Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2016 U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits, 63145-63148 [2016-22111]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63145-63148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22111]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 665

[Docket No. 151023986-6763-02]
RIN 0648-XE284


Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2016 U.S. Territorial Longline 
Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits

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

ACTION: Final specifications.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, NMFS specifies a 2016 limit of 2,000 mt of 
longline-caught bigeye tuna for each U.S. participating territory 
(American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands). NMFS will 
allow each territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt each year to U.S. 
longline fishing vessels in a valid specified fishing agreement. 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 and fisheries development in the 
U.S. territories.

DATES: The final specifications are effective September 9, 2016, 
through December 31, 2016. The deadline to submit a specified fishing 
agreement pursuant to 50 CFR 665.819(b)(3) for review is October 11, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries 
of the Western Pacific (Pelagic FEP) 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.
    NMFS prepared environmental analyses that describe the potential

[[Page 63146]]

impacts on the human environment that would result from the action. 
Copies of the environmental analyses, which include a 2015 
environmental assessment (EA), a 2016 supplemental EA (2016 SEA), and a 
finding of no significant impact, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0140, 
are available from www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-
0140, 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 each U.S. participating territory in 
2016. NMFS is also authorizing each U.S. Pacific 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 Pelagic FEP. NMFS will 
monitor catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna by the longline 
fisheries of each U.S Pacific territory, including catches made by U.S. 
longline vessels operating under specified fishing agreements. The 
criteria that a specified fishing agreement must meet, and the process 
for attributing longline-caught bigeye tuna, will follow the procedures 
in 50 CFR 665.819--Territorial catch and fishing effort limits. When 
NMFS projects that 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 (territorial catch limit), and/or vessels in a 
specified fishing agreement (allocation limit).
    You may find additional background information on this action in 
the preamble to the proposed specifications published on July 7, 2016 
(81 FR 44249).

Comments and Responses

    On July 7, 2016, NMFS published the proposed specifications and 
request for public comments (81 FR 44249); the comment period closed on 
July 22, 2016. NMFS received five comments on the proposed 
specifications and on a draft of the SEA dated June 22, 2016, with 
comments submitted by individuals, the fishing industry, and non-
governmental organizations. NMFS considered public comments in 
finalizing the 2016 SEA and in making its decision on this action. NMFS 
responds below to comments on the proposed specifications and the July 
22, 2016, draft of the SEA.

Comments on the Proposed Specifications

    NMFS responds to comments on the proposed specifications, as 
follows:
    Comment 1: Several commenters expressed general support for the 
action and the thorough and objective assessment of the potential 
impacts of the action.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the comments.
    Comment 2: One commenter noted the action supports opportunities 
that promote U.S. fishermen supplying seafood markets, and is 
consistent with Federal regulations implementing Amendment 7 to the 
Pelagic FEP and the recent decision of the United States District Court 
of Hawaii (Conservation Council for Hawaii v. NMFS, NO. CV 14-00528 
LEK-RLP, 2015 WL 9459899 (D. Haw. 2015)).
    Response: NMFS agrees. In November of 2014, Plaintiffs Conservation 
Council of Hawaii, Turtle Island Restoration Network, and Center for 
Biological Diversity, filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court 
of Hawaii (CA 14-00528) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to 
set aside NOAA's October 28, 2014, final rule implementing Amendment 7, 
and the 2014 bigeye tuna catch and allocation limit specifications (79 
FR 64097, October 28, 2014). The final rule established the framework 
process (50 CFR 665.819) under which the Council may recommend, and 
NOAA may approve, longline limits for each U.S. Pacific territory. The 
rule also allows each territory to allocate a portion of the limit to 
qualifying pelagic permit-holders through specified fishing agreements, 
consistent with the conservation needs of the stock and applicable 
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) decisions. In 
December 2015, the U.S. District Court of Hawaii upheld the final rule 
implementing Amendment 7, finding that the final rule was consistent 
with WCPFC conservation and management decisions, and was not contrary 
to law.
    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 
2016. NMFS will also 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. As documented in 
the 2015 EA and the 2016 SEA, NMFS is satisfied that this action would 
not impede WCPFC conservation and management objectives to eliminate 
overfishing on bigeye tuna. We also anticipate that this action may 
provide some stability to bigeye tuna markets, some positive economic 
benefits for the fishery and associated businesses, and net benefits to 
the Nation.
    Comment 3: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed action 
could be detrimental to the Hawaiian bigeye tuna population because the 
amount of bigeye tuna removed from Hawaiian waters could potentially 
increase by 3,000 mt.
    Response: Based on the best scientific information available 
described in Section 3.3.1 of the 2015 EA, NMFS disagrees that this 
action will result in localized or regional depletion of tuna stocks. 
Hawaii does not have a distinct bigeye tuna population. Bigeye tuna is 
a highly migratory species and considered by stock assessment 
scientists as a single Pacific-wide population. However, the stock is 
assessed as two separate stocks for international management purposes, 
with a western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) stock managed by the 
WCPFC and an eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) stock managed by the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).
    As described in the 2015 EA, the most recent 2014 WCPO bigeye 
assessment utilizes a spatially disaggregated MULTIFAN-CL model that 
separates the WCPO into nine regions. The Hawaiian Archipelago is 
located mostly in Region 2, with a small portion within Region 4. 
Regions 2 and 4 share longitudinal boundaries of 170[deg] E. and 
150[deg] W., but are latitudinal separated at 20[deg] N. The 2014 WCPO 
bigeye stock assessment showed that the regions with the highest impact 
to bigeye tuna in the WCPO were Regions 3 and 4--representing 88 
percent of bigeye tuna fishing mortality. Regions 3 and 4 comprise the 
tropical Equatorial zone between 20[deg] N. and 10[deg] S., within 
which the area between 10[deg] N. and 10[deg] S. is distinguished as 
the core Equatorial zone for the tropical tuna longline and purse seine 
fisheries. The highest levels of purse seine and longline fishing 
mortality on bigeye tuna occur in this core Equatorial zone.
    The majority of fishing effort by the U.S. longline fishery 
operating out of Hawaii occurs north of 20[deg] N. in Region 2, where 
fishing mortality for bigeye is much lower than in Regions 3 and 4. 
Moreover, 98 percent of bigeye tuna caught by this fishery occurs north 
of 10[deg] N., which is an area outside of the core Equatorial zone. 
Region 2 also has the highest ratio of exploited spawning biomass to 
unexploited spawning biomass, meaning that it has the lowest

[[Page 63147]]

level of depletion because of fishing pressure.
    Fishing by Hawaii longline vessels occurs principally in Regions 2 
and 4, and the stochastic projections shown in Section 4 of the 2015 EA 
indicate that, compared to no action, the impact of transferring up to 
3,000 mt of bigeye tuna from a U.S. territory to Hawaii longline 
vessels would result in a 2.5 percent change to the ratio of bigeye 
fishing mortality (F) to fishing mortality at MSY (FMSY). 
Specifically, the analysis in the 2015 EA predicts an end to 
overfishing of bigeye by 2032 (F2032/FMSY = 0.93) 
for the alternative under which NMFS would not allow any U.S. territory 
to allocate any tuna to Hawaii longline vessels. Assuming the maximum 
utilization of territorial bigeye tuna limits and associated allocation 
limits under this action, F2032/FMSY increases 
slightly to 1.007. This mortality rate is associated with a 55 percent 
probability of overfishing and is virtually indistinguishable from the 
overfishing threshold of F/FMSY >1.0. Under this action, 
median total biomass (B) would be B2032/BMSY = 
1.510 indicating that biomass would be above the level of biomass that 
produces MSY, and is associated with a zero percent probability of 
overfishing. Taken together, the analysis indicates that the full 
utilization of territorial limits, including the transfer of up to 
3,000 mt of bigeye tuna under specified fishing arrangements, would 
have a negligible effect on the overall stock status of bigeye tuna, 
and would not impede WCPFC conservation measures to eliminate bigeye 
overfishing in the WCPO.

Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment

    NMFS responds to comments on the draft SEA dated June 22, 2016, as 
follows:
    Comment 1: Two commenters questioned whether the best scientific 
information available supports Senator Schatz's proposal to expand the 
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (PMNM). The commenters 
questioned whether the proposed expansion would positively benefit 
target and non-target fish stocks, promote productive fisheries outside 
the PMNM, and combat climate change. The commenters noted that the PMNM 
expansion is a foreseeable future action that is reasonably expected to 
occur, and requested that NMFS evaluate the potential direct and 
cumulative effects of the proposed expansion on Hawaii pelagic 
fisheries, and living marine resources, including coral reefs, bigeye 
tuna, other highly migratory fish stocks, sea turtles, sea birds, and 
marine mammals.
    Response: On August 26, 2016, shortly before publication of this 
final specification, President Barack Obama issued Presidential 
Proclamation 9478 (August 26, 2016, 81 FR 60225), expanding the PMNM to 
the full extent of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone around the 
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands west of 163[deg] W. The Proclamation 
establishes the PMNM Expansion for the protection of the objects within 
its boundaries.
    That Presidential action is separate from and is not a part of the 
current action, which specifies a 2016 catch limit for longline-caught 
bigeye tuna for participating territories and allows each territory to 
allocate a portion of that annual catch to U.S. longline fishing 
vessels. The National Environmental Policy Act requires Federal 
agencies to consider an action's cumulative effects, together with 
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, state, and private 
actions. The commenters do not specify what impacts the Proclamation 
might have that they believe should be considered in a cumulative 
effects analysis for the 2016 bigeye tuna final specifications.
    The specification of territorial longline bigeye tuna catch and 
allocation limits is an action of limited duration that will conclude 
at the end of 2016. The Proclamation has just occurred, and thus there 
is no evident useful information about the protections it affords that 
is available to inform a cumulative effects analysis. Further, in light 
of the short-term nature of the current action, the prohibition on 
commercial fishing in the recent Proclamation is not likely to have a 
cumulative effect on the availability or quantity of tuna that provides 
the basis for the 2016 specifications. NMFS has added a new section to 
this effect in the 2016 SEA (Section 2.5.4, Papahanaumokuakea Marine 
National Monument Expansion).
    Comment 2: One commenter questioned the scientific basis for 
expanding the PMNM, and noted that if the proposal has been peer 
reviewed, NMFS should also be evaluating the effects of the Rose Atoll, 
Mariana Trench, and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments on 
tuna stocks and other highly migratory species.
    Response: Like the recent Proclamation expanding the PMNM, the 
Presidential Proclamations designating the Rose Atoll (74 FR 1577, 
January 12, 2009), Mariana Trench (74 FR 1557, January 12, 2009), and 
Pacific Remote Islands Monuments (74 FR 1565, January 12, 2009; 79 FR 
58645, September 29, 2009), and implementing regulations (78 FR 32996, 
June 2, 2013) are prior Federal actions, and are not part of this 
action. Therefore, as explained in Section 3.0 (Cumulative Impacts) of 
the 2016 SEA, there is no new information on any other component of the 
environment that would affect the cumulative effects analysis contained 
in the 2015 EA.

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 we do 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.
    On December 29, 2015, NMFS issued a final rule establishing a small 
business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all 
businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 
11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only 
(80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard became 
effective on July 1, 2016, and is to be used in place of the U.S. Small 
Business Administration's (SBA) current standards of $20.5 million, 
$5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), 
shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) 
sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry in all NMFS rules 
subject to the RFA after July 1, 2016.
    Pursuant to the RFA and prior to July 1, 2016, NMFS developed a 
certification for this regulatory action using SBA size standards. NMFS 
has reviewed the analyses prepared for this regulatory action in light 
of the new size standard. All of the entities directly regulated by 
this regulatory action are commercial fishing businesses and were 
considered small under the SBA size standards and, thus, they all would 
continue to be considered small under the new standard. Accordingly, 
NMFS has determined that the new size standard

[[Page 63148]]

does not affect analyses prepared for this regulatory action.
    This rule it is not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness 
provision of the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(1) because it is a substantive rule that relieves a restriction. 
This rule allows all U.S. vessels identified in a valid specified 
fishing agreement to resume fishing in the WCPO after NMFS closed the 
longline fishery for bigeye tuna both there and in the EPO.
    NMFS closed the U.S. pelagic longline fishery for bigeye tuna in 
the WCPO, on July 22, 2016, because the fishery reached the 2016 catch 
limit (81 FR 45982, July 15, 2016). On July 25, 2016, NMFS also closed 
the U.S. pelagic longline fishery for bigeye tuna for vessels greater 
than 24 m in the EPO because the fishery reached the 2016 catch limit 
(81 FR 46614, July 18, 2016). This final rule would relieve the 
restriction of the fishery closure in the WCPO by allowing all U.S. 
vessels to fish for bigeye tuna in the WCPO under a valid specified 
fishing agreement with one or more U.S Pacific territory. This would 
alleviate some of the impacts to the U.S. pelagic longline fishery 
resulting from the two fishery closures, and may provide positive 
economic benefits for the fishery and associated businesses, and net 
benefits to the public and the Nation.
    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: September 8, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-22111 Filed 9-9-16; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P