Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5619 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 150625552–6043–02] 

RIN 0648–BF22 

Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 

Exemption for Large U.S. Longline 

Vessels To Fish in Portions of the 

American Samoa Large Vessel 

Prohibited Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this final rule, NMFS 

allows large federally permitted U.S. 

longline vessels to fish in certain areas 

of the Large Vessel Prohibited Area 

(LVPA). NMFS will continue to prohibit 

fishing in the LVPA by large purse seine 

vessels. The fishing requirements for the 

Rose Atoll Marine National Monument 

remain unchanged. The intent of the 

rule is to improve the viability of the 

American Samoa longline fishery and 

achieve optimum yield from the fishery 

while preventing overfishing, in 

accordance with National Standard 1. 

DATES: Effective January 29, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

prepared a regulatory amendment that 

provides background information on 

this final rule. The regulatory 

amendment, identified as NOAA– 

NMFS–2015–0080, includes an 

environmental assessment and 

regulatory impact review, and is 

available from www.regulations.gov or 

the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 

1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808–522– 

8220, fax 808–522–8226, 

www.wpcouncil.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable 

Fisheries, 808–725–5176. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

American Samoa large vessel prohibited 

area (LVPA) extends seaward 

approximately 30–50 nm around the 

various islands of American Samoa (see 

50 CFR 665.806(b)). Federal regulations 

restrict vessels 50 ft and longer from 

fishing for pelagic management unit 

species within the LVPA. The Council 

and NMFS established the LVPA in 

2002 to prevent the potential for gear 

conflicts and catch competition between 

large and small fishing vessels. You may 

read more about the LVPA in the 2001 

proposed rule (66 FR 39475, July 31, 

2001) and 2002 final rule (67 FR 4369, 

January 30, 2002). 

Since 2002, the American Samoa 

pelagic fisheries have changed such that 

the conditions that led the Council and 

NMFS to establish the LVPA are no 

longer present. The LVPA may be 

unnecessarily reducing the efficiency of 

the larger American Samoa longline 

vessels by displacing the fleet from a 

part of their historical fishing grounds. 

To address the current fishery 

conditions, the Council recommended 

that NMFS allow federally permitted 

U.S. longline vessels 50 ft and longer to 

fish in portions of the LVPA. 

Specifically, this action allows large 

U.S. vessels that hold a Federal 

American Samoa longline limited entry 

permit to fish within the LVPA seaward 

of 12 nm around Swains Island, Tutuila, 

and the Manua Islands. NMFS will 

continue to prohibit fishing in the LVPA 

by large purse seine vessels. The fishing 

requirements for the Rose Atoll Marine 

National Monument also remain 

unchanged. 

This action allows fishing in an 

additional 16,817 nm2 of Federal 

waters, allowing large longline vessels 

to distribute fishing effort over a larger 

area. This may reduce catch competition 

among the larger vessels and promote 

economic efficiency by reducing transit 

costs. This action is intended to 

improve the efficiency and economic 

viability of the American Samoa 

longline fleet, while ensuring that 

fishing by the longline and small vessel 

fleets remains sustainable on an ongoing 

basis. NMFS will continue to prohibit 

fishing by large longline vessels within 

the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

from 3–12 nm around the islands, thus 

maintaining non-competitive fishing 

opportunities for the small-vessel 

longline fleet. You may find additional 

background information on this action 

in the preamble to the proposed rule 

published on August 25, 2015 (80 FR 

51527). 

The Council and NMFS will annually 

review the effects of this final rule on 

catch rates, small vessel participation, 

and sustainable fisheries development 

initiatives. Any future changes would be 

subject to additional environmental 

review and opportunity for public 

review and comment. 

Comments and Responses 

On August 25, 2015, NMFS published 

the proposed rule and draft 

environmental assessment (EA) for 

public comment (80 FR 51527). The 

comment period ended September 24, 

2015. NMFS received comments from 

over 270 individuals, commercial and 

recreational fishermen, businesses, 

Territorial government offices 

(including the Governor of American 

Samoa and the American Samoa 

Department of Marine and Wildlife 

Resources), Federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. NMFS 

responds to these comments below. 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

Comment 1: One commenter 

requested that NMFS extend the public 

comment period until after the Western 

Pacific Fishery Management Council’s 

October 20–22, 2015, meeting in 

American Samoa. 

Response: Under Section 304(b) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS is 

required to make regulations proposed 

through the Council process available 

for public review and comment for a 

period of 15 to 60 days. NMFS is 

satisfied that the public comment period 

of 30 days for this action provided the 

public with adequate notice and 

opportunity to be heard. In addition to 

this public comment period, NMFS and 

the Council also provided several other 

opportunities for public input prior to 

publication of the proposed rule 

through the Council process. 

Specifically, the Council provided 

public input opportunities at its 159th 

Council meeting held in Guam in March 

2014, and at a public hearing in 

American Samoa in May 2014 (79 FR 

22100, April 21, 2014). The Council also 

provided an opportunity for public 

input at its 160th Council meeting held 

in Honolulu in June 2014. At that 

meeting, the Council deferred action on 

the issue to hold additional public 

meetings, in January 2015, with 

representatives of the American Samoa 

government, Swains Island, Tutuila, 

Manua Islands, and American Samoa 

fishermen. At its 162nd Council meeting 

held in Honolulu in March 2015, the 

Council considered prior public input, 

provided another opportunity for public 

input, and made its final 

recommendation to NMFS as described 

in the proposed rule and implemented 

by this final rule. Thus, NMFS is 

satisfied that three full Council 

meetings, the January 15, 2015, public 

meetings, and the 30-day public 

comment period on the proposed rule 

provided the public with adequate 

notice and opportunity to be heard, and 

that granting an extension to the public 

comment period until after the 

Council’s October 2015 meeting would 

yield no new comment or information 

not previously received. 

Comment 2: Several commenters said 

that the American Samoa longline 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5620 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

fishery provides food, jobs and supports 

local businesses and is important to the 

American Samoan economy. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

American Samoa longline fishery is 

important to the American Samoa 

economy. According to information 

presented in the EA, the fishery 

contributed between $7.2 million and 

$13.7 million to the American Samoa 

economy between 2003 and 2013. The 

primary source of the fishery’s 

economic contributions to the territory 

was from sales of fish to the two 

canneries in Pago Pago. Although 

estimates are not currently available, the 

fishing activity also supports the 

American Samoa economy by providing 

wages for captains, crew members and 

income for the vessel owners. Moreover, 

the preparations for each trip include 

the purchase of supplies, including fuel, 

food for crew, and other items, which 

are bought locally. Additionally, each 

vessel requires a variety of local services 

including but not limited to, electrical 

engineering, hydraulics, engine 

maintenance, and vessel repair, all of 

which contribute to the local economy. 

Comment 3: Several commenters said 

that the large longline vessels are all 

vessels of the United States and should 

have the same right to fish in American 

Samoa waters as the small alia vessels. 

Response: NMFS agrees that all 

federally permitted American Samoa 

longline vessels are vessels of the 

United States. Furthermore, NMFS 

believes that all fishing sectors should 

be treated equally, unless there is a 

legitimate conservation and 

management need to treat them 

differently. Here, NMFS is approving an 

action that exempts large longline 

vessels from an area that is currently 

restricted to them, but open to other 

fishing vessels, because the conditions 

that originally led to the restriction for 

the large longline vessels no longer 

exists. Specifically, NMFS and the 

Council established the LPVA in 2002 to 

separate small longline vessels from 

large longline and purse seine vessels, 

and reduce the potential for gear 

conflict and catch competition between 

small and large vessels. At that time, the 

American Samoa longline fishery 

consisted of about 40 small alia (small 

fishing catamarans less than 50 ft long) 

and 25 large conventional mono-hull 

longline vessels. However, since 2006, 

fewer than three alia have been 

operating on a regular basis; and of 

these, only one was active in 2013 and 

2014. 

As described in the EA, fewer than 50 

other small commercial and recreational 

vessels fish for yellowfin and skipjack 

tunas and billfishes in nearshore waters 

and on offshore banks around American 

Samoa. Therefore, even accounting for 

the potential for competition with 

pelagic troll and recreational vessels, 

the conditions that led to the 

establishment of the LVPA in 2002 no 

longer support the full extent (30–50 

nm) of the original prohibited area for 

longlining. 

While the LVPA may benefit a few 

small alia vessels and these other 

fishing sectors, the LVPA may be further 

reducing the fishing efficiency of large 

longline vessels in combination with 

reduced catch per unit of effort (CPUE), 

lower sale price of fish, and increasing 

operational costs. 

This action would allow large 

longline vessels in American Samoa to 

fish within the LVPA to as close as 12 

nm of shore around Tutuila, Aunuu, the 

Manua Islands, and Swains. Waters 

from the shoreline to 12 nm around 

these islands, and within the Rose Atoll 

Marine National Monument, will 

remain closed to large longline vessels. 

This would continue to afford all other 

vessels and fishing sectors adequate 

spatial separation from the large vessel 

longline fleet and minimize the 

potential for catch competition and 

potential for gear interactions. This 

exemption applies only to large longline 

vessels of the United States that hold an 

American Samoa limited entry longline 

permit under 50 CFR 665.801. 

Comment 4: Several commenters said 

they work and earn wages on longline 

vessels to support their families. 

Response: Comment noted. See 

response to Comment 2. 

Comment 5: Several commenters said 

the LVPA closure areas have been 

under-utilized by the alia longline fleet 

for more than 10 years. 

Response: See response to Comment 

3. 

Comment 6: Several commenters 

noted that because fuel prices are now 

at an all-time low, reducing the cost of 

trips, including fuel cost is no longer a 

justification for this action. 

Response: NMFS is approving an 

action to exempt large longline vessels 

from a portion of the existing LVPA 

because the conditions that led to the 

establishment of the closure are no 

longer present or necessary to prevent 

gear conflict and catch competition. 

Additionally, this action could improve 

efficiency in fishing activities by large 

longline vessels. While fuel price may 

currently be lower than in the past, it is 

subject to fluctuation due to multiple 

global and economic factors. Further, 

the success of longline fishing depends 

on being able to follow the fish, 

especially if they are abundant within 

the LVPA or pass into the LVPA. 

Because cost of fuel continues to be the 

principal expense for longline fishing, 

this action could improve trip profits by 

lowering fuel costs as large longline 

vessels could fish closer to port than 

currently allowed. 

Comment 7: Several commenters 

noted that fuel prices fluctuate and 

allowing the large longline vessels to 

fish closer to home would result in a 

small cost savings in fuel. 

Response: See response to Comment 

6. 

Comment 8: Several commenters said 

that the action would improve safety at 

sea for small fishing vessels because 

large vessels would now be in the 

vicinity to assist small vessels that get 

into trouble. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 9: Several commenters said 

that there are higher catches and better 

catch rates of pelagic fish by 

recreational sectors in American Samoa 

compared to neighboring countries that 

do not have a LVPA and, therefore, 

opposed the action. 

Response: Within the national waters 

of neighboring South Pacific countries, 

NMFS has no available information on 

the catch rates of pelagic species other 

than by longline and purse seine 

vessels. The available information for 

these fisheries indicates that catch rates 

for albacore have declined across most 

of the South Pacific, and the poor 

economic conditions faced by the 

American Samoa fleet were also 

experienced by most of the other 

longline fishing nations in the South 

Pacific. Through this action, NMFS 

expects that longline vessels will have 

the opportunity to improve catch rates 

that have been steadily declining, and to 

achieve optimum yield, while still 

maintaining a reduced area closure to 

protect the needs of other fishery 

participants, including recreational 

fishers. 

Comment 10: Several commenters 

said that under the action, longline 

vessels would destroy coral reef 

ecosystem resources and breeding 

grounds for other fish species. 

Response: While the commenter did 

not specify how longline vessels would 

destroy such marine resources, NMFS 

assumes that the commenter was 

referring to the potential for 

entanglement on coral reefs. NMFS 

notes that longline fishing in American 

Samoa does not occur over coral reefs, 

but rather much farther offshore and at 

depths (100–400 m) well below the 

photic zone where most coral reefs 

occur. Waters from the shoreline to 12 

nm from shore will remain closed to 

large longline vessels, and there is little, 

if any, coral reef habitat beyond 12 nm. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5621 

In addition, longliners actively avoid 

shallow coral reef habitat, including fish 

breeding grounds, in order to prevent 

gear loss through entanglement with the 

bottom substrate. The American Samoa 

longline fishery does not target nor 

incidentally catch coral reef fish 

species. 

Comment 11: Several commenters 

said that longline fishing has 

dramatically reduced fish populations 

around American Samoa and that this 

action would result in overfishing and 

deplete fish stocks. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. While the 

commenters did not identify the fish 

populations that have been reduced or 

would become subject to overfishing 

because of the action, the American 

Samoa longline fishery primarily targets 

albacore. The most recent stock 

assessment summarized in the EA 

indicates that this population is not 

subject to overfishing and is not 

overfished. Additionally, stock 

assessments for most species 

incidentally harvested in the fishery, 

including yellowfin, skipjack, and 

billfish indicate that these species are 

also not subject to overfishing or 

overfished. Bigeye tuna is incidentally 

harvested, and is subject to overfishing. 

Nevertheless, because tunas, billfish, 

and other species caught by the 

American Samoa longline fishery are 

comprised of larger highly migratory 

populations, NMFS does not expect this 

action to contribute to overfishing or 

localized depletion of these stocks. See 

also response to Comment 12. 

Comment 12: Several commenters 

said that there are no data to support 

claims that the action would result in 

overfishing or have a detrimental effect 

on alia longline vessels or recreational 

sport fishing vessels. 

Response: NMFS does not expect this 

action to result in overfishing of any 

pelagic species nor have a detrimental 

effect on alia longliners or sport fishing 

vessels. Skipjack and yellowfin together 

comprise about 95 percent of the troll 

catch, the primary fishing method of 

sport fishing vessels. Furthermore, catch 

rates of these two species show no signs 

of decline over a 30-yr period, which 

encompasses the period of expansion of 

the American Samoa longline fleet. 

South Pacific albacore, the primary 

target of both alia and large longline 

vessels, is not subject to overfishing and 

is not overfished. Similarly, skipjack 

and yellowfin are not subject to 

overfishing nor overfished, and NMFS 

does not expect this action to result in 

a change in the status of these species. 

Bigeye tuna in the western and central 

Pacific Ocean, which is incidentally 

harvested in the American Samoa 

fishery, is currently subject to 

overfishing, but is not overfished, and is 

managed under conservation and 

management measures adopted by the 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission, and implemented by 

NMFS. The American Samoa longline 

fishery annually landed fewer than 200 

mt of bigeye tuna since 2005 with 85 mt 

landed in 2013. 

Comment 13: Several commenters 

said that the action would result in a 

higher risk for oil spills and marine 

debris, but did not explain why. 

Response: Based on available 

information presented in the EA, NMFS 

does not expect a change in the level of 

risk for oil spills or marine debris 

through this action. Allowing large 

longline vessels to fish within a portion 

of the LVPA will not lead to an increase 

in the number of vessels participating in 

the fishery or change vessel operations 

in a manner that would lead to greater 

discharge of oil or fuel into ocean 

waters. Further, the action does not 

present any greater danger of longline 

vessels grounding, or habitat damage 

compared to the status quo because 

there are no areas in the EEZ seaward 

of 12 nm shallow enough for a vessel to 

run aground. 

Comment 14: One commenter felt that 

the action would endanger the survival 

of newly born humpback whale calves 

through entanglement and drowning. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. 

Humpback whale calving and mother 

and calf pairs occur in shallow coastal 

waters within 12 nm, which would 

remain closed to large longline vessels. 

Beyond 12 nm, the movement of 

longline vessels will not change the 

amount of fishing effort or vessel 

operations and would not elevate the 

risk of entanglement. There have been 

no recorded or observed interactions 

with humpback whales in the American 

Samoa longline fishery. 

Comment 15: Several commenters 

expressed the concern that public 

submissions on the action provided 

incorrect and/or misleading information 

regarding the regulatory protections for 

sea turtles and marine mammals in the 

action area, as well as impacts to these 

species by the American Samoa longline 

fishery. The commenters noted that 

NMFS has implemented regulations to 

protect marine resources, and they 

supported the action. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Comment 16: One commenter said 

that the action could affect the 

composition and character of the marine 

environment around American Samoa, 

including marine populations protected 

by the National Marine Sanctuary of 

America Samoa. 

Response: While the commenter did 

not specify how the action would affect 

the composition and character of the 

marine environment, longline fishing by 

large longline vessels has been 

occurring since the mid-1990s within 

the area where the LVPA now exists. 

NMFS has no observed or reported 

information indicating that longline 

fishing from large longline vessels has 

resulted in negative impacts to the 

composition and character of the marine 

environment around American Samoa, 

either before or after the establishment 

of the LVPA in 2002. Because the action 

would continue to prohibit longline 

fishing by large vessels from occurring 

within 12 nm of American Samoa, 

NMFS does not expect the action would 

result in such changes. 

The American Samoa longline fishery 

does not operate within the boundaries 

of the National Marine Sanctuary of 

America Samoa, which extends from the 

shoreline out to a distance of 

approximately 3 nm. The American 

Samoa longline fleet targets highly 

migratory pelagic species such as 

albacore at considerable distances from 

the shoreline seaward of the outerboundary of the American Samoa 

sanctuary. Because the action continues 

to prohibit longline fishing by large 

vessels from occurring within 12 nm of 

American Samoa and within the 

Sanctuary, NMFS does not expect the 

action would affect marine populations 

protected by the sanctuary. 

Comment 17: Several commenters 

said that although there are only a few 

active alia longline vessels, the action 

would make it even more difficult for 

small alia vessels to re-enter the fishery 

because they would not be able to 

compete economically with the large 

longline vessels. 

Response: Alia fishing vessels 

operated for years before and after the 

arrival of large longline vessels in 

American Samoa in the 1990s. Based on 

information available, NMFS believes 

the reduced participation of the small 

alia vessels in the fishery was driven 

primarily by low catch rates of albacore 

experienced across the South Pacific 

region combined with high economic 

and other operating costs. See EA 

section 3.1.4.1. 

The Council has been working with 

the American Samoa government on 

several fishery development initiatives, 

including the design of a new multipurpose alia fishing vessel and training 

in fresh fish handling for local and 

export markets. Smaller, alia-type 

vessels are likely better suited to 

conduct fresh fish operations targeting 

yellowfin and bigeye tunas and, as such, 

would minimize the potential economic 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5622 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

competition with larger longline vessels 

targeting albacore. Data indicates that 

gear competition between large longline 

and alia vessels has not been a 

contributing factor to the decline of alia 

vessels. Accordingly, NMFS has no 

reason to believe that the action will 

adversely affect reentry of fishery 

participants into the alia fishery. See 

also response to Comments 3 and 24. 

Comment 18: Several commenters 

expressed concern that the action would 

be detrimental to the recreational 

fishery and the growing sportfish 

tourism industry in American Samoa. 

Response: NMFS has no information 

to suggest that the action would 

adversely affect other fishery 

participants. NMFS and the Council 

established the LPVA in 2002 to 

separate small longline vessels from 

large longline and purse seine vessels, 

and reduce the potential for gear 

conflict and catch competition. At that 

time, the American Samoa longline 

fishery consisted of about 40 small alia 

and 25 large conventional mono-hull 

longline vessels. Since then, there has 

been an increase in participation by the 

recreational and sport fishing fisheries, 

which target species such as skipjack 

tuna, yellowfin tuna, mahimahi, wahoo 

and billfish. These species are only a 

minor component of the catch by 

American Samoa longline vessels. 

Information in the EA does not indicate 

longline fisheries are negatively 

affecting troll CPUE. Specifically the 

data showed that increased longline 

catches of skipjack and yellowfin are 

coincident with higher CPUEs of the 

same two species in the troll fishery. 

This suggests that the CPUEs for both 

fisheries are dependent on regional 

availability of skipjack and yellowfin 

tuna. Similar studies from other parts of 

the region and referenced in the EA 

showed no evidence of interactions and 

catch competition between troll and 

longline vessels. See also response to 

Comment 9. 

Sport fishing vessels generally operate 

within 12 nm from shore and in offshore 

areas around banks and seamounts, 

which longline vessels actively avoid to 

reduce the potential for longline gear 

tangling on bottom substrates. 

Furthermore, sport fishing and 

subsistence fishing beyond 12 nm from 

shore does not occur at sufficient 

frequency or concentration to justify the 

continued restriction of large longline 

vessels out to the full 50 nm to control 

the potential for gear conflict or catch 

competition. Although NMFS allows 

recreational and non-commercial fishing 

within the Rose Atoll Marine National 

Monument beyond 12 nm with a federal 

permit, all commercial fishing, 

including longline fishing is prohibited 

throughout the monument out to a 

distance of approximately 50 nm around 

the atoll. 

Comment 19: Several commenters 

thought that the action would affect the 

ability of recreational and subsistence 

fishermen to catch fish and feed their 

families. 

Response: The commenters did not 

explain how the proposed action would 

affect their ability to catch fish. There is 

a wide variety of reef fish, deep 

bottomfish, and various pelagic species 

that will remain accessible exclusively 

for all fishermen with vessels smaller 

than 50 ft. NMFS does not expect the 

action would negatively impact the 

ability of these fishing sectors to catch 

fish for recreation or subsistence, as 

large longline vessels would continue to 

be prohibited from fishing within 12 nm 

around American Samoa. 

Comment 20: Several commenters 

thought that allowing large longline 

vessels to fish on the banks and 

seamounts within the LVPA including 

South Bank, East Bank, Two Percent 

Bank, South East Bank, and North East 

Bank would deplete fish stocks and 

result in damage to bottom habitat. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. See 

responses to Comments 10 and 11. 

Comment 21: Several commenters 

said that existing federal regulations 

require American Samoa longline 

vessels to deploy all hooks below 100 m 

in depth to minimize interaction with 

sea turtles. Because of this existing gear 

regulation, longliners will avoid shallow 

banks and seamounts used by small 

vessels to minimize potential for gear 

loss. 

Response: NMFS agrees. Federal 

regulations governing the American 

Samoa longline fishery at 50 CFR part 

665 Subpart F require all longline hooks 

to be set at least 100 m deep. This is 

accomplished by requiring a minimum 

float line length of 30 m, together with 

a minimum of 70 m of blank mainline 

(no hooks) between each float line and 

the first branch line in either direction 

along the mainline. Both small and large 

longline vessels actively avoid bottom 

substrates to prevent gear entanglement 

and loss. See also response to Comment 

10. 

Comment 22: Several commenters 

said that albacore and other tuna species 

caught by the American Samoa longline 

fleet are highly migratory species and do 

not remain within the confines of the 

existing LVPA or the proposed 

exempted area and, therefore, there are 

no data to support public comments 

saying the longline fishery is 

detrimental to alia and sport fishing 

fleet. 

Response: NMFS agrees. Not only do 

these pelagic species have an extensive 

migratory range, there are seasonal 

abundance trends that influence the 

catchability of these species throughout 

the year. This affects both large and 

small longliners. See also responses to 

Comments 11 and 18. 

Comment 23: Several commenters felt 

that the action would result in gear 

conflicts between large longline vessels 

and small longline, troll, and 

recreational fishing vessels because 

NMFS and the Council underestimated 

the number of small vessels currently 

operating within the LVPA. 

Response: A purpose in establishing 

the LVPA in 2002 was to separate small 

longline vessels from large longline and 

purse seine vessels to reduce the 

potential for gear conflict and catch 

competition. NMFS believes that the 

information presented by the Council 

and in the EA indicates that the 

conditions for the conservation and 

management need in establishing the 

LVPA no longer exist to the degree that 

requires its continuation. NMFS, 

moreover, believes that the 12 nm 

prohibition applied to large longline 

vessels provides adequate separation 

between small fishing vessels from the 

large longline and purse seine vessels, 

while still allowing for optimum yield 

for all fishing sectors. 

Furthermore, the frequency and 

concentration of small alia longline 

vessels and small non-longline vessels 

fishing seaward of 12 nm is lower than 

that of the large longline vessels. Many 

of these small vessels are recreational 

and do not operate on a daily basis. The 

EA discusses the potential impacts of 

fishery participants, including impacts 

to the small vessel fleets and indicates 

this action will continue to provide for 

sufficient spatial separation between 

small and large vessels. The Council 

and NMFS used the best available 

information provided by the American 

Samoa Department of Marine and 

Wildlife Resources (DMWR) creel 

survey to estimate the number of vessels 

operating in the LVPA. See also 

response to Comment 18. 

Comment 24: One commenter noted 

that two large local U.S. longliners 

already have permission to fish in the 

LVPA, and so there is nothing new 

about larger longline vessels fishing in 

the area. 

Response: Comment noted. As part of 

the establishment of the LVPA 

regulations, NMFS exempted two 

individuals and their vessels from the 

LVPA restrictions on the basis that these 

individuals had made at least one 

landing of pelagic management unit 

species (MUS) with those vessels in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5623 

LVPA area on or prior to November 13, 

1997. See 50 CFR 665.818. NMFS has no 

information that the activity of these 

two vessels has created gear conflicts or 

affected the catches of smaller vessels 

within the LVPA. 

Comment 25: Several commenters 

thought that the action would negatively 

affect the American Samoan 

Government’s plan to build a fleet of 40 

ft super alia intended to increase local 

indigenous Samoan participation in 

fishing in the LVPA. 

Response: Based on information 

provided in comments submitted by the 

Government of American Samoa, the 

government has received a technical 

assistance grant from the U.S. 

Department of the Interior for the 

development of a prototype-fishing 

vessel called a super alia. Because the 

vessel has yet to be designed, 

constructed, or tested, and because 

additional capital would be required to 

build a fleet of these super alia 

envisioned under the Government’s 

plan, NMFS cannot predict what 

changes, if any, may occur in the 

commercial fisheries because of this 

grant. However, the Council and NMFS 

are prepared to work with the 

Government of American Samoa to 

address potential regulatory and other 

impediments to sustainable fisheries 

development initiatives, once a super 

alia fleet is fully developed and the 

Government of American Samoa’s alia 

program is implemented. 

Comment 26: Several commenters 

said that a super alia fishing fleet is not 

realistic because fishermen will run into 

the same problems the previous alia 

fleet experienced, including high 

operation costs for longline gear, fuel, 

and bait. 

Response: Comment noted. See 

responses to Comments 17 and 25. 

Comment 27: Several commenters 

noted that in the Deed of Cession with 

the chiefs of the islands of Tutuila, 

Aunuu, and Manua Islands, the United 

States promised to protect the lands, 

preserve the traditions, customs, 

language and culture, Samoan way of 

life, and the waters surrounding the 

islands, and that all the science and 

environmental analysis should not 

supersede the rights of the people of 

these islands. 

Response: NMFS’ decision to approve 

the Council’s recommendation to 

modify the LVPA is consistent with its 

authority under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act to manage fishery resources in the 

U.S. EEZ. This action relieves an area 

restriction that applied to certain large 

commercial fishing operators within a 

portion of the US EEZ (generally 12 to 

50 nm from shore), based on NMFS’ 

determination that the restriction no 

longer serves the conservation and 

management purposes for which it was 

developed. Importantly, this action 

preserves full access to these waters by 

smaller vessels, including alias, sport 

fishers, and artisanal fishing vessels, 

throughout the EEZ, as authorized 

under the existing American Samoa 

Archipelagic Fishery Ecosystem Plan 

and implementing regulations. Further, 

this action does not alter the authority 

of American Samoa to manage its 

coastal fisheries to the extent authorized 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1856. 

NMFS took particular care to ensure 

that the views of American Samoa 

stakeholders, including fishermen, 

fishing communities, and the American 

Samoa government, were solicited and 

taken into account throughout the 

development of this action. Consistent 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 

Council and NMFS provided a number 

of opportunities for American Samoa’s 

participation during all material phases 

of the development of this measure, 

including Council meetings to discuss 

the amendment, the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) process, and 

public meetings held in American 

Samoa (see response to Comment 1). 

Comment 28: One commenter 

expressed support for the purse seine 

fleet. 

Response: Comment noted. This 

action does not change the existing 

prohibitions against purse seine fishing 

in the LVPA. 

Comment 29: One commenter felt that 

the action is based on incomplete data 

because the Council based its decision 

solely on the decrease of the alia 

longline fishing activities, and did not 

consider fishing activities by troll and 

bottomfish vessels. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that the 

Council did not consider troll and 

bottomfish vessels. The EA contains 

detailed description of fishing sectors of 

American Samoa, including catch and 

effort by the troll and bottomfish 

fisheries, and other small boat fisheries. 

See response to Comment 23. 

Comment 30: One commenter said the 

Council did not adequately consult with 

stakeholders prior to recommending the 

proposed action at its 162nd meeting in 

March 2015. 

Response: See response to Comment 

1. 

Comment 31: One commenter thought 

that the proposed action ignores the fact 

that there are significant fishing 

activities in the exemption areas, 

especially in the vicinity near the banks. 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The EA 

identifies the types of fisheries that 

occur within the LVPA around 

American Samoa, including the alia 

longline fishery, troll and bottomfish 

fishery, and recreational fisheries. The 

EA also describes the number of vessels 

in each fishery, and provides catch and 

effort information and fishing location, 

where data is available. Moreover, the 

EA also provides an estimate of troll 

catch from the offshore banks as a 

percentage of total troll catch of 

American Samoa and analyzes the 

effects of the action on those fishing 

sectors. 

Comment 32: One commenter felt that 

NOAA should increase the collection of 

information about seabirds and other 

protected species, by expanding current 

observer coverage as this fishery 

expands in size and area. 

Response: NMFS strives to maintain 

an annual observer coverage rate of at 

least 20 percent in the American Samoa 

longline fishery, and has steadily 

increased observer coverage from 

approximately 6 percent in 2006 to 

nearly 20 percent in 2014. In some 

years, NMFS has been able to cover over 

33 percent of all longline trips in the 

American Samoa longline fishery. 

However, NMFS’ ability to increase and 

maintain observer coverage greater than 

20 percent will be subject to available 

funding. NMFS also notes that the 

fishery may not increase in the total 

number of vessels because the number 

of available fishing permits is limited. 

Comment 33: One commenter thought 

that, although the action would not alter 

fishing activities within the Rose Atoll 

Marine National Monument, the change 

may result in greater likelihood and 

frequency of derelict fishing gear 

washing ashore and recommends NMFS 

include measures to minimize derelict 

fishing gear. 

Response: NMFS is unaware of any 

instances where such an event has 

occurred. Based on information 

provided in the USFWS Rose Atoll 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (May 

2014), the most significant derelict 

fishing gear is from the grounding of a 

Taiwanese vessel, which occurred in 

1993, over 20 years ago. The plan also 

notes that observations of other forms of 

marine debris at Rose Atoll are rare, and 

do not constitute a significant visual 

presence in the atoll. NMFS does not 

expect this action to change the amount 

of fishing effort or other vessel 

operations, and is unlikely to increase 

frequency of derelict gear. For these 

reasons, NMFS is satisfied that 

additional measures to minimize 

derelict fishing gear from American 

Samoa longline fisheries are 

unnecessary at this time. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5624 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Comments on the Draft Environmental 

Assessment 

Comment 34: One commenter said 

that NMFS should not open a currently 

closed area without a full environmental 

impact statement and additional sea 

turtle mitigation measures, including 

increased observer coverage and hard 

interaction limits. 

Response: Based on the analysis 

presented in the EA, NMFS has 

determined that the proposed action 

would not result in significant impacts 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment and, therefore, does not 

warrant the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement. The 

analysis presented in the EA 

incorporates the best available scientific 

and commercial information on the 

fishery and its impacts on the 

environment, including sea turtles. 

Specifically, along with other relevant 

information, the EA considers the 

analysis from an October 30, 2015, 

biological opinion (2015 BiOp) that 

NMFS developed as part of a formal 

consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act. (See also responses to 

Comments 35–37). 

Although participation and effort in 

the American Samoa longline fishery 

has varied and declined in recent years, 

NMFS expects that the level of 

participation, in terms of fleet-wide sets 

and hooks deployed, likely will return 

to historic levels. For this reason, the 

analysis in the 2015 BiOp anticipated 

the American Samoa longline fishery 

operating up to the level seen in 2007 

when 29 vessels deployed 5,920 sets 

and approximately 17,554,000 hooks, 

and evaluated the potential 

environmental effects of the fishery 

operating at these levels. Additionally, 

NMFS anticipates the continued 

placement of observers on 

approximately 20 percent of all longline 

trips. 

In the 2015 BiOp, NMFS concluded 

that the continued operation of the 

American Samoa longline fishery under 

existing federal regulations, and effort 

levels expected under the proposed 

action, is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any ESA-listed 

species, including sea turtles. NMFS 

based this conclusion on a thorough 

assessment of the effects of the action, 

together with the environmental 

baseline and the cumulative effects. The 

EA analysis considered the information 

presented in the 2015 BiOp and found 

that the expected level of fishery 

interactions under the proposed action 

would not result in significant 

population level effects for any ESAlisted species or their habitats, 

including sea turtles. 

Comment 35: One commenter said 

that, based on its calculations from 

information contained in the draft EA, 

the American Samoa longline fishery 

has killed approximately three adult 

female leatherback sea turtles each year 

for four years. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

commenter’s conclusion about 

leatherback mortality in the action. At 

the time that NMFS published the 

proposed rule, the agency was 

undergoing consultation pursuant to 

Section 7 of the ESA for the American 

Samoa pelagic longline fishery. As part 

of the consultation process, NMFS 

prepared a memorandum dated May 8, 

2015, (amended July 21, 2015) under the 

authority of sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) of 

the ESA for the proposed continued 

operation of the fishery while 

consultation was ongoing. The draft EA 

incorporated information on the 

estimated leatherback take from this 

memorandum, and projected that, by 

the completion of consultation in 

October 2015, the longline fishery could 

be expected to interact with 27 

leatherbacks, the equivalent of one adult 

nesting female mortality every 1.566 

years. Since publication of the proposed 

rule, NMFS completed the 2015 BiOp, 

which considered all relevant 

commercial and scientific information 

available on sea turtles, and which 

supersedes the information in the May 

8, 2015 memorandum as amended on 

July 21, 2015. NMFS’ final EA considers 

the information found in the 2015 BiOp. 

In the 2015 BiOp, NMFS estimated 

anticipated future interactions between 

the fishery and leatherbacks sea turtles. 

NMFS used previous, observed 

interactions and anticipated effort in the 

fishery to predict the future level of 

take. NMFS then used a discounting 

methodology to analyze the impact of 

this level of take on the leatherback 

population. 

NMFS based the interaction estimates 

in the BiOp on a random sample of 

longline trips on which scientific 

observers are deployed. Relying on 

Table 7 of the 2015 BiOp, NMFS 

estimates 36 total leatherback 

interactions between 2011 and mid2015 (based on eight observed 

interactions). NMFS used these 

interactions to calculate an average rate 

of interaction. That was then multiplied 

by the anticipated annual effort in the 

fishery to determine that 23 leatherback 

interactions are anticipated annually. 

NMFS then applied a leatherback 

mortality rate of 70.6, based on observed 

mortalities, injuries, and applying the 

NMFS post-hooking mortality criteria 

(Ryder et al. 2006). 

Accordingly, NMFS anticipates 23 

interactions to result in 16.28 (23 × 0.76 

= 16.28) leatherback sea turtle 

mortalities. However, many of these 

interactions occur with juvenile sea 

turtles that already experience low 

survival rates even in the absence of 

fishing. Therefore, NMFS must apply a 

discount to the expected rate of annual 

interactions in order to estimate the risk 

that the proposed action would pose to 

the western Pacific leatherback sea 

turtle population. 

NMFS first estimated the number of 

adult females or adult nester equivalents 

(ANE) harmed through injury or death 

related to the fishery. The American 

Samoa longline fishery interacts with 

male and female leatherback sea turtles, 

and they are predominantly juveniles 

(Van Houtan 2015). To estimate the 

number of adult females that could 

potentially be killed by 23 interactions, 

two adjustments were applied to the 

calculation above: (1) The proportion of 

females in the adult population (using a 

ratio of 65 percent females to 35 percent 

males); and (2) the adult equivalent 

represented by each juvenile 

interaction. The adult equivalent was 

determined using the discounting 

method (Van Houtan 2013, 2015). This 

discounting method summarized in the 

2015 BiOp incorporates an exact 

demographic match to the observed 

interactions, and relies on length 

measurements by fishery observers of 

bycaught turtles, and conversion of 

these recorded lengths to ages. 

Therefore, of the estimated 16.28 

leatherback sea turtle mortalities, NMFS 

estimates 10.58 would be females (16.28 

× 0.65 = 10.58). Applying the adult 

equivalent discounting method (Van 

Houtan 2013, 2015), NMFS estimates 23 

leatherback interactions would result in 

the mortality of 0.55 adult females 

annually, or one adult female mortality 

every 1.8 years from a nesting 

population of 2,739 females (Van 

Houtan 2015). This represents less than 

0.0002, or 0.02 percent of the nesting 

population in the region. NMFS 

considers this level of impact to the 

population to be negligible, and it will 

not adversely affect the species’ ability 

to survive, successfully reproduce, and 

recover. 

NMFS believes that the commenter 

made several assumptions in the 

calculations that led to a flawed 

conclusion on sea turtle mortality. The 

commenter assumed, for instance, an 

observer coverage rate of 20 percent 

over the four-year period, and then 

apparently multiplied the observed 

number of injured and killed since 2010 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5625 

by a factor of five. The commenter 

incorrectly applied the NMFS posthooking mortality criteria of 70.6 

percent (Ryder et al. 2006) to the 

expanded number of injured turtles. 

The mortality rate is an average rate 

where mortality is 100 percent and 

injuries are assessed at a rate between 0 

and 100 percent, based on the observed 

hooking or entanglement injuries and 

using the NMFS post-hooking mortality 

criteria (Ryder et al. 2006). Therefore, 

the mortality rate of 70.6 percent 

already accounts for all observed 

mortalities. Thus, applying this rate to 

the expanded, injured turtle count is an 

incorrect use of the mortality rate. 

Furthermore, the mortality rate of 70.6 

percent is a conservative mortality rate 

because NMFS did not separate out the 

larger turtles from the younger, smaller 

turtles that have a much higher 

mortality rate. The five smaller turtles 

were boarded dead (a mortality rate of 

100 percent) and the three larger turtles 

that were not boarded had a mortality 

rate of 21.7 percent. When using these 

individual mortality rates in the ANE 

calculation, the ANE is 0.33 rather than 

0.55. While NMFS provided exact 

measurements for two turtles, it is 

incorrect to assume the other turtles 

were adults. In fact, the fishery 

predominantly interacts with juvenile 

turtles; of the eight observed 

interactions with leatherbacks in this 

fishery, five were juveniles and three 

were adults. 

NMFS, therefore, believes that the 

data and analysis contained in the 2015 

BiOp and EA are the best available 

science on which to base determinations 

of the impact by the fishery to protected 

marine species. 

Comment 36: One commenter said 

that the draft EA does not adequately 

discuss the impacts to endangered 

leatherback sea turtles from the fishery 

and its expansion into the LVPA. 

Response: The analysis presented in 

the final EA incorporates the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information on the fishery and 

considers the 2015 BiOp, which NMFS 

developed as part of a formal 

consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act. The analysis in the 2015 

BiOp indicates that under the proposed 

action the fishery could potentially 

interact with 23 leatherback sea turtles 

each year. Genetic analysis of three 

leatherback turtles caught incidentally 

in the American Samoa longline fishery 

indicate that they are from the Western 

Pacific genetic stock, which is 

comprised of nesting populations in 

Papua-Barat, Indonesia, Papua New 

Guinea and Solomon Islands. 

Based on the analysis in the 2015 

BiOp, NMFS estimates the longline 

fishery would cause 0.55 adult female 

mortalities annually. This is the 

equivalent of one adult female mortality 

every 1.8 years from a nesting 

population of 2,739 females in the 

Western Pacific population. (Van 

Houtan 2015). This represents less than 

0.0002 (0.02 percent) of the nesting 

population in the region. In the 2015 

BiOp, NMFS concluded that this 

anticipated level of interactions and 

associated adult female mortalities 

under the proposed action is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

leatherback sea turtle populations. The 

analysis in the EA further indicates that 

0.55 adult female mortalities annually 

or 1.65 adult female mortalities over a 

3-yr period is not likely to pose an 

appreciable risk or result in significant 

impacts to leatherback sea turtle 

populations in the Western Pacific 

region. 

Comment 37: One commenter said 

that the draft EA failed to assess 

adequately the proposed action and 

several upcoming actions all of which 

will increase risk of interactions with 

sea turtles. First, the proposed action 

will allow large longline vessels into 

pelagic habitat around American Samoa 

most likely occupied by leatherback sea 

turtles. Second, the proposed rule will 

increase fishing effort as measured by 

area of the activity and by hooks 

deployed. Finally, the proposed action’s 

risk of increasing interactions must be 

considered with the Council approved 

amendments that create a shallow-set 

longline fishery by eliminating the 

depth requirement for hooks and 

increasing the swordfish retention trip 

limit. 

Response: As discussed in response to 

comment 34, the final EA considers 

analysis presented in the 2015 BiOp, 

which estimates population level 

impacts to sea turtle populations 

resulting from the proposed action and 

in anticipation of increased fishing 

effort in coastal areas. After analyzing 

the proposed action, including the 

environmental baselines and cumulative 

effects, and its impact on protected 

species, NMFS concluded in the 2015 

BiOp that the action is not expected to 

cause an appreciable reduction in the 

likelihood of both the survival and 

recovery of leatherback sea turtles in the 

wild, or other protected species in the 

action area. The final EA includes this 

information. In addition to impacts on 

protected resources, the final EA also 

analyzed whether the action would 

significantly affect the human and 

natural environment. Based on the 

analysis, NMFS determined that the 

impacts of the action were not 

significant (see Section 4 of the final 

EA). NMFS has no information to 

believe that the partial reopening of an 

area currently closed to longlining will 

result in unacceptable impacts to sea 

turtles or other protected species. 

The targeting of swordfish generally 

requires deployment of hooks shallower 

than 100 meters. However, as described 

in the draft EA, current federal 

regulations require all hooks set by the 

fishery to be set deeper than 100 meters 

in order to minimize the risk of sea 

turtle interaction. Thus, current federal 

regulations prohibit American Samoa 

longline vessels from targeting 

swordfish with hooks set shallower than 

100 meters in the American Samoa EEZ. 

NMFS notes that the Council has 

taken action to recommend creating a 

shallow-set longline fishery in 

American Samoa. The Council, 

however, has not yet developed an 

amendment or associated environmental 

impact analyses describing such a 

fishery. Should the Council propose that 

action as an amendment, NMFS would 

conduct all necessary analyses to 

determine whether the action complies 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and all 

applicable laws. At this time, however, 

NMFS is satisfied that the final EA 

adequately assesses the cumulative 

impact of the Council action and all 

reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

In this final rule, NMFS made minor 

housekeeping changes in the tables of 

boundary coordinates in § 665.818(b). In 

the proposed rule, NMFS had labeled 

the points for each coordinate with 

simple numbers. Using the same 

numbers for each table could lead to 

confusion among fishermen and 

enforcement officials, so in this final 

rule, NMFS added prefixes for boundary 

point labels that are different for each 

island or island group. Specifically, the 

Tutuila coordinates carry the prefix 

‘‘TU-,’’ the Manua coordinates carry the 

prefix ‘‘MA-,’’ and the Swains 

coordinates carry the prefix ‘‘SW-.’’ 

Also in the proposed rule, in the table 

of boundary coordinates for Swain’s 

Island at § 665.818(b)(3), NMFS only 

listed degrees and minutes in defining 

the latitude and longitude for each 

coordinate, and inadvertently omitted 

the seconds. In this final rule, NMFS 

corrects that omission by including 

degrees, minutes, and seconds for each 

boundary coordinate. 

The final rule also corrects the first 

instance of the coordinate for MA point 

1. The proposed rule listed the W. long. 

coordinate as 169°53′7′′. The final rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5626 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 3, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

corrects the seconds so that the W. long. 

coordinate is now 169°53′37′′. 

This final rule also clarifies that the 

datum used to define the boundary 

coordinates in § 665.818(b) is the World 

Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84). 

Classification 

The Regional Administrator, Pacific 

Islands Region, NMFS, has determined 

that this final rule is necessary for the 

conservation and management of the 

pelagic fisheries of American Samoa, 

and that it is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration during 

the proposed rule stage that this action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. NMFS published the factual 

basis for the certification in the 

proposed rule and does not repeat it 

here. NMFS received no comments on 

this certification; as a result, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required, and none has been prepared. 

Because this rule relieves a restriction 

by increasing the geographical area 

where fishing is allowed, it is not 

subject to the 30-day delayed 

effectiveness provision of the APA 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Since 

2002, NMFS has prohibited pelagic 

longline fishing by large U.S. vessels in 

the LVPA, which extended seaward 

approximately 30–50 nm around the 

various islands of American Samoa. At 

that time, the Council and NMFS 

intended the LVPA to prevent gear 

conflicts and catch competition between 

large and small fishing vessels. Since 

2002, however, the conditions that led 

to the establishment of the LVPA in 

2002 no longer support the full extent 

(30–50 nm) of the original prohibited 

area for longlining. The LVPA may be 

unnecessarily reducing the efficiency of 

the larger vessels by displacing them 

from a part of their historical fishing 

grounds. This action will allow large 

vessels to fish within the LVPA to as 

close as 12 nm around the islands. The 

action adds about 16,817 nm2 of Federal 

waters that are accessible to these 

vessels. By allowing access to some of 

the previously restricted area, the action 

will improve the efficiency and 

economic viability of the American 

Samoa longline fleet. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, 

Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian natives, 

Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: January 28, 2016. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 

665 as follows: 

PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE 

WESTERN PACIFIC 

■ 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 665 continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Revise § 665.818 to read as follows: 

§ 665.818 Exemptions for American Samoa 

large vessel prohibited areas. 

(a) Exemption for historical 

participation. (1) An exemption will be 

issued to a person who currently owns 

a large vessel to use that vessel to fish 

for western Pacific pelagic MUS in the 

American Samoa large vessel prohibited 

areas, if the person seeking the 

exemption had been the owner of that 

vessel when it was registered for use 

with a Western Pacific general longline 

permit, and has made at least one 

landing of western Pacific pelagic MUS 

in American Samoa on or prior to 

November 13, 1997. 

(2) A landing of western Pacific 

pelagic MUS for the purpose of this 

paragraph must have been properly 

recorded on a NMFS Western Pacific 

Federal daily longline form that was 

submitted to NMFS, as required in 

§ 665.14. 

(3) An exemption is valid only for a 

vessel that was registered for use with 

a Western Pacific general longline 

permit and landed western Pacific 

pelagic MUS in American Samoa on or 

prior to November 13, 1997, or for a 

replacement vessel of equal or smaller 

LOA than the vessel that was initially 

registered for use with a Western Pacific 

general longline permit on or prior to 

November 13, 1997. 

(4) An exemption is valid only for the 

vessel for which it is registered. An 

exemption not registered for use with a 

particular vessel may not be used. 

(5) An exemption may not be 

transferred to another person. 

(6) If more than one person, e.g., a 

partnership or corporation, owned a 

large vessel when it was registered for 

use with a Western Pacific general 

longline permit and made at least one 

landing of western Pacific pelagic MUS 

in American Samoa on or prior to 

November 13, 1997, an exemption 

issued under this section will be issued 

to only one person. 

(b) Exemption for vessel size. Except 

as otherwise prohibited in subpart I of 

this part, a vessel of any size that is 

registered for use with a valid American 

Samoa longline limited access permit is 

authorized to fish for western Pacific 

pelagic MUS within the American 

Samoa large vessel prohibited areas as 

defined in § 665.806(b), except that no 

large vessel as defined in § 665.12 may 

be used to fish for western Pacific 

pelagic MUS in the portions of the 

American Samoa large vessel prohibited 

areas, as follows: 

(1) EEZ waters around Tutuila Island 

enclosed by straight lines connecting 

the following coordinates (the datum for 

these coordinates is World Geodetic 

System 1984 (WGS84)): 

Point S. lat. W. long. 

TU–1 ................ 14°01′42′′ 171°02′36′′ 

TU–2 ................ 14°01′42′′ 170°20′22′′ 

TU–3 ................ 14°34′31′′ 170°20′22′′ 

TU–4 ................ 14°34′31′′ 171°03′10′′ 

TU–5 ................ 14°02′47′′ 171°03′10′′ 

TU–1 ................ 14°01′42′′ 171°02′36′′ 

(2) EEZ waters around the Manua 

Islands enclosed by straight lines 

connecting the following coordinates 

(WGS84): 

Point S. lat. W. long. 

MA–1 ............... 13°57′16′′ 169°53′37′′ 

MA–2 ............... 13°57′16′′ 169°12′45′′ 

MA–3 ............... 14°28′28′′ 169°12′45′′ 

MA–4 ............... 14°28′28′′ 169°53′37′′ 

MA–1 ............... 13°57′16′′ 169°53′37′′ 

(3) EEZ waters around Swains Island 

enclosed by straight lines connecting 

the following coordinates (WGS84): 

Point S. lat. W. long. 

SW–1 ............... 10°50′42′′ 171°17′42′′ 

SW–2 ............... 10°50′42′′ 170°51′39′′ 

SW–3 ............... 11°16′08′′ 170°51′39′′ 

SW–4 ............... 11°16′08′′ 171°17′42′′ 

SW–1 ............... 10°50′42′′ 171°17′42′′ 

[FR Doc. 2016–01891 Filed 1–29–16; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES