194 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6—FINAL 2015 SEASONAL APPORTIONMENTS AND ALLOCATION OF PACIFIC COD TOTAL ALLOWABLE CATCH

AMOUNTS IN THE GOA; ALLOCATIONS FOR THE WESTERN GOA AND CENTRAL GOA SECTORS AND THE EASTERN

GOA INSHORE AND OFFSHORE PROCESSING COMPONENTS

[Values are rounded to the nearest metric ton and percentages to the nearest 0.01. Seasonal allowances may not total precisely to annual 

allocation amount.] 

Regulatory area and sector Annual allocation 

(mt) 

A Season B Season 

Sector % of annual non-jig TAC Seasonal allowances (mt) Sector % of annual non-jig TAC Seasonal allowances (mt) 

Western GOA: 

Jig (2.5% of TAC) ........................... 677 N/A 406 N/A 271 

Hook-and-line CV ........................... 370 0.70 185 0.70 185 

Hook-and-line C/P .......................... 5,230 10.90 2,879 8.90 2,351 

Trawl CV ......................................... 10,143 27.70 7,317 10.70 2,826 

Trawl C/P ........................................ 634 0.90 238 1.50 396 

All Pot CV and Pot C/P .................. 10,037 19.80 5,230 18.20 4,807 

Total ......................................... 27,091 60.00 16,255 40.00 10,837 

Central GOA: 

Jig (2.0% of TAC) ........................... 920 N/A 552 N/A 368 

Hook-and-line <50 CV .................... 6,581 9.32 4,199 5.29 2,383 

Hook-and-line ≥50 CV .................... 3,023 5.61 2,528 1.10 495 

Hook-and-line C/P .......................... 2,301 4.11 1,851 1.00 450 

Trawl CV ......................................... 18,742 21.14 9,526 20.45 9,216 

Trawl C/P ........................................ 1,892 2.00 903 2.19 989 

All Pot CV and Pot C/P .................. 12,532 17.83 8,036 9.97 4,496 

Total ......................................... 45,990 60.00 27,594 40.00 18,396 

Eastern GOA ......................................... .............................. Inshore (90% of Annual TAC) Offshore (10% of Annual TAC) 

2,121 1,909 212 

Note: Seasonal apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. This requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest as it would prevent NMFS from 

responding to the most recent fisheries 

data in a timely fashion and would 

allow for harvests that exceed the 

appropriate allocations for Pacific cod 

based on the best scientific information 

available. NMFS was unable to publish 

a notice providing time for public 

comment because the most recent, 

relevant data only became available as 

of December 24, 2014, and additional 

time for prior public comment would 

result in conservation concerns for the 

ESA-listed Steller sea lions. 

The AA also finds good cause to 

waive the 30-day delay in the effective 

date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). This finding is based upon 

the reasons provided above for waiver of 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment. 

Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested 

persons are invited to submit written 

comments on this action to the above 

address until January 16, 2015. 

This action is required by § 679.20 

and § 679.25 and is exempt from review 

under Executive Order 12866. 

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

Dated: December 29, 2014. 

James P. Burgess, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30835 Filed 12–30–14; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 140519437–4999–02] 

RIN 0648–BE24 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Establishing Transit 

Areas Through Walrus Protection 

Areas at Round Island and Cape 

Peirce, Northern Bristol Bay, Alaska; 

Amendment 107 

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 107 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(BSAI FMP), as prepared and submitted 

by the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council), and 

approved by the Secretary of Commerce. 

This final rule allows vessels designated 

on Federal Fisheries Permits (FFPs) to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 195 

transit through Walrus Protection Areas 

in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

near Round Island and Cape Peirce from 

April 1 through August 15, annually. 

These actions are necessary to restore 

the access of federally permitted vessels 

to transit through Walrus Protection 

Areas that was unintentionally limited 

by regulations implementing 

Amendment 83 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) and to 

maintain suitable protection for 

walruses on Round Island and Cape 

Peirce. This final rule maintains an 

existing prohibition on deploying 

fishing gear in Walrus Protection Areas 

by vessels designated on an FFP. This 

final rule 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 law. 

DATES: Effective February 4, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

BSAI FMP, Amendment 107 to the BSAI 

FMP, and the Environmental 

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(Analysis) prepared for this action are 

available from http://

www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS 

Alaska Region Web site at http://

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/

sustainablefisheries/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne Marie Eich, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fisheries in the 

EEZ off Alaska under the GOA FMP and 

the BSAI FMP. The Council prepared 

these FMPs under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, 

et seq. Regulations governing U.S. 

fisheries and implementing the FMPs 

appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. 

This final rule implements 

management measures contained in 

Amendment 107 to the BSAI FMP. This 

final rule allows vessels designated on 

FFPs to transit through Walrus 

Protection Areas in the EEZ near Round 

Island and Cape Peirce from April 1 

through August 15, annually. 

NMFS published the Notice of 

Availability (NOA) of Amendment 107 

to the BSAI FMP in the Federal Register 

on September 24, 2014, with a 60-day 

comment period that ended November 

24, 2014 (79 FR 57041). The Secretary 

of Commerce approved Amendment 107 

to the BSAI FMP on December 19, 2004. 

NMFS published a proposed rule to 

implement management measures 

contained in Amendment 107 to the 

BSAI FMP on October 3, 2014 (79 FR 

59733). The 30-day comment period on 

the proposed rule ended November 3, 

2014. NMFS received four comment 

letters on Amendment 107 to the BSAI 

FMP during the NOA and proposed rule 

comment periods. Two comment letters 

were duplicates. The comment letters 

contained two unique comments. A 

summary of these comments and NMFS’ 

responses are provided in the 

‘‘Comments and Responses’’ section of 

this preamble. NMFS did not make any 

changes in this final rule to the 

regulatory text contained in the 

proposed rule. 

The proposed rule (79 FR 59733, 

October 3, 2014) preamble provides 

additional information on the 

development of the action, the impacts 

and effects of the action, and the 

Council’s and NMFS’ rationale for the 

action. The proposed rule is available 

from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Management Measures Contained in 

This Final Rule 

This final rule allows vessels 

designated on FFPs to enter and transit 

through specific areas of the Walrus 

Protection Areas near Round Island and 

Cape Peirce. This final rule applies to 

Federal waters in northern Bristol Bay, 

specifically in statistical area 514 of the 

BSAI, as shown in Figure 1 to 50 CFR 

part 679. This action does not apply in 

State of Alaska (State) waters. The State 

restricts vessel transit in State waters 

around Round Island but not in State 

waters elsewhere in the area. All 

vessels, including vessels designated on 

an FFP, can transit through State waters 

around Cape Peirce and The Twins. 

This action only affects vessels 

designated on an FFP. Vessels that are 

not designated on an FFP are not 

regulated in the Walrus Protection Areas 

and can enter and transit through 

Walrus Protection Areas. The transit 

areas implemented by this final rule are 

shown in Figure 1 below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

196 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Transit Area Near Round Island 

This final rule adds regulations at 

§ 679.22(a)(4)(ii) to establish a transit 

area through the Walrus Protection Area 

near Round Island. This final rule 

establishes a transit area in the EEZ near 

Round Island from April 1 through 

August 15, annually, north of a line 

from 58°47.90′ N, 160°21.91′ W to 

58°32.94′ N, 159°35.45′ W. (See Figure 

1 of this preamble.) 

This transit area is at least 3 nm from 

Round Island at its closest point and is 

more than 9 nm from the haulouts on 

The Twins at its closest point. As noted 

in Section 3.2.7.2.1 of the Analysis, 

there has been no recorded visible 

disturbance to walruses from vessel 

traffic more than 3 nm from Round 

Island, but disturbance from vessel 

traffic has been documented within 3 

nm from Round Island. This final rule 

does not allow vessels designated on an 

FFP to transit within 3 nm of Round 

Island or The Twins. 

This transit area is established to 

maintain suitable protection for 

walruses on Round Island and to allow 

vessels designated on an FFP access to 

a transit route north of Round Island. 

NMFS expects this transit area to reduce 

the potential for vessels to transit near 

Hagemeister Island, a known walrus 

haulout, because vessels will be allowed 

to transit north of Round Island and to 

avoid the route near Hagemeister Island. 

This final rule also allows vessels to 

transit through Federal waters farther 

from shore and thereby reduces transit 

through shallower State waters that are 

more difficult to navigate. 

The transit area near Round Island 

opens April 1 to relieve the existing 

regulations that prohibit entry and 

transit to vessels designated on an FFP 

in Walrus Protection Areas on April 1, 

the start of peak walrus use in the area. 

This transit area closes on August 16 

because of the following: (1) The herring 

and most salmon fisheries are 

completed by August 15, and tender 

vessels that are designated on FFPs (i.e., 

vessels used to carry unprocessed fish to 

processing facilities) are no longer 

active and do not require transit through 

Walrus Protection Areas after that date; 

(2) vessels transiting to deliver 

groundfish in northern Bristol Bay 

typically have completed their 

deliveries by August 15 and do not 

require transit through Walrus 

Protection Areas after that date; and (3) 

limiting vessel transit by August 15 will 

reduce vessel traffic near walrus 

haulouts that could interfere with 

vessels used for the subsistence harvest 

of walruses on Round Island that begins 

in September of each year. Vessels 

designated on FFPs are still prohibited 

from entering and transiting through the 

Walrus Protection Areas near Round 

Island from August 16 through 

September 30. NMFS expects that this 

prohibition will not adversely affect 

vessels designated on FFPs because 

tendering operations and groundfish 

deliveries in northern Bristol Bay do not 

occur between August 16 and 

September 30. 

Transit Area Near Cape Peirce 

This rule adds regulations at 

§ 679.22(a)(4)(ii) to establish a transit 

areas through the Walrus Protection 

Areas at Cape Peirce. This rule 

establishes a transit area in the EEZ near 

Cape Peirce from April 1 through 

August 15, annually, east of a line from 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULESER05JA15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 197 

58°30.00′ N, 161°46.20′ W to 58°21.00′ 

N, 161°46.20′ W. (See Figure 1 of this 

preamble.) This transit area is at least 3 

nm from Cape Peirce at its closest point. 

The transit area through the Walrus 

Protection Areas near Cape Peirce will 

provide an opportunity for vessels with 

FFPs to travel farther from shore while 

tendering herring or salmon and avoid 

transit through State waters near walrus 

haulouts at Cape Peirce. NMFS expects, 

based on the analyses, that the transit 

area will reduce the likelihood of 

disturbance to walruses at the Cape 

Peirce Walrus Protection Areas. 

The transit area will be open from 

April 1 through August 15, annually, 

consistent with the opening and closing 

dates established for the Round Island 

transit area. As noted in the previous 

section of this preamble, these dates 

facilitate vessel transits for tendering 

and groundfish deliveries. Vessels 

designated on FFPs are still prohibited 

from entering and transiting through the 

Walrus Protection Areas near Cape 

Peirce from August 16 through 

September 30. NMFS expects this 

prohibition will not adversely affect 

vessels designated on FFPs because 

tendering operations and groundfish 

deliveries in northern Bristol Bay do not 

occur between August 16 and 

September 30. 

Prohibition on Vessels With FFPs 

Deploying Fishing Gear in Walrus 

Protection Areas 

This final rule adds regulations at 

§ 679.22(a)(4)(i) (incorrectly identified 

in the preamble of the proposed rule as 

§ 679.22(a)(4)(ii)) to prohibit vessels 

designated on an FFP from deploying 

fishing gear in Walrus Protection Areas 

from April 1 through September 30, 

annually. As noted throughout this 

preamble, this rule removes a 

prohibition that limits vessels from 

entering and transiting through Walrus 

Protection Areas. This final rule does 

not allow vessels designated on FFPs to 

fish in Walrus Protection Areas from 

April 1 through September 30, annually. 

Section 3.1 of the Analysis explains that 

this final rule will not affect the timing, 

duration, effort, or harvest levels in the 

fisheries in northern Bristol Bay because 

this final rule does not open Walrus 

Protection Areas to fishing by vessels 

designated on an FFP. Because vessels 

designated on FFPs are already 

prohibited from deploying fishing gear 

in Walrus Protection Areas, this 

prohibition maintains the status quo 

prohibition on deploying fishing gear in 

Walrus Protection Areas. Therefore, this 

final rule does not affect any existing 

fishing operations. 

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. Two comment letters 

were duplicates. The comment letters 

contained two unique comments. A 

summary of the comments and NMFS’ 

response follows. 

Comment 1: Commercial fishing 

vessels, tourist boats, and transit boats 

should not be allowed to transit through 

the walrus protected area. This area 

should be nominated for a marine 

protected area. 

Response: As noted in the preamble to 

the proposed rule and this preamble, the 

purpose of this action is to allow vessels 

designated on FFPs to enter and transit 

through specific areas of the Walrus 

Protection Areas near Round Island and 

Cape Peirce. Therefore, not allowing 

transit through these areas is 

inconsistent with the purpose of this 

action. Also, the commenter’s 

recommendation to nominate these 

areas as marine protected areas is 

outside of the scope of this action. 

NMFS notes that the Council has 

recommended and NMFS has 

implemented a series of closure areas, 

known as Walrus Protection Areas, 

around important walrus haulout sites 

in Bristol Bay to reduce potential 

disturbances to walruses from fishing 

activities. 

As noted in Section 3.2.7 of the 

Analysis and in the preamble of the 

proposed rule (79 FR 59733, October 3, 

2014) for this action, all of the 

alternative management approaches 

considered, and this action specifically, 

were determined to be consistent with 

the best practices in the guidelines 

established by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), the agency 

responsible for the protection of 

walruses. 

Comment 2: Two commenters 

provided support for Amendment 107 

and its associated implementing 

proposed rule for the following reasons: 

(1) Fuel use and operating costs would 

decrease significantly for vessels 

designated on FFPs with the 

implementation of this rule by reducing 

transit time, (2) vessels designated on 

FFPs would be less exposed to weather 

by being allowed to transit through the 

Walrus Protection Areas, (3) walrus 

traveling from Round Island to feeding 

grounds in central Bristol Bay are less 

likely to encounter vessel traffic if 

vessels designated on FFPs can use 

alternate transit routes, and (4) vessel 

traffic will decrease near the walrus 

haulout on the south end of Hagemeister 

Island because vessels designated on 

FFPs would be less likely to transit 

through this area. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges this 

comment and agrees with the 

commenters’ support of this action. 

Additional detail on the effects of this 

action on vessel fuel use, exposure to 

weather, and vessel traffic are provided 

in preamble to the proposed rule and in 

Section 3.2 of the Analysis and are not 

described further here. 

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 107, 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws. 

The final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. 

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. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) 

Section 604 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act requires an agency to 

prepare a FRFA after being required by 

that section or any other law to publish 

a general notice of proposed rulemaking 

and when an agency promulgates a final 

rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the 

U.S. Code. 

Section 604 describes the required 

contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of 

the need for, and objectives of, the rule; 

(2) a statement of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

198 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, a statement 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 filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration in response to 

the proposed rule, and a detailed 

statement of any change made to the 

proposed rule in the final rule as a 

result of the comments; (4) a description 

of 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. 

Need for and Objectives of the Rule 

A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule is contained in the 

preamble to this final rule and is not 

repeated here. This FRFA incorporates 

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) and the summary of the 

IRFA in the proposed rule (79 FR 59733, 

October 3, 2014). 

Public and Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

NMFS published the proposed rule on 

October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59733). The 30- 

day comment period on the proposed 

rule closed on November 3, 2014. An 

IRFA was prepared for the 

‘‘Classification’’ section of the preamble 

to the proposed rule. 

NMFS received four letters of public 

comment on the proposed rule, 

containing a total of two comments. No 

comments were received on the IRFA, 

or on the small entity impacts of this 

action. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) did not file any comments on the 

proposed rule. 

Number and Description of Small 

Entities Regulated by the Final Rule 

The determination of the number and 

description of small entities regulated 

by this action 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 that will be directly 

regulated by this action are those 

businesses that tender herring or salmon 

from fisheries to delivery locations in 

northern Bristol Bay, and those 

businesses that deliver processed 

groundfish from the Bering Sea to 

locations in northern Bristol Bay. 

Vessels tendering herring or salmon are 

transporting harvested fish. Because 

tender vessel operators enter into 

private contracts with herring and 

salmon fishing vessel operators to 

transport their catch, revenue 

information from tenders is not 

available. Based on information from 

2012, the most recent year of complete 

data, a maximum of 64 vessels were 

estimated to have operated as tenders in 

the herring and salmon fisheries in 

northern Bristol Bay. These vessels 

could have been designated on an FFP 

and could be affected by this action. 

Because no revenue information is 

available on these vessels, each of these 

vessels was assumed to be a small 

entity. 

Based on information from 2012, the 

most recent year of complete data, a 

maximum of 6 vessels were estimated to 

have delivered processed groundfish to 

locations in northern Bristol Bay. These 

vessels could have been designated on 

an FFP and could be affected by this 

action. All of these vessels were 

affiliated through common management 

under cooperative fishing arrangements. 

These affiliated vessels had ex-vessel 

annual revenues in 2012 that exceeded 

the annual revenue limit of $20.5 

million used by the SBA to define a 

small entity harvesting or processing 

groundfish (79 FR 33647, June 12, 

2014). Therefore, these vessels are 

considered to be large entities. 

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and 

Compliance Requirements 

This action will not change existing 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements. 

Description of Significant Alternatives 

to the Final Action That Minimize 

Adverse Impacts on Small Entities 

A FRFA must describe 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 that affect the 

impact on small entities was rejected. 

The FRFA considered three alternatives. 

Alternative 1, the no action (status 

quo) alternative, would maintain the 

existing closures between 3 and 12 nm 

around Round Island and Cape Peirce, 

and would not allow vessels designated 

on an FFP to transit these areas. 

Therefore, Alternative 1 represents the 

most restrictive alternative considered 

and the alternative with the highest 

potential cost to regulated small entities. 

Alternative 2 would establish a transit 

area through the existing Walrus 

Protection Areas near Round Island. 

Alternative 2 also included three 

options, Options 1, 2, and 3 to allow the 

closest point of the transit area to be 

within 3 nm, 4.5 nm, and 6 nm from 

Round Island, respectively. 

Alternative 3 would establish a transit 

area through Walrus Protection Areas 

near Cape Peirce. 

The alternatives analyzed but not 

selected are Alternative 1 (status quo, do 

not allow transit through the protection 

areas) and Alternative 2, Options 2 and 

3. All of these alternatives and options 

are more restrictive than the Council’s 

preferred alternatives, which are 

implemented by this final rule. The 

Council’s preferred alternatives and the 

actions implemented by this final rule 

are Alternative 2, Option 1 and 

Alternative 3. Alternative 2, Option 1 

allows vessels to transit closer to Round 

Island than Alternative 2, Option 2 and 

Alternative 2, Option 3. Therefore, 

Alternative 2, Option 1 is the least 

restrictive of the three options under 

Alternative 2. Alternative 3 provides a 

seasonal transit area around Cape 

Peirce. This final rule represents the 

alternatives that minimize the potential 

cost to directly regulated small entities. 

The boundaries farther from Round 

Island (Options 2 and 3) may 

incrementally reduce the potential for 

disturbance to walruses on Round 

Island (see Section 3.2.7 of the 

Analysis), but are not likely to 

significantly affect the distances 

traveled as vessels with FFPs transit the 

protected area. The differences in transit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 199 

time or fuel costs are not likely to be 

significantly different between these 

options. As noted in Section 3.2.7.2.1 of 

the Analysis, there has been no recorded 

visible disturbance to walruses from 

vessel traffic more than 3 nm from 

Round Island. 

The Council also considered 

rescinding the protection areas around 

Round Island and Cape Peirce for all or 

a portion of the year, eliminating the 

barriers to transiting the Walrus 

Protection Areas. Rescission of the 

protection areas would reduce costs to 

regulated small entities more than this 

action. However, these alternatives were 

not analyzed because they do not meet 

the purpose and need of the action to 

maintain protection of walruses in these 

important haulout sites. 

Tribal Consultation 

E.O. 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 

U.S.C. 450 note), the Executive 

Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 

U.S.C. 450 note), the American Indian 

and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (March 30, 

1995), and the Department of Commerce 

Tribal Consultation and Coordination 

policy (78 FR 33331, June 4, 2013) 

outline the responsibilities of NMFS for 

Federal policies that have tribal 

implications. Section 161 of Public Law 

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

section 518 of Public Law 109–447 (118 

Stat. 3267), extends the consultation 

requirements of E.O. 13175 to Alaska 

Native corporations. Under the E.O. and 

agency policies, NMFS must ensure 

meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials and representatives of Alaska 

Native corporations in the development 

of regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications. NMFS provided a copy of 

the proposed rule to the federally 

recognized tribes and Alaska Native 

corporations in the Bristol Bay area to 

notify them of the opportunity to 

comment or request a consultation on 

this action. 

Section 5(b)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 

requires NMFS to prepare a ‘‘tribal 

summary impact statement’’ for any 

regulation that has tribal implications, 

that imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on Indian tribal 

governments, and is not required by 

statute. The tribal summary impact 

statement must contain (1) a description 

of the extent of the agency’s prior 

consultation with tribal officials, (2) a 

summary of the nature of their concerns, 

(3) the agency’s position supporting the 

need to issue the regulation, and (4) a 

statement of the extent to which the 

concerns of tribal officials have been 

met. 

Tribal Summary Impact Statement 

Pursuant to E.O. 13175, NMFS mailed 

letters to approximately 162 federally 

recognized tribes and Alaska Native 

corporations in the Bristol Bay area 

providing information about 

Amendment 107 and the proposed rule. 

The letter invited comments and 

requests for consultation on this action. 

NMFS received no requests for 

consultation. This final rule is needed to 

restore the access of federally permitted 

vessels to transit through Walrus 

Protection Areas that was limited by 

regulations implementing Amendment 

83 to the GOA FMP and to maintain 

suitable protection for walruses on 

Round Island and Cape Peirce. During 

the development of this action, the 

Council communicated with the 

USFWS and the Qayassiq Walrus 

Commission to avoid adverse impacts to 

walruses from this action. As noted in 

Section 3.2.7 of the Analysis and 

discussed in the preamble of the 

proposed rule for this action, all of the 

alternative management approaches 

considered, and this action specifically, 

were determined to be consistent with 

the best practices in the guidelines 

established by USFWS, the agency 

responsible for the protection of 

walruses. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries. 

Dated: December 30, 2014. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set out in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 679 is amended as follows: 

PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE 

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF 

ALASKA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 679 

continues to read as follows: 

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

seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447; Pub. L. 

111–281. 

■ 2. In § 679.22, revise paragraph (a)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 679.22 Closures. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Walrus protection areas. (i) From 

April 1 through September 30 of each 

calendar year, vessels designated on a 

Federal fisheries permit issued under 

§ 679.4 are prohibited from deploying 

fishing gear in that part of the Bering 

Sea subarea between 3 and 12 nm 

seaward of the baseline used to measure 

the territorial sea around islands named 

Round Island and The Twins, as shown 

on National Ocean Survey Chart 16315, 

and around Cape Peirce (58°33′ N. lat., 

161°43′ W. long.). 

(ii) From April 1 through September 

30 of each calendar year, vessels 

designated on a Federal fisheries permit 

issued under § 679.4 are prohibited in 

that part of the Bering Sea subarea 

between 3 and 12 nm seaward of the 

baseline used to measure the territorial 

sea around islands named Round Island 

and The Twins, as shown on National 

Ocean Survey Chart 16315, and around 

Cape Peirce (58°33′ N. lat., 161°43′ W. 

long.), except that from April 1 through 

August 15 of each calendar year vessels 

designated on a Federal fisheries permit 

are not prohibited from entering and 

transiting through waters off: 

(A) Round Island, north of a straight 

line connecting 58°47.90′ N. lat./

160°21.91′ W. long., and 58°32.94′ N. 

lat./159°35.45′ W. long.; and 

(B) Cape Peirce, east of a straight line 

connecting 58°30.00′ N. lat./161°46.20′ 

W. long., and 58°21.00′ N. lat./

161°46.20′ W. long. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–30817 Filed 1–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES