Source: https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2015/02/19/2015-03486.html
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 23:39:10
Document Index: 445142653

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1026', '§ 1026', '§ 1026', '§ 1026', '§ 1026', '§ 1026', '§ 1026', '§ 1026', '§ 1026', 'art 922', '§ 1026', 'art 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', 'art 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', 'art 922', 'art 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', 'art 922', 'ART 922', 'art 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', '§ 922', 'art 165', '§ 922', 'art 51', 'art 922', 'ART 922', 'art.\n3', 'art 922']

Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries Regulations on Introduced Species, 8778-8787 [2015-03486] :: National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration :: Department Of Commerce :: Regulation Tracker :: Justia
Justia Regulation Tracker Department Of Commerce National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries Regulations on Introduced Species, 8778-8787 [2015-03486]
Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries Regulations on Introduced Species, 8778-8787 [2015-03486]
Download as PDF 8778 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37(m)(8) Construction Loans 1. Clear and conspicuous statement regarding redisclosure for construction loans. For construction loans in transactions involving new construction, where the creditor reasonably expects the settlement date to be 60 days or more after the provision of the disclosures required under § 1026.19(e)(1)(i), providing the statement, ‘‘You may receive a revised Loan Estimate at any time prior to 60 days before consummation’’ under the master heading ‘‘Additional Information About This Loan’’ and the heading ‘‘Other Considerations’’ pursuant to § 1026.37(m)(8) satisfies the requirements set forth in § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(F) that the statement be made clearly and conspicuously on the disclosure. ‘‘increased’’ is in boldface font and is replaced with the word ‘‘decreased’’ as applicable, complies with this requirement. * * * * * 37(n) Signature Statement 38(g)(2) Prepaids * * * * * * 2. Multiple consumers. If there is more than one consumer who will be obligated in the transaction, the first consumer signs as the applicant and each additional consumer signs as a coapplicant. If there is not enough space under the heading ‘‘Confirm Receipt’’ to provide signature lines for every consumer in the transaction, the creditor may add additional signature pages, as needed, at the end of the form for the remaining consumers’ signatures. However, the creditor is required to disclose the heading and statement required by § 1026.37(n)(1) on such additional pages. * * * * * Paragraph 38(e)(2)(iii)(A) * * * * * 3. Statements regarding excess amount and any credit to the consumer. Section 1026.38(e)(2)(iii)(A) requires a statement that an increase in closing costs exceeds legal limits by the dollar amount of the excess and a statement directing the consumer to the disclosure of lender credits under § 1026.38(h)(3) if a credit is provided under § 1026.19(f)(2)(v). See form H–25(F) in appendix H to this part for examples of such statements. * * * * * * * * * 4. Interest rate for prepaid interest. The dollar amounts disclosed pursuant to § 1026.38(g)(2) must be based on the interest rate disclosed under § 1026.38(b), as required by § 1026.37(b)(2). * * * * * Dated: January 18, 2015. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. [FR Doc. 2015–01321 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Section 1026.38—Content of Disclosures for Certain Mortgage Transactions (Closing Disclosure) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration * 15 CFR Part 922 * * * * 38(a)(3)(vi) Property [Docket No. 120809321–4999–03] * RIN 0648–BC26 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES * * * * 2. Multiple properties. Where more than one property secures the credit transaction, § 1026.38(a)(3)(vi) requires disclosure of all property addresses. If the addresses of all properties securing the transaction do not fit in the space allocated on the Closing Disclosure, an additional page with the addresses of all such properties may be appended to the end of the form. * * * * * Paragraph 38(e)(1)(iii)(A) 1. Statements of increases or decreases. Section 1026.38(e)(1)(iii)(A) requires a statement of whether the amount increased or decreased from the estimated amount. The statement, ‘‘This amount increased,’’ in which the word VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries Regulations on Introduced Species Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: On March 18, 2013, NOAA proposed to prohibit the introduction of introduced species into the state waters of Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey Bay national marine sanctuaries (GFNMS and MBNMS, respectively). The proposed prohibition included exceptions for the catch and release of SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 striped bass and for introduced species of shellfish as part of commercial aquaculture activities in the Tomales Bay region of GFNMS (the only geographic area within sanctuaries offshore of California where aquaculture occurs). On March 27, 2014, NOAA amended the proposal to allow GFNMS and MBNMS to consider authorizing the introduction of certain introduced species of shellfish, those considered to be non-invasive, from commercial aquaculture culture projects in all state waters of the sanctuaries. NOAA’s final action allows MBNMS to authorize state of California permits or leases for commercial aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced species of shellfish that a) the state management agencies and NOAA have determined to be non-invasive, and b) will not have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary resources or qualities. For GFNMS, NOAA will not adopt authorization authority for similar projects in state waters at this time and will revert to the proposal from March 2013, which prohibits introduction of introduced species, exempts state permitted commercial shellfish aquaculture activities within Tomales Bay only, and provides an exception for the catch and release of striped bass. DATES: Effective Date: Pursuant to section 304(b) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)), the revised designation and regulations shall take effect and become final after the close of a review period of forty-five days of continuous session of Congress beginning on February 19, 2015. NOAA will publish an announcement of the effective date of the final regulations in the Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Lott, Regional Operations Coordinator, West Coast Region, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 99 Pacific Street, STE 100F, Monterey, CA 93940. (831) 647–1920. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On November 20, 2008, NOAA issued a final rule associated with the Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR) of GFNMS, MBNMS, and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (73 FR 70488). Among other things, the rule prohibited the introduction of introduced species within or into both the federal and state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS, except for the catch and release of striped bass in both sanctuaries and from existing commercial aquaculture activities within the Tomales Bay region of E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations GFNMS. In December 2008, the Governor of California, acting pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)(1)), certified that certain changes to each sanctuary’s terms of designation for regulating the introduction of introduced species were unacceptable for the state waters portions of GFNMS and MBNMS. As a result of that determination, NOAA’s prohibitions on introduced species currently apply only in the federal waters of MBNMS and GFNMS. On March 18, 2013, following discussions with the state of California, NOAA re-proposed the prohibition on the introduction of introduced species within or into the state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS to provide regulatory consistency in all waters of those two sanctuaries and across the four national marine sanctuaries along the California coast (78 FR 16622). The proposal would have expanded into state waters the exception for the catch and release of striped bass and would have exempted state-permitted mariculture activities in Tomales Bay. A 60-day comment period on the proposed rule closed on May 17, 2013. (Note: MBNMS regulations use the term ‘‘aquaculture’’ and GFNMS regulations use the term ‘‘mariculture’’ to refer to the same activity; accordingly, both of these terms are used in this final rulemaking.) NOAA received approximately 14 comments from the public and the MBNMS and GFNMS Sanctuary Advisory Councils in support of the March 2013 draft proposal. NOAA also received comments from both the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and aquaculture industry raising concerns that ONMS’s broad definition of ‘‘introduced species’’ did not recognize that a number of introduced species of shellfish have been cultivated for over 100 years in Tomales Bay, within GFNMS, without significant adverse impacts to native resources. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2008 Joint Management Plan Review recognized that non-native oyster species cultivated in Tomales Bay had not spread outside the aquaculture areas. Both the CDFW and aquaculture industry also commented that the proposed regulation did not allow NOAA to consider potential future permit requests from the industry for cultivation of such species. The state believed that if NOAA exercised the authority to permit such operations, in close cooperation and collaboration with state resource management entities—CDFW, California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC), and California Coastal Commission VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 (CCC)—this would offer an opportunity for aquaculture operators and the state to demonstrate that expanding existing or developing new shellfish aquaculture operations involving introduced species of shellfish that are non-invasive would not harm sanctuary resources. Both CDFW and the aquaculture industry also expressed the view that this approach would be more consistent with Executive Order 13112 on the management of introduced species. In response to these concerns, on March 27, 2014, NOAA amended its proposal to provide MBNMS and GFNMS the regulatory authority to authorize state permits or leases for commercial aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced species of shellfish that the state management agencies and NOAA have determined to be non-invasive and thus would not have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary resources or qualities (79 FR 17073). Representatives from state agencies agreed with NOAA that introduced species should be managed uniformly throughout all state waters of the two sanctuaries. NOAA received 16 comments on this revised proposal, virtually all in opposition to granting GFNMS the regulatory authority to authorize state permits for such aquaculture projects. There were no comments received objecting to this authority for MBNMS. NOAA and the state of California have both expressed interest in entering into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to define the roles of various state agencies (CDFW, CFGC, and CCC) and ONMS in a prescribed, collaborative process to determine whether an introduced species of shellfish could be considered non-invasive and potentially approved for cultivation within the state waters of either national marine sanctuary. The MOA would not supersede the legal authority of any participating agency; rather it would guide the collaborative interagency process and decision making timelines. The MOA would be necessary in response to the process outlined in NOAA’s proposed rule published on March 2013 (78 FR 16622) regarding consultations for aquaculture projects in Tomales Bay, or for the process described in the March 2014 proposed rule (79 FR 17073) regarding the permit authorization process for the two national marine sanctuaries. II. Summary of the Revisions to GFNMS Terms of Designation and Regulations NOAA received few comments on the March 2013 proposed rulemaking regarding the introduced species regulation related to GFNMS. Both the PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 8779 GFNMS Advisory Council and several members of the public commented in strong support of the proposed rule and complimented the state agencies for recognizing the value in collaborating with NOAA to ensure state waters had additional protection from introduced species. However, the subsequent March 2014 proposed rule received considerable criticism from the public due to the proposal to allow GFNMS to authorize other agency permits, leases or licenses for new or expanded commercial shellfish aquaculture projects involving non-invasive introduced species. GFNMS does not presently have this permit authority and many commenters objected to providing that authority and increasing the risk of an invasion by an introduced shellfish species in state waters of GFNMS. In a separate rulemaking to expand GFNMS boundaries (79 FR 20981), the state of California also requested that NOAA not provide GFNMS authorization authority at this time and that NOAA conduct a separate process to allow time for local input and education regarding such a regulatory change. As a result, NOAA will move forward with the regulatory proposals for GFNMS that were described in the March 2013 proposed rule. Specifically for GFNMS, this final rule extends the introduced species prohibition to all of GFNMS state waters, but exempts catch and release of striped bass and any existing or future commercial aquaculture project involving introduced species approved by the state of California in sanctuary waters of Tomales Bay after consulting GFNMS. NOAA’s final rule is responsive to public support; eliminates the authorization authority for GFNMS that had generated considerable public concern; is consistent with the state of California’s request to consider authorization authority for GFNMS in a separate process; and allows existing aquaculture projects to continue in Tomales Bay, the only area of either sanctuary where such activity presently occurs. Presently 23.6 percent of GFNMS—all of the state waters in sanctuary (301.5 square statute miles)—is at risk from the introduction of introduced species. With this action, the vast majority of the sanctuary would be protected from such introductions of introduced species, except for less than 1 percent (10.3 square statute miles) in sanctuary waters of Tomales Bay, where commercial aquaculture of introduced species of shellfish approved by the state after consulting with NOAA, would be allowed. All other vectors of E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 8780 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations introduction of introduced species are prohibited in Tomales Bay. Accordingly, NOAA is amending the GFNMS terms of designation to ensure that the introduction or release of an introduced species applies to the state waters of the sanctuary regardless of the means of introduction. The revised terms of designation under Article IV Scope of Regulations, Section 1 Activities Subject to Regulation, Activity (e) will read as follows (new text in quotes and deleted text in brackets and italics): Article IV. Scope of Regulations Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation * * * (e) Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into [the federal waters of] the Sanctuary an introduced species NOAA is also changing the second sentence of Article V in the terms of designation to ensure that the intent NOAA has consistently described—to regulate introduced species consistently across all four national marine sanctuaries along the coast California, in both state and federal waters—is achieved. Additionally, NOAA’s final rule removes the time limitation needed to grandfather existing state-approved mariculture projects in Tomales Bay. Therefore, Article V. Relation to Other Regulatory Programs, Section 1, will read as follows (new text in quotes and deleted text in brackets and italics): Article V. Relation to Other Regulatory Programs rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Section 1. Fishing and Waterfowl Hunting The regulation of fishing, including fishing for shellfish and invertebrates, and waterfowl hunting, is not authorized under Article IV. However, fishing vessels may be regulated with respect to vessel operations in accordance with Article IV, section 1, paragraphs (b) and (h), and mariculture activities involving alterations of or construction on the seabed, or ‘‘introduction or’’ release of introduced species by mariculture activities [not covered by a valid lease from the State of California and in effect on the effective date of the final regulation], can be regulated in accordance with Article IV, section 1, paragraph (c) and (e). All regulatory programs pertaining to fishing, and to waterfowl hunting, including regulations promulgated under the California Fish and Game Code and Fishery Management Plans promulgated under the Magnuson- VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., will remain in effect, and all permits, licenses, and other authorizations issued pursuant thereto will be valid within the Sanctuary unless authorizing any activity prohibited by any regulation implementing Article IV. The term ‘‘fishing’’ as used in this Article includes mariculture. In addition, for the purpose of this regulation NOAA is codifying the northern geographical extent of Tomales Bay via the same demarcation line that is already used in the International Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea 1972 (COLREGS): the line runs from Avalis Beach east to Sand Point. These geographic coordinates have been added as Appendix D to Subpart H of Part 922. Parts of the western and southern shoreline of Tomales Bay solely within Point Reyes National Seashore are not subject to this regulation. Last, as described in new § 922.85, NOAA intends to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the state of California to implement the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s commitment to consult with NOAA whenever a future commercial shellfish aquaculture project permit application within Tomales Bay is received and being considered by the state. III. Summary of the Revisions to MBNMS Terms of Designation and Regulations NOAA received few comments on the March 2013 proposed rulemaking regarding the introduced species regulation related to MBNMS. The MBNMS Advisory Council and several members of the public commented in strong support of the proposed rule. The comments received for the March 2014 proposed rule generally focused on the GFNMS regulations, however the aquaculture industry commented in support of allowing MBNMS (as well as GFNMS) to consider a permit authorization for future commercial shellfish aquaculture projects involving non-invasive introduced species. NOAA is implementing the regulatory proposals for MBNMS that were described in the March 2014 proposed rule. As with GFNMS, NOAA believes there is urgency and need to extend from federal waters into state waters the full protection of sanctuary regulations prohibiting the introduction or release of introduced species. Accordingly, NOAA is modifying the MBNMS terms of designation and regulations to prohibit the introduction or other release of introduced species from within or into the state waters of the sanctuary. The revised terms of PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 designation under Article IV Scope of Regulations, Section 1 Activities Subject to Regulation, Activity (l) will read as follows (deleted text in brackets and italics): Article IV. Scope of Regulations Section l. Activities Subject to Regulation * * * (l) Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into [the federal waters of] the Sanctuary an introduced species. This final rule also provides MBNMS with the authority to authorize a valid permit, license or other authorization issued by the state of California for commercial shellfish aquaculture activities conducted in state waters of MBNMS involving introduced species of shellfish that NOAA and the state have determined are non-invasive and that will not cause significant adverse effects to sanctuary resources or qualities. MBNMS regulations already allow the ONMS Director the ability to authorize state of California (or other agency) permits for certain activities that are otherwise prohibited in the sanctuary. This authority is delegated from the ONMS Director to the sanctuary Superintendent. NOAA intends to enter into an MOA with the state of California to describe how NOAA and the state agencies— CFGC, CDFW and CCC—will coordinate on any future proposal to develop any commercial shellfish aquaculture project in state waters of MBNMS involving a non-invasive introduced species. Similar to other MOAs with state agencies, this MOA requirement will be reflected in MBNMS regulations (see § 922.134(a)). IV. Response to Comments NOAA conducted two comment periods on separate proposed rules between March 2013 and March 2014 and received a total of 29 comments from 33 groups, agencies or individuals. The comments and responses have been segregated below to reflect the two different proposed rules. Comments and Responses Submitted on the March 2013 Proposed Rule General Support for the Proposed Rule 1. Comment: Commenters generally supported the 2013 proposal, noting the cooperation of NOAA and the state agencies in coming to terms that would protect the national marine sanctuaries from the threat of introduced species. Response: NOAA agrees there was ongoing need to address the unresolved issue of leaving the state waters portions of the two national marine sanctuaries E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES vulnerable to introduction of introduced species. This final rule incorporates aspects of both the 2013 and 2014 proposed rules, and relies on increased collaboration among the state of California agencies and NOAA. The final rule specifically includes the ability for aquaculture operators to seek a permit from the state (within Tomales Bay in GFNMS) and from the state and NOAA (within MBNMS). The Proposed Rule Does Not Recognize That Some Introduced Species Are NonInvasive 2. Comment: NOAA should revise the proposed rule to recognize that some introduced species are not a threat to sanctuary resources because they do not reproduce or otherwise affect the natural ecosystem of the sanctuary if released. NOAA should consider provisions for allowing culturing of introduced shellfish species approved by the state of California and proven to pose no significant threat to native ecological processes within the sanctuaries. Response: National marine sanctuaries are designated, in part, to maintain ‘‘natural biological communities . . . and to protect, and where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological processes’’ (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(3)). In short, national marine sanctuaries are mandated by law to preserve the natural character of national marine sanctuary ecosystems, similar to the manner that terrestrial ecosystems have been preserved and protected by the national parks system. Any proposed alteration of the natural biological community (e.g. introduction of a foreign species) is contrary to the purpose of sanctuary designation. Therefore, the proposed introduction of species not native to a national marine sanctuary places the burden of proof on the project sponsor to demonstrate to NOAA and state management agencies that no significant harm will result from any such proposal. NOAA acknowledges that there have been some introduced species of shellfish cultivated in GFNMS which have not, to date, had significant adverse effects on sanctuary resources. In discussions with the three state management entities with regulatory control over aquaculture projects in state waters—the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Fish and Game Commission and the California Coastal Commission—it is clear to NOAA that state management entities are also concerned about the impact invasive, introduced species can have on an ecosystem. These agencies have taken steps to eliminate, or at least greatly VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 reduce the risk of an invasion from such species grown in aquaculture projects. Based on these comments and further analysis, NOAA issued a revised proposed rule in March 2014 which proposed to allow the ONMS Director to consider authorization of state permits or leases for a very limited scope of aquaculture projects—state-approved aquaculture in state waters of GFNMS (including Tomales Bay) or MBNMS involving an introduced species of shellfish that the state and NOAA determined would not be invasive or otherwise damage sanctuary resources (authority to issue an authorization is delegated from the ONMS director to a sanctuary superintendent). NOAA proposed to develop an MOA with the state agencies to lay out how such joint review would take place for any future aquaculture project. MBNMS already has authorization authority, but cannot issue a permit for an introduced species projects. GFNMS does not have authorization authority, so this would have been new authority for GFNMS. The final rule expands MBNMS’s existing authorization authority to include this limited scope of regulatory action—the potential authorization of state permits or leases that would allow development of new aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced shellfish species the state and NOAA have determined are noninvasive and will not harm sanctuary resources or qualities. For GFNMS, NOAA has adjusted the final rule to conform to a request from the state of California as part of a separate rulemaking on boundary expansion of that sanctuary to not include authorization authority in GFNMS at this time. NOAA intends to begin implementing a separate public process, including consultation with affected agencies, on the topic of authorization after the finalization of the sanctuary expansion action. Future Growth of Shellfish Industry 3. Comment: The proposed rule eliminates sites for future growth of the shellfish industry in California, conflicts with other federal policies and goals, and should be withdrawn for further consideration and revision. Response: NOAA disagrees. The final rule does not prohibit aquaculture. It prohibits the introduction of introduced species within or into nationally protected marine ecosystems. The final rule now allows the consideration of non-invasive introduced species as part of a commercial shellfish aquaculture operation in state waters of MBNMS, provided that both the state and NOAA determine cultivation of the species PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 8781 would have no significant adverse effects to sanctuary resources or qualities. Furthermore, the final rule includes no regulatory restrictions by GFNMS for any new or expanded aquaculture project cultivating introduced species in Tomales Bay, the only area of either sanctuary where such activity is currently conducted. Expansion would be possible in Tomales Bay, provided applicants received appropriate state permits or leases. The final rule specifically includes the ability for aquaculture operators to seek a permit from the state (within Tomales Bay in GFNMS) and from the state and NOAA (within MBNMS). Exempting Tomales Bay Increases Permitting Burden 4. Comment: The proposed exemption of Tomales Bay from ONMS regulations would cause undue and additional regulatory burden on aquaculture operators seeking new permits from the state. The proposed Memorandum of Agreement between NOAA and the state agencies would cause undue delay. Response: NOAA disagrees. The exemption to the introduced species regulation for mariculture in Tomales Bay will not cause a burden on an operator proposing a new or expanded aquaculture project. The MOA will outline and clarify agency roles and anticipated timelines in the consultation process that state agencies would normally conduct with other agencies, in this case GFNMS. Proposed Rule Eliminates Jobs 5. Comment: The proposed rule will result in elimination of green jobs and sustainable small businesses associated with shellfish aquaculture, and create a greater seafood trade imbalance. Response: The final rule will not eliminate any existing aquaculture operation or associated green jobs in GFNMS, and exempts from sanctuary regulation the only area in that sanctuary where aquaculture presently occurs. For MBNMS, the final rule allows the sanctuary superintendent to consider authorization of a state permit or lease for a future commercial shellfish aquaculture project in state waters cultivating an introduced species that NOAA and the state determine is non-invasive and will not adversely affect sanctuary resources or qualities. Presently there are no such introduced species aquaculture projects in MBNMS and hence no jobs that could be lost due to the final rule. E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 8782 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Proposed Action Is More Consistent With Coastal Act Comments and Responses Submitted for Second Proposed Rule, March 2014 Catch and Release of State Approved Non-Native Species 6. Comment: The proposed rule is more consistent with the past decision by the California Coastal Commission regarding the final rule NOAA submitted to the state in 2008. (The current status is inconsistent with that decision, with the state waters completely unprotected from introduction of introduced species.) Response: NOAA agrees. No Introduced Species Should Be Allowed 10. Comment: Regulation of introduced species by MBNMS and GFNMS should include provisions for continued catch and release of striped bass (Marone saxatilis), a fish stock historically managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Response: As in the original final rule issued on November 20, 2008, catch and release of striped bass (Marone saxatilis) in both state and federal waters of GFNMS and MBNMS is exempt from this regulation (73 FR 70488). Effect of Regulation on Research on Introduced Species 7. Comment: Clarify how the proposed regulation affects research on introduced species. Response: The final rule applies to state waters of both GFNMS and MBNMS and would make the restrictions on introduction of introduced species consistent within state and federal waters of those sanctuaries. Specifically, sanctuary regulations will prohibit introducing or otherwise releasing an introduced species into the sanctuary, and thus any research that includes or results in the release or other introduction of an introduced species would not be allowed. Regulations for both sites would not allow a superintendent to issue a permit for such research. Research on introduced species already existing within the sanctuary would not generally be prohibited unless such research involved relocation, moving, or otherwise distributing individuals or propagules of the existing introduced species. rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Memorandum of Agreement 8. Comment: The MOA between NOAA and the state of California regarding introduced species aquaculture should be circulated for public comment so the public can be assured that the MOA’s design adequately satisfies the intent of the proposed rule. Response: Interagency MOA are not generally circulated for public review before they are signed. The MOA will establish procedures for the agencies to work collaboratively pursuant to and consistent with the respective legal authorities of each participating agency. In no case will the MOA supersede NOAA’s regulatory authority. The final, signed agreement will be available to the public. VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 9. Comment: Introduced species pose a threat to native species diversity and endangered species, ecosystem integrity, and the composition and resilience of natural biological communities as well as the commercial and recreational uses that depend on these resources. GFNMS and MBNMS should revise sanctuary regulations to consistently protect all sanctuary and associated state marine waters and habitats from negative ecological and socio-economic impacts caused by the introduction of introduced species. Response: NOAA agrees. The introduction of introduced species to marine waters can disrupt native ecological processes, resulting in altered trophic relationships and habitat modification. Introduced species can spread unabated in areas where no natural predators exist, and eradication of these species may become impossible once they disperse. Propagation of invasive introduced species can lead to socio-economic impacts, such as changes in fisheries, fouling of infrastructure and seawater intakes, and aesthetic changes that impact tourism. The final rule prohibits all forms of introducing or releasing an introduced species into state waters of both sanctuaries, with three exceptions: (1) Within both sanctuaries, catch and release of an introduced species, striped bass, already established in marine waters and part of an active recreational fishery. State-imposed size limits could result in striped bass being caught and released while fishing in either sanctuary; (2) within GFNMS, existing commercial shellfish aquaculture operations in Tomales Bay permitted by the state that cultivate introduced species which have not, to date, invaded native ecosystems and caused significant adverse harm to sanctuary resources and qualities; and, (3) within MBNMS, introduction of introduced species from commercial shellfish aquaculture projects in state waters that NOAA and the state have determined are non-invasive and will not cause adverse harm to sanctuary resources and qualities. NOAA will work very closely with the state resource management entities to ensure any new, expanded or future aquaculture project will not result in a release of an invasive species that will cause harm to sanctuary, and state, resources. All other forms of introduction or release of an introduced species will be strictly prohibited. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 General Opposition to the Amended Rule 11. Comment: The proposal to allow authorization of state-permitted commercial shellfish aquaculture operations in GFNMS would give deference to the aquaculture industry over the national marine sanctuaries’ resource protection mandate. Response: As a result of the Governor’s objection in 2008, there are currently no sanctuary regulations protecting state waters of these two national marine sanctuaries from the introduction of introduced species. This final rule closes that regulatory gap and prohibits the introduction of introduced species in the state waters of the sanctuaries from all other pathways of introductions except for the three exceptions described in response to comment 9 above. For GFNMS, the final rule does not add authorization authority to that sanctuary’s regulations. However, any expanded or new aquaculture operation within Tomales Bay in GFNMS would have to be permitted by several state resource management agencies, who would consult with GFNMS before issuing any permit. In addition, the authority to authorize another agency’s permit, which MBNMS could exercise through this final rule, gives complete discretion to the MBNMS superintendent to approve with conditions or deny a potential future aquaculture project in state waters of MBNMS cultivating introduced shellfish species that NOAA and the state have found to be noninvasive and to not adversely affect sanctuary resources and qualities. Authorization Authorities 12. Comment: NOAA should not adopt the proposed authorization authority because it provides essentially a rubber stamp approval to future activities involving introduced species. Response: NOAA disagrees. The final regulation allows MBNMS to consider E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES the authorization of aquaculture operations within very narrow parameters (to approve, condition, or deny state issued permits for commercial shellfish aquaculture in state waters of MBNMS determined by NOAA and state management agencies to be not invasive and not cause significant adverse effects to sanctuary resources or qualities). Authorization authority has existed in MBNMS and five other national marine sanctuaries for many years and has been used successfully and consistent with the purposes and policies of the NMSA. 13. Comment: The authority to authorize other agencies’ permits found in 15 CFR 922.49 is deficient in that it lacks administrative procedure for public oversight and comment, and for public appeals, and it is not directly connected to the conditions for sanctuary permits found in 15 CFR 922.83 and 15 CFR 922.133 Response: The final rule does not add permit authorization authority to GFNMS regulations at this time. For MBNMS, which has had authorization authority since 1992, the issues of public review have not arisen in large part because projects MBNMS has considered for authorization have had extensive public review by another local, state or federal agencies. 14. Comment: NOAA should not adopt authorization authority because this adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already-complicated, multi-state agency review process, impeding future growth of the industry. Response: NOAA disagrees that the authorization process adds another layer of bureaucracy. The authorization process is intended to improve administrative efficiency by allowing NOAA to review and approve, deny or condition other agencies’ permits. This simplifies the application process for a permit applicant and promotes cooperative efforts among NOAA and other regulatory agencies. Grandfathering Existing State Leases 15. Comment: NOAA should not ‘‘grandfather’’ existing or heretofore undisclosed leases, permits, and pending modifications of existing activities within Tomales Bay. NOAA should obtain full and complete copies of those leases before the effective date of the regulation, and they should be identified in the Federal Register announcement at the time the final rule is published. Response: The grandfathering of existing aquaculture leases has been removed from the final rule and will not occur within GFNMS. Instead, NOAA is exempting from regulation the sanctuary VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 waters of Tomales Bay, where existing aquaculture projects occur, as described in the 2013 proposed rule. In MBNMS there are no existing aquaculture operations, thus there are no undisclosed leases or permits and no projects will be grandfathered. The existing state review process continues in these areas and any major state action on an aquaculture operation in Tomales Bay will proceed consistent with existing public review processes, including public hearings before the California Fish and Game Commission or the California Coastal Commission. Memorandum of Agreement 16. Comment: The MOA between NOAA and the state of California, and NOAA’s authorization authority regarding introduced species aquaculture, should in no way expand from bivalve mariculture to finfish aquaculture. Response: NOAA agrees. The authorization authority for MBNMS is narrowly defined to only allow MBNMS to consider authorizing state of California permits or leases for commercial shellfish aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced species of shellfish that the state management agencies and NOAA have determined will not have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary resources or qualities. For Tomales Bay, the state will continue to have primary jurisdictional authority for aquaculture, consulting with GFNMS before issuing any new permits or leases. All other introductions of introduced species in state and federal waters of GFNMS and MBNMS, except for the catch and release of striped bass, are prohibited. Furthermore, the state of California has a current legislative prohibition on nonnative finfish aquaculture in state waters. Collaboration Between State and Federal Agencies 17. Comment: Too much of the proposal is predicated on promises of future collaborations and agreements. Recent history suggests that the state is incapable of shared jurisdictional authority when managing aquaculture. Response: NOAA believes the collaborative process developed for both GFNMS and MBNMS will allow the state and NOAA to work cooperatively to prevent the introduction of introduced species into state waters of the sanctuaries. The state will consult with GFNMS prior to issuing any new permits in Tomales Bay. However, in all other state waters of GFNMS, introduced species aquaculture will not be allowed. In MBNMS, the state and PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 8783 NOAA will each have jurisdiction over commercial aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced species of shellfish. Scientific Data 18. Comment: NOAA should not adopt the proposed rule (March 2014) to consider permitting aquaculture projects in GFNMS with non-invasive, introduced species because lack of scientific data on the significant impacts of invasive species, a lack of data on native and non-native species abundance and condition, and on crossvector influences. Response: NOAA agrees that impacts from introduced species can pose a major threat to sanctuary resources and qualities. However, in Tomales Bay, the only location in sanctuaries offshore of California where commercial cultivation of introduced species currently occurs, state management agencies have regulated these types of aquaculture operations for many years. In this final rule, NOAA is not expanding the ability to develop new introduced species aquaculture projects in GFNMS beyond Tomales Bay and will defer to state management agencies for aquaculture projects within Tomales Bay. NEPA Compliance 19. Comment: NOAA has not adequately complied with the National Environmental Policy Act for proposed rule because it relied on analysis from 2008, and did not conduct a new environmental review. Response: NOAA is relying on the FEIS as prepared for the 2008 JMPR because the baseline conditions have not changed. That is, there has been no change in the number of mariculture operations or leases in Tomales Bay and NOAA is unaware of any change in the environmental effects of those species in Tomales Bay. With this rule, the introduction of introduced species, including the use of non-native shellfish in commercial aquaculture operations, is being prohibited in state waters of both sanctuaries, with the exception of Tomales Bay. The 2008 FEIS specifically identified that the prohibition of the introduction of introduced species would lead to beneficial impacts to Biological Resources and Water Quality Resources and would not cause any adverse impacts to existing shellfish aquaculture operations. The final rule adopts a regulatory regime slightly different from that reviewed in 2008 because it will allow commercial shellfish aquaculture to continue using introduced species in Tomales Bay that have been shown to be E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 8784 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations non-invasive and will allow the State of California to demonstrate on a case-bycase basis with NOAA concurrence that commercial shellfish operations using certain non-invasive shellfish species may be safely established in state waters of MBNMS. NOAA believes this action is within the range of alternatives considered in 2008 and will result in nearly the same level of beneficial impacts that were identified in 2008. Further, NOAA is adopting final regulations that would not affect existing aquaculture projects in Tomales Bay that are conducted pursuant to a valid lease, permit, license or other authorization issued by the state of California. NOAA has added authorization authority for MBNMS to consider authorizing state of California permits or leases for commercial aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced species of shellfish that the state management agencies and NOAA have determined will not have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary resources or qualities. This process will require additional NEPA and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review to be triggered on a case by case basis if new aquaculture projects were to be proposed in the state waters of MBNMS. NOAA has complied with NEPA for this action. rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Species May Become Invasive Over Time Due to Climate Change 20. Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns that cultivated species currently not considered by the state of California to be invasive, such as Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), have the potential to be invasive in other environments and situations, and may become invasive in California under global climate change scenarios where warmer waters allow unassisted reproduction. Response: NOAA is also concerned about how climate change will impact introduced species aquaculture. In this action, NOAA is implementing a final rule which does not allow introduced species aquaculture in state waters of GFNMS except in Tomales Bay and only with a state lease or permit. Aquaculture operators will be required to follow the state’s public process through the CA Fish and Game Commission and the CA Coastal Commission. The results of studies in the United States and elsewhere as to how species may become invasive will be considered by the state and NOAA in making any future determinations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 Parasites and Other Impacts 21. Comment: NOAA’s final action needs to account for the likelihood that these shellfish species would themselves attract or carry other exotic species, thereby causing environmentally detrimental impacts. Response: In GFNMS, only those aquaculture operations in Tomales Bay with a valid lease or permit from the state of California would be exempt. If a commercial shellfish aquaculture project involving introduced species is proposed in MBNMS, as part of the permit authorization state management agencies and NOAA must determine the project will not have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary resources or qualities. In this review process, NOAA and state management agencies will consider not only the proposed introduced species themselves, but also the threats from parasites, project siting, the financial capability of the applicant, among other factors. Monitoring and Management 22. Comment: NOAA should clarify how it or the state will monitor and prevent accidental introductions of diseases, parasites and hitch-hikers on aquaculture species within sanctuary waters. No protocol for monitoring or management of new or expanded aquaculture operations is referenced in the proposed regulation amendment. Response: For Tomales Bay in GFNMS, commercial shellfish aquaculture will remain under the primary management authority of state management agencies and their public processes at this time. The MOA will outline how GFNMS can raise concerns to the state and seek their inclusion of permit conditions that ensure adequate enforcement and monitoring. For state waters of MBNMS, ONMS may condition or deny a potential permit authorization request if NOAA finds the applicant and the state management agencies do not adequately monitor and manage a proposed commercial shellfish aquaculture project involving introduced species. Monitoring and enforcement protocols could be added to permit conditions as part of an authorization, and would ideally be discussed, reviewed, and planned for on a case by case basis, and considered during the NEPA and CEQA process. Other Federal Jurisdictions 23. Comment: NOAA’s proposed rule does not recognize the regulatory role of the National Park Service (NPS). NPS national policy prohibits introductions of non-native species in NPS waters, including waters which overlap with PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 national marine sanctuaries, the introduction of non-native species within national parks is inconsistent with the NPS Organic Act of 1916 (as amended and supplemented). Response: NOAA and NPS have some jurisdictional overlap in GFNMS. Where there is jurisdictional overlap, NOAA’s final regulations in this action do not usurp other federal regulations, including those of the National Park Service. As discussed in the preamble to this rule above, due to the previous Governor’s objection in December 2008, there are currently no sanctuary regulations regarding introduced species in state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS (including waters adjacent to national parks). NOAA believes this final action will close that regulatory gap by prohibiting virtually all of the mechanisms that could result in the introduction of an introduced species. The final rule will only allow introduced species shellfish aquaculture within sanctuary waters of Tomales Bay operating with a valid permit of lease from the state. This final action will support the goals of the National Park Service to prevent the introduction of introduced species. Weakens ONMS Authority 24. Comment: NOAA’s proposed action weakens the authority of the national marine sanctuaries to control invasive non-native species that potentially may be introduced by new aquaculture operations. In so doing, NOAA delegates to the state the authority to define invasive species and bypasses a process for environmental review and compliance, including the participation of other potentially impacted federal agencies, such as national parks as well as the public. Response: NOAA disagrees. Currently, there are no introduced species regulations in state waters of GFNMS or MBNMS and this final rule provides that regulatory protection by prohibiting the introduction of introduced species in all state waters of MBNMS and nearly all state waters of GFNMS. Any state review of an existing, expanded or new aquaculture project in Tomales Bay in GFNMS will include compliance with CEQA, consultation with affected agencies, and public review, including hearings, as prescribed by agency procedures when issuing leases and permits. Any new project in MBNMS will also require compliance with NEPA. While the final rule exempts the need for a permit authorization from GFNMS in Tomales Bay it includes extensive consultation with GFNMS prior to the state’s issuing permits or leases as outlined in the E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations MOA. Therefore, additional public review consistent with state and federal law and procedures will be provided and comments considered on any such action in either sanctuary, if proposed in the future. Existing Operations 25. Comment: NOAA should require ONMS review for any change to an existing lease where the grower proposes to cultivate new non-native shellfish species on their farm. Response: The grandfathering option for GFNMS discussed in the March 2013 proposal was adopted by NOAA and will exempt existing and future commercial shellfish aquaculture operations in Tomales Bay with a valid state of California permit or lease. The MOA will outline how the state will consult with GFNMS on expansion of existing leases or future proposals to cultivate new species. rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Extending the Public Comment Period 26. Comment: NOAA should extend the short comment period of the amended proposed rule. The release of the Federal Register notice reopening this issue, and the subsequent comment deadline for this reversal by the agency was conducted in such manner as to preclude the public from having timely access to the necessary information and supporting documents, and the necessary time for review. Response: The comment period for the March 2013 proposed rule was 60 days and generated very few public comments. The comments received in 2013 were mostly in support—including those received from the GFNMS and MBNMS Sanctuary Advisory Councils— of NOAA’s proposed action which is being implemented for GFNMS in this final rule. Based on this information, NOAA did not anticipate receiving many public comments for the March 27, 2014 amended proposed rule, and therefore NOAA established a 15 day comment period. Upon receiving a request for an extension, NOAA reopened the comment period for an additional 24 days until May 5, 2017. Based on the comments received during these two comment periods, NOAA believes this final rule-making has provided the public with timely involvement and the opportunity to review and comment on this action. Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (pEIR) 27. Comment: The rule is premature because this current NOAA comment period predates a pending state of California Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (pEIR) on aquaculture VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 issues expected to be inclusive of many of the same types of invasive species questions brought forward by expanded aquaculture proposals in state waters. Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The state’s programmatic environmental impact report being prepared pursuant to CEQA is unrelated to this final action promulgated by NOAA. This regulation has a long history, and is designed to extend existing sanctuary introduced species prohibitions from federal waters into state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS. Future state action may further assist the state and federal regulatory agencies in protecting coastal waters from the invasive impacts of introduced species. GFNMS Boundary Expansion 28. Comment: NOAA should not take any action on the introduced species rule until the public hearings and written comments on the draft environmental impact Statement (DEIS) and accompanying regulations for boundary expansion for GFNMS has been subjected to sufficient public review. Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, we note the proposed rule for GFNMS expansion recognizes that there is a separate rulemaking process the introduced species. The rules will be codified accordingly, in the order they are finalized. Oil Drilling 29. Comment: NOAA should specifically exclude oil drilling from the list of otherwise prohibited activities that could be authorized by NOAA (922.132(1)) within GFNMS. Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Nevertheless, as noted previously, the Final Rule does not add authorization authority to GFNMS regulations. V. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act Section 301 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434) provides authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of national marine sanctuaries in coordination with other resource management authorities. When changing a term of designation of a National Marine Sanctuary, section 304 of the NMSA requires the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and that the DEIS PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 8785 be made available to the public. NOAA prepared a draft and final management plan and a draft and final EIS on the initial proposal and final rule for the Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR). Copies are available at the address and Web site listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. Responses to comments received on March 18, 2013 proposed rule and on the March 27, 2014 proposed revision to the regulations have been analyzed and published in the preamble to this final rule and discussed in the record of decision. NOAA has made available the 2008 final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the JMPR that was previously available to the public, and which analyzes the environmental effects of the introduced species regulations as they are now finalized by this action. (For a copy of the FEIS, please visit www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/ jointplan.) B. National Environmental Policy Act In the 2008 FEIS for the JMPR, NOAA identified a preferred action which was to modify the terms of designation and regulations for GFNMS and MBNMS to, among other things, prohibit the introduction of introduced species (with limited exceptions) throughout the sanctuaries, and NOAA endorses that action as re-proposed and as amended in the notices of proposed rulemaking associated with this final rule. The 2008 FEIS specifically identified that the prohibition of the introduction of introduced species would lead to beneficial impacts to Biological Resources and Water Quality Resources and would not cause any adverse impacts to existing shellfish aquaculture operations. The final rule adopts a regulatory regime slightly different from that reviewed in 2008, however, this action is within the range of alternatives considered in 2008 and will result in nearly the same level of beneficial impacts that were identified in 2008. Further, NOAA is adopting final regulations that would not affect existing aquaculture projects in Tomales Bay that are conducted pursuant to a valid lease, permit, license or other authorization issued by the state of California. NOAA further believes there has not been a significant change to the environmental conditions or the potential environmental effects of the preferred alternative. NOAA has determined that a supplement to the FEIS is not required for this final action. Pursuant to a MOA that would be executed, the state would consult with NOAA prior to any new or amended state-issued lease and permits. In addition, through this action NOAA E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 8786 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations would exercise limited authorization authority with respect to commercial shellfish aquaculture activities in state waters of MBNMS involving cultivation of introduced species of shellfish that NOAA and the State have determined are non-invasive and would not cause significant adverse effects. Any future proposal or amendments to existing state leases for an aquaculture project involving cultivation of introduced shellfish species would undergo environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and NEPA for MBNMS and CEQA for GFNMS on a case-by-case basis to consider project-specific effects of that action. NOAA may refuse to authorize a project in MBNMS that would not comply with terms or conditions required by NOAA. 15 CFR 922.49(a). Copies of the FEIS, the record of decision and other related materials that are specific to this action are available at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/ jointplan/feis/feis.html, or by contacting NOAA at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this final rule. Comments regarding the introduction of introduced species portion of the original FEIS are analyzed and responded to above, in the Response to Comments section. rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impact This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Assessment NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action falls within the definition of ‘‘policies that have federalism implications’’ within the meaning of Executive Order 13132. NOAA’s previous proposed rule and subsequent amended proposed rule were conducted in cooperation with the State of California, and pursuant to Section 304(b) of the NMSA. Since the proposed rule was issued on March 18, 2013, further consultations have occurred with the State of California, and the proposed changes contained in the March 27, 2014 notice reflect cooperative negotiations reached in those consultations. It is NOAA’s view that, due to these negotiations, the state will not object to the amended regulations finalized in this action. In keeping with the intent of the Executive Order, NOAA consulted with a number of entities within the state which participated in development of the initial rule, including but not limited to, the California Coastal Commission, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the California Natural Resources Agency. E. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration at the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification was discussed in the proposed rule issued on March 18, 2013, and the March 27, 2014 amended proposal, where the conclusion remained the same. No comments were received on that certification. No other law requires a regulatory flexibility analysis so none is required and none has been prepared. F. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule does not contain information collections that are subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922 Administrative practice and procedure, Aquaculture, Catch and release, Environmental protection, Fish, Harbors, Introduced species, Mariculture, Marine pollution, Marine resources, Natural resources, Noninvasive, Penalties, Recreation and recreation areas, Research, Water pollution control, Water resources, Wildlife. (10) Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into the Sanctuary an introduced species, except: (i) Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) released during catch and release fishing activity; or (ii) Species cultivated by commercial shellfish mariculture activities in Tomales Bay pursuant to a valid lease, permit, license or other authorization issued by the state of California. Tomales Bay is defined in § 922.80. The coordinates for the northern terminus of Tomales Bay are listed in appendix D to this subpart. * * * * * ■ 3. Add new § 922.85 to read as follows: § 922.85 Review of State permits and leases for certain mariculture projects. NOAA has described in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the State of California how the State will consult and coordinate with NOAA to review any new, amended or expanded lease or permit application for mariculture projects in Tomales Bay involving introduced species. ■ 4. Add Appendix D to subpart H of part 922, to read as follows: Appendix D to Subpart H of Part 922— Northern Extent of Tomales Bay For the purpose of § 922.82(a)(10)(ii), NOAA is codifying the northern geographical extent of Tomales Bay via a line running from Avalis Beach (Point 1) east to Sand Point (Point 2). Coordinates listed in this Appendix are unprojected (geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983. Point ID No. Tomales Bay boundary Latitude Longitude 1 ..................... 2 ..................... 38.23165 38.23165 ¥122.98148 ¥122.96955 5. Revise § 922.132, paragraph (e) to read as follows: W. Russell Callender, Acting Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ■ Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 15 CFR part 922 is amended as follows: * PART 922—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 922 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. 2. In § 922.82, revise paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows: ■ § 922.82 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities. (a) * * * PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 § 922.132 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities. * * * * (e) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(8) of this section, and (a)(12) of this section regarding any introduced species of shellfish that NOAA and the State of California have determined is non-invasive and will not cause significant adverse effects to sanctuary resources or qualities, and that is cultivated in state waters as part of commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, do not apply to any activity authorized by any lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued after the effective date of Sanctuary E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations designation (January 1, 1993) and issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction, provided that the applicant complies with 15 CFR 922.49, the Director notifies the applicant and authorizing agency that he or she does not object to issuance of the authorization, and the applicant complies with any terms and conditions the Director deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Amendments, renewals, and extensions of authorizations in existence on the effective date of designation constitute authorizations issued after the effective date of Sanctuary designation. * * * * * 6. In § 922.134, revise the section heading and add new paragraph (a) to read as follows: ■ (2) The MOA specifies how the process of 15 CFR 922.49 will be administered within State waters within the sanctuary in coordination with State permit and lease programs as administered by the California Fish and Game Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Coastal Commission. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–03486 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] The regulations in 33 CFR 165.151 will be enforced on February 28 (rain date March 1), 2015 from 6:15 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. DATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG–2015–0025] (a)(1) NOAA has described in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the State of California how NOAA will coordinate review of any introduction of non-invasive introduced species from a proposed shellfish aquaculture project when considering an authorization under § 922.132(e). in the Sector Long Island Sound area of responsibility on the dates and times listed in the table below. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative. BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 33 CFR Part 165 § 922.134 Review of certain State permits and leases. 8787 Safety Zone, Sag Harbor COC Winter Harbor Frost Fireworks, Sag Harbor, NY Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of enforcement of regulation. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard will enforce one safety zone for a fireworks display SUMMARY: If you have questions on this notice, call or email Petty Officer Ian Fallon, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound; telephone 203–468–4565, email Ian.M.Fallon@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.151 on the specified date and time as indicated in the following Table. If the event is delayed by inclement weather, the regulation will be enforced on the rain date indicated in the Table. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TABLE rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Sag Harbor COC Winter Harbor Frost Fireworks Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.151, the fireworks display listed above in DATES is established as a safety zone. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within the safety zone unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative. This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notification in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners or marine information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area. VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 • • • • Date: February 28, 2015. Rain Date: March 1, 2015. Time: 6:15 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. Location: Waters of Sag Harbor off Long Wharf St. Pier in Sag Harbor, NY in approximate position 41°00′16.82″ N, 072°17′43.78″ W (NAD 83). Dated: February 3, 2015. E.J. Cubanski, III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound. [FR Doc. 2015–03333 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 51 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0489; FRL–9922–27– OAR] RIN 2060–AR29 Revisions to the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements: Revisions to Lead (Pb) Reporting Threshold and Clarifications to Technical Reporting Details Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 This action finalizes changes to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) emissions inventory reporting requirements. This action lowers the threshold for reporting lead (Pb) emissions sources as point sources, eliminates the requirement for reporting emissions from wildfires and prescribed fires, and replaces a requirement for reporting mobile source emissions with a requirement for reporting the input parameters that can be used to run the EPA models that generate emissions estimates. This action also reduces the reporting burden on state, local, and tribal agencies by removing the requirements to report daily and seasonal emissions in their submissions under this rule, while clarifying the requirement to report these emissions under pollutant-specific regulations. Lastly, this action modifies some emissions reporting requirements which we believe are not necessary for inclusion in the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) rule or SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1
[Pages 8778-8787]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03486]
[Docket No. 120809321-4999-03]
SUMMARY: On March 18, 2013, NOAA proposed to prohibit the introduction
of introduced species into the state waters of Gulf of the Farallones
and Monterey Bay national marine sanctuaries (GFNMS and MBNMS,
respectively). The proposed prohibition included exceptions for the
catch and release of striped bass and for introduced species of
shellfish as part of commercial aquaculture activities in the Tomales
Bay region of GFNMS (the only geographic area within sanctuaries
offshore of California where aquaculture occurs). On March 27, 2014,
NOAA amended the proposal to allow GFNMS and MBNMS to consider
authorizing the introduction of certain introduced species of
shellfish, those considered to be non-invasive, from commercial
aquaculture culture projects in all state waters of the sanctuaries.
NOAA's final action allows MBNMS to authorize state of California
permits or leases for commercial aquaculture projects in state waters
involving introduced species of shellfish that a) the state management
agencies and NOAA have determined to be non-invasive, and b) will not
have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary resources or qualities.
For GFNMS, NOAA will not adopt authorization authority for similar
projects in state waters at this time and will revert to the proposal
from March 2013, which prohibits introduction of introduced species,
exempts state permitted commercial shellfish aquaculture activities
within Tomales Bay only, and provides an exception for the catch and
release of striped bass.
DATES: Effective Date: Pursuant to section 304(b) of the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)), the revised
designation and regulations shall take effect and become final after
the close of a review period of forty-five days of continuous session
of Congress beginning on February 19, 2015. NOAA will publish an
announcement of the effective date of the final regulations in the
On November 20, 2008, NOAA issued a final rule associated with the
Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR) of GFNMS, MBNMS, and Cordell Bank
National Marine Sanctuary (73 FR 70488). Among other things, the rule
prohibited the introduction of introduced species within or into both
the federal and state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS, except for the catch
and release of striped bass in both sanctuaries and from existing
commercial aquaculture activities within the Tomales Bay region of
[[Page 8779]]
GFNMS. In December 2008, the Governor of California, acting pursuant to
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)(1)), certified
that certain changes to each sanctuary's terms of designation for
regulating the introduction of introduced species were unacceptable for
the state waters portions of GFNMS and MBNMS. As a result of that
determination, NOAA's prohibitions on introduced species currently
apply only in the federal waters of MBNMS and GFNMS.
On March 18, 2013, following discussions with the state of
California, NOAA re-proposed the prohibition on the introduction of
introduced species within or into the state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS
to provide regulatory consistency in all waters of those two
sanctuaries and across the four national marine sanctuaries along the
California coast (78 FR 16622). The proposal would have expanded into
state waters the exception for the catch and release of striped bass
and would have exempted state-permitted mariculture activities in
Tomales Bay. A 60-day comment period on the proposed rule closed on May
17, 2013. (Note: MBNMS regulations use the term ``aquaculture'' and
GFNMS regulations use the term ``mariculture'' to refer to the same
activity; accordingly, both of these terms are used in this final
NOAA received approximately 14 comments from the public and the
MBNMS and GFNMS Sanctuary Advisory Councils in support of the March
2013 draft proposal. NOAA also received comments from both the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and aquaculture
industry raising concerns that ONMS's broad definition of ``introduced
species'' did not recognize that a number of introduced species of
shellfish have been cultivated for over 100 years in Tomales Bay,
within GFNMS, without significant adverse impacts to native resources.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 2008 Joint Management
Plan Review recognized that non-native oyster species cultivated in
Tomales Bay had not spread outside the aquaculture areas. Both the CDFW
and aquaculture industry also commented that the proposed regulation
did not allow NOAA to consider potential future permit requests from
the industry for cultivation of such species. The state believed that
if NOAA exercised the authority to permit such operations, in close
cooperation and collaboration with state resource management entities--
CDFW, California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC), and California
Coastal Commission (CCC)--this would offer an opportunity for
aquaculture operators and the state to demonstrate that expanding
existing or developing new shellfish aquaculture operations involving
introduced species of shellfish that are non-invasive would not harm
sanctuary resources. Both CDFW and the aquaculture industry also
expressed the view that this approach would be more consistent with
Executive Order 13112 on the management of introduced species.
In response to these concerns, on March 27, 2014, NOAA amended its
proposal to provide MBNMS and GFNMS the regulatory authority to
authorize state permits or leases for commercial aquaculture projects
in state waters involving introduced species of shellfish that the
state management agencies and NOAA have determined to be non-invasive
and thus would not have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary
resources or qualities (79 FR 17073). Representatives from state
agencies agreed with NOAA that introduced species should be managed
uniformly throughout all state waters of the two sanctuaries.
NOAA received 16 comments on this revised proposal, virtually all
in opposition to granting GFNMS the regulatory authority to authorize
state permits for such aquaculture projects. There were no comments
received objecting to this authority for MBNMS.
NOAA and the state of California have both expressed interest in
entering into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to define the roles of
various state agencies (CDFW, CFGC, and CCC) and ONMS in a prescribed,
collaborative process to determine whether an introduced species of
shellfish could be considered non-invasive and potentially approved for
cultivation within the state waters of either national marine
sanctuary. The MOA would not supersede the legal authority of any
participating agency; rather it would guide the collaborative
interagency process and decision making timelines. The MOA would be
necessary in response to the process outlined in NOAA's proposed rule
published on March 2013 (78 FR 16622) regarding consultations for
aquaculture projects in Tomales Bay, or for the process described in
the March 2014 proposed rule (79 FR 17073) regarding the permit
authorization process for the two national marine sanctuaries.
II. Summary of the Revisions to GFNMS Terms of Designation and
NOAA received few comments on the March 2013 proposed rulemaking
regarding the introduced species regulation related to GFNMS. Both the
GFNMS Advisory Council and several members of the public commented in
strong support of the proposed rule and complimented the state agencies
for recognizing the value in collaborating with NOAA to ensure state
waters had additional protection from introduced species. However, the
subsequent March 2014 proposed rule received considerable criticism
from the public due to the proposal to allow GFNMS to authorize other
agency permits, leases or licenses for new or expanded commercial
shellfish aquaculture projects involving non-invasive introduced
species. GFNMS does not presently have this permit authority and many
commenters objected to providing that authority and increasing the risk
of an invasion by an introduced shellfish species in state waters of
GFNMS. In a separate rulemaking to expand GFNMS boundaries (79 FR
20981), the state of California also requested that NOAA not provide
GFNMS authorization authority at this time and that NOAA conduct a
separate process to allow time for local input and education regarding
such a regulatory change.
As a result, NOAA will move forward with the regulatory proposals
for GFNMS that were described in the March 2013 proposed rule.
Specifically for GFNMS, this final rule extends the introduced species
prohibition to all of GFNMS state waters, but exempts catch and release
of striped bass and any existing or future commercial aquaculture
project involving introduced species approved by the state of
California in sanctuary waters of Tomales Bay after consulting GFNMS.
NOAA's final rule is responsive to public support; eliminates the
authorization authority for GFNMS that had generated considerable
public concern; is consistent with the state of California's request to
consider authorization authority for GFNMS in a separate process; and
allows existing aquaculture projects to continue in Tomales Bay, the
only area of either sanctuary where such activity presently occurs.
Presently 23.6 percent of GFNMS--all of the state waters in
sanctuary (301.5 square statute miles)--is at risk from the
introduction of introduced species. With this action, the vast majority
of the sanctuary would be protected from such introductions of
introduced species, except for less than 1 percent (10.3 square statute
miles) in sanctuary waters of Tomales Bay, where commercial aquaculture
of introduced species of shellfish approved by the state after
consulting with NOAA, would be allowed. All other vectors of
[[Page 8780]]
introduction of introduced species are prohibited in Tomales Bay.
Accordingly, NOAA is amending the GFNMS terms of designation to
ensure that the introduction or release of an introduced species
applies to the state waters of the sanctuary regardless of the means of
introduction. The revised terms of designation under Article IV Scope
of Regulations, Section 1 Activities Subject to Regulation, Activity
(e) will read as follows (new text in quotes and deleted text in
brackets and italics):
(e) Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into [the federal
waters of] the Sanctuary an introduced species
NOAA is also changing the second sentence of Article V in the terms
of designation to ensure that the intent NOAA has consistently
described--to regulate introduced species consistently across all four
national marine sanctuaries along the coast California, in both state
and federal waters--is achieved. Additionally, NOAA's final rule
removes the time limitation needed to grandfather existing state-
approved mariculture projects in Tomales Bay. Therefore, Article V.
Relation to Other Regulatory Programs, Section 1, will read as follows
(new text in quotes and deleted text in brackets and italics):
The regulation of fishing, including fishing for shellfish and
invertebrates, and waterfowl hunting, is not authorized under Article
IV. However, fishing vessels may be regulated with respect to vessel
operations in accordance with Article IV, section 1, paragraphs (b) and
(h), and mariculture activities involving alterations of or
construction on the seabed, or ``introduction or'' release of
introduced species by mariculture activities [not covered by a valid
lease from the State of California and in effect on the effective date
of the final regulation], can be regulated in accordance with Article
IV, section 1, paragraph (c) and (e). All regulatory programs
pertaining to fishing, and to waterfowl hunting, including regulations
promulgated under the California Fish and Game Code and Fishery
Management Plans promulgated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., will remain in
pursuant thereto will be valid within the Sanctuary unless authorizing
any activity prohibited by any regulation implementing Article IV. The
term ``fishing'' as used in this Article includes mariculture.
In addition, for the purpose of this regulation NOAA is codifying
the northern geographical extent of Tomales Bay via the same
demarcation line that is already used in the International Regulations
for Preventing Collision at Sea 1972 (COLREGS): the line runs from
Avalis Beach east to Sand Point. These geographic coordinates have been
added as Appendix D to Subpart H of Part 922. Parts of the western and
southern shoreline of Tomales Bay solely within Point Reyes National
Seashore are not subject to this regulation.
Last, as described in new Sec.  922.85, NOAA intends to enter into
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the state of California to
implement the Department of Fish and Wildlife's commitment to consult
with NOAA whenever a future commercial shellfish aquaculture project
permit application within Tomales Bay is received and being considered
III. Summary of the Revisions to MBNMS Terms of Designation and
regarding the introduced species regulation related to MBNMS. The MBNMS
Advisory Council and several members of the public commented in strong
support of the proposed rule. The comments received for the March 2014
proposed rule generally focused on the GFNMS regulations, however the
aquaculture industry commented in support of allowing MBNMS (as well as
GFNMS) to consider a permit authorization for future commercial
NOAA is implementing the regulatory proposals for MBNMS that were
described in the March 2014 proposed rule. As with GFNMS, NOAA believes
there is urgency and need to extend from federal waters into state
waters the full protection of sanctuary regulations prohibiting the
introduction or release of introduced species. Accordingly, NOAA is
modifying the MBNMS terms of designation and regulations to prohibit
the introduction or other release of introduced species from within or
into the state waters of the sanctuary. The revised terms of
designation under Article IV Scope of Regulations, Section 1 Activities
Subject to Regulation, Activity (l) will read as follows (deleted text
in brackets and italics):
(l) Introducing or otherwise releasing from within or into [the
federal waters of] the Sanctuary an introduced species.
This final rule also provides MBNMS with the authority to authorize
a valid permit, license or other authorization issued by the state of
California for commercial shellfish aquaculture activities conducted in
state waters of MBNMS involving introduced species of shellfish that
NOAA and the state have determined are non-invasive and that will not
cause significant adverse effects to sanctuary resources or qualities.
MBNMS regulations already allow the ONMS Director the ability to
authorize state of California (or other agency) permits for certain
activities that are otherwise prohibited in the sanctuary. This
authority is delegated from the ONMS Director to the sanctuary
NOAA intends to enter into an MOA with the state of California to
describe how NOAA and the state agencies--CFGC, CDFW and CCC--will
coordinate on any future proposal to develop any commercial shellfish
aquaculture project in state waters of MBNMS involving a non-invasive
introduced species. Similar to other MOAs with state agencies, this MOA
requirement will be reflected in MBNMS regulations (see Sec.
922.134(a)).
NOAA conducted two comment periods on separate proposed rules
between March 2013 and March 2014 and received a total of 29 comments
from 33 groups, agencies or individuals. The comments and responses
have been segregated below to reflect the two different proposed rules.
1. Comment: Commenters generally supported the 2013 proposal,
noting the cooperation of NOAA and the state agencies in coming to
terms that would protect the national marine sanctuaries from the
threat of introduced species.
Response: NOAA agrees there was ongoing need to address the
unresolved issue of leaving the state waters portions of the two
[[Page 8781]]
vulnerable to introduction of introduced species. This final rule
incorporates aspects of both the 2013 and 2014 proposed rules, and
relies on increased collaboration among the state of California
agencies and NOAA. The final rule specifically includes the ability for
aquaculture operators to seek a permit from the state (within Tomales
Bay in GFNMS) and from the state and NOAA (within MBNMS).
The Proposed Rule Does Not Recognize That Some Introduced Species Are
2. Comment: NOAA should revise the proposed rule to recognize that
some introduced species are not a threat to sanctuary resources because
they do not reproduce or otherwise affect the natural ecosystem of the
sanctuary if released. NOAA should consider provisions for allowing
culturing of introduced shellfish species approved by the state of
California and proven to pose no significant threat to native
ecological processes within the sanctuaries.
Response: National marine sanctuaries are designated, in part, to
maintain ``natural biological communities . . . and to protect, and
where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations,
and ecological processes'' (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(3)). In short, national
marine sanctuaries are mandated by law to preserve the natural
character of national marine sanctuary ecosystems, similar to the
manner that terrestrial ecosystems have been preserved and protected by
the national parks system. Any proposed alteration of the natural
biological community (e.g. introduction of a foreign species) is
contrary to the purpose of sanctuary designation. Therefore, the
proposed introduction of species not native to a national marine
sanctuary places the burden of proof on the project sponsor to
demonstrate to NOAA and state management agencies that no significant
harm will result from any such proposal. NOAA acknowledges that there
have been some introduced species of shellfish cultivated in GFNMS
which have not, to date, had significant adverse effects on sanctuary
resources. In discussions with the three state management entities with
regulatory control over aquaculture projects in state waters--the
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Fish and Game Commission and the
California Coastal Commission--it is clear to NOAA that state
management entities are also concerned about the impact invasive,
introduced species can have on an ecosystem. These agencies have taken
steps to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce the risk of an invasion
from such species grown in aquaculture projects.
Based on these comments and further analysis, NOAA issued a revised
proposed rule in March 2014 which proposed to allow the ONMS Director
to consider authorization of state permits or leases for a very limited
scope of aquaculture projects--state-approved aquaculture in state
waters of GFNMS (including Tomales Bay) or MBNMS involving an
introduced species of shellfish that the state and NOAA determined
would not be invasive or otherwise damage sanctuary resources
(authority to issue an authorization is delegated from the ONMS
director to a sanctuary superintendent). NOAA proposed to develop an
MOA with the state agencies to lay out how such joint review would take
place for any future aquaculture project. MBNMS already has
authorization authority, but cannot issue a permit for an introduced
species projects. GFNMS does not have authorization authority, so this
would have been new authority for GFNMS.
The final rule expands MBNMS's existing authorization authority to
include this limited scope of regulatory action--the potential
authorization of state permits or leases that would allow development
of new aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced
shellfish species the state and NOAA have determined are non-invasive
and will not harm sanctuary resources or qualities. For GFNMS, NOAA has
adjusted the final rule to conform to a request from the state of
California as part of a separate rulemaking on boundary expansion of
that sanctuary to not include authorization authority in GFNMS at this
time. NOAA intends to begin implementing a separate public process,
including consultation with affected agencies, on the topic of
authorization after the finalization of the sanctuary expansion action.
3. Comment: The proposed rule eliminates sites for future growth of
the shellfish industry in California, conflicts with other federal
policies and goals, and should be withdrawn for further consideration
Response: NOAA disagrees. The final rule does not prohibit
aquaculture. It prohibits the introduction of introduced species within
or into nationally protected marine ecosystems. The final rule now
allows the consideration of non-invasive introduced species as part of
a commercial shellfish aquaculture operation in state waters of MBNMS,
provided that both the state and NOAA determine cultivation of the
species would have no significant adverse effects to sanctuary
resources or qualities. Furthermore, the final rule includes no
regulatory restrictions by GFNMS for any new or expanded aquaculture
project cultivating introduced species in Tomales Bay, the only area of
either sanctuary where such activity is currently conducted. Expansion
would be possible in Tomales Bay, provided applicants received
appropriate state permits or leases. The final rule specifically
includes the ability for aquaculture operators to seek a permit from
the state (within Tomales Bay in GFNMS) and from the state and NOAA
(within MBNMS).
4. Comment: The proposed exemption of Tomales Bay from ONMS
regulations would cause undue and additional regulatory burden on
aquaculture operators seeking new permits from the state. The proposed
Memorandum of Agreement between NOAA and the state agencies would cause
Response: NOAA disagrees. The exemption to the introduced species
regulation for mariculture in Tomales Bay will not cause a burden on an
operator proposing a new or expanded aquaculture project. The MOA will
outline and clarify agency roles and anticipated timelines in the
consultation process that state agencies would normally conduct with
other agencies, in this case GFNMS.
5. Comment: The proposed rule will result in elimination of green
jobs and sustainable small businesses associated with shellfish
aquaculture, and create a greater seafood trade imbalance.
Response: The final rule will not eliminate any existing
aquaculture operation or associated green jobs in GFNMS, and exempts
from sanctuary regulation the only area in that sanctuary where
aquaculture presently occurs. For MBNMS, the final rule allows the
sanctuary superintendent to consider authorization of a state permit or
lease for a future commercial shellfish aquaculture project in state
waters cultivating an introduced species that NOAA and the state
determine is non-invasive and will not adversely affect sanctuary
resources or qualities. Presently there are no such introduced species
aquaculture projects in MBNMS and hence no jobs that could be lost due
to the final rule.
[[Page 8782]]
6. Comment: The proposed rule is more consistent with the past
decision by the California Coastal Commission regarding the final rule
NOAA submitted to the state in 2008. (The current status is
inconsistent with that decision, with the state waters completely
unprotected from introduction of introduced species.)
7. Comment: Clarify how the proposed regulation affects research on
Response: The final rule applies to state waters of both GFNMS and
MBNMS and would make the restrictions on introduction of introduced
species consistent within state and federal waters of those
sanctuaries. Specifically, sanctuary regulations will prohibit
introducing or otherwise releasing an introduced species into the
sanctuary, and thus any research that includes or results in the
release or other introduction of an introduced species would not be
allowed. Regulations for both sites would not allow a superintendent to
issue a permit for such research. Research on introduced species
already existing within the sanctuary would not generally be prohibited
unless such research involved relocation, moving, or otherwise
distributing individuals or propagules of the existing introduced
8. Comment: The MOA between NOAA and the state of California
regarding introduced species aquaculture should be circulated for
public comment so the public can be assured that the MOA's design
adequately satisfies the intent of the proposed rule.
Response: Interagency MOA are not generally circulated for public
review before they are signed. The MOA will establish procedures for
the agencies to work collaboratively pursuant to and consistent with
the respective legal authorities of each participating agency. In no
case will the MOA supersede NOAA's regulatory authority. The final,
signed agreement will be available to the public.
9. Comment: Introduced species pose a threat to native species
diversity and endangered species, ecosystem integrity, and the
composition and resilience of natural biological communities as well as
the commercial and recreational uses that depend on these resources.
GFNMS and MBNMS should revise sanctuary regulations to consistently
protect all sanctuary and associated state marine waters and habitats
from negative ecological and socio-economic impacts caused by the
introduction of introduced species.
Response: NOAA agrees. The introduction of introduced species to
marine waters can disrupt native ecological processes, resulting in
altered trophic relationships and habitat modification. Introduced
species can spread unabated in areas where no natural predators exist,
and eradication of these species may become impossible once they
disperse. Propagation of invasive introduced species can lead to socio-
economic impacts, such as changes in fisheries, fouling of
infrastructure and seawater intakes, and aesthetic changes that impact
tourism. The final rule prohibits all forms of introducing or releasing
an introduced species into state waters of both sanctuaries, with three
exceptions: (1) Within both sanctuaries, catch and release of an
introduced species, striped bass, already established in marine waters
and part of an active recreational fishery. State-imposed size limits
could result in striped bass being caught and released while fishing in
either sanctuary; (2) within GFNMS, existing commercial shellfish
aquaculture operations in Tomales Bay permitted by the state that
cultivate introduced species which have not, to date, invaded native
ecosystems and caused significant adverse harm to sanctuary resources
and qualities; and, (3) within MBNMS, introduction of introduced
species from commercial shellfish aquaculture projects in state waters
that NOAA and the state have determined are non-invasive and will not
cause adverse harm to sanctuary resources and qualities. NOAA will work
very closely with the state resource management entities to ensure any
new, expanded or future aquaculture project will not result in a
release of an invasive species that will cause harm to sanctuary, and
state, resources. All other forms of introduction or release of an
introduced species will be strictly prohibited.
10. Comment: Regulation of introduced species by MBNMS and GFNMS
should include provisions for continued catch and release of striped
bass (Marone saxatilis), a fish stock historically managed by the
Response: As in the original final rule issued on November 20,
2008, catch and release of striped bass (Marone saxatilis) in both
state and federal waters of GFNMS and MBNMS is exempt from this
regulation (73 FR 70488).
11. Comment: The proposal to allow authorization of state-permitted
commercial shellfish aquaculture operations in GFNMS would give
deference to the aquaculture industry over the national marine
sanctuaries' resource protection mandate.
Response: As a result of the Governor's objection in 2008, there
are currently no sanctuary regulations protecting state waters of these
two national marine sanctuaries from the introduction of introduced
species. This final rule closes that regulatory gap and prohibits the
introduction of introduced species in the state waters of the
sanctuaries from all other pathways of introductions except for the
three exceptions described in response to comment 9 above. For GFNMS,
the final rule does not add authorization authority to that sanctuary's
regulations. However, any expanded or new aquaculture operation within
Tomales Bay in GFNMS would have to be permitted by several state
resource management agencies, who would consult with GFNMS before
issuing any permit. In addition, the authority to authorize another
agency's permit, which MBNMS could exercise through this final rule,
gives complete discretion to the MBNMS superintendent to approve with
conditions or deny a potential future aquaculture project in state
waters of MBNMS cultivating introduced shellfish species that NOAA and
the state have found to be non-invasive and to not adversely affect
sanctuary resources and qualities.
12. Comment: NOAA should not adopt the proposed authorization
authority because it provides essentially a rubber stamp approval to
future activities involving introduced species.
Response: NOAA disagrees. The final regulation allows MBNMS to
the authorization of aquaculture operations within very narrow
parameters (to approve, condition, or deny state issued permits for
commercial shellfish aquaculture in state waters of MBNMS determined by
NOAA and state management agencies to be not invasive and not cause
significant adverse effects to sanctuary resources or qualities).
Authorization authority has existed in MBNMS and five other national
marine sanctuaries for many years and has been used successfully and
consistent with the purposes and policies of the NMSA.
13. Comment: The authority to authorize other agencies' permits
found in 15 CFR 922.49 is deficient in that it lacks administrative
procedure for public oversight and comment, and for public appeals, and
it is not directly connected to the conditions for sanctuary permits
found in 15 CFR 922.83 and 15 CFR 922.133
Response: The final rule does not add permit authorization
authority to GFNMS regulations at this time. For MBNMS, which has had
authorization authority since 1992, the issues of public review have
not arisen in large part because projects MBNMS has considered for
authorization have had extensive public review by another local, state
14. Comment: NOAA should not adopt authorization authority because
this adds another layer of bureaucracy to an already-complicated,
multi-state agency review process, impeding future growth of the
Response: NOAA disagrees that the authorization process adds
another layer of bureaucracy. The authorization process is intended to
improve administrative efficiency by allowing NOAA to review and
approve, deny or condition other agencies' permits. This simplifies the
application process for a permit applicant and promotes cooperative
efforts among NOAA and other regulatory agencies.
15. Comment: NOAA should not ``grandfather'' existing or heretofore
undisclosed leases, permits, and pending modifications of existing
activities within Tomales Bay. NOAA should obtain full and complete
copies of those leases before the effective date of the regulation, and
they should be identified in the Federal Register announcement at the
time the final rule is published.
Response: The grandfathering of existing aquaculture leases has
been removed from the final rule and will not occur within GFNMS.
Instead, NOAA is exempting from regulation the sanctuary waters of
Tomales Bay, where existing aquaculture projects occur, as described in
the 2013 proposed rule. In MBNMS there are no existing aquaculture
operations, thus there are no undisclosed leases or permits and no
projects will be grandfathered. The existing state review process
continues in these areas and any major state action on an aquaculture
operation in Tomales Bay will proceed consistent with existing public
review processes, including public hearings before the California Fish
and Game Commission or the California Coastal Commission.
16. Comment: The MOA between NOAA and the state of California, and
NOAA's authorization authority regarding introduced species
aquaculture, should in no way expand from bivalve mariculture to
Response: NOAA agrees. The authorization authority for MBNMS is
narrowly defined to only allow MBNMS to consider authorizing state of
California permits or leases for commercial shellfish aquaculture
projects in state waters involving introduced species of shellfish that
the state management agencies and NOAA have determined will not have
significant adverse impacts to sanctuary resources or qualities. For
Tomales Bay, the state will continue to have primary jurisdictional
authority for aquaculture, consulting with GFNMS before issuing any new
permits or leases. All other introductions of introduced species in
state and federal waters of GFNMS and MBNMS, except for the catch and
release of striped bass, are prohibited. Furthermore, the state of
California has a current legislative prohibition on non-native finfish
aquaculture in state waters.
17. Comment: Too much of the proposal is predicated on promises of
future collaborations and agreements. Recent history suggests that the
state is incapable of shared jurisdictional authority when managing
Response: NOAA believes the collaborative process developed for
both GFNMS and MBNMS will allow the state and NOAA to work
cooperatively to prevent the introduction of introduced species into
state waters of the sanctuaries. The state will consult with GFNMS
prior to issuing any new permits in Tomales Bay. However, in all other
state waters of GFNMS, introduced species aquaculture will not be
allowed. In MBNMS, the state and NOAA will each have jurisdiction over
commercial aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced
species of shellfish.
18. Comment: NOAA should not adopt the proposed rule (March 2014)
to consider permitting aquaculture projects in GFNMS with non-invasive,
introduced species because lack of scientific data on the significant
impacts of invasive species, a lack of data on native and non-native
species abundance and condition, and on cross-vector influences.
Response: NOAA agrees that impacts from introduced species can pose
a major threat to sanctuary resources and qualities. However, in
Tomales Bay, the only location in sanctuaries offshore of California
where commercial cultivation of introduced species currently occurs,
state management agencies have regulated these types of aquaculture
operations for many years. In this final rule, NOAA is not expanding
the ability to develop new introduced species aquaculture projects in
GFNMS beyond Tomales Bay and will defer to state management agencies
for aquaculture projects within Tomales Bay.
19. Comment: NOAA has not adequately complied with the National
Environmental Policy Act for proposed rule because it relied on
analysis from 2008, and did not conduct a new environmental review.
Response: NOAA is relying on the FEIS as prepared for the 2008 JMPR
because the baseline conditions have not changed. That is, there has
been no change in the number of mariculture operations or leases in
Tomales Bay and NOAA is unaware of any change in the environmental
effects of those species in Tomales Bay. With this rule, the
introduction of introduced species, including the use of non-native
shellfish in commercial aquaculture operations, is being prohibited in
state waters of both sanctuaries, with the exception of Tomales Bay.
The 2008 FEIS specifically identified that the prohibition of the
introduction of introduced species would lead to beneficial impacts to
Biological Resources and Water Quality Resources and would not cause
any adverse impacts to existing shellfish aquaculture operations.
The final rule adopts a regulatory regime slightly different from
that reviewed in 2008 because it will allow commercial shellfish
aquaculture to continue using introduced species in Tomales Bay that
[[Page 8784]]
non-invasive and will allow the State of California to demonstrate on a
case-by-case basis with NOAA concurrence that commercial shellfish
operations using certain non-invasive shellfish species may be safely
established in state waters of MBNMS. NOAA believes this action is
within the range of alternatives considered in 2008 and will result in
nearly the same level of beneficial impacts that were identified in
2008. Further, NOAA is adopting final regulations that would not affect
existing aquaculture projects in Tomales Bay that are conducted
NOAA has added authorization authority for MBNMS to consider
authorizing state of California permits or leases for commercial
aquaculture projects in state waters involving introduced species of
shellfish that the state management agencies and NOAA have determined
will not have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary resources or
qualities. This process will require additional NEPA and California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review to be triggered on a case by
case basis if new aquaculture projects were to be proposed in the state
waters of MBNMS. NOAA has complied with NEPA for this action.
20. Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns that cultivated
species currently not considered by the state of California to be
invasive, such as Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), have the
potential to be invasive in other environments and situations, and may
become invasive in California under global climate change scenarios
where warmer waters allow unassisted reproduction.
Response: NOAA is also concerned about how climate change will
impact introduced species aquaculture. In this action, NOAA is
implementing a final rule which does not allow introduced species
aquaculture in state waters of GFNMS except in Tomales Bay and only
with a state lease or permit. Aquaculture operators will be required to
follow the state's public process through the CA Fish and Game
Commission and the CA Coastal Commission. The results of studies in the
United States and elsewhere as to how species may become invasive will
be considered by the state and NOAA in making any future
21. Comment: NOAA's final action needs to account for the
likelihood that these shellfish species would themselves attract or
carry other exotic species, thereby causing environmentally detrimental
Response: In GFNMS, only those aquaculture operations in Tomales
Bay with a valid lease or permit from the state of California would be
exempt. If a commercial shellfish aquaculture project involving
introduced species is proposed in MBNMS, as part of the permit
authorization state management agencies and NOAA must determine the
project will not have significant adverse impacts to sanctuary
resources or qualities. In this review process, NOAA and state
management agencies will consider not only the proposed introduced
species themselves, but also the threats from parasites, project
siting, the financial capability of the applicant, among other factors.
22. Comment: NOAA should clarify how it or the state will monitor
and prevent accidental introductions of diseases, parasites and hitch-
hikers on aquaculture species within sanctuary waters. No protocol for
monitoring or management of new or expanded aquaculture operations is
referenced in the proposed regulation amendment.
Response: For Tomales Bay in GFNMS, commercial shellfish
aquaculture will remain under the primary management authority of state
management agencies and their public processes at this time. The MOA
will outline how GFNMS can raise concerns to the state and seek their
inclusion of permit conditions that ensure adequate enforcement and
monitoring. For state waters of MBNMS, ONMS may condition or deny a
potential permit authorization request if NOAA finds the applicant and
the state management agencies do not adequately monitor and manage a
proposed commercial shellfish aquaculture project involving introduced
species. Monitoring and enforcement protocols could be added to permit
conditions as part of an authorization, and would ideally be discussed,
reviewed, and planned for on a case by case basis, and considered
during the NEPA and CEQA process.
23. Comment: NOAA's proposed rule does not recognize the regulatory
role of the National Park Service (NPS). NPS national policy prohibits
introductions of non-native species in NPS waters, including waters
which overlap with national marine sanctuaries, the introduction of
non-native species within national parks is inconsistent with the NPS
Organic Act of 1916 (as amended and supplemented).
Response: NOAA and NPS have some jurisdictional overlap in GFNMS.
Where there is jurisdictional overlap, NOAA's final regulations in this
action do not usurp other federal regulations, including those of the
National Park Service. As discussed in the preamble to this rule above,
due to the previous Governor's objection in December 2008, there are
currently no sanctuary regulations regarding introduced species in
state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS (including waters adjacent to national
parks). NOAA believes this final action will close that regulatory gap
by prohibiting virtually all of the mechanisms that could result in the
introduction of an introduced species. The final rule will only allow
introduced species shellfish aquaculture within sanctuary waters of
Tomales Bay operating with a valid permit of lease from the state. This
final action will support the goals of the National Park Service to
prevent the introduction of introduced species.
24. Comment: NOAA's proposed action weakens the authority of the
national marine sanctuaries to control invasive non-native species that
potentially may be introduced by new aquaculture operations. In so
doing, NOAA delegates to the state the authority to define invasive
species and bypasses a process for environmental review and compliance,
including the participation of other potentially impacted federal
agencies, such as national parks as well as the public.
Response: NOAA disagrees. Currently, there are no introduced
species regulations in state waters of GFNMS or MBNMS and this final
rule provides that regulatory protection by prohibiting the
introduction of introduced species in all state waters of MBNMS and
nearly all state waters of GFNMS. Any state review of an existing,
expanded or new aquaculture project in Tomales Bay in GFNMS will
include compliance with CEQA, consultation with affected agencies, and
public review, including hearings, as prescribed by agency procedures
when issuing leases and permits. Any new project in MBNMS will also
require compliance with NEPA. While the final rule exempts the need for
a permit authorization from GFNMS in Tomales Bay it includes extensive
consultation with GFNMS prior to the state's issuing permits or leases
[[Page 8785]]
MOA. Therefore, additional public review consistent with state and
federal law and procedures will be provided and comments considered on
any such action in either sanctuary, if proposed in the future.
25. Comment: NOAA should require ONMS review for any change to an
existing lease where the grower proposes to cultivate new non-native
shellfish species on their farm.
Response: The grandfathering option for GFNMS discussed in the
March 2013 proposal was adopted by NOAA and will exempt existing and
future commercial shellfish aquaculture operations in Tomales Bay with
a valid state of California permit or lease. The MOA will outline how
the state will consult with GFNMS on expansion of existing leases or
future proposals to cultivate new species.
26. Comment: NOAA should extend the short comment period of the
amended proposed rule. The release of the Federal Register notice
reopening this issue, and the subsequent comment deadline for this
reversal by the agency was conducted in such manner as to preclude the
public from having timely access to the necessary information and
supporting documents, and the necessary time for review.
Response: The comment period for the March 2013 proposed rule was
60 days and generated very few public comments. The comments received
in 2013 were mostly in support--including those received from the GFNMS
and MBNMS Sanctuary Advisory Councils--of NOAA's proposed action which
is being implemented for GFNMS in this final rule. Based on this
information, NOAA did not anticipate receiving many public comments for
the March 27, 2014 amended proposed rule, and therefore NOAA
established a 15 day comment period. Upon receiving a request for an
extension, NOAA re-opened the comment period for an additional 24 days
until May 5, 2017. Based on the comments received during these two
comment periods, NOAA believes this final rule-making has provided the
public with timely involvement and the opportunity to review and
27. Comment: The rule is premature because this current NOAA
comment period predates a pending state of California Programmatic
Environmental Impact Report (pEIR) on aquaculture issues expected to be
inclusive of many of the same types of invasive species questions
brought forward by expanded aquaculture proposals in state waters.
Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The
state's programmatic environmental impact report being prepared
pursuant to CEQA is unrelated to this final action promulgated by NOAA.
This regulation has a long history, and is designed to extend existing
sanctuary introduced species prohibitions from federal waters into
state waters of GFNMS and MBNMS. Future state action may further assist
the state and federal regulatory agencies in protecting coastal waters
from the invasive impacts of introduced species.
28. Comment: NOAA should not take any action on the introduced
species rule until the public hearings and written comments on the
draft environmental impact Statement (DEIS) and accompanying
regulations for boundary expansion for GFNMS has been subjected to
sufficient public review.
Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
However, we note the proposed rule for GFNMS expansion recognizes that
there is a separate rulemaking process the introduced species. The
rules will be codified accordingly, in the order they are finalized.
29. Comment: NOAA should specifically exclude oil drilling from the
list of otherwise prohibited activities that could be authorized by
NOAA (922.132(1)) within GFNMS.
Nevertheless, as noted previously, the Final Rule does not add
authorization authority to GFNMS regulations.
Section 301 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434) provides authority for
comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of national
marine sanctuaries in coordination with other resource management
authorities. When changing a term of designation of a National Marine
Sanctuary, section 304 of the NMSA requires the preparation of a draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS), as provided by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and that the
DEIS be made available to the public. NOAA prepared a draft and final
management plan and a draft and final EIS on the initial proposal and
final rule for the Joint Management Plan Review (JMPR). Copies are
available at the address and Web site listed in the Addresses section
of this proposed rule. Responses to comments received on March 18, 2013
proposed rule and on the March 27, 2014 proposed revision to the
regulations have been analyzed and published in the preamble to this
final rule and discussed in the record of decision. NOAA has made
available the 2008 final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the
JMPR that was previously available to the public, and which analyzes
the environmental effects of the introduced species regulations as they
are now finalized by this action. (For a copy of the FEIS, please visit
www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/jointplan.)
In the 2008 FEIS for the JMPR, NOAA identified a preferred action
which was to modify the terms of designation and regulations for GFNMS
and MBNMS to, among other things, prohibit the introduction of
introduced species (with limited exceptions) throughout the
sanctuaries, and NOAA endorses that action as re-proposed and as
amended in the notices of proposed rulemaking associated with this
final rule. The 2008 FEIS specifically identified that the prohibition
of the introduction of introduced species would lead to beneficial
impacts to Biological Resources and Water Quality Resources and would
not cause any adverse impacts to existing shellfish aquaculture
operations. The final rule adopts a regulatory regime slightly
different from that reviewed in 2008, however, this action is within
the range of alternatives considered in 2008 and will result in nearly
the same level of beneficial impacts that were identified in 2008.
Further, NOAA is adopting final regulations that would not affect
issued by the state of California. NOAA further believes there has not
been a significant change to the environmental conditions or the
potential environmental effects of the preferred alternative. NOAA has
determined that a supplement to the FEIS is not required for this final
Pursuant to a MOA that would be executed, the state would consult
with NOAA prior to any new or amended state-issued lease and permits.
In addition, through this action NOAA
would exercise limited authorization authority with respect to
commercial shellfish aquaculture activities in state waters of MBNMS
involving cultivation of introduced species of shellfish that NOAA and
the State have determined are non-invasive and would not cause
significant adverse effects. Any future proposal or amendments to
existing state leases for an aquaculture project involving cultivation
of introduced shellfish species would undergo environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and NEPA
for MBNMS and CEQA for GFNMS on a case-by-case basis to consider
project-specific effects of that action. NOAA may refuse to authorize a
project in MBNMS that would not comply with terms or conditions
required by NOAA. 15 CFR 922.49(a).
Copies of the FEIS, the record of decision and other related
materials that are specific to this action are available at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/jointplan/feis/feis.html, or by contacting NOAA at
the address listed in the For Further Information section of this final
rule. Comments regarding the introduction of introduced species portion
of the original FEIS are analyzed and responded to above, in the
Response to Comments section.
meaning of Executive Order 13132. NOAA's previous proposed rule and
subsequent amended proposed rule were conducted in cooperation with the
State of California, and pursuant to Section 304(b) of the NMSA. Since
the proposed rule was issued on March 18, 2013, further consultations
have occurred with the State of California, and the proposed changes
contained in the March 27, 2014 notice reflect cooperative negotiations
reached in those consultations. It is NOAA's view that, due to these
negotiations, the state will not object to the amended regulations
finalized in this action. In keeping with the intent of the Executive
Order, NOAA consulted with a number of entities within the state which
limited to, the California Coastal Commission, the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the California Natural Resources
Administration at the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have
entities. The factual basis for this certification was discussed in the
proposed rule issued on March 18, 2013, and the March 27, 2014 amended
proposal, where the conclusion remained the same. No comments were
received on that certification. No other law requires a regulatory
flexibility analysis so none is required and none has been prepared.
This final rule does not contain information collections that are
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aquaculture, Catch and
release, Environmental protection, Fish, Harbors, Introduced species,
Mariculture, Marine pollution, Marine resources, Natural resources,
Non-invasive, Penalties, Recreation and recreation areas, Research,
Water pollution control, Water resources, Wildlife.
PART 922--[AMENDED]
2. In Sec.  922.82, revise paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:
(ii) Species cultivated by commercial shellfish mariculture
other authorization issued by the state of California. Tomales Bay is
defined in Sec.  922.80. The coordinates for the northern terminus of
Tomales Bay are listed in appendix D to this subpart.
3. Add new Sec.  922.85 to read as follows:
Sec.  922.85  Review of State permits and leases for certain
mariculture projects.
NOAA has described in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the
State of California how the State will consult and coordinate with NOAA
to review any new, amended or expanded lease or permit application for
mariculture projects in Tomales Bay involving introduced species.
Appendix D to Subpart H of Part 922--Northern Extent of Tomales Bay
For the purpose of Sec.  922.82(a)(10)(ii), NOAA is codifying
the northern geographical extent of Tomales Bay via a line running
from Avalis Beach (Point 1) east to Sand Point (Point 2).
Coordinates listed in this Appendix are unprojected (geographic) and
based on the North American Datum of 1983.
Point ID No.  Tomales Bay
boundary                   Latitude            Longitude
1..............................  38.23165             -122.98148
2..............................  38.23165             -122.96955
5. Revise Sec.  922.132, paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(e) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(8) of this
section, and (a)(12) of this section regarding any introduced species
of shellfish that NOAA and the State of California have determined is
non-invasive and will not cause significant adverse effects to
sanctuary resources or qualities, and that is cultivated in state
waters as part of commercial shellfish aquaculture activities, do not
apply to any activity authorized by any lease, permit, license,
approval, or other authorization issued after the effective date of
[[Page 8787]]
designation (January 1, 1993) and issued by any Federal, State, or
local authority of competent jurisdiction, provided that the applicant
complies with 15 CFR 922.49, the Director notifies the applicant and
authorizing agency that he or she does not object to issuance of the
authorization, and the applicant complies with any terms and conditions
the Director deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and
qualities. Amendments, renewals, and extensions of authorizations in
existence on the effective date of designation constitute
authorizations issued after the effective date of Sanctuary
6. In Sec.  922.134, revise the section heading and add new paragraph
Sec.  922.134  Review of certain State permits and leases.
(a)(1) NOAA has described in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with
the State of California how NOAA will coordinate review of any
introduction of non-invasive introduced species from a proposed
shellfish aquaculture project when considering an authorization under
Sec.  922.132(e).
(2) The MOA specifies how the process of 15 CFR 922.49 will be
administered within State waters within the sanctuary in coordination
with State permit and lease programs as administered by the California
Fish and Game Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the