvest rate under the new regulations 

remains close to zero. Female 

mortalities that would trigger the 

suspension or termination of the harvest 

include direct harvest mortalities as 

well as indirect mortalities due to 

trampling or other disturbance 

associated with the harvest. 

If two females are killed and NMFS 

suspends the harvest, NMFS could 

reverse the suspension upon review of 

the circumstances of the female 

mortalities and identification by St. 

George and NMFS of a remedy to 

minimize the risk of additional 

accidental mortality of any female fur 

seals. If the harvest is resumed and 

another female is killed, then the 

harvest will be terminated for the year. 

Cooperative Management of the 

Subsistence Harvest 

In 2000 and 2001, NMFS signed comanagement agreements with Aleut 

Community of St. Paul Island, Tribal 

Government and the Aleut Community 

of St. George Island, Traditional 

Council. These agreements set in place 

a process for NMFS and the tribes to 

communicate, partner, and cooperate on 

issues related to the subsistence harvest 

of northern fur seals. This process has 

developed a collaborative relationship 

that has created both greater and more 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65332 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

cost effective opportunities for NMFS to 

collect information about fur seal 

disease, health, and age composition by 

training local tribal members and 

building that capacity within the tribal 

governments. In addition, tribal 

government staff has disentangled fur 

seals, recorded tag numbers, and 

collected information about the 

locations of seals captured in the 

harvest round-ups and reported this 

information annually in their harvest 

reports with minimal involvement by 

NMFS. Through co-management NMFS 

has also worked with both tribal 

governments to conduct research. The 

final rule aligns the purposes of the comanagement agreement between NMFS 

and the Council with the subsistence 

harvest regulations with the subsistence 

harvest regulations for St. George, and 

retains the subsistence harvest 

regulations for St. Paul. 

The collaborative relationship built 

under co-management will be 

strengthened by NMFS and the Council 

continuing to work jointly to develop 

best harvest practices, which balance 

conservation, sustainability, and 

cultural interests. NMFS and the 

Council will refine these harvest 

practices as young of the year harvest 

experience is gained, and will formalize 

those practices via the co-management 

council. NMFS will post the best 

harvest practices on the NMFS Alaska 

Region Web site. 

The best harvest practices will 

include a description of jointly agreedupon measures to consider before each 

young of the year harvest. Further 

description of the intent of the best 

harvest practices is provided in the 

preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 

43007; July 24, 2014). 

The Council has expressed its 

intention during co-management 

meetings to utilize the same harvest 

methodology for the young of the year 

harvest as it uses for the existing subadult harvest, whereby a crew is 

organized in advance and assesses those 

locations most likely to be harvested. 

From those likely harvest locations the 

crew would consider the prevailing 

weather conditions, presence of 

harvestable young of the year, 

accessibility and space for harvest, 

presence of non-harvestable seals, and 

the impact those non-harvestable seals 

would have on the implementation of 

the harvest. Whether those methods 

defined as traditional in the emergency 

final rule (51 FR 24828; July 9, 1986) 

will be applicable to the harvest of 

young of the year is unknown because 

a young of the year harvest has not 

occurred for over 120 years. The final 

rule will ensure humane harvesting of 

young of the year via stunning and 

immediate exsanguination, but 

flexibility in some of the specific 

harvest methods is required to achieve 

the outcomes of reduced stress, injury, 

and disturbance to harvested and unharvested seals and to minimize taking 

of female seals. NMFS’s intent is to 

encourage innovation and 

improvements to the subsistence harvest 

methods for fur seals. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received comments on the 

proposed rule to change the subsistence 

harvest regulations (79 FR 43007; July 

24, 2014) from the Humane Society of 

the United States, the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission), and one 

individual. A summary of the comments 

received and NMFS’s responses follows. 

Comment 1: One commenter objected 

to the fur seal harvest overall, and stated 

that the harvest is about money, not 

food or culture, and that the culture on 

St. George has changed tremendously 

such that the harvest is not justified as 

a cultural need. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

existing subsistence harvest of northern 

fur seals on St. George is set at a 

maximum of 500 sub-adult males and 

represents less than 1 percent of the 

entire population of fur seals residing 

on St. George Island. The Fur Seal Act 

and MMPA both provide for the 

subsistence harvest of northern fur seals 

to meet the dietary and cultural needs 

of the Pribilof Island Alaska Native 

residents (Pribilovians). The subsistence 

harvest remains very important to the 

culture of the Pribilovians, even with 

changes that have taken place on the 

Pribilof Islands in modern times. The 

final rule includes new harvest control 

measures that will further ensure the 

sustainability of the subsistence harvest. 

Comment 2: A commenter stated that 

the announcement of the availability of 

the draft SEIS should have been 

published in the Federal Register rather 

than simply being sent to a small 

universe of previously interested 

commenters. 

Response: As NMFS noted in the 

response to comment section in the 

SEIS, and as is standard practice, NMFS 

worked with the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to publish the 

Notice of Availability for the draft SEIS 

in the Federal Register on May 30, 2014 

(79 FR 31110). Likewise NMFS worked 

with EPA to publish a Notice of 

Availability for the final SEIS in the 

Federal Register on August 22, 2014 (79 

FR 49774). 

Comment 3: The proposed regulations 

adopt the ‘‘proposed action’’ alternative 

in the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement. Based 

on the short space of time between the 

close of the comment period on the 

DSEIS and the start of the comment 

period on the proposed rule, it is not 

clear that NMFS considered or 

addressed concerns raised during the 

comment period on the DSEIS. 

Response: NMFS responded to all of 

the comments on the DSEIS in the 

response to comments section of the 

SEIS (79 FR 49774; August 22, 2014) as 

required by NEPA. NMFS considered 

those comments received on the DSEIS 

and addressed public comments on the 

proposed rule in the preamble to this 

final rule. 

Comment 4: A commenter stated that 

for reasons that are poorly understood, 

during 1998–2010, pup production 

declined 5.46% per year on St. Paul 

Island and 2.09% per year on St. George 

Island with the estimated pup 

production in 2010 below the 1916 level 

on both St. Paul and St. George Islands. 

There is every indication that the 

decline has not stopped. NMFS’s 

management decisions related to this 

stock emphasize the importance of 

protecting females and increasing pup 

survival. The 2005 EIS, which the SEIS 

supplements, states that harvest 

extensions beyond the first week of 

August in 1986 and 1987 resulted in an 

increased number of female fur seals 

taken. Expanding the harvest to the fall 

as proposed increases the risk that 

females will be killed unintentionally. 

Response: NMFS agrees that 

protecting female fur seals and their 

future reproductive potential is 

important. NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that the decline 

in pup production has not stopped on 

St. George. NMFS examined data for the 

period since the 2005 EIS and the pup 

production trend for St. George Island 

between 2004 and 2012 was stable (i.e., 

not increasing or declining, SE = 0.79, 

P < 0.69), as noted on page 33 of the 

final SEIS. By including new 

conservative harvest controls, this 

action will provide greater protection 

for female fur seals and promote future 

reproductive potential by increasing 

female survival. 

NMFS agrees with the commenter that 

distinguishing between sub-adult male 

and female fur seals is difficult. This 

action creates separate young of the year 

harvest season that is distinct from the 

sub-adult harvest, and thus it should 

have no effect on sub-adult female 

mortality. The 1986 and 1987 fur seal 

harvest extensions noted in the 2005 EIS 

extended the harvest of sub-adult males, 

and this final rule does not authorize an 

extension to the August 8 end date for 

the sub-adult male harvest season. This 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65333 

action authorizes a second season to 

allow for the exclusive harvest of young 

of the year fur seals, which, unlike subadult fur seals, can be safely handled to 

distinguish females from males prior to 

selection for harvest. As an additional 

measure to protect the population, the 

final rule includes a hard limit on 

female mortality: the subsistence 

harvest will be suspended if two female 

fur seals are killed and terminated if 

three females are killed. No such 

thresholds exist for accidental mortality 

of sub-adult females under current 

regulations. 

The limits on accidental mortalities of 

female fur seals are precautionary 

measures. NMFS does not expect that 

these limits will be reached because 

female mortality has been very low 

during the sub-adult male harvest (the 

practices for which would not change 

under the final rule) and the young of 

the year male harvest would include 

practices to safely and effectively 

distinguish males from females. 

Therefore, NMFS believes that the final 

rule will reduce the risks of accidental 

female fur seal mortality and is more 

protective than the existing regulations. 

Comment 5: Self-reporting of the sex 

of harvested fur seals by the tribal 

government would go against the selfinterest of the hunters, since reporting 

dead females can terminate the hunt. 

Moreover, self-reporting generally 

results in under-reporting. Independent 

monitoring should occur to ensure 

accurate reporting, particularly during 

any fall hunt for young of the year 

animals, which may unintentionally 

result in the deaths of young females. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that selfreporting generally results in underreporting of accidental take of females 

or that the harvester’s self-interest 

creates an incentive not to report. The 

Council has self-reported from 2003 to 

the present and during this time the 

annual rate of accidental female 

mortality in the sub-adult subsistence 

harvest is 0.36 female seals killed per 

year. The self-reported rate of 0.36 

female seals killed per year is not 

different from the rate reported by 

NMFS observers (0.37 female seals 

killed per year) who were present at 100 

percent of the subsistence harvests prior 

to 2003. This indicates that the subadult subsistence harvest monitoring 

process developed through comanagement with the Council yields 

accurate data on accidental take of 

females during the sub-adult harvest. 

Even with the addition of a hard cap 

that will terminate the harvest if three 

females are killed, NMFS has no 

indication that female mortalities will 

go undetected. As noted in the SEIS, 

male and female young of the year are 

not segregated within the breeding areas 

or hauling grounds, yet sealers can 

handle young of the year fur seals safely 

to accurately distinguish male from 

female fur seals. During the first three 

years of the autumn harvest season, 

NMFS will strive to have staff present 

during 100 percent of the young of the 

year harvests. NMFS and the Council 

will work in close coordination to 

ensure that harvesters accurately 

identify and release female young of the 

year fur seals prior to harvesting each 

animal. This close coordination will 

ensure that NMFS and the Council’s 

efforts are consistently aligned with the 

harvest regulations and conservation of 

northern fur seals, that accidental 

mortality of females will not likely 

approach the limit of three, and that the 

number of female animals killed during 

the fall harvest season is reported 

accurately. NMFS also notes that, as comanagers of the harvest, the Pribilovians 

on St. George Island have a strong 

interest in avoiding mortality of female 

fur seals because they want the harvest 

to continue sustainably into the future. 

Further, in a continuation of its 

longstanding collaboration with NMFS 

on scientific research related to fur 

seals, the Council plans to collect 

canine teeth from 100 percent of the 

harvested young of the year seals for 

aging and sex determination by NMFS. 

NMFS intends to use the canine teeth to 

independently sex harvested seals, 

which will deter the Council from 

falsely reporting the sex of harvested 

seals. 

Comment 6: It is not clear how the 

harvest on St. George will be conducted. 

As the proposed regulations are 

currently written, harvests could be 

conducted simultaneously on more than 

one rookery or by multiple sealing 

crews. NMFS should address possible 

simultaneous harvests more explicitly 

in the final rule and how monitoring 

will occur to ascertain whether female 

fur seals are being killed. If the St. 

George community will not conduct 

simultaneous harvests, this should be 

specified in the rule and appropriate 

changes made to the regulatory 

language. 

Response: During the past 30 years of 

sub-adult male harvests under the 

subsistence regulations, simultaneous 

harvests were never proposed by the 

sealers, tribe, or community. NMFS 

does not expect simultaneous harvests 

to occur, and even if they do, the 

planned methods for ascertaining and 

reporting female fur seal mortality 

during single harvests would be equally 

effective for simultaneous harvests. 

Therefore, NMFS does not agree that the 

regulations need to include any special 

monitoring provisions to address 

simultaneous harvests by multiple 

sealing crews. 

Comment 7: It is not clear what fur 

seal harvest monitoring will be carried 

out. Section 216.74 of the proposed rule 

recognizes that NMFS representatives 

are responsible for compiling 

information related to sources of 

human-caused mortality and serious 

injury of marine mammals, and that the 

Pribilovians are responsible for 

reporting on the ‘‘actual level of 

subsistence take.’’ This provision of the 

proposed rule is vague on how these 

tasks will be accomplished and in what 

timeframe. It is unclear whether efforts 

to avoid taking female pups will be 

successful or whether the suspension 

and termination thresholds will be 

reached quickly. Sufficient monitoring 

is needed to ascertain on a near realtime basis whether female seals are 

being killed and that those responsible 

for managing the harvest are notified 

promptly when the female fur seal 

threshold is reached. NMFS should 

provide more detail in the preamble on 

what monitoring will be conducted. 

NMFS should specify the applicable 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

in regulations more precisely to ensure 

that those requirements are sufficient to 

provide timely information to decision 

makers whenever female seals are 

killed. 

Response: As explained in response to 

Comment 5, based on nearly 30 years of 

sub-adult male harvests on St. George 

Island, NMFS expects that the young of 

the year harvest practices will 

effectively limit mortality of females. 

Every young of the year fur seal will be 

handled and sexed prior to harvest. 

NMFS will strive to be present during 

all young of the year harvests during the 

first three years and will then reassess 

what degree of NMFS monitoring is 

needed over the longer term. The 

measures specified in the final rule 

provide adequate assurance that female 

mortality will be very limited and that 

any accidental harvest of females will be 

reported. 

Comment 8: It appears that NMFS and 

the Pribilovians intend to apply harvest 

methods similar to those used for subadult male harvests to the harvest of 

young of the year to determine whether 

they are effective or whether changes 

need to be made. The preamble to the 

final rule should provide additional 

detail about how the proposed changes 

to the harvest protocol, if any, would be 

identified, considered, and approved. 

Response: NMFS appreciates this 

comment, and has included additional 

information regarding young of the year 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65334 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

harvest methods in the preamble to this 

final rule. The Council will work with 

NMFS via co-management to evaluate 

how the specific methods that have 

been used effectively for the sub-adult 

harvest should be adapted to provide for 

an effective young of the year harvest. 

These methods will be documented and 

refined over time through a written set 

of best harvest practices, as described in 

the preamble to the proposed rule (79 

FR 43007; July 24, 2014). 

Comment 9: Two comments 

expressed general support for the new 

conservation measure that would 

prohibit the harvest of young of the year 

fur seals from any breeding area where 

the recent analysis projects that pup 

production has greater than a 5 percent 

probability of falling below a level 

capable of sustaining a harvest in 10 

years. One commenter expressed 

support for including conservatism in 

this metric. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

supportive comments and agrees that 

conservative controls are appropriate. 

Comment 10: NMFS intends to use 

500 as the pup-production lower 

threshold for evaluating quasiextinction or minimum sustainable pupproduction size. Lagoon Rookery 

reached a low of 388 pup births, and 

although it later returned to 500 births, 

it eventually went extinct. NMFS needs 

to consider establishing a higher pupproduction threshold as the appropriate 

standard. 

Response: NMFS identified four 

rookeries that had declined during the 

1912–1922 period to (or below) the 

range of 300 to 600 pups born; of these, 

three rookeries increased and remained 

above that range, and one went extinct. 

NMFS records show the lowest number 

of pups born during the period at 

Zapadni Reef, Ardiguen, and East Reef 

rookeries was 186, 417, and 469, 

respectively, and all recovered and have 

remained above the minimum viable 

population size range of 300 to 600 to 

the present. The commenter is correct 

that Lagoon rookery fell to 388 pups 

born, increased to 500 during the 

period, and subsequently went extinct 

in the early 1940s. NMFS determined 

that 500 is an appropriate pup 

production threshold because three of 

the four rookeries for which records are 

available recovered from pup 

production numbers that dipped to or 

below that level, and because the final 

rule is coupling the pup production 

threshold of 500 with a prohibition on 

the harvest of young of the year fur seals 

from any breeding area where the 

analysis projects greater than a 5 percent 

probability that pup production will fall 

below that level within 10 years. NMFS 

is not certain that 500 is the optimal 

pup production threshold to select 

within the modeled minimum viable 

population size range of 300 to 600, but 

NMFS chose 500 based upon empirical 

evidence as a reasonable indicator of the 

level of pup production below which 

there would be concern about whether 

harvests may be sustainable. NMFS may 

identify a different threshold in the 

future, higher or lower than 500, if new 

modelling or empirical evidence 

emerges to suggest that 500 is not the 

appropriate threshold. 

Comment 11: It is not clear why the 

proposed conservation measure to 

prohibit harvests at breeding areas that 

have low pup production and a low 

probability of sustaining harvest over a 

10-year period should only be 

applicable to the harvest of the young of 

the year. The final rule should also 

prohibit sub-adult harvest in breeding 

areas that NMFS projects will have a 

greater than 5 percent probability of 

falling below a level capable of 

sustaining harvest in ten years. 

Response: NMFS appreciates this 

suggestion and will consider whether to 

apply this conservation control to the 

sub-adult male harvest via a separate 

rulemaking. 

Comment 12: Revising regulations at 

50 CFR 216.74 by removing the 

requirement that subsistence harvesters 

cooperate with scientists engaged in fur 

seal research is concerning. Scientific 

sampling of whiskers, organs, and other 

tissues is needed to understand possible 

changes in the fur seal diet that may 

contribute to the stock’s decline and to 

ascertain toxin exposure. It is unclear 

how reliance on voluntary cooperation 

between harvesters and scientists 

pursuant to a co-management agreement 

will assure proper sampling required for 

assessment of species and ecosystem 

health. If 50 CFR 216.74 is revised, the 

revised regulations should continue to 

provide a mandate that subsistence 

harvesters assist in scientific 

monitoring, managing, sampling, and 

reporting during the two harvest seasons 

while supporting the co-management 

process. 

Response: Neither the Council nor 

NMFS intend to eliminate cooperation 

with scientific samplers during the 

harvest. NMFS has provided additional 

explanation in the preamble to this final 

rule to describe how the co-management 

process has developed an improved and 

more effective means for harvesters and 

tribal members to support and 

participate in fur seal sampling and 

research assessing fur seal health and 

human-caused mortality. The comanagement agreement creates a 

partnership between the Council and 

NMFS, and the Council has asked 

NMFS to ensure that subsistence needs 

during the harvest are of equal priority 

and not secondary to data collection for 

scientific investigations. The revisions 

to 50 CFR 216.74 will better reflect this 

collaborative approach. To further 

clarify that data collection should 

continue, NMFS added the phrase ‘‘and 

to facilitate scientific research’’ at the 

end of § 216.74. 

NMFS and the Council will continue 

to use co-management as a means to 

provide opportunities for scientists to 

collect samples from seals taken for 

subsistence purposes. The final rule 

does not include a mandate for 

cooperation with researchers, as 

suggested by the commenter, because 

NMFS’s experience is that a comanagement approach is more effective 

than a prescriptive mandate. For 

example, evidence of morbillivirus 

exposure of pinnipeds in the North 

Pacific represented an unknown risk to 

fur seals and other pinnipeds in 2010. 

In 2011, NMFS did not have resources 

to collect samples from fur seals to 

determine whether fur seals were 

exposed to morbillivirus. NMFS and the 

tribal governments on both islands 

agreed within the co-management 

process to support such sampling from 

the subsistence harvest. On St. George 

Island all of the samples were collected 

by harvesters or tribal council members 

in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. The St. 

George Council staff labelled and stored 

the samples for transfer to NMFS for 

analysis. Similar examples of the 

success of the co-management 

partnership are evident in the reporting 

of entangled seals and the 

disentanglement of those seals when 

practical during the subsistence harvests 

on both islands. The subsistence harvest 

reports are available on the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site to verify the 

actions taken by harvesters and tribal 

government staff from both islands 

which have contributed to NMFS 

understanding of sources of fur seal 

mortality and disease exposure. 

Comment 13: Because the harvest of 

young of the year has not been 

authorized for more than 100 years, it is 

less clear who should be authorized to 

harvest the seals and by what method. 

The proposed rule tries to address this 

by eliminating the requirement that 

sealers on St. George be experienced 

and by specifying that harvest methods 

ultimately selected will be designed to 

‘‘reduce disturbance, injury, and 

accidental take of females.’’ The 

proposed regulations indicate that those 

methods are expected to include 

organized drives from congregating 

areas to inland killing fields, followed 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65335 

by stunning and immediate 

exsanguination, unless NMFS, in 

consultation with the Pribilovians 

conducting the harvest, determines that 

alternative methods will not result in 

increased stress to harvested and 

unharvested seals, increased 

disturbance or injury to resting seals, or 

the accidental take of females. Adopted 

harvest methods should be designed to 

achieve these goals. Making these 

determinations will require collection 

and analysis of fairly detailed 

information on the responses to seals of 

harvest practices and may benefit from 

review by veterinarians as well as 

biologists. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. As noted above in this 

preamble, NMFS will work with the 

Council via the co-management process 

to develop and refine a set of best 

harvest practices to minimize 

disturbance and injury of fur seals and 

to minimize the possibility of accidental 

mortality of female fur seals. 

Comment 14: Because it is unclear 

whether the harvesting methods 

employed for sub-adult males will be 

appropriate for harvesting young of the 

year, some degree of flexibility is 

needed. However, at the outset only 

‘‘experienced sealers’’ (i.e., those with 

experience taking sub-adult males) 

should be allowed to participate in the 

harvest of young of the year. 

Response: NMFS agrees that 

flexibility is needed to allow harvesters 

to be innovative in devising efficient 

ways to achieve conservation outcomes. 

Thus, the Council will work in 

partnership with NMFS to develop and 

refine a set of best harvest practices to 

minimize effects on harvested and nonharvested seals, incidental disturbance 

of seals, and mortality of females. NMFS 

is not requiring participating sealers to 

be experienced because experience 

harvesting sub-adults is not the best 

indicator of whether a given sealer will 

be able to carry out a young of the year 

harvest in a way that minimizes 

negative effects such as harassment of 

harvested and non-harvested seals and 

mortality of females. Residents of St. 

George are generally very familiar with 

fur seal behavior and harvests whether 

they have participated in the sub-adult 

harvest or not, and the community has 

a vested interest in conducting the 

young of the year harvest in an efficient 

and sustainable manner. NMFS 

therefore determined that implementing 

this final rule together with the planned 

development of best harvest practices 

via the co-management process provides 

sufficient safeguards for a sustainable 

harvest. 

Comment 15: NMFS proposed to 

remove from the St. George regulations 

the requirement that sealers on St. 

George be ‘‘experienced’’ and proposed 

to remove ‘‘traditional’’ from the 

description of methods for sealing, yet 

the provisions would be retained for St. 

Paul. NMFS also proposed to remove 

from the St. George regulations the 

requirement that ‘‘Seals with tags and/ 

or entangling debris may only be taken 

if so directed by NMFS scientists’’ yet 

the same provision would be retained 

for St. Paul. Furthermore, NMFS 

proposed to drop the maximum size 

restriction (124.5 cm) for harvesting subadult males on St. George, but did not 

provide an explanation. 

Response: This final rule does not 

finalize the proposed regulations that 

would have rescinded the sub-adult 

harvest regulatory requirements that 

harvesters be ‘‘experienced,’’ that 

harvesters use ‘‘traditional’’ harvesting 

methods, that harvesters may ‘‘only take 

seals with tags and/or entangled debris 

if so directed by NMFS scientists,’’ or 

that imposed a size restriction that 

harvesters may only take sub-adult 

males of 124.5 cm or less. These 

provisions are retained in the final rule; 

NMFS may further revise the 

regulations for the sub-adult harvest at 

a later date. 

Comment 16: Current regulations 

limit harvest at each haulout on St. 

George to no more than twice per week, 

but the proposed rule provided no 

indication regarding the frequency of 

harvests at a particular site during the 

season, possibly due to an oversight. 

NMFS should consider changing the 

frequency of harvests of any approved 

sites on St. George from twice per week 

to once per week. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

that NMFS inadvertently omitted a limit 

on the frequency of harvests from the 

proposed rule. The final rule retains the 

regulatory requirement that no area may 

be harvested more than twice per week. 

NMFS may further revise this regulatory 

limit in a future rulemaking. 

Comment 17: A commenter suggested 

that NMFS restructure the proposed 

regulatory text applicable to St. George 

into distinct sections that apply to the 

sub-adult harvest and to the young of 

the year harvest. 

Response: NMFS agrees and has 

restructured the regulatory text 

accordingly to improve clarity. 

Comment 18: A commenter suggested 

that the proposed changes to § 216.81, 

which would provide that authorized 

subsistence harvesters of fur seals are 

allowed on rookeries from September 16 

to November 30, would create ambiguity 

regarding permissible access. 

Response: NMFS agrees and is not 

implementing those proposed changes. 

Comment 19: NMFS received 

comments identifying citation errors 

and inadvertent omissions. 

Response: NMFS made appropriate 

revisions as described in the following 

subsection. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule to the 

Final Rule 

In addition to the changes discussed 

above in response to public comments, 

NMFS made the following changes in 

the final rule. 

The renumbered § 216.72(d) now 

provides distinct regulatory provisions 

applicable to St. George sub-adult 

harvest and the St. George young of the 

year harvest to improve clarity as 

suggested by a commenter. NMFS added 

provisions retaining existing regulatory 

requirements applicable to the sub-adult 

harvest. Specifically, these provisions 

retain existing requirements concerning 

the 124.5 cm size limit for sub-adults, 

the authority to take seals with tags or 

entangling debris if so directed by 

NMFS scientists, the requirement for 

harvesters to be experienced, the 

requirement to use traditional harvest 

methods, and the prohibition on any 

taking of adult fur seals or pups, or the 

intentional taking of sub-adult female 

fur seals. As a result, the only changes 

to the sub-adult harvest as compared to 

the existing regulations are the 

availability to harvest at additional sites 

besides Northeast and Zapadni (per 

§ 216.72(d)(2)), the suspension of the 

harvest if two female fur seals are killed 

(per § 216.72(f)(1)(iv)), and the 

termination of the harvest if three 

female fur seals are killed (per 

§ 216.72(g)(3)). 

NMFS added a provision at 

§ 216.72(d)(9) applicable only to the 

young of the year harvest on St. George 

to clearly prohibit any harvest of adult 

or sub adult fur seals or intentional 

harvest of young of the year female fur 

seals. 

NMFS clarified that the subparagraph 

now appearing at § 216.72(d)(10) applies 

to the hauling ground(s) associated with 

designated breeding areas, and not only 

to the designated breeding areas. Thus, 

no young of the year fur seals may be 

taken from any designated breeding area 

or its associated hauling ground(s) 

where the most recent NMFS analysis 

projects that pup production has greater 

than a 5 percent probability of falling 

below a level capable of sustaining a 

harvest in 10 years. 

NMFS added scheduling provisions 

for the St. Paul harvest in § 216.72(e) to 

correct an inadvertent omission from 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65336 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

the proposed rule of language that is 

consistent with the existing regulations. 

NMFS corrected an error in § 216.72(f) 

where the proposed rule incorrectly 

referenced section 215 and corrected 

text references in §§ 216.71 and 216.72. 

NMFS clarified that § 216.72(g)(3) 

applies only to St. George Island. 

NMFS inserted the phrase ‘‘provided 

for in § 216.71’’ into § 216.72(g)(3) to 

clarify that take provided for in § 216.71 

shall terminate if a total of three female 

fur seals are killed during the harvest 

season. 

NMFS added the correct statutory 

references to § 216.74. NMFS also split 

§ 216.74 into two subsections, one for 

St. George Island and one for St. Paul 

Island, to clarify that the language for 

§ 216.74 that NMFS included in the 

proposed rule was only intended to 

apply to St. George. Subsection (a) is 

established by this rulemaking to revise 

the description of how harvesters and 

Tribal and Federal officials cooperate on 

St. George, and subsection (b) is 

identical to the existing text for § 216.74 

but will now apply only to St. Paul. 

OMB Revisions to Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) References in 15 CFR 902.1(b) 

Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the PRA 

requires that agencies inventory and 

display a current control number 

assigned by the Director, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), for 

each agency information collection. 

Section 902.1(b) identifies the location 

of NOAA regulations for which OMB 

approval numbers have been issued. 

Because this final rule adds a data 

element for the reporting of the actual 

subsistence harvest within a collectionof-information for recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, 15 CFR 902.1(b) 

is revised to reference correctly the 

section resulting from this final rule. 

Classification 

NMFS has determined that this final 

rule is consistent with the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, the Fur Seal 

Act, and other applicable laws. Pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) the NMFS Assistant 

Administrator finds good cause to waive 

the 30-day delay in the effective date of 

this rule because such a delay would be 

contrary to the public interest. A delay 

in effectiveness of the revised 

regulations would preclude St. George 

residents from meeting their subsistence 

needs by delaying the resumption of the 

traditional young of the year fur seal 

harvest for a full year until September 

16, 2015, and would delay regulatory 

revisions that would implement more 

sustainable subsistence harvest 

practices in furtherance of the MMPA 

and the Fur Seal Act. In addition, the 

Assistant Administrator finds that the 

regulations would relieve some 

unnecessary subsistence harvest 

restrictions currently imposed on St. 

George residents by expanding the 

number of areas on the island where 

subsistence harvest activities may occur, 

by allowing for subsistence harvests 

during a second season, and by allowing 

for subsistence harvests of a younger age 

class of fur seals. The revised 

regulations would allow for a 

sustainable harvest practice that 

occurred historically but which the 

current regulations do not allow. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS prepared an SEIS evaluating 

the impacts on the human environment 

of the subsistence harvest of northern 

fur seals on St. George Island. A Notice 

of Availability for the final SEIS was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 22, 2014 (79 FR 49774). 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This action has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order (E.O.) 12866. 

NMFS prepared an analysis under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act that carefully 

examined the potential impacts, 

including possible economic benefits 

and costs, and potential adverse 

economic burdens, that may accrue 

uniquely to small entities, attributable 

to the action described above. NMFS 

certified at the proposed stage of this 

rule that it will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, and NMFS 

received no comments on that 

certification. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This action does not contain policies 

with federalism implications sufficient 

to warrant preparation of a federalism 

assessment under E.O. 13132 because 

this action does not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Nonetheless, 

NMFS worked closely with the city and 

tribal governments on St. George Island 

in response to a petition by the tribal 

government of St. George. 

Executive Order 13175—Native 

Consultation 

Executive Order 13175 of November 

6, 2000, the executive Memorandum of 

April 29, 1994, the American Indian 

Native Policy of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce (March 30, 1995), and the 

Department of Commerce Tribal 

Consultation and Coordination Policy 

Statement (78 FR 33331; June 4, 2013) 

outline NMFS’s responsibilities in 

matters affecting tribal interests. Section 

161 of Public Law 108–100 (188 Stat. 

452) as amended by section 518 of 

Public Law 108–447 (118 Stat. 3267), 

extends the consultation requirements 

of E.O. 13175 to Alaska Native 

corporations. NMFS contacted the tribal 

government of St. George Island and 

their local Native corporation (Tanaq) 

about revising the regulations regarding 

the subsistence harvest of northern fur 

seals on St. George Island and their 

input is incorporated herein. 

Collection of Information Requirements 

This final rule contains a collectionof-information requirement subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

which has been approved by OMB 

under control number 0648–0699. 

Public reporting burden for harvest 

reporting is estimated to average 40 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. Estimated responses 

include the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Send comments regarding these burden 

estimates or any other aspect of this data 

collection, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, to NMFS Alaska 

Region (see ADDRESSES) and by email to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

All currently approved NOAA 

collections of information may be 

viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/

services_programs/prasubs.html. 

References Cited 

A list of all the references cited in this 

rule may be found on 

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/

protectedresources/seals/fur.htm (see 

ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects 

15 CFR Part 902 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65337 

50 CFR Part 216 

Alaska, Marine Mammals, Pribilof 

Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 30, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 

902 and 50 CFR part 216 as follows: 

Title 15—Commerce and Foreign Trade 

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION 

COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: 

OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 902.1, in the table in paragraph 

(b), under the entry ‘‘50 CFR’’, add an 

entry in alphanumeric order for 

‘‘216.74’’ to read as follows: 

§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CFR part or section where 

the information collection 

requirement is located 

Current OMB 

control No. 

(All numbers 

begin with 

0648–) 

* * * * * 

50 CFR: ........................

* * * * * 

216.74 ................................... –0699 

* * * * * 

Title 50—Wildlife and Fisheries 

PART 216—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKING AND 

IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 216 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 4. In § 216.72: 

■ A. Remove and reserve paragraph (c); 

■ B. Revise the section heading and 

paragraphs (d), (e), and (f); and 

■ C. Add paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 216.72 Restrictions on subsistence fur 

seal harvests. 

* * * * * 

(d) St. George Island. The subsistence 

fur seal harvest restrictions described in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this 

section apply exclusively to the harvest 

of sub-adult fur seals; restrictions that 

apply exclusively to the harvest of 

young of the year fur seals can be found 

in paragraphs (d)(6) through (d)(11) of 

this section. 

(1) Pribilovians may only harvest subadult male fur seals 124.5 centimeters or 

less in length from June 23 through 

August 8 annually on St. George Island 

up to the lower end of the harvest range 

established in paragraph (b) of this 

section. When the lower end of the 

range has been reached paragraphs 

(f)(1)(iii) and (f)(3) of this section apply. 

(2) Pribilovians may harvest sub-adult 

male fur seals at the hauling grounds 

shown in Figure 1 to part 216. No 

hauling ground may be harvested more 

than twice per week. 

(3) Seals with tags and/or entangling 

debris may only be taken if so directed 

by NMFS scientists. 

(4) The scheduling of the sub-adult 

male harvest is at the discretion of the 

Pribilovians, but must be such as to 

minimize stress to the harvested seals. 

The Pribilovians must give adequate 

advance notice of their harvest 

schedules to the NMFS representatives 

to allow for necessary monitoring 

activities. No fur seal may be taken 

except by experienced sealers using the 

traditional harvesting methods, 

including stunning followed 

immediately by exsanguination. The 

harvesting method shall include 

organized drives of sub-adult male fur 

seals to killing fields, unless the NMFS 

representatives determine, in 

consultation with the Pribilovians 

conducting the harvest, that alternative 

methods will not result in increased 

disturbance to the rookery or the 

increased accidental take of female 

seals. 

(5) Any taking of adult fur seals or 

young of the year, or the intentional 

taking of sub-adult female fur seals is 

prohibited. 

(6) Pribilovians may only harvest 

male young of the year from September 

16 through November 30 annually on St. 

George Island. Pribilovians may harvest 

up to 150 male fur seal young of the 

year annually up to the lower end of the 

harvest range established for St. George 

in the notice published pursuant to 

paragraph (b) of this section. When the 

lower end of the harvest range has been 

reached paragraphs (f)(1)(iii) and (f)(3) 

of this section apply. 

(7) No more than 50 male young of the 

year may be harvested from each of the 

following regions where fur seals 

congregate: East region includes the 

breeding areas known as East Reef and 

East Cliffs rookeries and the associated 

non-breeding hauling grounds; South 

region includes the breeding areas 

known as Zapadni and South rookeries 

and the associated non-breeding hauling 

grounds; and North region includes the 

breeding areas known as North and 

Staraya Artil rookeries and associated 

non-breeding hauling grounds, as 

shown in Figure 1 to part 216. No area 

may be harvested more than twice per 

week and must be in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(10) of this section. 

(8) The scheduling of the young of the 

year harvest is at the discretion of the 

Pribilovians, but must be such as to 

minimize stress to the harvested and unharvested fur seals and minimize the 

take of female fur seals. The Pribilovians 

must give adequate advance notice of 

their harvest schedules to the NMFS 

representatives to allow for necessary 

monitoring activities. No fur seal may be 

taken except by sealers using the 

harvesting methods implemented to 

reduce disturbance, injury, and 

accidental mortality of female fur seals. 

Pribilovians may use, but are not 

limited to, organized drives of young of 

the year fur seals from congregating 

areas to inland killing fields. Methods of 

harvest must include identification of 

male young of the year, followed by 

stunning and immediate 

exsanguination, unless the NMFS 

representatives, in consultation with the 

Pribilovians conducting the harvest, 

determine that alternative methods will 

not result in increased stress to 

harvested and un-harvested fur seals, 

increased disturbance or injury to 

resting fur seals, or the accidental 

mortality of female seals. 

(9) Any harvest of sub adult or adult 

fur seals or intentional harvest of young 

of the year female fur seals is 

prohibited. 

(10) No young of the year fur seals 

may be taken from any designated 

breeding area or its associated hauling 

ground(s) where the most recent NMFS 

analysis projects that pup production 

has greater than a 5 percent probability 

of falling below a level capable of 

sustaining a harvest in 10 years. 

(11) No more than 120 days after the 

final subsistence harvest each calendar 

year, NMFS representatives and St. 

George Island community members 

must review the implementation of the 

harvest and consider best harvest 

practices and determine if 

implementation can be improved to 

better meet the subsistence needs of the 

St. George Island community or reduce 

negative effects on fur seals. 

(e) St. Paul Island. Seals may only be 

harvested from the following haulout 

areas: Zapadni, English Bay, Northeast 

Point, Polovina, Lukanin, Kitovi, and 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65338 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Reef. No haulout area may be harvested 

more than once per week. 

(1) The scheduling of the harvest is at 

the discretion of the Pribilovians, but 

must be such as to minimize stress to 

the harvested fur seals. The Pribilovians 

must give adequate advance notice of 

their harvest schedules to the NMFS 

representatives to allow for necessary 

monitoring activities. 

(2) No fur seal may be taken on the 

Pribilof Islands before June 23 of each 

year. 

(3) No fur seal may be taken except by 

experienced sealers using the traditional 

harvesting methods, including stunning 

followed immediately by 

exsanguination. The harvesting method 

shall include organized drives of 

subadult males to killing fields unless it 

is determined by the NMFS 

representatives, in consultation with the 

Pribilovians conducting the harvest, that 

alternative methods will not result in 

increased disturbance to the rookery or 

the increased accidental take of female 

seals. 

(4) Any taking of adult fur seals or 

pups, or the intentional taking of 

subadult female fur seals is prohibited. 

(5) Only subadult male fur seals 124.5 

centimeters or less in length may be 

taken. 

(6) Seals with tags and/or entangling 

debris may only be taken if so directed 

by NMFS scientists. 

(f) Harvest suspension provisions. (1) 

The Assistant Administrator is required 

to suspend the take provided for in 

§§ 216.71 and 216.72 when: 

(i) (S)He determines, after reasonable 

notice by NMFS representatives to the 

Pribilovians on the island, that the 

subsistence needs of the Pribilovians on 

the island have been satisfied; or 

(ii) (S)He determines that the harvest 

is otherwise being conducted in a 

wasteful manner; or 

(iii) The lower end of the range of the 

estimated subsistence level provided in 

the notice issued under paragraph (b) of 

this section is reached; or 

(iv) With regard to St. George Island, 

two female fur seals have been killed on 

St. George Island. 

(2) A suspension based on a 

determination under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) 

of this section may be lifted by the 

Assistant Administrator if (s)he finds 

that the conditions that led to the 

determination that the harvest was 

being conducted in a wasteful manner 

have been remedied. 

(3) A suspension issued in accordance 

with paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section 

may not exceed 48 hours in duration 

and shall be followed immediately by a 

review of the harvest data to determine 

if a finding under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of 

this section is warranted. If the harvest 

is not suspended under paragraph 

(f)(1)(i) of this section, the Assistant 

Administrator must provide a revised 

estimate of the number of seals required 

to satisfy the Pribilovians’ subsistence 

needs. 

(4) A suspension based on a 

determination under paragraph (f)(1)(iv) 

of this section may be lifted by the 

Assistant Administrator if (s)he finds 

that the conditions that led to the killing 

of two female fur seals have been 

remedied and additional or improved 

methods to detect female fur seals in the 

harvest are being implemented. 

(g) Harvest termination provisions. (1) 

The Assistant Administrator shall 

terminate the annual take provided for 

in § 216.71 on August 8 for sub-adult 

males on St. Paul and St. George Islands 

and on November 30 for male young of 

the year on St. George Island. 

(2) The Assistant Administrator shall 

terminate the take provided for in 

§ 216.71 when (s)he determines under 

paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(iii) of this 

section that the subsistence needs of the 

Pribilovians on the island have been 

satisfied or the upper end of the harvest 

range has been reached, whichever 

occurs first. 

(3) The Assistant Administrator shall 

terminate the take on St. George Island 

provided for in § 216.71 if a total of 

three female fur seals are killed during 

the season on St. George Island. 

■ 5. Section 216.74 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 216.74 Cooperation between fur seal 

harvesters, Tribal and Federal Officials. 

(a) St. George Island. Federal 

scientists and Pribilovians cooperatively 

manage the subsistence harvest of 

northern fur seals under section 119 of 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. 1388). The Federally recognized 

tribes on the Pribilof Islands have 

signed agreements describing a shared 

interest in the conservation and 

management of fur seals and the 

designation of co-management councils 

that meet and address the purposes of 

the co-management agreements for 

representatives from NMFS, St. George 

and St. Paul tribal governments. NMFS 

representatives are responsible for 

compiling information related to 

sources of human-caused mortality and 

serious injury of marine mammals. The 

Pribilovians are responsible for 

reporting their subsistence needs and 

actual level of subsistence take. This 

information is used to update stock 

assessment reports and make 

determinations under § 216.72. 

Pribilovians who take fur seals for 

subsistence uses collaborate with NMFS 

representatives and the respective Tribal 

representatives to consider best harvest 

practices under co-management and to 

facilitate scientific research. 

(b) St. Paul Island. The Pribilovians 

who engage in the harvest of seals are 

required to cooperate with scientists 

engaged in fur seal research on the 

Pribilof Islands who may need 

assistance in recording tag or other data 

and collecting tissue or other fur seal 

samples for research purposes. In 

addition, Pribilovians who take fur seals 

for subsistence uses must, consistent 

with 5 CFR 1320.7(k)(3), cooperate with 

the NMFS representatives on the 

Pribilof Islands who are responsible for 

compiling the following information on 

a daily basis: 

(1) The number of seals taken each 

day in the subsistence harvest, 

(2) The extent of the utilization of fur 

seals taken, and 

(3) Other information determined by 

the Assistant Administrator to be 

necessary for determining the 

subsistence needs of the Pribilovians or 

for making determinations under 

§ 215.32(e) of this chapter. 

■ 6. Add Figure 1 to part 216 as follows: 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 65339 

[FR Doc. 2014–26177 Filed 10–30–14; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2014–0946] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Housatonic River, Stratford, CT 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the Metro North 

(Devon) Bridge, across the Housatonic 

River, mile 3.9, at Stratford, 

Connecticut. This deviation is necessary 

to facilitate repairs to the miter plates 

and headlocks at the bridge. This 

deviation allows the bridge to remain in 


rmajette on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULESER04NO14.000</GPH>