Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64097 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by a report of 

contact between certain electrical harnesses 

and the hatrack rod that could cause chafing 

between the harnesses and surrounding 

structure. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

chafing and possible short circuit of two 

oxygen chemical generator containers in 

different wiring routes, which could result in 

malfunction of the electrical opening of all 

the containers connected to these routes. 

Such conditions, during a sudden 

depressurization event, could result in lack 

of oxygen and consequent injuries to airplane 

occupants. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Modification 

Within 24 months after the effective date 

of this AD: Modify the routing of electrical 

harnesses 1523VB on the left-hand side and 

1524VB on the right-hand side, at the level 

of the door 3 area between frames 53.6 and 

53.8, and between stringers 14 and 15, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330– 

92–3098 or A340–92–4084, both dated 

January 11, 2013, as applicable. 

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone 425–227–1138; fax 425–227–1149. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116- 

AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using 

any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the local flight 

standards district office/certificate holding 

district office. The AMOC approval letter 

must specifically reference this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the 

effective date of this AD, for any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer, the action must be 

accomplished using a method approved by 

the Manager, International Branch, ANM– 

116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA); or Airbus’s EASA Design 

Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by 

the DOA, the approval must include the 

DOA-authorized signature. 

(i) Related Information 

Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) 2013– 

0196, dated August 28, 2013, for related 

information. This MCAI may be found in the 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA2014-0140-0002. 

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330–92–3098, 

dated January 11, 2013. 

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340–92–4084, 

dated January 11, 2013. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness 

Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 

5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email 

airworthiness.A330-A340@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

15, 2014. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25413 Filed 10–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Parts 300, 600, and 665 

[Docket No. 130708597–4380–01] 

RIN 0648–BD46 

Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; U.S. 

Territorial Catch and Fishing Effort 

Limits 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; final specifications; 

effectiveness of collection-ofinformation requirements. 

SUMMARY: This final rule implements a 

management framework for specifying 

catch and effort limits and 

accountability measures for pelagic 

fisheries in the U.S. Pacific territories of 

American Samoa, Guam, and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands (CNMI). Using the established 

framework, NMFS is also specifying a 

catch limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of 

longline-caught bigeye tuna for each 

territory for 2014. A territory may 

allocate up to 1,000 mt of that limit to 

eligible U.S. longline fishing vessels. 

This final rule also makes several 

technical administrative changes to the 

regulations and announces the 

effectiveness of collection-ofinformation requirements. This action is 

consistent with international objectives 

of ending overfishing of bigeye tuna, 

while allowing for the limited transfer 

of available catch limits between U.S 

participating territories and eligible U.S. 

fisheries, consistent with the 

conservation requirements of the bigeye 

tuna stock. 

DATES: This final rule and final 

specifications are effective October 24, 

2014. 

The deadline to submit a specified 

fishing agreement for review pursuant to 

§ 665.819(b)(3) is November 28, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may review the 

background and details of this action in 

Amendment 7 to the Fishery Ecosystem 

Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western 

Pacific. You may obtain a copy of 

Amendment 7 and supporting 

documents, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2012–0178, from the Federal 

e-Rulemaking Portal, 

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012- 

0178, or from the Western Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council), 

1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, 

HI 96813, tel 808–522–8220, fax 808– 

522–8226, www.wpcouncil.org. 

You may submit written comments 

regarding the burden-hour estimates or 

other aspects of the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in 

this final rule to Michael D. Tosatto, 

Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific 

Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd. 

Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818, and by 

email to OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov or fax to 202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIR Sustainable 

Fisheries Division, 808–725–5176. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS and 

the Council manage the pelagic fisheries 

of American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, 

and Hawaii under the Fishery 

Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of 

the Western Pacific (FEP). The Council 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
64098 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

recommends conservation and 

management measures for NMFS to 

implement under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Certain pelagic 

fish stocks, including tunas, are also 

subject to conservation and management 

measures cooperatively agreed to by the 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission (WCPFC), an international 

regional fisheries management 

organization of which the United States 

is a member. The WCPFC has 

jurisdiction over fisheries harvesting 

highly migratory species on the high 

seas in the western and central Pacific 

Ocean, including pelagic fish stocks 

managed under the FEP. Pursuant to 

WCPFC Conservation and Management 

Measure (CMM) 2012–01, NMFS 

implemented the 2014 longline catch 

limit for bigeye tuna of 3,763 mt for U.S. 

vessels in the western and central 

Pacific (78 FR 58240, September 23, 

2013). The limit does not apply to 

vessels in the longline fisheries of the 

U.S. participating territories to the 

WCPFC, that is, American Samoa, 

Guam, or the CNMI. 

Section 113 of the Consolidated and 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act 

of 2012, as amended, (Section 113) 

directed the Council to amend the FEP 

to authorize U.S. participating territories 

to use, assign, allocate, and manage 

their catch and effort limits for highly 

migratory fish stocks through 

agreements with U.S. vessels permitted 

under the FEP. Consistent with Section 

113, which has now lapsed, the Council 

transmitted Amendment 7 on December 

23, 2013. The Secretary of Commerce 

approved Amendment 7 on March 28, 

2014. This final rule and associated 

final specifications implement 

conservation and management measures 

described in Amendment 7. This final 

rule is consistent with the WCPFC CMM 

2013–01 objectives of ending 

overfishing of bigeye tuna, while 

allowing for the limited transfer of 

available quota between U.S. 

participating territories and eligible U.S. 

fisheries. Although individual catch 

limits do not apply to the U.S. 

participating territories under CMM 

2013–01, NMFS is implementing 

longline catch limits for bigeye tuna for 

the territories to ensure sustainable 

management, and to limit the overall 

mortality of bigeye tuna in the region. 

This rule establishes accountability 

measures for attributing and restricting 

catch and fishing effort towards 

territorial limits, including catches and 

fishing effort under the territory 

agreements. Annual review and action 

by the Council and NMFS will ensure 

that any transfer of quota is consistent 

with the conservation requirements of 

the stock. 

Final Rule 

This rule implements the following: 

• A framework consistent with 

WCPFC conservation and management 

measures for specifying catch or fishing 

effort limits and accountability 

measures for pelagic fisheries in the 

U.S. participating territories; 

• Authorization for territories to enter 

into specified fishing agreements with 

U.S. fishing vessels permitted under the 

FEP, and to allocate to those vessels a 

specified portion of the territory’s catch 

or fishing effort limit, as determined by 

NMFS and the Council; 

• Criteria that any specified fishing 

agreements must satisfy, and the 

procedures for reviewing such 

agreements; and 

• Accountability measures for 

attributing and restricting catch and 

fishing effort toward specified limits, 

including catches and fishing effort 

made by vessels in the agreements. 

Under the framework process, the 

Council will review existing and 

proposed catch or effort limits and the 

portion available for allocation at least 

annually to ensure consistency with 

WCPFC decisions, the FEP, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws. Based on this review, at 

least annually, the Council will 

recommend to NMFS whether such 

catch or effort limit or the portion 

available for allocation should be 

approved for the next fishing year. 

NMFS will review all Council 

recommendations and, if determined to 

be consistent with WCPFC decisions, 

the FEP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and 

other applicable laws, will approve the 

Council’s recommendations. If NMFS 

determines that a Council 

recommendation is inconsistent with 

WCPFC decisions, the FEP, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, or other 

applicable laws, NMFS will disapprove 

the recommendation. If NMFS 

disapproves a catch or fishing effort 

limit specification or allocation limit, or 

if the Council recommends and NMFS 

approves no catch or fishing effort limit 

specification or allocation limit, then no 

specified fishing agreements would be 

authorized for the fishing year covered 

by such action. 

2014 Bigeye Tuna Catch Limit 

NMFS is using the framework process 

to specify a longline bigeye tuna catch 

limit of 2,000 mt for each U.S. 

participating territory. Additionally, 

NMFS specifies that each territory may 

allocate up to 1,000 mt of that limit to 

U.S. longline fishing vessels based in 

other U.S. participating territories or in 

Hawaii, and identified in a specified 

fishing agreement. NMFS will monitor 

catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna, 

including catches made under specified 

fishing agreements, and restrict catches, 

as appropriate, using the accountability 

measures described in this final rule. 

The longline bigeye tuna catch limit 

specifications are effective for the 2014 

fishing year, which began on January 1, 

2014. 

The deadline to submit a specified 

fishing agreement for review pursuant to 

§ 665.819(b)(3) is November 28, 2014. 

Additional background information 

on this final rule and the final bigeye 

tuna catch specification is contained in 

the preamble to the proposed rule and 

proposed specifications (79 FR 1354, 

January 8, 2014), and is not repeated 

here. 

Comments and Responses 

On January 8, 2014, NMFS published 

a proposed rule and proposed 

specifications, and request for public 

comments (79 FR 1354); the comment 

period ended February 24, 2014. NMFS 

received comments from individuals, 

government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations, and 

responds as follows: 

Comment 1: Several commenters 

support NMFS assistance to U.S. Pacific 

island territories. 

Response: Comment noted; this final 

rule requires that any fishing 

agreements between the U.S. 

participating territories and U.S. vessels 

include support for fisheries 

development projects in the territories 

and as described in their marine 

conservation plans. 

Comment 2: The Hawaii-based 

longline fleet is already subject to a 

bigeye tuna catch limit, and this 

proposed action would allow the fleet to 

catch up to an additional 3,000 mt of 

bigeye tuna. There needs to be a 

reduction in bigeye tuna fishing 

pressure to regain sustainable levels, so 

the territories should not be allowed to 

allocate up to 1,000 mt of their 2,000- 

mt bigeye tuna catch limit to the Hawaii 

fleet. 

Response: Section 113, as amended, 

directed the Council to prepare and 

transmit an amendment and regulations 

implementing a process for transferring 

U.S. territory quota for highly migratory 

species to eligible U.S. fishing vessels. 

This final rule implements this process 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is 

consistent with WCPFC CMM 2013–01, 

and other applicable laws, including the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64099 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), and the NMFS final rule 

published September 23, 2013 (78 FR 

58240), which maintains the U.S. limit 

for longline-caught bigeye tuna in the 

western and central Pacific Ocean 

(WCPO) at 3,763 mt in 2014. 

The management framework provides 

for the domestic implementation of 

catch or fishing effort limits for the 

longline fisheries in the U.S. territories, 

while allowing for the limited transfer 

of quota to U.S. fisheries, consistent 

with the conservation and management 

needs of the stock. One of the objectives 

of CMM 2013–01 is to reduce fishing 

mortality on bigeye tuna and eliminate 

overfishing. This rulemaking includes 

accountability measures to ensure 

consistency with this international 

objective, as well as with the MagnusonStevens Act requirement to prevent 

overfishing. 

This final rule establishes a 

framework that allows each territory to 

allocate a portion of its catch or fishing 

effort limit to U.S. fishing vessels with 

a valid Federal permit issued under the 

FEP through a specified fishing 

agreement. The amount available for 

allocation under agreements is subject 

to annual review to ensure consistency 

with WCPFC decisions, the FEP, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws. If the Council does not 

recommend a specification, or 

recommends an amount that, in light of 

the best scientific information available, 

is inconsistent with the conservation 

and management needs of the stock or 

decisions of the WCPFC, then NMFS 

will not approve specified fishing 

agreements for that year. 

Under this framework process, NMFS 

is also specifying an annual limit of 

2,000 mt of bigeye tuna caught with 

longline fishing gear in the WCPO for 

each territory. CMM 2013–01 does not 

establish an individual limit on the 

amount of bigeye tuna that may be 

harvested annually in the WCPFC 

Convention Area by Small Island 

Developing States (SIDS) and 

participating territories (PTs) of the 

WCPFC, including American Samoa, 

Guam, and the CNMI. Although 

Paragraph 41 of CMM 2013–01 limits 

members that harvested less than 2,000 

mt of bigeye tuna in 2004 to no more 

than 2,000 mt for each of the years 2014 

through 2017, SIDS and PTs are not 

subject to the 2,000-mt limit. As part of 

this action to allow for the limited 

transfer of quota from the U.S. territories 

to U.S. pelagic longline fisheries, NMFS 

is establishing 2,000-mt limits for each 

U.S. territory. These overall limits, in 

conjunction with the 1,000-mt limit that 

each territory may allocate, will help 

ensure sustainability of the stock. 

In 2011 and 2012, under Section 113, 

American Samoa and the Hawaii 

Longline Association (HLA) entered into 

an agreement to attribute longline catch 

to American Samoa in exchange for 

funds deposited in the Sustainable 

Fisheries Fund to support fishery 

development projects in the territories. 

NMFS attributed 628 mt of bigeye tuna 

caught by HLA vessels under the 

agreement in 2011 to American Samoa. 

In 2012, NMFS attributed 771 mt of 

bigeye tuna to American Samoa. In 

2013, the CNMI and HLA entered into 

a Section 113 agreement. In that year, 

NMFS attributed to the CNMI 501 mt of 

bigeye tuna caught by HLA vessels. 

Based on this history, and the 

requirement in this rule that no vessel 

operate under more than one specified 

fishing agreement at a given time, NMFS 

anticipates that no more than 1,000 mt 

of bigeye tuna would be transferred 

annually under specified territory 

fishing agreements. NMFS does not 

expect any significant change in fishing 

effort than had occurred under baseline 

conditions in 2011, 2012, and 2013. 

Finally, as explained above and in 

Amendment 7, the rule does not impede 

the WCPFC objective of ending 

overfishing of bigeye tuna. 

See also the response to Comment 5. 

Comment 3: The proposed rule would 

have negative effects beyond just the 

target species, especially for threatened 

marine animals such as sharks, sea 

turtles, and billfish, and would increase 

shark bycatch each year. 

Response: NMFS anticipates that 

fishing effort by the Hawaii deep-set 

longline fishery, a limited entry fishery 

with a relatively fixed number of active 

permits, will remain similar to baseline 

fishing years under Section 113 (2011, 

2012, and 2013). Impacts to protected 

species are expected to remain within 

the range analyzed in the 2013 

environmental assessment (EA). 

Moreover, in a Biological Opinion dated 

September 19, 2014, NMFS concluded 

that the continued operation of the 

Hawaii deep-set longline fishery under 

effort levels expected under the 

proposed action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

ESA-listed humpback whales, sperm 

whales, the MHI insular false killer 

whale distinct population segment 

(DPS), North Pacific loggerhead DPS, 

leatherback sea turtles, olive ridley sea 

turtles, green sea turtles, and the Indowest Pacific scalloped hammerhead 

DPS. NMFS based this conclusion on a 

careful assessment of the effects of the 

action, together with the environmental 

baseline and the cumulative effects. 

Amendment 7, which this final rule 

implements, presents information and 

impacts to target and non-target species. 

Catches of non-target species under this 

rule are commensurate with the level of 

fishing effort for bigeye tuna. With 

respect to Western and Central North 

Pacific (WCNP) striped marlin, NMFS 

does not anticipate this action to result 

in catches that exceed the U.S. limit for 

WCPO striped marlin under CMM 

2010–01. Each cooperating member, 

non-member, and participating territory 

of the WCPFC is subject to a 20-percent 

reduction of the highest catch of North 

Pacific striped marlin between 2000 and 

2003. The measure provides that each 

flag/chartering member, cooperating 

non-member, and participating territory 

(CCM) shall decide on the management 

measures required to ensure that its 

flagged/chartered vessels operate under 

the specified catch limits. CMM 2010– 

01 provides exemptions to catch limits 

for the SIDS and PTs. The WCPO 

striped marlin limit applicable to the 

U.S. (i.e., Hawaii) fisheries in 2013 and 

beyond is 457 mt annually, which 

accounts for the 20 percent reduction 

agreed to in CMM 2010–01. U.S. catch 

has been below levels agreed to by the 

WCPFC. Table 12 in Amendment 7 

describes recent catches of North Pacific 

striped marlin by U.S. longline vessels, 

including catches attributed under 

fishing agreements. Historical average 

landings from 2008–2012 are only 60 

percent of the U.S. limit under CMM 

2010–01 for 2013 and beyond. Although 

a non-target species caught while 

targeting bigeye tuna and swordfish, 

striped marlin are highly marketable 

and longline fishermen typically discard 

less than five percent. 

NMFS has no information that 

impacts on sharks will increase under 

the proposed action. With the exception 

of mako and thresher sharks that are 

sometimes retained for market in low 

quantities, U.S. longline fishermen 

based in the Pacific Islands release most 

sharks alive. 

See also the response to Comment 5. 

Under this action, NMFS expects fishing 

effort, expected catch rates, and total 

catches for target and non-target species 

to remain within the range observed in 

2011, 2012, and 2013 under Section 

113. 

Comment 4: This proposed rule 

would allow the U.S.A. to increase its 

catch of bigeye tuna, a species already 

experiencing overfishing, by 80 percent 

and ignore its internationallyestablished quota agreed to during the 

most recent meeting of the WCPFC. The 

proposed rule ignores scientific advice 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
64100 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

calling for a 39-percent reduction in 

bigeye tuna fishing mortality from 2004 

levels to end overfishing and threatens 

the future of the fishery by allowing the 

U.S. Hawaii based longline fleet to catch 

up to an additional 3,000 mt of bigeye 

tuna allocated to American Samoa, 

Guam, and the CNMI. This catch would 

be in addition to the 3,763 mt of U.S 

quota just agreed upon at the WCPFC 

meeting in December 2013, raising the 

U.S. allowable catch by 80 percent for 

a species in dire need of catch 

reductions. Furthermore, because 

longline fishing for bigeye tuna by U.S. 

Pacific territories has historically 

remained well below 1,000 mt per year, 

the proposed rule would result in a net 

increase in fishing effort within the 

WCPFC area rather than a mere transfer 

of effort from one CCM to another. 

Response: NMFS has already 

implemented the 3,763 mt catch limit 

for longline-caught bigeye tuna for the 

United States for 2014 (see 50 CFR 

300.224), and will implement the U.S. 

catch limits specified in CMM 2013–01 

for subsequent years in one or more 

separate rulemakings, as appropriate. 

This final rule allows for the limited 

transfer of available quota from 

territories to eligible U.S. longline 

fishermen, for example, after the U.S. 

WCPO limit for bigeye tuna has been 

reached, while applying precautionary 

measures to ensure that international 

objectives to end overfishing are not 

undermined. 

This final rule is not likely to result 

in an additional 3,000 mt bigeye 

mortality by U.S. fishing vessels because 

it includes accountability measures that 

prohibit any vessel from operating 

under more than one specified fishing 

agreement at a time. In addition, no U.S. 

territory may assign more than 1,000 mt 

of bigeye tuna to U.S. vessels operating 

under specified fishing agreements in 

2014. Consistent with landings in 2011, 

2012, and 2013, NMFS anticipates that 

bigeye catch under specified fishing 

agreements will be less than 1,000 mt. 

See also the response to Comments 2 

and 5. 

Comment 5: The proposal to create a 

framework to allow the transfer of catch 

or fishing effort from U.S. Pacific 

territories to the U.S. Hawaii-based 

longline fleet would allow for the 

continued overfishing of bigeye tuna in 

the WCPO, run counter to scientific 

advice that has been consistently 

presented for over a decade, and cause 

the U.S.A. to undermine WCPFC 

conservation objectives. 

Response: This final rule and 2014 

specification provides for a 1,000-mt 

transferable limit for each territory 

under a specified fishing agreement 

with U.S. vessels. Although this rule 

allows for such transfers, accountability 

measures do not allow fishermen to 

operate under more than one territorial 

agreement at a time. Accordingly, NMFS 

anticipates that actual catches will be 

similar to fishing operations under 

Section 113 from 2011 through 2013, 

and result in no more than 1,000 mt of 

bigeye tuna catch annually under 

territory agreements. The management 

framework provides that the Council 

will review and recommend, and NMFS 

will specify, territory catch or fishing 

effort and transferable limits on an 

annual basis, regardless of whether it 

proposes a single or multi-year 

specification. Accordingly, a multi-year 

specification that fails to prevent 

overfishing consistent with WCPFC 

conservation and management measures 

will be subject to disapproval. In the 

event of disapproval of the 

specification, no fishing agreements will 

be approved for the fishing year. 

In 2011, 2012, and 2013, when there 

were no limits on the amount of bigeye 

transferred under Section 113 

agreements, 628 mt, 771 mt, and 501 mt, 

respectively, of bigeye tuna were 

transferred to a U.S. territory. Based on 

historical operations under Section 113, 

NMFS anticipates that up to 1,000 mt of 

bigeye tuna could be assigned under the 

territory agreement(s) in any one year. 

As documented in the EA, catches by 

Hawaii and territory longline fisheries, 

when combined with U.S. WCPO 

longline limit for bigeye tuna of 3,763 

mt per year (which will be reduced in 

2015 and again in 2017) would not 

impede the CMM 2013–01 objective of 

ending overfishing on bigeye tuna. 

See also the response to Comments 2, 

3, and 12. 

Comment 6: Increased fishing effort 

associated with the increase in catch of 

bigeye tuna will impact yellowfin and 

albacore tunas and oceanic white-tip 

and silky sharks that are species of 

concern within the WCPFC Convention 

Area and violate CMMs 2013–01, 2005– 

03, 2011–04, and 2013–08. NMFS and 

the Council should focus on leading 

conservation efforts, not circumventing 

the catch limits the WCPFC has put in 

place. To sustain the bigeye tuna 

fishery, it is imperative that U.S. actions 

promote and support the control of 

fishing mortality based on best available 

science and implementation of 

sustainable measures. 

Response: Section 113 directed the 

Council to prepare an amendment and 

regulations that establish a process for 

transferring quota for highly migratory 

species from U.S. participating 

territories to eligible U.S. longline 

fishing vessels. This final rule 

implements a framework process for 

authorizing the limited transfer of 

highly migratory species quota, 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and WCPFC decisions. This final 

rule is consistent with CMM 2013–01 

for longline-caught yellowfin tuna and 

the fishing effort limits for albacore 

under CMM 2005–02. CMM 2013–01 

provides that CCMs should not increase 

catches of yellowfin tuna by their 

longline vessels. This final rule does not 

increase harvest pressure on yellowfin 

tuna, but merely provides a mechanism 

for continuing baseline effort levels 

from 2011 to 2013. Regarding the CMM 

for North Pacific albacore, vessels in the 

Hawaii deep-set longline fishery do not 

fish for albacore north of the equator, so 

that fishery is not subject to the fishing 

effort limit. This final rule does not 

undermine the WCPFC’s measures for 

silky sharks or oceanic whitetip sharks 

under CMMs 2013–08 and 2011–04, 

respectively. These measures, which 

currently are published as proposed 

regulations, require that fishermen 

release these sharks with as little harm 

as possible; the measures do not require 

limits on fishing effort in any fishery. 

NMFS must give priority to the 

conservation needs of the stock and will 

allow the transfer of quota only to the 

extent that it is consistent with 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

international objectives to end 

overfishing on bigeye tuna. As 

explained in Amendment 7 and 

supported by existing data and model 

projections, the expected transfer of 

1,000 mt in 2014 would not delay or 

impede WCPFC objectives of ending 

overfishing of bigeye tuna. 

Comment 7: To secure the future of 

bigeye tuna populations, the WCPFC 

placed a specific limit on the U.S. 

longline catch of 3,763 mt for 2014, and 

decreased this amount slightly for 2015 

and 2016. The proposed rule creates a 

loophole to this limit, which undoes the 

modest reductions the commission 

requires of U.S. longline vessels. 

Response: This final rule includes 

safeguards to ensure that any transfer of 

quota does not impede WCPFC 

conservation and management 

decisions, including measures to end 

overfishing of bigeye tuna. 

See also the response to Comments 2 

and 5. 

Comment 8: NMFS should include 

the forecast of our changing climate in 

all of its policies. The impact of global 

warming will greatly impact animals 

worldwide. There are already signs of 

failing species as their food supplies 

disappear. 

Response: NMFS and the Council 

addressed climate change, as well as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64101 

other cumulative effects, and their 

impact upon pelagic fisheries in 

Amendment 7 and associated EA. 

Climate change impacts on marine 

ecosystem processes are not well 

understood. It is particularly 

challenging to accurately predict 

climate change effects associated with 

actions, such as here, that are of a shortterm nature. 

Comment 9: We must take action now 

before overfishing significantly reduces 

the bigeye tuna populations, 

jeopardizing commercial fisheries and 

the marine environment. 

Response: The United States, through 

the Departments of State and 

Commerce, continues to work 

cooperatively with regional 

organizations like the WCPFC to address 

the conservation needs of bigeye and 

other highly migratory stocks. NMFS 

remains committed to achieving the 

necessary reductions in bigeye mortality 

that will end overfishing. This rule 

establishes a framework that would 

provide U.S. fisheries with limited 

access to quota that otherwise is 

available to the U.S. participating 

territories, consistent with conservation 

and management objectives of the 

WCPFC and Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Amendment 7 analyzed impacts of the 

action on fisheries, fishery participants, 

and the marine environment consistent 

with international conservation and 

management measures, the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable laws. 

The effects of the action on these 

resource components did not result in 

the identification of any significant 

impacts. 

See also the response to Comment 2. 

Comment 10: The proposed action 

appears to specify catch limits for 

longline-caught bigeye tuna of 2,000 mt 

per year for each territory, of which 

1,000 mt may be transferred annually 

under agreements consistent with the 

FEP and other applicable laws to 

eligible U.S. vessels. 

Response: These final specifications 

apply only in 2014. The management 

framework implemented by this rule 

requires the Council to review any 

proposed and existing catch or fishing 

effort limits and allocation limits at least 

annually to ensure consistency with the 

FEP, Magnuson-Stevens Act, WCPFC 

decisions, and other applicable laws. 

The Council will then recommend the 

amount of catch or effort limit and/or 

allocation limit, if any, for the next 

fishing year. NMFS reviews the 

recommended limits for consistency 

with all applicable laws and WCPFC 

CMMs and, if consistent, NMFS will 

approve the recommendation. If NMFS 

disapproves the recommendation, or if 

the Council recommends no allocation 

limit, then no specified fishing 

agreements will be approved for that 

fishing year. This process did not 

change from the proposed rule. 

Comment 11: The statutory authority 

for territories to use, assign, allocate, 

and manage catch limits of highly 

migratory fish stocks in the way 

proposed (under Section 113) expired 

on December 31, 2013. There is, 

accordingly, neither congressional 

direction nor statutory authority to 

implement the proposed rule. 

Response: The Council transmitted 

Amendment 7 on December 23, 2013, 

consistent with Section 113 (as 

amended by Section 110 of the 

Department of Commerce 

Appropriations Act), and the MagnusonStevens Act. NMFS published the 

Notice of Availability for Amendment 7 

on December 30, 2013. Although 

Section 113 (now lapsed) required the 

Council to take specific action to 

develop and transmit an amendment 

and regulations to implement this 

framework, Section 113 did not convey 

substantive authority that did not 

already exist under the MagnusonStevens Act, WCPFC Implementation 

Act, and other applicable laws. The 

Council and NMFS have authority 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in 

response to a Congressional directive, to 

develop measures that establish a 

territory’s limited transferable interest 

in fishery resources, where necessary 

and appropriate for the conservation 

and management of the fishery. 

Comment 12: Despite acknowledging 

that measures must satisfy the 

conservation and management 

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

in order to ensure the continued 

sustainability of the target stocks, the 

proposed management framework fails 

to include goals of ending overfishing 

and rebuilding stocks when setting 

catch limits. The proposed action fails 

to address the ecosystem consequences 

of bycatch of fish, sharks, turtles, and 

marine mammals in the Hawaii longline 

fisheries in violation of the MagnusonStevens Act. The framework in the 

Council’s preferred alternative would 

allow establishment of catch limits even 

in the absence of WCPFC limits on SIDS 

and PTs, but the criteria for how the 

Council will establish those limits are 

significantly more permissive than 

allowed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Rather than following the National 

Standards in section 301, the Council 

would set catch limits after considering 

the status of highly migratory species 

stocks, the needs of fishing communities 

dependent upon the particular fishery 

resource, and any other relevant 

conservation and management factors. 

Because those limits are set under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and its 

implementing regulations, they should 

be based on best available science, 

specifically the status of the stock, and 

designed to result in a high probability 

of ending overfishing in as short a 

period as possible and/or designed to 

rebuild stocks in as short a period as 

possible. 

Response: The proposed action is 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, which includes the National 

Standards referenced by the commenter, 

and other applicable laws. However, 

NMFS disagrees with the commenter’s 

implicit assumption that any catch limit 

must have a high probability of ending 

overfishing and rebuilding stocks in as 

short a period as possible. Although the 

western pacific bigeye stock is currently 

subject to overfishing, it is not 

overfished as defined by NMFS status 

determination criteria under the Pelagic 

FEP. Further, the Council and NMFS are 

not required to develop annual catch 

limits for internationally-managed 

stocks (16 U.S.C. 1853 note). Given the 

relative impact of the U.S. on western 

pacific bigeye tuna, applying limits to 

U.S. fishermen on only the U.S. portion 

of the catch or quota would not lead to 

ending overfishing and could unfairly 

disadvantage U.S. fishermen (74 FR 

3178 and 3199, January 16, 2009). 

Accordingly, when evaluating whether a 

conservation and management action 

proposed under the Magnuson- Stevens 

Act prevents overfishing of a stock that 

is subject to international management, 

NMFS considers whether the action is 

consistent with the conservation 

objectives of the applicable decision of 

the regional fishery management 

organization. 

Amendment 7 addresses impacts to 

target species including consideration 

whether anticipated catch levels will 

undermine conservation and 

management objectives to end 

overfishing on WCPO bigeye tuna. 

There are accountability measures in 

place to account for any changes in 

stock status or other factors. The 

Council and NMFS will use the best 

scientific information available to 

review and specify catch or fishing 

effort limits or allocation limits on an 

annual basis, taking into account 

catches of other target and non-target 

species, including consistency with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. 

See also the response to Comments 2, 

3, and 5. 

Comment 13: NMFS should adopt 

Alternative 2 in the EA associated with 

Amendment 7 wherein no authority 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
64102 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

exists for U.S. participating territories to 

assign, allocate, and manage catch limits 

of bigeye tuna as was done in 2012 and 

2013, establish a framework for setting 

catch limits based on the status of the 

stock—designed to result in a high 

probability of ending overfishing in as 

short a period as possible—and no 

higher than allowed under international 

conservation measures, and prepare an 

environmental impact statement to 

analyze impacts of the action beyond 

2020, the impact of longline overfishing 

on ecosystem structure per Polovina et 

al. (2013), and the long-term impacts 

and contingencies if bigeye tuna 

overfishing continues. 

Response: See response to Comment 

11 regarding statutory authority. This 

action includes appropriate 

management safeguards, including 

annual review and action on territory 

and allocation limits based on the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available, which will ensure that this 

limited transfer of available quota will 

not undermine conservation objectives. 

The EA provides a comprehensive 

description of the affected environment 

and analysis of the action through a 

reasonable range of alternatives. Based 

on the EA, including consideration of 

precautionary measures that provide for 

annual Council review and NMFS 

action, with supporting NEPA and ESA 

analyses, NMFS believes that the 

environmental impacts associated with 

this action are not significant as to 

require the preparation of an EIS. In 

particular, NMFS is satisfied that 

safeguards, including the availability of 

annual review and prompt corrective 

action, are sufficient to respond to any 

change in the conservation needs of the 

stock and to keep impacts of this action 

to a minimum. 

Highly migratory species, including 

bigeye tuna, are subject to international 

management measures agreed to by the 

WCPFC, to which the U.S.A. is a 

member. The U.S. territories are 

authorized to harvest specified levels of 

highly migratory species. This action 

would allow for the limited transfer of 

bigeye tuna and potentially other highly 

migratory species between territories 

and U.S. vessels consistent with 

international measures that would end 

overfishing within target dates set out 

by the WCPFC. The EA analyzed the 

impacts of the specified territory catch 

limits for bigeye tuna, not only in 2014 

when the limits are in effect, but also 

through 2017 and 2020 when based on 

existing management measures and the 

best scientific information available, 

overfishing of bigeye tuna is expected to 

end. In addition, the EA analyzed 

various catch levels of bigeye tuna 

under agreements, including the most 

likely scenario that the territories would 

assign 1,000 mt to U.S. vessels, based on 

the latest stock assessment of bigeye 

tuna in the WCPO (2011), along with 

other stock assessments and information 

for non-target and protected marine 

species. 

The stock status trend in the Tuna 

Management Simulator (TUMAS) model 

(developed by the Secretariat of the 

Pacific Community, the science 

provider to the WCPFC) using recent 

average recruitment of WCPO bigeye 

tuna, suggests further improvements in 

stock conditions by 2017 and 2020. The 

2014 allocation allows each territory to 

transfer no more than 1,000 mt. In the 

future, if the best scientific information 

available and environmental analyses 

indicate that stock conditions have not 

improved as projected, the Council and 

NMFS would likely approve a smaller 

transferable allocation, or none at all. 

Further, the annual review process 

allows the Council and NMFS to take 

corrective action, as appropriate, to 

meet the conservation needs of the 

stock, non-target stock, or protected 

species. 

Comment 14: Increasing U.S. longline 

fishing effort, including the Hawaii 

deep-set fishery for which discards now 

amount to 40 percent of the catch, will 

increase fishing mortality for non-target 

species, violating international and U.S. 

prohibitions on bycatch of vulnerable 

species. While Hawaii’s shallow-set 

longline fishery has 100 percent 

observer coverage, the other longline 

fisheries for which the rule sets bigeye 

tuna catch limits have far less. All 

should be required to have 100 percent 

observer coverage. The animals 

subjected to higher mortality as a result 

of the proposed rule include yellowfin 

tuna, North Pacific albacore, silky 

sharks, and oceanic whitetip sharks. 

Endangered species at greater risk of 

[mortality] from fishing include, but are 

not limited to, leatherback and 

loggerhead sea turtles, sperm whales, 

Main Hawaiian Islands insular false 

killer whales, and short-tailed albatross. 

International and U.S. laws restrict the 

take of many of these species. 

Response: The Hawaii deep-set 

longline fishery is observed at 20 

percent coverage levels, well in excess 

of 5 percent required under WCPFC 

measures, and consistent with 

statistically reliable sampling methods 

for determining impacts on target and 

non-target stocks and protected species. 

Moreover, impacts to non-target species 

and protected species are expected to 

remain within those observed in 2011– 

2013 while the fishery operated under 

Section 113, well within levels analyzed 

and authorized in relevant ESA, MMPA, 

and Magnuson-Stevens Act 

determinations. 

See also the responses to Comments 3, 

6, 22, and 23. 

Comment 15: As evidenced by recent 

stock assessments of bigeye tuna in the 

Pacific, the status of bigeye tuna has 

reached a critical threshold where 

action to reduce fishing mortality 

should be implemented immediately. 

Response: See the response to 

Comments 2 and 5. 

Comment 16: Based on evidence that 

fishing negatively alters the ecosystem, 

and that the bigeye tuna population may 

soon no longer produce maximum 

sustainable yield for fishermen, NMFS 

should not allow increased U.S. bigeye 

tuna landings, but should prevent 

overfishing and analyze the 

consequences of not doing so, and act to 

reduce bycatch. 

Response: The action is consistent 

with CMM 2013–01 objectives of ending 

overfishing of bigeye tuna, while 

allowing for the limited transfer of 

available quota between U.S. 

participating territories and U.S. 

fisheries. This action is consistent with 

international agreements, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and controls 

catches of bigeye tuna by U.S. territorial 

longline fisheries. NMFS has already 

implemented the 2014 WCPFC longline 

catch limit for bigeye tuna of 3,763 mt 

for U.S. vessels in the WCPO. Under 

CMM 2013–01, individual catch limits 

do not apply to the U.S. participating 

territories, but NMFS is taking this 

action to implement limits for longlinecaught bigeye tuna for the territories to 

ensure sustainable management and to 

limit the overall mortality of bigeye tuna 

from fisheries of the United States and 

U.S. territories. This action establishes 

accountability measures for attributing 

and restricting catch and fishing effort 

towards territorial limits, including 

catches and effort made under territory 

fishing agreements. Annual review and 

action by the Council and NMFS will 

help ensure achievement of the 

WCPFC’s conservation goals. If, based 

on the conservation needs of the stock, 

NMFS disapproves the Council’s annual 

recommendation, or if the Council 

recommends and NMFS approves an 

allocation limit of zero, then no territory 

fishing agreements would be accepted 

for the year covered by that action. 

See also the response to Comments 2, 

5, and 19. 

Comment 17: The proposed rule 

provides for the Council to take the lead 

on establishing catch limits for the 

territories, raising serious concerns 

about conflicts of interest. Hawaii 

fishermen’s deposits into the Western 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64103 

Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund 

provide an incentive for the Council to 

set higher-than-sustainable catch limits 

for the U.S. territories. The Council 

financially benefits from high catch 

limits for the territories, which allow 

the territories to turn around and ‘‘sell’’ 

their allocations through the transfer 

agreements to Hawaii longline vessels. 

In essence, the proposed rule establishes 

a system under which Hawaii fishermen 

pay the Council to fish above the limits 

in the WCPFC CMMs. Especially for a 

species undergoing overfishing, it is 

imperative that catch limits are sciencebased and proposed by a financially 

disinterested agency. The MagnusonStevens Act requires disclosure and 

recusal of voting Council members in 

decisions ‘‘which would have a 

significant and predictable effect on 

[their] financial interest.’’ The novel 

situation that the rule proposes—in that 

a Council financially benefits from 

higher fish catch limits—is analogous to 

what Congress hoped to prevent by 

enacting the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s 

disclosure and recusal provisions. 

Response: This final rule is consistent 

with the process followed under Section 

113 from 2011–2013, in which funds 

under specified fishing agreements were 

deposited into the Western Pacific 

Sustainable Fisheries Fund (SFF) for 

fishery development projects listed in 

the territory Marine Conservation Plans 

approved by the Secretary of Commerce. 

The Council accesses funds in the SFF 

through cooperative grant agreements 

consistent with federal grant 

requirements. However, under this 

action and the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

section 204(e), funds from the SFF may 

not be used to support Council activities 

or to fund Council operations. 

Furthermore, the Council does not 

establish minimum funding levels for 

territory agreements—funding levels for 

a specified fishing agreement are 

negotiated between parties of the 

agreement. 

The 2014 and any future annual 

specifications are subject to NMFS’ 

approval, subject to consistency with 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and WCPFC 

conservation and management 

objectives using the best scientific 

information available. To the extent that 

a Council member’s financial interests 

may be affected by a decision to fund, 

or not to fund, a particular MCP project, 

the disclosure, voting, and recusal 

requirements of Magnuson-Stevens Act 

section 302(j) and 50 CFR 600.235 

would apply. 

Comment 18: Neither NMFS nor the 

Council provided a reasoned 

explanation based on best available 

science for the bigeye limit of 2,000 mt 

for U.S territories. In Amendment 7 and 

the EA, the discussion of Alternative 4 

states that the Council will consider 

‘‘the status of highly migratory species 

stocks, the needs of fishing communities 

. . . and any other relevant 

conservation and management factors’’ 

to develop catch limits, these criteria 

were not systematically applied to 

produce the Sub-alternatives 4(a) (no 

limit) or 4(b) (limit of 2,000 mt). The EA 

states that no more than 1,000 mt is 

likely to be transferred even though the 

proposed rule would allow a maximum 

of 3,000 mt to be transferred. Therefore, 

no need exists to set catch limits as high 

as 2,000 mt per territory. To set the limit 

so far above the needs of fishing 

communities for a species undergoing 

overfishing encourages unsustainable 

and speculative development. 

Response: Alternative 4 provides a 

description of the Council’s preferred 

alternative for the management 

framework, that is, the process. Subalternatives 4(a) and 4(b) relate to the 

Council’s recommendation to specify 

annual longline catch limits for bigeye 

tuna for the territories and limits on 

amounts available for allocation under 

agreements between the territories and 

U.S. vessels, that is, the specifications. 

Amendment 7 and the EA analyzed the 

status of target, non-target, and 

protected species, as well as the 

anticipated impacts from each 

alternative, including the preferred. 

The Council based the 2,000-mt limit 

for each U.S. territory on past limits 

provided to WCPFC members that 

harvested less than 2,000 mt annually in 

previous CMMs (2008–01 and 2011–01), 

and which is currently set forth in 

paragraph 41 of CMM 2013–01. 

Paragraph 41 states that each member 

that caught less than 2,000 mt of bigeye 

in 2004 ensure that its catch does not 

exceed 2,000 mt in each of the next 4 

years (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017). 

However, paragraph 7 of CMM 2013–01 

exempts SIDS and PTs from the 2,000 

mt annual limit meaning that, under 

WCPFC decisions, these members are 

not subject to individual bigeye limits. 

This final rule would effectively remove 

that exemption and make American 

Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI subject to 

2,000 mt limits for 2014. 

The 2,000 mt limits would allow for 

the continued development of domestic 

fisheries in the U.S. participating 

territories while ensuring that total 

bigeye tuna mortality by all U.S. and 

territory longline fisheries would not 

exceed a fixed amount. American 

Samoa has an existing longline fishery 

that catches bigeye tuna while targeting 

South Pacific albacore. If that fishery 

diversifies and targets other species, 

higher landings of bigeye tuna may 

result. Therefore, the total limit of 2,000 

mt will allow territories to enter into 

fishing agreements with U.S. fisheries, 

while maintaining sufficient reserve 

quota for domestic development. 

See also the responses to Comments 2 

and 19. 

Comment 19: NMFS and the Council 

should have analyzed the health of the 

bigeye tuna stock across the Pacific 

Ocean, acknowledge the remaining 

uncertainty regarding the future of the 

stock, and provide a measure for 

curtailing domestic development if a 

stock producing maximum sustainable 

yield fails to materialize in future years. 

In addition, the action should consider 

other fish that might substitute for 

bigeye tuna in the event yield declines 

and what the environmental 

consequences will be of transferring 

longline capacity of the U.S. territories 

and Hawaii to those species. 

Response: The specified catch limit 

for bigeye tuna is effective for 2014 

only. The Council may recommend that 

NMFS set appropriate catch or fishing 

effort limits and allocation limits for the 

territories’ pelagic fisheries, including 

longline. Further, the framework 

includes mandatory precautionary 

measures to ensure that any limits are 

specified according to the best scientific 

information available, recognizing 

potential changes in stock status and 

international conservation and 

management measures and to ensure 

consistency with the conservation needs 

of the stock. The Council and NMFS 

will review any existing or proposed 

catch or fishing effort limit or transfer 

limit on an annual basis to ensure 

consistency with the FEP, MagnusonStevens Act, WCPFC decisions, and 

other applicable laws. The Council and 

NMFS will evaluate the environmental 

effects of any future catch or fishing 

effort limit or allocation limit that the 

Council recommends using the best 

scientific information available at the 

time in an appropriate NEPA analysis. 

In the event that the Council fails to 

recommend a specification, or 

recommends an amount that, in light of 

the best available scientific information, 

is inconsistent with the conservation 

and management needs of the stock, 

then NMFS will not approve specified 

fishing agreements for that year. 

NMFS is satisfied that the process 

described above adequately accounts for 

scientific uncertainty and the possibility 

that future stock projections may not 

align with observed trends. The Council 

and NMFS regularly review the status of 

pelagic fisheries in the region and will 

take future management action as 

warranted by the circumstances. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
64104 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Amendment 7 and the EA analyzed 

comprehensively the impacts of 

territorial catch limits for bigeye tuna 

across the Pacific, not only in 2014 

when the limits are in effect, but also 

through 2017 and 2020. In addition, the 

EA analyzed various catch levels of 

bigeye tuna under agreements, 

including the most likely scenario that 

the territories would assign up to 1,000 

mt to U.S. vessels, based on the 2011 

stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the 

WCPO (2011) and the 2013 assessment 

for the eastern Pacific Ocean, along with 

other stock assessments and information 

for non-target and protected marine 

species. In December 2014, the WCPFC 

is expected to review several stock 

assessment updates for highly migratory 

species, including a 2014 assessment of 

bigeye tuna in the WCPO. If approved 

by the WCPFC for management, NMFS 

and the Council would use these new 

assessments in reviewing and 

developing catch or fishing effort 

specifications in future years. 

Finally, NMFS is unable to speculate 

whether other fish could substitute for 

bigeye tuna in the future if 

circumstances change, including the 

stock status of bigeye tuna. Moreover, 

such consideration is outside the scope 

of this rule and the Council’s action. 

Comment 20: The EA misinterprets 

fisheries science by taking a short-term 

instead of a long-term view, and ignores 

both the serious consequences of 

continuing overfishing and the benefits 

gained from ending overfishing. Sibert 

et al. (2012), concerned that high fishing 

mortality will soon reduce bigeye tuna 

to fewer than are capable of producing 

maximum sustainable yield, have 

recommended policies to curtail 

mortality of juveniles and adults. For 

the EA to analyze impacts of the 

proposed action on bigeye tuna in only 

2020, six years away, fails to account for 

the long-term benefits that the 

fishermen could realize by reducing 

fishing mortality now. In some places, 

the EA takes an even shorter view, 

analyzing the socioeconomic impacts in 

2014, but not long-term impacts of 

continued overfishing. For example, the 

transfer agreements—which increase 

U.S. vessels’ catch of bigeye tuna 

compared to the WCPFC limits on U.S. 

bigeye tuna catch—may provide 

unsustainable short-term benefits if 

bigeye tuna overfishing continues. The 

EA states that catches ‘‘of target and 

non-target species by U.S. longline 

fisheries would likely be lower by 

several hundred tons (e.g., bigeye tuna) 

to tens of tons (e.g., WCNP striped 

marlin) without arrangements.’’ This 

short-term view excludes the potentially 

significant benefits from conservation 

measures if fishing mortality were 

reduced now (i.e., catches could be far 

greater in 2030 without the 

arrangements). (See Sibert et al. 2012.) 

Instead, the EA analyzes only the shortterm effects. To take the ‘‘hard look’’ 

that NEPA demands, statements in the 

EA like the one on page 38—‘‘Local 

markets and consumers would be 

limited in the fresh pelagic fish from the 

Hawaii longline fishery’’ if the Hawaii 

fishery closes before the year’s end— 

must be counter-balanced with analysis 

of the potential for continued 

overfishing to cause bigeye tuna soon to 

be incapable of producing maximum 

sustainable yield. By artificially 

truncating its analysis, the EA fails to 

account for the threat to the long-term 

survival of the fishery posed by 

increasing fishery mortality through the 

transfer agreements. 

Without transfer agreements—and the 

resulting increase in overfishing— 

catches of bigeye tuna could increase 

and catches of non-target fish could 

decrease. Ending overfishing would 

create both a healthier ecosystem and 

additional economic benefits for U.S. 

fishermen in the long-term. Given the 

significant environmental effects that 

may occur, NEPA compels NMFS to 

fully analyze the issue in an 

environmental impact statement. 

Response: This action is consistent 

with, and would not impede, WCPFC 

conservation and management 

objectives to end overfishing on bigeye 

tuna. See also the response to Comment 

4. Amendment 7 used the Tuna 

Management Simulator (TUMAS) model 

to analyze the potential impacts on 

WCPO bigeye tuna under a variety of 

catch scenarios, including the level 

NMFS and the Council anticipate in 

2014, that is, if up to 1,000 mt were 

assigned under a territory agreements 

and added to the U.S. WCPO bigeye 

tuna limit of 3,763 mt. Contrary to the 

implication raised in the comment, the 

EA did analyze the impact of no fishing 

agreements with U.S. participating 

territories, meaning that U.S. fisheries 

would harvest no more than 3,763 mt of 

bigeye tuna in 2014 and beyond. 

Conservative analysis in Amendment 

7 indicated that without any territory 

agreements, that is, assuming a constant 

catch of 3,763 mt of WCPO bigeye tuna 

(which does not account for further 

reductions in U.S. longline catch for 

bigeye tuna as agreed to in CMM 2013– 

01), and using 2010 fishing conditions 

as the baseline, overfishing of bigeye 

tuna would end by 2017, with a 

concomitant improvement in stock 

status. This projected improvement in 

the condition of WCPO bigeye tuna uses 

the recent average recruitment scenario, 

the better of two indicators of future 

recruitment levels as detailed in 

Amendment 7. The recent recruitment 

scenario reflects current conditions and 

conditions that are likely to prevail into 

the near future where bigeye tuna 

catches will be from a mixture of purse 

seine and longline fisheries. 

The EA also analyzed the impact of 

4,763 mt of bigeye tuna catch under the 

same recent average recruitment 

scenario. The analysis revealed virtually 

no change from the ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative in the status of bigeye tuna 

when projected to 2017 and 2020. 

Moreover, the simulated TUMAS 

projections also indicate an end to 

overfishing when the contribution of an 

additional 1,000 mt transferred under 

territory agreements, or 4,763 mt of 

WCPO bigeye tuna catch, is included 

and projected through 2017 and 2020. 

See also the response to Comment 20. 

Sibert et al. (2012) evaluate historical 

effort of purse seine and longline 

fisheries and spatial management by the 

WCPFC and explore alternative 

conservation and management scenarios 

using a model-based approach for 

reducing and managing fishing 

mortality on bigeye tuna for guiding 

future conservation measures for 

tropical tunas. This action would not 

impede the objective of CMM 2013–01 

to end overfishing on bigeye tuna in the 

WCPO as Amendment 7 details. 

Further, Sibert et al. (2012) note that 

there are no suitable models for 

forecasting fishing effort beyond 

extrapolating current fishing conditions 

more than a few years into the future 

and longer-term forecasts would require 

realistic and quantitative information on 

commercial fishing on a fleet-wide 

basis, that is, all foreign and domestic 

purse seine and longline vessels in the 

WCPO. 

NMFS disagrees that it should 

decrease catches now in order to reap 

far greater bigeye catches in 2030. Under 

the Magnuson- Stevens Act, 

conservation and management measures 

must prevent overfishing while ensuring 

on a continuing basis the optimum yield 

from each fishery. This final rule 

achieves the National Standard 1 

directives of both preventing overfishing 

while allowing fishermen a reasonable 

opportunity to harvest the stock. 

Finally, Amendment 7 describes 

impacts to non-target species under 

each alternative. NMFS agrees that 

eliminating overfishing on bigeye tuna 

in the WCPO may have ancillary 

benefits to the ecosystem and U.S. 

fishermen, but the effects are not 

quantifiable. NMFS found that there 

would be no significant effects of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64105 

action (negative or positive) on the 

environment. 

See also the response to Comment 13. 

Comment 21: The EA unlawfully fails 

to address whether the proposed rule 

would violate other WCPFC CMMs that 

restrict catch of fish, including sharks. 

Response: See the response to 

Comments 3, 5, and 6. 

Comment 22: Incidental take of 

endangered marine mammals in 

commercial fisheries requires a 

negligible impact determination and 

other requirements to be met before 

authorization under the MMPA section 

101(a)(5)(E). The MMPA requires fishery 

monitoring at levels to produce 

statistically reliable estimates of marine 

mammal serious injury and mortality. In 

the deep-set longline fishery, observer 

coverage should be increased to 100 

percent. This level of monitoring has 

already been recommended in the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) 2012 biological opinion for 

the Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries, 

both shallow- and deep-set. The 

proposed rule’s increase of fishing effort 

in this fishery in the absence of MMPA 

authorization could lead to illegal 

incidental take. 

Response: In a Biological Opinion 

dated September 19, 2014, NMFS 

concluded that the longline fishery is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of ESA-listed humpback 

whales, sperm whales, the MHI insular 

false killer whale distinct population 

segment (DPS), North Pacific loggerhead 

DPS, leatherback sea turtles, olive ridley 

sea turtles, green sea turtles, and the 

Indo-west Pacific scalloped 

hammerhead DPS. NMFS based this 

conclusion on a careful assessment of 

the effects of the action, together with 

the environmental baseline and the 

cumulative effects. Where appropriate, 

an incidental take statement allows for 

the incidental taking of ESA-listed 

species during the course of fishing 

operations, where consistent with 

specified reasonable and prudent 

measures and terms and conditions. 

Moreover, on October 10, 2014, NMFS 

authorized a permit under the MMPA 

section 101(a)(5)(E), addressing the 

fishery’s interactions with depleted 

stocks of marine mammals. The permit 

authorizes the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of ESA-listed 

humpback whales (Central North Pacific 

(CNP) stock), sperm whales (Hawaii 

stock), and MHI insular false killer 

whales. In authorizing this permit, 

NMFS determined that incidental taking 

by the Hawaii longline fisheries will 

have a negligible impact on the affected 

stocks of marine mammals. 

The USFWS provided conservation 

recommendations regarding the amount 

of observer coverage for the Hawaiibased deep-set longline fishery in its 

2012 biological opinion (BiOp) 

(Biological Opinion of the USFWS for 

the Operation of Hawaii-based Pelagic 

Longline Fisheries, Shallow Set and 

Deep Set, Hawaii; January 6, 2012). As 

stated in the 2012 BiOp, conservation 

recommendations are discretionary 

agency activities to minimize or avoid 

adverse effects of a proposed action on 

listed species or critical habitat (e.g., to 

help implement recovery plans, or to 

collect information). The USFWS 

recommended that observer coverage for 

the deep-set fishery be increased, as 

funds are available, and that the amount 

of coverage be increased to 100 percent 

for vessels fishing within the range of 

the short-tailed albatross. However, 

NMFS is satisfied that 20 percent 

observer coverage is sufficient to 

provide statistically reliable information 

with which to accurately assess the 

fishery’s impacts on protected species. 

Moreover, whether or when to make 

changes to observer coverage is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

Comment 23: According to 

Amendment 7 and the EA, the most 

recent ESA consultation for longline 

fisheries in Guam and the CNMI was 

completed in 2001. Since then, 

loggerhead sea turtles—one of the sea 

turtle species with which the fisheries 

interact—have been listed as distinct 

populations segments (DPSs) under the 

ESA. Based on this information and 

likely other new information on the 

fisheries’ interactions, NMFS must 

complete consultation on the impacts of 

the proposed rule on listed animals. If 

the fisheries are likely to harm 

migratory birds or marine mammals, 

NMFS should also make appropriate 

determinations under those laws. 

Response: On September 22, 2011, 

NMFS and USFWS determined that the 

loggerhead sea turtle is composed of 

nine DPSs (76 FR 58868). Effective 

October 24, 2011, NMFS and USFWS 

listed four DPSs as threatened and five 

as endangered under the ESA. 

Specifically, NMFS listed the North 

Pacific loggerhead sea turtle DPS and 

South Pacific loggerhead sea turtle DPS 

as endangered and at risk of extinction. 

Due to geography and the operational 

area of historical longline fishing in and 

around the Marianas Archipelago, the 

effective population addressed in the 

2001 Biological Opinion for pelagic 

longline fisheries in Guam and the 

CNMI was the North Pacific DPS. 

Currently there is no U.S. longline 

fishing occurring in or near the 

Marianas Archipelago that may affect 

the North Pacific loggerhead DPS. This 

action analyzes fishing effort by U.S. 

longline vessels operating under 

agreements that, consistent with 

historical trends, will occur primarily 

on the high seas around the Hawaiian 

Archipelago. A no-jeopardy biological 

opinion completed on September 19, 

2014, thoroughly analyzed the impacts 

of the continued operation of the deepset fishery on the North Pacific 

loggerhead DPS. As part of its 

environmental baseline analysis, the 

biological opinion also considered 

impacts to the species from other 

domestic and international fisheries 

throughout the Western and Central 

Pacific Ocean. 

Comment 24: Although imperfect, this 

action represents the best efforts of the 

Council and NMFS to achieve a 

complicated set of purposes, balancing 

U.S. law, international treaties, 

practicalities, and science, in a context 

in which the United States, no matter 

what actions it takes, cannot control the 

outcome or ensure success because of 

the substantial impact of large-scale 

foreign fisheries. As stated in the 

assessment document, the Hawaii-based 

commercial longline fisheries are one of 

‘‘the most responsible fisheries in the 

world.’’ Our fisheries are rigorously 

managed, monitored and enforced, and 

operate under an extensive set of 

operational and management 

requirements and limits for the benefit 

of target and bycatch species, and for 

the protection of marine mammals, 

seabirds, and sea turtles. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

management recommendations in 

Amendment 7 and this implementing 

final rule are based on the best scientific 

information available and is consistent 

with WCPFC conservation and 

management objectives, the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable laws. 

Comment 25: Although the United 

States has a robust set of laws and 

regulatory programs to address and 

ensure sustainable fish stocks and 

fisheries, principally under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, it is wellestablished that the U.S.A. cannot end 

overfishing of bigeye tuna in the WCPO 

through unilateral actions, and 

unilateral suppression of U.S. 

commercial longline fishing targeting 

bigeye tuna would actually be 

counterproductive to conservation of 

bigeye tuna and other species. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

comment. 

Comment 26: This action is more 

stringent than current international 

treaty requirements, and meets or 

exceeds applicable standards under the 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
64106 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Convention Implementation Act 

(WCPFCIA), the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

and Section 113. 

Response: This action is consistent 

with the statutes noted, as well as with 

the objectives of the CMMs to end 

overfishing of bigeye tuna. Also, see 

response to Comments 2 and 31. 

Comment 27: The proposed 

regulations establish a new and 

unproven regulatory process requiring 

annual Council and NMFS analyses of 

complex information. Any failure in the 

proposed multi-step process could 

result in no acceptance of a specified 

fishing agreement, which would be 

catastrophic for the Hawaii-based 

longline fisheries. 

Response: NMFS is sensitive to the 

potential economic impact that rejection 

of a specified fishing agreement may 

have on fishery participants. 

Nevertheless, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act requires that the conservation needs 

of affected fishery stocks take priority 

over short-term economic interests. This 

principle is particularly important here, 

where bigeye tuna is currently subject to 

overfishing in the WCPO. 

This final rule provides the ability for 

NMFS to monitor and take action in 

response to the best scientific 

information available, including new 

stock assessments and WCPFC 

conservation and management 

measures. It establishes an orderly 

process by which the Council and 

NMFS can monitor management 

agreements and take timely action to 

prevent overfishing while ensuring 

optimum yield on a continuing basis. 

The rule provides deadlines to establish 

a schedule and flexibility to allow for 

contingencies. The process and 

procedures identified are necessary to 

ensure that the limited transfer of quota 

to U.S. fisheries is done responsibly 

with the conservation requirements of 

the pelagic stocks. Implementing 

agreements in a haphazard manner 

could result in increased overfishing 

pressure on bigeye tuna and loss of 

management controls. The availability 

of this review process is essential to the 

NMFS determination that the rule is 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and other applicable law. 

Comment 28: In the proposed rule, 

the notification (§ 665.819(c)(ii)) and 

appeal (§ 665.819(c)(8)) provisions 

would grant rights only to signatory 

territories, not the signatory vessel 

owners or their representative. This 

would violate due process for NMFS to 

enact a process for reviewing, 

approving, denying, or conditioning 

specified fishing agreements that failed 

to afford rights of notice, appeal, and 

hearing to all of the parties to such 

agreements. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

proposed rule contained this 

unintended oversight. The final rule 

corrects the oversight by including 

vessel owners and their representatives 

in the notification and appeal processes. 

Comment 29: The default result of any 

failure of the process of specifying an 

annual transfer limit should be 

continuation of the previously existing 

annual limit. This approach would be 

consistent with existing federal 

administrative law under which invalid 

regulations generally result in 

reinstatement of the prior existing 

regulations, not a regulatory vacuum. 

Response: As stated above, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that 

NMFS give priority to the conservation 

needs of fishery stocks over economic 

interests. Under this action, the Council 

and NMFS will review and specify 

annual catch or fishing effort limits 

including the amount of catch or effort 

allowed for transfer under specified 

fishing agreements on an annual basis. 

This review is independent of the 

Council and NMFS review of specified 

fishing agreements. The failure of the 

Council to recommend, or NMFS to 

approve, an annual allocation limit that 

meets the requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act or other 

applicable law will require that no 

allocation limit be approved for that 

fishing year. This review and approval 

process is essential to the NMFS 

determination that the rule is consistent 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

other applicable law. 

Comment 30: A multi-year transfer 

limit would add important 

predictability, while reducing the 

extreme time-sensitivity, risk, and 

administrative costs of annual reviews. 

Moreover, a multi-year limit is likely to 

be more consistent with the availability 

of new stock assessment information. 

Response: This final rule allows 

NMFS to specify catch or fishing effort 

limits on an annual or multi-year basis, 

as recommended by the Council, and 

not exceeding WCPFC adopted limits. 

The action allows for multi-year annual 

limits if they are consistent with the 

conservation requirements of the stock. 

The Council must annually undertake 

their review and recommendation based 

on the best scientific information 

available relative to the stock status. If 

the WCPFC does not agree to limits for 

a western Pacific pelagic species that 

apply to a U.S. territory, the Council 

may recommend that NMFS set a catch 

or effort limit, and allocation limit that 

are consistent with the FEP, MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable laws; 

this includes the possibility of multiyear limits. Nevertheless, the 

management framework requires the 

Council to review and make 

recommendations, and NMFS to take 

action on any existing or proposed catch 

or fishing effort limit and portion 

available for allocation, at least 

annually, to account for any changes to 

stock status, status of the fishery, and 

other relevant socio-economic factors, 

and to ensure consistency with all 

applicable laws. The annual review and 

recommendation includes any multiyear limit previously recommended and 

implemented. As stated above, annual 

review and action is necessary to ensure 

that the conservation needs of the stock 

take priority over economic 

considerations and to ensure that 

management is based on the best 

available scientific information, as 

mandated by Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Comment 31: The proposed action 

includes adoption of both an annual 

longline catch limit for bigeye tuna of 

2,000 mt per year for each of the 

territories, each with an annual 

transferable limit of 1,000 mt. These 

limits are substantially more stringent 

than the conservation measures adopted 

by the WCPFC and the mandate of 

Congress in Section 113. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

action would implement catch limits for 

the territories that would otherwise not 

exist under CMM 2013–01. Also, see 

response to Comment 26. 

Comment 32: Given increasingly 

stringent international requirements, 

were NMFS to subsequently impose 

lower transferable limits or to otherwise 

procedurally limit transfers, the result 

would both violate applicable law and 

do more harm than good for U.S. 

commercial fisheries, bigeye tuna in the 

WCPO, and conservation efforts 

generally. 

Response: The proposed framework 

allows the Council and NMFS to set 

catch or effort limits for pelagic 

management unit species (MUS) based 

on the best scientific information 

available, including stock assessments, 

social and economic information, and 

consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and international conservation and 

management measures to ensure 

responsible fisheries development in the 

U.S. participating territories. 

Comment 33: NMFS has no authority 

to adopt regulations that limit the 

transfer authority of a territory as 

proposed. 

Response: NMFS is taking this action 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

which authorizes NMFS to promulgate 

regulations necessary or appropriate to 

implement a plan amendment, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64107 

including regulations to establish a U.S. 

participating territory’s transferable 

interest in fishery resources. Under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the United 

States exercises sovereign rights and 

exclusive management authority over all 

fishery resources in the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ). However, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act provides States 

and territories with limited authority to 

manage fisheries outside of their 

boundaries when authorized to do so by 

a fishery management plan, or with 

respect to their own vessels, when the 

State or territory’s management is 

consistent with the relevant fishery 

management plan and regulations. This 

action would authorize U.S. territories 

to enter into agreements to transfer a 

limited amount of pelagic species quota 

to eligible U.S. fishing vessels. 

See also the response to Comment 2. 

Comment 34: The proposed rule 

appears to implement the 1,000-mt limit 

to ensure that sufficient catch quota is 

available for territory fishery 

participants, but there is no factual basis 

to anticipate that there is a need to 

reserve 1,000 mt for territory fisheries. 

Even if there were a demonstrated need 

to reserve catch, it would be within the 

sovereign rights of each territory to 

evaluate and reserve appropriate catch 

quota in negotiating the terms of 

specified fishing agreements. Neither 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act nor other 

U.S. law or regulation grants to NMFS 

the right or obligation to enact catch 

limits for this purpose. Also, a 1,000-mt 

limit on transfers does not appear to be 

necessary to ensure sustainability, 

rather this limit has the appearance of 

increased stringency in regulating U.S. 

fisheries, but the reality of only 

handicapping U.S. fisheries relative to 

competing international fisheries. 

Response: As stated above, the United 

States exercises exclusive management 

authority over fishery resources in the 

United States exclusive economic zone. 

This action would authorize U.S. 

participating territories to enter into 

agreements to transfer a limited amount 

of highly migratory species quota to 

eligible U.S. fishing vessels. The 1,000 

mt-transferable limits in this final rule 

are based on the historical catches of 

bigeye made under a 2011–2012 

agreement between American Samoa 

and the HLA. NMFS disagrees that the 

U.S. participating territories have 

independent authority under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act or WCPF 

Convention to evaluate and reserve 

catch of bigeye tuna; however, within 

the available transfer limits, the 

territories can negotiate the terms of 

specified fishing agreements, including 

the amount of catch to be transferred. 

This authority is subject to 

implementation under the MagnusonStevens Act, which provides oversight 

and management by the Council and 

NMFS. NMFS believes that 1,000-mt 

transferable limits helps achieve 

conservation and management 

objectives to eliminate overfishing on 

bigeye tuna, consistent with regional 

international objectives. Limiting 

overall harvest of bigeye tuna is 

important to eliminate overfishing and 

sustainably manage the stock in the 

WCPO; a transferable limit of 1,000 mt 

allows the territories to make allocation 

agreements with U.S. vessels to support 

fisheries development in the territories, 

while allowing the territories to retain a 

portion for utilization by their domestic 

fisheries. 

See also the response to Comment 18. 

Comment 35: Proposed regulations in 

§ 665.819(c)(3)(iii) would authorize 

NMFS, in consultation with the 

Council, to impose ‘‘such additional 

terms and conditions’’ as it deems 

necessary for specified fishing 

agreements. This appears to be a catchall provision designed to grant overly 

broad agency discretion to intervene in 

a commercial agreement between a 

territory and the Hawaii longline 

fisheries. We are aware of no 

demonstrated need, purpose, or 

authority for this provision. 

Response: Fishery management plan 

amendments and implementing 

regulations must be consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the 10 

National Standards. Under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS and the 

Council are responsible for ensuring 

that fish stocks are sustainably managed 

to prevent overfishing, while achieving 

on a continuing basis the optimum yield 

from each fishery. NMFS must give 

appropriate consideration to the 

economics of the fishery, including the 

commercial agreements referenced 

above, but these considerations do not 

take priority over the conservation 

needs of the stock (see 50 CFR 

600.345(b)(1)). Moreover, NMFS notes 

that nothing in Section 113, WCPFC 

decisions, or the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

provides fishermen with an unbounded 

entitlement to purchase and harvest 

additional quota through territory 

agreements. NMFS cannot anticipate 

every possible term that parties may 

agree to in specified agreements. 

Accordingly, the narrowly-tailored 

regulatory provision provides that 

NMFS, in consultation with the 

Council, may recommend such 

additional terms and conditions as may 

be necessary to ensure compliance with 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws, and is intended to 

ensure that the limited exchange of 

quota for pelagic management unit 

species, including bigeye tuna, does not 

jeopardize the conservation needs of 

affected stocks. NMFS considers this 

regulatory provision, along with other 

precautionary measures implemented 

by this rule, to be vital to our 

determination that the action is 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and other applicable laws. 

Moreover, the Council’s action 

expressly anticipated the abovereferenced regulatory text. At the 154th 

Council Meeting in June 2012, the 

Council took action to recommend, in 

relevant part, that ‘‘the authority 

provided in this Pelagics FEP 

amendment may be subject to maximum 

annual limits, and any other terms or 

conditions, as recommended by the 

Council and approved by the Secretary 

of Commerce’’ (emphasis added). In the 

same action, the Council expressly 

authorized its Executive Director to 

review the regulations for consistency 

with the Council action before 

submitting them. The Executive Director 

discharged this responsibility in 

forwarding the regulations 

implementing Amendment 7, including 

the referenced regulatory text. This 

action was further affirmed by the 

Council’s action at the 157th meeting in 

June 2013. 

Comment 36: There should be no 

reduction in the recreational catch 

limits for tunas. 

Response: This action does not create, 

affect, or change any recreational fishing 

catch limits for tuna anywhere. 

Comment 37: Demand for bigeye tuna 

is so high that protection of the species 

for sustainable fisheries is critical. 

While NMFS does not expect the fishing 

limits to be reached in monitored areas, 

this highly migratory species should be 

consistently be protected throughout the 

western Pacific. We should monitor and 

support sustainable bigeye tuna and 

other pelagic fisheries, because we are 

one of the top consumers and 

beneficiaries of these fisheries, which is 

annually more than $50 million 

industry. If we hope to continue to 

enjoy the economic and substantive 

benefits of these fish, we must do our 

part to protect them consistently. 

Response: NMFS agrees that 

consistent international conservation 

and management of bigeye tuna in the 

WCPO is necessary to end overfishing. 

This action is consistent with CMM 

2013–01 and its objective of ending 

overfishing of bigeye tuna in the WCPO. 

The Council and NMFS will determine 

any amount of quota available for 

transfer, on an annual basis, among U.S. 

territories and qualifying U.S. vessels 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
64108 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

after consideration of the conservation 

status and needs of the stock. See also 

the response to Comment 2. 

Comment 38: Abolish longline fishing 

for bigeye tuna, as this is not a 

sustainable catch method and involves 

senseless bycatch. Reduce the bigeye 

tuna catch quota by 40 percent as 

recommended by scientists. We need to 

lower catch, eliminate bycatch deaths, 

and stop longlining, drift nets, and other 

extreme fishing methods. 

Response: This action does not 

change longline as an approved gear 

type to target pelagic fish in the WCPO. 

Other fishing methods are outside of the 

scope of this action. 

See also the responses to Comments 2, 

3, and 4. 

Comment 39: All nations should 

adhere to reduced catch if we are to 

have any bigeye tuna left. It is in our 

interest as well as other fishing nations 

to do so. Also, there should be enforced 

rules for some areas that should be left 

off limits to fishing to help these fish 

recover their numbers. 

Response: NMFS agrees that 

international compliance with the 

WCPFC CMM 2013–01 is necessary to 

eliminate overfishing on bigeye tuna in 

the WCPO and maintaining sustainable 

fisheries. Restricted fishing areas, while 

not part of this final rule, can be an 

important management measure in 

many fisheries, including U.S. pelagic 

longline fisheries that operate around 

Hawaii and American Samoa. The 

NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and 

the U.S. Coast Guard enforce fisheries 

laws of the U.S. in cooperation with 

State, territorial, and international 

partners. 

See also the response to Comment 4. 

Comment 40: Allowing bigeye tuna 

populations to recover will ensure its 

long-term viability in commercial 

fishing. 

Response: NMFS agrees. National 

Standard 1 in the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act requires any management action to 

prevent overfishing while achieving 

optimum yield from each fishery for the 

U.S. fishing industry on a continual 

basis. This action is consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the WCPFC 

goal of ending overfishing on bigeye 

tuna. 

Comment 41: Our own scientists say 

bigeye tuna is overfished and headed for 

extinction. 

Response: The latest stock assessment 

(2014) and NMFS’ status determination 

for bigeye tuna in the western and 

central Pacific Ocean concluded the 

stock is subject to overfishing, but not 

overfished or approaching an overfished 

condition. A stock is subject to 

overfishing when the level of fishing 

mortality or annual total catch 

jeopardizes the capacity to produce 

maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a 

continuing basis. In contrast, a stock is 

overfished when its biomass has 

decreased below the level that 

jeopardizes the capacity of the stock to 

produce MSY on a continuing basis. 

Bigeye tuna in the WCPO is currently 

subject to international management 

under the WCPFC, which has 

established a goal of eliminating 

overfishing of the stock. The Pacificwide stock of bigeye tuna is not listed 

as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Comment 42: There is concern about 

increased fishing effort in the Hawaii 

longline fishery. Since 2005, the number 

of hooks that this fishery has set has 

increased by more than 14 million and 

projections indicate a total increase of 

nearly 44 percent by next year. In 

addition to bigeye tuna, a number of 

other species are a currently 

experiencing overfishing and/or are in 

an overfished condition, including 

North Pacific striped marlin, which 

could see increased catches of 20 mt. 

Response: NMFS disagrees that the 

Hawaii deep-set longline fishery will 

increase by the amount noted. During 

2012, when the Hawaii deep-set 

longline fishery operated under the U.S. 

longline limit for WCPO bigeye tuna 

and a Section 113 catch agreement, the 

fishery deployed 43,965,781 hooks. 

Based on a statistical analysis of logbook 

data, NMFS expects fishing effort (sets 

and hooks) to increase slightly or 

remain similar to recent years, and it is 

quite possible that the current deep-set 

fleet of 124–129 vessels may be 

operating near its annual maximum in 

terms of hooks, sets, and trips. Based on 

effort trends, NMFS estimates that in the 

near future the fishery may deploy 

46,117,532 hooks in a year. If this 

occurs, it would represent an 

approximately 4.9 percent increase over 

the 2012 effort level. 

See also the response to Comment 3. 

Comment 43: The proposed transfer 

agreements fail to implement the 

WCPFC’s recommended catch limits of 

bigeye tuna and other conservation 

measures. Nothing in CMM 2013–01 

supports the NMFS claim that CMM 

2013–01 does not establish annual 

bigeye tuna limits for the U.S. 

territories. On the contrary, CMM 2013– 

01 expressly provides that ‘‘attribution 

of catch and effort shall be to the flag 

State,’’ in this case, the United States. 

The territories do not have additional 

bigeye tuna quotas under CMM 2013–01 

that they can allocate to Hawaii-based 

longliners. The transfer agreements do 

not constitute charter arrangements 

under CMM 2011–05. Paragraph 7 in 

CMM 2013–01 does not create a 

loophole for U.S. flagged longline 

vessels to engage in unlimited fishing 

for bigeye tuna, contravening the 

WCPFC’s intent to curb overfishing 

through the establishment of firm catch 

limits by flag. 

Response: NMFS has already 

implemented the 3,763-mt catch limit 

for longline-caught bigeye tuna for the 

United States for 2014 (see 50 CFR 

300.224) and will implement the U.S. 

longline catch limits for bigeye tuna 

specified in CMM 2013–01 for 

subsequent years in one or more 

separate rulemakings, as appropriate. 

Acting pursuant to the directive of 

Section 113, the Council also prepared 

an amendment and final rule that 

establishes a management framework for 

specifying catch and fishing effort limits 

and accountability measures for pelagic 

fisheries in the territories under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, including 

provisions that would allow for the 

limited transfer of quota from U.S. 

participating territories to eligible U.S. 

fishing vessels, consistent with the 

conservation needs of the affected 

stocks. CMM 2013–01, paragraphs 7 and 

41, provide that SIDS and PTs, 

including American Samoa, Guam, and 

the CNMI, are not subject to individual 

longline limits for bigeye tuna and does 

not require that bigeye tuna catch limits 

be established for the longline fisheries 

of PTs. 

NMFS notes that CMM 2013–01 does 

not establish individual bigeye tuna 

catch quotas for the territories; it only 

establishes individual fishing limits for 

certain members that operate developed 

fisheries. Moreover, nothing in CMM 

2013–01 or predecessor decisions of the 

WCPFC requires that vessels operate 

under charters for purposes of catch 

attribution. To the contrary, CMM 2011– 

01 incorporated paragraph 2 of CMM 

2008–01, which provided that vessels 

operated under ‘‘charter, lease or similar 

mechanisms’’ by developing states and 

participating territories, as an integral 

part of their domestic fleet, would be 

considered to be vessels of the host 

island State or territory. 

NMFS agrees that paragraph 7 of 

CMM 2013–01 should not create a 

loophole for U.S. longline vessels to 

engage in unlimited fishing for bigeye 

tuna. This action authorizes U.S. 

territories to transfer a limited amount 

of available bigeye quota to longline 

fisheries that have the capacity to 

harvest the stock, consistent with the 

conservation needs of the stock. 

Comment 44: The proposed action 

will allow for an increase in catch 

beyond the U.S. bigeye tuna catch limit 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64109 

recently agreed to in the WCPFC under 

CMM 2013–01 and could increase 

tension among WCPFC member States 

and undermine progress toward the 

negotiation of further necessary 

reductions in fishing mortality, possibly 

undermining the leadership role of the 

United States in conservation efforts. 

Response: NMFS is dedicated to U.S. 

management and conservation of the 

WCPO bigeye tuna and the work of the 

WCPFC, and does not believe this final 

rule will adversely affect the role of the 

United States in the WCPFC. NMFS 

considered and analyzed impacts of the 

action on bigeye tuna with all other 

sources of fishing mortality, and on the 

premise that the U.S. fisheries must 

continue to comply with applicable 

international conservation and 

management measures. This final rule 

will not result in significant adverse 

impacts to bigeye tuna, or prevent 

management measures from improving 

the status of bigeye tuna in the WCPO. 

CMM 2013–01 does not provide 

individual limits for annual catch of 

bigeye tuna for the SIDS and PTs, but 

NMFS acknowledges that there is 

potential for increased bigeye tuna 

catches by these countries through 

vessel chartering or similar 

mechanisms, including catch attribution 

programs. Nevertheless, an increase in 

vessel chartering by other members was 

not observed during the three years 

(2011–2013) of the longline fishery’s 

operation under Section 113, and we do 

not anticipate changes as a result of this 

final rule. 

See also the responses to Comments 2 

and 4. 

Comment 45: CMM 2013–01 does not 

prescribe the transfer of catch limits 

from one State to another, nor does it 

allow for the transfer of catch limits 

from one territory to a State. To be 

consistent with U.S. commitments and 

legally-binding agreements, NMFS 

should specify criteria for fishing 

agreements that require all longline 

vessels to be based domestically in the 

territory in question, only catch the 

territory’s bigeye tuna limit within the 

EEZ around each territory, and support 

the territories’ development of its 

domestic fisheries. In addition, NMFS 

should include accountability measures 

that report on how such vessels have 

supported the development of the 

territory’s domestic fisheries. 

Response: Section 113, as amended, 

required the Council to develop and 

transmit a fishery management plan 

amendment and regulations, no later 

than December 31, 2013, that establish 

a framework for transferring territory 

catch or effort limits to eligible U.S. 

fishing vessels in exchange for 

payments into the Sustainable Fisheries 

Fund to support fisheries development 

projects in the territories. This final rule 

implements these provisions, as 

established in Amendment 7. In 

developing Amendment 7, the Council 

identified and analyzed a range of 

alternatives to achieve the objective of 

Section 113, consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws. NMFS is bound to 

work within the Council process 

established under the MagnusonStevens Act, and must approve the 

Council’s recommendation unless it 

finds such recommendation to be 

inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act or other laws. Under the provisions 

of the Council’s proposal, specified 

fishing agreements must either provide 

for landing or offloading of catch in the 

ports of the relevant territory or provide 

funds to the Western Pacific Sustainable 

Fisheries Fund to support fisheries 

development in that territory. NMFS is 

unaware of any legal impediment to 

approval and implementation of these 

conditions. 

Changes to the Proposed Rule 

In the proposed rule, the provisions 

for notification in § 665.819(c)(3)(ii) and 

appeal in § 665.819(c)(8) regarding 

agency decisions on specified fishing 

agreements would have granted 

administrative appeal rights to the 

signatory territories, but not to the 

signatory vessel owners or their 

representatives. This unintended 

oversight, if implemented, would have 

denied procedural rights of review to all 

of the signatory parties to specified 

fishing agreements. The final rule 

corrects the oversight by including 

vessel owners and their representatives 

in those provisions. 

In the proposed rule, the provisions in 

§ 665.819(b)(2) and (b)(3) related to 

setting catch or fishing effort limit 

specifications and allocation portions 

for the fishing year, and the provisions 

in § 665.819(d)(1) regarding action when 

territorial catch or fishing effort limits or 

allocation limits are projected to be 

reached, each included references to the 

use of the Federal Register and other 

reasonable means to notify the public. 

While NMFS will endeavor to use other 

reasonable means of notifying permit 

holders and public of these provisions, 

the only required means of notification 

is publication in the Federal Register. 

The final rule has been updated to 

reflect this clarification. 

NMFS is making several technical 

clarifications in this final rule. In the 

proposed rule at § 665.819, paragraph 

(c)(1)(ii) requires a specified fishing 

agreement to identify the ‘‘amount’’ of 

western Pacific pelagic MUS to which 

the fishing agreement applies. Because 

WCPFC catch limits and related NMFS 

catch specifications refer to the weight 

of fish, not the number or other 

measure, NMFS added ‘‘(weight)’’ after 

‘‘amount’’ to clarify the requirement. 

NMFS is also changing the mailing 

addresses and phone numbers for 

several NMFS offices in the regulations 

for Pacific Island and international 

fisheries and in the general MagnusonStevens Act provisions. After the 

proposed rule was published, the NMFS 

Pacific Islands Regional Office, Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center, and 

the Pacific Islands Division of NOAA 

Law Enforcement moved their offices to 

a new location. Accordingly, this final 

rule revises addresses and contact 

information in §§ 300.31, 300.211, 

300.219, 600.502, and 665.12. 

Under NOAA Administrative Order 

205–11, dated December 17, 1990, the 

Under Secretary for Oceans and 

Atmosphere has delegated authority to 

sign material for publication in the 

Federal Register to the Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. 

Classification 

The Regional Administrator, Pacific 

Islands Region, NMFS, has determined 

that this action is necessary for the 

conservation and management of Pacific 

Island pelagic fisheries, and that it is 

consistent with Amendment 7, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

NMFS has determined that good 

cause exists to waive the 30-day delay 

in effectiveness of this rule because, 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), this rule relieves 

a restriction on the regulated 

community, and requiring a 30-day 

delay would be contrary to the public 

interest. This rule requires NMFS to 

begin attributing longline caught bigeye 

to the U.S. territory to which a fishing 

agreement applies seven days before the 

date NMFS projects the fishery to reach 

the U.S. bigeye tuna limit. NMFS now 

projects the current 3,763 metric ton 

limit will be reached in early- to midNovember 2014. NMFS must determine, 

in early November 2014, the amount of 

unused U.S. bigeye tuna quota, and 

begin attributing catch made by U.S. 

vessels identified in qualifying fishing 

agreement to the U.S. territory to which 

the agreement applies. If the 

effectiveness of this final rule is delayed 

past the date the bigeye tuna limit is 

reached, NMFS would be required to 

publish a temporary rule that restricts 

the Hawaii-based longline fishery until 

this final rule is effective, after which 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
64110 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

NMFS would remove the restrictions. If 

the rule’s effectiveness is delayed, 

fisheries that might otherwise remain 

unrestricted may prematurely be 

restricted based on the lower U.S. limit 

having been reached. By implementing 

this rule immediately, it allows the 

fishery to continue fishing without the 

uncertainty or disruption of a potential 

closure. 

Executive Order 12866 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Certification Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Chief Council for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration during 

the proposed rule and specifications 

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 specifications, and does not repeat 

it here. NMFS received no comments 

regarding this certification. As a result, 

a final regulatory flexibility analysis was 

not required and none was prepared. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) under 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Control Number 0648–0689. 

Specifically, the owners of U.S. pelagic 

longline fishing vessels, or their 

designated representatives, may enter 

into specified fishing agreements with 

the governments of American Samoa, 

Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands, 

and this collection-of-information 

covers the preparation and submission 

of the agreement documents. The public 

reporting burden for a specified fishing 

agreement is estimated to average six 

hours per response, and two hours per 

appeal, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection information. 

NMFS expects to receive up to nine 

applications for specified fishing 

agreements each year, and one appeal 

per year, for a total maximum reporting 

burden of 56 hours per year. NMFS 

received no comments on the collectionof-information requirements in the 

proposed rule. Send comments 

regarding these burden estimates or any 

other aspect of this data collection, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to the NMFS Regional 

Administrator (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 

15 CFR Part 902 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

50 CFR Part 300 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, 

Marine resources, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Treaties. 

50 CFR Part 600 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

50 CFR Part 665 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, American Samoa, 

Commercial fishing, Fisheries, Guam, 

Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands, 

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission. 

Dated: October 23, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS is amending 15 CFR 

part 902, and 50 CFR parts 300, 600, and 

665 as follows: Title 15 

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION 

COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: 

OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 902.1, amend the table in 

paragraph (b), under the entry ‘‘50 CFR’’ 

by adding an entry for § 665.819 to read 

as follows: 

§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CFR part or section where 

the information collection 

requirement is located 

Current OMB 

control number 

(all numbers 

begin with 

0648–) 

****

50 CFR.

 

665.819 ................................. ¥0689 

** **

Title 50 

PART 300—INTERNATIONAL 

FISHERIES REGULATIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 

2431 et seq., 31 U.S.C. 9701 et seq. 

■ 4. In § 300.31, revise the definition of 

‘‘Regional Administrator’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 300.31 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Regional Administrator means the 

Regional Administrator, Pacific Islands 

Region, NMFS, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 

176, Honolulu, HI 96818, facsimile: 

808–725–5215, or a designee. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 300.211, revise the definitions 

of ‘‘Pacific Islands Regional 

Administrator’’ and ‘‘Special Agent-InCharge (or SAC)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 300.211 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Pacific Islands Regional 

Administrator means the Regional 

Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, 

NMFS, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, 

Honolulu, HI 96818, or a designee. 

* * * * * 

Special Agent-In-Charge (or SAC) 

means the Special-Agent-In-Charge, 

NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, 

Pacific Islands Division, 1845 Wasp 

Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; 

tel: 808–725–6100; facsimile: 808–725– 

6199; email: pidvms@noaa.gov, or a 

designee. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 300.219, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 300.219 Vessel monitoring system. 

(a) SAC and VMS Helpdesk contact 

information and business hours. For the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64111 

purpose of this section, the following 

contact information applies: 

(1) SAC. Address: 1845 Wasp Blvd., 

Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; 

telephone: 808–725–6100; facsimile: 

808–725–6199; email: 

pidvms@noaa.gov; business hours: 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Hawaii 

Standard Time. 

(2) VMS Helpdesk. Telephone: 888– 

219–9228; email: 

ole.helpdesk@noaa.gov; business hours: 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays, 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., Eastern 

Time. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In § 300.224, remove paragraph (g) 

and revise paragraphs (d) and (f)(1)(iv) 

to read as follows: 

§ 300.224 Longline fishing restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Exception for bigeye tuna caught 

by vessels included in specified fishing 

agreements under § 665.819(c) of this 

title. Bigeye tuna caught by a vessel that 

is included in a specified fishing 

agreement under § 665.819(c) of this 

title will be attributed to the longline 

fishery of American Samoa, Guam, or 

the Northern Mariana Islands, according 

to the terms of the agreement to the 

extent the agreement is consistent with 

§ 665.819(c) of this title and other 

applicable laws, and will not be counted 

against the limit, provided that: 

(1) The start date specified in 

§ 665.819(c)(9)(i) of this title has 

occurred or passed; and 

(2) NMFS has not made a 

determination under § 665.819(c)(9)(iii) 

of this title that the catch of bigeye tuna 

exceeds the limit allocated to the 

territory that is a party to the agreement. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Bigeye tuna caught by longline 

gear may be retained on board, 

transshipped, and/or landed if they 

were caught by a vessel that is included 

in a specified fishing agreement under 

§ 665.819(c) of this title, if the 

agreement provides for bigeye tuna to be 

attributed to the longline fishery of 

American Samoa, Guam, or the 

Northern Mariana Islands, provided 

that: 

(A) The start date specified in 

§ 665.819(c)(9)(i) of this title has 

occurred or passed; and 

(B) NMFS has not made a 

determination under § 665.819(c)(9)(iii) 

of this title that the catch of bigeye tuna 

exceeds the limit allocated to the 

territory that is a party to the agreement. 

* * * * * 

PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS 

ACT PROVISIONS 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 600 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq. 

■ 9. In § 600.502, amend Table 1 by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Administrator, 

Pacific Islands Region’’ under the 

heading ‘‘NMFS regional 

administrators,’’ and ‘‘Director, Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center’’ under 

the heading ‘‘NMFS science and 

research directors’’ to read as follows: 

§ 600.502 Vessel reports. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 600.502—ADDRESSES

NMFS regional administrators NMFS science and research directors U.S. Coast Guard commanders 

*******

Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 1845 

Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

Director, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science 

Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

NOAA, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE 

WESTERN PACIFIC 

■ 10. The authority citation for part 665 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 11. In § 665.12, revise the definitions 

of ‘‘Pacific Islands Regional Office 

(PIRO)’’ and ‘‘Special Agent-In-Charge’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 665.12 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) 

means the headquarters of the Pacific 

Islands Region, NMFS, located at 1845 

Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 

96818; telephone number: 808–725– 

5000. 

* * * * * 

Special Agent-In-Charge (SAC) means 

the Special Agent-In-Charge, NMFS, 

Pacific Islands Enforcement Division, 

located at 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, 

Honolulu, HI 96818; telephone number: 

808–725–6100, or a designee. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. In § 665.800, add definitions of 

‘‘Effective date,’’ ‘‘U.S. participating 

territory,’’ and ‘‘WCPFC’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 665.800 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Effective date means the date upon 

which the Regional Administrator 

provides written notice to the 

authorized official or designated 

representative of the U.S. participating 

territory that a specified fishing 

agreement meets the requirements of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

U.S. participating territory means a 

U.S. participating territory to the 

Convention on the Conservation and 

Management of Highly Migratory Fish 

Stocks in the Western and Central 

Pacific Ocean (including any annexes, 

amendments, or protocols that are in 

force, or have come into force, for the 

United States), and includes American 

Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands. 

* * * * * 

WCPFC means the Commission for 

the Conservation and Management of 

Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean, 

including its employees and contractors. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. In § 665.802, add paragraph (o) to 

read as follows: 

§ 665.802 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(o) Use a fishing vessel to retain on 

board, transship, or land pelagic MUS 

captured by longline gear in the WCPFC 

Convention Area, as defined in 

§ 300.211 of this title, in violation of any 

restriction announced in accordance 

with § 665.819(d)(2). 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Add § 665.819 to subpart F to read 

as follows: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
64112 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 665.819 Territorial catch and fishing 

effort limits. 

(a) General. (1) Notwithstanding 

§ 665.4, if the WCPFC agrees to a catch 

or fishing effort limit for a stock of 

western Pacific pelagic MUS that is 

applicable to a U.S. participating 

territory, the Regional Administrator 

may specify an annual or multi-year 

catch or fishing effort limit for a U.S. 

participating territory, as recommended 

by the Council, not to exceed the 

WCPFC adopted limit. The Regional 

Administrator may authorize such U.S. 

participating territory to allocate a 

portion, as recommended by the 

Council, of the specified catch or fishing 

effort limit to a fishing vessel or vessels 

holding a valid permit issued under 

§ 665.801 through a specified fishing 

agreement pursuant to paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(2) If the WCPFC does not agree to a 

catch or fishing effort limit for a stock 

of western Pacific pelagic MUS 

applicable to a U.S. participating 

territory, the Council may recommend 

that the Regional Administrator specify 

such a limit that is consistent with the 

Pelagics FEP, other provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws. The Council may also 

recommend that the Regional 

Administrator authorize a U.S. 

participating territory to allocate a 

portion of a specified catch or fishing 

effort limit to a fishing vessel or vessels 

holding valid permits issued under 

§ 665.801 through a specified fishing 

agreement pursuant to paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(3) The Council shall review any 

existing or proposed catch or fishing 

effort limit specification and portion 

available for allocation at least annually 

to ensure consistency with the Pelagics 

FEP, Magnuson-Stevens Act, WCPFC 

decisions, and other applicable laws. 

Based on this review, at least annually, 

the Council shall recommend to the 

Regional Administrator whether such 

catch or fishing effort limit specification 

or portion available for allocation 

should be approved for the next fishing 

year. 

(4) The Regional Administrator shall 

review any Council recommendation 

pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section 

and, if determined to be consistent with 

the Pelagics FEP, Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, WCPFC decisions, and other 

applicable laws, shall approve such 

recommendation. If the Regional 

Administrator determines that a 

recommendation is inconsistent with 

the Pelagics FEP, Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, WCPFC decisions and other 

applicable laws, the Regional 

Administrator will disapprove the 

recommendation and provide the 

Council with a written explanation of 

the reasons for disapproval. If a catch or 

fishing effort limit specification or 

allocation limit is disapproved, or if the 

Council recommends and NMFS 

approves no catch or fishing effort limit 

specification or allocation limit, no 

specified fishing agreements as 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section will be accepted for the fishing 

year covered by such action. 

(b) Procedures and timing. (1) After 

receiving a Council recommendation for 

a catch or fishing effort limit 

specification, or portion available for 

allocation, the Regional Administrator 

will evaluate the recommendation for 

consistency with the Pelagics FEP, other 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and other applicable laws. 

(2) The Regional Administrator will 

publish in the Federal Register a notice 

and request for public comment of the 

proposed catch or fishing effort limit 

specification and any portion of the 

limit that may be allocated to a fishing 

vessel or vessels holding a valid permit 

issued under § 665.801. 

(3) The Regional Administrator will 

publish in the Federal Register, a notice 

of the final catch or fishing effort limit 

specification and portion of the limit 

that may be allocated to a fishing vessel 

or vessels holding valid permits issued 

under § 665.801. The final specification 

of a catch or fishing effort limit will also 

announce the deadline for submitting a 

specified fishing agreement for review 

as described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. The deadline will be no earlier 

than 30 days after the publication date 

of the Federal Register notice that 

specifies the final catch or fishing effort 

limit and the portion of the limit that 

may be allocated through a specified 

fishing agreement. 

(c) Specified fishing agreements. A 

specified fishing agreement means an 

agreement between a U.S. participating 

territory and the owner or a designated 

representative of a fishing vessel or 

vessels holding a valid permit issued 

under § 665.801 of this part. An 

agreement provides access to an 

identified portion of a catch or fishing 

effort limit and may not exceed the 

amount specified for the territory and 

made available for allocation pursuant 

to paragraph (a) of this section. The 

identified portion of a catch or fishing 

effort limit in an agreement must 

account for recent and anticipated 

harvest on the stock or stock complex or 

fishing effort, and any other valid 

agreements with the territory during the 

same year not to exceed the territory’s 

catch or fishing effort limit or allocation 

limit. 

(1) An authorized official or 

designated representative of a U.S. 

participating territory may submit a 

complete specified fishing agreement to 

the Council for review. A complete 

specified fishing agreement must meet 

the following requirements: 

(i) Identify the vessel(s) to which the 

fishing agreement applies, along with 

documentation that such vessel(s) 

possesses a valid permit issued under 

§ 665.801; 

(ii) Identify the amount (weight) of 

western Pacific pelagic MUS to which 

the fishing agreement applies, if 

applicable; 

(iii) Identify the amount of fishing 

effort to which the fishing agreement 

applies, if applicable; 

(iv) Be signed by an authorized 

official of the applicable U.S. 

participating territory, or designated 

representative; 

(v) Be signed by each vessel owner or 

designated representative; and 

(vi) Satisfy either paragraph 

(c)(1)(vi)(A) or (B) of this section: 

(A) Require the identified vessels to 

land or offload catch in the ports of the 

U.S. participating territory to which the 

fishing agreement applies; or 

(B) Specify the amount of monetary 

contributions that each vessel owner in 

the agreement, or his or her designated 

representative, will deposit into the 

Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries 

Fund. 

(vii) Be consistent with the Pelagics 

FEP and implementing regulations, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws; and 

(viii) Shall not confer any right of 

compensation to any party enforceable 

against the United States should action 

under such agreement be prohibited or 

limited by NMFS pursuant to its 

authority under Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

or other applicable laws. 

(2) Council review. The Council, 

through its Executive Director, will 

review a submitted specified fishing 

agreement to ensure that it is consistent 

with paragraph (1) of this section. The 

Council will advise the authorized 

official or designated representative of 

the U.S. participating territory to which 

the agreement applies of any 

inconsistency and provide an 

opportunity to modify the agreement, as 

appropriate. The Council will transmit 

the complete specified fishing 

agreement to the Regional Administrator 

for review. 

(3) Agency review. (i) Upon receipt of 

a specified fishing agreement from the 

Council, the Regional Administrator 

will consider such agreement for 

consistency with paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, the Pelagics FEP and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 64113 

implementing regulations, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws. 

(ii) Within 30 calendar days of receipt 

of the fishing agreement from the 

Council, the Regional Administrator 

will provide the authorized official or 

designated representative of the U.S. 

participating territory to which the 

agreement applies and the signatory 

vessel owners or their designated 

representatives with written notice of 

whether the agreement meets the 

requirements of this section. The 

Regional Administrator will reject an 

agreement for any of the following 

reasons: 

(A) The agreement fails to meet the 

criteria specified in this subpart; 

(B) The applicant has failed to 

disclose material information; 

(C) The applicant has made a material 

false statement related to the specified 

fishing agreement; 

(D) The agreement is inconsistent 

with the Pelagics FEP, implementing 

regulations, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

or other applicable laws; or 

(E) The agreement includes a vessel 

identified in another valid specified 

fishing agreement. 

(iii) The Regional Administrator, in 

consultation with the Council, may 

recommend that specified fishing 

agreements include such additional 

terms and conditions as are necessary to 

ensure consistency with the Pelagics 

FEP and implementing regulations, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws. 

(iv) The U.S. participating territory 

must notify NMFS and the Council in 

writing of any changes in the identity of 

fishing vessels to which the specified 

fishing agreement applies within 72 

hours of the change. 

(v) Upon written notice that a 

specified fishing agreement fails to meet 

the requirements of this section, the 

Regional Administrator may provide the 

U.S. participating territory an 

opportunity to modify the fishing 

agreement within the time period 

prescribed in the notice. Such 

opportunity to modify the agreement 

may not exceed 30 days following the 

date of written notice. The U.S. 

participating territory may resubmit the 

agreement according to paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section. 

(vi) The absence of the Regional 

Administrator’s written notice within 

the time period specified in paragraph 

(c)(3)(ii) of this section or, if applicable, 

within the extended time period 

specified in paragraph (c)(3)(v) of this 

section shall operate as the Regional 

Administrator’s finding that the fishing 

agreement meets the requirements of 

this section. 

(4) Transfer. Specified fishing 

agreements authorized under this 

section are not transferable or 

assignable, except as allowed pursuant 

to paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this section. 

(5) A vessel shall not be identified in 

more than one valid specified fishing 

agreement at a time. 

(6) Revocation and suspension. The 

Regional Administrator, in consultation 

with the Council, may at any time 

revoke or suspend attribution under a 

specified fishing agreement upon the 

determination that either: Operation 

under the agreement would violate the 

requirements of the Pelagics FEP or 

implementing regulations, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, or other 

applicable laws; or the U.S. 

participating territory fails to notify 

NMFS and the Council in writing of any 

changes in the identity of fishing vessels 

to which the specified fishing agreement 

applies within 72 hours of the change. 

(7) Cancellation. The U.S. 

participating territory and the vessel 

owner(s), or designated 

representative(s), that are party to a 

specified fishing agreement must notify 

the Regional Administrator in writing 

within 72 hours after an agreement is 

cancelled or no longer valid. A valid 

notice of cancellation shall require the 

signatures of both parties to the 

agreement. All catch or fishing effort 

attributions under the agreement shall 

cease upon the written date of a valid 

notice of cancellation. 

(8) Appeals. An authorized official or 

designated representative of a U.S. 

participating territory or signatory 

vessel owners or their designated 

representatives may appeal the granting, 

denial, conditioning, or suspension of a 

specified fishing agreement affecting 

their interests to the Regional 

Administrator in accordance with the 

permit appeals procedures set forth in 

§ 665.801(o) of this subpart. 

(9) Catch or fishing effort attribution 

procedures. (i) For vessels identified in 

a valid specified fishing agreement that 

are subject to a U.S. limit and fishing 

restrictions set forth in 50 CFR part 300, 

subpart O, NMFS will attribute catch 

made by such vessels to the applicable 

U.S. participating territory starting 

seven days before the date NMFS 

projects the annual U.S. limit to be 

reached, or upon the effective date of 

the agreement, whichever is later. 

(ii) For U.S. fishing vessels identified 

in a valid specified fishing agreement 

that are subject to catch or fishing effort 

limits and fishing restrictions set forth 

in this subpart, NMFS will attribute 

catch or fishing effort to the applicable 

U.S. participating territory starting 

seven days before the date NMFS 

projects the limit to be reached, or upon 

the effective date of the agreement, 

whichever is later. 

(iii) If NMFS determines catch or 

fishing effort made by fishing vessels 

identified in a specified fishing 

agreement exceeds the allocated limit, 

NMFS will attribute any overage of the 

limit back to the U.S. or Pacific island 

fishery to which the vessel(s) is 

registered and permitted in accordance 

with the regulations set forth in 50 CFR 

part 300, subpart O and other applicable 

laws. 

(d) Accountability measures. (1) 

NMFS will monitor catch and fishing 

effort with respect to any territorial 

catch or fishing effort limit, including 

the amount of a limit allocated to 

vessels identified in a valid specified 

fishing agreement, using data submitted 

in logbooks and other information. 

When NMFS projects a territorial catch 

or fishing effort limit or allocated limit 

to be reached, the Regional 

Administrator shall publish notification 

to that effect in the Federal Register at 

least seven days before the limit will be 

reached. 

(2) The notice will include an 

advisement that fishing for the 

applicable pelagic MUS stock or stock 

complex, or fishing effort, will be 

restricted on a specific date. The 

restriction may include, but is not 

limited to, a prohibition on retention, 

closure of a fishery, closure of specific 

areas, or other catch or fishing effort 

restrictions. The restriction will remain 

in effect until the end of the fishing 

year. 

(e) Disbursement of contributions 

from the Sustainable Fisheries Fund. 

(1) NMFS shall make available to the 

Western Pacific Fishery Management 

Council monetary contributions, made 

to the Fund pursuant to a specified 

fishing agreement, in the following 

order of priority: 

(i) Project(s) identified in an approved 

Marine Conservation Plan (16 U.S.C. 

1824) of a U.S. participating territory 

that is a party to a valid specified 

fishing agreement, pursuant to 

§ 665.819(c); and 

(ii) In the case of two or more valid 

specified fishing agreements in a fishing 

year, the projects listed in an approved 

Marine Conservation Plan applicable to 

the territory with the earliest valid 

agreement will be funded first. 

(2) At least seven calendar days prior 

to the disbursement of any funds, the 

Council shall provide in writing to 

NMFS a list identifying the order of 

priority of the projects in an approved 

Marine Conservation Plan that are to be 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
64114 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

funded. The Council may thereafter 

revise this list. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25610 Filed 10–24–14; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Parts 510, 520, 522, 524, and 

556 

[Docket No. FDA–2014–N–0002] 

New Animal Drugs; Alfaxalone; 

Dinoprost; Ivermectin and Clorsulon; 

Nitrofurazone; Trenbolone and 

Estradiol Benzoate; Trimethoprim and 

Sulfadiazine; Tylosin; Change of 

Sponsor 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule, technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is amending the 

animal drug regulations to reflect 

approval actions for new animal drug 

applications (NADAs) and abbreviated 

new animal drug applications 

(ANADAs) during August 2014. FDA is 

also informing the public of the 

availability of summaries of the basis of 

approval and of environmental review 

documents, where applicable. The 

animal drug regulations are also being 

amended to reflect a change of 

sponsorship of two NADAs and one 

ANADA, and to reflect a revised food 

safety warning. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 28, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine (HFV–6), Food and Drug 

Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., 

Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–9019, 

george.haibel@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is 

amending the animal drug regulations to 

reflect approval actions for NADAs and 

ANADAs during August 2014, as listed 

in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing 

the public of the availability, where 

applicable, of documentation of 

environmental review required under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and, for actions requiring 

review of safety or effectiveness data, 

summaries of the basis of approval (FOI 

Summaries) under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA). These public 

documents may be seen in the Division 

of Dockets Management (HFA–305), 

Food and Drug Administration, 5630 

Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 

20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday. Persons with 

access to the Internet may obtain these 

documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic 

Reading Room: http://www.fda.gov/

AboutFDA/CentersOffices/

OfficeofFoods/CVM/

CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/

default.htm. Marketing exclusivity and 

patent information may be accessed in 

FDA’s publication, Approved Animal 

Drug Products Online (Green Book) at: 

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/

Products/

ApprovedAnimalDrugProducts/

default.htm. 

In addition, Macleod 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2600 Canton Ct., 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 has transferred 

ownership of, and all rights and interest 

in ANADA 200–033 for UNIPRIM 

(trimethoprim and sulfadiazine) Powder 

to Neogen Corp. (Neogen), 944 Nandino 

Blvd., Lexington, KY 40511. In 2004, 

Hess & Clark, Inc., transferred 

ownership of, and all rights and interest 

in NADA 011–154 for NFZ Puffer 

(nitrofurazone soluble powder) and 

NADA 140–851 for NFZ Wound 

Dressing (nitrofurazone ointment) to 

Neogen. At this time, the regulations are 

being amended to reflect these transfers. 

Following these changes of 

sponsorship, Macleod Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc., and Hess & Clark, Inc., will no 

longer be the sponsor of an approved 

application. Accordingly, 21 CFR 

510.600(c) is being amended to remove 

the entries for these firms. 

Also, the animal drug regulations are 

being amended in 21 CFR 522.690 to 

revise a human food safety warning for 

dinoprost tromethamine injectable 

solution. This amendment is being 

made to improve the accuracy of the 

regulations. 

This rule does not meet the definition 

of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because 

it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’ 

Therefore, it is not subject to the 

congressional review requirements in 5 

U.S.C. 801–808. 

TABLE 1—ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL NADAS AND ANADAS APPROVED DURING AUGUST 2014 

NADA/

ANADA Sponsor New animal drug product name Action 21 CFR Sections 

FOIA 

Summary NEPA Review 

140–833 ...... Merial Ltd., 3239 Satellite Blvd., Bldg. 500, 

Duluth, GA 30096– 

4640.

IVOMEC Plus 

(ivermectin and 

clorsulon) Injection 

for Cattle.

Supplemental approval 

reducing the 

preslaughter withdrawal period from 49 

days to 21 days.

522.1193 ........

556.344 ..........

yes ................. CE.1 2

141–043 ...... Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage 

St., Kalamazoo, MI 

49007.

SYNOVEX CHOICE 

(trenbolone and estradiol implant).

Supplemental approval 

for increased rate of 

weight gain and improved feed efficiency 

in heifers fed in confinement for slaughter.

522.2478 ........ yes ................. EA/FONSI.3

141–342 ...... Jurox Pty. Ltd., 85 Gardiner Rd., Rutherford, 

NSW 2320, Australia.

ALFAXAN (alfaxalone) 

Injectable Anesthetic 

for Dogs and Cats.

Supplemental approval 

adding a label statement that alfaxalone 

is a Class IV controlled substance.

522.52 ............ no ................... CE.1 4


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES