FR BH77 published

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
a pelagic false killer whale resulting
from commercial longline operations,
and the longline closure of the SEZ for
the remainder of the 2018 fishing year.
Although this action is being
implemented without the opportunity
for prior notice and comment, NMFS is
soliciting and will respond to public
comments from those affected by or
otherwise interested in this rule.
The NOAA Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries (AA) also finds good cause
to waive the 30-day delay in the
effectiveness of this action under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Failing to waive the
30-day delay in effectiveness would
likely result in additional interactions
and possible mortality and serious
injuries to the Hawaii pelagic false killer
whale stock. Under the MMPA, NMFS
must reduce mortality and serious
injury of marine mammal stocks
protected by a take reduction plan
regulations. This includes taking action
to close the SEZ immediately upon a
second observed mortality and serious
injury resulting from commercial
longlining in the EEZ. Accordingly, the
SEZ closure must be implemented
immediately to ensure compliance with
the provisions of the MMPA and the
take reduction plan regulations.
Nevertheless, NMFS recognizes the
need for fishermen to have time to haul
their gear and relocate to areas outside
of the SEZ; thus, NMFS makes this
action effective 7 days after filing this
document in the Federal Register.
This action is required by 50 CFR
229.37(e)(3), and is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
Dated: July 13, 2018.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–15332 Filed 7–17–18; 8:45 am]

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 180209155–8589–02]
RIN 0648–BH77

International Fisheries; Western and
Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly
Migratory Species; Fishing Limits in
Purse Seine and Longline Fisheries,
Restrictions on the Use of Fish
Aggregating Devices in Purse Seine
Fisheries, and Transshipment
Prohibitions
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

Under authority of the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Convention Implementation Act
(WCPFC Implementation Act), NMFS
issues this final rule that establishes
limits on fishing effort by U.S. purse
seine vessels in the U.S. exclusive
economic zone and on the high seas
between the latitudes of 20° N and 20°
S in the area of application of the
Convention on the Conservation and
Management of Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks in the Western and Central
Pacific Ocean (Convention); restrictions
regarding the use of fish aggregating
devices (FADs) for U.S. purse seine
fishing vessels; limits on the catches of
bigeye tuna by U.S. longline vessels in
the Convention area; prohibitions on
U.S. vessels used to fish for highly
migratory species from engaging in
transshipment in a particular area of the
high seas (the Eastern High Seas Special
Management Area or EHSSMA); and
removal of existing reporting
requirements for vessels transiting the
EHSSMA. The rule also makes
corrections to outdated cross references
in existing regulatory text. This action is
necessary to satisfy the obligations of
the United States under the Convention,
to which it is a Contracting Party.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 18,
2018, except for the revised reporting
requirements in 50 CFR 300.218(g),
which contains information collection
requirements that have not been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). NOAA will publish
a document in the Federal Register
announcing the effective date for the
revised reporting requirements upon
OMB approval.
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33851

Compliance dates: The compliance
date for the amendment to 50 CFR
300.223(b), the FAD prohibition period,
is July 18, 2018. The compliance date
for the amendment to 50 CFR 300.225,
the EHSSMA transshipment
prohibition, is January 1, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting
documents prepared for this final rule,
including the regulatory impact review
(RIR), the 2015 programmatic
environmental assessment (PEA), the
2012 environmental assessment, and
supplemental information report (SIR)
prepared for National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) purposes, as well as
the proposed rule (83 FR 21748; May 10,
2018), are available via the Federal
e-rulemaking Portal, at
www.regulations.gov (search for Docket
ID NOAA–NMFS–2018–0050). Those
documents are also available from
NMFS at the following address: Michael
D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator,
NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office
(PIRO), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176,
Honolulu, HI 96818.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) prepared under authority of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act is included in
the Classification section of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rini
Ghosh, NMFS PIRO, 808–725–5033.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
10, 2018, NMFS published a proposed
rule in the Federal Register (83 FR
21748). The proposed rule was open for
public comment until May 25, 2018.
This final rule is issued under the
authority of the Western and Central
Pacific Fisheries Convention
Implementation Act (WCPFC
Implementation Act) (16 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.), which authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce, in consultation with the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of
the Department in which the United
States Coast Guard is operating
(currently the Department of Homeland
Security), to promulgate such
regulations as may be necessary to carry
out the obligations of the United States
under the Convention, including the
decisions of the Commission for the
Conservation and Management of
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the
Western and Central Pacific Ocean
(WCPFC or Commission). The WCPFC
Implementation Act further provides
that the Secretary of Commerce shall
ensure consistency, to the extent
practicable, of fishery management
programs administered under the
WCPFC Implementation Act and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

33852

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

(MSA; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as well
as other specific laws (see 16 U.S.C.
6905(b)). The Secretary of Commerce
has delegated the authority to
promulgate regulations under the
WCPFC Implementation Act to NMFS.
A map showing the boundaries of the
area of application of the Convention
(Convention Area), which comprises the
majority of the western and central
Pacific Ocean (WCPO), can be found on
the WCPFC website at: www.wcpfc.int/
doc/convention-area-map.
This final rule implements specific
provisions of two recent Commission
decisions: Conservation and
Management Measure (CMM) 2017–01,
‘‘Conservation and Management
Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin, and
Skipjack tuna in the Western and
Central Pacific Ocean;’’ and CMM 2016–
02, ‘‘Conservation and Management
Measures for Eastern High Seas Pocket
Special Management Area.’’ The rule
also makes corrections to outdated cross
references in existing regulatory text.
The preamble to the proposed rule
provides background information on the
Convention and the Commission, the
provisions that are being implemented
in this rule, and the basis for the
proposed regulations, which is not
repeated here.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

The Action
The elements of the final rule are
detailed below. The administrative
changes to correct outdated references
in existing regulatory text are described
at the end.
Some of the provisions in CMM 2017–
01 apply only to calendar year 2018,
while others are applicable until
February 10, 2021. Because the
Commission likely will continue to
implement similar management
measures regarding FADs and longline
bigeye tuna catch limits beyond 2018,
and to avoid a lapse in the management
of the fishery, most of the elements of
CMM 2017–01 in the final rule will
remain effective until they are replaced
or amended. However, the elements
implementing the purse seine effort
limits will be effective for 2018 only, as
explained further below.
Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits
Under the final rule, there is a
calendar year catch limit of 3,554 metric
tons (mt) of bigeye tuna for U.S. longline
vessels fishing in the Convention Area
that would remain effective until
replaced. In the proposed rule, NMFS
stated that it was possible that the limit
for 2018 would be adjusted downward
to account for any overage of the 2017
limit. However, NMFS has confirmed
that the 2017 limit was not exceeded so

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

no adjustment of the 2018 limit is
needed.
The calendar year longline bigeye
tuna catch limit will apply only to U.Sflagged longline vessels operating as
part of the U.S. longline fisheries. The
limit will not apply to U.S. longline
vessels operating as part of the longline
fisheries of American Samoa, CNMI, or
Guam. Existing regulations at 50 CFR
300.224(b), (c), and (d) detail the
manner in which longline-caught bigeye
tuna is attributed among the fisheries of
the United States and the U.S.
Participating Territories.
Consistent with the basis for the
limits prescribed in CMM 2017–01 and
with regulations issued by NMFS to
implement bigeye tuna catch limits in
U.S. longline fisheries as described
below, the catch limit is measured in
terms of retained catches—that is,
bigeye tuna that are caught by longline
gear and retained on board the vessel.
1. Announcement of the Limit Being
Reached
As set forth under the existing
regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(e), if
NMFS determines that the limit is
expected to be reached in a calendar
year, NMFS will publish a document in
the Federal Register to announce
specific fishing restrictions that will be
effective from the date the limit is
expected to be reached until the end of
the calendar year. NMFS will publish
notification of the restrictions at least 7
calendar days before the effective date
to provide vessel owners and operators
with advance notice. Periodic forecasts
of the date the limit is expected to be
reached will be made available to the
public, such as by posting on a website,
to help vessel owners and operators
plan for the possibility of the limit being
reached.
2. Restrictions After the Limit Is
Reached
As set forth under the existing
regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(f), if the
limit is reached, the restrictions that
will be in effect will include the
following:
a. Retain on board, transship, or land
bigeye tuna: Starting on the effective
date of the restrictions and extending
through December 31 of the given
calendar year, it will be prohibited to
use a U.S. fishing vessel to retain on
board, transship, or land bigeye tuna
captured in the Convention Area by
longline gear, except as follows:
First, any bigeye tuna already on
board a fishing vessel upon the effective
date of the restrictions can be retained
on board, transshipped, and/or landed,
provided that they are landed within 14

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

days after the restrictions become
effective. A vessel that had declared to
NMFS pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a)
that the current trip type is shallowsetting is not subject to this 14-day
landing restriction, so these vessels will
be able to land bigeye tuna more than
14 days after the restrictions become
effective.
Second, bigeye tuna captured by
longline gear can be retained on board,
transshipped, and/or landed if they are
caught by a fishing vessel registered for
use under a valid American Samoa
Longline Limited Access Permit, or if
they are landed in American Samoa,
Guam, or CNMI. However, the bigeye
tuna must not be caught in the portion
of the U.S. EEZ surrounding the
Hawaiian Archipelago, and must be
landed by a U.S. fishing vessel operated
in compliance with a valid permit
issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or
665.801.
Third, bigeye tuna captured by
longline gear can be retained on board,
transshipped, and/or landed if they are
caught by a vessel that is included in a
specified fishing agreement under 50
CFR 665.819(d), in accordance with 50
CFR 300.224(f)(iv).
b. Transshipment of bigeye tuna to
certain vessels: Starting on the effective
date of the restrictions and extending
through December 31 of the calendar
year, it will be prohibited to transship
bigeye tuna caught in the Convention
Area by longline gear to any vessel other
than a U.S. fishing vessel operated in
compliance with a valid permit issued
under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.
c. Fishing inside and outside the
Convention Area: To help ensure
compliance with the restrictions related
to bigeye tuna caught by longline gear
in the Convention Area, two additional,
related prohibitions would be in effect
starting on the effective date of the
restrictions and extending through
December 31 of the calendar year. First,
vessels are prohibited from fishing with
longline gear both inside and outside
the Convention Area during the same
fishing trip, with the exception of a
fishing trip that is in progress at the time
the announced restrictions go into
effect. In that exceptional case, the
vessel still must land any bigeye tuna
taken in the Convention Area within 14
days of the effective date of the
restrictions, as described above. Second,
if a vessel is used to fish using longline
gear outside the Convention Area and
enters the Convention Area at any time
during the same fishing trip, the
longline gear on the fishing vessel must
be stowed in a manner so as not to be
readily available for fishing while the
vessel is in the Convention Area;

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

specifically, the hooks, branch or
dropper lines, and floats used to buoy
the mainline must be stowed and not
available for immediate use, and any
power-operated mainline hauler on
deck must be covered in such a manner
that it is not readily available for use.
These two prohibitions do not apply to
the following vessels: (1) Vessels on
declared shallow-setting trips pursuant
to 50 CFR 665.803(a); and (2) vessels
operating for the purposes of this rule as
part of the longline fisheries of
American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI.
This second group includes vessels
registered for use under valid American
Samoa Longline Limited Access Permits
and vessels landing their bigeye tuna
catch in one of the three U.S.
Participating Territories, so long as
these vessels conduct fishing activities
in accordance with the conditions
described above, and vessels included
in a specified fishing agreement under
50 CFR 665.819(d), in accordance with
50 CFR 300.224(f)(iv).
FAD Restrictions
There is a FAD prohibition period
from July through September in each
calendar year in the Convention Area
between the latitudes of 20° N and 20°
S (inclusive of the EEZs and high seas
in the Convention Area), and an
additional two-month FAD prohibition
period just on the high seas in that area
in November and December in each
calendar year. Under CMM 2017–01, the
United States can choose to implement
the additional two-month FAD
prohibition period in either April and
May or November and December. As
stated in the preamble to the proposed
rule, based on the expected economic
impacts on U.S. fishing operations and
the nation as a whole, and expected
environmental and other effects, NMFS
expects that a high seas FAD prohibition
period in November and December may
be somewhat more cost-effective than a
FAD prohibition period in April and
May. NMFS specifically sought public
comment on which option is more
appropriate. Four comment letters were
received in support of implementing the
additional high seas FAD prohibition
period in November and December, and
one comments letter was received
requesting that consideration be given to
having the additional prohibiton period
take place in April and May in future
years, as detailed in the comment
summary and response section below.
As currently defined in 50 CFR
300.211, a FAD is ‘‘any artificial or
natural floating object, whether
anchored or not and whether situated at
the water surface or not, that is capable
of aggregating fish, as well as any object

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

used for that purpose that is situated on
board a vessel or otherwise out of the
water. The definition of FAD does not
include a vessel.’’ Under this final rule,
the regulatory definition of a FAD
would not change. Although the
definition of a FAD does not include a
vessel, the restrictions during the FAD
prohibition periods include certain
activities related to fish that have
aggregated in association with a vessel,
or drawn by a vessel, as described
below.
The prohibitions applicable to the
FAD-related measures are in existing
regulations at 50 CFR 300.223(b)(1)(i)–
(v). Specifically, during the July–
September FAD prohibition periods in
each calendar year, and on the high seas
in November and December, owners,
operators, and crew of fishing vessels of
the United States equipped with purse
seine gear shall not do any of the
following activities in the Convention
Area in the area between 20° N latitude
and 20° S latitude:
(1) Set a purse seine around a FAD or
within one nautical mile of a FAD;
(2) Set a purse seine in a manner
intended to capture fish that have
aggregated in association with a FAD or
a vessel, such as by setting the purse
seine in an area from which a FAD or
a vessel has been moved or removed
within the previous eight hours, setting
the purse seine in an area in which a
FAD has been inspected or handled
within the previous eight hours, or
setting the purse seine in an area into
which fish were drawn by a vessel from
the vicinity of a FAD or a vessel;
(3) Deploy a FAD into the water;
(4) Repair, clean, maintain, or
otherwise service a FAD, including any
electronic equipment used in
association with a FAD, in the water or
on a vessel while at sea, except that a
FAD may be inspected and handled as
needed to identify the FAD, identify and
release incidentally captured animals,
un-foul fishing gear, or prevent damage
to property or risk to human safety; and
a FAD may be removed from the water
and if removed may be cleaned,
provided that it is not returned to the
water; and
(5) From a purse seine vessel or any
associated skiffs, other watercraft or
equipment, submerge lights under
water; suspend or hang lights over the
side of the purse seine vessel, skiff,
watercraft or equipment, or direct or use
lights in a manner other than as needed
to illuminate the deck of the purse seine
vessel or associated skiffs, watercraft or
equipment, to comply with navigational
requirements, and to ensure the health
and safety of the crew. These
prohibitions would not apply during

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33853

emergencies as needed to prevent
human injury or the loss of human life,
the loss of the purse seine vessel, skiffs,
watercraft or aircraft, or environmental
damage.
This final rule revises the
introductory paragraph of 50 CFR
300.223(b)(1) to make it clearer that the
prohibitions apply only to owners,
operators, and crew of purse seine
fishing vessels. NMFS has recently
received inquiries as to whether the
prohibitions apply to the owners,
operators, and crew of vessels using
other gear types. This final rule also
makes a technical change to 50 CFR
300.223(b)(1)(iv)(B) to clarify that,
during the FAD prohibition periods, a
FAD may be removed from the water to
be repaired, cleaned, maintained, or
otherwise serviced, provided that it is
not returned to the water. This minor
change ensures consistency with the
introductory language in that paragraph.
Under the final rule, an active FAD is
defined as a FAD that is equipped with
a buoy with a clearly marked reference
number allowing its identification and
equipped with a satellite tracking
system to monitor its position, as
specified by the definition of
instrumented buoy in CMM 2017–01.
CMM 2017–01 specifies that the buoy
shall be activated exclusively on board
the vessel. In order to implement this
provision, the final rule specifies that
the tracking equipment must be turned
on while the FAD is onboard the vessel
and before it is deployed in the water.
In accordance with CMM 2017–01,
under the final rule, each U.S. purse
seine vessel would have a limit of 350
active drifting FADs in the Convention
Area at any one time.
Purse Seine Fishing Effort Limits
In the past, NMFS has implemented
the U.S. purse seine fishing effort limits
on the high seas and in the U.S. EEZ
adopted by the Commission as a single
combined limit in a combined area of
the high seas and U.S. EEZ termed the
Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine or
ELAPS. CMM 2017–01 and predecessor
conservation and management measures
have always treated the high seas and
EEZ limits separately, and these
decisions do not provide Members,
Cooperating Non-members, and
Participating Territories (collectively
referred to here as ‘‘members’’) the
express authority to combine them.
Nevertheless, NMFS’ reasoning for
combining the high seas and U.S. EEZ
limits was that it afforded more
operational flexibility to the fleet and
there were no substantial conservation
effects to living marine resources for
treating the two areas separately or

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

33854

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

combined, so long as the overall effort
remained equal or less than the sum of
the two limits.
For several years the United States
has argued that the Commission’s purse
seine effort limits are having a
disproportionate burden on the
economy of American Samoa,
particularly fish processing facilities
like the one tuna cannery in operation.
At the most recent regular session of the
Commission in December 2017, the
Commission finally took consensus
action to lessen that burden.
Specifically, Paragraph 29 of CMM
2017–01 allows the United States to
address the impact of the Commission
limits on American Samoa tuna
processing by transfering 100 fishing
days from the U.S. EEZ effort limit to
the high seas effort limit, and to
potentially regain these transferred days
in the U.S. EEZ effort limit, provided
that limit has been reached by October
1, 2018 (subject to certain landing
requirements). This provision is
applicable to 2018 only.
In light of CMM 2017–01’s Paragraph
29 allowing the United States to transfer
some of its EEZ days to the high seas in
2018, there is a need to reconsider
NMFS’ past practice of combining the
U.S. high seas limit and U.S. EEZ limit.
CMM 2017–01 specifies separate EEZ
(Attachment 1, Table 1) and high seas
(Attachment 1, Table 2) purse seine
effort limits for the United States.
However, previous CMMs on tropical
tunas also specified separate EEZ and
high seas effort limits for the United
States. The new provision included in
CMM 2017–01 that was not included in
previous CMMs on tropical tunas is the
transfer provision in Paragraph 29. In
the past, there was no express constraint
on NMFS’ ability to transfer the entire
U.S. EEZ limit to the high seas limit and
the entire high seas limit to the U.S. EEZ
limit. However, in light of the new
transfer provision in CMM 2017–01 for
2018, specifying clear rules and
guidelines for the number and manner
a transfer of days between the high seas
limit and U.S. EEZ must take place,
NMFS believes that the U.S. EEZ and
high seas purse seine effort limits for
2018 must be implemented separately.
That is, NMFS needs to separately
enforce the high seas and U.S. EEZ days
in order to ensure that the high seas
fishing effort limit—as augmented under
paragraph 29 by 100 days from the U.S.
EEZ—is not exceeded. Accordingly,
NMFS will not combine the two limits
under a single ELAPS limit for 2018.
This change is consistent with the plain
reading of CMM 2017–01, which
specifies a separate limit for the U.S.
EEZ and a separate limit for the high

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

seas for the United States, as well as the
transfer provisions in Paragraph 29.
In the proposed rule, NMFS had
stated that all of the elements for CMM
2017–01 would remain in place until
they are replaced or modified. However,
based on the time-limited application of
Paragraph 29, and the comments
received regarding the purse seine effort
limits, as detailed in the Comments and
Response section below, NMFS believes
that it is appropriate to implement the
purse seine effort limits in this final rule
for 2018 only. Implementation of
Commission-specified purse seine effort
limits in future years, including whether
the limits for the U.S. EEZ and high seas
are combined or implemented
separately and how transfers between
the limits may take place, will be
determined after consideration of future
decisions adopted by the Commission.
CMM 2017–01 specifies a limit of
1,270 fishing days per year for the high
seas and a limit of 558 fishing days per
year for the U.S. EEZ. Applying the
provisions of Paragraph 29, the final
rule would establish a limit of 1,370
fishing days on the high seas and a
separate limit of 458 fishing days in the
U.S. EEZ. These numbers utilize the
provision of CMM 2017–01 provided to
alleviate the economic hardship
experienced by American Samoa during
a fishery closure and transfer 100
fishing days from the U.S. EEZ effort
limit to the high seas effort limit.
CMM 2017–01 also specifies that the
United States may add an additional
100 fishing days to its annual purse
seine fishing effort limit in the U.S. EEZ
if the limit in the U.S. EEZ is reached
by October 1, 2018. Thus, under the
final rule, in the event that NMFS
expects that the U.S. EEZ effort limit
would be reached by October 1, 2018,
NMFS would publish a document in the
Federal Register, no later than seven
days prior to October 1, to increase the
U.S. EEZ effort limit by 100 fishing days
for 2018.
The meaning of ‘‘fishing day’’ is
defined at 50 CFR 300.211; that is, any
day in which a fishing vessel of the
United States equipped with purse seine
gear searches for fish, deploys a FAD,
services a FAD, or sets a purse seine,
with the exception of setting a purse
seine solely for the purpose of testing or
cleaning the gear and resulting in no
catch.
NMFS will monitor the number of
fishing days spent in the U.S. EEZ and
on the high seas using data submitted in
logbooks and other available
information. If and when NMFS
determines that a limit is expected to be
reached by a specific future date, it will
publish a document in the Federal

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Register announcing that the purse
seine fishery in the area where the limit
is expected to be reached will be closed
starting on a specific future date and
will remain closed until the end of the
calendar year. NMFS will publish that
document at least seven days in advance
of the closure date. Starting on the
announced closure date, and for the
remainder of calendar year, it will be
prohibited for U.S. purse seine vessels
to fish in the area where the limit is
expected to be reached, except that such
vessels would not be prohibited from
bunkering (refueling) during a fishery
closure. NMFS published an interim
rule on August 25, 2015 (see 80 FR
51478) to remove the restriction that
prohibited U.S. purse seine vessels from
conducting bunkering during fishery
closures of the ELAPS. NMFS will
continue those regulations as part of this
final rule so that bunkering would be
allowed during any fishery closures of
the U.S. EEZ or high seas due to
reaching a limit in a given calendar
year.
Under existing regulations at 50 CFR
300.218(g), NMFS can direct U.S. purse
seine vessel owners and operators to
provide daily FAD reports, specifying
the number of purse seine sets made on
FADs during that day. NMFS
promulgated this regulation to help
track a limit on the number of FAD sets
that was applicable in previous years
but recognizes that this information is
also valuable to help predict when a
fishing effort limit is expected to be
reached with greater certainty. Thus,
under this final rule, NMFS is revising
the existing regulations so that NMFS
can direct U.S. purse seine vessel
owners and operators to provide reports
on the fishing activity of the vessel (e.g.,
setting, transiting, searching), location,
and type of set, in order to obtain better
data for tracking the fishing effort limits.
Eastern High Seas Special Management
Area
This final rule removes the
requirements at 50 CFR 300.222(oo) and
50 CFR 300.225 for U.S. commercial
fishing vessels to provide reports prior
to entering or exiting the EHSSMA. This
final rule also prohibits all U.S.
commercial fishing vessels fishing for
highly migratory species (HMS) from
engaging in transshipments in the
EHSSMA, beginning on January 1, 2019.
Administrative Changes to Existing
Regulations
The regulations at 50 CFR 300.217(b)
and 300.218(a)(2)(v) contain outdated
cross references that are corrected in
this final rule. In § 300.217, paragraph
(b)(1) is revised to provide a cross

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

reference to § 300.336(b)(2), not
§ 300.14(b), and in § 300.218(a)(2)(v),
the cross reference is to § 300.341(a)
instead of to § 300.17(a) and (b).
Sections 300.14(b) and 300.17(a) and (b)
no longer exist and have been replaced
through a new regulatory action
implementing provisions of the High
Seas Fishing Compliance Act (16 U.S.C.
5501 et seq.).
Comments and Responses
NMFS received nine comment letters
on the proposed rule. The comments are
summarized below, followed by
responses from NMFS.
Comment 1: Two commenters
provided general statements of support
for the limits and restrictions that would
be implemented in the rule. One of the
commenters expressed support for more
stringent fishing limits for all waters.
According to the commenters,
overfishing has devastating ecological
and economic consequences.
Response: NMFS acknowledges and
notes the comments.
Comment 2: Representatives of the
Hawaii Longline Association (HLA)
provided comments supporting the
establishment of the 3,554 mt longline
bigeye tuna catch limit. HLA also
requested that NMFS proceed carefully,
but quickly, with the process to
implement regulations under a separate
rulemaking that would allow longline
bigeye tuna catch to be attributed to the
U.S. participating territories in the
WCPFC in 2018 under specified fishing
agreements. This would allow any fish
landed immediately after the 3,554 mt
limit is reached in 2018 to be attributed
to the U.S. territory that is a party to the
specified fishing agreement and would
prevent a fishery closure. HLA noted
that, in past years, the Hawaii deep-set
longline fishery has been closed for
extended periods of time in the WCPO,
even though a specified fishing
agreement had been executed and
approved, because NMFS delayed its
issuance of territory specification
regulations. Thus, some U.S. deep-set
longline vessels were unable to fish for
no reason other than administrative
delay.
Response: NMFS is proceeding with
the separate rulemaking to implement
regulations that would provide for
longline bigeye tuna catch to be
attributed to the U.S. participating
territories in the WCPFC in 2018 under
specified fishing agreements as
expeditiously as possible.
Comment 3: Representatives from
different sectors of the U.S. purse seine
fleet provided comments regarding
implementation of the purse seine effort
limits for the U.S. EEZ and high seas

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

areas. One commenter expressed
support for having separate limits for
the high seas and for the U.S. EEZ,
while five commenters objected to the
establishment of separate purse seine
effort limits for the U.S. EEZ and high
seas areas. The commenters that
objected stated that for the past nine
years, NMFS has combined those two
areas with their associated limits into
one area (the Effort Limit Area for Purse
Seine, or ELAPS) to provide flexibility
to the U.S. WCPO purse seine industry,
and the process has worked very well.
They claimed that by creating separate
limits for the U.S. EEZ and the high seas
now, NMFS will, if it proceeds with the
proposed rule, effectively reduce fishing
opportunities for the U.S. fleet by over
400 days. They stated that the proposed
rule provides no explanation for why
this previous reasoning no longer
applies or why NMFS has changed its
position on this important issue.
According to the commenters, it appears
that the significant change to implement
separate limits is being proposed to
merely aid monitoring, but there is no
apparent reason why sufficient
monitoring cannot occur to satisfy CMM
2017–01 under a combined limit and
none is provided by NMFS. According
to one commenter, NMFS is required by
law to provide a rationale for its
decision and to carefully address and
explain its changes in position. The
commenter stated that NMFS’ proposal
to implement separate effort limits is
arbitrary and capricious, and therefore
unlawful under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA).
Response: As stated above and in the
preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS
acknowledges that in the past NMFS has
implemented the U.S. purse seine
fishing effort limits on the high seas and
in the U.S. EEZ adopted by the
Commission as a single combined limit
in a combined area of the high seas and
U.S. EEZ termed the Effort Limit Area
for Purse Seine or ELAPS. NMFS’
reasoning for combining the high seas
and U.S. EEZ limits was that it afforded
more operational flexibility to the fleet
and there are no substantial differences
in terms of effects to living marine
resources between the two approaches—
treating the two areas separately or
combining the areas—so long as the
overall effort remained equal or less
than the sum of the limits of the two
areas. Although NMFS agrees with the
comment that a single combined effort
limit would afford more operational
flexibility to the fleet, as explained
above, the plain reading of Paragraph 29
of CMM 2017–01, which includes
specific rules and guidelines for the

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33855

United States for transferring fishing
days between the high seas effort limit
area and the U.S. EEZ effort limit area,
precludes NMFS from doing so in 2018.
As noted above, for several years the
United States has argued that the
Commission’s purse seine effort limits
are having a disproportionate burden on
the American Samoa economy,
particularly fish processing facilities
like the one tuna cannery in operation.
At its 14th regular session in December
2017, the Commission took positive
steps to lessen that burden. CMM 2017–
01 now allows the United States to
address the impact of the Commission
limits on American Samoa tuna
processing by transfering 100 fishing
days from the U.S. EEZ effort limit to
the high seas effort limit, and to
potentially regain these transferred days
in the U.S. EEZ effort limit provided
that limit has been reached by October
1, 2018 (subject to certain landing
requirements). The Commission’s
decision was intended to provide U.S.
purse seiners with an increase of 100
fishing days for 2018 along with an
incentive to land their catch in
American Samoa.
Commission decisions have always
identified separate high seas and EEZ
fishing effort limits for CCMs. The new
provision included in CMM 2017–01
that was not included in previous
CMMs on tropical tunas is the transfer
provision in Paragraph 29. In the past,
there was no express constraint on
NMFS’ ability to transfer the entire U.S.
EEZ limit to the high seas limit and the
entire high seas limit to the U.S. EEZ
limit. However, in light of the new
transfer provision in CMM 2017–01 for
2018, specifying clear rules and
guidelines for the number of days
available for transfer and the manner in
which a transfer of days between the
high seas limit and U.S. EEZ limit must
take place, NMFS believes that the U.S.
EEZ and high seas purse seine effort
limits for 2018 must be implemented
separately. That is, NMFS must
separately enforce the high seas and
U.S. EEZ fishing effort limits in order to
ensure that the high seas fishing effort
limit of 1,370 days—as augmented
under paragraph 29 by 100 days from
the U.S. EEZ—is not exceeded.
Enforcing only a single combined limit
of 1,828 days could result in the
augmented high seas limit being
exceeded, in violation of CMM 2017–01.
CMM 2017–01 specifies a limit of
1,270 fishing days per year for the high
seas and a limit of 558 fishing days per
year for the U.S. EEZ, and includes
specific rules and guidelines for
transferring fishing days from the
U.S.EEZ limit to the high seas limit. The

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

33856

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

final rule establishes a limit of 1,370
fishing days on the high seas and a
separate limit of 458 fishing days in the
U.S. EEZ (or 558 days if the limit is
reached by October 1, 2018) for 2018 in
accordance with the transfer provisions
set forth in Paragraph 29 of CMM 2017–
01 and in order to implement CMM
2017–01 in accordance with the
Commission’s clear intent. NMFS is not
implementing the separate limits merely
to aid in monitoring, as the commenters
suggest, but rather to implement the
clear requirements of CMM 2017–01.
It is important to note that, under the
final rule, the overall number fishing
days in the high seas and U.S. EEZ
remain the same (1,828) as the overall
number of fishing days allowed in
previous years, and could actually be
higher (1,928) if the certain conditions
described above are met. Accordingly,
NMFS disagrees that enforcing separate
high seas and EEZ limits under the final
rule—which NMFS believes is
compelled by a plain reading of CMM
2017–01—unfairly reduces the number
of available fishing days to some
foreign-built U.S. purse seiners. These
foreign-built U.S. purse seine vessels
primarily fish under licenses issued
pursuant to the South Pacific Tuna
Treaty (SPTT) and, because they do not
have fishery endorsements on their U.S.
Coast Guard Certificates of
Documentation, they are generally
prohibited from fishing within the U.S.
EEZ. However, these restrictions on
operating within the U.S. EEZ have long
been in effect (see 46 U.S.C. 12113).
Currently, 9 of the 37 U.S. purse seine
vessels with WCPFC Area Endorsements
have that fishery endorsement, so these
vessels would be able to continue
fishing up to the 458 day limit in the
U.S. EEZ (or 558 day limit, if the U.S.
EEZ limit is reached by October 1, 2018)
when the limit in the high seas is
reached in 2018. Furthermore, the
foreign-built U.S.-flagged vessels, which
are ineligible to fish within the U.S.
EEZ, retain the option of shifting their
fishing effort either to foreign zones
under the SPTT or into the eastern
Pacific Ocean (EPO). Please also see
below for the response to Comment 4 on
the potential loss of 400 fishing days to
the fleet.
NMFS is implementing separate
limits in 2018, because of the language
in Paragraph 29 of CMM 2017–01 for
2018. Implementation of Commissionspecified purse seine effort limits in
future years, including whether the
limits for the U.S. EEZ and high seas are
combined or implemented separately
and how transfers between the limits
may take place, will be determined after

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

consideration of future decisions
adopted by the Commission.
Comment 4: Several comments from
U.S. purse seine industry
representatives related to NMFS’
assessment of the economic effects of
the proposed purse seine fishing effort
limits. One commenter stated that
NMFS appears to believe that its
proposal to split the ELAPS is a mere
administrative matter with no
substantial consequences. This and
other commenters stated that the
proposal would have very significant
impacts on many vessels in the U.S.
purse seine fleet, potentially costing
them millions of dollars in lost fishing
opportunities.
One commenter stated that NMFS
underestimates the severe economic
impact the proposed rule would have on
the U.S. purse seine fleet, and another
stated that the regulatory impact review
(RIR) prepared for the proposed rule
makes no meaningful attempt to
quantify the costs of the proposed
splitting of the ELAPS limits. The
commenter stated that based on the
history of fishing in the U.S. EEZ, as
presented in the RIR, and absent a
strong El Nin˜o and in an average year,
almost 440 fishing days would go
unused as a result of the fishing days
under the U.S. EEZ limit not being
available on the high seas. Under the
current ELAPS arrangement, those 440
fishing days are available to the entire
purse seine fleet. Another commenter
also stated that 440 fishing days would
go unused, effectively reducing the
allocation of fishing days to the U.S.
fleet, and additional commenters
similarly stated that having separate
limits for the U.S. EEZ and the high seas
would result in the fishing days under
the U.S. EEZ being unused or wasted.
Two commenters stated that the cost of
‘‘upfront’’ fishing days under the SPTT
($12,500 per fishing day, according to
one commenter) can be used to estimate
the value of those lost fishing days, and
went on to comment that the aggregate
cost to the 25 purse seine vessels
without fishery endorsements on their
U.S. Coast Guard Certificates of
Documentation would be about
$5,500,000 per year, or $220,000 per
vessel per year.
Several commenters provided
comments stating that alternative
fishing opportunities—in the event the
U.S. EEZ and/or the high seas are closed
to fishing—would be constrained in the
latter half of the year, when the high
seas would more likely be closed. With
respect to the opportunity of fishing in
foreign EEZs, several commenters
pointed out the high access fees
required for such fishing. With respect

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

to fishing in the EPO, several
commenters pointed out the limited
fishing capacity available in the EPO,
and noted that the high seas portion of
the area of overlap between the WCPFC
and Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC) would be subject
to the proposed high seas limit. One
commenter stated that NMFS has
indicated in the past that there was no
additional capacity available to place
vessels on the list of U.S. vessels eligible
to fish in the EPO, and asked for
clarication of this option, given that it
appears to be one of the key alternatives
available to vessels impacted by the
proposed rule.
With respect to the alternative of not
fishing, one commenter stated that
NMFS’ statement that a vessel would
have some variable costs reduced if it is
forced to stop fishing is a ridiculous
statement because it does not reflect the
reality of a bank’s view on missed
payments, and that NMFS’ statement
that vessels could use non-fishing time
to do maintenance and repair assumes
there will be money left to do so. The
same commenter stated that NMFS’
analysis fails to take into account that,
of the $10 million grossed by the fleet,
$2 million net comes off the top for
access fees under the SPTT.
One commenter stated that the
proposed rule’s costs to many vessels in
the U.S. purse seine fleet would be to
the benefit of only a few U.S. vessels,
and more broadly, their foreign
competitors. The commenter explained
that under the MSA, NMFS may not
provide sector preference within the
fleet, but in this case a defacto sector
preference under the MSA is beneficial
to foreign nations, by allowing them to
take advantage of U.S. fleet interests,
reducing U.S. fleet access, and
increasing costs for the U.S. fleet, while
providing further benefits to foreign
nations whose interests are not
necessarily aligned with the interests of
the U.S. Government.
One commenter stated that having
separate limits for the U.S. EEZ and the
high seas would put the vessels that
support American Samoa at an
economic disadvantage.
Several commenters stated that
having separate limits would hurt the
cannery and possible employment for
the people of American Samoa. These
commenters stated that there is not a
consistent amount of fish in the U.S.
EEZ for the vessels to be able to fish
there, and that closing the U.S. EEZ and
the high seas earlier would cause
vessels to operate further from
American Samoa, making it less likely
that they will unload in American
Samoa.

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
One commenter stated that the
proposed rule would needlessly
increase the U.S. fisheries trade deficit
by just more than $21 million.
Response: First, NMFS notes that it
has revised the RIR from the original
version, dated April 2018, that was
made available with the proposed rule.
The original version included
provisional estimates for certain 2017
fishery performance indicators,
including the numbers of fishing days
used in the U.S. EEZ and on the high
seas. Those estimates have since been
finalized and corrections to other
estimates have been made, and the
revised RIR has been updated
accordingly. The revised analysis does
not alter the conclusions or
determinations made in the original
RIR.
NMFS agrees that a combined limit
would afford more operational
flexibility to the fleet as a whole, but as
explained above, NMFS believes a plain
reading of Paragraph 29 of CMM 2017–
01—which provides benefits to
American Samoa and provides for up to
100 additional vessel days if certain
conditions are met—precludes NMFS
from implementing a combined limit for
2018. However, NMFS has updated its
analysis to include the combined limit
in the FRFA and revised RIR for
comparison purposes.
NMFS agrees that a combined limit
would effectively make more fishing
days available to those U.S. purse seine
vessels without fishery endorsements on
their U.S. Coast Guard Certificates of
Documentation than would this action.
However, NMFS does not agree that
‘‘almost 440 fishing days would go
unused,’’ as stated by one commenter in
comparing the two approaches. NMFS
recognizes that U.S. vessels that are
already ineligible to fish within the U.S.
EEZ would have fewer days to use on
the high seas in 2018 than in previous
years, but overall days available to the
fleet remain consistent with previous
years, and may actually increase to
1,928 days if certain conditions under
CMM 2017–01 are met. Also, because
the vast majority of U.S. purse seine
effort in the region already is
concentrated in foreign zones under the
provisions of the SPTT, NMFS does not
anticipate substantial impacts resulting
from unused EEZ days.
NMFS does not believe that the
proposal to establish separate purse
seine fishing effort limits for the U.S.
EEZ and the high seas is a mere
administrative matter with no
substantial consequences. To the
contrary, NMFS concluded in the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)
and the RIR that either of the two limits,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

and especially the high seas limit, could
be reached in any of the years 2018–
2020, and that the closure of any fishing
grounds for any amount of time can be
expected to bring adverse impacts to
affected entities. With respect to the
proposed high seas limit of 1,370 fishing
days, NMFS noted that the proposed
level had been met or exceeded in three
of the last nine years, a history that
suggests a substantial likelihood of the
proposed high seas limit being reached
in any of the years 2018–2020. NMFS
stated that the severity of the impacts of
a closure of the high seas or the U.S.
EEZ would be greatly dependent on the
length of the closure and the most
favored fishing ground during the
closure. As an indication of the possible
impacts, NMFS cited a study of the
closure of the ELAPS in 2015 in which
the overall losses to the combined
sectors of the vessels, canneries and
support companies from the closure
were estimated to be between $11 and
$110 million, depending on the period
considered. NMFS further noted the
study suggested that there were impacts
from the 2015 ELAPS closure on the
American Samoa economy, and that a
connection existed between U.S. purse
seine vessels and the broader American
Samoa economy. As a further indication
of the possible impacts to producers in
the fishery of lost fishing days as a
result of one or both limits being
reached (i.e., an indication of the upper
bound of those impacts), NMFS
provided information in the RIR and
IRFA on revenues in the fleet, including
the fact that, with an indicative fleet
size of 35 vessels, the fleet could have
gross ex-vessel revenues of more than $1
million per day, on average. The losses
to producers in the purse seine fishery
as a result of one or both of the limits
being reached would likely not reach
that maximum rate because, as
explained in the RIR and IRFA, there are
next-best opportunities to fishing on the
high seas or in the U.S. EEZ, including
fishing in foreign EEZs under the SPTT,
fishing in the EPO, and not fishing.
NMFS described in the RIR and IRFA
some of the factors that might make
each of those alternative opportunities
relatively attractive or unattractive, and
acknowledges that under the regulations
implementing IATTC decisions at 50
CFR part 300, subpart C the available
capacity for U.S. purse seine vessels that
wish to fish in the EPO and be listed on
the IATTC vessel register is limited.
However, vessels with SPTT licenses
may take one trip per year for up to 90
days in duration in the EPO for a total
of 32 trips for the fleet in a calendar
year, without being listed on the IATTC

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33857

vessel register. With respect to the
possibility of fishing in foreign EEZs in
the Convention Area during a closure of
the high seas and/or U.S. EEZ, NMFS
agrees that the access fees under the
SPTT, such as the 2018 fee of $12,500
per fishing day to fish in the waters of
many of the Pacific Island parties to the
SPTT, give an indication of the cost of
a closure of the high seas, since fishing
on the high seas does not require
payment of such access fees. The high
seas appear to be generally less
favorable fishing grounds than foreign
EEZs, and thus, U.S. vessels appear to
be already paying the $12,500 access fee
even before the U.S. high seas limit is
reached and the area is closed. Thus,
$12,500 is probably an overestimate of
the cost per day of the high seas being
closed.
NMFS recognizes, and explained in
the RIR and IRFA, that the proposed
purse seine fishing effort limits would
affect vessels with fishery endorsements
on their U.S. Coast Guard Certificates of
Documentation differently than those
vessels without fishery endorsements,
as those without fishery endorsements
are not authorized to fish in the U.S.
EEZ, and would not have access to the
fishing days available under the limit
for the U.S. EEZ. NMFS agrees that if
the proposed limits for the U.S. EEZ and
high seas were combined into a single
limit for the ELAPS, as done in the past,
the vessels without fishery
endorsements would have access to the
entirety of the combined limit (i.e.,
competitively, with all other vessels in
the U.S. fleet).
NMFS recognizes, and explained in
the RIR and IRFA, that the proposed
purse seine fishing effort limits in the
U.S. EEZ and high seas could cause a
race to fish in those respective areas,
with possible consequent effects on the
timing of catches and cannery deliveries
and costs in terms of the health and
safety of crew members as well as the
economic performance of vessels.
NMFS recognizes, and explained in
the RIR and IRFA, that there are
constraints to alternative opportunities
in the event the U.S. EEZ and/or high
seas are closed to fishing, and NMFS
acknowledges the specific constraints
pointed out by the commenters. NMFS
agrees that the alternative ‘‘next best’’
opportunities may not fully compensate
for the losses associated with not being
able to fish in the U.S. EEZ and/or on
the high seas in the event they are
closed. NMFS’ main point in those
portions of the RIR and IRFA is to
identify and describe what appear to be
among the most attractive alternative
opportunities (including not fishing at
all), and thereby give at least a

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

33858

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

qualitative idea of the opportunity costs
associated with the proposed fishing
effort limits.
Regarding the comment that the
NMFS analysis fails to take into account
that, of the $10 million grossed by the
fleet, $2 million net comes off the top
for access fees under the SPTT, NMFS
agrees that gross ex-vessel revenues
overestimate the possible losses to
fishing businesses as a result of this
action.
Regarding the comment that the
proposed rule’s costs to many vessels in
the U.S. purse seine fleet would be to
the benefit of a few U.S. vessels, and
more broadly, their foreign competitors,
NMFS agrees that restrictions on U.S.
fishing vessels could put some of them
at a competitive disadvantage relative to
foreign fleets, but this rule implements
a WCPFC decision that broadly applies
to all the major purse seine fleets in the
WCPO. Moreover, as discussed above,
NMFS does not believe it continues to
have discretion to combine the high seas
and U.S. EEZ purse seine effort limits
for the United States for 2018. NMFS
has not identified any alternative ways
to implement the WCPFC decisions that
would be more advantageous to U.S.
fishing vessels. While NMFS
acknowledges that some foreign-built
U.S. vessels may be impacted differently
than vessels with fishery endorsements
that can fish in the U.S. EEZ, NMFS is
satisfied that the final rule treats all
vessels fairly and achieves conservation
consistent with U.S. obligations under
the Convention.
Regarding the comment that having
separate limits for the U.S. EEZ and the
high seas would put the vessels that
support American Samoa at an
economic disadvantage, NMFS notes
that Paragraph 29 of CMM 2017–01,
which specifies the separate effort
limits, was specifically negotiated to
alleviate the economic hardship of
American Samoa.
NMFS acknowledges the comments
about the economic impacts of the
proposed fishing effort limits on the
cannery in American Samoa and
employment for the people of American
Samoa. As explained in the RIR by
reference to the study of the impacts of
the ELAPS closure in 2015, a closure of
the high seas and/or U.S. EEZ could
impact the American Samoa economy.
However, as stated in the RIR, because
the cannery in Pago Pago also handles
deliveries from the fishing fleets of other
nations, as well as from other domestic
fleets, the cannery might not be
appreciably affected in terms of income
or employment.
NMFS acknowledges the comment
that the action would increase the U.S.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

fisheries trade deficit by just more than
$21 million. NMFS does not have
information to verify the commenter’s
estimate of the impacts of the rule on
the U.S. fisheries trade deficit. However,
NMFS believes that promulgation of this
rule is necessary to carry out the U.S.
international obligations under the
Convention.
Comment 5: Four U.S. purse seine
industry representatives provided
comments indicating that they
supported having the additional twomonth FAD prohibition period on the
high seas take place in November and
December, as set forth in the proposed
rule, rather than in April and May. One
U.S. purse seine industry representative
provided comments requesting that
NMFS look closely at the practical effect
of having the additional two-month
FAD prohibition period in November
and December instead of April and May
before deciding on the prohibition
period in future years. The commenter
stated that the U.S. fleet and the
American Samoa economy may function
better with having the prohibition
period take place in April and May.
According to the commenter, fishing in
the high seas will be impacted by the
timing of the FAD prohibition period.
The proposed rule does not allocate the
limited number of high seas days to
eligible boats. Therefore, the commenter
believes that there will be a race to fish
on the high seas. Vessels that are unable
to operate during the first part of the
year, or for as long as the high seas are
open, will suffer an economic loss. That
will include boats that are under repair.
Additionally, the supply of tuna to the
American Samoa canneries could be
negatively impacted due to a high seas
prohibition period. That is because the
high seas fishing grounds are relatively
close to American Samoa. Vessels that
cannot fish in the high seas may have
to shift their areas of operation far from
American Samoa, thereby depriving the
territory of tuna supply. If the FAD
prohibition period is in November and
December and there are no high seas
days remaining at that time, there would
be a reduction in fish supply to
American Samoa. A high seas FAD
prohibiton period in April and May, or
an allocation of high seas days, or both,
would mitigate this risk. The
commenter encourages NMFS to take
these concerns into consideration.
Response: As described in
Attachment 1 of the RIR, NMFS
acknowledges that there are pros and
cons to both the late (November and
December) and early (April and May)
FAD prohibition period options for
2018, and that on balance, the late
option is expected to have less direct

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

economic impact on fishing businesses
associated with the U.S. WCPO purse
seine fishery. CMM 2017–01 specifies
that the additional two-month FAD
prohibition period is for calendar year
2018 only. However, as explained in the
proposed rule, the regulations to
implement the additional two-month
high seas FAD closure will be in effect
until they are replaced or amended, and
the supporting analytical documents
assess the effects of implementation of
the rule for a three-year period. NMFS
will collect data related to the 2018 high
seas FAD prohibition period and
conduct the appropriate analysis to
support proposed regulations for future
years, taking into consideration the
economic impacts to fishing businesses,
including canneries in American
Samoa.
Comment 6: Two U.S. purse seine
industry representatives provided
comments stating that the 15-day
comment period on the proposed rule
was insufficient. One of the commenters
stated that issue of the separate limits
for the high seas and U.S. EEZ alone
warrants at least a 30-day comment
period. The commenter stated that the
15-day comment is contrary to
applicable law, and the rationale
provided in the proposed rule for the
15-day comment period—that Section
304(b) of the MSA provides for a 15-day
comment period on these types of
fishery rules—is insufficient. Provisions
of the WCPFC Implementation Act and
the APA apply to this rulemaking.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
lengthier public review and comment
periods may be provided for some
proposed rules. As noted by the
commenter, NMFS is promulgating this
final rule under the authority of the
WCPFC Implementation Act and in
accordance with the rulememaking
provisions of the APA. Neither the
WCPFC Implemation Act nor the APA
specify a minimum comment period for
proposed rules. However, we noted that
Section 304(b) of the MSA specifically
allows for a 15-day comment period for
fisheries management rules.
Furthermore, NMFS explained in the
preamble of the proposed rule that it
had good cause to provide a 15-day
comment period in order to meet the
implementation requirements of CMM
2017–01. Based on the nature and extent
of the comments received on the
proposed rule and the need to make the
rule effective in a timely manner, NMFS
believes that the 15-day comment
period on the proposed rule was
sufficient. Moreover, the comments do
not indicate that any commenter was
prejudiced by the 15-day comment
period.

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Comment 7: Two U.S. purse seine
industry representatives expressed
concern that the regulations would be in
effect for longer than one year. One
commenter stated that once issued,
regulations tend not to be changed, even
when outdated or superseded, and
asked that the agency enable necessary
regulatory changes to be made
expeditiously, such as by interim
rulemaking, particularly when
restrictions will be relaxed. The other
commenter noted that although CMM
2017–01 was agreed upon as a threeyear measure, certain key purse seinerelated provisions (among others) were
considered especially contentious.
According to the commenter, some
believed that CMM 2017–01 weakened
several measures applied in 2017
relating to FAD management and high
seas purse seine effort controls. The
commenter noted that these contentious
provisions are applicable for only one
year, and could change in 2019. The
commenter stated that several Pacific
island countries have indicated that
portions of CMM 2017–01 will need to
be re-evaluated. The commenter stated
that NMFS does not have the authority
to implement any three-year provisions
for FADs and purse seine effort controls
in specific areas.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
some of the provisions in CMM 2017–
01 apply only to calendar year 2018,
while others are applicable until
February 10, 2021, and that the
Commission is scheduled to discuss a
number of the provisions during its
annual meeting in December 2018.
However, as explained in the preamble
to the proposed rule, because the
Commission likely will continue to
implement similar management
measures regarding FADs and longline
bigeye tuna catch limits beyond 2018,
and to avoid a lapse in the management
of the affected fisheries, NMFS is
implementing all of the elements of
CMM 2017–01, except for the purse
seine effort limits, in this rule so that
they will remain effective until they are
replaced or amended. Due to the
comments received regarding
implementation of the purse seine effort
limits and the fact that Paragraph 29 of
CMM 2017–01 is specified for 2018
only, NMFS is implementing the purse
seine effort limits for 2018 only.
The WCPFC Implementation Act at
Section 16 U.S.C. 6904(a) authorizes the
promulgation of regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the United States
international obligations under the
Convention, including
recommendations and decisions
adopted by the Commission. Instead of
applying a piecemeal approach for

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

implementation of the provisions of
CMM 2017–01, NMFS has determined
that it is necessary to implement all the
applicable provisions, except for the
purse seine effort limits, so that they
will remain effective until they are
replaced or amended. Since the
Commission’s regular session annually
occurs in December, this approach
avoids a lapse in management of
affected fisheries and also provides the
regulated community with advance
notice regarding regulations that will be
in effect in future years. In past years,
NMFS has implemented Commission
decisions for specific calendar years,
and this approach has caused both a
lapse in management of the affected
fisheries in subsequent calendar years,
as well as last minute notification to the
regulated community of the entry into
force of specific restrictions and
requirements. If the Commission adopts
changed or new provisions at its
December meeting, NMFS would
implement those provisions in a timely
manner.
Comment 8: Two representatives of
the U.S. purse seine industry provided
comments regarding the restrictions on
the number of active FADs per vessel.
One commenter stated that the 350active buoy limit per vessel is consistent
with the limit already implemented by
the IATTC. The commenters both stated
that it is industry practice for purse
seine vessels to share buoys. For
example, if a buoy drifts beyond the
limits of economic operation of one
vessel, it might be transferred to another
vessel for fishing or retrieval. One
commenter requested that the rule
provide for sharing and transferring
active buoys without reducing the 350active buoy limit for any one vessel, and
also requested that the definition of a
buoy be standardized with that of the
IATTC to avoid confusion. The other
commenter asked how enforcement and
reporting of the active FAD limit per
vessel would take place, and requested
that the administrative and recordkeeping burden created by this element
of the rule be evaluated under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Response: NMFS appreciates the need
for consistency with the regulations
recently promulgated to implement
IATTC Resolution C–17–02,
‘‘Conservation Measures for Tropical
Tunas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean
during 2018–2020 and Amendment to
Resolution C–17–01,’’ which also
includes limits on the number of active
FADs per purse seine vessel (see 83 FR
15503; published April 11, 2018).
However, Resolution C–17–02 and
CMM 2017–01 include some different
provisions regarding the active FAD

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33859

limits. Thus, the differences between
the regulations implementing the active
FAD provisions in IATTC Resolution C–
17–02 and this final rule are due to the
differences in the separate IATTC and
WCPFC decisions.
NMFS believes that it would be
premature to implement a reporting
requirement to monitor and enforce the
active FAD requirements in the final
rule, because the WCPFC Secretariat has
not yet developed a system to receive
such reports. Thus, the active FAD
limits in this final rule would be
monitored and enforced without a
reporting requirement. NMFS may seek
adoption of a Commission-wide active
FAD reporting requirement at the
upcoming WCPFC annual meeting in
December or further consistency with
the IATTC resolution.
The regulations regarding active FADs
in the final rule do not preclude the
sharing or transferring of active FAD
buoys. The regulations limit U.S. vessel
owners and operators to no more than
350 drifting active buoys per vessel in
the Convention Area at any one time.
Thus, when an active FAD buoy is
transferred to and tracked by a new
vessel, it would be part of the new
vessels’s active FAD limit. The
regulations regarding active FADs do
not impose any new recordkeeping or
reporting requirements and thus, are not
subject to the PRA.
Comment 9: One representative of the
U.S. purse seine industry provided
comments requesting that the
regulations address unintentional
setting on FADs. According to the
commenter, it is possible that a purse
seine vessel may not see a FAD or
something that meets the definition of a
FAD floating within a mile of the vessel.
The commenter requested that the
prohibition on setting on FADs during
the FAD prohibition periods be based
on an intentional or negligent standard.
The commenter stated that if a vessel
has followed reasonable search and
look-out precautions and does not see a
FAD by electronic or visual means and
has made a notation in the logbook, that
should be sufficient evidence that there
was no intent to set on a FAD.
Another commenter stated that NMFS
is arbitrarily picking and choosing how
to implement various FAD definitions.
Although NMFS is proposing
consistency with the definition of active
FAD for the regulations implementing
the IATTC Resolution C–17–02 and this
final rule, the general FAD definition in
the regulations implementing WCPFC
definitions at 50 CFR 300.211 is
different than and not consistent with
the general FAD definition in the IATTC
regulations at 50 CFR 300.21. According

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

33860

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

to the commenter, NMFS’ approach to
defining FAD generally provides very
little direction to the U.S. purse seine
fishery and creates regulatory confusion,
which can result in NMFS unfairly
prosecuting alleged FAD violations. The
commenter requests that NMFS
promptly address these overarching
FAD definitional issues.
Response: The FAD definitions that
NMFS has promulgated and continues
to promulgate in regulations
implementing IATTC and WCPFC
decisions stem from the language and
intent of those separate IATTC and
WCPFC decisions. On August 4, 2009,
NMFS published a final rule
implementing the purse seine
provisions of CMM 2008–01 (74 FR
38544). The rule provided, inter alia,
that owners, operators, and crew of
fishing vessels of the United States shall
not set a purse seine around a FAD or
within one nautical mile of a FAD. The
one nautical mile boundary helps
ensure that fishing on schools of fish in
association with FADs does not occur.
NMFS has not proposed any change to
this standard, and notes that an
intentional or negligent standard could
undermine the effectiveness of the
prohibition.
NMFS understands the benefit of
consistency in definitions, as vessels in
the U.S. purse seine fleet sometimes fish
in both the WCPO and the EPO.
However, NMFS believes that it is
premature to modify the definition of
FAD set forth at 50 CFR 300.211 before
it has an opportunity to further consider
the consequences of modifying this
definition. NMFS has scheduled a
separate public meeting to discuss FAD
definitions and the concerns raised by
industry and will take the outcomes of
that public meeting into consideration
when developing future regulations, as
appropriate (see 83 FR 26011, published
June 5, 2018, for information regarding
the public meeting). NMFS notes that
modifying the definition at this stage
could be inconsistent with the United
States’ obligations as a WCPFC member.
Comment 10: One purse seine
industry representative provided
comments stating that he did not
understand why the proposed rule
requires the daily reporting on FAD sets,
given the number of FAD sets is not
restricted in the Convention Area. The
commenter stated he saw no reason for
daily reporting, particularly since each
FAD set will always be reported at the
end of each fishing trip.
Response: As stated in the preamble
to the proposed rule, NMFS is slightly
revising the existing regulations
regarding daily reporting on FAD sets so
that NMFS can direct U.S. purse seine

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

vessel owners and operators to provide
reports on the fishing activity of the
vessel (e.g., setting, transiting,
searching), location, and type of set, in
order to obtain better data for tracking
the fishing effort limits. Thus, the
changes in the final rule from existing
reporting requirements are intended to
better track purse seine fishing effort
and are not connected to a FAD set
limit. As the commenter correctly notes,
the final rule does not implement a FAD
set limit.
Comment 11: One purse seine
industry representative stated that he
had hoped that the agency would use
this rulemaking to address the area of
overlap between the IATTC and WCPFC
convention areas (overlap area). The
commenter stated his belief that the
United States is the only flag State that
enforces both the WCPFC and IATTC
management measures in the overlap
area. According to the commenter,
besides the unnecessary burden of
carrying two observers when operating
in the overlap area, fishing in the
overlap area requires the use of limited
high seas fishing days. The commenter
requested that the Unites States apply
only IATTC management measures in
the overlap area, retroactive to January
1, 2018.
Response: NMFS recently published
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking to solicit public input on
management of the overlap area and
encourages the commenter to provide
input on that separate action (see 83 FR
27305, published June 12, 2018).
Comment 12: One purse seine
industry representative commented that
NMFS’ implementation of separate
purse seine effort limits for the high seas
and the U.S. EEZ goes against the
policies of the current Administration.
According to the commenter, the
Administration has sought
deregulations in favor of small
businesses, and other industries have
benefitted from this. The commenter
stated that the President signed an
Executive Order stating that for every
new regulation, two old regulations
should be removed. The commenter
requested clarification on why the rule
is not expected to be an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action.
Response: NMFS is promulgating this
regulation under the authority of the
WCPFC Implementation Act to carry out
the obligations of the United States
under the Convention, including the
decisions of the Commission. The final
rule implements recent WCPFC
decisions. The final rule is not
considered an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because it is not
considered economically significant

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

under Executive Order 12886 as it is not
expected to have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more.
Comment 13: One purse seine
industry representative commented that
there is no conservation value in high
seas area closures as they are not an
effective way of managing pelagic
species. The commenter stated that the
high seas limits are a strictly economic
device being pushed by various
members of the Commission. Another
purse seine industry representative
stated that the separate effort limits
provide no conservation benefits.
Response: NMFS agrees that there are
no substantial differences between
implementing a combined limit and
separate limits in terms of effects on
living marine resources, as described in
the PEA. The potential for beneficial
effects on living marine resources from
the effort limits would stem from
whether implementation of effort limits
would lead to an overall reduction in
fishing effort in the WCPO (see the
discussion of cumulative impacts in the
PEA).
Changes From Proposed Rule
One change from the proposed
regulations have been made in these
final regulations. The purse seine
fishing effort limits specified at 50 CFR
300.223(a) are being implemented for
calendar year 2018 only.
Classification
The Administrator, Pacific Islands
Region, NMFS, has determined that this
final rule is consistent with the WCPFC
Implementation Act and other
applicable laws.
Administrative Procedure Act
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in
effective date for the provisions
regarding the FAD prohibition period
for purse seine vessels set forth at 50
CFR 300.223(b)(2)(i). The FAD
prohibition period is intended to reduce
or otherwise control fishing pressure on
bigeye tuna in the WCPO in order to
maintain this stock to levels capable of
producing maximum sustainable yield
on a continuing basis. The Commission
adopted a start date of July 1, 2018, for
the first FAD prohibition period.
Delaying the effective date of this
provision increases the risk that the
Commission’s FAD prohibition period
will become effective prior to the
effective date of the final rule, resulting
in the United States’ non-compliance
with its international obligations, which
is contrary to the requirements of the
WCPFC Implementation Act, and in
turn contrary to the public interest.

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
NMFS determined that this action is
consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies
of the approved coastal management
programs of American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the State of
Hawaii. Determinations to Hawaii and
each of the Territories were submitted
on March 12, 2018, for review by the
responsible state and territorial agencies
under section 307 of the CZMA.
Responses to the determination were
received from Hawaii, CNMI, and
Guam. CNMI and Guam concurred that
the proposed project would be
conducted in a manner that is consistent
with the coastal management programs
in CNMI and Guam. The State of
Hawaii, noting that the U.S. WCPO
purse seine fishery and the longline
fisheries operate outside of the
jurisdiction of the Hawaii CZM Program
enforceable policies, confirmed that
they would not be submitting a response
to the determination. No response was
received from American Samoa. NMFS
presumes American Samoa’s
concurrence, pursuant to 15 CFR
930.41(a).
Executive Order 12866
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
A final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) was prepared as required by
section 604 of the RFA. The FRFA
incorporates the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) prepared for
the proposed rule. The analysis in the
IRFA is not repeated here in its entirety.
A description of the action, why it is
being considered, and the legal basis for
this action are contained above in the
SUMMARY section and this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
the preamble of this final rule. The
FRFA analysis follows:

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Significant Issues Raised by Public
Comments in Response to the IRFA
NMFS did not receive any comments
that responded specifically to the IRFA,
but several comments on the proposed
rule from U.S. purse seine industry
representatives related to NMFS’
assessment of the economic effects of
the proposed rule, and thus could be
relevant to the IRFA. See the discussion
above summarizing Comments 3, 4, 5,
and 12 and providing NMFS’ responses
to those comments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

33861

Description of Small Entities to Which
the Rule Will Apply

nature and will not have any
substantive effects on any entities.

For Regulatory Flexibility Act
purposes only, NMFS has established a
small business size standard for
businesses, including their affiliates,
whose primary industry is commercial
fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business
primarily engaged in commercial fishing
(NAICS code 114111) is classified as a
small business if it is independently
owned and operated, is not dominant in
its field of operation (including its
affiliates), and has combined annual
receipts not in excess of $11 million for
all its affiliated operations worldwide.
The final rule applies to owners and
operators of U.S. commercial fishing
vessels used to fish for HMS in the
Convention Area, including longline
vessels (except those operating as part of
the longline fisheries of American
Samoa, CNMI, or Guam), purse seine
vessels, and albacore troll vessels. Based
on the number of U.S. vessels with a
WCPFC Area Endorsement, which is
required to fish on the high seas in the
Convention Area, the estimated
numbers of affected longline, purse
seine, and albacore troll fishing vessels
are 158, 37, and 22, respectively.
Based on limited financial
information about the affected fishing
fleets, and using individual vessels as
proxies for individual businesses,
NMFS believes that all of the affected
longline and albacore troll vessels, and
slightly more than half of the vessels in
the purse seine fleet, are small entities
as defined by the RFA; that is, they are
independently owned and operated and
not dominant in their fields of
operation, and have annual receipts of
no more than $11 million. Within the
purse seine fleet, analysis of average
revenue, by vessel, for the three years of
2014–2016 reveals that average annual
revenue among vessels in the fleet was
about $10.2 million, and the annual
averages were less than the $11 million
threshold for 22 vessels in the fleet.

1. Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits
This element of the final rule will not
establish any new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements. The new
compliance requirement is for affected
vessel owners and operators to cease
retaining, landing, and transshipping
bigeye tuna caught with longline gear in
the Convention Area if and when the
bigeye tuna catch limit of 3,554 mt
(reduced by the amount of any overages
in the preceding year) is reached in any
of the years 2018–2020, for the
remainder of the calendar year, subject
to the exceptions and provisos
described in other sections of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
the preamble. Although the restrictions
that would come into effect in the event
the catch limit is reached would not
prohibit longline fishing, per se, they
are sometimes referred to in this
analysis as constituting a fishery
closure.
Fulfillment of this requirement is not
expected to require any professional
skills that the vessel owners and
operators do not already possess. The
costs of complying with this
requirement are described below to the
extent possible.
Complying with this element of the
final rule could cause foregone fishing
opportunities and result in associated
economic losses in the event that the
bigeye tuna catch limit is reached in any
of the years 2018–2020 and the
restrictions on retaining, landing, and
transshipping bigeye tuna are imposed
for portions of those years. These costs
cannot be projected quantitatively with
any certainty. The annual limit of 3,554
mt can be compared to catches in 2005–
2008, before limits were in place. The
average annual catch in that period was
4,709 mt. Based on that history, as well
as fishing patterns in 2009–2016, when
limits were in place, there appears to be
a relatively high likelihood of the limits
being reached in 2018–2020. In 2015,
for example, which saw exceptionally
high catches of bigeye tuna, the limit of
3,502 mt was estimated to have been
reached by, and the fishery was closed
on, August 5 (see temporary rule
published July 28, 2015; 80 FR 44883).
The fishery was subsequently re-opened
for vessels included in agreements with
the governments of the CNMI and Guam
under regulations implementing
Amendment 7 to the Fishery Ecosystem
Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western
Pacific Region (Pelagics FEP) (50 CFR
665.819). In 2016, the limit of 3,554 mt
was estimated to have been reached by
September 9, 2016, and in 2017, the

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other
Compliance Requirements
The reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of this
final rule are described earlier in the
preamble. The classes of small entities
subject to the requirements and the
types of professional skills necessary to
fulfill the requirements are described
below for each of the first four elements
of the final rule. The fifth element of the
final rule, which provides
administrative changes to existing
regulations, is not considered further in
this FRFA, as it is of a housekeeping

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

33862

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

limit of 3,138 mt was estimated to have
been reached by September 1, 2017.
Thus, if bigeye tuna catch patterns in
2018–2020 are like those in 2005–2008,
the limit will be reached in the fourth
quarter of the year, and if they are like
those in 2015, 2016, or 2017, the limit
will be reached in the third quarter of
the year.
If the bigeye tuna limit is reached
before the end of any of the years 2018–
2020 and the Convention Area longline
bigeye tuna fishery is consequently
closed for the remainder of the calendar
year, it can be expected that affected
vessels would shift to the next most
profitable fishing opportunity (which
might be not fishing at all). Revenues
from that next best alternative activity
reflect the opportunity costs associated
with longline fishing for bigeye tuna in
the Convention Area. The economic cost
of the final rule is not the direct losses
in revenues that would result from not
being able to fish for bigeye tuna in the
Convention Area, but rather the
difference in benefits derived from that
activity and those derived from the next
best activity. The economic cost of the
final rule on affected entities is
examined here by first estimating the
direct losses in revenues that would
result from not being able to fish for
bigeye tuna in the Convention Area as
a result of the catch limit being reached.
Those losses represent the upper bound
of the economic cost of the final rule on
affected entities. Potential next-best
alternative activities that affected
entities could undertake are then
identified in order to provide a (mostly
qualitative) description of the degree to
which actual costs would be lower than
that upper bound.
Upper bounds on potential economic
costs can be estimated by examining the
projected value of longline landings
from the Convention Area that would
not be made as a result of reaching the
limit. For this purpose, it is assumed
that, absent this final rule, bigeye tuna
catches in the Convention Area in each
of the years 2018–2020 would be 5,000
mt, slightly more than the average in
2005–2008. Under this scenario,
imposition of the annual limits of 3,554
mt would result in 29 percent less
bigeye tuna being caught each year than
under no action. In the deep-set fishery,
catches of marketable species other than
bigeye tuna would likely be affected in
a similar way if vessels do not shift to
alternative activities. Assuming for the
moment that ex-vessel prices would not
be affected by a fishery closure, under
the final rule, revenues in 2018–2020 to
entities that participate exclusively in
the deep-set fishery would be
approximately 29 percent less than

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

under no action. Average annual exvessel revenues (from all species) per mt
of bigeye tuna caught during 2005–2008
were about $14,190/mt (in 2014 dollars,
derived from the latest available annual
report on the pelagic fisheries of the
western Pacific Region (Western Pacific
Regional Fishery Management Council,
2014, Pelagic Fisheries of the Western
Pacific Region: 2012 Annual Report.
Honolulu, Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council)). If there are 128
active vessels in the fleet, as there were
during 2005–2008, on average, then
under the no-action scenario of fleetwide anual catches of 5,000 mt, each
vessel would catch 39 mt/yr, on average.
Reductions of 29 percent in 2018–2020
as a result of the limits would be about
11 mt per year. Applying the average exvessel revenues (from all species) of
$14,190 per mt of bigeye tuna caught,
the reductions in ex-vessel revenue per
vessel would be $160,000 per year, on
average.
In the shallow-set fishery, affected
entities will bear limited costs in the
event of the limit being reached (but
most affected entities also participate in
the deep-set fishery and might bear
costs in that fishery, as described
below). The cost will be about equal to
the revenues lost from not being able to
retain or land bigeye tuna captured
while shallow-setting in the Convention
Area, or the cost of shifting to shallowsetting in the EPO, which is to the east
of 150 degrees W longitude, whichever
is less. In the fourth calendar quarters of
2005–2008, almost all shallow-setting
effort took place in the EPO, and 97
percent of bigeye tuna catches were
made there, so the cost of a bigeye tuna
fishery closure to shallow-setting
vessels appear to be very limited.
During 2005–2008, the shallow-set
fishery caught an average of 54 mt of
bigeye tuna per year from the
Convention Area. If the bigeye tuna
catch limit is reached even as early as
July 31 in any of the years 2018–2020,
the Convention Area shallow-set fishery
would have caught at that point, based
on 2005–2008 data, on average, 99
percent of its average annual bigeye
tuna catches. Imposition of the landings
restriction at that point in any of the
years 2018–2020 would result in the
loss of revenues from approximately 0.5
mt (1 percent of 54 mt) of bigeye tuna,
which, based on recent ex-vessel prices,
would be worth no more than $5,000.
Thus, expecting about 27 vessels to
engage in the shallow-set fishery (the
annual average in 2005–2012), the
average of those potentially lost annual
revenues would be no more than $200
per vessel. It should be noted that for

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

2018, shallow-set longline fishing is no
longer an available opportunity, as the
fishery was closed, effective May 8,
2018, for the remainder of 2018 (see
temporary rule published May 11, 2018;
83 FR 21939). The remainder of this
analysis focuses on the potential costs of
compliance in the deep-set fishery.
It should be noted that the impacts on
affected entities’ profits will be less than
impacts on revenues when considering
the costs of operating vessels, because
costs would be lower if a vessel ceases
fishing after the catch limit is reached.
Variable costs can be expected to be
affected roughly in proportion to
revenues, as both variable costs and
revenues would stop accruing once a
vessel stops fishing. But affected
entities’ costs also include fixed costs,
which are borne regardless of whether a
vessel is used to fish—e.g., if it is tied
up at the dock during a fishery closure.
Thus, profits will likely be adversely
impacted proportionately more than
revenues.
As stated previously, actual
compliance costs for a given entity
might be less than the upper bounds
described above, because ceasing fishing
will not necessarily be the most
profitable alternative opportunity when
the catch limit is reached. Two
alternative opportunities that are
expected to be attractive to affected
entities include: (1) Deep-set longline
fishing for bigeye tuna in the
Convention Area in a manner such that
the vessel is considered part of the
longline fishery of American Samoa,
Guam, or the CNMI; and (2) deep-set
longline fishing for bigeye tuna and
other species in the EPO. These two
opportunities are discussed in detail
below. Four additional opportunities
are: (3) Shallow-set longline fishing for
swordfish (for deep-setting vessels that
would not otherwise do so; but as noted
above, this opportunity is no longer
available in 2018), (4) deep-set longline
fishing in the Convention Area for
species other than bigeye tuna, (5)
working in cooperation with vessels
operating as part of the longline
fisheries of the Participating
Territories—specifically, receiving
transshipments at sea from them and
delivering the fish to the Hawaii market,
and (6) vessel repair and maintenance.
A study by NMFS of the effects of the
WCPO bigeye tuna longline fishery
closure in 2010 (Richmond, L., D.
Kotowicz, J. Hospital and S. Allen,
2015, Monitoring socioeconomic
impacts of Hawai‘i’s 2010 bigeye tuna
closure: Complexities of local
management in a global fishery, Ocean
& Coastal Management 106:87–96) did
not identify the occurrence of any

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
alternative activities that vessels
engaged in during the closure, other
than deep-setting for bigeye tuna in the
EPO, vessel maintenance and repairs,
and granting lengthy vacations to
employees. Based on those findings,
NMFS expects that alternative
opportunities (3), (4), (5) and (6) are
probably unattractive relative to the first
two alternatives, and are not discussed
here in any further detail. NMFS
recognizes that vessel maintenance and
repairs and granting lengthy vacations
to employees are two alternative
activities that might be taken advantage
of if the fishery is closed, but no further
analysis of their mitigating effects is
provided here.
Before examining in detail the two
potential alternative fishing
opportunities that appear to be the most
attractive to affected entities, it is
important to note that under the final
rule, once the limit is reached and the
WCPO bigeye tuna fishery is closed,
fishing with longline gear both inside
and outside the Convention Area during
the same trip will be prohibited (except
in the case of a fishing trip that is in
progress when the limit is reached and
the restrictions go into effect). For
example, after the restrictions go into
effect, during a given fishing trip, a
vessel could be used for longline fishing
for bigeye tuna in the EPO or for
longline fishing for species other than
bigeye tuna in the Convention Area, but
not for both. This reduced operational
flexibility will bring costs, because it
will constrain the potential profits from
alternative opportunities. Those costs
cannot be quantified.
A vessel could take advantage of the
first alternative opportunity (deepsetting for bigeye tuna in a manner such
that the vessel is considered part of the
longline fishery of one of the three U.S.
Participating Territories), by three
possible methods: (a) Landing the
bigeye tuna in one of the three
Participating Territories, (b) holding an
American Samoa Longline Limited
Access Permit, or (c) being considered
part of a Participating Territory’s
longline fishery, by agreement with one
or more of the three Participating
Territories under the regulations
implementing Amendment 7 to the
Pelagics FEP (50 CFR 665.819). In the
first two circumstances, the vessel
would be considered part of the longline
fishery of the Participating Territory
only if the bigeye tuna were not caught
in the portion of the U.S. EEZ around
the Hawaiian Islands and were landed
by a U.S. vessel operating in compliance
with a permit issued under the
regulations implementing the Pelagics
FEP or the Fishery Management Plan for

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly
Migratory Species.
With respect to the first method of
engaging in alternative opportunity 1
(1.a.) (landing the bigeye tuna in one of
the Participating Territories), there are
three potentially important constraints.
First, whether the fish are landed by the
vessel that caught the fish or by a vessel
to which the fish were transshipped, the
costs of a vessel transiting from the
traditional fishing grounds in the
vicinity of the Hawaiian Archipelago to
one of the Participating Territories
would be substantial. Second, none of
these three locales has large local
consumer markets to absorb substantial
additional landings of fresh sashimigrade bigeye tuna. Third, transporting
the bigeye tuna from these locales to
larger markets, such as markets in
Hawaii, the U.S. west coast, or Japan,
would bring substantial additional costs
and risks. These cost constraints suggest
that this alternative opportunity has
limited potential to mitigate the
economic impacts of the final rule on
affected small entities.
The second method of engaging in the
first alternative opportunity (1.b.)
(having an American Samoa Longline
Limited Access Permit), will be
available only to the subset of the
Hawaii longline fleet that has both
Hawaii and American Samoa longline
permits (dual permit vessels). Vessels
that do not have both permits could
obtain them if they meet the eligibility
requirements and pay the required
costs. For example, the number of dual
permit vessels increased from 12 in
2009, when the first WCPO bigeye tuna
catch limit was established, to 23 in
2016. The previously cited NMFS study
of the 2010 fishery closure (Richmond et
al. 2015) found that bigeye tuna
landings of dual permit vessels
increased substantially after the start of
the closure on November 22, 2010,
indicating that this was an attractive
opportunity for dual permit vessels, and
suggesting that those entities might have
benefitted from the catch limit and the
closure.
The third method of engaging in the
first alternative opportunity (1.c.)
(entering into an Amendment 7
agreement), was also available in 2011–
2017 (in 2011–2013, under section
113(a) of Pub. L. 112–55, 125 Stat. 552
et seq., the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012,
continued by Pub. L. 113–6, 125 Stat.
603, section 110, the Department of
Commerce Appropriations Act, 2013;
hereafter, ‘‘section 113(a)’’). As a result
of agreements that were in place in
2011–2014, the WCPO bigeye tuna
fishery was not closed in any of those

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33863

years. In 2015, 2016, and 2017 the
fishery was closed but then reopened
when agreements went into effect.
Participation in an Amendment 7
agreement would likely not come
without costs to fishing businesses. As
an indication of the possible cost, the
terms of the agreement between
American Samoa and the members of
the Hawaii Longline Association (HLA)
in effect in 2011 and 2012 included
payments totaling $250,000 from the
HLA to the Western Pacific Sustainable
Fisheries Fund, equal to $2,000 per
vessel. It is not known how the total
cost was allocated among the members
of the HLA, so it is possible that the
owners of particular vessels paid
substantially more than or less than
$2,000.
The second alternative opportunity
(2) (deep-set fishing for bigeye tuna in
the EPO), will be an option for affected
entities only if it is allowed under
regulations implementing the decisions
of the IATTC. NMFS has issued a final
rule to implement the IATTC’s most
recent resolution on the management of
tropical tuna stocks (83 FR 15503; April
11, 2018). The final rule establishes an
annual limit of 750 mt on the catch of
bigeye tuna in the EPO by vessels at
least 24m in length in each of the years
2018–2020. Annual longline bigeye tuna
catch limits have been in place for the
EPO in most years since 2004. Since
2009, when the limit was 500 mt, it was
reached in 2013 (November 11), 2014
(October 31), and 2015 (August 12). In
2016 NMFS forecasted that the limit
would be reached July 25 and
subsequently closed the fishery, but
later determined that the catch limit had
not been reached and re-opened the
fishery on October 4, 2016 (81 FR
69717). The limit was not reached in
2017.
The highly seasonal nature of bigeye
tuna catches in the EPO and the
relatively high inter-annual variation in
catches prevents NMFS from making a
useful prediction of whether and when
the EPO limits in 2018–2020 are likely
to be reached. If it is reached, this
alternative opportunity would not be
available for large longline vessels,
which constitute about a quarter of the
fleet.
Historical fishing patterns can provide
an indication of the likelihood of
affected entities making use of the
opportunity of deep-setting in the EPO
in the event of a closure in the WCPO.
The proportion of the U.S. fishery’s
annual bigeye tuna catches that were
captured in the EPO from 2005 through
2008 ranged from 2 percent to 22
percent, and averaged 11 percent. In
2005–2007, that proportion ranged from

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

33864

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

2 percent to 11 percent, and may have
been constrained by the IATTC-adoped
bigeye tuna catch limits established by
NMFS (no limit was in place for 2008).
Prior to 2009, most of the U.S. annual
bigeye tuna catch by longline vessels in
the EPO typically was made in the
second and third quarters of the year; in
2005–2008 the percentages caught in the
first, second, third, and fourth quarters
were 14, 33, 50, and 3 percent,
respectively. These data demonstrate
two historical patterns—that relatively
little of the bigeye tuna catch in the
longline fishery was typically taken in
the EPO (11 percent in 2005–2008, on
average), and that most EPO bigeye tuna
catches were made in the second and
third quarters, with relatively few
catches in the fourth quarter when the
proposed catch limit would most likely
be reached. These two patterns suggest
that there could be substantial costs for
at least some affected entities that shift
to deep-set fishing in the EPO in the
event of a closure in the WCPO. On the
other hand, fishing patterns since 2008
suggest that a substantial shift in deepset fishing effort to the EPO could occur.
In 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014,
2015, and 2016 the proportions of the
fishery’s annual bigeye tuna catches that
were captured in the EPO were about
16, 27, 23, 19, 36, 35, 47, and 36
percent, respectively, and most bigeye
tuna catches in the EPO were made in
the latter half of the calendar years.
The NMFS study of the 2010 closure
(Richmond et al. 2015) found that some
businesses—particularly those with
smaller vessels—were less inclined than
others to fish in the EPO during the
closure because of the relatively long
distances that would need to be
travelled in the relatively rough winter
ocean conditions. The study identified a
number of factors that likely made
fishing in the EPO less lucrative than
fishing in the WCPO during that part of
the year, including fuel costs and the
need to limit trip length in order to
maintain fish quality and because of
limited fuel storage capacity.
In addition to affecting the volume of
landings of bigeye tuna and other
species, the catch limits could affect fish
prices, particularly during a fishery
closure. Both increases and decreases
appear possible. After a limit is reached
and landings from the WCPO are
prohibited, ex-vessel prices of bigeye
tuna (e.g., that are caught in the EPO or
by vessels in the longline fisheries of the
three U.S. Participating Territories), as
well as of other species landed by the
fleet, could increase as a result of the
constricted supply. This would mitigate
economic losses for vessels that are able
to continue fishing and landing bigeye

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

tuna during the closure. For example,
the NMFS study of the 2010 closure
(Richmond et al. 2015) found that exvessel prices during the closure in
December were 50 percent greater than
the average during the previous five
Decembers. (It is emphasized that
because it was an observational study,
neither this nor other observations of
what occurred during the closure can be
affirmatively linked as effects of the
fishery closure.)
Conversely, a WCPO bigeye tuna
fishery closure could cause a decrease
in ex-vessel prices of bigeye tuna and
other products landed by affected
entities if the interruption in the local
supply prompts the Hawaii market to
shift to alternative (e.g., imported)
sources of bigeye tuna. Such a shift
could be temporary—that is, limited to
2018–2020—or it could lead to a more
permanent change in the market (e.g., as
a result of wholesale and retail buyers
wanting to mitigate the uncertainty in
the continuity of supply from the
Hawaii longline fisheries). In the latter
case, if locally caught bigeye tuna
fetches lower prices because of stiffer
competition with imported bigeye tuna,
then ex-vessel prices of local product
could be depressed indefinitely. The
NMFS study of the 2010 closure
(Richmond et al. 2015) found that a
common concern in the Hawaii fishing
community prior to the closure in
November 2010 was retailers having to
rely more heavily on imported tuna,
causing imports to gain a greater market
share in local markets. The study found
this not to have been borne out, at least
not in 2010, when the evidence gathered
in the study suggested that few buyers
adapted to the closure by increasing
their reliance on imports, and no reports
or indications were found of a dramatic
increase in the use of imported bigeye
tuna during the closure. The study
concluded, however, that the 2010
closure caused buyers to give increased
consideration to imports as part of their
business model, and it was predicted
that tuna imports could increase during
any future closure. To the extent that exvessel prices would be reduced by this
action, revenues earned by affected
entities would be affected accordingly,
and these impacts could occur both
before and after the limit is reached, and
as described above, possibly after 2020.
The potential economic effects
identified above will vary among
individual business entities, but it is not
possible to predict the range of
variation. Furthermore, the impacts on a
particular entity will depend on both
that entity’s response to the final rule
and the behavior of other vessels in the
fleet, both before and after the catch

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

limit is reached. For example, the
greater the number of vessels that take
advantage—before the limit is reached—
of the first alternative opportunity (1),
fishing as part of one of the Participating
Territory’s fisheries, the lower the
likelihood that the limit will be reached.
The fleet’s behavior in 2011 and 2012
is illustrative. In both those years, most
vessels in the Hawaii fleet were
included in a section 113(a)
arrangement with the government of
American Samoa, and as a consequence,
the U.S. longline catch limit was not
reached in either year. Thus, none of the
vessels in the fleet, including those not
included in the section 113(a)
arrangements, were prohibited from
fishing for bigeye tuna in the
Convention Area at any time during
those two years. The fleet’s experience
in 2010 (before opportunities under
section 113(a) or Amendment 7 to the
Pelagics FEP were available) provides
another example of how economic
impacts could be distributed among
different entities. In 2010 the limit was
reached and the WCPO bigeye tuna
fishery was closed on November 22. As
described above, dual permit vessels
were able to continue fishing outside
the U.S. EEZ around the Hawaiian
Archipelago and benefit from the
relatively high ex-vessel prices that
bigeye tuna fetched during the closure.
In summary, based on potential
reductions in ex-vessel revenues, NMFS
has estimated that the upper bound of
potential economic impacts of the final
rule on affected longline fishing entities
could be roughly $160,000 per vessel
per year, on average. The actual impacts
to most entities are likely to be
substantially less than those upper
bounds, and for some entities the
impacts could be neutral or positive
(e.g., if one or more Amendment 7
agreements are in place in 2018–2020
and the terms of the agreements are
such that the U.S. longline fleet is
effectively unconstrained by the catch
limits).
2. FAD Restrictions
This element of the final rule does not
establish any new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements. The new
requirement is for affected vessel
owners and operators to comply with
the FAD restrictions described earlier in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of the preamble, including FAD
prohibition periods throughout the
Convention Area from July 1 through
September 30 in each of the years 2018–
2020 and FAD prohibition periods just
on the high seas in the Convention Area
from November 1 through December 31
in each of the same years. There also is

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
a limit of 350 active FADs that may be
deployed per vessel at any given time.
Anecdotal information from the U.S.
purse seine fishing industry indicates
that U.S. purse seine vessels have not
ever deployed more than 350 active
FADs at any given time, so NMFS does
not expect that the limit will be
constraining or otherwise affect the
behavior of purse seine operations, and
it is not considered further in this
FRFA.
Fulfillment of the element’s
requirements is not expected to require
any professional skills that the vessel
owners and operators do not already
possess. The costs of complying with
the requirements are described below to
the extent possible.
The proposed FAD restrictions would
substantially constrain the manner in
which purse seine fishing could be
conducted in the specified areas and
periods in the Convention Area; in those
areas and during those periods, vessels
would be able to set only on free, or
‘‘unassociated,’’ schools.
With respect to the three-month FAD
closure throughout the Convention
Area: Assuming that sets would be
evenly distributed through the year, the
number of annual FAD sets would be
expected to be about three-fourths the
number that would occur without a
seasonal FAD closure. For example,
during 2014–2016, the proportion of all
sets that were made on FADs when FAD
setting was allowed was 50 percent. As
an indicative example, if the fleet makes
8,000 sets in a given year (somewhat
more than the 2014–2016 average of
7,420 sets per year) and 50 percent of
those are FAD sets, it would make 4,000
FAD sets. If there is a three-month
closure and 50 percent of the sets
outside the closure are FAD sets, and
sets are evenly distributed throughout
each year, the annual number of FAD
sets would be 3,000. This can be
compared to the estimated 2,494 annual
FAD sets that were made in 2014–2016,
on average, when there were threemonth FAD closures.
With respect to the two-month high
seas FAD closure: The effects of this
element are difficult to predict. If the
high seas are closed to all purse seine
fishing during November–December as a
result of the fishing effort limit being
reached, the high seas FAD closure
during those two months would have no
additional effect whatsoever. If the high
seas are not closed to fishing, the
prohibition on FAD setting would make
the high seas less favorable for fishing
than they otherwise would be, because
only unassociated sets would be
allowed there. It is not possible to
characterize how influential that factor

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

would be, however. Thus, it is not
possible to predict the effects in terms
of the spatial distribution of fishing
effort or the proportion of fishing effort
that is made on FADs.
With respect to both the three-month
FAD closure and two-month high seas
FAD closure: As for the limits on fishing
effort, vessel operators might choose to
schedule their routine maintenance
periods so as to take best advantage of
the available opportunities for making
FAD sets, such as during the FAD
closures. However, the limited number
of vessel maintenance facilities in the
region might constrain vessel operators’
ability to do this.
It is emphasized that the indicative
example given above is based on the
assumption that the FAD set ratio would
be 50 percent during periods when FAD
sets are allowed, as well as that sets are
distributed evenly throughout the year.
These assumptions are weak from
several perspectives, so the results
should be interpreted with caution.
First, as described above, FAD set ratios
have varied widely from year to year,
indicating that the conditions that
dictate ‘‘optimal’’ FAD set ratios for the
fleet vary widely from year to year, and
cannot be predicted with any certainty.
Second, the optimal FAD set ratio
during open periods might depend on
how long and when those periods occur.
For example, FAD fishing might be
particularly attractive soon after a
closed period during which FADs
aggregated fish but were not fished on.
These factors are not explicitly
accounted for in this analysis, but the 50
percent FAD ratio used in this analysis
was taken from 2014–2016, when there
was a three-month FAD closure, so it is
probably a better indicator for the action
alternatives than FAD set ratios for years
prior to 2009, when no seasonal FAD
closures were in place. With respect to
the distribution of sets through the year,
the existence of collective limits on
fishing effort might create an incentive
for individual vessels to fish harder
earlier in the year than they otherwise
would, resulting in a ‘‘race to fish.’’
Limitations on fishing effort throughout
the Convention Area could cause
vessels to fish (irrespective of set type
or the timing of FAD closures) harder
earlier in a given year than they would
without the limits. However, any such
effect is not expected to be great,
because most vessels in the fleet tend to
fish virtually full time, leaving little
flexibility to increase fishing effort at
any particular time of the year.
Vessels in the U.S. WCPO purse seine
fleet make both unassociated sets and
FAD sets when not constrained by
regulation, so one type of set is not

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33865

always more valuable or efficient than
the other type. Which set type is
optimal at any given time is a function
of immediate conditions in and on the
water, but probably also of such factors
as fuel prices (unassociated sets involve
more searching time and thus tend to
bring higher fuel costs than FAD sets)
and market conditions (e.g., FAD
fishing, which tends to result in greater
catches of lower-value skipjack tuna and
smaller yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna
than unassociated sets, might be more
attractive and profitable when canneries
are not rejecting small fish). Clearly, the
ability to do either type of set is
valuable, and constraints on the use of
either type can be expected to bring
adverse economic impacts to fishing
operations. Thus, the greater the
constraints on the ability to make FAD
sets, the greater the expected economic
impacts of the action. Because the
factors affecting the relative value of
FAD sets and unassociated sets are
many, and the relationships among
them are not well known, it is not
possible to quantify the expected
economic impacts of the FAD
restrictions. However, it appears
reasonable to conclude the following:
First, the FAD restrictions will
adversely impact producer surplus
relative to the no-action alternative. The
fact that the fleet has made such a
substantial portion of its sets on FADs
in the past indicates that prohibiting the
use of FADs in the specified areas and
periods could bring substantial costs
and/or revenue losses. Second, vessel
operators might be able to mitigate the
impacts of the FAD restrictions by
scheduling their routine vessel and
equipment maintenance during the FAD
closures, but this opportunity might be
constrained by the limited vessel
maintenance facilities in the region.
3. Purse Seine Fishing Effort Limits
This element of the final rule does not
establish any new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements, but the
existing ‘‘Daily FAD reports’’ required at
50 CFR 300.218(g) are slightly revised,
and renamed ‘‘Daily purse seine fishing
effort reports’’ and slightly modify the
type of information collected.
There are annual limits of 1,370 and
458 fishing days on the high seas and in
the U.S. EEZ, respectively, in the
Convention Area. In addition, there is a
mechanism to increase the U.S. EEZ
limit in a given year to 558 fishing days
if 458 fishing days are used by October
1 of that year.
Fulfillment of this element’s
requirements is not expected to require
any professional skills that the vessel
owners and operators do not already

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

33866

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

possess. The costs of complying with
the requirements are described below to
the extent possible.
Regarding the modification to the
daily reporting requirement, the specific
information required in the reports are
slightly modified from those of the
existing ‘‘Daily FAD reports,’’ but the
costs of compliance are not expected to
change.
Regarding the fishing effort limits, if
and when the fishery on the high seas
or in the U.S. EEZ is closed as a result
of a limit being reached in any of the
years 2018–2020, owners and operators
of U.S. purse seine vessels will have to
cease fishing in that area for the
remainder of the calendar year. Closure
of the fishery in either of those areas
could thereby cause foregone fishing
opportunities and associated economic
losses if the area contains preferred
fishing grounds during such a closure.
Historical fishing rates in the two areas
give a rough indication of the likelihood
of the limits being reached.
Regarding the U.S. EEZ, from 2009
through 2017, no more than 47 percent
of the proposed limit of 458 fishing days
was ever used (and no more than the 39
percent of the possible limit of 558
fishing days). This history suggests a
relatively low likelihood of the EEZ
limit being reached in 2018–2020.
However, the allowance for an extra 100
fishing days if the 458 fishing days are
used by October 1 could provide an
incentive for the fleet to use more
fishing days in the EEZ than it
otherwise would. Furthermore, this
would be the first time that separate
limits would be established for the EEZ
and the high seas, so the incentives for
individual vessels in the fleet will
change relative to previous years. A
minority of the fleet is authorized to fish
in the U.S. EEZ (9 of the 37 vessels in
the fleet have fishery endorsements on
their U.S. Coast Guard Certificates of
Documentation, which are required to
fish in the U.S. EEZ; the majority of U.S.
purse seine fishing activity in the
Convention Area takes place in the
waters of Pacific Island Parties to the
SPTT, pursuant to the terms of the
SPTT). With a separate limit for the U.S.
EEZ, this minority might take more
advantage of it than it has in the past.
Regarding the high seas, from 2009
through 2017, between 29 and 134
percent of the annual limit of 1,370
fishing days was used, and at least 100
percent was used in three of the nine
years. In two years, 2015 and 2016, the
ELAPS was closed for part of the year
(starting June 15 in 2015, and September
2 in 2016), so more fishing effort might
have occurred in those two years were
there no limits. This history suggests a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

substantial likelihood of the high seas
limit of 1,370 fishing days being reached
in any of the years 2018–2020.
Two factors could have a substantial
influence on the amount of fishing effort
in the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas in
2018–2020: First, the number of fishing
days available in foreign waters (the
fleet’s main fishing grounds) pursuant to
the SPTT will influence the incentive to
fish outside those waters, including the
U.S. EEZ and high seas. Second, El
Nin˜o—Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
conditions will influence where the best
fishing grounds are.
Regarding fishing opportunities in
foreign waters, in December 2016, the
United States and the Pacific Island
Parties to the SPTT (PIPs) agreed upon
a revised SPTT, and under this new
agreement U.S. purse seine fishing
businesses can purchase fishing days in
the EEZs of the PIPs. There are limits on
the number of such ‘‘upfront’’ fishing
days that may be purchased. These
limits can influence the amount of
fishing in other areas, such as the U.S.
EEZ and the high seas, as well as the
EPO. For example, if the number of
available upfront fishing days is
relatively small, fishing effort in the
U.S. EEZ and/or high seas might be
relatively great. In fact, the number of
upfront days available for the Kiribati
EEZ, which has traditionally constituted
important fishing grounds for the U.S.
fleet, is notably small—only 300 fishing
days per year. However, the new SPTT
regime provides for U.S. purse seine
fishing businesses to purchase
‘‘additional’’ fishing days through direct
bilateral agreements with the PIPs.
NMFS cannot project how many
additional days will be purchased in
any given years, so cannot gauge how
the limits on upfront days might
influence fishing effort in the U.S. EEZ
or on the high seas. Limits on upfront
days are therefore not considered here
any further.
Additionally, effective January 1,
2015, Kiribati prohibited commercial
fishing in the Phoenix Islands Protected
Area, which is a large portion of the
Kiribati EEZ around the Phoenix
Islands. These limitations in the Kiribati
EEZ in 2015 probably made fishing in
the ELAPS more attractive than it
otherwise would be.
Regarding El Nin˜o Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, the
eastern areas of the WCPO tend to be
comparatively more attractive to the
U.S. purse seine fleet during El Nin˜o
events, when warm surface water
spreads from the western Pacific to the
eastern Pacific and large, valuable
yellowfin tuna become more vulnerable
to purse seine fishing and trade winds

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

lessen in intensity. Consequently, the
U.S. EEZ and high seas, much of which
is situated in the eastern range of the
fleet’s fishing grounds, is likely to be
more important fishing grounds to the
fleet during El Nin˜o events (as
compared to neutral or La Nin˜a events).
This is supported by there being a
statistically significant correlation
between annual average per-vessel
fishing effort in the ELAPS and the
Oceanic Nin˜o Index, a common measure
of ENSO conditions, over the life of the
SPTT through 2010.
El Nin˜o conditions were present in
2015 and in the first half of 2016, and
might have contributed to the relatively
high rates of fishing in the ELAPS in
those years. ENSO neutral conditions
began in the latter half of 2016, and
continued until the fourth quarter of
2017, when there was a shift to La Nin˜a
conditions, which persisted through
early 2018 (and which is consistent with
the moderate rates of fishing in the
ELAPS in 2017). As of May 10, 2018, the
National Weather Service states that in
April 2018 ENSO-neutral conditions
returned, and are predicted to continue
at least through September–November
2018. The Northern Hemisphere 2018–
2019 winter has about 50% probability
of El Nin˜o conditions (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration,
National Weather Service, Climate
Prediction Center. Web page accessed
June 12, 2018: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/
products/analysis_monitoring/enso_
advisory/index.shtml). Thus ENSO
conditions are likely to have a largely
neutral influence through the Northern
Hemisphere fall of 2018, followed by a
growing probability of conditions that
favor fishing in the ELAPS during the
Northern Hemisphere 2018–2019
winter. The influence of ENSO
conditions on fishing effort after that
cannot be predicted with any certainty.
Another potentially important factor
is that the EEZ and high seas limits are
competitive limits, so they could cause
a ‘‘race to fish’’ in the two areas. That
is, vessel operators might seek to take
advantage of the limited number of
fishing days available in the areas before
the limits are reached, and fish harder
in one or both areas than they would if
there were no limits. On the one hand,
any such race-to-fish effect might be
reflected in the history of fishing in the
ELAPS, described above.Anecdotal
information from the fishing industry
suggests that the limits might have been
internally allocated by the fleet in the
past, which might have tempered any
race to fish. It is not known whether the
industry intends to internally allocate
the limits established in this final rule.

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
In summary, although difficult to
predict, either the U.S. EEZ or high seas
limits could be reached in any of the
years 2018–2020, especially the high
seas limits. If either limit is reached in
a given year, the fleet will be prohibited
from fishing in that area for the
remainder of the calendar year.
The closure of any fishing grounds for
any amount of time can be expected to
bring adverse impacts to affected
entities (e.g., because the open area
might, during the closed period, be less
productive than the closed area, and
vessels might use more fuel and spend
more time having to travel to open
areas). The severity of the impacts of a
closure would depend greatly on the
length of the closure and where the
most favored fishing grounds are during
the closure. A study by NMFS (Chan, V.
and D. Squires. 2016. Analyzing the
economic impacts of the 2015 ELAPS
closure. NMFS Internal Report)
estimated that the overall losses to the
combined sectors of the vessels,
canneries and vessel support companies
from the 2015 ELAPS closure ranged
from $11 million and $110 million
depending on the counterfactual period
considered. These results suggest that
there were impacts from the ELAPS
closure on the American Samoa
economy and a connection between U.S.
purse seine vessels and the broader
American Samoa economy.
If either the U.S. EEZ or high seas is
closed, possible next-best opportunities
for U.S. purse seine vessels fishing in
the WCPO include fishing in the other
of the two areas, fishing in foreign EEZs
inside the Convention Area, fishing
outside the Convention Area in EPO,
and not fishing.
With respect to fishing in the U.S.
EEZ or on the high seas: If the U.S. EEZ
were closed, the high seas would be
available to the fleet until its limit is
reached. If the high seas were closed,
the U.S. EEZ would be available until its
limit is reached, but only for the vessels
with fishery endorsements on their
Certificates of Documentation (currently
9, including 8 vessels with SPTT
licenses and one additional vessel
without).
With respect to fishing in the
Convention Area in foreign EEZs: As
described above, under the SPTT the
fleet might have substantial fishing days
available in the Pacific Island country
EEZs that dominate the WCPO, but it is
not possible to predict how many
fishing days will be available to the fleet
as a whole or to individual fishing
businesses.
With respect to fishing in the EPO:
The fleet has generally increased its
fishing operations in the EPO since

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

2014, and as of 2017, there were 17
purse seine vessels in the WCPO fleet
that are also listed on the IATTC Vessel
Register. In order to fish in the EPO, a
vessel must be on the IATTC’s Regional
Vessel Register and categorized as active
(50 CFR 300.22(b)), which involves fees
of about $14.95 per cubic meter of well
space per year (e.g., a vessel with 1,200
m3 of well space would be subject to
annual fees of $17,940). (As an
exception to this rule, an SPTT-licensed
vessel is allowed to make one fishing
trip in the EPO each year without being
categorized as active on the IATTC
Regional Vessel Register. The trip must
not exceed 90 days in length, and there
is an annual limit of 32 such trips for
the entire SPTT-licensed fleet (50 CFR
300.22(b)(1)).) The number of U.S. purse
seine vessels in the WCPO fleet that
have opted to be categorized as such has
increased in the last few years from zero
to 17, probably largely a result of
constraints on fishing days in the WCPO
and/or uncertainty in future access
arrangements under the SPTT. This
suggests an increasing attractiveness of
fishing in the EPO, in spite of the costs
associated with doing so. However, in
2018 vessels probably will not have the
opportunity to fish in the EPO yearround. To implement a recent decision
of the IATTC, NMFS has published a
final rule that requires purse seine
vessels to choose between two EPO
fishing prohibition periods each year in
2018–2020: July 29–October 8 or
November 9–January 19 (72 days in
either case). Thus, the opportunity to
fish in the EPO might be constrained,
depending on when the U.S. EEZ and/
or high seas in the WCPFC Area is
closed, and which EPO closure period a
given vessel operator chooses.
With respect to not fishing at all
during a closure of the U.S. EEZ or high
seas: This would mean a loss of any
revenues from fishing. However, many
of the vessels’ variable operating costs
would be avoided in that case, and it is
possible that for some vessels a portion
of the time might be used for productive
activities like vessel and equipment
maintenance.
The opportunity costs of engaging in
next-best opportunities in the event of a
closure are not known, so the potential
impacts cannot be quantified. However,
to give an indication of the magnitude
of possible economic impacts to
producers in the fishery (i.e., an
indication of the upper bound of those
impacts), information on revenues per
day is provided here.
The last five years for which catch
estimates for the U.S. WCPO purse seine
fleet are available are 2012–2016. Those
estimates, adjusted to an indicative fleet

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33867

size of 35 vessels, equate to annual
average catches of skipjack tuna,
yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna of
236,077 mt, 24,802 mt, and 4,213 mt,
respectively, or 265,091 mt in total.
Applying an indicative current Bangkok
cannery price for skipjack tuna of
$1,500 per mt to all three species, the
value of annual fleet-wide catches at
2012–2016 average levels would be
about $398 million, equivalent to a little
more than $1 million per calendar day,
on average. It should be noted that
cannery prices are fairly volatile; for
example, cannery prices are much lower
now than prices during most of 2017.
In addition to the effects described
above, the purse seine effort limits
could affect the temporal distribution of
fishing effort in the U.S. purse seine
fishery. Since the limits will apply fleetwide—that is, they will not be allocated
to individual vessels—vessel operators
might have an incentive to fish harder
in the affected areas earlier in each
calendar year than they otherwise
would. Such a race-to-fish effect might
also be expected in the time period
between when a closure of the fishery
is announced and when it is actually
closed, which would be at least seven
calendar days. To the extent such
temporal shifts occur, they could affect
the seasonal timing of fish catches and
deliveries to canneries. The timing of
cannery deliveries by the U.S. fleet
alone (as it might be affected by a race
to fish in the EEZ or high seas) is
unlikely to have an appreciable impact
on prices, because many canneries in
the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere
buy from the fleets of multiple nations,
as well as other domestic fleets. A race
to fish could bring costs to affected
entities if it causes vessel operators to
forego vessel maintenance in favor of
fishing or to fish in weather or ocean
conditions that they otherwise would
not. This could bring costs in terms of
the health and safety of the crew as well
as the economic performance of the
vessel.
4. Eastern High Seas Special
Management Area
This element of the final rule removes
a reporting/recordkeeping requirement,
the requirement to notify NMFS when
entering and exiting the EHSSMA. It
also establishes a prohibition on
transshipment in the EHSSMA.
Fulfillment of this element’s
requirements is not expected to require
any professional skills that the vessel
owners and operators do not already
possess. The costs of complying with
the requirements are described below to
the extent possible.

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

33868

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Regarding the entry/exit notices,
when NMFS established the
requirement in 2012 (final rule
published December 3, 2012; 77 FR
71501), it estimated that each report
would require about 15 minutes of labor
(at a labor cost of about $60 per hour)
and no more than $1 in communication
costs, for an estimated total cost of
compliance of about $16 per notice. At
that time, NMFS estimated that each
longline vessel would enter and exit the
EHSSMA between zero and
approximately four times per year
(requiring 0–8 notices per year at an
annual cost of $0–128), each purse seine
vessel would do so between zero and
approximately two times per year
(requiring 0–4 notices per year at an
annual cost of $0–64), and each albacore
troll vessel would do so between zero
and two times per year (requiring 0–4
notices per year at an annual cost of $0–
64). According to the notices received
by NMFS, zero longline vessels and zero
albacore troll vessels have entered the
EHSSMA from 2013 through 2017, and
there have been nine entries/exits by
purse seine fishing vessels. In any case,
under the final rule, commercial fishing
vessels will be relieved of about $16 in
compliance costs each time they enter
or exit the EHSSMA.
Disproportionate Impacts
As described above, the type of the
impacts will vary greatly among fishing
gear types (i.e., longline versus albacore
troll versus purse seine), and the
magnitude of the impacts also could
vary greatly by fishing gear type (but
they are difficult to quantify and
compare). Nevertheless, all the affected
entities in the longline and albacore
troll fishing sectors are small entities, so
there will be no disproportionate
impacts between small and large entities
within those sectors. In the purse seine
fishing sector, slightly more than half
the affected entities are small entities.
The direct effect of the final rule will be
to constrain fishing effort by purse seine
fishing vessels, with consequent
constraining effects on both revenues
(because catches would be less) and
operating costs (because less fishing
would be undertaken). Although some
purse seine fishing entities are larger
than others, NMFS is not aware of any
differences between the small entities
and the large entities (as defined by the
RFA) in terms of their capital costs,
operating costs, or other aspects of their
businesses. Accordingly, there is no
information to suggest that the direct
adverse economic impacts on small
purse seine entities will be
disproportionately greater than those on
large purse seine entities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impacts on Small
Entities
NMFS has sought to identify
alternatives that would minimize the
final rule’s economic impacts on small
entities (‘‘significant alternatives’’).
Taking no action could result in lesser
adverse economic impacts than the final
rule for affected entities (but as
described below, for some affected
longline entities, the final rule could be
more economically beneficial than noaction), but NMFS has rejected the noaction alternative because it would be
inconsistent with the United States’
obligations under the Convention.
Alternatives identified for each of the
four elements of the final rule are
discussed below.
1. Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits
NMFS has not identified any
significant alternatives for this element
of the final rule, other than the noaction alternative.
2. FAD Restrictions
NMFS considered in detail one
alternative to this element of the final
rule, but only with respect to the timing
of the two-month FAD closure for the
high seas. CMM 2017–01 allows
members to choose either November–
December, as in this final rule, or April–
May. NMFS has compared the expected
direct economic impacts of the two
alternatives on purse seine fishing
businesses in the regulatory impact
review prepared for the proposed rule.
The analysis finds that a November–
December closure is more likely to have
a lesser direct economic impact on those
businesses than an April–May closure,
primarily because the later closure
period is more likely to run
concurrently with a closure of the high
seas in the Convention Area to purse
seine fishing (if the fishing effort limit
in this final rule is reached), in which
case the FAD closure would bring no
additional economic impacts. NMFS has
rejected the alternative of an April–May
FAD closure for that reason. Please see
Comment 5 above, for a summary of the
comments received on this matter, as
well as NMFS’ response to those
comments.
3. Purse Seine Fishing Effort Limits
In the past, Commission decisions did
not expressly limit NMFS’ ability to
implement the U.S. purse seine fishing
effort limits on the high seas and in the
U.S. EEZ as a single combined limit in
the ELAPS. As described above, for this
final rule, in light of the plain language
of Paragraph 29 of CMM 2017–01,
which sets forth specific rules and

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

guidelines regarding transferring fishing
days from the U.S. EEZ limit to the high
seas limit for the United States for 2018,
we believe we are required to separately
establish and enforce the U.S. high seas
limit and the U.S. EEZ limit. Thus,
NMFS is not implementing the
alternative of combining the two limits
into a single limit for the ELAPS for
2018. However, NMFS has analyzed this
alternative here and in the revised RIR
and, and will continue to consider this
alternative in 2019 or 2020 (as described
in the proposed rule and the RIR, the
analysis for the rule is for a three-year
time period), to the extent it is
consistent with future Commisison
decisions on tropical tuna management.
A combined limit would provide
1,828 fishing days per calendar year in
the ELAPS (versus, under the rule, an
annual limit of 1,370 fishing days on the
high seas and a separate annual limit of
458 fishing days in the U.S. EEZ, with
the possibility of an increase in the
latter to 558 fishing days if the 458
fishing days are used by October 1,
2018). It is difficult to predict the
behavior and performance of vessels
under these two alternatives, but they
could have different economic impacts
on fishing businesses. The rule, with
separate limits, offers the potential of
more fishing days per year (1,928) than
under the alternative of a combined
limit (1,828). However, it does not
appear likely that 458 fishing days will
be used in the U.S. EEZ by October 1,
2018, so it is likely that both alternatives
offer a total of 1,828 fishing days. A
single combined limit offers more
operational flexibility for the fleet as a
whole than separate limits, and that
greater flexibility would be expected to
result in fewer losses to some or most
of the affected fishing businesses. For
example, under separate limits, the U.S.
EEZ limit appears less constraining than
the high seas limit, so it would likely be
more costly to the fleet as a whole to
make full use of both limits than it
would to make full use of the single
combined limit. However, the expected
impacts of the two alternatives on
fishing businesses would be dependent
on whether a given vessel has a fishery
endorsement on its U.S. Coast Guard
Certificate of Documentation, which is
required to fish in the U.S. EEZ. With
separate limits for the U.S. EEZ and
high seas, those vessels without fishery
endorsements, which comprise the
majority of the fleet, would not have
access to the 458 (or possibly 558)
fishing days per year for the U.S. EEZ,
but under a combined limit for the
ELAPS, those fishing days could be
used on the high seas, so they would be

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
effectively available to all affected
fishing businesses. Thus, a single
combined limit would appear to be
more favorable to vessels without
fishery endorsements. Having separate
limits could be advantageous to vessels
with fishery endorsements if the high
seas limit is reached before the U.S. EEZ
limit is reached, which appears likely
for 2018. In that case, the remainder of
the limit for the U.S. EEZ would be
available only to vessels with fishery
endorsements. If the U.S. EEZ limit
were more constraining than the high
seas limit under separate limits (which
it appears not to be), then separate
limits would appear to be less
advantageous to vessels with fishery
endorsements than a combined limit,
since under a combined limit they
would have more time to fish in both
the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas.
4. Eastern High Seas Special
Management Area
NMFS has not identified any
significant alternatives for this element
of the final rule, other than the noaction alternative.
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. NMFS has prepared
small entity compliance guides for this
rule, and will send the appropriate
guides to holders of permits in the
relevant fisheries. The guides and this
final rule also will be available at
www.fpir.noaa.gov and by request from
NMFS PIRO (see ADDRESSES).

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains a revised
collection-of-information requirement
subject to review and approval by OMB
under the PRA. This requirement has
been submitted to OMB for approval
under Control Number 0648–0649.
Public reporting burden for the daily
report of purse seine effort information
is estimated to average 10 minutes per
response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
information.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

One comment was received on this
collection-of-information requirement in
response to the proposed rule (see
Comment 10 and NMFS’ response,
above). Send comments on these or any
other aspects of the collection of
information to Michael D. Tosatto,
Regional Administrator, NMFS PIRO
(see ADDRESSES), and by email to OIRA_
[email protected] or fax to 202–
395–5806.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, and no person shall be
subject to penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300
Administrative practice and
procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing,
Marine resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
Dated: July 13, 2018.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended
as follows:
PART 300—INTERNATIONAL
FISHERIES REGULATIONS
Subpart O—Western and Central
Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory
Species
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR
part 300, subpart O, continues to read as
follows:

■

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

2. In § 300.211, add a definition in
alphabetical order for ‘‘Active FAD’’ to
read as follows:

■

§ 300.211

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Active FAD is a FAD that is equipped
with a buoy with a clearly marked
reference number allowing its
identification and equipped with a
satellite tracking system to monitor its
position.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 300.217, revise paragraph (b)(1)
to read as follows:
§ 300.217

Vessel identification.

*

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

vessel, then the Federal, State, or other
documentation number used in lieu of
the IRCS must be preceded by the
characters ‘‘USA’’ and a hyphen (that is,
‘‘USA-’’).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 300.218, revise paragraphs
(a)(2)(v) and (g) to read as follows:
§ 300.218 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

(a)* * *
(2)* * *
(v) High seas fisheries. Fishing
activities subject to the reporting
requirements of § 300.341 must be
maintained and reported in the manner
specified in § 300.341(a).
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Daily purse seine fishing effort
reports. If directed by NMFS, the owner
or operator of any fishing vessel of the
United States equipped with purse seine
gear must report to NMFS, for the
period and in the format and manner
directed by the Pacific Islands Regional
Administrator, within 24 hours of the
end of each day that the vessel is at sea
in the Convention Area, the activity of
the vessel (e.g., setting, transiting,
searching), location and type of set, if a
set was made during that day.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 300.222, revise paragraphs (v),
(w), (oo), and (pp) to read as follows:
§ 300.222

Prohibitions.

*

*
*
*
*
(v) Use a fishing vessel equipped with
purse seine gear to fish in an area closed
to purse seine fishing under
§ 300.223(a).
(w) Set a purse seine around, near or
in association with a FAD or a vessel,
deploy, activate, or service a FAD, or
use lights in contravention of
§ 300.223(b).
*
*
*
*
*
(oo) Transship in the Eastern High
Seas Special Management Area in
contravention of § 300.225.
(pp) Fail to submit, or ensure
submission of, a daily purse seine
fishing effort report as required in
§ 300.218(g).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 300.223, revise paragraphs (a)
and (b) to read as follows:
§ 300.223

Purse seine fishing restrictions.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Vessels shall be marked in
accordance with the identification
requirements of § 300.336(b)(2), and if
an IRCS has not been assigned to the

33869

*
*
*
*
(a) Fishing effort limits. This
paragraph establishes limits on the
number of fishing days that fishing
vessels of the United States equipped
with purse seine gear may operate in the
Convention Area in the area between

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES

33870

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

20° N latitude and 20° S latitude in a
calendar year.
(1) For the high seas there is a limit
of 1,370 fishing days in 2018.
(2) For the U.S. EEZ there is a limit
of 458 fishing days for 2018. If NMFS
expects that this limit will be reached
by October 1, 2018, NMFS will publish
a document in the Federal Register
increasing the limit for that calendar
year to 558 fishing days no later than
seven days prior to October 1, 2018.
(3) NMFS will determine the number
of fishing days spent on the high seas
and in the U.S. EEZ in each calendar
year using data submitted in logbooks
and other available information. After
NMFS determines that a limit in a
calendar year is expected to be reached
by a specific future date, and at least
seven calendar days in advance of the
closure date, NMFS will publish a
document in the Federal Register
announcing that the purse seine fishery
in the area where the limit is expected
to be reached will be closed starting on
that specific future date and will remain
closed until the end of the calendar
year.
(4) Once a fishery closure is
announced pursuant to paragraph (a)(3)
of this section, fishing vessels of the
United States equipped with purse seine
gear may not be used to fish in the
closed area during the period specified
in the Federal Register document,
except that such vessels are not
prohibited from bunkering during a
fishery closure.
(b) Use of fish aggregating devices. (1)
During the periods and in the areas
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, owners, operators, and crew of
fishing vessels of the United States
equipped with purse seine gear shall not
do any of the activities described below
in the Convention Area in the area
between 20° N latitude and 20° S
latitude:
(i) Set a purse seine around a FAD or
within one nautical mile of a FAD.
(ii) Set a purse seine in a manner
intended to capture fish that have
aggregated in association with a FAD or
a vessel, such as by setting the purse
seine in an area from which a FAD or
a vessel has been moved or removed
within the previous eight hours, or
setting the purse seine in an area in
which a FAD has been inspected or
handled within the previous eight
hours, or setting the purse seine in an
area into which fish were drawn by a
vessel from the vicinity of a FAD or a
vessel.
(iii) Deploy a FAD into the water.
(iv) Repair, clean, maintain, or
otherwise service a FAD, including any
electronic equipment used in

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:26 Jul 17, 2018

Jkt 244001

association with a FAD, in the water or
on a vessel while at sea, except that:
(A) A FAD may be inspected and
handled as needed to identify the FAD,
identify and release incidentally
captured animals, un-foul fishing gear,
or prevent damage to property or risk to
human safety; and
(B) A FAD may be removed from the
water and if removed may be repaired,
cleaned, maintained, or otherwise
serviced, provided that it is not returned
to the water.
(v) From a purse seine vessel or any
associated skiffs, other watercraft or
equipment, do any of the following,
except in emergencies as needed to
prevent human injury or the loss of
human life, the loss of the purse seine
vessel, skiffs, watercraft or aircraft, or
environmental damage:
(A) Submerge lights under water;
(B) Suspend or hang lights over the
side of the purse seine vessel, skiff,
watercraft or equipment, or;
(C) Direct or use lights in a manner
other than as needed to illuminate the
deck of the purse seine vessel or
associated skiffs, watercraft or
equipment, to comply with navigational
requirements, and to ensure the health
and safety of the crew.
(2) The requirements of paragraph
(b)(1) of this section shall apply:
(i) From July 1 through September 30,
in each calendar year;
(ii) In any area of high seas, from
November 1 through December 31, in
each calendar year.
(3)(i) Activating FADs for purse seine
vessels. A vessel owner, operator, or
crew of a fishing vessel of the United
States equipped with purse seine gear
shall turn on the tracking equipment of
an active FAD while the FAD is onboard
the vessel and before it is deployed in
the water.
(ii) Restrictions on Active FADs for
purse seine vessels. U.S. vessel owners
and operators of a fishing vessel of the
United States equipped with purse seine
gear shall not have more than 350
drifting active FADs per vessel in the
Convention Area at any one time.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. In § 300.224, revise paragraph (a)(1)
and remove and reserve paragraph
(a)(2).
The revision reads as follows:
§ 300.224

Longline fishing restrictions.

(a) * * *
(1) There is a limit of 3,554 metric
tons of bigeye tuna per calendar year
that may be captured in the Convention
Area by longline gear and retained on
board by fishing vessels of the United
States.
*
*
*
*
*

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

■

8. Revise § 300.225 to read as follows:

§ 300.225 Eastern High Seas Special
Management Area.

The owner and operator of a fishing
vessel of the United States used for
commercial fishing for HMS is
prohibited from engaging in
transshipment in the Eastern High Seas
Special Management Area.
[FR Doc. 2018–15341 Filed 7–17–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 150413357–5999–02]
RIN 0648–XG325

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Commercial Aggregated Large Coastal
Shark and Hammerhead Shark
Management Group Retention Limit
Adjustment
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; inseason
retention limit adjustment.
AGENCY:

NMFS is adjusting the
commercial aggregated large coastal
shark (LCS) and hammerhead shark
management group retention limit for
directed shark limited access permit
holders in the Atlantic region from 3
LCS other than sandbar sharks per
vessel per trip to 36 LCS other than
sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. This
action is based on consideration of the
regulatory determination criteria
regarding inseason adjustments. The
retention limit will remain at 36 LCS
other than sandbar sharks per vessel per
trip in the Atlantic region through the
rest of the 2018 fishing season or until
NMFS announces via a notification in
the Federal Register another adjustment
to the retention limit or a fishery
closure. This retention limit adjustment
affects anyone with a directed shark
limited access permit fishing for LCS in
the Atlantic region.
DATES: This retention limit adjustment
is effective on July 18, 2018, through
December 31, 2018, or until NMFS
announces via a notification in the
Federal Register another adjustment to
the retention limit or a fishery closure,
if warranted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lauren Latchford, Guy´ DuBeck, or Karyl
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM

18JYR1