71344 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

with chains or any other materials. 

Sweep lines, including the bottom leg of 

the bridle, must be bare. For at least 20 

ft (6.15 m) immediately behind the 

footrope or headrope, bare ropes or 

mesh of 16-inch (40.6-cm) minimum 

mesh size must completely encircle the 

net. 

(i) Chafing gear restrictions for 

midwater trawl gear. Chafing gear may 

cover the bottom and sides of the 

codend in either one or more sections. 

Only the front edge (edge closest to the 

open end of the codend) and sides of 

each section of chafing gear may be 

attached to the codend; except at the 

corners, the terminal edge (edge closest 

to the closed end of the codend) of each 

section of chafing gear must not be 

attached to the net. Chafing gear is not 

permitted on the top codend panel 

except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(4)(ii) of this section. 

(ii) Chafing gear exception for 

midwater trawl gear. A band of mesh (a 

‘‘skirt’’) may encircle the net under or 

over transfer cables, lifting or splitting 

straps (chokers), riblines, and 

restraining straps, but must be the same 

mesh size and coincide knot-to-knot 

with the net to which it is attached and 

be no wider than 16 meshes. 

(c) Restrictions by limited entry trawl 

gear type. Management measures may 

vary depending on the type of trawl gear 

(i.e., large footrope, small footrope, 

selective flatfish, or midwater trawl 

gear) used and/or on board a vessel 

during a fishing trip, cumulative limit 

period, and the area fished. Trawl nets 

may be used on and off the seabed. For 

some species or species groups, Table 1 

(North) and Table 1 (South) of this 

subpart provide trip limits that are 

specific to different types of trawl gear: 

Large footrope, small footrope 

(including selective flatfish), selective 

flatfish, midwater, and multiple types. If 

Table 1 (North) and Table 1 (South) of 

this subpart provide gear specific limits 

for a particular species or species group, 

it is unlawful to take and retain, possess 

or land that species or species group 

with limited entry trawl gears other than 

those listed. The following restrictions 

are in addition to the prohibitions at 

§ 660.112(a)(5). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–28275 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 120706220–4964–02] 

RIN 0648–BC34 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod Pot Gear 

Fishing Closure in the Pribilof Islands 

Habitat Conservation Zone in the 

Bering Sea; Amendment 103 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement Amendment 103 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(BSAI FMP). This rule closes year-round 

the Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation 

Zone (PIHCZ) to directed fishing for 

Pacific cod with pot gear to minimize 

bycatch and prevent overfishing of 

Pribilof Islands blue king crab (PIBKC). 

This action is intended to promote the 

goals and objectives of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act), the BSAI FMP, and other 

applicable laws. 

DATES: Effective: January 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

BSAI FMP, Amendment 103 to the BSAI 

FMP, the Environmental Assessment 

(EA), 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 https://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cm/analyses/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne Marie Eich, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fisheries of the 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

management area (BSAI) in the 

Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska 

under the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

prepared the BSAI FMP under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and other applicable laws. General 

regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries 

appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. 

Regulations implementing the BSAI 

FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. 

This final rule implements 

Amendment 103 to the BSAI FMP. This 

rule closes the PIHCZ to directed fishing 

for Pacific cod with pot gear. 

Amendment 103 to the BSAI FMP is 

being implemented with Amendment 43 

to the Fishery Management Plan for 

Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and 

Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). Amendment 

43 to the Crab FMP revises the current 

rebuilding plan for PIBKC to include the 

Pacific cod pot gear prohibition that 

would be implemented under 

Amendment 103. No regulatory 

amendments are needed to implement 

Amendment 43. These amendments 

implemented together ensure that the 

PIBKC rebuilding plan is revised to 

further reduce the bycatch of PIBKC in 

the groundfish fisheries, supporting the 

rebuilding of the PIBKC stock in the 

shortest time possible. 

NMFS published the Notice of 

Availability (NOA) of Amendment 103 

to the BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to 

the Crab FMP in the Federal Register on 

August 21, 2014, with a 60-day 

comment period that ended October 20, 

2014 (79 FR 49487). The Secretary of 

Commerce approved Amendment 103 to 

the BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to 

the Crab FMP on November 14, 2014. 

NMFS received two comment letters on 

the NOA of Amendment 103 to the 

BSAI FMP and Amendment 43 to the 

Crab FMP. These comments raised 

identical concerns to one of the 

comments received on the proposed 

rule, which is summarized in the 

‘‘Comments and Responses’’ section in 

this final rule. 

NMFS published a proposed rule to 

implement Amendment 103 to the BSAI 

FMP and the closure of the PIHCZ to 

directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot 

gear on August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51520). 

The 30-day comment period on the 

proposed rule ended September 29, 

2014. NMFS received two comment 

letters during the proposed rule 

comment period. The comment letters 

contained three unique comments. A 

summary of those comments and NMFS’ 

responses are provided in the 

‘‘Comments and Responses’’ section of 

this preamble. 

This final rule closes the PIHCZ yearround to directed fishing for Pacific cod 

with pot gear to minimize bycatch of 

PIBKC in groundfish fisheries and 

prevent overfishing of PIBKC. The term 

‘‘directed fishing’’ is defined in the 

groundfish fisheries regulation at 

§ 679.2. In June 2012, the Council 

recommended closing the PIHCZ to 

directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot 

gear based on (1) the high rate of PIBKC 

bycatch in the PIHCZ relative to other 

areas outside of the PIHCZ; (2) the high 

concentration of PIBKC in the PIHCZ; 

(3) the occurrence of known PIBKC 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71345 

habitat within the PIHCZ; (4) the high 

rate of PIBKC bycatch in the Pacific cod 

pot fishery relative to other groundfish 

fisheries; and (5) the limited impact the 

Pacific cod pot closure in the PIHCZ 

would have on the Pacific cod pot 

fishery relative to other groundfish 

fishery closures. The proposed rule 

preamble provides additional 

information on the closure, including 

detailed information on the 

development of the action, the impacts 

and effects of the action, and the 

Council’s and NMFS’ rationale for the 

action (79 FR 51520, August 29, 2014). 

The proposed rule is available from the 

NMFS Alaska Region Web site (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Summary of Regulatory Provisions 

This final rule revises § 679.22(a)(6) to 

prohibit directed fishing for Pacific cod 

using pot gear in the PIHCZ. The 

existing prohibition on the use of trawl 

gear in the PIHCZ is retained. In 

addition, Figure 10 to 50 CFR part 679 

is revised by (1) changing the title from 

‘‘Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation 

Area in the Bering Sea’’ to read ‘‘Pribilof 

Islands Habitat Conservation Zone 

(PIHCZ) in the Bering Sea’’ to be 

consistent with the definition of the 

PIHCZ at § 679.2, and (2) reformatting 

the map for greater accuracy and 

improved appearance. These format 

changes are non-substantive. 

Changes From Proposed to Final Rule 

No changes were made from proposed 

to final rule. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received four comment letters 

during the NOA and proposed rule 

comment periods. The comment letters 

contained three unique comments. A 

summary of the comments and NMFS’ 

response follows. 

Comment 1: NMFS should close all 

fishing in the Pribilof Islands to stop 

commercial fishermen from stealing the 

fish from this area and overfishing. 

NOAA is not enforcing the laws and is 

allowing too much overfishing. 

Response: As explained in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, PIBKC is 

not subject to overfishing. The purpose 

of this action is to amend the PIBKC 

rebuilding plan to prevent overfishing 

and to rebuild the PIBKC stock in the 

shortest time possible. This final rule to 

implement Amendment 103 to the BSAI 

FMP closes year-round the PIHCZ to 

directed fishing for Pacific cod with pot 

gear. Prohibiting directed fishing for 

Pacific cod with pot gear in the PIHCZ 

minimizes bycatch of PIBKC to the 

extent practicable, prevents overfishing, 

and supports rebuilding of the PIBKC 

stock. Additional detail on the purpose 

of this action is provided in the 

preamble to the proposed rule and 

Sections 2.2 and 4.5.5 of the EA. 

As explained in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, the Council and NMFS 

evaluated a number of additional 

alternatives that would close other 

groundfish fisheries to minimize PIBKC 

bycatch. Additional prohibitions on 

other groundfish fisheries (i.e., hookand-line fisheries, and non-Pacific cod 

pot fisheries) were not projected to 

result in PIBKC bycatch savings, but 

would likely have serious adverse 

economic impacts (see Section 4.5.5.1 of 

the EA). 

Under the authority of the Crab FMP, 

NMFS and the State of Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) 

have implemented a number of 

additional management measures to 

minimize bycatch of PIBKC. NMFS has 

classified PIBKC as a prohibited species 

in groundfish fisheries, which requires 

avoiding incidental catch of prohibited 

species and immediately returning 

prohibited species to the sea with a 

minimum of injury (§§ 679.21 and 

679.7(a)(12)). Since 1995, NMFS has 

closed the PIHCZ to groundfish trawl 

gear to protect blue king crab (60 FR 

4110, January 20, 1995). ADF&G closes 

the Pribilof Islands red king crab fishery 

as well as other crab fisheries in other 

areas where PIBKC are known to occur. 

NOAA Office of Law Enforcement 

monitors compliance with closure areas 

and takes enforcement action, as 

appropriate. 

Comment 2: The proposed closure is 

a strong step toward allowing for 

recovery of the PIBKC population but 

NMFS is urged to implement further 

measures including broader-scale 

ecosystem level protections in the 

Pribilof Islands region, closure of 

groundfish fisheries in areas that cover 

the entire distribution of PIBKC stock, 

increased observer coverage, and 

additional protective measures 

regarding bycatch. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

support for this action. NMFS notes that 

the recommendation to implement 

broader-scale ecosystem level 

protections in the Pribilof Islands region 

is outside the scope of this action. 

NMFS did evaluate the effects of this 

action on other marine resources in the 

Pribilof Islands region and determined 

that the impact of this action would not 

significantly affect other marine 

resources (see Section 5 of the EA). 

NMFS also evaluated the cumulative 

impacts of this action and determined 

that this action would not have a 

significant cumulative impact (see 

Section 6 of the EA). 

In response to the suggestion for 

further measures for groundfish 

fisheries in areas that cover the entire 

distribution of PIBKC stock, the Council 

and NMFS evaluated a number of 

additional alternatives that would 

further reduce PIBKC bycatch outside 

the PIHCZ. The Council did not 

recommend and NMFS did not 

implement closures to groundfish 

fisheries outside the PIHCZ because the 

PIHCZ is the area where this stock is 

concentrated. Additional closures of 

groundfish fisheries outside the habitat 

conservation zone could result in 

serious economic impacts to the 

groundfish fishery sectors without 

measurable conservation benefits for the 

PIBKC stock. Further, extending 

groundfish fishery closures to areas 

outside the PIHCZ is not viable at this 

time because of the difficulty in 

establishing this stock’s boundary 

outside the PIHCZ and because of the 

current limitations in distinguishing 

bycatch of this stock from bycatch of St. 

Matthew Island blue king crab. 

Additional detail on the limited impact 

of area closures to groundfish fisheries 

outside the PIHCZ on the PIBKC stock 

is provided in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and in Section 4 of the 

EA. 

In response to comments 

recommending increased observer 

coverage, NMFS notes that it 

implemented Amendment 86 to the 

BSAI FMP on January 1, 2013 (77 FR 

70062, November 21, 2012) to 

restructure the funding and deployment 

system for the North Pacific Groundfish 

and Halibut Observer Program (Observer 

Program) and expand observer coverage 

requirements to halibut vessels and 

vessels less than 60 ft. in length overall. 

Section 3.4 of the EA prepared for this 

action explains that the restructured 

Observer Program provides the 

necessary observer coverage to 

implement this action. Therefore, 

additional changes to observer coverage 

are not required as part of this action. 

Finally, as explained in response to 

comment 1, NMFS and ADF&G have 

implemented a range of additional 

protective measures to minimize PIBKC 

bycatch. 

Comment 3: While NMFS has little 

control over global greenhouse gas 

emissions, it can and should manage 

fishing activities in order to avoid 

adverse impacts on Alaska’s marine 

ecosystem from serious and lasting 

changes in productivity due to ocean 

acidification processes, increasing water 

temperatures, and changes in seawater 

circulation patterns. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

predicted changes in ocean 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71346 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

acidification, temperature, and currents 

will likely affect the biological 

productivity of Alaska’s marine 

environment. The biological 

ramifications of these predicted 

oceanographic changes are uncertain; 

however, this comment is outside the 

scope of this action. The purpose of this 

action is to prevent overfishing the 

PIBKC stock. Nonetheless, NMFS and 

the Council consistently consider 

management changes to the fisheries 

under their jurisdiction and explore 

ways to integrate ecosystem 

considerations in fisheries management 

decisions. 

Classification 

The Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS, determined that this final rule is 

necessary for the conservation and 

management of the BSAI groundfish 

fishery and that it is consistent with the 

BSAI FMP, including Amendment 103, 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws. 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis, the agency shall 

publish one or more guides to assist 

small entities in complying with the 

rule, and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ The agency shall 

explain the actions a small entity is 

required to take to comply with a rule 

or group of rules. The preamble to the 

proposed rule and the preamble to this 

final rule serve as the small entity 

compliance guide. This rule does not 

require any additional compliance from 

small entities that is not described in 

the preamble to the proposed rule. 

Copies of the proposed rule and this 

final rule are available from NMFS at 

the following Web site: http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

Executive Order 12866 

The final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

contains the requirements for the FRFA 

in section 604(a)(1) through (6) of the 

RFA. The FRFA must contain: 

1. A succinct statement of the need 

for, and objectives of, the rule; 

2. A summary of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility (IRFA) analysis, a summary of 

the assessment of the agency of such 

issues, and a statement of any changes 

made in the proposed rule as a result of 

such comments; 

3. The response of the agency to any 

comments on the proposed rule by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration; 

4. A description and an estimate of 

the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply, or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available; 

5. A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

6. A description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

NMFS prepared an IRFA that 

addressed the requirements described in 

section 603(b)(1) through (5) of the RFA. 

This FRFA incorporates the IRFA and 

the summary of the IRFA in the 

proposed rule (79 FR 51520, August 29, 

2014). NMFS published the IRFA in a 

combined document with the 

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). The 

RIR/IRFA is available on the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site: http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

A Succinct Statement of the Need for, 

and Objectives of, the Rule 

A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, this rule are explained in 

the preamble to this final rule and is not 

repeated here. 

Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

During Public Comment 

NMFS published the proposed rule on 

August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51520). The 30- 

day comment period on the proposed 

rule closed on September 29, 2014. 

NMFS received four letters of public 

comment on the proposed rule. These 

comment letters did not address the 

IRFA or the economic impacts of the 

rule generally. 

The Response to Comments From Small 

Business Administration 

NMFS did not receive any comments 

on the proposed rule from the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 

Number and Description of Small 

Number and Description of Small 

Entities Regulated by the Final Rule 

The determination of the number and 

description of small entities regulated 

by these actions is based on small 

business size standards established by 

the SBA. On June 12, 2014, the SBA 

issued an interim final rule revising the 

small business size standards for several 

industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 

33647, June 12, 2014). The rule 

increased the size standard for Finfish 

Fishing from $19.0 million to $20.5 

million, Shellfish Fishing from $5.0 

million to $5.5 million, and Other 

Marine Fishing from $7.0 million to 

$7.5 million. 

The entities directly regulated by this 

action are the owners and operators of 

vessels directed fishing for Pacific cod 

using pot gear in the PIHCZ. Earnings 

from all Alaska fisheries for 2010, the 

most recent year of complete earnings 

data, were matched with the vessels that 

participated in the BSAI groundfish 

fisheries for that year. Based on the 

known affiliations and joint ownership 

of the vessels, 114 vessels caught, or 

caught and processed, less than $20.5 

million ex-vessel value or product value 

of groundfish and other species in the 

BSAI. These 114 vessels are considered 

small entities because they all have 

annual ex-vessel revenues less than the 

$20.5 million standard for small finfish 

fishing vessels under the RFA. Of these 

114 vessels, 34 participated in a 

directed fishery for Pacific cod using pot 

gear, and all of these vessels could be 

regulated by this action. 

The six Western Alaska Community 

Development Quota (CDQ) groups and 

the 65 communities they represent are 

small entities under the RFA. Each of 

the CDQ groups receives annual 

allocations of Pacific cod in the BSAI. 

The CDQ groups harvest these 

allocations with vessels they own and 

vessels they contract with. The vessels 

owned by the CDQ groups and used to 

target Pacific cod are primarily large 

catcher/processors using hook-and-line 

or trawl gear. In 2012, the CDQ groups 

harvested 24,402 metric tons of Pacific 

cod. Less than 15 percent of this catch 

was made by vessels using pot gear, 

none of which were owned by the CDQ 

groups (actual catch using pot gear is 

confidential). None of the Pacific cod 

caught by the CDQ groups was 

harvested within the proposed closure 

areas. As CDQ groups have never used 

pot gear to harvest Pacific cod within 

the proposed closure area, this final rule 

is not expected to impact the CDQ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71347 

groups, the CDQ communities, or the 

vessels that fish on their behalf. 

The impacts of the action on directly 

regulated small entities are analyzed in 

the IRFA. In recent years, many of the 

vessels identified in this analysis as 

having potential small entity impacts 

have become members of fishing 

cooperatives. Increased affiliation with 

the BSAI Freezer-Longline Cooperative, 

as well as various crab cooperatives, has 

resulted in many vessels now being 

classified as large entities due to these 

affiliations. This analysis has 

incorporated cooperative affiliation 

information to adjust the numbers of 

potentially directly regulated small 

entities and, thereby, the estimate of 

revenue at risk specific to small entities. 

The result is evident in the declining 

small entity impact estimates in 2010, 

where estimated impacts are near zero 

for many of the alternatives with the 

exception of potential CDQ impacts, 

which are, by definition, small although 

the vessels that harvest for CDQ 

organizations are themselves now large 

via affiliations. Thus, with increased 

membership in cooperatives, nearly all 

of the potentially directly regulated 

vessels are presently classified as large 

entities and the potential effects of the 

action on small entities appears to be de 

minimis. 

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and 

Compliance Requirements 

This action will not change 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. Vessel operators will 

continue to be required to comply with 

the specified area closure and gear 

requirements. 

Description of Significant Alternatives 

to the Final Action That Minimize 

Adverse Impacts on Small Entities 

The EA analyzed six alternatives with 

components and options for closures in 

the Bering Sea to minimize the bycatch 

of PIBKC and reduce the risk of 

overfishing. 

The Council’s preferred alternative, 

Alternative 2b, was selected as the 

action alternative. Alternative 2b closes 

year-round the PIHCZ to directed 

fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear to 

prevent overfishing of PIBKC and 

minimize bycatch of PIBKC in 

groundfish fisheries. Alternative 2b 

further reduces PIBKC bycatch mortality 

in groundfish fisheries, enhancing the 

likelihood of a successful rebuilding 

effort. 

Alternative 1 is the status quo or no 

action alternative, which would not 

change the closure to all trawl gear in 

the PIHCZ. This alternative does not 

meet the goals and objectives of the 

action to minimize bycatch of PIBKC, 

and would not provide further 

protection to PIBKC from the potential 

effects of the groundfish fisheries. 

Alternatives 2 through 6 would retain 

all of the current protection measures in 

place for the PIBKC stock and apply 

additional measures. These alternatives 

would establish closure areas for 

specific groundfish fisheries that are 

described in the following paragraphs 

for each alternative. 

Alternative 2 included three specific 

methods for closing the PIHCZ to 

directed fishing for a variety of 

groundfish fisheries. Alternative 2a 

would close the PIHCZ on an annual 

basis to groundfish fisheries that met a 

threshold of PIBKC bycatch from 2003 

to 2010 that is greater than 5 percent of 

the acceptable biological catch (ABC) of 

PIBKC. Fisheries that met the 5-percent 

threshold are the Pacific cod hook-andline fishery, Pacific cod pot fishery, 

yellowfin sole trawl fishery, and other 

flatfish trawl fishery. Alternative 2b, the 

preferred alternative implemented by 

this action, would close the PIHCZ yearround to Pacific cod pot fishing. 

Alternative 2c would close the PIHCZ to 

directed fishing for Pacific cod by 

vessels using pot gear if the total PIBKC 

bycatch in all groundfish fisheries in the 

BSAI reached 20 percent, 30 percent, or 

50 percent of the overall trigger closure 

cap of 75 percent of the ABC. 

Alternative 2c would also require 

vessels directed fishing for Pacific cod 

with pot gear in the PIHCZ to maintain 

100 percent observer coverage. 

Alternatives 2a and 2c would have a 

greater impact on small entities than 

Alternative 2b because more vessels 

would be subject to potential closures in 

the PIHCZ. Alternative 2c would also 

increase the potential costs on small 

entities by increasing observer coverage 

requirements for these vessels. 

Alternative 3 would close the existing 

ADF&G crab closure area between 168° 

and 170° West longitude, and between 

57° and 58° North latitude to additional 

fishing effort, in addition to the status 

quo groundfish trawl closure. 

Alternative 3a would close the existing 

ADF&G crab closure area to all 

groundfish fisheries that have 

contributed greater than a designated 

threshold to bycatch of PIBKC since 

2003. The closure would apply to any 

fishery that had bycatch of PIBKC 

between 2003 and 2010 of greater than 

5 percent of ABC. Under the 5-percent 

threshold, the closure would apply to 

the following fisheries: yellowfin sole 

trawl, other flatfish trawl, Pacific cod 

pot, and Pacific cod hook-and-line. 

Alternative 3b would close the existing 

ADF&G crab closure area to directed 

fishing for Pacific cod only. Alternative 

3a would have a greater impact on small 

entities than Alternative 3b because 

more vessels would be subject to 

potential closures in the PIHCZ. While 

Alternative 3b could potentially have 

less of an impact on small entities than 

the other alternatives (data is 

confidential for all years except 2005), 

the Alternative 3 closure boundaries 

exclude southern parts of the PIHCZ 

where PIBKC bycatch by Pacific cod pot 

fishing has occurred (see Figure 2–2 in 

the EA). 

Alternative 4 would establish a 

closure throughout the range of the 

PIBKC based on either the distribution 

of the PIBKC stock aggregated from 1975 

to 2009, or from 1984 to 2009. This 

range of data represented recent trends 

of the known distribution of PIBKC 

based on current stock survey 

methodologies and is greater than the 

area closure in the PIHCZ and the 

ADF&G closures defined under 

Alternative 3. Alternatives 4a and 4b 

would establish closures consistent with 

the same criteria established for 

Alternatives 2a and 2b, and 3a and 3b, 

respectively. Alternative 4 would have a 

greater impact on small entities due to 

the greater size of the closure. 

Alternative 5 would establish a 

prohibited species catch (PSC) limit 

equal to either the overfishing limit 

(OFL), the ABC, or a proportion of the 

ABC for the PIBKC stock. All bycatch of 

the PIBKC in all groundfish fisheries 

would accrue toward this PSC limit, and 

those groundfish fisheries that 

contributed to greater than a designated 

threshold of PIBKC bycatch since 2003 

would be closed once the fishery-wide 

PSC limit was reached. 

Four area closure options are 

included under Alternative 5: 5a, 5b, 5c, 

and 5d, which correspond to the closure 

areas defined under Alternatives 1, 3, 

4a, and 4b (1975 to 2009 PIBKC stock 

distribution and 1984 to 2009 PIBKC 

stock distribution), respectively. Under 

each of these options, the closure would 

be triggered by attainment of a fisherywide PIBKC PSC limit set at the 

following options: PSC limit equal to 

the OFL, PSC limit equal to the ABC, 

PSC limit equal to 90 percent of the 

ABC, or PSC limit equal to 75 percent 

of the ABC. Under Option 5d, under the 

PSC limit equal to 90 percent of the 

ABC and the PSC limit equal to 75 

percent of the ABC, there would be an 

additional option for allocation of the 

PSC limit by gear type: 40 percent trawl 

gear, 40 percent pot gear, and 20 percent 

hook-and-line gear. 

Alternative 6 would have two 

components: (1) Establish a year-round 

closure of the PIHCZ to directed fishing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

71348 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

for Pacific cod using pot gear, and (2) 

establish a triggered closure of the area 

representing the distribution of the 

PIBKC stock from 1984 to 2009. The 

PSC limit associated with the triggered 

closure would be established as a 

fishery-wide level at 75 percent of the 

ABC. The PSC limit would be set either 

in the numbers of crab based on the 

average weight in the previous season or 

in numbers of crab based on a rolling 5- 

year average weight. The PSC limit 

would be further allocated to sectors 

either by gear type or to all groundfish 

fisheries in the aggregate by seasons. 

In addition, each of the alternatives 

included options to increase observer 

coverage that could be applied to all 

fisheries or a specific fishery. 

The Council ultimately did not 

consider trigger cap closures 

(Alternatives 2c, 5, and 6) viable 

alternatives, due to uncertainty in 

appropriate definition of the stock area 

and the resulting current limitations in 

the methodology for estimating 

mortality of PIBKC relative to the stock 

distribution (see discussion in Section 

4.2.2 of the EA). These alternatives 

would not have a measurable impact 

that would minimize the bycatch of 

PIBKC relative to status quo. These 

alternatives could reduce the risk of 

overfishing, but they would not 

effectively prevent overfishing, 

consistent with the goals and objectives 

of this action. 

None of the viable alternatives 

(Alternative 2a, Alternatives 3a and 3b, 

and Alternatives 4a and 4b) could 

potentially have less of an impact on 

fisheries than the Council’s 

recommended alternative, 2b. Table 1– 

34 in the IRFA (see ADDRESSES) provides 

a comparison of the potential impacts 

on directly regulated small entities, in 

terms of gross revenue at risk, under 

each of the alternatives. Based on the 

best available scientific data and 

information, there are no alternatives to 

the proposed action that have the 

potential to accomplish the stated 

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and any other applicable statutes and 

that have the potential to minimize any 

significant adverse economic impact of 

the proposed rule on directly regulated 

small entities. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries. 

Dated: November 20, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 

679 as follows: 

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 679 

continues to read as follows: 

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

seq.; 3631 et seq.; Public Law 108–447; 

Public Law 111–241 

■ 2. In § 679.22, revise paragraph (a)(6) 

to read as follows: 

§ 679.22 Closures. 

(a) * * * 

(6) Pribilof Islands Habitat 

Conservation Zone. Directed fishing for 

groundfish using trawl gear and directed 

fishing for Pacific cod using pot gear is 

prohibited at all times in the area 

defined in Figure 10 to this part as the 

Pribilof Islands Habitat Conservation 

Zone. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise Figure 10 to part 679— 

including the Figure heading—to read 

as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71349 

[FR Doc. 2014–28113 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULESER02DE14.000</GPH>