[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33851-33870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15341]


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

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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: 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[deg] N and 20[deg] 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The rule also makes corrections to outdated cross references in 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.
    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

[[Page 33852]]

(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.

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 no adjustment of the 2018 limit is needed.
    The calendar year longline bigeye tuna catch limit will apply only 
to U.S-flagged 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 
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 shallow-setting 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;

[[Page 33853]]

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[deg] N and 20[deg] 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 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[deg] N latitude and 20[deg] 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 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

[[Page 33854]]

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 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 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 
Sec.  300.217, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to provide a cross

[[Page 33855]]

reference to Sec.  300.336(b)(2), not Sec.  300.14(b), and in Sec.  
300.218(a)(2)(v), the cross reference is to Sec.  300.341(a) instead of 
to Sec.  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 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 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

[[Page 33856]]

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 
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.
    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 Ni[ntilde]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 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.

[[Page 33857]]

    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, 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 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

[[Page 33858]]

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. 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 two-month 
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 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.

[[Page 33859]]

    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 three-year measure, certain key purse seine-related 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 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 350-active 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 350-active 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 record-keeping 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 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

[[Page 33860]]

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 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 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.

[[Page 33861]]

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:

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.

Description of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

    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.

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

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

[[Page 33862]]

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 under no action. Average annual ex-vessel 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 fleet-wide 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 ex-vessel 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 shallow-setting 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 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

[[Page 33863]]

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 
(deep-setting 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 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 sashimi-grade 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 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

[[Page 33864]]

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 deep-set 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 tuna during the closure. For example, the NMFS study of 
the 2010 closure (Richmond et al. 2015) found that ex-vessel 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 
ex-vessel 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 
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

[[Page 33865]]

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 three-month 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 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 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

[[Page 33866]]

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 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 Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]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 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 Ni[ntilde]o events (as compared to 
neutral or La Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]o Index, a common 
measure of ENSO conditions, over the life of the SPTT through 2010.
    El Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]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.

[[Page 33867]]

    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 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 m\3\ 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 year-round. 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 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 fleet-wide--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.

[[Page 33868]]

    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.

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 no-action), but NMFS has 
rejected the no-action 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 no-action 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 
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

[[Page 33869]]

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 no-action 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).

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.
    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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c33352e3d232f091e11150f0f1513123c13111e5219130c521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cf80869d8e909cbaada2a6bcbca6a0a18fa0a2ade1aaa0bfe1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a> 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

0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart O, continues to 
read as follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  300.211, add a definition in alphabetical order for 
``Active FAD'' to read as follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  300.217, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  300.217  Vessel identification.

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

0
4. In Sec.  300.218, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(v) and (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  300.218  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    (a)* * *
    (2)* * *
    (v) High seas fisheries. Fishing activities subject to the 
reporting requirements of Sec.  300.341 must be maintained and reported 
in the manner specified in Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  300.222, revise paragraphs (v), (w), (oo), and (pp) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  300.222  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (v) Use a fishing vessel equipped with purse seine gear to fish in 
an area closed to purse seine fishing under Sec.  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 Sec.  300.223(b).
* * * * *
    (oo) Transship in the Eastern High Seas Special Management Area in 
contravention of Sec.  300.225.
    (pp) Fail to submit, or ensure submission of, a daily purse seine 
fishing effort report as required in Sec.  300.218(g).
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  300.223, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  300.223  Purse seine fishing restrictions.

* * * * *
    (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

[[Page 33870]]

20[deg] N latitude and 20[deg] 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[deg] N latitude and 
20[deg] 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 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.
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  300.224, revise paragraph (a)(1) and remove and reserve 
paragraph (a)(2).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
8. Revise Sec.  300.225 to read as follows:


Sec.  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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>