1378 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

or surrogate may rescind the request for 

revocation. If VA suspects that the 

safety of the eligible veteran is at risk, 

then VA may suspend the caregiver’s 

responsibilities, and remove the eligible 

veteran from the home if requested by 

the eligible veteran, or take other 

appropriate action to ensure the welfare 

of the eligible veteran, prior to making 

a formal revocation. 

(4) Caregiver benefits will continue 

for 30 days after the date of revocation, 

and VA will, if requested by the Family 

Caregiver, assist the individual with 

transitioning to alternative health care 

coverage and mental health services, 

unless one of the following is true: 

(i) VA determines that the Family 

Caregiver committed fraud or abused or 

neglected the eligible veteran, in which 

case benefits will terminate 

immediately. 

(ii) If the revoked individual was the 

Primary Family Caregiver, and another 

Primary Family Caregiver is designated 

within 30 days after the date of 

revocation, in which case benefits for 

the revoked Primary Family Caregiver 

will terminate the day before the date 

the new Primary Family Caregiver is 

designated. 

(iii) If another individual is 

designated to be a Family Caregiver 

within 30 days after the date of 

revocation, such that there are three 

Family Caregivers assigned to the 

eligible veteran, in which case benefits 

for the revoked Family Caregiver will 

terminate the day before the date the 

new Family Caregiver is designated. 

(iv) The revoked individual had been 

living with the eligible veteran and 

moves out, or the revoked individual 

abandons or terminates his or her 

relationship with the eligible veteran, in 

which case benefits will terminate 

immediately. 

(c) Revocation by VA. VA may 

immediately revoke the designation of a 

Family Caregiver if the eligible veteran 

or individual designated as a Family 

Caregiver no longer meets the 

requirements of this part, or if VA 

makes the clinical determination that 

having the Family Caregiver is no longer 

in the best interest of the eligible 

veteran. VA will, if requested by the 

Family Caregiver, assist him or her in 

transitioning to alternative health care 

coverage and mental health services. If 

revocation is due to improvement in the 

eligible veteran’s condition, death, or 

permanent institutionalization, the 

Family Caregiver will continue to 

receive caregiver benefits for 90 days, 

unless any of the conditions described 

in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iv) of 

this section apply, in which case 

benefits will terminate as specified. In 

addition, bereavement counseling may 

be available under 38 U.S.C. 1783. If VA 

suspects that the safety of the eligible 

veteran is at risk, then VA may suspend 

the caregiver’s responsibilities, and 

remove the eligible veteran from the 

home if requested by the eligible veteran 

or take other appropriate action to 

ensure the welfare of the eligible 

veteran, prior to making a formal 

revocation. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00071 Filed 1–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

RIN 0648–XD287 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Skates Management 

in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area; Habitat Areas of 

Particular Concern 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Agency decision. 

SUMMARY: The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the 

approval of Amendment 104 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP). Amendment 104 to the FMP 

designates six areas of skate egg 

concentration as Habitat Areas of 

Particular Concern (HAPC). The HAPC 

designations for the six areas of skate 

egg concentration in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(BSAI) are intended to highlight the 

importance of this essential fish habitat 

for conservation. This action promotes 

the goals and objectives of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, the 

FMP, and other applicable laws. 

DATES: The amendment was approved 

on January 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of 

Amendment 104 to the FMP and the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) 

prepared for this action are available 

from the Alaska Region NMFS Web site 

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

analyses/default.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Seanbob Kelly, 907–271–5195. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that 

each regional fishery management 

council submit proposed amendments 

to a fishery management plan to NMFS 

for review and approval, disapproval, or 

partial approval by the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary). The MagnusonStevens Act also requires that, upon 

receiving a fishery management plan 

amendment, NMFS immediately 

publish in the Federal Register a notice 

that the amendment is available for 

public review and comment. 

The Notice of Availability for 

Amendment 104 was published in the 

Federal Register on October 8, 2014 (79 

FR 60802), with a 60-day comment 

period that ended on December 8, 2014. 

NMFS received three comment letters 

that contained five substantive 

comments during the public comment 

period on the Notice of Availability for 

Amendment 104. No changes were 

made in response to these comments. 

NMFS summarized and responded to 

these comments under Comment and 

Responses, below. 

NMFS determined that Amendment 

104 to the FMP is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws, and the Secretary 

approved Amendment 104 on January 5, 

2015. The October 8, 2014, Notice of 

Availability contains additional 

information on this action. No changes 

to Federal regulations are necessary to 

implement Amendment 104. 

HAPC are geographic sites that fall 

within the distribution of essential fish 

habitat (EFH) for federally-managed 

species. HAPC are areas of special 

importance that may require additional 

protection from the adverse effects of 

fishing. EFH provisions provide a means 

for the Council to identify HAPC (50 

CFR 600.815(a)(8)) in fishery 

management plans based on the rarity of 

the habitat type and at least one or more 

of the following considerations: the 

importance of the ecological function 

provided by the habitat; the extent to 

which the habitat is sensitive to humaninduced environmental disturbance or 

degradation; and whether, and to what 

extent, development activities are, or 

will be, stressing the habitat type. The 

designation of HAPC does not require 

the implementation of regulations to 

limit fishing within HAPC unless such 

measures are determined to be 

necessary. EFH provisions require that a 

Council and NMFS act to prevent, 

mitigate, or minimize any adverse 

effects from fishing, to the extent 

practicable, if there is evidence that a 

fishing activity adversely affects EFH in 

a manner that is more than minimal and 

not temporary in nature (50 CFR 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 1379 

600.815(a)(2)(ii)). Because HAPC is a 

type of EFH, these regulatory provisions 

also apply to HAPC. 

Amendment 104 to the FMP was 

unanimously adopted by the Council in 

February 2013. Amendment 104 

designates as HAPC six areas in the 

eastern Bering Sea where relatively high 

concentrations of skate eggs occur for 

several skate species (family Rajidae). 

Amendment 104 amends (1) Section 

4.2.3.2 of the FMP to add six areas of 

skate egg concentration as HAPC, and 

(2) Appendix B of the FMP to include 

coordinates and maps that designate 

these HAPC. Amendment 104 adds 

Section 3.5.2.4.2 to the FMP to note that 

fishing activities are not restricted 

within these HAPC. 

The Council and NMFS determined 

that these six areas met the definition of 

HAPC because they are rare and provide 

an important ecological function. These 

areas encompass approximately 82 

square nautical miles of habitat, or less 

than 0.1 percent of the total area of the 

BSAI. These areas are discrete sites near 

the shelf/slope break with unique 

abiotic features (e.g., substrate 

composition) that serve as important 

spawning and embryonic development 

areas for skate species. At each of these 

six areas, scientists repeatedly observed 

a relatively high occurrence of skate egg 

cases during stock assessment surveys 

and from fishery observer samples 

collected from vessels deploying fishing 

gear that contacted the sea floor (e.g., 

non-pelagic trawl gear). The best 

available scientific information does not 

indicate that human-induced 

degradation (e.g., adverse effects from 

fishing or non-fishing) is occurring. 

Because human-induced degradation 

from fishing or other activities is not 

observed currently, the Council did not 

consider this HAPC designation 

criterion as having been met. 

The Council recommended 

Amendment 104 to the FMP to 

designate the six areas of skate egg 

concentrations that meet the Council’s 

HAPC criteria. The Council also 

determined that designating these areas 

as HAPC would provide additional 

focus for the review of and consultation 

on proposed and existing activities (e.g., 

drilling, laying cables, seismic 

exploration, fishing) within these 

HAPC. 

An EA was prepared for Amendment 

104 that describes the six areas of skate 

egg concentration, the fishery 

management background, the purpose 

and need for the action, the 

management alternatives evaluated to 

address this action, and the 

environmental, social, and economic 

impacts of the alternatives (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Comments and Responses 

During the public comment period for 

the Notice of Availability for 

Amendment 104, NMFS received three 

comment letters from three unique 

members of the public that contained 

five substantive comments. No changes 

to the amendment text were needed in 

response to the public comments. 

NMFS’ responses to these comments are 

presented below. 

Comment 1: One commenter 

expressed support for this action. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges this 

comment. 

Comment 2: One commenter 

expressed a general discontent with 

fisheries management. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges this 

comment and notes that it is outside of 

the scope of Amendment 104. 

Comment 3: Fishing should be 

banned in the six HAPC because NMFS 

is unable to prevent fishermen from 

exceeding allocations or illegally 

participating in the groundfish fisheries. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. Before 

adopting Amendment 104, the Council 

considered an alternative (Alternative 3) 

that would have limited fishing within 

the proposed HAPC. The Council did 

not recommend regulations to limit 

fishing as part of this action because 

there is no evidence of adverse effects 

from fishing on skate populations 

within these HAPC that would need to 

be addressed through regulation. For 

example, the types of fishing gear used 

in the six HAPC have a minimal and 

temporary impact on skate habitat, and 

fishing effort is limited or does not 

occur in four of the six HAPC. 

Therefore, continued commercial 

fishing at the current rate and intensity 

is not likely to alter the capacity of EFH 

within these HAPC to support healthy 

populations of skates over the long term, 

as noted in Section 3.5.2 of the EA 

prepared for this action (See 

ADDRESSES). No new information exists 

that indicates that fishing activities are 

adversely affecting skate egg deposition 

and embryonic development within 

these HAPC. 

NMFS will continue monitoring 

fishing activities within these six HAPC. 

NMFS monitors these HAPC by 

analyzing data collected through 

existing data sources such as stock 

assessment surveys and fishery 

observers. This monitoring will inform 

the Council and NMFS when there are 

major changes in fishing effort or other 

potential impacts to skate habitat within 

these HAPC. If through monitoring, 

NMFS and the Council learn that skate 

recruitment or overall biomass of a skate 

species has changed due to fishing 

impacts within these HAPC, the Council 

could recommend and NMFS could 

implement action to restrict fishing 

activities within these HAPC to protect 

the skate stocks dependent on the six 

HAPC established by this action. 

Comment 4: Skates are important to 

the marine ecosystem. The six HAPC 

must be monitored for non-fishing 

impacts like abiotic changes in the 

environment. 

Response: NMFS agrees. As noted in 

the response to comment 3, NMFS will 

continue to monitor the utility of these 

sites for skate spawning and embryonic 

development. This includes further 

study of the relationship between the 

biotic and abiotic habitat features of the 

sites and site selection for skate egg 

deposition. Incorporating the research 

and monitoring of skate species into the 

Council’s annual research priority list 

will provide additional research focus 

on these HAPC. This research is 

intended to improve the understanding 

of skate populations, the importance of 

areas of skate egg concentration, and 

skate ecology and habitat. 

Comment 5: The commonly accepted 

scientific term used for the HAPC areas 

designated under Amendment 104 is 

‘‘skate nurseries.’’ We recommend that 

NMFS clarify that the ‘‘areas of skate egg 

concentrations’’ designated as HAPC are 

equivalent to ‘‘skate nursery’’ sites. 

Response: NMFS agrees and notes 

that Section 2.4.4 of the EA prepared for 

this action (See ADDRESSES) 

acknowledges that the term ‘‘areas of 

skate egg concentrations’’ is 

synonymous with the term ‘‘skate 

nurseries’’. 

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

Dated: January 5, 2015. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00170 Filed 1–8–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES