[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 3, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56734-56746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26452]



[[Page 56734]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 090218204-91211-04]
RIN 0648-AX71


Fisheries of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone Off 
Alaska; Fisheries of the Arctic Management Area; Bering Sea Subarea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule that implements the Fishery 
Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area 
(Arctic FMP) and Amendment 29 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering 
Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). The Arctic FMP 
and Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP establish sustainable management of 
commercial fishing in the Arctic Management Area and move the northern 
boundary of the Crab FMP out of the Arctic Management Area south to 
Bering Strait. This action is necessary to establish a management 
framework for commercial fishing and to provide consistent management 
of fish resources in the Arctic Management Area before the potential 
onset of unregulated commercial fishing in the area. This action is 
intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMPs, and other applicable 
laws.

DATES: Effective December 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the Arctic FMP, Amendment 29 to the 
Crab FMP, maps of the action area and essential fish habitat, and the 
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) for this action may be obtained from 
http://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region website at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands king and 
Tanner crab fisheries are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for 
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). The 
Arctic Management Area fisheries are managed under the Fishery 
Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area 
(Arctic FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) 
prepared the Crab FMP and the Arctic FMP under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). Regulations implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 
679 and 680. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear 
at 50 CFR part 600.
    On May 19, 2009, the Council submitted the Arctic FMP and Amendment 
29 to the Crab FMP for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). 
A notice of availability (NOA) of the Arctic FMP and Amendment 29 was 
published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2009 (74 FR 24757). The 
proposed rule for the Arctic FMP and Amendment 29 was published in the 
Federal Register on June 10, 2009 (74 FR 27498). Comments on the Arctic 
FMP, Amendment 29, and the proposed rule were invited through July 27, 
2009. Comments received on the Arctic FMP, Amendment 29, and the 
proposed rule are summarized and responded to below.
    The Arctic FMP and Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP were approved by 
the Secretary on August 17, 2009.

Background

    The Arctic FMP and Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP provide for 
sustainable management of commercial fishing in the Arctic Management 
Area and eliminate management authority within the Arctic Management 
Area from the Crab FMP. The Arctic FMP establishes a management 
framework to sustainably manage future commercial fishing in the Arctic 
Management Area and initially prohibits commercial fishing until new 
information regarding Arctic fish resources allows for authorization of 
a sustainable commercial fishery in the area. Amendment 29 to the Crab 
FMP ensures consistent management of all crab species in the Arctic 
Management Area under the Arctic FMP.
    In February 2009, the Council recommended the Arctic FMP to 
implement a management framework to protect the fish resources of the 
Arctic Management Area against the potential onset of unregulated 
commercial fishing. The Arctic FMP initially prohibits commercial 
fishing until sufficient information is available to enable a 
sustainable commercial fishery to proceed, consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Global climate change is reducing the extent of 
sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, providing greater access to Arctic marine 
resources and increasing human activity in this sensitive marine 
environment of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This action 
prevents potential adverse effects on the Arctic marine environment 
from unregulated commercial fishing. The Arctic FMP is a precautionary, 
ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management in the Arctic 
Management Area.
    The Arctic FMP has all required provisions and appropriate 
discretionary provisions for an FMP contained in sections 303(a), 
303(b), and 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The conservation and 
management provisions in the Arctic FMP were developed in consideration 
of the new National Standard 1 guidelines (74 FR 3178, January 16, 
2009). The proposed rule (74 FR 27498, June 10, 2009) contains a 
summary of the contents of the Arctic FMP and Amendment 29 to the Crab 
FMP, which provide the authority for conservation and management of 
fish resources and for the provisions in this final rule.
    The Arctic FMP and final rule apply to commercial harvests of most 
fish resources in the waters of the Arctic Management Area (Figure 24 
in this final rule). The geographic extent of the Arctic Management 
Area is all marine waters in the U.S. EEZ of the Chukchi and Beaufort 
Seas from 3 nautical miles off the coast of Alaska or its baseline to 
200 nautical miles offshore, north of Bering Strait (from Cape Prince 
of Wales to Cape Dezhneva) and westward to the 1990 United States/
Russia maritime boundary line and eastward to the United States/Canada 
maritime boundary as claimed by the United States.
    This final rule does not affect non-commercial fishing in the 
Arctic Management Area or commercial harvest of certain species that 
are managed pursuant to other legal authorities. It has no effect on 
the commercial harvest of Pacific salmon and Pacific halibut. The 
commercial harvest of Pacific salmon in the Arctic Management Area is 
managed under the FMP for Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of 
Alaska (Salmon FMP), which prohibits commercial salmon fishing in the 
Arctic Management Area. Pacific halibut commercial fishing is managed 
by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), which does not 
allow harvest of Pacific halibut in the Arctic Management Area. This 
action makes no changes to subsistence harvest of marine resources in 
the Arctic Management Area.

[[Page 56735]]

Regulatory Amendments

    The following describes the regulatory changes and additions to 50 
CFR part 679 to implement the Arctic FMP and Amendment 29.
    1. Section 679.1 is revised to add the title of the Arctic FMP and 
to describe the scope of the FMP as governing commercial fishing for 
Arctic fish in the Arctic Management Area by vessels of the United 
States. This addition is necessary to expand the scope of the 50 CFR 
part 679 regulations to include implementation of the Arctic FMP.
    2. Section 679.2 is amended to add and revise definitions for the 
Arctic FMP and for Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP. A definition for 
``Arctic fish'' is added to distinguish in regulations the species 
under the authority of the Arctic FMP. The Arctic fish definition 
includes all fish as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, excluding 
Pacific halibut and Pacific salmon. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines 
``fish'' as finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of 
marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds. 
Commercial fishing for Pacific halibut and Pacific salmon in the EEZ 
off Alaska is managed by the IPHC and under the Salmon FMP, 
respectively, and is not managed under the Arctic FMP. Creating this 
definition allows for the initial prohibition of commercial fishing for 
Arctic fish, as prescribed by the Arctic FMP.
    A definition for the ``Arctic Management Area'' as described by the 
Arctic FMP is added. The area is described in regulatory text in Sec.  
679.2 and is shown in Figure 24 in part 679. This definition is 
necessary to define the area within which this rule governs commercial 
fishing.
    The definition for the ``Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area'' for 
the purposes of king and Tanner crab management is revised. This 
revision implements Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP by moving the northern 
boundary of the Crab FMP fishery management area from Point Hope 
southward to Bering Strait. This revision is necessary to eliminate 
management authority in the Arctic Management Area from the Crab FMP so 
that all crab stocks that occur within the Arctic Management Area are 
managed under the Arctic FMP.
    The definition of ``commercial fishing'' is revised to include the 
catch of Arctic fish which is or is intended to be sold or bartered, 
excluding subsistence fishing. This revision is necessary to manage, 
and initially prohibit, commercial fishing for Arctic fish and to 
ensure subsistence fishing is not affected by such management of 
commercial fishing.
    The definition of ``management area'' is revised to add the Arctic 
Management Area. This revision is necessary to list the Arctic 
Management Area with the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management 
Area and the Gulf of Alaska. This revision allows for fishery 
management in the Arctic Management Area to be within the scope of the 
regulations at Sec.  679.1.
    The definition of ``optimum yield'' is revised by adding Arctic 
fish and referencing Sec.  679.20(a)(1) where the optimum yield for 
target species identified in the Arctic FMP is specified. This revision 
is necessary to establish the optimum yield for the target species and 
to support the prohibition on commercial fishing of target species.
    The definition of ``subsistence fishing'' is added to describe 
subsistence harvests in the Arctic Management Area of Arctic fish and 
Pacific salmon. Subsistence in terms of Pacific halibut is defined 
under regulations at 50 CFR 300.61 and is not changed by this 
definition. Subsistence fishing in the Arctic is the harvest of Arctic 
fish and Pacific salmon for non-commercial, long-term, customary and 
traditional use necessary to maintain the life of the taker or those 
who depend upon the taker to provide them with such subsistence. Adding 
this definition to 50 CFR part 679 allows subsistence harvest practices 
to be differentiated from commercial harvest practices, which are 
prohibited. This addition is necessary to ensure the continued 
subsistence harvest of Arctic fish and Pacific salmon in the Arctic 
Management Area while differentiating such activity from commercial 
fishing.
    3. The introductory paragraph to Sec.  679.6 addressing exempted 
fishing permits (EFPs) is revised to add Arctic fish. EFPs currently 
are available for only groundfish exempted fishing. Because the Arctic 
FMP includes species other than groundfish and the Arctic FMP allows 
issuance of EFPs for any type of fish resource occurring in the Arctic 
Management Area, the application of EFPs is revised to include Arctic 
fish.
    4. In Sec.  679.7, a prohibition is added to prevent commercial 
fishing for Arctic fish in the Arctic Management Area. A prohibition on 
commercial fishing for Arctic fish is necessary to implement the Arctic 
FMP prohibition on commercial fishing on either target or ecosystem 
component species.
    5. In Sec.  679.20(a), the optimum yield (OY) for commercial 
fishing for Arctic Management Area target species is added. The OY for 
commercial fishing is set at zero metric tons for each of the target 
species, as provided in the Arctic FMP. This revision is necessary to 
implement the OYs specified in the Arctic FMP.
    6. Figure 24 to part 679 is added to show the Arctic Management 
Area as established by the Arctic FMP. This addition is necessary to 
clarify in the regulations the location of the Arctic Management Area 
and to differentiate the boundary of the Arctic Management Area from 
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area boundary shown in 
Figure 1 to part 679. The Chukchi Sea Statistical Area 400 remains with 
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands statistical and reporting areas in 
Figure 1 to part 679 until the Arctic FMP is amended to authorize a 
commercial fishery in the Arctic Management Area. The Council 
recommended not establishing subareas for fisheries management in the 
Arctic Management Area at this time due to the lack of information to 
inform the selection of subarea boundaries.

Comments and Responses

    The comment periods for the NOA and the proposed rule for this 
action ended on July 27, 2009. Comments were received from members of 
the public, environmental organizations, tribal representatives, and 
fishing industry representatives, all of which supported the Arctic FMP 
and Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP. Eight environmental organizations' 
letters also enclosed form letters or petition signatures representing 
35,852 individual commentors. Including each version of the form 
letters, NMFS received approximately 389 letters containing 48 unique 
comments. The following summarizes and responds to the 48 unique 
comments on the NOA for the Arctic FMP and Amendment 29 and on the 
proposed rule.
    Comment 1: For Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP, the map needs to be 
corrected to show the northern boundary of the management area 
consistent with the text in the FMP amendment.
    Response: The error in the northern boundary on the map is noted. 
Two lines appear on the map for the northern boundary. Only the 
northern most line should be shown. The text in the FMP amendment and 
the coordinates listed for Figure 1 of 50 CFR part 679 describe only 
the northernmost line, which is the effective boundary for the Crab 
FMP, according to the definition of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Area in Sec.  679.2. The figure will be corrected with a future 
amendment to the Crab FMP.

[[Page 56736]]

    Comment 2: In Section 4.2.2 of the Arctic FMP and in Section 8.1.2 
of the EA, the oceanographic features of the Arctic Ocean should be 
corrected to describe upwellings from Barrow Canyon, rather than 
Beaufort Canyon.
    Response: The error is noted. The correction was made in the EA and 
will be made in the Arctic FMP with a future amendment.
    Comment 3: In the proposed rule, the definition of Arctic fish in 
conjunction with the definition of commercial fishing and subsistence 
fishing seems to allow an opportunity to fish commercially for Pacific 
halibut in Arctic waters. The prohibition under Sec.  679.7(p) 
prohibits commercial fishing for Arctic fish which excludes Pacific 
salmon and Pacific halibut. Pacific salmon commercial fishing is 
prohibited by the Salmon FMP. The text of the prohibition could be 
changed to prohibit commercial fishing in the Arctic Management Area 
and in that manner include Pacific halibut.
    Response: Pacific halibut commercial fishing is managed under 
regulations of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), 
which do not allow harvest of Pacific halibut in the Arctic Management 
Area. In light of this existing limitation on commercial harvest of 
Pacific halibut, the Arctic FMP, developed by the Council, does not 
include a prohibition on commercial fishing for Pacific Halibut in the 
Arctic Management Area. NMFS concurs with the Council's conclusion that 
existing regulatory authority currently provides adequate conservation 
and management of Pacific halibut in the Arctic Management Area. 
Additional prohibitions on such fishing are not warranted at this time. 
Commercial fishing is a very broad term under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
which applies to any kind of fish. The term ``Arctic fish'' is 
necessary to apply the prohibition on commercial fishing only to those 
species covered by the Arctic FMP. The prohibition text in the rule 
remains unchanged.
    Comment 4: It is important to gather scientific information and 
data on significant marine habitat and fishery resources. These can be 
used to identify and protect sensitive Arctic marine habitat and the 
adjacent Bering Sea, before opening the Arctic Management Area to 
commercial fishing. Identification and protection of sensitive areas 
are critical to ensuring the long term sustainability of Alaska's 
fisheries. Consideration of the errors in gathering and using 
scientific information and data should be made in fisheries management 
in the Arctic.
    The Arctic FMP should include a plan for regular monitoring with a 
consistent protocol for surveying in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 
NMFS and the Council are encouraged to make arctic research a priority 
because of the changing environment. A suite of research priorities for 
the Arctic should be developed and forwarded to the North Pacific 
Research Board for its consideration.
    Response: NMFS agrees that more information is needed to understand 
the Arctic marine environment and fishery resources. With global 
climate change, interest is increasing in the Alaskan Arctic regarding 
loss of sea ice and ecosystem effects that will alter the fish 
community. NMFS is participating in the Bering Arctic and Subarctic 
Integrated Survey and the Loss of Sea Ice Initiative to investigate and 
gather information to manage marine resources in the Bering Sea and 
Arctic Ocean and to formulate strategies in anticipation of the impacts 
of climate change on fisheries and the ecosystem. Additional 
information on research activities in the Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean 
is available from http://www.afsc.noaa.gov.
    NMFS is also a sponsor of the International Arctic Fisheries 
Symposium scheduled for October 19 21, 2009, in Anchorage, Alaska. 
Participants will help identify current management regimes in the 
Arctic region and how relevant scientific and fisheries data can be 
used to inform future management decisions. NOAA also is working with 
Russia to observe physical and biological environmental changes in the 
Northern Bering Sea and Chukchi Sea and with Canada for continental 
shelf mapping. More information on NOAA Arctic research activities may 
be found at http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/.
    NMFS identifies the variability and known errors in data in all 
research activities, including stock assessments. These are important 
considerations in setting harvest levels for target species and for 
developing appropriate management measures. NMFS agrees that consistent 
surveying protocols, including consistency in methodology and timing, 
are important to reduce the potential for error and variability in data 
collection. A survey of the Beaufort Sea shelf fish and invertebrate 
resources completed by NMFS researchers in August 2008 may serve as a 
pilot study for future surveys in the area.
    NMFS determines its research needs and resources for Alaska 
fisheries and direct research efforts based on priorities. These 
priorities are identified by working with the Council and consideration 
of management of present and future fisheries. Periodic and regular 
surveys of Arctic fish resources will be done as priorities and budget 
allow. NMFS will work with the Council to identify and prioritize 
research needs for all U.S. EEZ waters off Alaska, including the 
Arctic. The Council annually reviews its five-year research priorities, 
which currently include research in the Arctic. These priorities are 
shared with the North Pacific Research Board for its consideration in 
research planning. More information on the Council's research 
priorities may be found at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/default.htm
    Comment 5: The current biomass estimates in the Arctic FMP cannot 
be relied on to reflect future baseline biomass. Biomass surveys were 
conducted in limited areas and limited time periods, and may over or 
under estimate biomass in the Arctic Management Area. Shifting 
temperature regimes and altered productivity and food webs may further 
affect standing stocks and variability.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the combination of changing conditions 
and current information for biomass estimates provides limited support 
for future sustainable management of a commercial fishery in the 
Arctic. As described in Section 2.2.2 of the FMP, the collection of 
biomass and life history data sufficient for developing sustainable 
management measures will be required before any commercial fishery 
could be authorized.
    Comment 6: The Department of Commerce should fully engage in 
international discussions on fishery management in the Arctic. 
Discussions with Russia and Canada are extremely important for 
coordination in the Arctic region, ensuring the conservation actions 
through the Arctic FMP are complemented by management actions taken in 
Russian or Canadian Arctic waters or by other nations in the 
international Arctic waters. The 2008 Senate Resolution 17 urges the 
United States to ``initiate discussions and take necessary steps with 
other Arctic nations to negotiate an agreement or agreements for 
managing migratory, transboundary, and straddling fish stocks in the 
Arctic Ocean and establishing a new international fisheries management 
organization for the region.'' The Arctic FMP will encourage the 
international negotiations called for in the resolution and sets the 
stage for the kind of cooperative efforts to make the prohibition on 
commercial fishing in U.S. waters truly effective. The Arctic FMP would 
more fully comport with this resolution if it

[[Page 56737]]

included the resolution's requirement to work with other Arctic nations 
on international fishing issues, including EEZ disputes; highly 
migratory and transboundary stocks; stock monitoring, assessment, and 
allocation; international agreements that prohibit fishing; and 
conservation of protected species. Discussion is required in the FMP on 
the implication of these issues for present and future EEZ boundary 
disputes. The Arctic FMP should include a discussion on the United 
States and Canada boundary disputes of the EEZ in the Beaufort Sea.
    NOAA could collaborate with the U.S. Department of State's Office 
of Ocean and Polar Affairs to negotiate with government and tribal 
representatives to have a moratorium on commercial fisheries and other 
extractive industries in Arctic areas beyond the U.S. jurisdiction.
    Response: NMFS is working with other organizations to engage in 
international discussions on Arctic fisheries management. See response 
to Comment 4 regarding the International Arctic Fisheries Symposium. 
The Arctic FMP is focused on the management of fisheries in the Arctic 
Management Area and is not a descriptive document of international 
issues regarding the published U.S. EEZ boundaries (60 FR 43825, August 
23, 1995). Details of the border disputes and negotiations between the 
United States and Russia and Canada on Arctic fisheries management are 
detailed in the EA/RIR/FRFA for this action (see ADDRESSES) and are not 
repeated in the FMP. The Council may consider adding a discussion of 
the U.S. Senate resolution on the Arctic to the Arctic FMP by an FMP 
amendment.
    Not enough is known about the target species stock structure at 
this time to determine whether highly migratory and transboundary 
stocks occur in the U.S. Arctic EEZ. More research and the sharing of 
abundance data and stock structure information with other Arctic 
nations may support international agreements in highly migratory and 
transboundary stock management. At the time a fishery is authorized, 
the FMP may be amended to include management measures that address 
issues of highly migratory and transboundary stocks, monitoring, 
assessment, allocation, and international agreements for conservation 
of stocks. The analysis accompanying the consideration of authorizing a 
commercial fishery would include these types of international 
considerations.
    NMFS through NOAA and the Department of Commerce works closely with 
the U.S. Department of State's Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs to 
address international fishery issues between the United States and 
other nations. The U.S. Department of State is responsible for the 
coordination and negotiation with other nations regarding conservation 
of transboundary resources. The United States initiated discussions on 
the conservation and management of shared living marine resources 
separately with Canada and Russia in 2008. These discussions continue 
in 2009 and included discussions with Norway on Arctic high seas marine 
conservation policy issues in February 2009.
    Comment 7: The U.S. Senate should ratify the United Nations 
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Other Arctic nations are ahead of the 
United States in ratifying this convention.
    Response: Comment noted. Those interested in this issue may contact 
their U.S. Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.
    Comment 8: The U.S. Government should explain to the American 
people the issues with our fisheries so that Americans will understand 
the need to close the U.S. Arctic waters to commercial fishing.
    Response: In addition to the Federal Register notice of the 
proposed rule (74 FR 27496, June 10, 2009) and the analysis to support 
this action (see ADDRESSES), NMFS Alaska Region's website has a page 
dedicated to Arctic issues. This information is available to the public 
at the NMFS Alaska Region website http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/arctic/ and at the Council website http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/Arctic/arctic.htm. 
These sources provide the public with the background and reasons for 
the Arctic FMP and its implementing regulations.
    Comment 9: NOAA is captured by commercial fishing interests and 
fails to manage fish populations sustainably. The fishing quota allows 
too much fishing and should be reduced. Oceans are dangerously 
overfished by industrial fishing, which needs to be stopped. We must 
end depletion and damage to the ocean's wildlife. Humans need to learn 
to use less resources and reduce population growth. Industrial fishing 
damages ocean floor habitat and destroys many fish and wildlife species 
with indiscriminate use of giant gear and lines. Huge areas of plastic 
debris, including fishing gear, in the Pacific and other oceans injure 
and kill marine animals.
    Response: This action is limited to the implementation of the 
Arctic FMP in the Arctic Management Area. The Arctic FMP will initially 
prohibit commercial fishing in the Arctic Management Area until 
information is available to sustainably manage Arctic fisheries. This 
action is supported by a wide range of interests, including commercial 
fishery participants. No Alaska fisheries are currently experiencing 
overfishing. Commercial fishing in the EEZ off Alaska is managed under 
regulations at 50 CFR parts 300, 600, 679, and 680, which impose many 
restrictions on the type of gear, location, vessel types, and timing of 
fishing activities so that indiscriminate use of fishing gear does not 
occur. Fishery regulations include provisions to reduce waste by 
improved retention and improved utilization of certain species under 
Sec.  679.27 and to manage fishing to control and reduce bycatch of 
prohibited species under Sec.  679.21. Alaska fisheries regulations 
include protection measures to mitigate potential adverse effects on 
other marine species and habitats. Examples of protection measures 
include areas closed to bottom contact gear to prevent damage to bottom 
habitat, areas closed to fishing around Steller sea lion rookeries and 
haulouts, and seabird avoidance gear used by hook-and-line fisheries to 
reduce the accidental catching of seabirds during fishing activities.
    NMFS agrees that plastic debris, including discarded fishing gear, 
in the marine environment poses a threat to a variety of marine 
organisms through entanglement and ingestion. The National Ocean 
Service's Marine Debris Program is undertaking a national and 
international effort focusing on identifying, reducing, and preventing 
debris in the marine environment. More information on this issue is at 
the Marine Debris Program website http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/.
    Comment 10: No commercial fishing should occur in the Arctic 
Management Area now or in the future because of the fragile nature of 
the area and the potential for the industry to degrade it.
    Response: This rule prohibits commercial fishing for Arctic fish in 
the Arctic Management Area. Arctic fish do not include Pacific salmon 
or Pacific halibut, because these species are managed under other 
authorities. Pacific salmon is managed under the Salmon FMP, which 
prohibits commercial fishing for salmon in the Arctic Management Area. 
Pacific halibut commercial fishing is not permitted in the Arctic 
Management Area by authority of the International Pacific Halibut 
Commission.

[[Page 56738]]

    Commercial fishing in the Arctic can be authorized only through an 
FMP amendment and changes in regulations. An extensive process and 
criteria for authorizing a fishery in the Arctic are detailed in the 
Arctic FMP and must be followed by the Council before recommending the 
authorization of a commercial fishery. The potential impacts of an 
Arctic fishery based on the best available scientific data must be 
considered in developing the management measures for any future Arctic 
commercial fishery.
    Comment 11: The United States should implement regulations that 
close U.S. Arctic waters to trawlers both near shore and off shore 
within the EEZ.
    Response: The Arctic FMP and the final rule prohibit commercial 
fishing for all fish, except Pacific salmon and Pacific halibut, in 
waters of the EEZ from 3 nm to 200 nm off Alaska in the Arctic Ocean. 
This prohibition includes commercial fishing using trawl gear in these 
waters. Waters from 0 nm to 3nm are under the authority of the State of 
Alaska (State) which authorizes several small fisheries in State waters 
as described in detail in Section 5.4 of the Arctic FMP. Trawls are not 
used in these State waters fisheries.
    Comment 12: Overfishing is why we are considering the Arctic FMP.
    Response: Currently, commercial fishing is not occurring and very 
little subsistence and sport fishing occurs in the Arctic Management 
Area . Based on information in the EA/RIR/FRFA (see ADDRESSES), 
overfishing is not occurring. This action is a precautionary approach 
to fisheries management to prevent the possibility of unregulated 
fishing that may result in overfishing of fish stocks.
    Comment 13: Industrial fishing is particularly harsh and hard to 
manage in the Arctic. Mistakes take decades to remedy and other species 
pay a heavy toll for overharvest.
    Response: NMFS agrees that commercial fishing in the Arctic would 
pose challenges to management that are not experienced in other 
locations in Alaska waters, due to the extreme remote location and 
harsh weather and sea ice conditions. Due to the paucity of information 
on the fish stocks in the Arctic, it is difficult to determine the 
potential effects of commercial fishing on marine resources or the 
recovery time. Any Arctic commercial fishing that may be authorized in 
the future will be based on information that would allow management to 
be done in a sustainable manner and with consideration of ecosystem 
effects. Management measures for the fishery would prevent overfishing, 
as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Comment 14: The Council system used to make decisions does not 
work. The members come to the meetings with decisions already made and 
represent big business. Big business representatives can afford to 
attend the Council meetings constantly. Remember small businesses are 
the economic engines.
    Response: The Council public process for decision making has 
allowed effective management of Alaska fishery resources. The Council 
membership includes representatives from industry, state, and federal 
agencies, with the majority of the seats filled by persons recommended 
by the State of Alaska Governor and approved by the Secretary. Comments 
can be made to the Council early in the decision-making process in 
person and in writing for Council members' consideration. Thorough 
analysis of potential actions is reviewed in public by the Council's 
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Advisory Panel where 
public testimony is also taken. Written comments also are an effective 
method for expressing the concerns of persons unable to attend the 
Council meetings.
    The Council recognizes the importance of the small vessel fleet and 
the communities that depend on them in Alaska fisheries and is required 
by National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to take into account 
the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities. Analysis of 
fisheries management actions includes the potential effects of the 
action on small entities, including small businesses. This analysis is 
used by the Council in making recommendations and by the Secretary in 
approving or disapproving the recommendation. The EA/RIR/FRFA for this 
action contains the analysis of potential impacts on small entities 
(see ADDRESSES).
    Comment 15: There should be no commercial fishing in the northern 
Bering Sea.
    Response: The northern portion of the Bering Sea currently is 
closed to nonpelagic trawling. This closure was established as the 
Northern Bering Sea Research Area (73 FR 43362, July 25, 2008). Though 
this area is open to other types of commercial fishing (e.g. hook-and-
line, pot, and pelagic trawling) very little fishing occurs in this 
area due to its distance from major ports and the distribution of fish 
stocks. Closure of the northern Bering Sea area to all commercial 
fishing is beyond the scope of this action.
    Comment 16: It is a waste of taxpayer money to develop the Arctic 
FMP including EFPs when collection of the same information under an EFP 
could be done under the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 402(a).
    Response: The purpose of the Arctic FMP is to provide a framework 
for sustainable management of fish resources in the Arctic Management 
Area. The FMP is needed not only for collection of information but also 
to authorize regulations to prevent unregulated fishing. The FMP also 
provides for EFPs as an information collection tool.
    Information collection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 
402(a) is used to determine if fisheries management is necessary or to 
determine whether changes need to occur in fisheries management for an 
existing FMP. This rule establishes fisheries management for the Arctic 
Management Area before commercial fishing occurs, as a precautionary 
approach to fisheries management in this sensitive marine environment. 
Allowing EFPs provides a mechanism for industry participation in 
collecting information important to Arctic fisheries management. Data 
collected under EFPs would be specific to the study conducted and would 
be collected in cooperation with the fishing industry. The information 
collection authority under section 402(a) does not fully meet the 
Council's and Secretary's objectives for sustainable management of 
Arctic fish resources. These objectives are met by approval of the 
Arctic FMP and this rule.
    Comment 17: The argument that more prolonged ice-free periods is a 
reason for enacting an FMP ignores the fact that ice-free periods 
currently exist during fishing seasons and yet no fishing is taking 
place.
    Response: The Arctic FMP is a precautionary action to protect 
Arctic fish resources from the potential adverse effects of unregulated 
fishing before such fishing occurs. NMFS agrees that commercial fishing 
is not currently known to occur in the Arctic Management Area, but with 
ice-free conditions expanding, there is more interest in all kinds of 
industrial activity in the Arctic Management Area, including commercial 
fishing. Waiting for commercial fishing to occur before establishing 
management measures would allow for unregulated fishing for up to two 
years as the Council and NMFS complete the process for implementing a 
new FMP. The additional ice-free time periods increase the interest in 
fishing and, therefore, warrant establishing fisheries management 
through the Arctic FMP now, before the occurrence of

[[Page 56739]]

unregulated fishing and the potential irreversible effects on the 
Arctic marine environment.
    Comment 18: It is appropriate to develop an FMP that addresses 
species that are already known to occur in the Arctic, but a 
comprehensive FMP that covers species that may range into the Arctic is 
speculative and not needed. Species ranging out of the Bering Sea into 
the Arctic should already be covered by an existing FMP.
    Response: Little is known about species ranging into the Arctic 
Management Area. Species lists have been developed based on limited 
survey information. An ecosystem component species group is used in the 
Arctic FMP to include those nontarget species currently known to occur 
in the Arctic and those species that may be discovered in the future. 
By identifying the ecosystem component species group, the FMP provides 
for management measures to protect these species. This provides the 
flexibility to protect ecosystem component species without the need to 
amend the Arctic FMP with specific species listings, which are likely 
to change as more information is gathered on Arctic fish resources.
    Several Arctic marine species are known to occur in the Bering Sea 
and some of these species are managed under the FMP for Groundfish of 
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area or under the Crab 
FMP. The management authority under the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
groundfish FMP does not extend into the Arctic Management Area. Also, 
snow crab is managed in the Bering Sea under the Crab FMP. Amendment 29 
to the Crab FMP limits the northern boundary of the Crab FMP management 
area to Bering Strait, which is the southern boundary of the Arctic 
Management Area. Management measures for snow crab in the Crab FMP are 
specific to the Bering Sea snow crab fishery located in the Bering Sea, 
which is a large, historical fishery. Compared to Bering Sea snow crab, 
snow crab in the Arctic are smaller in size with no historical 
commercial exploitation and uncertain population dynamics and 
abundance. Under the Arctic FMP, the management of this species is 
consistent with the precautionary approach to prohibit commercial 
fishing on target species until more information is available to allow 
for sustainable management in the Arctic.
    Comment 19: We support the Council's action to recommend an FMP for 
an unfished area that has the potential for fisheries development 
because of climate change and the potential movement of fish species. 
We commend the Council, NOAA, and NMFS for protecting marine habitat, 
as well as subsistence users, until a sustainable management plan for 
commercial fishing in the Arctic Management Area is developed. We need 
to take responsibility for sustainable management to ensure a healthier 
environment and ocean diversity. Polar ecosystems take longer to 
recover, if at all, compared to other ocean ecosystems. Only careful 
preservation and management of what we have left will preserve the 
total environment on which all life depends, including humans. The 
Arctic marine ecosystem is a ``final frontier.''
    We have seen the loss of important fisheries in the U.S. and around 
the world in our lifetimes, and it is time for a change in fishery 
management. We have the opportunity to learn from our past overfishing 
and protect this ocean treasure. Allowing unregulated commercial 
fishing will result in the decimation of fish stocks as seen everywhere 
unregulated fishing occurs. The Arctic marine environment needs fish to 
survive while humans do not need fish from this area. Humans can find 
other food sources of protein and omega 3 fatty acids without eating 
fish. Humanity's pattern has been to exploit first and regret later. 
The Arctic FMP is an opportunity to avoid that pathology. In the past, 
commercial interests took precedence over rational scientific 
management of resources and the environment. It is time to change our 
national misbehavior.
    Response: Support noted. Humans living in the Arctic region and 
practicing a subsistence lifestyle are dependent on Arctic marine 
resources for their nutrition, including fish. This action will ensure 
Arctic fish resources, including those used for subsistence, are not 
adversely affected by unregulated commercial fisheries.
    Comment 20: We urge the Secretary of Commerce to approve the FMP 
and to implement regulations to close U.S. Arctic waters to commercial 
fishing. The FMP and regulations would protect the birds and wildlife 
of the Arctic for future generations. This protection is important 
because of the fragile and changing nature of the Arctic marine 
environment.
    Global climate change is having profound effects on the Arctic 
marine environment and on the people who depend on it. Seasonal sea ice 
cover is diminishing and ocean temperatures are increasing. These rapid 
changes are causing enormous stress to Arctic ecosystems. Marine 
mammals such as walruses, ice seals, and polar bears are struggling to 
adapt. Climate change is affecting the Arctic Ocean's role in providing 
breeding, feeding, migrating, and staging areas for millions of 
shorebirds, seabirds, and waterfowl. Arctic peoples' subsistence way of 
life is inextricably linked to healthy and productive marine 
ecosystems, and they are also threatened by these rapid changes. 
Introduction of commercial fishing into the Arctic environment would 
place an even greater burden on the fragile Arctic food web and the 
people and animals that rely on it for their survival.
    Given the threats to the Arctic from climate change, ocean 
acidification, and industrialization from oil development, shipping, 
and other industries, we need a science-based precautionary approach to 
address the expansion of industrial activities, including commercial 
fishing in the Arctic Ocean. The Arctic FMP takes a responsible course 
that protects the health of the Arctic and its people and sets an 
important precedent for other nations and other industries to follow.
    We support the establishment of the Arctic Management Area, 
establishment of target and ecosystem component species groups, and 
prohibition on commercial fishing until stock assessments are 
completed. By using the Council's public review and decision making 
process, future management actions in the Arctic will be in accordance 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. Authorizing a 
commercial fishery will require amendment to the Arctic FMP, including 
analysis and public participation in the decision-making process with 
the Council. The Council should consider a committee process to develop 
further guidance and criteria for analysis of potential new fisheries, 
including conditions that would need to be addressed for authorizing a 
fishery in the Arctic Management Area. This process will ensure issues 
for fishery management and protection of the marine environment will be 
addressed. This public process will ensure sustainable fishery 
management.
    Response: Support noted. At the time a potential Arctic commercial 
fishery is identified, the Council may appoint a committee to assist 
the Council in applying the review process outlined in Section 2.2.2 of 
the Arctic FMP. This committee could assist the Council to analyze the 
effects of the potential fishery and to develop recommended management 
measures. The Council's committees meet in public to assure public 
participation from the initiation of the potential commercial fishery 
review process.

[[Page 56740]]

    Comment 21: Over the past 100 years, the Arctic has warmed twice as 
fast as the rest of the Earth. Since the 1950s, an area of the Arctic 
sea ice, the size of almost half the continental United States, has 
melted.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the current and projected rate of 
sea ice reduction in the Arctic is of concern. The Arctic FMP reflects 
a precautionary approach to marine resource management that considers 
the uncertain impacts of climate change on the vulnerability of species 
to commercial fishing.
    Comment 22: Several environmental organizations provided additional 
information and references to support the approval of the Arctic FMP 
and implementing regulations. The analysis and information in the EA/
RIR/IRFA for this action sufficiently justifies implementation of the 
Arctic FMP and Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP. The additional information 
augments the administrative record for the decision. Additional 
information included further discussions on the unique communities and 
ecosystem of the Arctic and its role in regulating the Earth's climate, 
climate related changes and loss of sea ice, ocean acidification in the 
Arctic region, and the potential additional effects on the marine 
environment of increased industrial activity in the Arctic region.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the additional information. It is 
included in the administrative record for future reference.
    Comment 23: The Arctic FMP and Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP set the 
stage for thoughtful and science-driven deliberations for future 
fishery development in the Arctic. These deliberations should include 
active engagement with Arctic coast residents. Closing the Beaufort and 
Chukchi Seas to commercial fishing now will allow time for community 
input and consideration of local and traditional knowledge before 
commercial fishing is authorized. Because a mistake in the management 
of fisheries could have cascading effects that may harm subsistence and 
cultural traditions, a cautious approach to fisheries in the Arctic is 
warranted. Local communities should benefit from ecologically 
sustainable development off their coasts. The Council has made 
exceptional efforts to engage residents, communities, and organizations 
representing the people of the Arctic regarding the Arctic FMP. The 
Council has a strong outreach program and new committee to more fully 
engage Alaska's subsistence communities in fishery management.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the Council has a strong outreach 
program and effectively engaged Arctic communities during the 
development of the Arctic FMP. Consideration of any new Arctic 
commercial fishery will include analysis of subsistence resources, 
harvest activities, and customary and traditional subsistence use 
patterns and how these may be affected by a new commercial fishery. In 
Section 3.20.1 of the Arctic FMP, periodic reviews of the FMP will be 
conducted by the Council, including public hearings and outreach to 
Natives and communities at appropriate times and in appropriate 
locations regarding ecological relationships and potential commercial 
fishery development and management. Information on the Council's Rural 
Community Outreach Committee is on the Council's website at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/RuralOutreach/RCOCreport81209.pdf.
    Comment 24: We do not understand the impact a commercial fishery 
may have on the Arctic region or on subsistence lifestyles in the 
Arctic. The Council has done a poor job of fairly allocating fish to 
commercial fishermen rather than to sport or subsistence users, 
sacrificing the benefits to many for the profits of a few.
    Response: NMFS agrees that not enough information currently is 
available to understand the effects of a commercial fishery on the 
Arctic marine environment and on subsistence resources. Sport and 
subsistence fisheries in the Arctic occur primarily in State waters, 
where they are managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. As 
done with Pacific halibut, the Council may review fisheries management 
of a stock, including the types of participants in the fishery, and may 
recommend commercial, sport, and subsistence allocations to ensure 
sustainable management of the fishery.
    Comment 25: NMFS should engage in robust consultation with the 
Alaska Native tribes and their representatives with respect to the 
definition for subsistence fishing. The definition for subsistence 
fishing appears to meet the requirements for ensuring access to 
subsistence resources, but must be thoroughly vetted with the 
appropriate affected Alaska Native tribes to ensure that the definition 
is sensitive to Alaska Natives' needs.
    Response: The definition for subsistence fishing in the rule is 
intended to maintain the current subsistence practices. On June 12, 
2009, NMFS sent to each affected tribe a notice of the proposed rule, a 
copy of the proposed rule, and an offer for tribal consultation on the 
Arctic FMP and the proposed rule. None of these tribes responded 
requesting a consultation for this action. The section of the proposed 
rule describing the subsistence fishing definition specifically asked 
the public for suggestions on a better way to define subsistence 
fishing, and no suggestions were received during the comment period. 
NMFS will continue to work with Alaska Natives to keep them informed 
and involved in federal fisheries management actions.
    Comment 26: The Arctic FMP should contain a process for scoping and 
resolving conflicts between indigenous and commercial use of fishery 
resources. The Arctic FMP lacks a discussion of potential conflicts 
between commercial and subsistence use and does not describe a process 
to identify and resolve such conflicts should a commercial fishery 
develop.
    Response: The Council has appointed the Rural Community Outreach 
Committee to (1) advise the Council on how to provide opportunities for 
better understanding and participation from Alaska Native and rural 
communities; (2) to provide feedback on community impacts sections of 
specific analyses; and (3) to identify proposed Council actions that 
need a specific outreach plan and prioritize multiple actions. This 
committee will provide guidance to the Council on effective methods of 
scoping and resolving conflict between indigenous and subsistence uses 
and commercial uses of fishery resources in the Arctic and in other 
Alaska locations.
    Comment 27: The Arctic FMP should specify subsistence fisheries 
bycatch caps for target species based on the best available science. 
Subsistence fisheries may increase with expanding access to the Arctic 
and changes in species distribution and bycatch hotspots. Increases in 
subsistence fisheries may result in increases in bycatch of target 
species, which the FMP currently does not address.
    Response: NMFS currently does not have enough information to 
determine the species for which to set bycatch caps in the subsistence 
fisheries nor the appropriate level of such caps. If information 
becomes available that indicates a need to regulate harvest in 
subsistence fisheries, an FMP amendment would be required to change the 
FMP to govern non-commercial fisheries. Also see response to Comment 
24.
    Comment 28: The Arctic FMP should include a commitment to 
characterize sensitive habitats and to protect such habitats by 
establishing habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs) and marine 
protected areas (MPAs). MPAs could

[[Page 56741]]

provide important baseline information for fisheries management. 
Opening any new fishery should include establishing a network of MPAs 
to ensure a large portion of the Arctic marine biodiversity is 
protected. Areas should only be opened to fishing if habitats and fish 
stocks are sustainable and the effects on the associated ecosystem are 
acceptable. Shallow and deep water areas should be characterized. 
Marine reserves have proven effective elsewhere.
    The Arctic should be designated as an international sanctuary, 
protected for all of the world's benefit.
    Response: Marine reserves and MPAs are important tools in marine 
resource management and are used effectively in other locations of the 
United States and the world. This action closes the Arctic Management 
Area to commercial fishing until more information on the marine 
resources can be determined. Current information does not support the 
need for a marine reserve or MPA, and effective conservation of marine 
resources can be accomplished at this time through the commercial 
fishery closure. If future information indicates that more effective 
management of all or part of the Arctic Management Area could be 
achieved through marine reserves or MPAs, the Council could recommend 
such action. Any consideration of MPAs and HAPCs is likely to include 
information on a variety of habitats that may be affected by fishing, 
including shallow and deep waters. Section 4.1.3.3 of the Arctic FMP 
includes the Council's process and criteria for considering potential 
HAPC sites in the Arctic Management Area.
    The request to establish an international sanctuary throughout the 
Arctic Ocean is beyond the scope of this action.
    Comment 29: Recently, massive oil and gas leasing, exploration, and 
development has occurred in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This 
activity has occurred despite very little being known about the marine 
ecosystem of the Arctic Ocean and the inability to predict potential 
consequences of such activities on the environment. Despite the 
biological baseline knowledge and regardless of concerns of the NMFS, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, the Minerals Management Service has moved forward with oil and 
gas leasing, exploration, and development.
    Response: Management of oil and gas resources is outside the scope 
of this action. NMFS will continue to work with the Minerals Management 
Service to identify potential effects and mitigation measures for 
Arctic oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development, consistent 
with NMFS responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 
Marine Mammal Protection Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 
and the Magnuson-Stevens Act with respect to essential fish habitat 
(EFH).
    Comment 30: NOAA should actively engage in discussions on drilling 
or mining industries on the Arctic seafloor and advocate a moratorium 
on such activity.
    Response: Arctic drilling and mining is outside the scope of this 
action. See response to Comment 29.
    Comment 31: The Arctic FMP's conservation and management measures 
are in full compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and consistent 
with the conservation and management mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. The FMP prioritizes long-term viability of fish populations by 
preventing unregulated fishing and by accounting for scientific 
uncertainty. Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP allows for consistent 
application of conservation and management measures in the Arctic 
Management Area. The Magnuson-Stevens Act allows for conservation and 
management measures that prohibit fishing. Because of the lack of 
baseline information on the Arctic marine environment, scientific 
uncertainty, and the pace and scale of changes in the Arctic, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes a precautionary ban on commercial 
fisheries to achieve conservation and management policies. The Arctic 
FMP provides environmental and cultural protection while allowing for a 
respectable amount of economic yield.
    Response: Support noted.
    Comment 32: The conservation and management measures in the FMP are 
based on the best scientific information available and are consistent 
with the National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council is 
using an ecosystem approach to management by identifying target and 
ecosystem component species in the FMP. National Standard 1 provides 
for the use of ecosystem component species in the FMP, which are not 
required to have status determination criteria and reference points for 
fisheries management. The FMP sets status determination criteria and 
reference points for the target species, as required by National 
Standard 1 guidelines (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009). The lack of 
information and uncertainty is addressed in the setting of OY, as 
required by National Standard 1 guidelines. Control rules for future 
fisheries planning are part of the FMP.
    Response: Support noted.
    Comment 33: Taking a proactive approach to fishery management in 
the Arctic will likely avoid conflict with industry and other 
management entities. Providing the management measures before 
authorizing commercial fishing will allow for effective management when 
commercial fishing commences.
    Response: NMFS agrees that working with industry in the development 
of a commercial fishery is likely to result in effective management 
measures that the industry will be prepared to meet once commercial 
fishing is authorized.
    Comment 34: The proposed rule raises concerns about the ability to 
effectively detect incursion into the closed Arctic fishery management 
area, and then to be able to take effective enforcement action. The 
Arctic is a large area from a closed area enforcement perspective. This 
area is well beyond the areas routinely patrolled by the U.S. Coast 
Guard (USCG). The USCG has relatively few vessels with the ability to 
operate in the Arctic, and these are based far from the region 
resulting in a significant response time. Lack of infrastructure in the 
region makes it difficult to resupply vessels and limits the ability of 
many vessels to remain in the region. Without electronic monitoring of 
vessels operating in the close vicinity of the Arctic Management Area, 
it may be impractical to expect consistent enforcement of this vast 
closed area with presently available resources. Additionally, it is a 
concern that using a vessel monitoring system (VMS) is not specifically 
mentioned as a vessel requirement once fishing is authorized.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the challenges of enforcing fishery 
regulations under the difficult operating conditions in this remote 
region with its limited infrastructure. VMS is an efficient and 
effective tool for monitoring fishing vessel activities with respect to 
closure areas. Significant portions of the U.S. commercial fishing 
fleet are already subject to VMS requirements in the southern part of 
the Arctic Management Area. Sections 679.7(a)(18) and 679.28(f)(6)(i) 
require vessels endorsed for Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, or pollock 
fisheries to operate a VMS unit when they are operating in any federal 
reporting area and the vessel's authorized species and gear type is 
open to directed fishing. Important fisheries for pollock and Pacific 
cod are open much of the summer and early fall, when significant 
commercial fishing north of Bering Strait is most likely. Section 
680.23(d) requires vessels with a federal crab vessel permit in a crab 
fishing year to

[[Page 56742]]

operate a transmitting VMS when they are operating with crab pots, crab 
hauling equipment, or a crab pot launcher on board in any reporting 
area off Alaska.
    In Figure 1(b) to 50 CFR part 679, the southern Chukchi Sea is 
designated Statistical Reporting Area 400. Statistical Area 400 is 
defined as the area north of a diagonal line between 66[deg] 00' N, 
169[deg]42.5' W (Cape Dezhneva, Russia) and 65[deg]37.5' N, 
168[deg]7.5' W (Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska) and to the limits of the 
U.S. EEZ as described in the current edition of NOAA chart INT 814 
Bering Sea (Northern Part). The northern edge of this chart lies at 
68[deg]00' N. This chart covers the southern Chukchi Sea, including 
federal waters within Kotzebue Sound. Thus, VMS requirements extend 
into part of the Arctic Management Area.
    The FMP recognizes that monitoring and enforcement measures 
necessary and appropriate to ensure sustainable management and 
conservation of Arctic fish stocks may be required and that these may 
include the use of observers, electronic logbooks, VMS, or other 
measures that will be specified in regulations. The Council could 
recommend a VMS requirement for any fishing vessels operating in or 
near the Arctic Management Area prior to or with the authorization of a 
commercial fishery.
    Comment 35: The Arctic FMP process for authorizing a new fishery 
should also consider available USCG search and rescue capacity and 
vessel safety. Current search and rescue capacity is low and may 
present a significant danger for vessels operating in the Arctic 
Management Area.
    Response: NMFS agrees that search and rescue capacity and vessel 
safety are important considerations in fishery management. This type of 
information was summarized in the Regulatory Impact Review prepared for 
the Arctic FMP (see ADDRESSES) and will be updated to support any 
future amendment to the FMP that authorizes commercial fishing.
    Comment 36: NMFS and the Council should develop criteria for 
potential new fisheries in the Arctic.
    Response: Section 2.2.2 of the Arctic FMP contains the process and 
criteria for authorizing a commercial fishery. This section describes 
the review process to be used by the Council and the criteria to be 
analyzed for considering the authorization of a fishery in the Arctic 
Management Area. Any additional criteria for a potential new fishery 
would be developed at the time of consideration, based on the best 
available scientific information regarding the fishery, the Arctic 
marine environment, and fisheries management.
    Comment 37: The process of identifying new stocks in the Arctic FMP 
may be inadequate. Listing a target species does not trigger the 
collection of fishery and survey data sufficient for tier 3 assessment 
in a defined time period. These species may be vulnerable to 
exploitation because the opening of a fishery only requires a change in 
the OY and does not trigger a formal process based on new data.
    Response: The process of identifying new target species stocks 
under Section 3.4 of the Arctic FMP is a separate process from the 
consideration of authorizing a commercial fishery under Section 2.2.2. 
It is not necessary to gather tier 3 level information on a target 
stock if no commercial fishery is authorized for that stock. 
Authorizing a commercial fishery would require not only a change in the 
OY, but also completion of the review and implementation process listed 
under Section 2.2.2, including FMP amendment and promulgation of 
regulations to implement necessary management measures. The change in 
OY would require a greater certainty in the information used to 
determine OY. This process ensures that a commercial fishery would not 
be authorized unless sustainable management is implemented based on the 
best available science.
    Comment 38: The final rule and Arctic FMP should include tables of 
in-depth descriptions of the tier system used for allowable harvest and 
status determination for finfish, as is done for crab species.
    Response: Although not identified as a table per se, Section 3.8.1 
of the Arctic FMP includes a detailed description of the finfish tier 
system that specifies each of the control rules, along with 
accompanying text that describes the parameters and terms utilized in 
the finfish tier system. Additional descriptions of terms, such as FOFL 
and B, are provided in Section 3.6.1 of the Arctic FMP and under the 
``Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in the FMP.'' NMFS agrees that 
presenting this information in tabular form along with a tabular guide 
in the FMP could facilitate understanding of the tier method for 
finfish fisheries management. Prior to making an amendment that would 
authorize a commercial fishery, the Council could consider amending the 
Arctic FMP specifically to add finfish tier tables similar to the crab 
tier tables.
    As described in the response to Comment 39, the finfish tier system 
will not be implemented unless and until the Council amends the FMP to 
authorize commercial fishing for finfish. The tier method is the policy 
that may be used for stock assessments and the setting of harvest 
levels and status determination criteria in the management of the 
fisheries that may be authorized in the future. Regulations primarily 
contain the requirements currently applicable to fishery participants 
rather than management policy, which is described in the FMPs. The 
regulations do not contain tables describing the tier systems for 
fisheries management, and no changes are made to the regulations to add 
this information.
    Comment 39: We support a precautionary approach to setting 
acceptable biological catch (ABC) and annual catch targets (ACT) based 
on consideration of science and management uncertainty. The policy in 
the FMP would require lower catch limits based on uncertainty, 
providing an incentive to collect information that could lead to less 
need for precautionary ABC and ACT amounts. This would allow the tiers 
used for setting harvest amounts to better conform to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act National Standard 1 and provide information towards 
achieving at least tier 3 in a defined period of time for a new 
fishery. The Arctic FMP lacks policies to provide priorities and 
incentives for research to address uncertainties and to tie harvest 
control rules explicitly to uncertainty. ABCs and ABC control rules 
should be adjusted from overfishing levels (OFLs) based on scientific 
uncertainty and ACLs and ACTs should be adjusted based on management 
uncertainty. The tiers should be adapted to include adequately 
precautionary buffers tied to uncertainty for all tiers.
    Response: The Arctic FMP does not call for OFLs, ABCs, or total 
allowable catch levels (TACs) to be established for any species of 
Arctic fish at this time. TACs are equivalent to ACTs described in the 
National Standard 1 Guidelines (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009). It would 
be highly speculative, if not impossible, to determine, in the 
abstract, whether the buffers between OFL, ABC, and TAC that may be 
established for a hypothetical future fishery would adequately account 
for scientific and management uncertainty.
    Currently, the Arctic FMP and this rule adequately account for 
uncertainty and provide ample incentives for research to reduce 
uncertainty. The Arctic FMP initially prohibits commercial fishing for 
all species of Arctic fish, and this rule implements that prohibition. 
One of the principal

[[Page 56743]]

justifications for this broad prohibition is that the impacts of such 
fishing would be too uncertain to ensure that the fishery is managed 
sustainably, based on information currently available. Section 3.21 of 
the Arctic FMP describes the Council's process for developing the 5-
year research plan for the Arctic, including improving the scientific 
understanding of fish stocks. Improving scientific understanding likely 
will reduce the scientific uncertainty that is applied to the setting 
of future ABCs. As described in Section 3.10, the FMP contains 
accountability measures and mechanisms that are specific to the 
prohibition of commercial fishing in the Arctic Management Area. As 
described in Section 3.8, harvest control rules beyond the prohibition 
of commercial fishing are not needed at this time as no harvest is 
authorized. The Arctic FMP and this rule establish an optimum yield 
(OY) of zero for commercial fishing for Arctic fish, based in part on 
uncertainty. It would not be possible to further limit the commercial 
harvest of Arctic fish to account for additional uncertainty at this 
time.
    Unless and until the FMP is amended to authorize a commercial 
fishery based on new information, the ABC control rules and the process 
for setting ABCs and TACs set forth in the FMP will not be implemented. 
Any such amendment would be accompanied by an analysis of the impacts 
of the commercial fishing to be authorized thereby, which would include 
an assessment of whether the applicable control rule adequately 
accounts for uncertainty in establishing the buffers between OFL, ABC, 
and TAC given the particular information available for the fishery that 
is being authorized, or is otherwise adequate to prevent overfishing. 
Moreover, additional harvest control rules may be added to the FMP at 
that time and development of such rules would include the consideration 
of uncertainty using the best available scientific information.
    Currently, the Arctic FMP includes scientific and management 
uncertainty in its framework for setting future ABCs and TACs, 
respectively, as described in Sections 3.2, 3.8, and 3.9.1. The tier 
process for setting ABCs includes scientific uncertainty by assigning 
tiers based on the information available for determining ABC. The type 
of information available influences the amount of ABC available with 
less certain information resulting in more conservative ABC amounts. 
For each of the tiers, the control rules in the Arctic FMP include a 
buffer between ABC and OFL, which accounts for some uncertainty. In 
most instances, the control rules afford the Council flexibility to 
further reduce ABC relative to OFL to account for any additional 
uncertainty. NMFS has determined that the catch limits implemented 
under the Arctic FMP at this time will prevent overfishing and that the 
tier system described in the Arctic FMP may be applied consistent with 
the National Standard 1 Guidelines, including accounting for scientific 
and management uncertainty in the setting of ABCs and TACs. At the time 
a commercial fishery is considered for the Arctic Management Area, the 
tier system will be reviewed to ensure the best management practices 
are applied to the fishery, including addressing uncertainty in 
management decisions.
    Comment 40: The Arctic FMP should include a management framework 
that accounts for all types of fish catch (commercial, subsistence, and 
recreational) and provides for the needs of managed species such as 
marine mammals and seabirds.
    Response: Section 3.9.2 of the Arctic FMP lists the information 
required in the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report. 
Estimates of fishery mortality include commercial, recreational, and 
subsistence catches. NMFS is working with the State of Alaska to gather 
information on recreational and subsistence catch, which mostly occurs 
in State waters. At the time an authorized commercial fishery is 
considered, the needs of subsistence and recreational fisheries, and 
marine mammals and seabirds and the potential impacts on these species 
will be considered in the development of management measures. The 
development of these management measures will need to be specific to 
the commercial fishery authorized to ensure efficient and effective 
measures are used.
    Comment 41: If commercial fishing is opened in the Arctic 
Management Area, the Council and NMFS should consider catch share 
management to prevent stock collapse and improve stewardship of the 
fishery resources at the outset of commercial fishing. If Alaska Native 
communities choose to participate in Arctic water fisheries, they 
should have priority for allocation of harvest amounts.
    Response: Catch share programs have been effectively used in the 
sustainable management of a number of fisheries of the United States. 
The use of a catch share program in the Arctic that includes Alaska 
Native community participation and priority could be considered by the 
Council during development of a commercial fishery. Section 3.16 of the 
Arctic FMP states that once a commercial fishery is authorized, the 
Arctic FMP could be amended to include a share-based program.
    Comment 42: Section 679.6 should include language that prohibits 
the use of fishing history under an EFP for purposes of determining 
future allocations of harvest amounts. Allowing history through EFP 
fishing would create an unfair advantage in securing limited future 
fisheries allocations in the Arctic.
    Response: The Council would determine what catch history can and 
cannot be used as a basis for eligibility in potential future catch 
share programs. Any future fisheries allocations would have to comply 
with National Standard Four, which requires an allocation of fishing 
privileges to be fair and equitable.
    Comment 43: NMFS must be careful in its decisions to authorize EFPs 
in the Arctic Management Area. An EFP applicant must demonstrate a 
valid experimental design based on science. NMFS must evaluate the 
potential impacts of the EFP activity and ensure it is consistent with 
the precautionary approach and ecosystem principles for the Arctic 
Management Area, as recommended by the Council.
    Response: NMFS follows the procedures in Sec.  679.6 and Sec.  
600.745 for the review and issuance of EFPs (74 FR 42786, August 25, 
2009). This process includes the review of the project by the Alaska 
Fisheries Science Center and consultation with the Council, including 
review by their SSC and the public. NMFS is careful to ensure the work 
under the EFP is designed to provide information useful to fisheries 
management and that the goal of the project is consistent with the 
management principles under the FMP. Any potential effects from the 
proposed study are analyzed in the appropriate National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) and ESA documents, which are available for Council 
and public consideration before issuance of an EFP.
    Comment 44: The Arctic FMP EFH description should include a 
discussion on changing oceanographic conditions that may affect EFH. 
Known and potential sensitive habitats and the potential for HAPC 
designation, and information needs for EFH and HAPC characterizations 
should be thoroughly explored.
    Response: The description of EFH in the Arctic FMP is based on the 
best available scientific information. EFH designations are based on 
data from the 1980s regarding species distribution. More recent 
information is not yet

[[Page 56744]]

available to support a robust discussion on the effects of current or 
future oceanographic conditions on EFH. A more detailed discussion of 
EFH and unique Arctic habitats is in the EA/RIR/FRFA for this action 
(see ADDRESSES). As more information becomes available, this kind of 
analysis can be included in the NEPA analyses to support fishery 
management actions in the Arctic Management Area and can be considered 
in the Council's review of potential HAPC sites, as described in 
Section 4.1.3.3 of the Arctic FMP.
    Comment 45: The non-fishing impacts discussion for EFH does not 
include the potential impacts of energy development. The section on oil 
and gas development in Appendix C should mention that fish attracted to 
habitat provided by oil and gas underwater structures may be vulnerable 
to fishing due to concentration of the fish at these sites. The 
increase in search and rescue activities in the Arctic Management Area 
may lead to port expansion and should be discussed under Vessel 
Operations and Marine Transportation.
    Response: The first topic in Appendix C of the Arctic FMP covers 
the potential impacts of energy development. This section describes the 
potential impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and 
production on EFH and includes a discussion of the attraction of fish 
and invertebrates to oil and gas underwater platforms and how the 
removal of these platforms may impact these species. The vulnerability 
of fish stocks to fishing near oil and gas facilities would depend on 
the vessel restrictions surrounding these structures and the dependence 
of the fish stock on the habitat provided by the structure. It is 
unknown whether increases in search and rescue operations would occur 
or lead to port expansion in the Arctic, and therefore these 
speculative impacts are not discussed in the FMP. As more information 
on non-fishing activities becomes available, the associated impacts on 
EFH could be described in subsequent amendments to the Arctic FMP.
    Comment 46: Low cost loans or subsidies for fish farms in every 
state should be made available.
    Response: Fish farming is not within the scope of this action.
    Comment 47: Limited fishing should occur in the Arctic.
    Response: Based on the limited information available on targeted 
species, the Secretary determined that no commercial fishing should 
occur in the Arctic Management Area until information is available to 
sustainably manage the stocks. Because subsistence fishing may occur in 
the Arctic and State waters fisheries and is not affected by this 
action, limited fishing may continue in the Arctic Management Area, as 
historically practiced.
    Comment 48: The over 10-mile-long algal biomass that occurred in 
the Arctic in Summer 2009 has never been seen before in these waters 
and should serve as a warning to us to think before we fish in such a 
fragile environment.
    Response: NMFS agrees that much remains to be learned about the 
Arctic marine environment, its responses to the changing climate and 
human impacts, and the potential recovery from any adverse effects. 
These issues need to be considered in the development of any commercial 
fishing regulations so the potential impacts of such activity can be 
determined and understood before fishing commences.

Classification

    Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the NMFS Acting Assistant Administrator has determined 
that this final rule is consistent with and necessary to implement the 
Arctic FMP and Amendment 29 to the Crab FMP, and is in accordance with 
other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The 
FRFA describes the economic impact of this action on small entities. 
The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
(IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the IRFA and NMFS responses to those comments, 
and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. 
Descriptions of the action, the reasons it is under consideration, and 
its objectives and legal basis are included earlier in the preamble and 
in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis 
follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see 
ADDRESSES).
    A summary of the IRFA was provided in the classification section to 
the proposed rule (74 FR 27498, June 10, 2009), and the public was 
notified of how to obtain a copy of the IRFA. The public comment period 
ended on July 27, 2009. No comments were received on the IRFA or on the 
economic impacts of the rule.
    This action regulates commercial fishing for fish resources and 
does not regulate subsistence, recreational, or personal use fishing in 
the action area. Currently, only one unverified, small, and poorly 
documented commercial fishery for red king crab potentially exists in a 
portion of the Arctic Management Area in Kotzebue Sound.
    A survey of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game fish ticket 
database back to 1985 identified a single fish ticket for this fishery. 
The ticket was for a very small amount of red king crab delivered in 
the summer of 2005. However, to the extent that fishing has occurred, 
landings in this fishery may not always have been reported on official 
state landings records (i.e., not legally recorded). The waters in 
which this fishery may have occurred were set apart from other waters 
for reporting purposes in 2005. From 2005 to 2007, three or four 
persons acquired the State of Alaska K09X permits that are required to 
fish commercially in this area. With the exception of the single 
anomalous fish ticket cited above, no commercial fish landings have 
been reported from the action area during 2005 through 2007. Thus, the 
number of permit holders, rather than the number of operations with 
fish tickets, is assumed to best represent the potential number of 
entities directly regulated by this action. All of these operations are 
believed to be small entities with annual gross revenues under $4 
million.
    The Council considered four alternatives and three options for this 
action. The options have no effect on directly regulated small entities 
as the options are limited to different scientific and administrative 
processes for developing management measures for fisheries. Each option 
resulted in the same effect on directly regulated small entities, 
because each would implement a management framework that initially 
prohibits commercial fishing in the Arctic Management Area.
    Alternative 1 is the status quo which would have allowed for the 
potential for unregulated commercial fishing to occur in the Arctic 
Management Area. Alternative 1 was not chosen as it did not meet the 
objectives of the action to sustainably manage commercial fisheries in 
the Arctic Management Area.
    Alternatives 3 and 4 would have provided different mechanisms to 
provide for sustainable management of fish resources in the Arctic 
Management Area, but each alternative excluded the small red king crab 
fishery in Kotzebue Sound from Arctic FMP management. Alternative 3 
would have exempted the red king crab fishery from the Arctic FMP and 
from the Crab FMP while Alternative 4 would have provided for the 
continued management of the small red king crab fishery under the Crab 
FMP. Neither Alternative 3 nor

[[Page 56745]]

Alternative 4 were chosen based on the lack of evidence of a currently 
existing small red king crab fishery in the Kotzebue Sound area and on 
the lack of information to ensure sustainable management of the 
potential red king crab stock in the Kotzebue Sound while not affecting 
subsistence use of the resource. Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 had no known 
impacts on directly regulated small entities.
    Alternative 2 was chosen as the preferred alternative as it fully 
meets the objective to provide sustainable management for all fish 
resources of the Arctic Management Area. Alternative 2, which 
implements a management framework that initially prohibits all 
commercial fishing in the Arctic Management Area, initially prohibits 
future crab fishing that may otherwise take place in the small and 
poorly documented fishery in Kotzebue Sound, until stocks have been 
assessed and harvest specifications are established. At that time, an 
amendment to the Arctic FMP could be proposed to authorize commercial 
fishing. Based on permit issuance, it is possible that two to four 
small entities may annually fish in the small red king crab fishery in 
Kotzebue Sound. Permit issuance does not necessarily indicate fishing 
activity, and only one fish ticket exists from this fishery since 1985. 
Income from this fishery is likely to be small.
    This regulation does not impose new recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements on the regulated small entities.
    The FRFA did not reveal any federal rules that duplicate, overlap, 
or conflict with the action.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance 
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of 
this rulemaking process, NMFS Alaska Region has developed a website 
that provides easy access to details of this final rule, including 
links to the Arctic FMP, Amendment 29, the final rule, and maps of 
Arctic Management Area and essential fish habitat. The relevant 
information available on the website is the Small Entity Compliance 
Guide. The website address is http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/arctic. Electronic copies of this final rule also 
are available upon request from the NMFS, Alaska Regional Office (see 
ADDRESSES).
    Executive Order (E.O.) 13175 of November 6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 
note), the Executive Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), 
and the American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department 
of Commerce (March 30, 1995) outline the responsibilities of NMFS in 
matters affecting tribal interests. Section 161 of Public Law (P.L.) 
108-199 (188 Stat. 452), as amended by section 518 of P.L. 109-447 (118 
Stat. 3267), extends the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 to 
Alaska Native corporations. NMFS contacted tribal governments and 
Alaska Native corporations which may be affected by this action, 
provided a copy of the proposed rule, and offered them an opportunity 
to consult. No requests for consultation were received.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: October 28, 2009
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

0
For reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 679 as 
follows:

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

0
1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; 
Pub. L. 108 447.

0
2. In Sec.  679.1, add paragraph (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (l) Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic 
Management Area. Regulations in this part govern commercial fishing for 
Arctic fish in the Arctic Management Area by vessels of the United 
States (see this subpart and subpart B of this part).

0
3. In Sec.  679.2, add in alphabetical order definitions for ``Arctic 
fish'', ``Arctic Management Area'', ``Commercial fishing, paragraph 
(3)'', and ``Subsistence fishing'' and revise the definitions for the 
``Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area'', ``Management area'', and 
``Optimum yield, paragraph (2)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Arctic fish means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other 
forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals, birds, 
Pacific salmon, and Pacific halibut.
    Arctic Management Area, for purposes of regulations governing the 
Arctic Management Area fisheries, means all marine waters in the U.S. 
EEZ of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas from 3 nautical miles off the 
coast of Alaska or its baseline to 200 nautical miles offshore, north 
of Bering Strait (from Cape Prince of Wales to Cape Dezhneva) and 
westward to the 1990 U.S./Russia maritime boundary line and eastward to 
the U.S./Canada maritime boundary (see Figure 24 to this part).
* * * * *
    Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area, for purposes of regulations 
governing the commercial king and Tanner crab fisheries in part 680 of 
this Chapter, means those waters of the EEZ off the west coast of 
Alaska lying south of the Chukchi Sea statistical area as described in 
the coordinates listed for Figure 1 to this part, and extending south 
of the Aleutian Islands for 200 nm west of Scotch Cap Light (164[deg] 
44'36'' W. long).
* * * * *
    Commercial fishing means:
* * * * *
    (3) For purposes of Arctic fish, the resulting catch of fish in the 
Arctic Management Area which either is, or is intended to be, sold or 
bartered but does not include subsistence fishing for Arctic fish, as 
defined in this subsection.
* * * * *
    Management area means any district, regulatory area, subpart, part, 
or the entire GOA, BSAI, or Arctic Management Area.
* * * * *
    Optimum yield means:
* * * * *
    (2) With respect to the groundfish and Arctic fisheries, see Sec.  
679.20(a)(1).
* * * * *
    Subsistence fishing for purposes of fishing in the Arctic 
Management Area means the harvest of Arctic fish and Pacific salmon for 
non-commercial, long-term, customary and traditional use necessary to 
maintain the life of the taker or those who depend upon the taker to 
provide them with such subsistence.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  679.6, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.6  Exempted fisheries.

    (a) General. For limited experimental purposes, the Regional 
Administrator

[[Page 56746]]

may authorize, after consulting with the Council, fishing for 
groundfish or fishing for Arctic fish in the Arctic Management Area in 
a manner that would otherwise be prohibited. No exempted fishing may be 
conducted unless authorized by an exempted fishing permit issued by the 
Regional Administrator to the participating vessel owner in accordance 
with the criteria and procedures specified in this section. Exempted 
fishing permits will be issued without charge and will expire at the 
end of a calendar year unless otherwise provided for under paragraph 
(e) of this section.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  679.7, add paragraph (p) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (p) Arctic Management Area. Conduct commercial fishing for any 
Arctic fish in the Arctic Management Area.

0
6. In Sec.  679.20, revise the introductory paragraph and paragraph 
(a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.20  General limitations.

    This section applies to vessels engaged in directed fishing for 
groundfish in the GOA and/or the BSAI and to vessels engaged in 
commercial fishing for Arctic fish in the Arctic Management Area.
    (a) * * *
    (1) OY (i) BSAI and GOA. The OY for BSAI and GOA target species and 
the ``otherspecies'' category is a range or specific amount that can be 
harvested consistently with this part, plus the amounts of 
``nonspecified species'' taken incidentally to the harvest of target 
species and the ``other species'' category. The species categories are 
defined in Table 1 of the specifications as provided in paragraph (c) 
of this section.
    (A) The OY for groundfish in the BSAI regulated by this section and 
by part 600 of this chapter is 1.4 million to 2.0 million mt.
    (B) The OY for groundfish in the GOA regulated by this section and 
by part 600 of this chapter is 116,000 to 800,000 mt.
    (ii) Arctic Management Area. The OY for each target fish species 
identified in the Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the 
Arctic Management Area regulated by this section and by part 600 of 
this chapter is 0 mt.
* * * * *

7. Figure 24 is added to part 679 to read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO09.035

[FR Doc. E9-26452 Filed 11-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S