Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2015 U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 61767-61772 [2015-26063]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 198 (Wednesday, October 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61767-61772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26063]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 665

[Docket No. 150615523-5911-02]
RIN 0648-XD998


Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2015 U.S. Territorial Longline 
Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands

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

ACTION: Final specifications.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, NMFS specifies a 2015 limit of 2,000 
metric tons (mt) of longline-caught bigeye tuna for the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). NMFS will allow the territory to 
allocate up to 1,000 mt each year to U.S. longline fishing vessels in a 
specified fishing agreement that meets established criteria. As an 
accountability measure, NMFS will monitor, attribute, and restrict (if 
necessary) catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna, including catches 
made under a specified fishing agreement. These catch limits and 
accountability measures support the long-term sustainability of fishery 
resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.

DATES: The final specifications are effective October 9, 2015, through 
December 31, 2015. The deadline to submit a specified fishing agreement 
pursuant to 50 CFR 665.819(b)(3) for review is November 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the fishery ecosystem plans are available from the 
Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 1164 Bishop St., 
Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, or 
www.wpcouncil.org.
    Copies of the environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no 
significant impact for this action, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0077, 
are available from www.regulations.gov, or from Michael D. Tosatto, 
Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp 
Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable 
Fisheries, 808-725-5176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is specifying a catch limit of 2,000 mt 
of longline-caught bigeye tuna for the CNMI in 2015. NMFS is also 
authorizing

[[Page 61768]]

the territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt of its 2,000 mt bigeye tuna 
limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels permitted to fish under the 
Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific 
(FEP). The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended these 
specifications.
    NMFS will monitor catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna by the 
CNMI longline fisheries, including catches made by U.S. longline 
vessels operating under specified fishing agreements. A specified 
fishing agreement must meet specific criteria set forth in 50 CFR 
665.819--Territorial catch and fishing effort limits, which also 
governs the procedures for attributing longline-caught bigeye tuna. 
When NMFS projects a territorial catch or allocation limit will be 
reached, NMFS will, as an accountability measure, prohibit the catch 
and retention of longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels in the 
applicable territory (if the territorial catch limit is projected to be 
reached), and/or vessels in a specified fishing agreement (if the 
allocation limit is projected to be reached). These catch and 
allocation limits and accountability measures are identical to those 
that NMFS specified in 2014 (79 FR 64097, October 28, 2014). NMFS notes 
that there is a pending case in litigation--Conservation Council for 
Hawai`i, et al., v. NMFS (D. Haw.), case no. 14-cv-528--that challenges 
the framework process allowing the U.S. Pacific Island territories to 
allocate a portion of their bigeye tuna catch limit to U.S. longline 
fishing vessels.
    You may find additional background information on this action in 
the preamble to the proposed specifications published on August 24, 
2015 (80 FR 51193).

Comments and Responses

    On August 24, 2015, NMFS published the proposed specifications and 
request for public comments (80 FR 51193); the comment period closed on 
September 8, 2015. NMFS received comments from individuals, businesses, 
and non-governmental organizations on the proposed specifications and 
the draft EA.

Comments on the Proposed Specifications

    NMFS responds to comments on the proposed specifications, as 
follows:
    Comment 1: Several commenters expressed concerns that the current 
closure of the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) to longline-
caught bigeye tuna is having a negative financial effect on fishing 
vessels and other related businesses, and has created a very unstable 
environment for sustaining market confidence and job security of 
employees in the industry.
    Response: On August 5, 2015, NMFS closed the U.S. pelagic longline 
fishery in the WCPO as a result of the fishery reaching the 2015 U.S. 
bigeye tuna catch limit of 3,502 mt (80 FR 44883). NMFS implemented the 
2015 U.S. bigeye tuna catch limit to meet obligations of the United 
States under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of 
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean 
(WCPF Convention), including implementation of applicable decisions by 
the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). At its 
Eleventh Regular Session, in December 2014, the WCPFC adopted 
Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2014-01 ``Conservation and 
Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin, and Skipjack Tuna in the 
Western and Central Pacific Ocean.'' CMM 2014-01 is the most recent in 
a series of CMMs for the management of tropical tuna stocks under the 
purview of the WCPFC. For bigeye tuna, the stated objective of CMM 
2014-01 and its predecessor CMM (i.e., CMM 2013-01) is to ensure 
reductions in the fishing mortality rate for bigeye tuna to a level no 
greater than the fishing mortality rate at maximum sustainable yield or 
FMSY, i.e., F/FMSY <= 1. CMM 2014-01 and other CMMs are available at: 
www.wcpfc.int/conseration-and-management-measures. Consistent with 
Amendment 7, NMFS will establish a limit of 2,000 mt of bigeye tuna for 
each U.S. Pacific territory for calendar year 2015, and allow each 
territory to allocate through specified fishing agreements up to 1,000 
mt of its 2,000 mt bigeye tuna limit to U.S. fishing vessels permitted 
under the Pelagic FEP. This action would enable U.S. Pacific 
territories, which are not subject to catch limits under CMM 2014-01, 
to transfer a limited portion of quota in exchange for payments to 
support responsible fisheries development in the Territories, 
consistent with the conservation needs of the stock. We also anticipate 
that this action may provide limited stability to bigeye tuna markets 
in Hawaii and elsewhere, as well as some positive economic benefits for 
fishery participants, associated businesses, and net benefits to the 
Nation.
    Comment 2: Several commenters expressed concern that, without this 
action, foreign imports will supply tuna and other pelagic species to 
the local market. These imports may be caught illegally and/or without 
proper regulatory oversight, and may end up replacing future landings 
from U.S. vessels fishing out of Hawaii.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that during the WCPO closure to U.S. 
pelagic longline fisheries, more foreign-caught bigeye tuna would fill 
Hawaii market gaps. NMFS also agrees that increasing foreign imports of 
bigeye tuna into Hawaii has the potential to result in negative impacts 
on bigeye tuna stocks. Data presented in the EA show that bigeye tuna 
imports into Hawaii increased markedly in 2012, primarily from a 350 
percent increase in imports from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 
which has access agreements with foreign longline vessels consisting 
mostly of Chinese longline vessels. These access agreements allow 
Chinese longline vessels to catch bigeye tuna in the EEZ of the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands, which is within Region 4, an area of 
the WCPO that is experiencing some of the highest fishing impacts on 
bigeye tuna biomass (See Fig. 1 in the EA). Data in the EA, excerpted 
from the 2014 WCPO bigeye tuna stock assessment, also suggest that the 
bigeye tuna biomass would be substantially higher in Region 4 in the 
absence of fishing.
    Comment 3: Several commenters expressed support for the action, 
noting that it would benefit the Hawaii longline fishing industry, 
local seafood-related businesses and restaurants, and their employees.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment. See also response to 
Comment 1.
    Comment 4: One commenter noted that the proposed rule includes 
adoption of both an annual bigeye tuna longline catch limit of 2,000 mt 
per year for each of the U.S. Pacific territories, with an annual 
transferable limit of 1,000 mt for each territory. The commenter also 
noted that these limits are substantially more stringent than the 
conservation measures adopted by the WCPFC, which do not establish any 
bigeye limits for the U.S. Pacific territories.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the 2015 bigeye tuna longline catch 
limit of 2,000 mt for each U.S. Pacific territory is more stringent 
than the big eye tuna conservation measures adopted by the WCPFC (e.g., 
CMM 2014-01, CMM 2013-01, etc.). Paragraph 7 of CMM 2014-01 for 
example, exempts Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and 
Participating Territories (PT) to the WCPFC from annual catch limits. 
As PTs to the WCPFC, the U.S. Pacific territories of American Samoa, 
Guam and the CNMI, are not subject to individual bigeye tuna limits. 
However, consistent with the objectives of

[[Page 61769]]

Amendment 7, the 2,000 mt bigeye tuna limit applied to the U.S. Pacific 
territories, in conjunction with the 1,000 mt limit available for 
allocation, helps to ensure the sustainability of bigeye tuna stocks.
    Comment 5: One commenter expressed support for the proposed rule, 
but questioned whether there is a factual basis to limit each territory 
to a 1,000 mt allocation. The commenter noted that even if there were a 
demonstrated need for such limits, it would be within the sovereign 
rights of each territory to evaluate and reserve appropriate bigeye 
tuna catch when negotiating the terms of specified fishing agreements.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the U.S. Pacific territories have 
independent authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or WCPF Convention 
to evaluate and allocate catch of bigeye tuna. Under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the United States exercises exclusive management authority 
over fishery resources in the EEZ. This action authorizes U.S. Pacific 
territories to enter into specified agreements to allocate a limited 
amount of bigeye tuna to eligible U.S. fishing vessels permitted under 
the Pelagic FEP, consistent with the conservation needs of the stock. 
Under Federal regulations implementing the Pelagic FEP, NMFS has 
established overall catch limits and limits available for allocation; 
however, within the available allocation limits, the territories 
exercise a limited interest to negotiate the terms of specified fishing 
agreements, including the amount of catch up to and including the 
allocation limit.
    As documented in the EA, NMFS is satisfied that this action helps 
achieve conservation and management objectives to eliminate overfishing 
on bigeye tuna, consistent with regional international objectives. 
Limiting overall harvest of bigeye tuna is important to eliminate 
overfishing and sustainably manage the stock in the WCPO. Further, NMFS 
does not expect the limited amount available for allocation to eligible 
permit holders through specified fishing agreements to support 
fisheries development in the territories to impede those objectives to 
end overfishing.
    Comment 6: One commenter said that in the circumstance where a 
specified fishing agreement with CNMI or Guam is in effect, the catch 
of a dual-permitted longline vessel (i.e., a vessel registered under a 
valid American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit in addition to a 
valid Hawaii Longline Limited Access Permit) listed in the agreement 
that occurs outside the U.S. EEZ is attributed to American Samoa unless 
and until the American Samoa quota is exhausted, at which time such 
catch would be attributed to the territory (e.g., CNMI or Guam) 
identified in the agreement. Conversely, the commenter also said that 
in this same circumstance, NMFS would attribute the catch of a dual-
permitted vessel that occurs inside the U.S. EEZ to the territory 
(e.g., CNMI or Guam) identified in the agreement.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with that interpretation. Federal 
regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(c) set forth the attribution procedures 
for bigeye tuna caught by vessels with an American Samoa Longline 
Limited Access Permit. Pursuant to 50 CFR 300.224(c), attribution of 
high seas catch by a ``dual permitted'' vessel is always to the 
American Samoa permit unless there is a specified fishing agreement. In 
that case, attribution of catch (whether on the high seas or in US EEZ 
surrounding Hawaii) is to the applicable U.S. Pacific territory 
``according to the terms of the agreement to the extent the agreement 
is consistent with this section [300.224] and applicable law 
[665.819(c) of this title].'' The terms of the specified fishing 
agreement cannot alter the attribution priority scheme. Furthermore, 
Federal regulations at 50 CFR 665.819(c) clarify that NMFS will 
attribute catch made by vessels identified in a specified fishing 
agreement to the applicable U.S. territory to which the agreement 
applies. Therefore, NMFS attributes bigeye tuna caught by any vessel 
identified in a specified fishing agreement to the U.S. territory to 
which the agreement applies, even if the vessel has a dual permit.
    Comment 7: One commenter said that the proposed specifications 
would further undermine international efforts to eliminate overfishing 
of bigeye tuna and is at odds with the United States agreement to 
reduce its bigeye tuna catch.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that this action undermines the WCPFC 
overfishing objectives of its bigeye tuna CMMs. As stated above, the 
objective of CMM 2014-01 is to ensure reduction of fishing mortality 
rate for bigeye tuna to a level no greater than FMSY, i.e., F/FMSY <= 
1. The analysis in the EA demonstrates that the 1,000 mt allocation 
limit authorized for each U.S. Pacific territory will achieve the 
conservation and management objectives to eliminate overfishing on 
bigeye tuna, consistent with regional international objectives, without 
prejudicing the rights and obligations of SIDs and PTs as set forth in 
the CMMs. The action is further consistent with Article 30 of the 
Convention, which provides that the WCPFC shall give full recognition 
to the special requirements of developing States to this Convention, in 
particular SIDS, and of territories and possessions, in relation to 
conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks. This 
action provides a mechanism for U.S. territories to develop their 
pelagic fisheries, without compromising conservation objectives.
    Comment 8: One commenter urged NMFS to follow the WCPFC Scientific 
Committee's recommendation that, in order to reduce fishing mortality 
to FMSY levels, a 36 percent reduction in fishing mortality is required 
from 2008-2011 levels.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The WCPFC Scientific Committee provides 
recommendations and information to help ensure that the WCPFC considers 
the best scientific information available. The U.S. has no obligation 
to directly implement Scientific Committee recommendations. Doing so 
could place U.S. fishermen at an unfair disadvantage relative to other 
nations' fisheries. The WCPFC properly takes into account Scientific 
Committee recommendations in making its conservation and management 
decisions.
    Comment 9: The proposed specifications would authorize Hawaii-based 
longliners to catch far more bigeye than ever before.
    Response: Under the action, Hawaii-based longline vessels could 
potentially enter into specified fishing agreements with each of the 
three U.S. Pacific territories and harvest each territory's allocation 
limit of 1,000 mt of bigeye tuna, for a total of 3,000 mt. This would 
be in addition to the 2015 U.S. bigeye tuna limit of 3,502 mt. NMFS 
evaluated the potential impact of this action on WCPO bigeye tuna and 
is satisfied that this action helps achieve conservation and management 
objectives to eliminate overfishing on bigeye tuna, consistent with 
regional international objectives. (See also response to Comment 5.)
    Comment 10: One commenter noted that in CMMs 2013-01 and 2014-01, 
the WCPFC established a goal of ending overfishing of bigeye tuna in 
the WCPO by 2017.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the objective of CMM 2013-01, as carried 
forward in CMM 2014-01, is to end overfishing of bigeye tuna. However, 
NMFS disagrees with the interpretation that we must reach the objective 
by 2017. The language of CMM 2013-01, as carried forward in 2014-01, 
reads ``The fishing mortality rate for bigeye tuna will be reduced to a 
level no greater than FMSY, i.e., F/FMSY <= 1. This objective shall be 
achieved through step by step approach through 2017 in accordance with 
this Measure.''

[[Page 61770]]

    As explained in the EA, no model indicates that overfishing of 
bigeye tuna will end by 2017 under CMM 2014-01, with or without the 
proposed action. Accordingly, the second sentence more appropriately 
applies to the timeframe for implementing the annual step-by-step 
reductions in purse seine effort and longline catches, as set forth in 
CMM 2013-01, and as carried forward in CMM 2014-01. In fact, at the 
Eleventh Regular Session of the WCPFC in December 2014, the Secretariat 
of the Pacific Community, the scientific services provider of the 
WCPFC, presented a report indicating that if fully implemented, the 
step-by-step measures contained in CMM 2013-01 and carried forward in 
CMM 2014-01 for 2015, 2016, and 2017, would end overfishing of bigeye 
tuna by 2032. This report provides the baseline against which NMFS 
evaluates the impacts of the proposed action.
    Comment 11: One commenter noted that on September 25, 2015, the 
U.S. District Court in Hawaii will hold a hearing on a motion for 
summary judgment relating to the Pelagic FEP Amendment 7 framework to 
allocate bigeye tuna catch and effort limits to the U.S. Pacific 
territories. The commenter argued that the proposed allocation scheme 
is ``illegal'' under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 
Implementation Act (WCPFC Implementation Act), as argued in the case 
Conservation Council for Hawai`i v. NMFS, Civ. No. 14-00523 (D. Haw.), 
and attached various court documents supporting the plaintiffs' claims. 
The commenter urged NMFS to await the court's ruling before making a 
final decision regarding the proposed 2015 bigeye tuna specifications.
    Response: Section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the 
Secretary to promulgate final regulations within 30 days of the end of 
the comment period for a proposed rule. The comment period for this 
action closed on September 8, 2015. Therefore, NMFS must promulgate 
final regulations in the Federal Register on or before October 8, 2015. 
There is, moreover, no certainty that the Court would render a decision 
on the motion before October 8, 2015. Finally, NMFS is implementing the 
proposed specification consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
Amendment 7, and applicable WCPFC decisions. NMFS has no basis with 
which to lawfully delay action on the final rule.
    NMFS also disagrees with the comment that the catch and allocation 
framework established by Amendment 7 and promulgated at 50 CFR 665.819 
is ``illegal'' under the WCPFC Implementation Act. First, NMFS 
implemented Amendment 7 and the accompanying regulations under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, not the WCPFC Implementation Act (as asserted in 
the aforementioned litigation). Second, in approving Amendment 7 and 
framework regulations in 2014, NMFS reviewed both the amendment and 
regulations for consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its 
National Standards; the WCPFC Implementation Ac; Section 113 of Public 
Law 112-55; 125 Stat. 552 et seq., the Consolidated and Further 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (continued by Public Law 113-6, 125 
Stat. 603, section 110, the Department of Commerce Appropriations Act, 
2013); and applicable WCPFC CMMs. Finally, the Council and NMFS 
developed Amendment 7 and implementing regulations in response to a 
congressional directive.

Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment

    NMFS responds to comments on the draft EA, as follows:
    Comment 12: One commenter agreed with the NMFS approach of 
addressing a two-year period in the draft EA. This will eliminate the 
need for a duplicative National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review 
for the 2016 specification process.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.
    Comment 13: One commenter agreed that WCPFC CMMs are relevant to 
the NMFS determination that the Federal government is acting consistent 
with its international obligations. However, it is important to 
recognize that those international obligations are not binding domestic 
law unless and until the Federal government expressly incorporates them 
through the promulgation of Federal regulations pursuant to the WCPFC 
Implementation Act.
    Response: NMFS generally agrees that international obligations 
reflected in WCPFC decisions are not enforceable until the government 
gives them effect by regulations implemented under the WCPFC 
Implementation Act.
    Comment 14: One commenter suggested correcting Table 1 to reflect 
that the fisheries would reach the territory limits and allocations 
under the assumptions stated for Outcome D. The commenter also noted, 
however, that it is not necessary or possible to currently predict when 
the fisheries would reach those limits and allocations in the Outcome D 
scenario.
    Response: Outcome D assumes that all three U.S. Pacific territories 
would each catch 1,000 mt of bigeye tuna (total catch of 3,000 mt) in 
2015 and 2016, and that U.S. pelagic fisheries would harvest each of 
the territory's allocation limit of 1,000 mt of bigeye tuna under three 
specified fishing agreements (3,000 mt). However, NMFS does not expect 
all three U.S. Pacific territories will each catch 1,000 mt of bigeye 
tuna. This is because Guam and CNMI currently do not have an active 
longline fishery and vessels operating in the longline fisheries of 
American Samoa harvest an annual average of 521 mt of bigeye tuna. 
Therefore, it is unlikely longline fisheries of these territories will 
each catch 1,000 mt of bigeye tuna in 2015 or 2016. However, because 
Outcome D represents the full potential impact of the Council's 
recommendation, and given that the development of U.S. territorial 
fisheries is an objective of this action, the scenario in Outcome D is 
a reasonable alternative to consider.
    Comment 15: One commenter noted the deep-set fishery does not 
interact at all, nor does it have the potential to interact, with some 
of the species listed on the protected species interaction table, such 
as the blue whale, the Hawaiian monk seal, and all of the coral 
species. The commenter suggested that it is, therefore, incorrect to 
state that the fishery has a ``potential to interact'' with these 
species.
    Response: Table 14 of the EA identifies all species listed as 
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) known 
to occur or are reasonably expected to occur in areas where U.S. 
longline fishing vessels operate. While NMFS agrees that the Hawaii 
deep-set longline fishery has not interacted with some of the species 
listed in the table, all longline vessels have the potential to 
interact with these species through incidental hooking or entanglement 
with fishing gear, collisions, exposure to vessel wastes and 
discharges, or direct and indirect competition for forage. Pursuant to 
ESA Section 7, NMFS has evaluated the pelagic longline fisheries of 
Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI for potential impacts on 
ESA-listed marine species under NMFS jurisdiction and their habitat. EA 
section 5.5 summarizes the conclusions of these consultations. 
Additionally, EA section 4.3 presents the effects of the action 
described in this final rule on ESA-listed species.
    Comment 16: One commenter said that the EA should note that the 
Hawaii humpback whale population has been proposed for delisting.
    Response: On April 21, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule in the

[[Page 61771]]

Federal Register announcing the Agency's intention to divide the 
globally-listed endangered humpback whale species into 14 distinct 
population segments (DPS), remove the current species listing, and, in 
its place, propose for listing four DPSs. The ten DPSs not proposed for 
listing include the Hawaii DPS and the Oceania DPS, which occur in 
areas where the Hawaii and American Samoa longline fisheries operate, 
respectively (80 FR 22304). Please consult the proposed rule for 
specific information on the humpback whale DPS proposal. NMFS added a 
summary of the proposed rule in the EA accompanying the big eye tuna 
specification (see section 3.3.2--Marine Mammals).
    Comment 17: One commenter noted that in numerous areas, the Draft 
EA addresses the transferred effects caused by closing Hawaii longline 
fisheries (i.e., the resulting increase in imports from less regulated 
foreign fisheries) and the detrimental impacts this can have on local 
Hawaii seafood markets and on U.S. fisheries. The commenter supports 
these statements, and notes that several published scientific studies 
corroborate them. In this light, the commenter requested that NMFS 
include the papers enclosed with their comment letter in the 
administrative record.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges and posted for public viewing at 
www.regulations.gov the papers included in the submission of this 
comment.
    Comment 18: One commenter identified an incorrect reference to the 
``proposed action'' in the ``CNMI and Guam longline fisheries'' 
subsection. The commenter noted that this section appears to address 
the ``no action'' alternative, not the proposed action.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has corrected the text in EA section 
4.1.1.2 ``Potential Impacts to Other Non-Target Stocks.''
    Comment 19: One commenter suggested that, although Outcome D is 
theoretically possible, as NMFS and the Council recognize, it is very 
unlikely to occur (and, in fact, will not occur). Outcome D is 
therefore not a ``reasonable'' potential outcome and there is no reason 
to evaluate it as a sub-alternative to the proposed action alternative. 
See 40 CFR 1502.14 (only ``reasonable'' alternatives evaluated in NEPA 
document).
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the assertion that Outcome D is not a 
reasonable sub-alternative to consider. The final rule implements the 
Council's recommendation to establish 2,000 mt longline limits for 
CNMI, of which CNMI may allocate 1,000 mt under a specified fishing 
agreement. We believe that both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NEPA 
require NMFS to analyze the full impact of the action that it 
authorizes.
    NMFS agrees that because Guam and the CNMI do not currently have an 
active longline fishery, Outcome D is not likely to occur in the next 2 
years because Outcome D anticipates that the longline fisheries of all 
three U.S territories would each harvest 1,000 mt of bigeye tuna in 
2015 and 2016. However, NMFS also notes that this action, by providing 
for payments for fisheries development in the U.S. Pacific territories, 
has the potential to develop longline fishery capacity in the 
territories. Therefore, NMFS believes that Outcome D is a reasonable 
alternative to consider in the environmental impact analysis in the EA. 
(See also response to Comment 14.)
    Comment 20: One commenter suggested that NMFS add a discussion in 
the EA about why the proposed rule will have no material impacts on 
yellowfin tuna.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has revised EA section 4.1.2.2 
``Potential Impacts to Other Non-Target Stocks'' to include an analysis 
of the potential impacts of the action on WCPO yellowfin tuna.
    Comment 21: One commenter noted that Appendix E states that ``one 
[specified fishing] agreement would only provide support for projects 
in one territory.'' However, as noted earlier in the Draft EA, 
specified fishing agreements may benefit all U.S. participating 
territories, not just the territory to which the agreement applies.
    Response: NMFS has revised Appendix E of the EA by removing the 
statement that one specified fishing agreement would only provide 
support for projects in one U.S. Pacific territory.

Changes From the Proposed Specifications

    In the proposed specifications published on August 24, 2015 (80 FR 
51193), NMFS proposed to specify a catch limit of 2,000 mt of longline-
caught bigeye tuna for each of the three U.S. Pacific territories 
(Guam, the CNMI, and American Samoa). NMFS also proposed to authorize 
each territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt of its 2,000 mt bigeye tuna 
limit to U.S. longline fishing vessels permitted to fish under the FEP.
    NMFS determined that the proposed catch and allocation limits were 
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 
policies of the approved coastal zone management programs of each of 
the three territories. The coastal management program of the CNMI 
concurred with this determination. The American Samoa coastal 
management program, however, has requested an extension of time to 
review the proposed action. Under regulations at 15 CFR 930.41(b), NMFS 
is approving the requested extension. The Guam coastal management 
program has also indicated that it is still reviewing the proposed 
specifications.
    So that we may implement the territorial limits in a timely 
fashion, NMFS is currently implementing the 2015 limits only for the 
CNMI. We will consider the American Samoa and Guam reviews of the CZMA 
federal consistency determination before implementing a 2015 limit for 
American Samoa and Guam.

Classification

    The Regional Administrator, NMFS PIR, determined that this action 
is necessary for the conservation and management of Pacific Island 
fishery resources, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. NMFS published the factual basis for the certification in the 
proposed rule and does not repeat it here. NMFS received no comments on 
this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is 
not required, and none has been prepared.
    There is good cause to waive the 30-day delay requirement of the 
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), and make this rule 
effective immediately upon service. NMFS closed the U.S. pelagic 
longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the WCPO on August 5, 2015, because 
the fishery reached the 2015 U.S. WCPO catch limit (80 FR 44883, July 
28, 2015). A delayed effective date would be impracticable because the 
fishing year ends on December 31, 2015, and vessels identified in a 
valid specified fishing agreement would be prevented from fishing for 
one month of the remaining three months of this fishing year. 
Furthermore, during the comment period for the proposed rule, NMFS 
received comments that the WCPO closure is having a negative financial 
effect on the fishing community, including vessels, restaurants, and 
other

[[Page 61772]]

seafood-related businesses, and that this action would relieve this 
financial pressure by allowing U.S. fishing vessels identified in a 
valid specified fishing agreement to supply the domestic big eye tuna 
market. Finally, these specifications are identical to those that NMFS 
specified in 2014 (79 FR 64097, October 28, 2014), do not impose any 
new requirements on any entity, and would not result in significant 
impacts to the human environment.
    This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866 because it 
contains no implementing regulations.

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

    Dated: October 7, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-26063 Filed 10-9-15; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P