[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59733-59738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23635]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 140519437-4437-01]
RIN 0648-BE24


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Establishing 
Transit Areas through Walrus Protection Areas at Round Island and Cape 
Peirce, Northern Bristol Bay, Alaska

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 107 
to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 
Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP). If approved, Amendment 107 
would establish seasonal transit areas for vessels designated on 
Federal Fisheries Permits (FFPs) through Walrus Protection Areas in 
northern Bristol Bay, AK. This action would allow vessels designated on 
FFPs to transit through Walrus Protection Areas in the Exclusive 
Economic Zone (EEZ) near Round Island and Cape Peirce from April 1 
through August 15, annually. This action is necessary to restore the 
access of federally permitted vessels to transit through Walrus 
Protection Areas that was limited by regulations implementing Amendment 
83 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska 
(GOA FMP) and to maintain suitable protection for walruses on Round 
Island and Cape Peirce. This action would maintain an existing 
prohibition on deploying fishing gear in Walrus Protection Areas by 
vessels designated on an FFP. This action is intended to promote the 
goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, the BSAI FMP, and other applicable law.

DATES: Submit comments on or before November 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2014-0066, by either of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0066, click the 
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or 
attach your comments.
     Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant 
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region 
NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, 
AK 99802-1668.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the 
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, 
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender 
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter 
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). 
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, 
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact 
Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) prepared for 
this action are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the 
NMFS Alaska Region Web site at  http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed action may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by 
email to [email protected] or fax to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Marie Eich, 907-586-7172.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages groundfish fisheries in the EEZ 
off Alaska under the GOA FMP and the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared these FMPs under the 
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. Regulations 
governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR 
parts 600 and 679.

Background

    The following sections of the preamble describe: (1) The Walrus 
Protection Areas; (2) the effects of disturbance on walruses; (3) the 
areas and vessels affected by this proposed action; and (4) the 
proposed action.

[[Page 59734]]

Walrus Protection Areas

    Thousands of walruses, primarily adult males, use haulouts in 
northern Bristol Bay, AK, during spring through fall each year. The 
State of Alaska (State) and NMFS have implemented a variety of 
management measures to protect walruses in northern Bristol Bay. In 
1960, the State established the Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary 
(Walrus Sanctuary) to protect a group of seven small, craggy islands 
and their adjacent waters in northern Bristol Bay commonly used by 
walruses. The Walrus Sanctuary includes Round Island, Summit Island, 
Crooked Island, High Island, Black Rock, and The Twins.
    The State maintains the most protective management measures around 
Round Island, one of the largest and well-established walrus haulouts 
in northern Bristol Bay. The State permits visitors to Round Island for 
wildlife viewing or research. The State prohibits all other vessel 
traffic within Alaska State waters (from 0 to 3 nautical miles (nm) 
from shore) around Round Island, but the State has no restrictions on 
vessel traffic in Alaska State waters around the other islands in the 
Walrus Sanctuary. The State limited vessel traffic around Round Island 
to reduce the potential for vessel activities that disturb walruses. 
Walruses are known to be sensitive to disturbance. Walrus calves or 
adults can be injured or killed by stampeding adults (see Section 
3.2.1.6 of the Analysis).
    The Council has recommended and NMFS has implemented a series of 
closure areas, known as Walrus Protection Areas, around important 
walrus haulout sites in Bristol Bay to reduce potential disturbances to 
walruses from fishing activities. These management measures apply in a 
portion of Federal waters in the EEZ (i.e., from 3 nm to 12 nm from 
shore). Walrus Protection Areas were first implemented in the early 
1990s to reduce disturbance from fishing activities based on apparent 
correlations between fishing activities and observed declines in walrus 
populations at haulouts in northern Bristol Bay during the 1980s.
    In January 1990, NMFS implemented Amendment 13 to the BSAI FMP to 
prohibit groundfish fishing within 3 to 12 nm from Round Island, The 
Twins, and Cape Peirce in northern Bristol Bay from April 1 through 
September 30 (54 FR 50386, December 6, 1989; corrected 55 FR 1036, 
January 11, 1990; technically amended 56 FR 5775, February 13, 1991). 
The Council and NMFS intended Amendment 13 to reduce potential 
disturbance to walruses from groundfish fisheries. Amendment 13 
prohibited vessels from fishing for groundfish in the areas around 
Round Island, Cape Peirce, and The Twins because these areas are known 
to be important terrestrial haulouts for walruses. Specifically, Round 
Island and Cape Peirce are the two largest walrus terrestrial haulouts 
in the United States. Amendment 13 prohibited vessels from fishing for 
groundfish annually from April 1 through September 30 to reduce 
disturbance to walruses during periods of peak walrus use (see Section 
1.2 of the Analysis for additional information on patterns of use of 
haulouts by walruses). These regulations were in effect from January 1, 
1990 through April 26, 1992.
    On April 26, 1992, NMFS implemented Amendment 17 to the BSAI FMP 
(57 FR 10430, March 26, 1992). Amendment 17 encompassed the same areas 
and seasonal closure period as those established under Amendment 13. 
However, Amendment 17 closed Federal waters to all federally permitted 
vessels in 3 to 12 nm zones around Round Island, the Twins, and Cape 
Peirce annually from April 1 through September 30. Amendment 17 defined 
federally permitted vessels as vessels that are designated on an FFP 
(see regulations at Sec.  679.22(a)(4)). Amendment 17 was more 
restrictive than Amendment 13. Amendment 13 prohibited fishing for 
groundfish, but did not prohibit vessels designated on an FFP from 
entering and transiting through Walrus Protection Areas. Because 
Amendment 17 prohibited entry and transit by vessels designated on an 
FFP in these areas, it effectively prohibited groundfish fishing in 
these areas because a vessel cannot fish for groundfish in Federal 
waters without being designated on an FFP. The regulations implementing 
Amendment 17 superseded those implementing Amendment 13.

Effects of Disturbance on Walruses

    Since the early 1990s, additional research by the Alaska Department 
of Fish and Game has improved NMFS' understanding of the potential 
disturbance to walruses from vessel traffic. The new research indicates 
that disturbance to walruses from vessel traffic more than 3 nm from 
haulouts has not been observed in northern Bristol Bay. Specifically, 
Section 3.2.1.6 of the Analysis notes that recent research at Round 
Island indicates that walruses were not disturbed (e.g., raised their 
heads, reoriented, or dispersed) by vessel traffic more than 3 nm from 
Round Island. In 2011, Sell and Weiss from the Alaska Department of 
Fish and Game reported that of the 56 observed anthropogenic events 
(e.g., vessel traffic, aircraft traffic) occurring more than 3 nm from 
Round Island, only four events resulted in observable disturbance to 
walruses. All these disturbance events were due to aircraft noise. In 
2012, Weiss and Sell reported that they did not observe any disturbance 
to walruses from anthropogenic events occurring more than 3 nm from 
Round Island.
    Based on these findings, and other research described in Section 
3.2.1.6 of the Analysis, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 
released guidelines for vessels operating near walrus haulouts in 
Bristol Bay in September, 2012. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
of 1972 (MMPA), walruses are co-managed by USFWS and the Eskimo Walrus 
Commission (EWC), with scientific research support from the U.S. 
Geological Survey and the State. The guidelines released by USFWS are 
intended to minimize potential disturbance to walruses. These 
guidelines include descriptions of disturbance behavior and best-
practices for mariners to avoid disturbance to walruses. Best-practices 
include:
     Marine vessels 50 feet in length or less should remain at 
least 0.5 nm away from hauled out walruses;
     Marine vessels 50-100 feet in length should remain at 
least 1 nm away from hauled out walruses;
     Marine vessels greater than 100 feet in length should 
remain at least 3 nm away from hauled out walruses;
     All vessels should refrain from anchoring, or conducting 
tendering or fishing operations within 3 miles of hauled out walruses;
     All vessels should avoid sudden changes in engine noise, 
using loud speakers, loud deck equipment or other operations that 
produce noise when in the vicinity of walrus haulouts;
     All vessels should avoid excessive speed or sudden changes 
in speed or direction when approaching or departing walrus haulout 
areas;
     All vessels should reduce speed and maintain a minimum 0.5 
nm exclusion zone around feeding walruses;
     All vessels should not operate in such a manner to 
separate members of a group of walruses from other members of the 
group; and
     All vessels should adjust speed according to weather 
conditions to reduce the likelihood of injury to walruses.
    During the development of this proposed action, the Council 
communicated with the USFWS and the Qayassiq Walrus Commission to avoid

[[Page 59735]]

adverse impacts to walruses from this proposed action. As noted in 
Section 3.2.7 of the Analysis, all of the alternative management 
approaches considered, and this proposed action specifically, were 
determined to be consistent with the best practices in the guidelines 
established by USFWS and would not disturb walruses more than existing 
management. Therefore, NMFS concludes that this proposed action would 
have no adverse impact on walruses.

Areas and Vessels Affected by This Proposed Action

    This proposed action would apply in the northern Bristol Bay. This 
proposed action would apply to Federal waters in statistical area 514 
of the BSAI, as shown in Figure 1 to 50 CFR part 679. This proposed 
action would not apply in State waters. The State restricts vessel 
transit only in State waters around Round Island, but not in State 
waters elsewhere in the area. All vessels, including vessels designated 
on an FFP, can transit through State waters around Cape Peirce and The 
Twins. This proposed action would only affect vessels designated on an 
FFP. Vessels that are not designated on an FFP are not regulated in the 
Walrus Protection Areas and can enter and transit through Walrus 
Protection Areas.
    Prior to 2012, vessel owners were able to easily surrender an FFP 
for a period of time to allow that vessel to transit through Walrus 
Protection Areas. Some vessel owners surrendered their FFPs during the 
spring and summer so that these vessels could transit through Walrus 
Protection Areas around Round Island and Cape Peirce when operating as 
a tender. A tender is a vessel that is used to transport unprocessed 
fish or shellfish received from another vessel to an associated 
processor (see definition at Sec.  679.2). In northern Bristol Bay, 
many vessels that are active in federally managed fisheries operate as 
tenders for vessels fishing in State-managed herring and salmon 
fisheries. These tenders receive catch in Togiak Bay, Kulukak Bay, and 
other bays in northern Bristol Bay and deliver that catch to processing 
plants in Dillingham and other communities in Bristol Bay. Prior to 
2012, some vessel owners also surrendered their FFPs to allow a vessel 
to transit through Walrus Protection Areas to deliver processed 
groundfish from fishing grounds in the Bering Sea to delivery locations 
in northern Bristol Bay.
    Without an FFP, vessels can transit through Walrus Protection Areas 
and avoid the additional time, operating expenses, increased exposure 
to weather, and navigational challenges when operating in State waters 
compared to vessels that are designated on an FFP and are prohibited 
from entering Walrus Protection Areas. Section 1.3.2 of the Analysis 
describes the factors affecting vessels that are prohibited from 
transiting through Walrus Protection Areas. The following paragraphs 
summarize these factors.
    On January 1, 2012, NMFS implemented Amendment 83 to the GOA FMP 
(76 FR 74670, December 1, 2011; corrected 76 FR 81872, December 29, 
2011). Regulations implementing Amendment 83 to the GOA FMP (Amendment 
83) limited the ability of vessel owners to easily surrender an FFP. An 
FFP is issued for 3 years under the FFP application process and is in 
effect from the effective date through the expiration date, unless it 
is revoked, suspended, surrendered (see regulations at Sec.  
679.4(b)(4)(i)). NMFS will not reissue a surrendered FFP with certain 
endorsements (see regulations at Sec.  679.4(b)(4)(ii)); therefore, a 
vessel owner cannot surrender an FFP more than once in a 3-year period 
to transit the Walrus Protection Areas.
    NMFS intended the regulations implementing Amendment 83 to allow 
the proper tracking and accounting of Federal fishery allocations. NMFS 
did not intend the regulations to specifically limit the ability of 
vessel owners to surrender FFPs to transit through Walrus Protection 
Areas when operating as tenders or delivering processed groundfish. 
However, the regulations implementing Amendment 83 require vessel 
owners to either surrender their FFPs to transit through Walrus 
Protection Areas when operating as tenders or delivering processed 
groundfish and be prohibited from deploying fishing gear in Federal 
waters for up to 3 years, or retain their FFPs and be prohibited from 
transiting through Walrus Protection Areas.
    Vessel owners prefer to transit through the Walrus Protection Areas 
north of Round Island because transiting to the north and outside of 
Walrus Protection Areas requires vessels to transit through shallower 
waters in State waters. Transit through shallower waters can be more 
difficult to navigate and may create additional safety concerns. 
Transiting to the south of Round Island and outside of the Walrus 
Protection Areas requires vessels to transit around Round Island and 
through Hagemeister Strait. This route adds considerable distance and 
time to each transit, which increases fuel costs and potentially 
exposes vessels to more adverse weather conditions for a longer period 
of time. Transit through Hagemeister Strait also puts vessels in close 
proximity (i.e., within 3 nm) to a walrus haulout on the southern tip 
of Hagemeister Island. This vessel traffic may disturb walruses using 
the haulout on Hagemeister Island. An alternative route that would 
allow vessels designated on FFPs to transit through a portion of the 
Walrus Protection Areas north of Round Island could reduce vessel 
transits through Hagemeister Strait and the potential for disturbance 
to walruses using the haulout on Hagemeister Island.
    Currently, vessels can transit through State waters (from 0 to 3 nm 
from the shore) near Cape Peirce while tendering herring or salmon from 
fishing locations near Cape Peirce, or when delivering groundfish in 
northern Bristol Bay. As noted in Section 3.2.7.3 of the Analysis, 
USFWS has not monitored walruses in the Cape Peirce area for 
disturbance and the incidence of disturbance at Cape Peirce is not 
known. However, vessels transiting through State waters (i.e., within 3 
nm of Cape Peirce) may be more likely to disturb walruses. An 
alternative route that would allow vessels designated on FFPs to 
transit through a portion of the Walrus Protection Areas east of Cape 
Peirce could reduce vessel transits through State waters near Cape 
Peirce and the potential for disturbance to walruses using the haulout 
at Cape Peirce.

The Proposed Action

    This proposed action would allow vessels designated on FFPs to 
enter and transit through specific areas of the Walrus Protection Areas 
near Round Island and Cape Peirce. These transit areas are shown in 
Figure 1 below.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 59736]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC14.071

    The Council recommended and NMFS proposes these transit areas based 
on information in Sections 3.7 and 4 of the Analysis indicating that 
allowing vessels designated on FFPs to transit areas near Round Island 
and Cape Peirce would: (1) Not increase potential disturbance of 
walruses on Round Island and Cape Peirce; (2) not be expected to 
increase vessel traffic through Walrus Protection Areas, particularly 
when compared to vessel traffic patterns prior to the implementation of 
Amendment 83; (3) restore the ability for vessels designated on an FFP 
that historically served as tenders for the northern Bristol Bay 
herring and salmon fisheries before implementation of Amendment 83 to 
transit through Walrus Protection Areas; (4) restore the ability of 
vessels designated on an FFP that delivered processed groundfish to 
northern Bristol Bay before implementation of Amendment 83 to transit 
through Walrus Protection Areas; and (5) reduce the potential for 
disturbance to walruses using haulouts on Hagemeister Island and Cape 
Peirce. The following sections describe proposed transit areas near 
Round Island and Cape Peirce and a proposed prohibition to vessels 
designated on FFPs from deploying fishing gear in Walrus Protection 
Areas.

Transit Area Near Round Island

    This proposed action would add regulations at Sec.  
679.22(a)(4)(ii) to establish a transit area through the Walrus 
Protection Areas near Round Island. This proposed action would 
establish a transit area in the EEZ near Round Island from April 1 
through August 15, annually, north of a line from 58[deg]47.90' N, 
160[deg]21.91' W to 58[deg]32.94' N, 159[deg]35.45' W. (Please see 
Figure 1 of this preamble.)
    This transit area is at least 3 nm from Round Island at its closest 
point and is more than 9 nm from the haulouts on The Twins at its 
closest point. As noted in Section 3.2.7.2.1 of the Analysis, there has 
been no recorded visible disturbance to walruses from vessel traffic 
more than 3 nm from Round Island, but disturbance from vessel traffic 
has been documented within 3 nm from Round Island. This proposed action 
would not allow vessels designated on an FFP to transit within 3 nm of 
Round Island or The Twins.
    The Council recommended and NMFS proposes this transit area to 
maintain suitable protection for walruses on Round Island and to allow 
tenders and vessels delivering groundfish access to a transit route 
north of Round Island. NMFS expects this proposed transit area to 
reduce the potential for vessels to transit near Hagemeister Island, a 
known walrus haulout, because vessels would be allowed to transit north 
of Round Island and to avoid the route near Hagemeister Island. This 
proposed action would also allow vessels to transit through Federal 
waters further from shore and thereby reduce transit through shallower 
State waters that are more difficult to navigate.
    The transit area near Round Island would open April 1 because this 
proposed action is intended to relieve the existing regulations that 
prohibit entry and transit to vessels designated on an FFP in Walrus 
Protection Areas on April 1, the start of peak walrus use in the area. 
This transit area would be closed after August 15 because of the 
following: (1) The herring and most salmon fisheries are completed by 
August 15, and tender vessels are no longer active and do not require 
transit through Walrus Protection Areas after that date; (2) vessels 
transiting to deliver groundfish in northern Bristol Bay typically have 
completed their deliveries by August 15 and do not require transit 
through Walrus

[[Page 59737]]

Protection Areas after that date; and (3) limiting vessel transit by 
August 15 would reduce vessel traffic near walrus haulouts that could 
interfere with vessels used for the subsistence harvest of walruses on 
Round Island beginning in September of each year. NMFS notes that 
vessels designated on FFPs would still be prohibited from entering and 
transiting through the Walrus Protection Areas near Round Island after 
August 15 through September 30. NMFS expects that this prohibition 
would not adversely affect vessels designated on FFPs because tendering 
operations and groundfish deliveries in northern Bristol Bay do not 
occur during the August 15 through September 30 time period.

Transit Area Near Cape Peirce

    This proposed action would add regulations at Sec.  
679.22(a)(4)(ii) to establish transit areas through the Walrus 
Protection Areas at Cape Peirce. This proposed action would establish a 
transit area in the EEZ near Cape Peirce that would be open from April 
1 through August 15, annually, east of a line from 58[deg]30.00' N, 
161[deg]46.20' W to 58[deg]21.00' N, 161[deg]46.20' W. (Please see 
Figure 1 of this preamble.) This transit area is at least 3 nm from 
Cape Peirce at its closest point.
    The Council recommended and NMFS proposes the transit area through 
the Walrus Protection Areas near Cape Peirce to provide an opportunity 
for vessels with FFPs to travel farther from shore while tendering 
herring or salmon and avoid transit through State waters near walrus 
haulouts at Cape Peirce. NMFS expects that the transit area will reduce 
the likelihood of disturbance to walruses at the Cape Peirce Walrus 
Protection Areas.
    The transit area would be open from April 1 through August 15 
consistent with the opening and closing dates established for the Round 
Island transit area. As noted in the previous section of this preamble, 
these dates would facilitate vessel transits for tendering and 
groundfish deliveries. NMFS notes that vessels designated on FFPs would 
still be prohibited from entering and transiting through the Walrus 
Protection Areas near Cape Peirce after August 15 through September 30. 
NMFS expects this prohibition would not adversely affect vessels 
designated on FFPs because tendering operations and groundfish 
deliveries in northern Bristol Bay do not occur during the August 16 
through September 30 period.

Prohibition on Vessels with FFPs Deploying Fishing Gear in Walrus 
Protection Areas

    This proposed action would add regulations at Sec.  
679.22(a)(4)(ii) to prohibit vessels designated on an FFP from 
deploying fishing gear in Walrus Protection Areas from April 1 through 
September 30 annually. As noted throughout this preamble, this proposed 
action is intended to remove a prohibition that limits vessels from 
entering and transiting through Walrus Protection Areas. This proposed 
action is not intended to allow vessels designated on FFPs to fish in 
Walrus Protection Areas from April 1 through September 30. Section 3.1 
of the Analysis notes that this proposed action would not be expected 
to affect the timing, duration, effort, or harvest levels in the 
fisheries in northern Bristol Bay because this proposed action would 
not open Walrus Protection Areas to fishing by vessels designated on an 
FFP. Because vessels designated on FFPs are already prohibited from 
deploying fishing gear in Walrus Protection Areas, this proposed 
prohibition would maintain the status quo prohibition on deploying 
fishing gear in Walrus Protection Areas. Therefore, this proposed 
action would not affect any existing fishing operations.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 
Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed action is 
consistent with the FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public 
comment.
    This proposed action has been determined to be not significant for 
the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

Regulatory Impact Review

    An RIR was prepared to assess all costs and benefits of available 
regulatory alternatives. The RIR considers all quantitative and 
qualitative measures. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS 
(see ADDRESSES).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA 
describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would 
have on small entities. An IRFA is required to include (a) a 
description of the reasons why action by the agency is being 
considered; (b) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal 
basis for, the proposed rule; (c) a description of and, where feasible, 
an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule 
will apply; (d) a description of the projected reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule; 
(e) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the 
proposed rule; and (f) a description of any significant alternatives to 
the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable 
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities. A description of the action, why it is 
being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at 
the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY 
section of the preamble. A summary of the remainder of the IRFA 
follows. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    The entities that could be directly regulated by the proposed 
action are those businesses that tender herring or salmon from 
fisheries to delivery locations in northern Bristol Bay, and those 
businesses that deliver processed groundfish from the Bering Sea to 
locations in northern Bristol Bay. Vessels tendering herring or salmon 
are transporting harvested fish. Because tender vessel operators enter 
into private contracts with herring and salmon fishing vessel operators 
to transport their catch, revenue information from tenders is not 
available. Based on information from 2012, the most recent year of 
complete data, a maximum of 64 vessels were estimated to have operated 
as tenders in the herring and salmon fisheries in northern Bristol Bay. 
These vessels could have been designated on an FFP and could be 
affected by this proposed action. Because no revenue information is 
available on these vessels each of these vessels were assumed to be a 
small entity.
    Based on information from 2012, the most recent year of complete 
data, a maximum of 6 vessels were estimated to have delivered processed 
groundfish to locations in northern Bristol Bay. These vessels could 
have been designated on FFP and could be affected by this proposed 
action. All of these vessels were affiliated through common management 
under cooperative fishing arrangements. These affiliated vessels had 
ex-vessel annual revenues in 2012 that exceeded the annual revenue 
limit of $20.5 million used by the Small Business Administration to 
define a small entity harvesting or processing

[[Page 59738]]

groundfish (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). Therefore these vessels are 
considered to be large entities.
    None of the alternatives would modify existing reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. No duplication, 
overlap, or conflict between this proposed action and existing Federal 
rules has been identified.
    An IRFA requires a description of any significant alternatives to 
the proposed alternative that accomplish the stated objectives, are 
consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any 
significant economic impact of the proposed action on small entities. 
The IRFA considered three alternatives. Alternative 1, the no action 
(status quo) alternative, would maintain the existing closures between 
3 and 12 nm around Round Island and Cape Peirce, and would not allow 
vessels designated on an FFP to transit these areas. Therefore, 
Alternative 1 represents the most restrictive alternative considered 
and the alternative with the highest potential cost to regulated small 
entities.
    Alternative 2 would establish a transit area through the existing 
Walrus Protection Areas near Round Island. Alternative 2 also included 
three options, Options 1, 2 and 3 to allow the closest point of the 
transit area to be within 3 nm, 4.5 nm, and 6 nm from Round Island, 
respectively. Alternative 3 would establish a transit area through 
Walrus Protection Areas near Cape Peirce.
    The alternatives analyzed but not selected are Alternative 1 
(status quo, do not allow transit through the protection areas) and 
Alternative 2, Options 2 and 3. All of these alternatives and options 
are more restrictive than the proposed action. The proposed action is 
Alternative 2, Option 1 and Alternative 3. Alternative 2, Option 1 
allows vessels to transit closer to Round Island than Alternative 2, 
Option 2 and Alternative 2, Option 3. Therefore, Alternative 2, Option 
1 is the least restrictive of the three options under Alternative 2. 
Alternative 3 provides a seasonal transit area around Cape Peirce. This 
proposed action represents the alternatives that minimize the potential 
cost to directly regulated small entities. The boundaries farther from 
Round Island (Options 2 and 3) may incrementally reduce the potential 
for disturbance to walruses on Round Island (see Section 3.2.7 of the 
Analysis), but are not likely to significantly affect the distances 
traveled as vessels with FFPs transit the protected area. The 
differences in transit time or fuel costs are not likely to be 
significantly different between these options. As noted in Section 
3.2.7.2.1 of the Analysis, there has been no recorded visible 
disturbance to walruses from vessel traffic more than 3 nm from Round 
Island.
    The Council also considered rescinding the protection areas around 
Round Island and Cape Peirce for all or a portion of the year, 
eliminating the barriers to transiting the Walrus Protection Areas. 
Rescission of the protection areas would reduce costs to regulated 
small entities more than the proposed action. However, these 
alternatives were not analyzed because they do not meet the purpose and 
need of the proposed action to maintain protection of walruses in these 
important haulout sites.

Tribal Consultation

    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), 
the American Indian and Alaska Native Policy of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce (March 30, 1995), and the Department of Commerce Tribal 
Consultation and Coordination policy (78 FR 33331, June 4, 2013) 
outline the responsibilities of NMFS for Federal policies that have 
tribal implications. Section 161 of Public Law 108-199 (188 Stat. 452), 
as amended by section 518 of Public Law 109-447 (118 Stat. 3267), 
extends the consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 to Alaska Native 
corporations. Under the E.O. and agency policies, NMFS must ensure 
meaningful and timely input by tribal officials and representatives of 
Alaska Native corporations in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications. NMFS will provide a copy of this 
proposed rule to the federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native 
corporations in the Bristol Bay area to notify them of the opportunity 
to comment or request a consultation on this proposed action.
    Section 5(b)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 requires NMFS to prepare a 
``tribal summary impact statement'' for any regulation that has tribal 
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on 
Indian tribal governments, and is not required by statute. The tribal 
summary impact statement must contain (1) a description of the extent 
of the agency's prior consultation with tribal officials, (2) a summary 
of the nature of their concerns, (3) the agency's position supporting 
the need to issue the regulation, and (4) a statement of the extent to 
which the concerns of tribal officials have been met. If the Secretary 
of Commerce approves this proposed action, a tribal impact summary 
statement that addresses the four questions above will be included in 
the final rule.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries.

    Dated: September 30, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to 
be amended 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.  679.22, revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.22  Closures.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Walrus protection areas.
    (i) From April 1 through September 30 of each calendar year, 
vessels designated on a Federal fisheries permit issued under Sec.  
679.4 are prohibited from deploying fishing gear in that part of the 
Bering Sea subarea between 3 and 12 nm seaward of the baseline used to 
measure the territorial sea around islands named Round Island and The 
Twins, as shown on National Ocean Survey Chart 16315, and around Cape 
Peirce (58[deg]33' N. lat., 161[deg]43' W. long.).
    (ii) From April 1 through September 30 of each calendar year, 
vessels designated on a Federal fisheries permit issued under Sec.  
679.4 are prohibited in that part of the Bering Sea subarea between 3 
and 12 nm seaward of the baseline used to measure the territorial sea 
around islands named Round Island and The Twins, as shown on National 
Ocean Survey Chart 16315, and around Cape Peirce (58[deg]33' N. lat., 
161[deg]43' W. long.), except that from April 1 through August 15 of 
each calendar year vessels designated on a Federal fisheries permit are 
not prohibited from entering and transiting through waters off:
    (A) Round Island, north of a straight line connecting 58[deg]47.90' 
N. lat./160[deg]21.91' W. long., and 58[deg]32.94' N. lat./
159[deg]35.45' W. long.; and
    (B) Cape Peirce, east of a straight line connecting 58[deg]30.00' 
N. lat./161[deg]46.20' W. long., and 58[deg]21.00' N. lat./
161[deg]46.20' W. long.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-23635 Filed 10-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C