71714 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

prepared by the petitioner, 

Investigaciones y Aplicaciones 

Biotecnologicas S.L., Avda, Paret del 

Patriarca 11–B, Ap. 30, 46113 Moncada 

(Valencia) Spain, was available in the 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Through an administrative error, the 

summary of the pesticide petition was 

not made available in the docket. The 

Agency has made the summary of the 

pesticide petition (PP 3F8177) available 

in the docket under docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0574 at http://

www.regulations.gov and is reopening 

the comment period for that pesticide 

petition (PP 3F8177) for 30 days to 

allow for public review and comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural commodities, Feed 

additives, Food additives, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 19, 2014. 

Robert McNally, 

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution 

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28389 Filed 12–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 12–267; DA 14–1697] 

Comprehensive Review of Licensing 

and Operating Rules for Satellite 

Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment and reply comment period. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

International Bureau granted a request 

for an extension of time to file 

comments in response to a Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that 

initiated a comprehensive review of the 

Commission’s rules governing space 

stations and earth stations. The original 

deadline for filing comments was 

December 15, 2014; the original 

deadline for filing reply comments was 

January 14, 2015. The International 

Bureau extended the deadlines for filing 

both comments and reply comments by 

45 days. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 29, 2015. Reply 

comments must be received on or before 

March 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

and reply comments, identified by IB 

Docket No. 12–267, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Spiers, Satellite Division, 

International Bureau, at 202–418–1593 

or via email at Cindy.Spiers@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

was published in the Federal Register at 

79 FR 65106, October 31, 2014. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours at the FCC 

Reference Information Center, Portals II, 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– 

488–5300, facsimile 202–488–5563, or 

via email FCC@BCPIWEB.com. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Mindel De La Torre, 

Chief, International Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28412 Filed 12–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 226 

[Docket No. 120912447–4278–01] 

RIN 0648–BC56 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the 

Arctic Ringed Seal 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, propose to 

designate critical habitat for the Arctic 

subspecies (Phoca hispida hispida) of 

the ringed seal (Phoca hispida) under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We 

propose to designate one specific area of 

marine habitat in the northern Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. We are 

soliciting comments from the public on 

all aspects of the proposal, including 

our identification and consideration of 

the economic, national security, and 

other relevant impacts of the proposed 

designation. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by March 3, 2015. 

Four public hearings on the proposed 

rule will be held in Alaska (Anchorage, 

Barrow, Kotzebue, and Nome). The 

dates and times of these hearings will be 

provided in a subsequent Federal 

Register notice. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by FDMS 

Docket Number NOAA–NMFS–2013– 

0114, by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013- 

0114, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Address written comments to 

Jon Kurland, Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Protected Resources, 

Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen 

Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 

21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

Electronic copies of the proposed 

rule, list of references and supporting 

documents, and the draft economic 

report (i.e., Regulatory Impact Review 

(RIR)/4(b)(2) Preparatory Assessment/


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71715 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act (IRFA) 

report) prepared for this action are 

available from http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013- 

0114 or from the NMFS Alaska Region 

Web site at http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tamara Olson, NMFS Alaska Region, 

(907) 271–5006; Jon Kurland, NMFS 

Alaska Region, (907) 586–7638; or Marta 

Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources, (301) 427–8469. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 28, 2012, we published 

a final rule to list the Arctic ringed seal 

as threatened under the ESA (77 FR 

76706). Section 4(b)(6)(C) of the ESA 

requires the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) to designate critical habitat 

concurrently with making a 

determination to list a species as 

threatened or endangered unless it is 

not determinable at that time, in which 

case the Secretary may extend the 

deadline for this designation by 1 year. 

At the time of listing, we announced our 

intention to designate critical habitat for 

the Arctic ringed seal in separate 

rulemaking, as sufficient information 

was not available to: (1) Identify and 

describe the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Arctic ringed seal; and (2) assess the 

economic consequences of designating 

critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal. 

At that time, we also solicited 

comments related to identification of 

critical habitat during a 60-day 

comment period. We received nine 

comment submissions in response to 

this solicitation. Subsequently we 

researched, reviewed, and compiled the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data available, including the public 

comments received to date, to develop 

a critical habitat proposal for the Arctic 

ringed seal. We used these data to 

identify the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Arctic ringed seal, specific areas that 

we are proposing as critical habitat for 

the Arctic ringed seal, and the impacts 

associated with the proposed 

designation. 

This proposed rule would designate 

critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. 

Critical habitat is defined by section 3 

of the ESA as: ‘‘(i) The specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species, at the time it is listed 

. . ., on which are found those physical 

or biological features (I) essential to the 

conservation of the species and (II) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection; and (ii) 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed . . . upon a determination by 

the Secretary that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species.’’ Section 3 of the ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1532(3)) also defines the terms 

‘‘conserve,’’ ‘‘conserving,’’ and 

‘‘conservation’’ to mean: ‘‘to use, and 

the use of, all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring any 

endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to this 

chapter are no longer necessary.’’ 

Critical habitat cannot be designated in 

areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 

424.12(h)). 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and our 

implementing regulations require that, 

before designating critical habitat, we 

consider the economic, national 

security, and other relevant impacts of 

the designation. The Secretary has 

discretion to exclude any particular area 

from the critical habitat if she 

determines that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of designation. 

The Secretary, however, may not 

exclude a particular area if the failure to 

designate that area as critical habitat 

would result in the extinction of the 

species. 

Once critical habitat is designated, 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires 

Federal agencies to ensure they do not 

fund, authorize, or carry out any actions 

that will destroy or adversely modify 

that habitat. This requirement is 

additional to the section 7 requirement 

that Federal agencies ensure their 

actions do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species. 

This proposed rule describes 

information on Arctic ringed seal 

biology, distribution, and habitat use, 

the methods used to develop the 

proposed designation, and our proposal 

to designate critical habitat for the 

Arctic ringed seal. 

Arctic Ringed Seal Biology and Habitat 

Use 

The following discussion of the 

natural history and ecology of Arctic 

ringed seals as it relates to habitat use 

is based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, including 

information in the status review report 

for the ringed seal (Kelly et al., 2010a). 

In this proposed rule, we focus on those 

aspects directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Arctic ringed seal. For more detailed 

information on the biology and habitat 

use of ringed seals, refer to the status 

review report and the proposed and 

final listing rules (75 FR 77476, 

December 10, 2010; 77 FR 76706, 

December 28, 2012). 

The Arctic ringed seal is the smallest 

of the northern seals, with typical adult 

body size of 1.5 m in length and 70 kg 

in weight. Arctic ringed seal females 

generally reach sexual maturity at 3 to 

6 years of age, and males at 5 to 7 years 

of age, but with geographic and 

temporal variability depending on 

animal condition and population 

structure. The average life span of Arctic 

ringed seals is about 15 to 28 years. 

Seasonal Distribution and Habitat Use 

Arctic ringed seals are circumpolar 

and are found throughout ice-covered 

waters of the Arctic Basin and 

southward into adjacent seas, including 

the Bering and Labrador seas. In the 

United States, ringed seals occur in the 

Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering seas off 

Alaska’s coast, as far south as Bristol 

Bay in years of extensive ice coverage 

(King, 1964; Frost and Lowry, 1981; 

Frost, 1985; Kelly, 1988; Rice, 1998). 

Ringed seals are adapted to remaining 

in heavily ice-covered areas throughout 

the fall, winter, and spring by using the 

stout claws on their foreflippers to 

maintain breathing holes in the ice. 

Arctic ringed seals do not normally 

come ashore, but instead use sea ice as 

a substrate for resting, whelping 

(birthing), nursing, and molting 

(shedding and regrowing hair and outer 

skin layers). The seasonality of ice cover 

strongly influences Arctic ringed seal 

movements, foraging, reproductive 

behavior, and vulnerability to predation. 

Kelly et al. (2010b) referred to three time 

periods important to Arctic ringed seal 

seasonal movements and habitat use: 

The winter through early spring 

‘‘subnivean period’’ when the seals rest 

primarily in subnivean lairs (snow caves 

on top of the ice); the late spring to early 

summer ‘‘basking period’’ between 

abandonment of the lairs and melting of 

the seasonal sea ice when the seals 

undergo their annual molt; and the 

open-water ‘‘foraging period’’ when 

feeding occurs most intensively during 

late summer through fall. 

Subnivean Period: With the advance 

of winter, many Arctic ringed seals that 

summer in the Beaufort and Chukchi 

seas are thought to move generally west 

and south with the advancing ice, while 

others remain in the Beaufort Sea (Frost, 

1985). Adult movements during the 

subnivean period have been reported as 

typically limited, especially where ice 

cover is extensive, likely due to 

maintenance of breathing holes and 

social behavior during the breeding 

season (Kelly and Quakenbush, 1990; 

Kelly et al., 2010b; Crawford et al., 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71716 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2012). In contrast, subadult Arctic 

ringed seals have been observed to 

travel relatively long distances in winter 

to near the ice edge in the Bering Sea 

(Crawford et al., 2012). 

At freeze up in the fall, ringed seals 

surface to breathe in the remaining open 

water of cracks and leads. As these 

openings in the ice freeze over, the seals 

push through the ice to breathe until it 

is too thick (Lukin and Potelov, 1978). 

They then open breathing holes by 

abrading the ice with the claws on their 

foreflippers (Bailey and Hendee, 1926; 

Smith and Stirling, 1975). As the ice 

thickens, the seals continue to maintain 

the breathing holes by scratching at the 

walls. As snow accumulates and buries 

the breathing hole, the seals breathe 

through the snow layer. Ringed seals 

excavate lairs in the snow above 

breathing holes where snow depth is 

sufficient (Chapskii, 1940; McLaren, 

1958; Smith and Stirling, 1975). These 

subnivean lairs are occupied for resting, 

whelping, and nursing young in areas of 

annual landfast (shorefast) ice 

(McLaren, 1958; Burns, 1970) and stable 

pack ice (Finley et al., 1983; Wiig et al., 

1999; Bengtson et al., 2005) that has 

undergone a low to moderate amount of 

deformation and where pressure ridges 

or ice hummocks have caused snow to 

form drifts of sufficient depth (Smith 

and Stirling, 1975; Lydersen and Gjertz, 

1986; Kelly, 1988; Furgal et al., 1996; 

Lydersen, 1998). 

Females give birth to a single pup in 

their lairs during mid-March through 

April (Kelly et al., 2010a) and the pups 

are nursed in the lairs for an average of 

39 days (Hammill et al., 1991). Females 

continue to forage throughout lactation 

while making frequent visits to birth 

lairs (Hammill, 1987; Kelly and 

Wartzok, 1996; Simpkins et al., 2001). 

The pups develop foraging skills prior 

to weaning (Lydersen and Hammill, 

1993), and are normally weaned before 

break-up of spring ice. 

Lairs provide protection from cold 

and predators throughout the winter 

months, but they are especially 

important for protecting newborn ringed 

seals. Lairs conceal ringed seals from 

predators, an advantage especially 

important to the small pups that start 

life with minimal tolerance for 

immersion in cold water (Smith et al., 

1991). Polar bears prey heavily on 

ringed seals. Other predators include 

Arctic foxes, common ravens, and 

glaucous gulls. Pups in lairs with thin 

snow cover are more vulnerable to polar 

bear predation than pups in lairs with 

thick snow cover (Hammill and Smith, 

1989; Ferguson et al., 2005). For 

example, Hammill and Smith (1991) 

noted that polar bear predation on 

ringed seal pups increased 4-fold in a 

year when average snow depths in their 

study area decreased from 23 to 10 cm. 

When ringed seal pups are forced out of 

subnivean lairs prematurely because of 

low snow accumulation and/or early 

melts, gulls and ravens can also 

successfully prey on them (Kumlien, 

1879; Gjertz and Lydersen, 1983; 

Lydersen and Gjertz, 1987; Lydersen et 

al., 1987; Lydersen and Smith, 1989; 

Lydersen and Ryg, 1990; Lydersen, 

1998). Stirling and Smith (2004) 

surmised that most pups that survived 

exposure to cold after their subnivean 

lairs collapsed during unseasonal rains 

were eventually killed by polar bears, 

Arctic foxes, or gulls. 

Subnivean lairs also provide refuge 

from air temperatures too low for 

survival of ringed seal pups. When 

forced to flee into the water to avoid 

predators, the ringed seal pups that 

survive depend on the subnivean lairs 

to subsequently warm themselves. 

When snow cover is insufficient, pups 

can freeze in their lairs, as documented 

when roofs of lairs in the White Sea 

were only 5 to 10 cm thick (Lukin and 

Potelov, 1978). Stirling and Smith 

(2004) also documented exposure of 

ringed seals to hypothermia following 

the collapse of subnivean lairs during 

unseasonal rains near southeastern 

Baffin Island. 

During winter and spring, Arctic 

ringed seals are found throughout the 

Chukchi and Beaufort seas; and in the 

Bering Sea, surveys indicate that ringed 

seals use nearly the entire ice field over 

the Bering Sea shelf. During an 

exceptionally high ice year (1976), 

Braham et al. (1984) found ringed seals 

present in the southeastern Bering Sea 

north of the Pribilof Islands to outer 

Bristol Bay, primarily north of the ice 

front. But they noted that most of these 

seals were likely immature or 

nonbreeding animals. Frost (1985) 

indicated that ringed seals ‘‘occur as far 

south as Nunivak Island and Bristol 

Bay, depending on ice conditions in a 

particular year, but generally are not 

abundant south of Norton Sound except 

in nearshore areas.’’ However, recent 

surveys conducted in the Bering Sea 

during spring have documented ringed 

seals in both nearshore and offshore 

habitat including south of Norton 

Sound, AK (National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory, 2012, unpublished data). 

Crawford et al. (2012) reported that the 

adult ringed seals tagged in Kotzebue 

Sound, AK, remained in the Chukchi 

Sea and the northern Bering Sea north 

of St. Lawrence Island during winter 

and spring. However, movement data 

for ringed seals tagged near Barrow, AK, 

indicated that some adults overwintered farther south toward the shelf 

break in the Bering Sea (North Slope 

Borough, 2012, unpublished data). 

Finally, harvest of ringed seal pups by 

hunters in Quinhagak, Alaska (Coffing 

et al., 1998) suggests that some ringed 

seals may whelp south of Nunivak 

Island. 

Basking Period: Numbers of ringed 

seals hauled out on the surface of the ice 

typically begin to increase during spring 

as the temperatures warm and the snow 

covering the seals’ lairs melts. Although 

the snow cover can melt rapidly, the ice 

remains largely intact and serves as a 

substrate for annual molting, during 

which time seals spend many hours 

basking in the sun (Smith, 1973; Smith 

and Hammill, 1981; Finley, 1979; Kelly 

and Quakenbush, 1990; Kelly et al., 

2010b). Adults generally molt from midMay to mid-July (McLaren, 1958), 

although there is regional variation. 

Kelly and Quakenbush (1990) reported 

that in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, 

most seals begin basking in late May or 

early June. Usually the largest numbers 

of basking seals are observed in June 

(McLaren, 1958; Smith, 1973; Finley, 

1979; Smith et al., 1979; Smith and 

Hammill, 1981; Moulton et al., 2002). 

The relatively long periods of time 

that ringed seals spend out of the water 

during the molt (Smith, 1973; Smith and 

Hammill, 1981; Kelly et al., 2010b) have 

been ascribed to the need to maintain 

elevated skin temperatures during new 

hair growth (Feltz and Fay, 1966; Kelly 

and Quakenbush, 1990). Higher skin 

temperatures are facilitated by basking 

on the ice and this may accelerate 

shedding and regrowth of hair and skin 

(Feltz and Fay, 1966). Feeding is 

reduced and the seal’s metabolism 

declines during the molt (AshwellErickson et al., 1986). As seals complete 

this phase of the annual pelage cycle 

and the seasonal sea ice melts during 

the summer, ringed seals spend 

increasing amounts of time in the water 

feeding (Kelly et al., 2010b). 

Open-Water Foraging Period: Most 

Arctic ringed seals that winter in the 

Bering and Chukchi seas are thought to 

migrate northward in spring with the 

receding ice edge and spend summer in 

the pack ice of the northern Chukchi 

and Beaufort seas (Burns, 1970; Frost, 

1985). Arctic ringed seals are also 

dispersed in ice-free areas of the Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort seas during the 

open-water period. Overall, the record 

from satellite tracking indicates that 

Arctic ringed seals breeding in landfast 

ice practice one of two strategies during 

the open-water foraging period (Freitas 

et al., 2008). Some seals forage within 

100 km of their landfast ice breeding 

habitat, while others make extensive 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71717 

movements of hundreds or thousands of 

kilometers to forage in highly 

productive areas and along the pack ice 

edge. Movements during the open-water 

foraging period by Arctic ringed seals 

that breed in the pack ice are unknown. 

High- quality, abundant food is 

important to the annual energy budgets 

of ringed seals. Ringed seals typically 

lose a significant proportion of their 

blubber mass during the spring to early 

summer and then replenish their 

blubber reserves by increasing feeding 

during late summer, fall, and winter. 

Diet 

Arctic ringed seals eat a wide variety 

of prey spanning several trophic levels; 

however, most prey is small and 

preferred fishes tend to be schooling 

species that form dense aggregations. 

Ringed seals rarely prey upon more than 

10 to 15 species in any specific 

geographical location, and not more 

than 2 to 4 of those species are 

considered important prey. Despite 

regional and seasonal variations in the 

diets of Arctic ringed seals, fishes of the 

cod family tend to dominate their diet 

in many areas from late autumn through 

early spring. Arctic cod (Boreogadus 

saida) is often reported to be among the 

most important prey species, especially 

during the ice-covered periods of the 

year. Crustaceans appear to become 

more important in many areas during 

the open water season, and are often 

found to dominate the diets of young 

ringed seals. 

Critical Habitat Identification 

In the following sections, we describe 

the relevant definitions and 

requirements in the ESA, and our 

implementing regulations, and the key 

information and criteria used to prepare 

this proposed critical habitat 

designation. In accordance with section 

4(b)(2) of the ESA and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

424, this proposed critical habitat 

designation is based on the best 

scientific data available. Our primary 

sources of information are the NMFS 

status review report for the ringed seal 

(Kelly et al., 2010a) and the proposed 

and final rules to list four subspecies of 

the ringed seals, including the Arctic 

ringed seal (75 FR 77476, December 10, 

2010; 77 FR 76706, December 28, 2012). 

Additional information sources include 

articles in peer-reviewed journals, other 

scientific reports, and relevant 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

data (such as shoreline, maritime limits 

and boundaries, and sea ice extent) for 

area calculations and mapping. 

We followed a five-step process to 

identify specific areas that may qualify 

as critical habitat for the Arctic ringed 

seal: (1) Determine the geographical area 

occupied by the species; (2) identify 

physical or biological habitat features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species; (3) delineate specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species on which are found the 

physical or biological features; (4) 

determine whether the features in a 

specific area may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and (5) determine whether 

any unoccupied areas are essential for 

conservation. Our evaluation and 

conclusions are described in detail in 

the following sections. 

Geographical Area Occupied by the 

Species 

The range of the Arctic ringed seal 

was identified in the final ESA listing 

rule (77 FR 76706; December 28, 2012) 

as the Arctic Ocean and adjacent seas, 

except west of 157° E. long. (the 

Kamchatka Peninsula), where the 

Okhotsk subspecies of the ringed seal 

occurs, or in the Baltic Sea where the 

Baltic subspecies of the ringed seal is 

found. As noted above, we cannot 

designate areas outside U.S. jurisdiction 

as critical habitat. Thus, the 

geographical area under consideration 

for this designation is limited to areas 

under the jurisdiction of the United 

States that Arctic ringed seals actually 

occupied at the time of listing. This area 

extends to the outer boundary of the 

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in 

the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, and 

south into the Bering Sea, as far south 

as Bristol Bay in years with extensive 

ice coverage (Kelly et al., 2010a). We 

consider the shoreward extent of this 

area to be the ‘‘coast line’’ of Alaska as 

that term has been defined in the 

Submerged Lands Act (‘‘the line of 

ordinary low water along that portion of 

the coast which is in direct contact with 

the open sea and the line marking the 

seaward limit of inland waters’’), 43 

U.S.C. 1301(c). 

Physical or Biological Features Essential 

to the Conservation of the Species 

Implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b) state that in determining what 

areas are critical habitat, the Secretary 

‘‘shall consider those physical and 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of a given species and 

that may require special management 

considerations or protection.’’ These 

features may include: ‘‘(1) Space for 

individual and population growth, and 

for normal behavior; (2) Food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; (3) Cover or 

shelter; (4) Sites for breeding, 

reproduction, rearing of offspring, 

germination, or seed dispersal; and 

generally: (5) Habitats that are protected 

from disturbance or are representative of 

the historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species.’’ The 

regulations further state the Secretary 

shall ‘‘focus on the principal biological 

or physical constituent elements within 

the defined area that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Known 

primary constituent elements shall be 

listed with the critical habitat 

description. Primary constituent 

elements may include the following: 

Roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning 

sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or 

dryland, water quality or quantity, host 

species or plant pollinator, geological 

formation, vegetation type, tide, and 

specific soil types.’’ For the purposes of 

this proposed rule, the essential features 

identified are the same as primary 

constituent elements. Based on the best 

scientific information available on the 

physical and biological features and 

habitat characteristics required to 

sustain its life history functions, we 

have determined that the following 

features are essential to the conservation 

of the Arctic ringed seal in the United 

States. 

1. Sea ice habitat suitable for the 

formation and maintenance of 

subnivean birth lairs used for sheltering 

pups during whelping and nursing, 

which is defined as seasonal landfast 

(shorefast) ice, or dense, stable pack ice, 

that has undergone deformation and 

contains snowdrifts at least 54 cm deep. 

Sea ice habitat suitable for the 

formation and maintenance of 

subnivean birth lairs used for sheltering 

pups during whelping and nursing is 

essential to conservation of the Arctic 

ringed seal because as discussed above, 

without the protection of lairs, ringed 

seal pups are more vulnerable to 

freezing and predation. 

Snowdrifts of sufficient depth for 

birth lair formation and maintenance 

typically occur in deformed ice where 

drifting has taken place along pressure 

ridges or ice hummocks (Smith and 

Stirling, 1975; Lydersen and Gjertz, 

1986; Kelly, 1988; Furgal et al., 1996; 

Lydersen, 1998). For purposes of 

assessing potential impacts of projected 

changes in April Northern Hemisphere 

snow conditions on ringed seals, Kelly 

et al. (2010a) considered 20 cm to be the 

minimum average snow depth required 

on areas of flat ice to form drifts of 

sufficient depth to support birth lair 

formation. Further, Kelly et al. (2010a, 

p. 109) discussed that ringed seals 

require snow drift depths of 50 to 65 cm 

or more to support birth lair formation. 

To identify a snow drift depth criterion 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71718 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

for sea ice habitat that we consider 

essential for Arctic ringed seal birth lair 

formation and maintenance, we derived 

a specific depth threshold as follows. At 

least seven studies have reported 

minimum snowdrift depth 

measurements at Arctic ringed seal birth 

lairs (typically measured near the center 

of the lairs or over the breathing holes) 

off the coasts of Alaska (Kelly et al., 

1986; Frost and Burns, 1989), the 

Canadian Arctic Archipelago (Smith 

and Stirling, 1975; Kelly, 1988; Furgal et 

al., 1996), Svalbard (Lydersen and 

Gjertz, 1986), and in the White Sea 

(Lukin and Potelov, 1978). The average 

minimum snowdrift depth at birth lairs 

was 54 cm across all of the studies 

combined, and 64 cm in the Alaska 

studies only. The average from studies 

in Alaska is based on data from fewer 

years over a shorter time span than from 

all studies combined (3 years during 

1982–1984 versus 11 years during 1971– 

1993, respectively); consequently, the 

Alaska-specific average is more likely to 

be biased if an anomalous weather 

pattern occurred during its more limited 

timeframe. For this reason, we conclude 

that the average minimum snowdrift 

depth based on all studies combined (54 

cm) provides the best estimate of the 

minimum snowdrift depth that is 

essential for birth lairs. 

Although Arctic ringed seals appear 

to favor landfast ice as whelping habitat, 

ringed seal whelping has also been 

observed on both nearshore and offshore 

drifting pack ice. As Reeves (1998) 

noted, nearly all research on Arctic 

ringed seal reproduction has been 

conducted in landfast ice, and the 

potential importance of stable but 

drifting pack ice has not been 

adequately investigated. Studies in the 

Barents Sea (Wiig et al., 1999) and 

Baffin Bay (Finley et al., 1983) have 

documented pup production in pack 

ice, and Smith and Stirling (1975), 

citing unpublished data from the 

‘‘Western Arctic’’ (presumably the 

Canadian Beaufort Sea), indicated that 

‘‘the offshore areas of shifting but 

relatively stable ice are an important 

part of the breeding habitat.’’ Lentfer 

(1972) reported ‘‘a significant amount of 

ringed seal denning and pupping on 

moving heavy pack ice north of 

Barrow.’’ Arctic ringed seal 

vocalizations detected throughout the 

winter and spring in long-term 

autonomous acoustic recordings 

collected along the shelf break northnorthwest of Barrow also suggest that 

some ringed seals overwinter and breed 

in offshore pack ice (Jones et al., in 

press). We therefore conclude that the 

best scientific information available 

indicates that sea ice habitat essential 

for construction and maintenance of 

birth lairs includes areas of both 

shorefast ice and dense, stable pack ice 

that contain snowdrifts of sufficient 

depths, i.e., 54 cm. 

2. Sea ice habitat suitable as a 

platform for basking and molting, which 

is defined as sea ice of 15 percent or 

more concentration. 

Sea ice habitat suitable as a platform 

for basking and molting is essential to 

conservation of the Arctic ringed seal 

because molting is a biologicallyimportant, energy-intensive process that 

could incur increased energetic costs if 

it were to occur in water, or increased 

risk of predation if it were to occur on 

land. Moreover, we are unaware of any 

studies establishing whether Arctic 

ringed seals can molt successfully in 

water, or reports of healthy Arctic 

ringed seals basking on land (they are 

known to come ashore when sick). If 

Arctic ringed seals were unable to 

successfully complete their annual molt, 

they would be at increased risk from 

parasites and disease. 

During their annual molt, Arctic 

ringed seals transition from lair use to 

basking on the surface of the ice for long 

periods of time near breathing holes, 

lairs, or cracks in the ice. There are 

limited data available on ice 

concentrations (percentage of ocean 

surface covered by sea ice) favored by 

Arctic ringed seals during the basking 

period, in particular for the time period 

following ice breakup. Although a 

number of studies have reported an 

apparent preference for consolidated 

stable ice (i.e., landfast ice and 

consolidated pack ice), at least during 

the initial weeks of the basking period, 

some of these studies have also reported 

observations of Arctic ringed seals 

hauled out at low densities in 

unconsolidated ice (e.g., Stirling et al., 

1982; Kingsley et al., 1985; Lunn et al., 

1997; Chambellant et al., 2012). Arctic 

ringed seals in the Chukchi Sea have 

also been observed basking in high 

densities on the last remnants of the 

seasonal sea ice during late June to early 

July, near the end of the molting period 

(Shawn Dahle, NMFS, personal 

communication, 2013). Crawford et al. 

(2012) reported that the average ice 

concentrations (± standard error [SE]; 

standard error is a measure of variability 

in the data) used by ringed seals in the 

Chukchi and Bering seas during the 

basking period in June was 20 percent 

(SE = 7.8 percent) for subadults and 38 

percent (SE = 21.4 percent) for adults. 

Based on the best available information, 

we conclude that sea ice essential for 

basking and molting is sea ice of at least 

15 percent concentration. 

3. Primary prey resources to support 

Arctic ringed seals, which are defined to 

be Arctic cod, saffron cod, shrimps, and 

amphipods. 

Primary prey resources are essential 

to conserving the Arctic ringed seal, 

because Arctic ringed seals likely rely 

on these prey resources the most to meet 

their annual energy budgets. Arctic 

ringed seals feed on a wide variety of 

vertebrate and invertebrate prey species, 

but certain prey species appear to 

occupy a prominent role in their diets 

in waters along the Alaskan coast. 

Quakenbush et al. (2011, Table 3) 

reported that prey items found in at 

least 25 percent of ringed seal stomachs 

collected within the 1961 to 1984 and 

1998 to 2009 time periods in the Bering 

and Chukchi seas included Arctic cod, 

saffron cod (Eleginus gracilis), shrimps 

(from the families Hippolytidae, 

Pandalidae, and Crangonidae), and 

amphipods (primarily from the families 

Gammaridae and Hyperiidae). In the 

Barrow vicinity, Dehn et al. (2007, Table 

2) reported that prey items found in at 

least 25 percent of the stomachs of 

ringed seals collected between 1996 and 

2001 included euphausiids 

(Thysanoessa spp.), cods (primarily 

Arctic and saffron cod), mysids (Mysis 

and Neomysis spp.), amphipods, and 

Pandalid shrimps. Finally, Lowry et al. 

(1980) found that prey items that were 

consumed in the greatest quantities (i.e., 

≥25 percent of the total food volume in 

any of the five seasonal samples) by 

ringed seals in the Bering and Chukchi 

seas included Arctic cod, saffron cod, 

shrimp, and amphipods (Chukchi Sea 

only), and in the central Beaufort Sea 

included Arctic cod as well as 

Gammarid and Hyperiid amphipods. 

Arctic cod, saffron cod, shrimps, and 

amphipods were identified as 

prominent prey species for the studies 

conducted in both the Bering Sea and 

the Chukchi Sea. As noted above, Arctic 

cod and amphipods were also identified 

as the most important prey species by 

volume for ringed seals sampled in the 

Beaufort Sea. Therefore, based on these 

studies, we conclude that Arctic cod, 

saffron cod, shrimps, and amphipods 

are the primary prey resources of Arctic 

ringed seals in U.S. waters. As 

discussed above, Arctic ringed seals 

feed on a variety of prey items and 

regional and seasonal differences in diet 

have been reported; therefore, we 

conclude that areas in which the 

primary prey essential feature occurs 

will contain one or more of these 

particular prey resources. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71719 

Specific Areas Containing Physical or 

Biological Features Essential to the 

Species 

After determining the geographical 

area occupied by the Arctic ringed seal 

at the time of listing, and identifying the 

physical and biological features 

essential to its conservation, we then 

considered which specific area(s) may 

be eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. For a specific area to be eligible 

for designation, it must contain at least 

one physical or biological feature 

essential to the conservation of the 

species that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. When several habitats, each 

satisfying the requirements for 

designation as critical habitat, are 

located in proximity to one another, a 

single inclusive area may be designated 

as critical habitat (50 CFR 424.12(d)). 

In identifying these specific areas, we 

first focused on those physical or 

biological features that support the 

critical Arctic ringed seal life history 

functions of whelping and nursing, 

when birth lairs are constructed and 

maintained, and molting (i.e., specific 

areas that contain the sea ice essential 

features). As discussed above, Arctic 

ringed seals are highly associated with 

sea ice, and are thought to migrate 

seasonally to maintain access to the ice. 

Arctic ringed seal whelping, nursing, 

and molting occur in the Bering, 

Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. To 

delineate specific areas that contain one 

or both of the sea ice essential features 

we considered where the sea ice 

essential features occur in all three seas. 

The dynamic nature of sea ice and the 

spatial and temporal variations in sea 

ice cover and on-ice snow cover 

constrain our ability to map with 

precision the specific geographic 

locations where the ice-associated 

essential features occur. The specific 

geographic locations of where essential 

sea ice habitat occurs vary from year to 

year, or even day to day, depending on 

many factors, including time of year, 

local weather, and oceanographic 

conditions. In addition, the duration 

that any given location has sea ice 

habitat essential for birth lairs or for 

molting can vary annually depending on 

the rate of ice melt and other factors. 

Temporal overlap of Arctic ringed seal 

molting with whelping and nursing, 

combined with the dynamic nature of 

sea ice, also makes it impracticable to 

separately identify specific areas where 

each of these essential sea ice features 

occur. Since the ESA requires the 

designation of critical habitat where one 

or more such features occur, the 

inability to separately identify areas 

where each essential ice feature occurs 

is inconsequential. Arctic ringed seals 

can range widely, which, combined 

with the dynamic variations in sea ice 

and snow cover, results in individuals 

distributing broadly and utilizing 

different sea ice habitat within a range 

of suitable conditions. We integrated 

these physical and biological factors 

into our identification of specific areas 

based on the seasonal distribution and 

movements of Arctic ringed seals and 

satellite-derived estimates of the 

position of the ice edge over time. 

Although this approach allowed us to 

identify specific areas that contain one 

or both of the essential sea ice features, 

the available data supported delineation 

of specific areas only at a coarse scale. 

Consequently, we delineated a single 

specific area that contains the sea ice 

features essential to the conservation of 

Arctic ringed seals, as described below. 

We first identified the southern 

boundary of the specific area essential 

to conservation of the Arctic ringed seal. 

The information discussed above 

regarding the distribution of Arctic 

ringed seals in the Bering Sea (see 

Seasonal Distribution and Habitat Use) 

suggests that sea ice essential for Arctic 

ringed seal birth lairs (and potentially 

for molting) extends to some point south 

of St. Matthew Island and Nunivak 

Island. A precise southern boundary for 

this habitat is unavailable because 

existing information is limited on the 

spatial distribution of Arctic ringed 

seals in the Bering Sea during spring 

and where they may whelp. In addition, 

although minimum on-ice snowdrift 

depths are essential for ringed seal birth 

lairs, we are not aware of any available 

data on this particular component of sea 

ice cover in the Bering Sea that could 

assist in identifying the southern 

boundary of essential Arctic ringed seal 

birth lair habitat. We therefore turned to 

Sea Ice Index data maintained by the 

National Snow and Ice Data Center 

(NSIDC) for information on the 

estimated median position of the sea ice 

edge in the Bering Sea during April 

(Fetterer et al., 2002, updated 2009; 

accessed December 2012), which is the 

peak month for Arctic ringed seal 

whelping activity (peak molting for 

adults occurs later in the spring). This 

estimated median ice edge is derived 

from a time series of satellite records for 

the 1979 to 2000 reference period. We 

note that the NSIDC has lengthened this 

reference period to include more recent 

data through 2010. However, several of 

those more recent years had aboveaverage ice extent in the Bering Sea; and 

use of these data would have resulted in 

the inclusion of areas that are unlikely 

to contain the essential sea ice features 

on a consistent basis in more than a few 

scattered portions of those areas. 

The April median ice edge position is 

located approximately 135 km (73 nmi) 

southwest of St. Matthew Island and 

110 km (59 nmi) south of Nunivak 

Island, which is relatively consistent 

with the information discussed above 

regarding the spring distribution of 

Arctic ringed seals in the Bering Sea. 

We therefore conclude that this estimate 

of the position of the April median ice 

edge provides a reasonable estimate of 

the southern extent of where the sea ice 

essential features occur. To simplify this 

southern boundary for purposes of 

delineation on maps, we modified this 

median ice edge contour as follows: (1) 

Line vertices between the intersection 

point of the median ice extent at the 

outer extent of the U.S. EEZ at 60°31′ N. 

lat., 179°13′ W. long., and the point at 

58°22′ N. lat., 170°27′ W. long., were 

removed to form the segment of the 

southern boundary that extends from 

the outer extent of the U.S. EEZ 

southeast approximately 553 km; (2) 

line vertices between 58°22′ N. lat., 

170°27′ W. long., and 59° N. lat., 164° 

W. long., were removed to form a 

second segment of the southern 

boundary that extends east 

approximately 370 km; and (3) finally, 

these two contour line segments were 

connected to the mainland coast 

southeast of Cape Avinof by 164° W. 

long. This editing produced a simplified 

southern boundary that retains the 

general shape of the original contour 

line, while including 99 percent of the 

area encompassed by the more detailed 

original line. 

We note that some Arctic ringed seals 

may whelp south/southeast of the 

southern boundary described above, as 

evidenced by harvest records of ringed 

seal pups (Coffing et al., 1998). 

However, variability in the annual 

extent and timing of sea ice in this 

southernmost portion of the Arctic 

ringed seal’s range in U.S. waters 

renders the area south of the boundary 

described above unlikely to contain the 

essential sea ice features on a consistent 

basis in more than a few scattered areas. 

We then identified the northern 

boundary of the specific area essential 

to conservation of the Arctic ringed seal. 

As discussed above, the available data 

suggest that although Arctic ringed seals 

appear to favor landfast ice, they are 

widely distributed offshore in the 

northern Chukchi Sea and Beaufort seas 

and Arctic Ocean. Molting ringed seals 

use suitable sea ice as a haul-out 

platform, and many seals are thought to 

migrate north with the receding ice. As 

discussed above, the specific geographic 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71720 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

locations where the sea ice essential 

features occur vary within and between 

years. Given the inherent variability in 

the spatial distribution of sea ice and 

the widespread distribution of Arctic 

ringed seals, including in offshore pack 

ice, we defined the northern and eastern 

boundaries of the one specific area 

identified as the outer extent of the U.S. 

EEZ. We note that Canada contests the 

limits of the U.S. EEZ in the eastern 

Beaufort Sea, asserting that the line 

delimiting the two countries’ EEZs 

should follow the 141st meridian out to 

a distance of 200 nmi (as opposed to an 

equidistant line that extends seaward 

perpendicular to the coast at the U.S.- 

Canada land border). Because Arctic 

ringed seals are broadly distributed in 

suitable habitat, we identified the 

shoreward extent of this specific area as 

the coast line of Alaska as defined above 

(see Geographical Area Occupied by the 

Species). 

The primary prey resources essential 

feature also occurs within the specific 

area identified above (e.g., North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 2009; 

NMFS, 2013), as evidenced by the 

presence of the primary prey species in 

the stomach contents of Arctic ringed 

seals sampled in the Bering, Chukchi, 

and Beaufort seas off Alaska (see 

Physical or Biological Features Essential 

to Conservation of the Species). This is 

of particular note with respect to the 

northern boundary of this specific area. 

Following molting, some Arctic ringed 

seals may remain in nearshore waters 

along the coast to feed, while others 

travel extensively and feed farther 

offshore (Frost, 1985; Gjertz et al., 2000; 

Freitas et al., 2008; Kelly et al., 2010b). 

Harwood et al. (2012) reported that in 

late summer, several tagged ringed seals 

that migrated from the Canadian 

Beaufort Sea to the Beaufort and 

Chukchi seas off Alaska tended to 

remain over the continental shelf, 

almost always remaining within 100 km 

of shore. However, recent telemetry data 

documenting Arctic ringed seal 

movements during the open-water 

season showed several seals made 

multiple trips between continental shelf 

waters and the southern pack ice edge 

(Herreman et al., 2012), which was well 

into the Arctic Basin and beyond the 

outer extent of the U.S. EEZ in some 

cases. Dive recorders indicated that 

foraging-type movements occurred over 

both the continental shelf and deep 

waters of the Arctic Basin, suggesting 

that both areas may be important during 

the open-water foraging period. Thus, 

the northern boundary of the specific 

area identified above accounts not only 

for habitat containing one or both of the 

sea ice features essential to 

conservation, but very likely also 

includes the distributions of the primary 

prey resources used by foraging Arctic 

ringed seals in U.S. waters. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

An occupied area may be designated 

as critical habitat only if it contains 

physical or biological features that ‘‘may 

require special management 

considerations or protection’’ (50 CFR 

424.12(b)). It is important to note that 

the phrase ‘‘may require special 

management considerations or 

protection’’ refers to the physical or 

biological features, rather than the area 

proposed as critical habitat. We 

interpret this to mean that a feature may 

presently or in the future require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Joint NMFS and USFWS 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02(j) define 

‘‘special management considerations or 

protection’’ to mean ‘‘any methods or 

procedures useful in protecting physical 

and biological features of the 

environment for the conservation of 

listed species.’’ 

The status review report (Kelly et al., 

2010a) and the proposed and final rules 

listing the subspecies as threatened (75 

FR 77476, December 10, 2010; 77 FR 

76706, December 28, 2012) 

comprehensively review the threats 

affecting the Arctic ringed seal. Based 

upon that review, we identified several 

categories of human activities and 

associated threats that may affect each 

of the features identified as essential to 

conservation of Arctic ringed seals. 

These activities include: Greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions; oil and gas 

exploration, development, and 

production; shipping and 

transportation; and commercial fishing. 

Below, we evaluate whether each 

essential feature may require special 

management considerations or 

protection due to the potential effects of 

these activities on the essential features. 

We note that our evaluation does not 

consider an exhaustive list of potential 

effects on the essential features, but 

rather considers the primary potential 

effects that we are aware of at this time. 

GHG Emissions: The principal threat 

to the persistence of the Arctic ringed 

seal is the ongoing and anticipated loss 

of sea ice and on-ice snow cover 

stemming from climate change. Climate 

change related threats to the Arctic 

ringed seal’s habitat are discussed in 

detail in the ringed seal status review 

report (Kelly et al., 2010a), as well as in 

the proposed and final rules listing the 

Arctic ringed seal as threatened. 

Activities that release carbon dioxide 

and other heat-trapping GHGs into the 

atmosphere, most notably those that 

involve fossil fuel combustion, are a 

major contributing factor to climate 

change and loss of sea ice (IPCC, 2013). 

Such activities may adversely affect the 

essential features of Arctic ringed seal 

habitat by diminishing sea ice suitable 

for birth lairs and molting, and by 

causing changes in the distribution and/ 

or species composition of prey 

resources. The best scientific data 

currently available do not allow us to 

identify a causal linkage between any 

particular single source of GHG 

emissions and identifiable effects on the 

physical and biological features 

essential to Arctic ringed seals. 

Regardless, given that the quality and 

quantity of these essential habitat 

features, in particular sea ice, may be 

diminished by the effects of climate 

change, we conclude that special 

management considerations or 

protection may be necessary, either now 

or in the future, even if the exact focus 

and nature of that management is 

presently undeterminable. 

Oil and Gas Activity: Extensive oil 

and gas reserves, coupled with rising 

global demand, make it very likely that 

oil and gas activity will increase 

throughout the Arctic in the future. Oil 

and gas exploration, development, and 

production activities in the U.S. Arctic 

may include: Seismic surveys; 

exploratory, delineation, and 

production drilling operations; 

construction of artificial islands, 

causeways, ice roads, shore-based 

facilities, and pipelines; and vessel and 

aircraft operations. These activities have 

the potential to affect Arctic ringed seals 

and their habitat, primarily through 

noise, physical disturbance, and 

pollution, particularly in the event of an 

oil spill, and especially a large oil spill. 

The Arctic ringed seal’s range 

overlaps with, and is adjacent to, a 

number of active and planned oil and 

gas operations. To date, most oil and gas 

activities conducted off the Alaska coast 

have occurred in the Beaufort Sea, 

primarily near Prudhoe Bay. No oil 

fields have been developed or brought 

into production in the Chukchi Sea; 

however, the one recent lease sale in the 

Chukchi Sea (Lease Sale 193) and 

exploration drilling programs moving 

forward in this region signal growing 

interest in oil and gas development 

there. 

Large oil spills are generally 

considered to be the greatest threat of oil 

and gas activities in the Arctic marine 

environment (Arctic Monitoring and 

Assessment Program (AMAP), 2007). In 

contrast to spills on land, large spills at 

sea are difficult to contain and may 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71721 

spread over hundreds or thousands of 

kilometers. Responding to a sizeable 

spill in the Arctic environment would 

be particularly challenging. Reaching a 

spill site and responding effectively 

would be especially difficult, if not 

impossible, in winter when weather can 

be severe and daylight extremely 

limited. Oil spills under ice or in icecovered waters are the most challenging 

to deal with, due to, among other 

factors, limitations on the effectiveness 

of current containment and recovery 

technologies when sea ice is present. 

The difficulties experienced in stopping 

and containing the 2010 oil blowout at 

the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf 

of Mexico, where environmental 

conditions, available infrastructure, and 

response preparedness are 

comparatively good, point toward even 

greater challenges in attempting a 

similar feat in a much more 

environmentally severe and 

geographically remote location. 

Although planning, management, and 

use of best practices can help reduce 

risks and impacts, the history of oil and 

gas activities indicates that accidents 

cannot be eliminated (AMAP, 2007). 

Data on large spills (e.g., operational 

discharges, spills from pipelines, 

blowouts) in Arctic waters are limited 

because oil exploration and production 

there has been limited. The Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM, 

2011) estimated the chance of one or 

more oil spills greater than or equal to 

1,000 barrels occurring if development 

were to take place in the Beaufort Sea 

or Chukchi Sea Planning Areas as 26 

percent for the Beaufort Sea over the 

estimated 20 years of production and 

development, and 40 percent for the 

Chukchi Sea over the estimated 25 years 

of production and development. 

The introduction of sounds and 

physical disturbance associated with oil 

and gas exploration and development 

could also affect Arctic ringed seals and 

their habitat. Such activities may 

include physical presence of vessels, 

icebreaking activity, aircraft activity, 

seismic surveys, site clearance and 

shallow hazards surveys, and drilling 

and production activities. Icebreaking 

vessels, which may be used for in-ice 

seismic surveys or to manage ice near 

exploratory drilling ships, have the 

potential to affect Arctic ringed seals 

and their habitat through both acoustic 

effects and physical alteration of the sea 

ice (Richardson et al., 1995). Seismic 

surveys are a particularly intense source 

of noise, and thus warrant specific 

consideration. Arctic ringed seals, like 

other phocids or ‘‘true’’ seals, have good 

low-frequency hearing, and so it is 

expected that they will be susceptible to 

masking of biologically significant 

signals by low frequency sounds, such 

as those from seismic surveys (Gordon 

et al., 2003). Reported seal responses to 

seismic surveys have been variable and 

often contradictory, although they 

suggest that pinnipeds frequently do not 

avoid the area within a few hundred 

meters of operating airgun arrays 

(Brueggeman et al., 1991; Harris et al.; 

2001, Miller and Davis, 2002). 

Construction, drilling, and development 

activities on a manmade artificial island 

were reported to have had at most 

minor, short-term, and localized effects 

on ringed seals (Blackwell et al., 2004; 

Richardson and Williams, 2004; 

Moulton et al., 2005); and during a 

single season of a near shore exploratory 

drilling operation, Harwood et al. (2007) 

found no detectable effects on ringed 

seals. 

In summary, a major oil spill could 

render areas containing the identified 

essential features unsuitable for use by 

Arctic ringed seals. In such an event, sea 

ice habitat suitable for whelping, 

nursing, or molting could be oiled. The 

primary Arctic ringed seal prey species 

could also become contaminated, 

experience mortality, or be otherwise 

adversely affected by spilled oil. In 

addition, disturbance effects (both 

physical disturbance and acoustic 

effects) could alter the quality of the 

essential features of Artic ringed seal 

critical habitat, or render habitat 

unsuitable. We conclude that the 

essential features of the habitat of the 

Arctic ringed seal may require special 

management considerations or 

protection in the future to minimize the 

risks posed to these features by oil and 

gas exploration, development, and 

production. 

Shipping and Transportation: The 

reduction in Arctic sea ice that has 

occurred in recent years has renewed 

interest in using the Arctic Ocean as a 

potential waterway for coastal, regional, 

and trans-Arctic marine operations 

(Brigham and Ellis, 2004). Climate 

models predict that the warming trend 

in the Arctic will accelerate, causing the 

ice to begin melting earlier in the spring 

and resume freezing later in the fall, 

resulting in an expansion of potential 

shipping routes and a lengthening of the 

potential navigation season (Arctic 

Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), 

2004; Khon et al., 2010). At present, the 

two main navigation routes crossing the 

Arctic are the Northwest Passage (NWP) 

and the Northern Sea Route (NSR). 

Based on an analysis of sea ice model 

projections, Smith and Stephenson 

(2013) concluded that, by mid-century, 

changing sea ice conditions will enable 

expanded September navigability for 

common open-water ships along these 

two navigation routes. By 2100, the 

navigation season for the NSR is 

projected to increase from the current 

period of 20 to 30 days per year to 90 

to 100 days per year (ACIA, 2004). 

The fact that nearly all shipping 

activity in the Arctic (with the 

exception of icebreaking) purposefully 

avoids areas of ice, and primarily occurs 

during the ice-free or low-ice seasons, 

helps to mitigate the risks of shipping to 

Arctic ringed seal habitat. However, as 

noted above, icebreakers pose greater 

risks to ringed seals and their habitat 

since they are capable of operating yearround in all but the heaviest ice 

conditions and are often used to escort 

other types of vessels (e.g., tankers and 

bulk carriers) through ice-covered areas. 

Furthermore, new classes of ships are 

being designed that serve the dual roles 

of both tanker/carrier and icebreaker 

(Arctic Council, 2009). Therefore, if 

icebreaking activities increase in the 

Arctic in the future, as expected, the 

likelihood of negative impacts (e.g., oil 

spills, pollution, noise, disturbance, and 

habitat alteration) occurring in icecovered areas where Arctic ringed seals 

reside will likely also increase. 

Increases in international shipping are 

producing ever-greater levels of 

underwater noise capable of long-range 

transmission (Southall, 2005; Go ̈tz et al., 

2009). All vessels produce sound during 

operation, which when propagated at 

certain frequencies and intensities can 

alter the normal behavior of marine 

mammals, mask their underwater 

communications and other uses of 

sound, cause them to avoid noisy areas, 

and, in extreme cases, damage their 

auditory systems and cause death 

(Marine Mammal Commission, 2007; 

Arctic Council, 2009; Go ̈tz et al., 2009). 

In addition to the potential 

introduction of sound from increased 

vessel traffic and the physical presence 

and movements of these vessels, the 

maritime shipping industry transports 

various types of petroleum products, 

both as fuel and cargo, within the 

proposed critical habitat. If increased 

shipping involves the tanker transport 

of crude oil or oil products, there would 

be an increased risk of spills (ACIA, 

2005; U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 

2012). Similar to oil and gas activities, 

the most significant threat posed by 

shipping activities is considered the 

accidental or illegal discharge of oil or 

other toxic substance carried by ships 

(Arctic Council, 2009). 

We conclude that the essential 

features of the habitat of the Arctic 

ringed seal may require special 

management considerations or 

protection in the future to minimize the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71722 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

risks posed to these features by potential 

shipping and transportation activities, 

because: (1) Both the physical 

disturbance and noise associated with 

these activities could displace seals 

from favored habitat that contains the 

essential features, thus altering the 

quantity and/or quality of these features; 

and (2) in the event of an oil spill, sea 

ice essential for birth lairs and for 

molting could become oiled, and the 

quantity and/or quality of the primary 

prey resources could be adversely 

affected. 

Commercial Fisheries: The proposed 

critical habitat area overlaps with waters 

of the Federal Arctic Management Area 

and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area. No commercial 

fishing is permitted within the Arctic 

Management Area due to insufficient 

data to support the sustainable 

management of a commercial fishery 

there. However, as additional 

information becomes available, 

commercial fishing may be allowed in 

this management area. Two of the 

primary Arctic ringed seal prey species 

identified as essential to conservation— 

Arctic cod and saffron cod—have been 

identified as likely initial target species 

for commercial fishing in Federal Arctic 

waters in the future (North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 2009). 

In the northern portion of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands Management 

Area, limited commercial fisheries 

overlap with the southernmost portion 

of the proposed critical habitat. Portions 

of the proposed critical habitat also 

overlap with certain state commercial 

fisheries management areas. 

Commercial catches from waters in the 

proposed critical habitat area primarily 

include: Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus 

stenolepis), several other flatfish 

species, Pacific cod (Gadus 

macrocephalus), several crab species, 

walleye pollock (Theragra 

chalcogramma), and several salmon 

species. 

Commercial fisheries may affect the 

primary prey resources identified as 

essential to the conservation of the 

Arctic ringed seal, through removal of 

prey biomass and potentially through 

modification of benthic habitat by 

bottom-trawl gear. Given the potential 

changes in commercial fishing that may 

occur with the expected increasing 

length of the open-water season and 

range expansion of some economically 

valuable species responding to climate 

change, we conclude that the primary 

prey resources essential feature may 

require special management 

considerations or protection in the 

future to address potential adverse 

effects of commercial fishing on this 

feature. 

Unoccupied Areas 

Section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the ESA further 

defines critical habitat to include 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species if the 

Secretary determines them to be 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(e) emphasize that the Secretary 

‘‘shall designate as critical habitat areas 

outside the geographical area presently 

occupied by a species only when a 

designation limited to its present range 

would be inadequate to ensure the 

conservation of the species.’’ We have 

not identified any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

Arctic ringed seal that are essential for 

its conservation; consequently, we are 

not proposing to designate any specific 

areas outside its current range. 

Application of ESA Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

ESA section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) states: ‘‘The 

Secretary shall not designate as critical 

habitat any lands or other geographical 

areas owned or controlled by the 

Department of Defense, or designated 

for its use, that are subject to an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan prepared under 

section 670a of this title [section 101 of 

the Sikes Act], if the Secretary 

determines in writing that such plan 

provides a benefit to the species for 

which critical habitat is proposed for 

designation.’’ We contacted the 

Department of Defense (DOD) and 

requested information on any facilities 

or managed areas that are subject to an 

Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan (INRMP) and are 

located within areas that could 

potentially be proposed as critical 

habitat for the Arctic ringed seal. In 

response, DOD provided a map of 

facilities subject to an INRMP. No DOD 

lands overlap with the area proposed as 

critical habitat. Therefore, we conclude 

that there are no properties owned, 

controlled, or designated for use by 

DOD that are subject to ESA section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) for this proposed critical 

habitat. 

Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2) 

Before including areas in a critical 

habitat designation, section 4(b)(2) of 

the ESA and our implementing 

regulations require the Secretary to take 

into consideration the economic, 

national security, and other relevant 

impacts of the designation. Impacts may 

be quantitatively or qualitatively 

described, and considered at a scale that 

the Secretary determines to be 

appropriate (50 CFR 424.19(b)). 

Additionally, the Secretary has 

discretion to exclude any particular area 

from the critical habitat upon a 

determination that the benefits of such 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

designation. The Secretary, however, 

cannot exclude any particular area if, 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, the Secretary 

determines that the failure to designate 

that area as critical habitat will result in 

the extinction of the species concerned. 

Because the authority to exclude any 

area from the critical habitat designation 

is discretionary, exclusion is not 

required for any particular area. For the 

reasons set forth below, we do not 

propose to exercise our discretion to 

exclude any areas from the proposed 

critical habitat designation. 

The primary impacts of a critical 

habitat designation arise from the ESA 

section 7(a)(2) requirement that Federal 

agencies ensure their actions are not 

likely to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

(i.e., adverse modification standard). 

Determining these impacts is 

complicated by the fact that section 

7(a)(2) contains the overlapping 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the species’ continued 

existence (i.e., the jeopardy standard). 

One incremental impact of critical 

habitat designation is the extent to 

which Federal agencies modify their 

proposed actions to ensure they are not 

likely to adversely modify the critical 

habitat, beyond any modifications they 

would make because of listing and the 

jeopardy standard. Additional impacts 

of critical habitat designation include 

any state and/or local protection that 

may be triggered as a direct result of 

designation (we did not identify any 

such impacts), and benefits that may 

arise from education of the public to the 

importance of an area for species 

conservation. 

A draft economic report, prepared by 

an environmental consulting firm (in 

cooperation with NMFS) with expertise 

in natural resource economics, describes 

the impact analyses for this proposed 

rule in detail (Cardno Entrix, 2014). In 

determining the impacts of designation, 

we focused on the incremental change 

in Federal agency actions as a result of 

critical habitat designation and the 

adverse modification standard (see 

Arizona Cattle Growers v. Salazar, 606 

F. 3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2010)) (holding that 

the FWS permissibly attributed the 

economic impacts of protecting the 

northern spotted owl as part of the 

baseline and was not required to factor 

those impacts into the economic 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71723 

analysis of the effects of the critical 

habitat designation). We analyzed the 

impacts of this proposed designation 

based on a comparison of conditions 

with and without the designation of 

critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal. 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario 

represents the baseline for the analysis. 

It includes process requirements and 

habitat protections already extended to 

the Arctic ringed seal under its ESA 

listing and under other Federal, state, 

and local regulations. The ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ scenario describes the 

incremental impacts associated 

specifically with the designation of 

critical habitat for the Arctic ringed seal. 

This analysis assesses the incremental 

costs and benefits that may arise due to 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation, with economic costs 

estimated within a 10-year postdesignation timeframe. The 10-year 

timeframe was chosen because it is 

lengthy enough to reflect the planning 

horizon for reasonably predicting future 

human activities, yet it is short enough 

to allow reasonable projections of 

changes in use patterns in an area, as 

well as of exogenous factors (e.g., world 

supply and demand for petroleum, U.S. 

inflation rate trends) that may be 

influential. We recognize that economic 

costs of the designation are likely to 

extend beyond the 10-year timeframe of 

the analysis, though we have no 

information indicating that such costs in 

subsequent years would be different 

from those projected for the first 10-year 

period. Although not quantified or 

analyzed in detail due to the high level 

of uncertainty regarding longer-term 

effects, the draft economic report 

includes a discussion of the potential 

types of costs and benefits that may 

accrue beyond the 10-year time window 

of the analysis. 

Benefits of Designation 

As noted above, the protection 

afforded under the ESA section 7 

requirement for Federal agencies to 

ensure their actions are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify designated 

critical habitat is in addition to ESA 

requirements to protect listed species. 

Specifically, ESA section 7(a)(1) 

requires all Federal agencies to use their 

authorities in furtherance of the 

purposes of the ESA by carrying out 

programs for the conservation of 

endangered and threatened species, and 

section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies 

to ensure their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed species. Another benefit of critical 

habitat designation is that it provides 

specific notice of the features essential 

to the conservation of the Arctic ringed 

seal and where they occur. This 

information will focus future 

consultations on the key habitat 

attributes and avoid unnecessary 

attention on other, non-essential habitat 

features. By identifying the specific 

areas where the features essential to 

conservation of the Arctic ringed seal 

occur, there may also be enhanced 

awareness by Federal agencies and the 

general public of activities that might 

affect those essential features. Moreover, 

identification of features essential to the 

conservation of the species may 

improve discussions with action 

agencies regarding relevant habitat 

considerations of proposed projects. 

In addition, the critical habitat 

designation may result in indirect 

benefits, as discussed in detail in the 

draft economic report (Cardno Entrix, 

2014), including education benefits and 

enhanced public awareness, which may 

help focus and contribute to 

conservation efforts for the Arctic ringed 

seal and its habitat. For example, by 

identifying features essential to 

conservation of the Arctic ringed seal 

and where those features are found, 

complementary protections may be 

developed under state or local 

regulations or voluntary conservation 

plans. These other forms of benefits may 

be economic in nature (whether market 

or non-market, consumptive, nonconsumptive, or passive), educational, 

cultural, or sociological, or they may be 

expressed through beneficial changes in 

the ecological functioning of the 

species’ habitat, which itself yields 

ancillary welfare benefits (e.g., 

improved quality of life) to the region’s 

human population. For example, 

because the critical habitat designation 

is expected to result in enhanced 

conservation of the Arctic ringed seal 

over time, residents of the region who 

value these seals, such as subsistence 

users, are expected to experience 

indirect benefits. As another example, 

the geographic area of the proposed 

critical habitat overlaps substantially 

with the range of the polar bear in the 

United States, and the Arctic ringed seal 

is the primary prey species of the polar 

bear, so the designation may also 

provide indirect conservation benefits to 

the polar bear. Indirect conservation 

benefits may also extend to other cooccurring species, such as the Pacific 

walrus and other seal species. 

It is not presently feasible to 

monetize, or even quantify, each 

component part of the benefits accruing 

from the designation of critical habitat 

for the Arctic ringed seal. Therefore, we 

augmented the quantitative 

measurements that are summarized here 

and discussed in detail in the economic 

report with qualitative and descriptive 

assessments, as provided for under 50 

CFR 424.19(b) and in guidance from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) (OMB Circular A–4, September 

17, 2003). Although we cannot monetize 

or quantify all of the incremental 

benefits of the proposed critical habitat 

designation, we believe that they are not 

inconsequential. 

Economic Impacts of Designation 

Direct economic costs of the critical 

habitat designation accrue primarily 

through implementation of section 7 of 

the ESA in consultations with Federal 

agencies to ensure their proposed 

actions are not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. Those 

economic impacts may include both 

administrative costs and project 

modifications. At this time, on the basis 

of how protections are currently being 

implemented for Arctic ringed seals 

under the MMPA and as a threatened 

species under the ESA, we do not 

anticipate that additional requests for 

project modifications will result 

specifically from a designation of 

critical habitat. As a result, the direct 

incremental costs of the proposed 

critical habitat designation are expected 

to be limited to the additional 

administrative costs of considering 

Arctic ringed seal critical habitat in 

future ESA section 7 consultations. 

Because the Arctic ringed seal is 

newly listed and we lack a lengthy 

consultation history for this species, we 

needed to make assumptions about the 

types of future Federal activities that 

might require section 7 consultations 

under the ESA. To identify the types of 

Federal activities that may affect critical 

habitat for the Arctic ringed seal, and 

therefore would be subject to the ESA 

section 7 adverse modification standard, 

we examined recent incidental take 

authorizations issued by NMFS under 

the MMPA and the limited number of 

ESA section 7 consultations that have 

addressed Arctic ringed seals. To derive 

estimates of the maximum number of 

future oil and gas related consultations, 

we extrapolated from the maximum 

exploration activity level described in 

the supplemental draft environmental 

impact statement on the effects of oil 

and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean 

(NMFS, 2013). We request Federal 

agencies to provide us with information 

on future consultations, if our 

assumptions omitted any future actions 

likely to affect the proposed critical 

habitat. 

We identified several categories of 

activities with a Federal nexus that may 

affect critical habitat for the Arctic 

ringed seal within the time frame of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71724 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

analysis (10 years post-designation) and, 

therefore, would be subject to the ESA 

section 7 adverse modification standard. 

These include oil and gas related 

activities, dredge mining, navigation 

dredging, commercial fishing, oil spill 

prevention and response, and certain 

military activities. All of the projected 

future Federal actions that may trigger 

consultation due to the potential to 

affect critical habitat also have the 

potential to affect individual ringed 

seals. In other words, none of the 

activities we identified would trigger 

consultation solely on the basis of the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

Federal action agencies with 

jurisdiction over projected future 

actions that may affect the proposed 

critical habitat area include the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, BOEM, 

Bureau of Land Management, DOD, 

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. 

Coast Guard, and NMFS. We would 

expect the majority of projected 

consultations due to potential effects on 

critical habitat to involve NMFS and 

BOEM authorizations and permitting of 

oil and gas related activities. 

As detailed in the draft economic 

report (Cardno Entrix, 2014), the total 

incremental costs associated with this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

within the 10-year post-designation 

timeframe, in discounted present value 

terms, were estimated at $1.33 million 

(discounted at 7 percent) to $1.86 

million (discounted at 3 percent). 

Ninety-five percent of the incremental 

costs attributed to the critical habitat 

designation are expected to accrue from 

consultations associated with oil and 

gas related activities in the Chukchi and 

Beaufort seas. We note that absent 

historical experience on consultation 

frequency involving the proposed 

critical habitat, in deriving these cost 

estimates, we assumed that a maximum 

projected level of oil and gas activity 

will occur annually (10 formal 

consultations each and every year; and 

several other formal and informal 

consultations over the 10-year postdesignation timeframe). However, it is 

unlikely that this peak level of activity 

would occur every year. Indeed, in 

2011, 2012, and 2013, there were one, 

five, and three formal consultations, 

respectively, completed relating to oil 

and gas activities in the Beaufort and 

Chukchi seas. While not quantifiable at 

this time, the draft economic report 

(Cardno Entrix, 2014) discusses that the 

oil and gas industry may also incur 

indirect costs associated with the 

critical habitat designation if future 

third-party litigation over specific 

consultations is successful and creates 

delays or other sources of regulatory 

uncertainty. 

In summary, we have preliminarily 

concluded, subject to further 

consideration based on public comment, 

that the potential economic impacts of 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

would be modest both in absolute terms 

and relative to the level of economic 

activity expected to occur in the affected 

area in the foreseeable future. As a 

result, and in light of the benefits of 

critical habitat designation discussed 

above and in the draft economic report, 

we are not proposing to exclude any 

areas pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the 

ESA based on economic impacts. 

National Security Impacts of 

Designation 

Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA also 

requires consideration of national 

security impacts. We contacted the DOD 

regarding any potential impacts of the 

proposed critical habitat designation to 

military operations. In a letter dated 

June 3, 2013, the DOD Regional 

Environmental Coordinator indicated 

that no impacts on national security are 

currently foreseen from the proposed 

critical habitat designation. As a result, 

we have not identified any direct 

impacts from the critical habitat 

designation on activities associated with 

national security. We have preliminarily 

concluded, subject to further 

consideration based on public comment 

or additional information from DOD, 

that we will not exercise our 

discretionary authority to exclude any 

areas based on national security 

impacts. 

Other Relevant Impacts of Designation 

Finally, under ESA section 4(b)(2) we 

consider any other relevant impacts of 

critical habitat designation to inform our 

decision as to whether to exclude any 

areas. For example, we may consider 

potential adverse effects on existing 

management plans or conservations 

plans that benefit listed species, and we 

may consider potential adverse effects 

on tribal lands or trust resources. In 

preparing this proposed designation, we 

have not identified any such 

management or conservation plans, 

tribal lands or resources, or anything 

else that would be adversely affected by 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation. Accordingly, we have 

preliminarily concluded, subject to 

further consideration based on public 

comment, that we will not exercise our 

discretionary authority to exclude any 

areas based on other relevant impacts. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

We propose to designate as critical 

habitat one specific area of marine 

habitat in Alaska and offshore Federal 

waters of the northern Bering, Chukchi, 

and Beaufort seas within the 

geographical area presently occupied by 

the Arctic ringed seal. This critical 

habitat area contains physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Arctic ringed seals that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. We have 

not identified any unoccupied areas that 

are essential to conservation of the 

Arctic ringed seal and we are not 

proposing any such areas for 

designation as critical habitat. We are 

not proposing to exclude any areas 

based on economic impacts, impacts to 

national security, or other relevant 

impacts of the proposed designation. In 

accordance with our regulations 

regarding critical habitat designation (50 

CFR 424.12(c)), the map we are 

including in the proposed regulation, as 

clarified by the accompanying 

regulatory text, would constitute the 

official boundary of the proposed 

designation. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires 

Federal agencies, including NMFS, to 

ensure that any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by the agency 

does not jeopardize the continued 

existence of any threatened or 

endangered species or destroy or 

adversely modify designated critical 

habitat. Federal agencies must consult 

with us on any action that may affect 

listed species or critical habitat. During 

the consultation, we evaluate the agency 

action to determine whether the action 

may adversely affect listed species or 

critical habitat. If we conclude that the 

agency action would likely result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat, we would suggest 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the action that avoid that result. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies that have retained 

discretionary involvement or control 

over an action, or where such 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law, to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where: (1) Critical 

habitat is subsequently designated; or 

(2) new information or changes to the 

action may result in effects to critical 

habitat not previously considered 

(among other reasons for reinitiation). 

Consequently, following designation of 

critical habitat for Arctic ringed seals, 

some Federal agencies may request 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71725 

reinitiation of consultation or 

conference with us on actions for which 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions may affect designated 

critical habitat. 

Section 4(c)(2) of the ESA directs the 

Secretary to review the listing 

classification of threatened and 

endangered species, based on the best 

available scientific information 

concerning the species’ status, at least 

once every 5 years. The ESA also 

provides that NMFS may, from time-totime, revise critical habitat as new data 

become available to the Secretary 

(section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii)). Thus, new 

information considered during a 5-year 

review may also help inform future 

consideration of whether the best 

available information at that time 

indicates revision of critical habitat may 

be appropriate. 

Activities That May Be Affected by 

Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires 

that we briefly describe and evaluate, in 

any proposed or final regulation to 

designate critical habitat, those 

activities that may destroy or adversely 

modify such habitat, or that may be 

affected by such designation. A wide 

variety of activities may affect the 

proposed critical habitat for Arctic 

ringed seals and, if carried out, funded, 

or authorized by a Federal agency, 

would require ESA section 7 

consultation. Such activities or actions 

include: In-water and coastal 

construction; activities that generate 

water pollution; dredging; commercial 

fisheries; oil and gas exploration, 

development, and production; oil spill 

prevention and response; and certain 

DOD activities. An evaluation of the 

economic effects of ESA section 7 

consultations regarding the proposed 

critical habitat is provided in the draft 

economic report (Cardno Entrix, 2014) 

and summarized above. 

Public Comments Solicited 

To ensure the final action resulting 

from this proposal will be as accurate 

and effective as possible, we solicit 

comments and information from the 

public, other concerned government 

agencies, Alaska Native tribes and 

organizations, the scientific community, 

industry, and any other interested 

parties concerning this proposed rule. 

We particularly seek comments and 

information concerning: (1) Habitat use 

of Arctic ringed seals; (2) the 

identification, location, and quality of 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of Arctic ringed seal; 

(3) the potential impacts of designating 

the proposed critical habitat, including 

the types of Federal activities that may 

trigger ESA section 7 consultation; (4) 

current or planned activities in the area 

proposed for designation and their 

possible impacts on the proposed 

critical habitat; (5) the potential effects 

of the designation on Alaska Native 

cultural practices and villages; (6) any 

foreseeable economic, national security, 

Tribal, or other relevant impacts 

resulting from the proposed designation; 

and (7) whether any particular areas that 

we are proposing for critical habitat 

designation should be considered for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

ESA and why. For these described 

impacts or benefits, we request that the 

following specific information (if 

relevant) be provided to inform our ESA 

section 4(b)(2) analysis: (1) A map and 

description of the affected area; (2) a 

description of the activities that may be 

affected within the area; (3) a 

description of past, ongoing, or future 

conservation measures conducted 

within the area that may protect Arctic 

ringed seal habitat; and (4) a point of 

contact. You may submit your 

comments and information concerning 

this proposed rule by any one of several 

methods (see ADDRESSES). Copies of the 

proposed rule and supporting 

documentation, including the draft 

economic report (Cardno Entrix, 2014), 

are available on the NMFS Alaska 

Region Web site at http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, from the 

Federal eRulemaking Web site at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013- 

0114, or upon request (see ADDRESSES). 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period for this proposed rule 

in preparing the final rule. Accordingly, 

the final decision may differ from this 

proposed rule. 

Information Quality Act and Peer 

Review 

On December 16, 2004, the OMB 

issued a Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (Bulletin) 

establishing minimum peer review 

standards, a transparent process for 

public disclosure of peer review 

planning, and opportunities for public 

participation. The OMB Bulletin, 

implemented under the Information 

Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554), is 

intended to enhance the quality and 

credibility of scientific information 

disseminated by the Federal 

government, and applies to influential 

and highly influential scientific 

information disseminated on or after 

June 16, 2005. To satisfy our 

requirements under the OMB Bulletin, 

we are obtaining independent peer 

review of this proposed rule and the 

draft economic report (Cardno Entrix, 

2014), and will address all comments 

received in developing the final rule 

and the final version of the economic 

report. 

Classification 

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 

12866) 

The economic costs and benefits of 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

are described in our draft economic 

report (i.e., RIR/4(b)(2) Preparatory 

Analysis/IRFA; Cardno Entrix, 2014). 

OMB has determined that this rule is 

‘‘significant,’’ but not ‘‘economically 

significant,’’ under E.O. 12866(3)(f). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency publishes a 

notice of rulemaking for any proposed 

or final rule, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

not-for-profit organizations, and small 

government jurisdictions). We have 

prepared an initial regulatory flexibility 

act analysis (IRFA), which is included 

as part of the draft economic report 

(Cardno Entrix, 2014). The IRFA 

estimates the potential number of small 

businesses that may be directly 

regulated by this proposed rule, and the 

impact (incremental costs) per small 

entity for a given activity type. 

Specifically, based on an examination of 

the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS), this 

analysis classifies the economic 

activities potentially directly regulated 

by the proposed action into industry 

sectors and provides an estimate of their 

number in each sector, based on the 

applicable NAICS codes. A summary of 

the IRFA follows. 

A description of the action (i.e., 

proposed designation of critical habitat), 

why it is being considered, and its legal 

basis are included in the preamble of 

this proposed rule. This proposed action 

does not impose new recordkeeping or 

reporting requirements on small 

entities. The analysis did not reveal any 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed action. 

Existing Federal laws and regulations 

overlap with the proposed rule only to 

the extent that they provide protection 

to natural resources within the area 

proposed as critical habitat generally. 

However, no existing regulations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71726 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

specifically prohibit destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

for the Arctic ringed seal. 

The regulatory mechanism through 

which critical habitat protections are 

enforced is section 7 of the ESA, which 

directly regulates only those activities 

carried out, funded, or permitted by a 

Federal agency. By definition, Federal 

agencies are not considered small 

entities, although the activities they 

fund or permit may be proposed or 

carried out by small entities. In some 

cases small entities may participate as 

third parties during ESA section 7 

consultations (the primary parties being 

the Federal action agency and NMFS) 

and thus they may be indirectly affected 

by the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

As detailed in the draft economic 

report (Cardno Entrix, 2014), the oil and 

gas exploration, development, and 

production industries participate in 

activities that are likely to require 

consideration of critical habitat in ESA 

section 7 consultations. The Small 

Business Administration size standards 

used to define small businesses in these 

cases are: (1) An average of no more 

than 500 employees (crude petroleum 

and natural gas extraction industry); or 

(2) average annual receipts of no more 

than $35.5 million (support activities for 

oil and has operations industry). No 

independent not-for-profit enterprises 

were identified that are likely to be 

affected by the proposed critical habitat 

designation. None of the parties 

identified in the oil and gas category 

appear to qualify as small businesses. 

Two government jurisdictions with 

ports appear to qualify as small 

government jurisdictions (serving 

populations of less than 50,000). Within 

the 10-year analytical timeframe, one of 

these two ports is expected to incur up 

to $4,000 (discounted at 3 percent) in 

total incremental consultation costs for 

authorization of navigation dredging 

activities, while the other is not 

expected to incur any costs associated 

with ESA section 7 consultations. This 

cost represents less than 0.1 percent of 

average annual receipts for this port. 

We encourage small businesses, small 

governmental jurisdictions, and other 

small entities that may be affected 

indirectly by this rule to provide 

comment on the estimated number of 

small entities likely to participate as 

third parties during ESA section 7 

consultations and the potential 

economic impacts of the proposed 

critical habitat designation, such as 

anticipated costs of consultation and 

potential project modifications, to 

improve the RFA analysis. 

As required by the RFA (as amended 

by the SBREFA), we considered various 

alternatives to the proposed critical 

habitat designation for the Arctic ringed 

seal. We considered and rejected the 

alternative of not designating critical 

habitat for the Arctic ringed seal, 

because such an alternative does not 

meet the legal requirements of the ESA. 

We considered an alternative under 

which we would exercise discretion 

pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA to 

exclude certain areas, but we are not 

proposing to do so: the 4(b)(2) analysis 

identifies that there will be economic 

impacts from this designation, but we 

do not believe the benefits of excluding 

any particular area outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. NMFS is seeking 

comments on the 4(b)(2) analysis, and 

all comments and information received 

will be considered in developing our 

final determination to designate critical 

habitat for the Arctic ringed seal. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(E.O. 13211) 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking any 

action that promulgates or is expected to 

lead to the promulgation of a final rule 

or regulations that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and 

(2) is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. We have considered the 

potential impacts of this action on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy 

(see Cardno Entrix, 2014). The proposed 

critical habitat designation overlaps 

with five BOEM planning areas for 

Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas 

leasing; however, the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Sea planning areas are the only 

areas with existing or planned leases. 

Currently, the majority of oil and gas 

production occurs on land adjacent to 

the Beaufort Sea and the proposed 

critical habitat area. Any proposed 

offshore oil and gas projects likely 

would have to undergo ESA section 7 

consultations to ensure that the actions 

are not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify designated critical habitat. 

However, as discussed in the draft 

economic report (Cardno Entrix, 2014), 

such consultations will not result in any 

new and significant effects on energy 

supply, distribution, or use. ESA section 

7 consultations have occurred for 

numerous oil and gas projects within 

the area of the proposed critical habitat 

(e.g., relative to possible effects on 

endangered bowhead whales, a species 

without designated critical habitat) 

without adversely affecting energy 

supply, distribution, or use, and we 

would expect the same relative to 

critical habitat for Arctic ringed seals. 

We have, therefore, determined that the 

energy effects of this proposed rule are 

unlikely to exceed the impact 

thresholds identified in E.O. 13211, and 

that this proposed rulemaking is not a 

significant energy action. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

1. This proposed rule will not 

produce a Federal mandate. In general, 

a Federal mandate is a provision in 

legislation or regulation that would 

impose an enforceable duty upon state, 

local, tribal governments, or the private 

sector and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ 

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the state, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. 

‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’ 

includes a regulation that ‘‘would 

impose an enforceable duty upon the 

private sector, except (i) a condition of 

Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising 

from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program.’’ The designation of 

critical habitat does not impose a legally 

binding duty on non-Federal 

government entities or private parties. 

Under the ESA, the only regulatory 

effect is that Federal agencies must 

ensure that their actions do not destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat 

under section 7. While non-Federal 

entities who receive Federal funding, 

assistance, permits, or otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action may be indirectly 

impacted by the designation of critical 

habitat, the legally binding duty to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal action agency. 

Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71727 

because they receive a Federal permit or 

Federal assistance or participate in a 

voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above to State 

governments. 

2. This rule will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

because it will not produce a Federal 

mandate of $100 million or greater in 

any year; that is, it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act. The proposed 

critical habitat designation falls within 

marine waters under Federal or State of 

Alaska jurisdiction. The State of Alaska 

does not fit the definition of a ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ and thus a 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. Waters adjacent to Nativeowned lands are owned and managed 

by the State of Alaska. 

Takings (E.O. 12630) 

Under E.O. 12630, Federal agencies 

must consider the effects of their actions 

on constitutionally protected private 

property rights and avoid unnecessary 

takings of property. A taking of property 

includes actions that result in physical 

invasion or occupancy of private 

property, and regulations imposed on 

private property that substantially affect 

its value or use. In accordance with E.O. 

12630, this proposed rule does not have 

significant takings implications. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. The designation of critical 

habitat affects only Federal agency 

actions. Private lands do not exist 

within the proposed critical habitat and 

would not be affected by this action. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), we determined that this 

proposed rule does not have significant 

Federalism effects and that a Federalism 

assessment is not required. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This proposed rule does not contain 

new or revised information collections 

that require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.). This proposed rule will 

not impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on state or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

Environmental analysis under NEPA 

for ESA critical habitat designations is 

not required. See Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 

cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

The longstanding and distinctive 

relationship between the Federal and 

tribal governments is defined by 

treaties, statutes, executive orders, 

judicial decisions, and co-management 

agreements, which differentiate tribal 

governments from the other entities that 

deal with, or are affected by, the Federal 

Government. This relationship has 

given rise to a special Federal trust 

responsibility involving the legal 

responsibilities and obligations of the 

United States toward Indian tribes and 

the application of fiduciary standards of 

due care with respect to Indian lands, 

tribal trust resources, and the exercise of 

tribal rights. Executive Order 13175 on 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments outlines the 

responsibilities of the Federal 

Government in matters affecting tribal 

interests. Section 161 of Public Law 

108–199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by 

section 518 of Public Law 108–447 (118 

Stat. 3267), directs all Federal agencies 

to consult with Alaska Native 

corporations on the same basis as Indian 

tribes under E.O. 13175. 

As the entire proposed critical habitat 

area is located seaward of the coast line 

of Alaska, no tribal-owned lands overlap 

with the proposed designation. 

However, this proposed designation 

overlaps with areas used by Alaska 

Natives for subsistence, cultural, and 

other purposes. We coordinate with 

Alaska Native hunters regarding 

management issues related to ice seals 

through the Ice Seal Committee (ISC), a 

co-management organization under 

section 119 of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. NMFS discussed the 

designation of critical habitat for Arctic 

ringed seals with the ISC and provided 

updates regarding the timeline for 

publication of this proposed rule. We 

also contacted potentially affected tribes 

by mail and offered them the 

opportunity to consult on the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Arctic ringed seal and discuss any 

concerns they may have. We received 

no requests for consultation in response 

to this mailing. If we receive any such 

requests in response to this proposed 

rule, we will respond to each request 

prior to issuing a final rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking can be found on the 

NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov and is 

available upon request from the NMFS 

office in Juneau, Alaska (see 

ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226 

Endangered and threatened species. 

Dated: November 21, 2014. 

Samuel. D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR 

part 226 as follows: 

PART 226—DESIGNATED CRITICAL 

HABITAT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 226 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533. 

■ 2. A new § 226.226 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 226.226 Critical Habitat for the Arctic 

Subspecies (Phoca hispida hispida) of the 

Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida). 

Critical habitat is designated for the 

Arctic subspecies of the ringed seal as 

depicted in the map below and 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. Textual information is included 

for the purposes of clarifying or refining 

the location and boundaries of the 

critical habitat area. 

(a) Critical habitat boundaries. 

Critical habitat includes all the 

contiguous marine waters from the 

‘‘coast line’’ of Alaska as that term has 

been defined in the Submerged Lands 

Act (‘‘the line of ordinary low water 

along that portion of the coast which is 

in direct contact with the open sea and 

the line marking the seaward limit of 

inland waters’’), 43 U.S.C. 1301(c), to an 

offshore limit within the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ). The boundary 

extends offshore from the northern limit 

of the United States-Canada land border 

(from the ordinary low water line of the 

Beaufort Sea at 141° W. long.) and 

follows the outer extent of the U.S. EEZ 

boundary north and slightly 

northeastward; thence westerly and 

southwesterly; thence southerly and 

southwesterly to 60°31′ N. lat., 179°13′ 

W. long. From there it runs 

southeasterly to 58°22′ N. lat., 170°27′ 

W. long.; thence easterly to 59° N. lat., 

164° W. long. The boundary then 

follows 164° W. long. due north to the 

coast line of Alaska southeast of Cape 

Avinof. Critical habitat does not include 

permanent manmade structures such as 

boat ramps, docks, or pilings that were 

in existence on or before the effective 

date of this rule. 

(b) Essential features. The essential 

features for the conservation of the 

Arctic ringed seal are: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71728 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(1) Sea ice habitat suitable for the 

formation and maintenance of 

subnivean birth lairs used for sheltering 

pups during whelping and nursing, 

which is defined as seasonal landfast 

(shorefast) ice, or dense, stable pack ice, 

that has undergone deformation and 

contains snowdrifts at least 54 cm deep. 

(2) Sea ice habitat suitable as a 

platform for basking and molting, which 

is defined as sea ice of 15 percent or 

more concentration. 

(3) Primary prey resources to support 

Arctic ringed seals, which are defined to 

be Arctic cod, saffron cod, shrimps, and 

amphipods. 

(c) Critical habitat map. The proposed 

critical habitat boundary was mapped 

using an Alaska Albers Equal Area 

Conic projection referenced to the North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The 

map, as clarified by the accompanying 

regulatory text, establishes the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The map, along with the 

coordinates or plot points on which the 

map is based, is available to the public 

on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. NOAA–NMFS–2013–0114, on the 

NMFS Alaska region Web site at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov, and at the 

NMFS office in Juneau, Alaska. The 

map of critical habitat for the Arctic 

ringed seal follows: 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03DE14.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71729 

[FR Doc. 2014–28229 Filed 12–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 140724618–4618–01] 

RIN 0648–BE41 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Revisions to 

Charter Halibut Fisheries Management 

in Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations 

that would revise Federal regulations 

regarding sport fishing guide services 

for Pacific halibut in International 

Pacific Halibut Commission Regulatory 

Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A 

(Central Gulf of Alaska). The proposed 

regulations would remove the 

requirement that a guided sport (charter) 

vessel guide be on board the same vessel 

as a charter vessel angler to provide 

sport fishing guide services. This 

proposed rule would clarify that all 

sport fishing for halibut in which 

anglers receive assistance from a 

compensated guide would be managed 

under charter fishery regulations, and 

all harvest would accrue toward charter 

allocations. This proposed rule would 

align Federal regulations with State of 

Alaska regulations. Additional minor 

changes to the regulatory text pertaining 

to the charter halibut fishery would be 

required to maintain consistency in the 

regulations with these new definitions. 

This action is necessary to achieve the 

halibut fishery management goals of the 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than January 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2014–0097, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014- 

0097, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. 

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter N/ 

A in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

Electronic copies of the Categorical 

Exclusion and the Regulatory Impact 

Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this 

action are available from http://

www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site at http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this rule may 

be submitted to NMFS at the above 

address and by email to OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202– 

395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

Scheurer, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage 

fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus 

stenolepis) through regulations 

established under authority of the 

Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 

(Halibut Act). The IPHC adopts 

regulations governing the Pacific halibut 

fishery under the Convention between 

the United States and Canada for the 

Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of 

the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea 

(Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, 

on March 2, 1953, as amended by a 

Protocol Amending the Convention 

(signed at Washington, DC, on March 

29, 1979). For the United States, 

regulations developed by the IPHC are 

subject to acceptance by the Secretary of 

State with concurrence from the 

Secretary of Commerce. After 

acceptance by the Secretary of State and 

the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS 

publishes the IPHC regulations in the 

Federal Register as annual management 

measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. 

The final rule implementing IPHC 

regulations for the 2014 fishing season 

was published March 12, 2014 (79 FR 

13906). IPHC regulations affecting sport 

fishing for halibut and vessels in the 

charter fishery in Areas 2C and 3A may 

be found in sections 3, 25, and 28 of that 

final rule. 

The Halibut Act, at sections 773c(a) 

and (b), provides the Secretary of 

Commerce with general responsibility to 

carry out the Convention and the 

Halibut Act. In adopting regulations that 

may be necessary to carry out the 

purposes and objectives of the 

Convention and the Halibut Act, the 

Secretary of Commerce is directed to 

consult with the Secretary of the 

department in which the U.S. Coast 

Guard is operating, currently the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

The Halibut Act, at section 773c(c), 

also provides the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) with 

authority to develop regulations, 

including limited access regulations, 

that are in addition to, and not in 

conflict with, approved IPHC 

regulations. Regulations developed by 

the Council may be implemented by 

NMFS only after approval by the 

Secretary of Commerce. The Council has 

exercised this authority in the 

development of subsistence halibut 

fishery management measures, and 

sport halibut fishery management 

measures in waters in and off Alaska, 

codified at 50 CFR 300.61, 300.65, 

300.66, and 300.67. The Council also 

developed the Individual Fishing Quota 

Program for the commercial halibut 

fishery, codified at 50 CFR part 679, 

under the authority of section 773 of the 

Halibut Act and section 303(b) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (16 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). 

Background 

The proposed rule would align 

Federal regulations for charter halibut 

fishing with State of Alaska regulations 

for sport fishing to clarify the Council’s 

and NMFS’ intent for management of 

charter halibut fisheries in Areas 2C and 

3A off Alaska. The proposed regulatory 

clarifications also would facilitate 

enforcement and clarify recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for the 

charter halibut fishery. The proposed 

rule would not revise regulations for 

unguided sport halibut fishing in Alaska 

found in sections 3, 25, and 28 of the 

IPHC annual management measures 

(March 12, 2014, 79 FR 13906). The 

following sections of this preamble 

provide (1) a description of the halibut 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS