Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8807 

DELEGATION STATUS FOR PART 63 STANDARDS—STATE OF NEW MEXICO—Continued 

[Excluding Indian Country] 

Subpart Source category NMED 1 2 ABCAQCB1 3

DDDDDDD ..................... Prepared Feeds Areas Sources .................................................................................. X X 

EEEEEEE ...................... Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production Area Sources ......................................... X X 

FFFFFFF–GGGGGGG .. (Reserved) ................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

HHHHHHH ..................... Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Major Sources ................................. X X 

1Authorities which may not be delegated include: § 63.6(g), Approval of Alternative Non-Opacity Emission Standards; § 63.6(h)(9), Approval of 

Alternative Opacity Standards; § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Test Methods; § 63.8(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to 

Monitoring; § 63.10(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting; and all authorities identified in the subparts (e.g., under 

‘‘Delegation of Authority’’) that cannot be delegated. 2Program delegated to New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) for standards promulgated by EPA, as amended in the Federal Register through August 29, 2013. 3Program delegated to Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (ABCAQCB) for standards promulgated by EPA, as amended 

in the Federal Register through September 13, 2013. 4The NMED was previously delegated this subpart on February 9, 2004 (68 FR 69036). The ABCAQCB has adopted the subpart unchanged

and applied for delegation of the standard. The subpart was vacated and remanded to EPA by the United States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit. See, Mossville Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 370 F. 3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Because of the DC Court’s holding 

this subpart is not delegated to NMED or ABCAQCB at this time. 5This subpart was issued a partial vacatur on October 29, 2007 (72 FR 61060) by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 6Final rule. See 78 FR 7138 (January 31, 2013). 

7This subpart was vacated and remanded to EPA by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 

2007. See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Because of the DC Court’s holding this subpart is not delegated to NMED or 

ABCAQCB at this time. 8 Initial Final Rule on February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304). Final on reconsideration of certain new source issues on April 24, 2013 (78 FR 24073). 

Portions of this subpart are in proposed reconsideration pending final action on June 25, 2013 (78 FR 38001). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–03482 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 130703588–5112–02] 

RIN 0648–BD44 

International Fisheries; Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly 

Migratory Species; Fishing 

Restrictions Regarding the Oceanic 

Whitetip Shark, the Whale Shark, and 

the Silky Shark 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations 

under authority of the Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries Convention 

Implementation Act (WCPFC 

Implementation Act) to implement 

decisions of the Commission for the 

Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean 

(Commission or WCPFC) on fishing 

restrictions related to the oceanic 

whitetip shark (Carcharhinus 

longimanus), the whale shark 

(Rhincodon typus), and the silky shark 

(Carcharhinus falciformis). The 

regulations apply to owners and 

operators of U.S. fishing vessels used for 

commercial fishing for highly migratory 

species (HMS) 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). The 

regulations for oceanic whitetip sharks 

and silky sharks prohibit the retention, 

transshipment, storage, or landing of 

oceanic whitetip sharks or silky sharks, 

and require the release of any oceanic 

whitetip shark or silky shark as soon as 

possible after it is caught, with as little 

harm to the shark as possible. The 

regulations for whale sharks prohibit 

setting a purse seine on a whale shark 

and specify certain measures to be taken 

and reporting requirements in the event 

a whale shark is encircled in a purse 

seine net. This action is necessary for 

the United States to satisfy its 

obligations under the Convention, to 

which it is a Contracting Party. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 23, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting 

documents prepared for this final rule, 

including the regulatory impact review 

(RIR) and the Environmental 

Assessment (EA), as well as the 

proposed rule, are available via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, at 

www.regulations.gov (search for Docket 

ID NOAA–NMFS–2014–0086). Those 

documents, and the small entity 

compliance guide prepared for this final 

rule, 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. The initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 

and final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) prepared under the authority of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are 

included in the proposed rule and this 

final rule, respectively. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this final rule 

may be submitted to Michael D. Tosatto, 

Regional Administrator, NMFS PIRO 

(see ADDRESSES) and by email to OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202– 

395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rini 

Ghosh, NMFS PIRO, 808–725–5033. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

22, 2014, NMFS published a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register (79 FR 

49745) to implement decisions of the 

Commission on the oceanic whitetip 

shark, the whale shark, and the silky 

shark. The proposed rule was open for 

public comment through October 6, 

2014. 

This final rule is issued under the 

authority of the 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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8808 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the United States under the Convention, 

including the decisions of the 

Commission. The authority to 

promulgate regulations has been 

delegated to NMFS. 

This final rule implements the 

WCPFC’s ‘‘Conservation and 

Management Measure for Oceanic 

Whitetip Shark’’ (CMM 2011–04), 

‘‘Conservation and Management 

Measure for Protection of Whale Sharks 

from Purse Seine Fishing Operations’’ 

(CMM 2012–04), and ‘‘Conservation and 

Management Measure for Silky Sharks’’ 

(CMM 2013–08). The preamble to the 

proposed rule provides background 

information on a number of matters, 

including the Convention and the 

Commission, the provisions of the 

WCPFC decisions being implemented in 

this rule, and the bases for the proposed 

regulations, which is not repeated here. 

New Requirements 

The final rule includes six elements— 

three regarding the oceanic whitetip 

shark and silky shark and three 

regarding the whale shark. 

Oceanic Whitetip Shark and Silky Shark 

Elements 

For the oceanic whitetip shark and 

silky shark, the first element prohibits 

the crew, operator, and owner of a 

fishing vessel of the United States used 

for commercial fishing for HMS from 

retaining on board, transshipping, 

storing, or landing any part or whole 

carcass of an oceanic whitetip shark or 

silky shark that is caught in the 

Convention Area. The second element 

requires the crew, operator, and owner 

to release any oceanic whitetip shark or 

silky shark caught in the Convention 

Area as soon as possible after the shark 

is caught and brought alongside the 

vessel and take reasonable steps for its 

safe release, without compromising the 

safety of any persons. The third element 

takes into consideration that, 

notwithstanding the other two oceanic 

whitetip and silky shark elements of the 

rule, WCPFC observers may collect 

samples of oceanic whitetip sharks or 

silky sharks that are dead when brought 

alongside the vessel and the crew, 

operator, or owner of the vessel must 

allow and assist them to collect samples 

in the Convention Area, if requested to 

do so. Observers deployed by NMFS or 

the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries 

Agency are currently considered 

WCPFC observers, as those programs 

have completed the required 

authorization process to become part of 

the WCPFC Regional Observer 

Programme. 

CMM 2011–04 and CMM 2013–08, for 

the oceanic whitetip shark and the silky 

shark, respectively, apply to the entire 

Convention Area, including, for the 

United States, state and territorial 

waters. The WCPFC Implementation Act 

states that regulations promulgated 

under the act shall apply within the 

boundaries of any of the States of the 

United States and any commonwealth, 

territory or possession of the United 

States (hereafter ‘‘State’’) bordering on 

the Convention Area if the Secretary of 

Commerce has provided notice to the 

State, the State does not request an 

agency hearing, and the Secretary of 

Commerce has determined that the State 

has not, within a reasonable period of 

time after the promulgation of 

regulations, enacted laws or 

promulgated regulations that implement 

the recommendations of the WCPFC 

within the boundaries of the State; or 

has enacted laws or promulgated 

regulations that implement the 

recommendations of the WCPFC that are 

less restrictive than the regulations 

promulgated under the WCPFC 

Implementation Act or are not 

effectively enforced (16 U.S.C. 6907(e)). 

Some of the fisheries affected by the 

oceanic whitetip shark and silky shark 

elements of the rule operate within the 

waters of American Samoa, Guam, 

Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). 

NMFS furnished copies of the proposed 

rule to these States at the time of 

publication in the Federal Register and 

will furnish copies of the final rule as 

well. NMFS is available to discuss ways 

to ensure that the conservation and 

management measures implemented in 

this rulemaking can be consistently 

applied to Federal, state, and territorial 

managed fisheries. 

Whale Shark Elements 

For the whale shark, the first element 

of the final rule prohibits owners, 

operators, and crew of fishing vessels 

from setting or attempting to set a purse 

seine in the Convention Area on or 

around a whale shark if the animal is 

sighted prior to the commencement of 

the set or the attempted set. CMM 2012– 

04 includes language making the 

prohibition specific to ‘‘a school of tuna 

associated with a whale shark.’’ 

However, it is unclear exactly what this 

phrase means. Thus, NMFS believes it 

is appropriate to apply this prohibition 

to any purse seine set or attempted set 

on or around a whale shark that has 

been sighted prior to commencement of 

the set or attempted set. This 

prohibition would not apply to sets 

made in the territorial seas or 

archipelagic waters of any nation or in 

the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of 

the Parties to the Nauru Agreement 

(PNA). The final rule includes a 

definition of the PNA as the Pacific 

Island countries that are parties to the 

Nauru Agreement Concerning 

Cooperation in the Management of 

Fisheries of Common Interest, as 

specified on the Web site of the Parties 

to the Nauru Agreement at 

www.pnatuna.com. The PNA currently 

includes the following countries: 

Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, 

Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua 

New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and 

Tuvalu. Vessel owners and operators 

may be subject to similar prohibitions 

regarding the whale shark in the EEZs 

of the PNA, if implemented by one or 

more PNA countries. 

The second element for the whale 

shark in the final rule requires the crew, 

operator, and owner of a fishing vessel 

to release any whale shark that is 

encircled in a purse seine net in the 

Convention Area, and to take reasonable 

steps to ensure its safe release, without 

compromising the safety of any persons. 

This element does not apply in the 

territorial seas or archipelagic waters of 

any nation, but does apply in all EEZs, 

including the EEZs of the PNA. 

The third and final element for the 

whale shark in the final rule requires 

the owner and operator of a fishing 

vessel that encircles a whale shark with 

a purse seine in the Convention Area to 

ensure that the incident is recorded by 

the end of the day on the catch report 

form, or Regional Purse Seine Logsheet 

(RPL), maintained pursuant to 50 CFR 

300.34(c)(1), in the format specified by 

the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional 

Administrator. The NMFS Pacific 

Islands Regional Administrator would 

provide vessel owners and operators 

with specific instructions for how to 

record whale shark encirclements on the 

RPL. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received comments from 38 

individuals on the proposed rule, as 

well as three comment letters from 

groups or organizations. The comments 

have been grouped together, where 

appropriate, in the summaries below. 

Comment 1: Four commenters 

provided general statements of support 

for the rule and five additional 

commenters expressed support for the 

rule stating that oceanic whitetip sharks, 

whale sharks, and silky sharks need to 

be protected from the fishing industry as 

they are at risk of extinction. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges these 

comments. 

Comment 2: One commenter stated 

that there is no sustainable way to fish 

for these sharks. Their lengthy gestation 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8809 

and low reproduction rate make them 

vulnerable to environmental changes. 

Response: NMFS notes that U.S. 

vessel owners and operators subject to 

this final rule are generally not fishing 

for these sharks, as there is no directed 

commercial shark fishery in the U.S. 

Pacific Islands region. 

Comment 3: Six commenters 

discussed how they view sharks as 

important parts of a healthy ocean and 

that loss of sharks would be detrimental 

to the environment. Two of these 

commenters suggested that preserving 

sharks could help the shark diving 

industry, and one of them provided a 

photo they had taken of an oceanic 

whitetip shark. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges these 

comments and the photo. 

Comment 4: Ten commenters called 

for protections from fishing for all shark 

species; half of these commenters asked 

for broad protections for other species, 

including cetaceans. Most discussed the 

importance of sharks to the ecosystem 

and some discussed their vulnerability 

to fishing and environmental changes. 

Response: The final rule establishes 

regulations that prohibit the retention, 

transshipment, storage, and landing of 

oceanic whitetip sharks and silky 

sharks, and require the release of any 

oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark as 

soon as possible after it is caught, with 

as little harm to the shark as possible. 

The final rule also establishes 

regulations that prohibit setting a purse 

seine on a whale shark and specify 

certain measures to be taken in the 

event a whale shark is encircled in a 

purse seine net, as well as a requirement 

to report the incident to NMFS. As 

described in the EA, other domestic and 

international management measures, 

such as the U.S. Shark Conservation Act 

of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–348), are in place 

to mitigate the impacts of fishing on 

shark species. NMFS, as well as 

international organizations and other 

countries are actively considering 

additional management for sharks. For 

example, the WCPFC’s CMM 2010–07 

provides management measures for 

sharks, and the WCPFC is considering 

additional shark management measures. 

Comment 5: One commenter 

recommended that the proposed 

regulations be adopted. The commenter 

stated that these shark species face 

many man-made perils and need any 

beneficial regulations that can keep 

them from becoming endangered. 

According to the commenter, the 

proposed regulations would provide a 

legal framework for the agency to take 

action against any offenses. The 

commenter stated that enforcement will 

likely be challenging but that it is good 

to have something for which to strive. 

It is in a fisherman’s best interest to help 

protect the fragile ecosystem he or she 

relies upon. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 6: One commenter stated 

that oceanic whitetip sharks scour the 

open ocean which is devoid of most life, 

so when they encounter potential food, 

they may test it to see if it is edible. 

According to the commenter, the bad 

reputation of sharks comes from being 

opportunistic. However, thousands of 

people have swum with these sharks 

without injury. The sharks need to 

survive in a harsh, barren environment 

and they excel at it, so we should let 

them live. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 7: One commenter stated 

that it is unconscionable to not 

implement stronger protections for these 

sharks. According to the commenter, 

studies have shown declines in oceanic 

whitetip shark populations in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Silky shark populations are 

estimated to have also declined 

dramatically. The International Union 

for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists 

the oceanic whitetip shark as 

vulnerable, the silky shark as near 

threatened, and the whale shark as 

vulnerable. Many countries have 

recognized the fragility of whale shark 

populations and have legislated full 

protection for them. None of these 

species can sustain ongoing depletion. 

Response: Please see the response to 

Comment 4. 

Comment 8: One commenter asked 

NMFS to reconsider implementing the 

proposed rule, so that abuse of the 

ocean’s beautiful creatures would stop. 

Response: We understand this 

comment to mean that the commenter 

believes the rule would lead to 

increased abuse of living marine 

resources. However, please see the 

response to Comment 4, above, for a 

summary of the regulations being 

implemented in this rule. 

Comment 9: One commenter 

requested NMFS to provide better 

protection for sharks. 

Response: As stated above in the 

response to Comment 4, the final rule 

implements WCPFC decisions for the 

conservation and management of three 

shark species. 

Comment 10: One commenter asked 

why everyone wants to kill these shark 

species, since they are simply fantastic 

and keep the ocean healthy. 

Response: As described above in the 

response to Comment 4, the final rule 

implements WCPFC decisions for the 

conservation and management of three 

shark species. 

Comment 11: Three commenters 

stated that they fully support the 

regulation of shark finning and more 

responsible fishing, as specified in the 

proposed rule. They also stated that 

these animals are critical members of 

the ecosystem and should be protected 

and that these regulations should be 

strictly enforced. 

Response: Please see the response to 

Comment 4, above, for a description of 

the elements of the final rule. The final 

rule does not regulate the practice of 

finning sharks, but other existing laws 

and regulations do so (e.g., the Shark 

Conservation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 

348)). 

Comment 12: One commenter 

supported the proposed rule and hopes 

that the United States will set an 

example for other countries. The 

commenter also provided background 

information on the status and 

importance of these sharks. However, 

the commenter asked NMFS to review 

the whale shark provisions of the 

proposed rule, recommending that nets 

should not be allowed in the water if a 

whale shark is seen and the regulations 

should clarify what would happen if a 

purse seine net is already in the water 

when a whale shark is sighted. The 

commenter also expressed concern over 

the lack of clarity in the definition of a 

‘‘school of tuna associated with a whale 

shark’’ and suggested that it be 

rewritten. 

Response: The regulations in this final 

rule prohibit setting or attempting to set 

a purse seine in the Convention Area on 

or around a whale shark if the animal 

is sighted prior to the commencement of 

the set or the attempted set. Should a 

whale shark be sighted after 

commencement of the set when the net 

is already in the water, it is not certain 

that the whale shark would become 

encircled in the net or that retrieving the 

net immediately would avoid encircling 

the whale shark. However, the 

regulations also require the crew, 

operator, and owner of a fishing vessel 

to release any whale shark that is 

encircled in a purse seine net and take 

reasonable steps for its safe release 

without compromising the safety of any 

persons. CMM 2012–04 includes 

language prohibiting vessels from 

setting a purse seine on a ‘‘school of 

tuna associated with a whale shark’’ if 

the animal is sighted prior to the 

commencement of the set or the 

attempted set. As stated in the proposed 

rule, it is unclear exactly what the 

phrase ‘‘school of tuna associated with 

a whale shark,’’ as used in the CMM, 

means. Thus, NMFS is implementing 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8810 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

broad regulations to prohibit any purse 

seine set or attempted set on or around 

a whale shark that has been sighted 

prior to the commencement of the set or 

the attempted set. NMFS believes that 

this interpretation of the CMM is 

practical for the crew, operators, and 

owners of fishing vessels to implement 

and for enforcement officials to enforce. 

Comment 13: One commenter stated 

that as an officer in the U.S. distant 

water purse seine fleet one of his 

responsibilities is to act as a medical 

officer. The commenter strongly 

encourages the word ‘‘safely’’ to be 

added to the language requiring the 

release of oceanic whitetip sharks and 

silky sharks as soon as possible. 

Captured sharks can cause serious 

injuries to the crewmen trying to release 

them alive. Risking crew injury is 

unacceptable. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the safety 

of crew members is of paramount 

importance. The regulations in this final 

rule for oceanic whitetip sharks and 

silky sharks require the crew, operator, 

and owner: ‘‘to release any oceanic 

whitetip shark or silky shark caught in 

the Convention Area as soon as possible 

after the shark is caught and brought 

alongside the vessel and take reasonable 

steps for its safe release, without 

compromising the safety of any 

persons.’’ 

Comment 14: One commenter who 

has managed a U.S. built and owned 

purse seine vessel that has operated out 

of Pago Pago, American Samoa, since 

1981 expressed concerns over the 

proposal and stated that U.S. vessels 

already practice the regulations being 

implemented. The commenter believes 

that piecemeal protections for various 

species are inefficient and generate 

excess paperwork. The commenter 

suggested that the United States instead 

propose a full purse seine closure 

period for all Commission Members, 

Cooperating Non-Members, and 

Participating Territories (WCPFC 

members), similar to what is in effect in 

the eastern Pacific Ocean. 

Response: The final rule implements 

specific WCPFC decisions on oceanic 

whitetip sharks, whale sharks, and silky 

sharks. The United States, as a member 

of the WCPFC, regularly considers 

conservation and management measures 

that could be adopted by the WCPFC for 

purse seine fisheries, but such measures 

are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

Comment 15: One group of 

commenters who submitted their 

comments jointly supported the 

regulations, especially in regard to silky 

sharks, and provided background 

information on silky sharks. The 

commenters proposed that NMFS 

modify the regulations to include a 

reporting requirement for silky shark 

bycatch to monitor the effectiveness of 

the regulations and for collecting 

additional data. The commenters also 

suggested that NMFS provide a better 

definition for the phrase ‘‘as little harm 

as possible,’’ which is part of the 

provisions of CMM 2013–08 regarding 

the release of any silky sharks caught in 

the Convention Area, to ensure the 

safety of silky sharks and provide fair 

enforcement. According to the 

commenters, allowing the operators of 

individual fishing vessels to determine 

what level of harm is acceptable would 

increase the risk of the regulations being 

applied arbitrarily. The commenters 

requested NMFS to consult with experts 

to develop a more thorough definition 

or establish guidelines for allowable and 

prohibited conduct when releasing silky 

sharks. 

Response: WCPFC CMM 2010–07 

identifies the silky shark as a key shark 

species and requires retained and 

discarded catches to be reported by each 

WCPFC member in its annual report to 

the Commission. NMFS believes that 

additional reporting for silky shark 

catches, including discards, is not 

needed at this time. The final 

regulations specify that crew, operators, 

and owners must release silky sharks 

caught in the Convention Area as soon 

as possible after the shark is caught and 

brought alongside the vessel, taking 

reasonable steps for its safe release, 

without compromising the safety of any 

persons. NMFS believes that this is a 

reasonable interpretation of CMM 2013– 

08’s phrase ‘‘as little harm as possible’’ 

that can be implemented and enforced. 

The WCPFC Scientific Committee has 

considered appropriate guidelines for 

the safe release of encircled animals, 

such as whale sharks in purse seine 

nets, but the WCPFC has not yet 

adopted uniform guidelines. NMFS will 

establish additional shark handling 

requirements if and when needed 

should the WCPFC adopt further 

measures in this regard. NMFS does not 

believe issuance of these regulations 

should be postponed in order to develop 

such handling guidelines or 

requirements. 

Comment 16: One organization 

provided comments expressing support 

for the proposed regulations and noting 

that the implementation deadlines in 

CMM 2011–04, CMM 2012–04, and 

CMM 2013–08 have already passed. The 

commenter indicated the need for rapid 

completion of the implementation of the 

measures to ensure that the United 

States is in full compliance with its 

WCPFC obligations for shark 

conservation and management. The 

commenter also provided background 

information on the stock status and 

importance of the three shark species. 

The commenter urged NMFS to extend 

the applicability of the oceanic whitetip 

shark and silky shark regulations to all 

fisheries, including non-commercial 

fisheries, that the United States manages 

in the western and central Pacific Ocean 

(WCPO) to enhance conservation and 

enforcement ability. The commenter 

expressed agreement with NMFS’ 

interpretation of CMM 2012–04’s phrase 

‘‘school of tuna associated with a whale 

shark.’’ 

Response: The final regulations for 

oceanic whitetip sharks and silky sharks 

apply to all U.S. commercial HMS 

fisheries operating in the Convention 

Area. NMFS interprets the WCPFC 

decisions for the oceanic whitetip shark 

and the silky shark as being applicable 

only to commercial HMS fisheries, and 

therefore believes that the inclusion of 

other fisheries in the rule, as requested 

by the commenter, would not be 

appropriate. Should NMFS determine 

that oceanic whitetip shark and silky 

shark conservation measures are needed 

in other fisheries, NMFS would be able 

to implement such measures through 

other processes, such as those under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Comment 17: One organization 

provided comments expressing its 

strong support for the proposed rule. 

The letter approved of NMFS’s 

interpretation of the WCPFC measures 

to protect whale sharks, and noted the 

complementary nature of these 

regulations to similar regulations that 

recently went into effect in the eastern 

Pacific Ocean. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges these 

comments. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

The phrase ‘‘areas under the national 

jurisdiction of the Parties to the Nauru 

Agreement’’ is used in the regulatory 

text to refer to the EEZs of the PNA. For 

clarification purposes, a definition of 

areas under the national jurisdiction of 

the Parties to the Nauru Agreement has 

been added to the regulatory text. 

The new paragraph under 50 CFR 

300.218 has been relabeled as (h) to 

accommodate another addition to 50 

CFR 300.218 under a separate 

rulemaking. The new paragraphs under 

50 CFR 300.222 have been relabeled as 

(ss), (tt), (uu), (vv), and (ww) to 

accommodate another addition to 50 

CFR 300.222 under a separate 

rulemaking. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8811 

Classification 

The Administrator, Pacific Islands 

Region, NMFS, has determined that this 

final rule is consistent with the WCPFC 

Implementation Act and other 

applicable laws. 

Executive Order 12866 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A FRFA was prepared. The FRFA 

incorporates the 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 in the 

preamble of the proposed rule and in 

the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION sections of this final rule, 

above. The analysis follows. 

Significant Issues Raised by Public 

Comments in Response to the IRFA 

NMFS did not receive any comments 

specifically on the IRFA. Two of the 

public comments received on the 

proposed rule touched on the economic 

impacts of the proposed action; see 

Comments #5 and #14, and NMFS’ 

responses to those comments, above. 

Description of Small Entities to Which 

the Rule Will Apply 

Small entities include ‘‘small 

businesses,’’ ‘‘small organizations,’’ and 

‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ The 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

has established size standards for all 

major industry sectors in the United 

States, including commercial finfish 

harvesters (NAICS code 114111). A 

business primarily involved in finfish 

harvesting 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 $20.5 million 

for all its affiliated operations 

worldwide. 

The final rule will apply to owners 

and operators of U.S. fishing vessels 

used to fish for HMS for commercial 

purposes in the Convention Area. This 

includes vessels in the purse seine, 

longline, tropical troll (including those 

in American Samoa, the CNMI, Guam, 

and Hawaii), Hawaii handline, Hawaii 

pole-and-line, and west coast-based 

albacore troll fleets. The estimated 

number of affected fishing vessels is as 

follows, broken down by fleet: 40 purse 

seine vessels (based on the number of 

purse seine vessels licensed under the 

South Pacific Tuna Treaty as of March 

2014); 165 longline vessels (based on 

the number of longline vessels 

permitted to fish as of July 2014 under 

the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pacific 

Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific 

Region, which includes vessels based in 

Hawaii (a total of 164 Hawaii Longline 

Limited Entry permits are available), 

American Samoa (a total of 60 American 

Samoa Longline Limited Entry permits 

are available), and the Mariana Islands); 

2,089 tropical troll and 572 Hawaii 

handline vessels (based on the number 

of active troll and handline vessels in 

American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, and 

Hawaii in 2012, the latest year for which 

complete data are available); 1 tropical 

pole-and-line vessel (based on the 

number of active vessels in 2012), and 

13 albacore troll vessels (based on the 

number of albacore troll vessels 

authorized to fish on the high seas in 

the Convention Area as of July 2014). 

Thus, the total estimated number of 

vessels that would be subject to the rule 

is approximately 2,880. 

Based on (limited) available financial 

information about the affected fishing 

fleets and the SBA’s definition of a 

small finfish harvester (i.e., gross annual 

receipts of less than $20.5 million, 

independently owned and operated, and 

not dominant in its field of operation), 

and using individual vessels as proxies 

for individual businesses, NMFS 

believes that all of the affected fish 

harvesting businesses are small entities. 

As stated above, there are currently 40 

purse seine vessels in the affected purse 

seine fishery. Neither gross receipts nor 

ex-vessel price information specific to 

the 40 vessels are available to NMFS. 

Average annual receipts for each of the 

40 vessels during the last 3 years for 

which reasonably complete data are 

available (2010–2012) were estimated as 

follows. The vessel’s reported retained 

catches of skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, 

and bigeye tuna in each year were each 

multiplied by an indicative Asia-Pacific 

regional cannery price for that species 

and year (developed by the Pacific 

Islands Forum Fisheries Agency and 

available at https://www.ffa.int/node/

425#attachments); the products were 

summed across species for each year; 

and the sums were averaged across the 

3 years. The estimated average annual 

receipts for each of the 40 vessels were 

less than the $20.5 million threshold 

used to classify businesses as small 

entities under the SBA size standard for 

finfish harvesting businesses. 

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other 

Compliance Requirements 

The final rule will establish one new 

reporting requirement within the 

meaning of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, as well as additional requirements, 

as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this final rule, 

above. The classes of small entities 

subject to the requirements and the 

costs of complying with the 

requirements are described below for 

each of the six elements of the final 

rule—three elements regarding the 

oceanic whitetip shark and silky shark, 

and three elements regarding the whale 

shark. 

Oceanic Whitetip Shark and Silky 

Shark Element (1): Prohibit the crew, 

operator, and owner of a fishing vessel 

from retaining on board, transshipping, 

storing, or landing any oceanic whitetip 

shark or silky shark. This element 

prohibits the crew, operator, and owner 

of a fishing vessel of the United States 

used for commercial fishing for HMS 

from retaining on board, transshipping, 

storing, or landing any part or whole 

carcass of an oceanic whitetip shark or 

silky shark that is caught in the 

Convention Area. This requirement 

would not impose any new reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. It is not 

expected to require any professional 

skills that the affected vessel owners, 

operators and crew do not already 

possess. This requirement would apply 

to owners, operators and crew of any 

vessel used to fish for HMS for 

commercial purposes in the Convention 

Area. Accordingly, it would apply to all 

vessels identified above. Based on the 

best available data, oceanic whitetip 

shark and silky shark are not caught in 

the Hawaii handline fishery, the Hawaii 

pole-and-line fishery, or the albacore 

troll fishery. Thus, compliance costs are 

expected only in the purse seine, 

longline, and tropical troll fleets. This 

requirement forecloses harvesting 

businesses’ opportunity to retain and 

sell or otherwise make use of the two 

species. The compliance cost for each 

entity can be approximated by the exvessel value of the amount of the two 

species that would be expected to be 

retained if it were allowed (under no 

action). Price data for specific shark 

species and in specific fisheries is 

lacking, so this analysis assumes that 

the ex-vessel value of both species in all 

affected fisheries is $1.50/kg, which is 

the 2011 ex-vessel price (converted to 

2013 dollars) for sharks generally in 

Hawaii’s commercial pelagic fisheries 

(which do not include the purse seine 

fishery, in which the fate and value of 

retained sharks are not known). 

Expected retained amounts of each of 

the two species in each fishery (under 

no action) are based on the recent level 

of fishing effort multiplied by the recent 

retention rate per unit of fishing effort. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8812 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

For all fisheries except the purse seine 

fishery, the average of the last 5 years 

for which complete data are available, 

2008–2012, is used. The analysis of 

impacts for the purse seine fishery uses 

fishing effort and the retention rate 

averaged over 2010 and 2011 because 

the fleet was substantially smaller than 

the current 40-vessel size in years 

previous to 2010, 100% observer 

coverage started in 2010, and 2011 is the 

last year for which near-complete data 

are available. Fishing effort estimates 

are based on vessel logbook data, except 

in the case of the American Samoa, 

CNMI, and Guam troll fisheries, for 

which creel survey data are used. 

Recent retention rates in the purse seine 

and longline fisheries are estimated 

from vessel observer data. In the Hawaii 

troll fishery, vessel logbook data are 

used, and in the American Samoa, 

CNMI, and Guam troll fisheries, creel 

survey data are used. Fish numbers are 

converted to weights based on vessel 

observer data for each fishery, except for 

the troll fisheries, for which weight data 

are lacking and the average weights in 

the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery are 

used. The average weights used are, for 

oceanic whitetip shark and silky shark, 

respectively: purse seine—23 kg and 32 

kg; Hawaii deep-set longline—27 kg and 

28 kg; Hawaii shallow-set longline—27 

kg and 28 kg; American Samoa 

longline—26 kg and 18 kg; and tropical 

troll—27 kg (the two species cannot be 

accurately distinguished in the data and 

are combined for the purpose of this 

analysis). 

In the purse seine fishery, in which 

about 40 vessels are expected to 

participate in the near future, it is 

estimated that 0.1 oceanic whitetip 

shark and 2.9 silky shark would be 

retained (under no action) per vessel per 

year, on average. Applying the average 

weights and price given above, these 

amounts equate to estimated lost annual 

revenue of about $140 per vessel, on 

average. 

As indicated above, about 165 vessels 

are expected to participate in the 

affected longline fisheries in the near 

future. The longline fisheries operating 

in the Convention Area include the 

Hawaii-based fisheries, which include a 

tuna-targeting deep-set fishery and 

swordfish-targeting shallow set fishery, 

and the American Samoa-based fishery. 

Occasionally there is also longline 

fishing by vessels based in the Mariana 

Islands, where participation is typically 

fewer than three vessels in any given 

year. No vessel observer data are 

available specifically for the Mariana 

Islands longline fishery, making it 

difficult to analyze shark catch rates, but 

shark catch rates in the other longline 

fisheries might be reasonable proxies for 

catch rates in the Mariana Islands 

fishery. In that case, to the extent either 

oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark is 

caught and retained in the Mariana 

Islands longline fishery in the future, 

the effects of the final rule can be 

expected to be about the same—on a 

per-unit of fishing effort basis—as those 

in the other longline fisheries, as 

described here. In the Hawaii and 

American Samoa longline fisheries, it is 

estimated that 0.2 oceanic whitetip 

shark and 0.1 silky shark would be 

retained (under no action) per vessel per 

year, on average. These amounts equate 

to estimated lost annual revenue of 

about $12 per vessel, on average. 

Catch and retention rates of the two 

shark species in the tropical troll 

fisheries are difficult to estimate for 

several reasons. For example, in the 

Hawaii troll fishery, there is no species 

code for silky shark, so any catches of 

that species are recorded as unidentified 

sharks. In the troll fisheries of the three 

territories, because the two carcharhinid 

species are retained only infrequently, it 

is difficult to generate estimates of total 

catches of the two species with much 

certainty using the creel surveys that 

sample only a subset of all fishing trips. 

Because of these and other limitations, 

only very approximate estimates can be 

made. For this analysis, all unidentified 

sharks in the data are assumed to be 

oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark, so 

the resulting estimates are upper-bound 

estimates. In the Hawaii troll fishery, it 

is estimated that 9 sharks would be 

retained (under no action) per year, on 

average, for the fishery as a whole. With 

approximately 1,694 vessels expected to 

participate in the fishery (based on the 

number active in 2012), this equates to 

about 0.01 sharks per vessel per year, 

and an estimated lost annual revenue of 

less than one dollar per vessel. The 

Guam troll fishery, with about 351 

vessels expected to participate in the 

near future, is expected to retain about 

2 sharks per year (under no action), on 

average, for the fleet as a whole. This 

equates to about 0.01 sharks per vessel 

per year, and an estimated annual 

compliance cost of less than one dollar 

per vessel. In the American Samoa troll 

fishery, it is estimated that about 0.3 

sharks would be retained, on average, 

per year (under no action). With about 

9 vessels expected to participate in the 

fishery, this equates to about 0.03 sharks 

per vessel per year, and an estimated 

annual compliance cost of less than one 

dollar per vessel. The creel survey 

encountered no retained sharks in the 

CNMI troll fishery in 2008–2012, so the 

best estimate of lost annual revenue for 

each of the approximately 35 vessels 

expected to participate in this fishery is 

zero. 

Oceanic Whitetip Shark and Silky 

Shark Element (2): Require the crew, 

operators, and owners of U.S. fishing 

vessels used for commercial fishing for 

HMS in the Convention Area to release 

any oceanic whitetip shark or silky 

shark caught in the Convention Area. 

This element requires the vessel crew, 

operator, and owner to release any 

oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark 

caught in the Convention Area as soon 

as possible after the shark is caught and 

brought alongside the vessel and take 

reasonable steps to ensure its safe 

release, without compromising the 

safety of any persons. This requirement 

would not impose any new reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. It is not 

expected to require any professional 

skills that the affected vessel owners, 

operators and crew do not already 

possess. This requirement could bring 

costs in the form of reduced efficiency 

of fishing operations, but it is difficult 

to assess the costs because it is not 

possible to predict whether or how 

vessel operators and crew would change 

their release/discard practices relative to 

what they do currently. For purse seine 

vessels, it is expected that in most cases, 

the fish would be released after it is 

brailed from the purse seine and 

brought on deck. In these cases, the 

labor involved would probably be little 

different than current practice for 

discarded sharks. If the vessel operator 

and crew determine that it is possible to 

release the fish before it is brought on 

deck, this would likely involve greater 

intervention and time on the part of 

crew members, with associated labor 

costs. For longline and troll vessels, it 

is expected that the fish would be 

quickly released as it is brought to the 

side of the vessel, such as by cutting the 

line or removing the hook. In these 

cases, no costs would be incurred. In 

some cases, the vessel operator and 

crew might determine that it is 

necessary to bring the fish on board the 

vessel before releasing it. This would 

involve greater labor than releasing the 

fish from alongside the vessel, but the 

release methods used in these cases 

might be the same as those used under 

the status quo, in which case no new 

costs would be incurred. 

Oceanic Whitetip Shark and Silky 

Shark Element (3): Require the crew, 

operators, and owners of U.S. fishing 

vessels used for commercial fishing for 

HMS in the Convention Area to allow 

and assist observers in the collection of 

oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark 

samples. This element requires the 

vessel crew, operator, and owner to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8813 

allow and assist a WCPFC observer to 

collect samples of dead oceanic whitetip 

sharks or silky sharks when requested to 

do so by the observer. In such cases, and 

in any case in which the observer 

collects a sample of an oceanic whitetip 

shark or silky shark, the crew, operator, 

and owner would be relieved of the two 

requirements listed above. Under 

existing regulations, operators and crew 

of vessels with WCPFC Area 

Endorsements (i.e., vessels authorized to 

be used for commercial fishing for HMS 

on the high seas in the Convention 

Area) are already required to assist 

observers in the collection of samples. 

This would effectively expand that 

requirement—for just these two shark 

species—to vessels not required to have 

WCPFC Area Endorsements. This 

requirement would not impose any new 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. It is not expected to 

require any professional skills that the 

affected vessel owners, operators and 

crew do not already possess. Although 

this element would relieve vessel 

owners, operators and crew from the 

requirements of the first two elements 

described above in those cases where 

the vessel observer collects a sample of 

an oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark, 

it would not be expected to relieve 

fishing businesses of the costs identified 

above for the no-retention requirement, 

since the samples would be kept by the 

observer and would not be available for 

sale or other use by the fishing business. 

This element could also bring additional 

costs to fishing businesses because it 

would require the owner, operator, and 

crew to assist the observer in the 

collection of samples if requested to do 

so by the observer. Observers would be 

under instructions to collect samples 

only if they do so as part of a program 

that has been specifically authorized by 

the WCPFC Scientific Committee, and 

only from sharks that are dead when 

brought alongside the vessel. It is not 

possible to project how often observers 

would request assistance in collecting 

samples. When it does occur, it is not 

expected that sample collection would 

be so disruptive as to substantially delay 

or otherwise impact fishing operations, 

but the fishing business could bear 

small costs in terms of crew labor, and 

possibly the loss of storage space that 

could be used for other purposes. 

Whale Shark Element (1): Prohibit 

owners, operators, and crew of U.S. 

fishing vessels used for commercial 

fishing for HMS in the Convention Area 

from setting or attempting to set a purse 

seine on or around a whale shark. This 

requirement prohibits owners, operators 

and crew of fishing vessels from setting 

or attempting to set a purse seine in the 

Convention Area on or around a whale 

shark if the animal is sighted prior to 

the commencement of the set or the 

attempted set. This requirement applies 

to all U.S. purse seine vessels fishing on 

the high seas and in the EEZs in the 

Convention Area, except the EEZs of the 

PNA. This requirement does not impose 

any new reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. It is not expected to 

require any professional skills that the 

affected vessel owners, operators and 

crew do not already possess. 

In the event that a whale shark is 

sighted in the vicinity of a purse seine 

vessel prior to a desired set, complying 

with the final rule could cause forgone 

fishing opportunities and result in 

economic losses. It is difficult to project 

the frequency of pre-set whale sharksighting events because such events are 

not recorded. Historical data on whale 

shark catches are available, but catches 

are not equivalent to pre-set whale shark 

sightings, for two reasons. On the one 

hand, presumably not all whale sharks 

within ‘‘sightable’’ distance of a set are 

actually caught (thus, in this respect, 

whale shark catch data under-represent 

pre-set whale shark sighting events). On 

the other hand, according to anecdotal 

information from purse seine vessel 

operators, not all captured whale sharks 

are seen before the set commences (thus, 

in this respect, the whale shark catch 

data over-represent pre-set whale sharksighting events). Nonetheless, historical 

whale shark catch rates can provide a 

rough indicator of the frequency of preset whale shark sighting events in the 

future. 

Based on unpublished vessel observer 

data from the FFA observer program, the 

average whale shark catch rate in 2010– 

2011 for the U.S. purse seine fishery in 

the Convention Area, excluding the 

EEZs of the PNA, was approximately 2 

fish per thousand fishing days. The 

average catch rate during that period in 

the Convention Area as a whole 

(including the waters of the PNA EEZs) 

was about 5 fish per thousand fishing 

days. For this analysis, this range of 2– 

5 events per thousand fishing days is 

used as an estimate of pre-set whale 

shark-sighting events in the future. 

Based on the average levels of U.S. 

purse seine fishing effort in the 

Convention Area outside the EEZs of the 

PNA in 2010 and 2011 (462 and 842 

fishing days, respectively; NMFS 

unpublished data), it can be expected 

that approximately 652 fishing days per 

year will be spent by the fleet in that 

area in the future. At that level of 

fishing effort, if pre-set whale sharksighting events occurred in 2 to 5 per 

thousand fishing days, as described 

above, they would occur 1.3 to 3.3 times 

per year, on average, for the fleet as a 

whole, or 0.03 to 0.08 times per year for 

each of the 40 vessels in the fleet, on 

average. 

In those instances that a whale shark 

is sighted prior to an intended set, the 

vessel operator would have to wait and/ 

or move the vessel to find the next 

opportunity to make a set. The 

consequences in terms of time lost and 

distance travelled and associated costs 

cannot be projected with any certainty. 

At best, the operator would find an 

opportunity to make a set soon after the 

event, and only trivial costs would be 

incurred. At worst, the vessel operator 

would lose the opportunity to make a 

set for the remainder of the day. Under 

this worst-case assumption, a vessel 

could lose the net benefits associated 

with 0.03 to 0.08 fishing days per year, 

on average. Those lost net benefits 

cannot be estimated because of a lack of 

fishing cost data, but information on 

gross receipts can provide an upperbound estimate. Using regional cannery 

prices in 2012 for each of the three 

marketable tuna species, and the U.S. 

fleet’s average catches and fishing days 

in 2011–2012, the expected gross 

receipts per fishing day would be about 

$60,000. Thus, an upper-bound estimate 

of the loss in gross revenue that could 

occur to a vessel as a result of losing 

0.03 to 0.08 fishing days is 

approximately $1,800 to $4,800 per 

year. 

Whale Shark Element (2): Require the 

crew, operator, and owner of U.S. 

fishing vessels used for commercial 

fishing for HMS in the Convention Area 

to release any whale shark that is 

encircled in a purse seine net. This 

element would require the crew, 

operator, and owner of a fishing vessel 

to release any whale shark that is 

encircled in a purse seine net in the 

Convention Area, and to do so in a 

manner that results in as little harm to 

the shark as possible, without 

compromising the safety of any persons. 

This requirement would apply to all 

U.S. purse seine vessels fishing on the 

high seas and in the EEZs of the 

Convention Area, including the EEZs of 

the PNA. This requirement would not 

impose any new reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. It is not 

expected to require any professional 

skills that the affected vessel owners, 

operators and crew do not already 

possess. Unpublished historical vessel 

observer data from the FFA observer 

program indicates that all whale sharks 

captured in the U.S. WCPO purse seine 

fishery are released; that is, they are not 

retained or marketed. The release 

requirement, therefore, is not expected 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8814 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

to have any effect on fishing operations 

or to bring any compliance costs. The 

requirement to release the sharks in a 

manner that results in as little harm to 

the shark as possible without 

compromising the safety of any persons 

would be a new and potentially 

burdensome requirement, but it is not 

possible to quantitatively assess the cost 

for two reasons. First, it is not clear how 

often whale sharks would be encircled. 

As indicated above, the average annual 

rate by U.S. purse seine vessels in the 

Convention Area in 2010 and 2011 was 

about 5 encirclements per thousand 

fishing days. But the rate in the future 

is expected to be reduced as a result of 

the setting prohibition described in the 

first whale shark element, above. 

Nonetheless, if 5 encirclements per 

thousand fishing days is considered an 

upper-bound projection, then at a future 

fishing effort rate of 7,991 fishing days 

per year in the Convention Area (based 

on the average spent in 2010 and 2011) 

and 40 vessels in the fleet, an upperbound projection of the rate of 

encirclements per vessel is one per year, 

on average. The second reason for the 

difficulty in assessing the compliance 

costs of this requirement is that current 

vessel practices regarding whale shark 

releases are not known in detail. 

Although data on the condition of each 

captured whale shark is available (e.g., 

based on unpublished FFA observer 

data for 2010 and 2011, 68 percent of 

captured whale sharks were released 

alive, 2 percent were released dead, and 

the condition of the remainder was 

unknown), these data do not reveal 

anything about whether the condition of 

the released whale sharks could have 

been better, or what the vessel crew 

would have had to have done to 

improve the sharks’ condition. In 

conclusion, this requirement might 

bring some costs to purse seine vessel 

operations, in the form of the crew 

potentially having to spend more time 

handling encircled whale sharks (at 

most, one per year per vessel, on 

average) in order to release them with as 

little harm as possible. 

Whale Shark Element (3): Require the 

owner and operator of a fishing vessel 

that encircles a whale shark to record 

the incident on a catch report form. This 

requirement would require the owner 

and operator of a fishing vessel that 

encircles a whale shark with a purse 

seine net in the Convention Area to 

ensure that the incident is recorded by 

the end of the day on the catch report 

form, or Regional Purse Seine Logsheet 

(RPL) maintained pursuant to 50 CFR 

300.34(c)(1), in the format specified by 

the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional 

Administrator. This requirement would 

apply to all U.S. purse seine vessels 

fishing on the high seas and in the EEZs 

of the Convention Area, including the 

EEZs of the PNA. Because catch and 

effort logbooks are already required to 

be maintained and submitted in the 

purse seine fishery, there would be no 

additional cost associated with 

submitting the logbook, but vessels 

would be required to record additional 

information associated with whale shark 

encirclements. The required information 

for each incident would include a 

description of the steps taken to 

minimize harm and an assessment of its 

condition upon its release. This 

additional information requirement 

would be added to the information 

required to be reported under a current 

information collection (OMB control 

number 0648–0218; see the section on 

the Paperwork Reduction Act below for 

more information). As indicated for the 

previous element, it is not possible to 

project the rate of encirclements with 

certainty, but one encirclement per 

vessel per year, on average, is an upperbound projection. NMFS estimates that 

it would take about 10 minutes to record 

the required information for each 

encirclement. At an estimated labor cost 

of $25 per hour, the annual cost per 

vessel would be about $4. 

Disproportionate Impacts 

There would be no disproportionate 

economic impacts between small and 

large vessel-operating entities resulting 

from this final rule. Furthermore, there 

would be no disproportionate economic 

impacts based on vessel size, gear, or 

home port, as all the vessels in the fleets 

would be subject to the same 

requirements and NMFS has not 

identified any factors related to vessel 

size, gear, or home port that would lead 

to disproportionate impacts. 

Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impacts on Small 

Entities 

For the oceanic whitetip shark and 

silky shark elements of the final rule, 

NMFS did not identify any 

alternatives—other than the no-action 

alternative—that would minimize 

economic impacts on affected entities. 

For the whale shark elements of the 

final rule, NMFS considered several 

alternatives. As discussed above, the 

first element of the final rule for the 

whale shark prohibits owners, 

operators, and crew of fishing vessels 

from setting or attempting to set a purse 

seine in the Convention Area on or 

around a whale shark if the animal is 

sighted prior to the commencement of 

the set or the attempted set. This 

element applies on the high seas and in 

the EEZs of the Convention Area, except 

for the EEZs of the PNA. CMM 2012–04 

states that WCPFC members ‘‘shall 

prohibit their flagged vessels from 

setting a purse seine on a school of tuna 

associated with a whale shark if the 

animal is sighted prior to the 

commencement of the set’’. NMFS 

considered developing alternative 

means of implementing the prohibition 

on setting on a school of tuna, such as 

specifying a minimum distance for the 

prohibition (e.g., no setting within half 

a mile of a whale shark sighting) or a 

minimum time period for the 

prohibition (e.g., no setting within 10 

minutes of sighting a whale shark). 

However, NMFS did not identify any 

such alternative for this element that 

would be reasonable and feasible. After 

a whale shark is sighted, it is unclear 

where and when it will be sighted next, 

since sharks do not have to return to the 

surface regularly to breathe. Therefore, 

NMFS determined that there is only one 

reasonable and feasible manner of 

implementing this element of the final 

rule. 

CMM 2012–04 states that for fishing 

activities in the EEZs of WCPFC 

members north of 30° N. latitude, 

WCPFC members shall implement 

either the provisions of CMM 2012–04 

or compatible measures consistent with 

the obligations under CMM 2012–04. 

The U.S. purse seine fleet does not fish 

north of 30° N. latitude in the WCPO. 

Thus, rather than attempting to develop 

a separate set of ‘‘compatible measures’’ 

for EEZs of WCPFC members north of 30 

°N. latitude that may or may not be 

triggered by any actual U.S. purse seine 

operations, NMFS decided to 

implement the provisions of CMM 

2012–04 for all EEZs in the Convention 

Area (with the exception of the first 

element not being applicable to the 

EEZs of the PNA, as described above). 

NMFS did not identify any other 

alternatives for any of the elements of 

the final rule. 

Taking no action could result in lesser 

adverse economic impacts than the final 

action for many affected entities. The 

economic impacts that would be 

avoided by taking no action are 

described above, including quantitative 

estimates—to the extent possible—for 

the first oceanic whitetip shark element 

and the first and third whale shark 

elements of the final rule. However, 

NMFS has determined that the noaction alternative would fail to 

accomplish the objectives of the WCPFC 

Implementation Act, including 

satisfying the obligations of the United 

States as a Contracting Party to the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8815 

Convention. The no-action alternative is 

rejected for this reason. 

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. As part of this 

rulemaking process, a small entity 

compliance guide has been prepared. 

The guide will be sent to permit and 

license holders in the affected fishery. 

The guide and this final rule will also 

be available at www.fpir.noaa.gov and 

by request from NMFS PIRO (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains a collectionof-information requirement subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that 

has been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

control number 0648–0218, ‘‘South 

Pacific Tuna Act’’. The public reporting 

burden for the catch report form (also 

known as the RPL) under that 

collection-of-information was estimated 

to average one hour per response (i.e., 

per fishing trip), including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. The whale shark 

encirclement reporting requirement 

under this final rule changes the catch 

report element of the collection-ofinformation. Under this final rule, in the 

event that a whale shark is encircled in 

a purse seine net, information about that 

event would be required to be included 

in the catch report form. Providing this 

additional information will increase the 

reporting burden by approximately 10 

minutes per encirclement, which, given 

an estimated one encirclement per year 

and five fishing trips per year, on 

average, equates to approximately 2 

minutes per fishing trip or per response. 

Therefore, the new estimated burden 

per response (i.e., per fishing trip) for 

the catch report form is 62 minutes. No 

comments were received on this 

collection-of-information requirement in 

response to the proposed rule. Send 

comments regarding this burden 

estimate, or any other aspect of this data 

collection, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, to Michael D. 

Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS 

PIRO (see ADDRESSES) and by email to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

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: February 12, 2015. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—INTERNATIONAL 

FISHERIES REGULATIONS 

Subpart O—Western and Central 

Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory 

Species 

■ 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 300, subpart O, continues to read as 

follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 300.211, the definitions of 

‘‘Areas under the national jurisdiction 

of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement’’ 

and ‘‘Parties to the Nauru Agreement’’ 

are added, in alphabetical order, to read 

as follows: 

§ 300.211 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Areas under the national jurisdiction 

of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement 

means the exclusive economic zones of 

the Parties to the Nauru Agreement. 

* * * * * 

Parties to the Nauru Agreement 

means the parties to the Nauru 

Agreement Concerning Cooperation in 

the Management of Fisheries of 

Common Interest, as specified on the 

Web site of the Parties to the Nauru 

Agreement at www.pnatuna.com. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 300.218, paragraph (h) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 300.218 Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(h) Whale shark encirclement reports. 

The owner and operator of a fishing 

vessel of the United States used for 

commercial fishing in the Convention 

Area that encircles a whale shark 

(Rhincodon typus) with a purse seine in 

the Convention Area shall ensure that 

the incident is recorded by the end of 

the day on the catch report forms 

maintained pursuant to § 300.34(c)(1), 

in the format specified by the Pacific 

Islands Regional Administrator. This 

paragraph does not apply to the 

territorial seas or archipelagic waters of 

any nation, as defined by the domestic 

laws and regulations of that nation and 

recognized by the United States. 

■ 4. In § 300.222, paragraphs (ss), (tt), 

(uu), (vv), and (ww) are added to read 

as follows: 

§ 300.222 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(ss) Fail to submit, or ensure 

submission of, a whale shark 

encirclement report as required in 

§ 300.218(h). 

(tt) Set or attempt to set a purse seine 

on or around a whale shark (Rhincodon 

typus) in contravention of § 300.223(g). 

(uu) Fail to release a whale shark 

encircled in a purse seine net of a 

fishing vessel as required in 

§ 300.223(h). 

(vv) Use a fishing vessel to retain on 

board, transship, store, or land any part 

or whole carcass of an oceanic whitetip 

shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) or 

silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) in 

contravention of § 300.226(a). 

(ww) Fail to release an oceanic 

whitetip shark or silky shark as required 

in § 300.226(b). 

■ 5. In § 300.223, paragraphs (g) and (h) 

are added to read as follows: 

§ 300.223 Purse seine fishing restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Owners, operators, and crew of 

fishing vessels of the United States used 

for commercial fishing for HMS in the 

Convention Area shall not set or attempt 

to set a purse seine in the Convention 

Area on or around a whale shark 

(Rhincodon typus) if the animal is 

sighted at any time prior to the 

commencement of the set or the 

attempted set. This paragraph does not 

apply to the territorial seas or 

archipelagic waters of any nation, as 

defined by the domestic laws and 

regulations of that nation and 

recognized by the United States, or to 

areas under the national jurisdiction of 

the Parties to the Nauru Agreement. 

(h) The crew, operator, and owner of 

a fishing vessel of the United States 

used for commercial fishing for HMS in 

the Convention Area must release any 

whale shark that is encircled in a purse 

seine net in the Convention Area, and 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8816 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

take reasonable steps for its safe release, 

without compromising the safety of any 

persons. This paragraph does not apply 

to the territorial seas or archipelagic 

waters of any nation, as defined by the 

domestic laws and regulations of that 

nation and recognized by the United 

States. 

■ 6. Section 300.226 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 300.226 Oceanic whitetip shark and silky 

shark. 

(a) The crew, operator, and owner of 

a fishing vessel of the United States 

used for commercial fishing for HMS 

cannot retain on board, transship, store, 

or land any part or whole carcass of an 

oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus 

longimanus) or silky shark 

(Carcharhinus falciformis) that is caught 

in the Convention Area, unless subject 

to the provisions of paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) The crew, operator, and owner of 

a fishing vessel of the United States 

used for commercial fishing for HMS 

must release any oceanic whitetip shark 

or silky shark caught in the Convention 

Area as soon as possible after the shark 

is caught and brought alongside the 

vessel, and take reasonable steps for its 

safe release, without compromising the 

safety of any persons, unless subject to 

the provisions of paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section do not apply in the event that a 

WCPFC observer collects, or requests 

the assistance of the vessel crew, 

operator, or owner in the observer’s 

collection of, samples of oceanic 

whitetip shark or silky shark in the 

Convention Area. 

(d) The crew, operator, and owner of 

a fishing vessel of the United States 

used for commercial fishing for HMS in 

the Convention Area must allow and 

assist a WCPFC observer to collect 

samples of oceanic whitetip shark or 

silky shark in the Convention Area, if 

requested to do so by the WCPFC 

observer. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03388 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 130925836–4174–02] 

RIN 0648–XD714 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by 

Vessels Using Pot Gear in the Central 

Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using 

pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area 

of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action 

is necessary to prevent exceeding the A 

season allowance of the 2015 Pacific 

cod total allowable catch apportioned to 

vessels using pot gear in the Central 

Regulatory Area of the GOA. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hours, Alaska 

local time (A.l.t.), February 16, 2015, 

through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Obren Davis, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

GOA exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. 

Regulations governing sideboard 

protections for GOA groundfish 

fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR 

part 680. 

The A season allowance of the 2015 

Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) 

apportioned to vessels using pot gear in 

the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA 

is 8,036 metric tons (mt), as established 

by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest 

specifications for groundfish of the GOA 

(79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014) and 

inseason adjustment (80 FR 192, January 

5, 2015). 

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), 

the Administrator, Alaska Region, 

NMFS (Regional Administrator) has 

determined that the A season allowance 

of the 2015 Pacific cod TAC 

apportioned to vessels using pot gear in 

the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA 

will soon be reached. Therefore, the 

Regional Administrator is establishing a 

directed fishing allowance of 8,026 mt 

and is setting aside the remaining 10 mt 

as bycatch to support other anticipated 

groundfish fisheries. In accordance with 

§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional 

Administrator finds that this directed 

fishing allowance has been reached. 

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting 

directed fishing for Pacific cod by 

vessels using pot gear in the Central 

Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the 

effective date of this closure the 

maximum retainable amounts at 

§ 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time 

during a trip. 

Classification 

This action responds to the best 

available information recently obtained 

from the fishery. The Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 

(AA), finds good cause to waive the 

requirement to provide prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. This requirement is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest as it would prevent NMFS from 

responding to the most recent fisheries 

data in a timely fashion and would 

delay the directed fishing closure of 

Pacific cod for vessels using pot gear in 

the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. 

NMFS was unable to publish a notice 

providing time for public comment 

because the most recent, relevant data 

only became available as of February 12, 

2015. 

The AA also finds good cause to 

waive the 30-day delay in the effective 

date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). This finding is based upon 

the reasons provided above for waiver of 

prior notice and opportunity for public 

comment. 

This action is required by § 679.20 

and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

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

Dated: February 13, 2015. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03447 Filed 2–13–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES