Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68133 

service. The Second Report and Order 

also provides that covered text 

providers then have a six-month 

implementation period—they must 

begin routing all 911 text messages to a 

Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) 

by June 30, 2015 or within six months 

of a valid PSAP request for text-to-911 

service, whichever is later. To 

implement these requirements, the 

Commission seeks to collect information 

primarily for a database in which PSAPs 

will voluntarily register that they are 

technically ready to receive text 

messages to 911. As PSAPs become textready, they may either register in the 

PSAP database (or, if the database is not 

yet available, submit a notification to PS 

Docket Nos. 10–255 and 11–153), or 

provide other written notification 

reasonably acceptable to a covered text 

messaging provider. Either measure 

taken by the PSAP shall constitute 

sufficient notification pursuant to the 

adopted rules in the Second Report and 

Order. PSAPs and covered text 

providers may mutually agree to an 

alternative implementation timeframe 

(other than six months). Covered text 

providers must notify the FCC of the 

dates and terms of the alternate 

timeframe that they have mutually 

agreed on with PSAPs within 30 days of 

the parties’ agreement. 

Additionally, the rules adopted by the 

Second Report and Order also include 

other information collections for third 

party notifications that need to be 

effective in order to implement text-to911, including necessary notifications to 

consumers, covered text providers, and 

the Commission. These notifications are 

essential to ensure that all of the 

affected parties are aware of the 

limitations, capabilities, and status of 

text-to-911 services. These information 

collections will enable the Commission 

to meet objectives to commence the 

implementation of text-to-911 service as 

of December 31, 2014 in furtherance of 

its core mission to ensure the public’s 

safety. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Gloria J. Miles, 

Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26544 Filed 11–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 300 and 660 

[Docket No. 141103918–4918–01] 

RIN 0648–BE58 

International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna 

Fisheries; 2014 Commercial Fishing for 

Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern 

Pacific Ocean; Commercial Retention 

Limit 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule for an 

emergency action. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is reopening the U.S. 

commercial fishery for Pacific bluefin 

tuna (PBF) in the eastern Pacific Ocean 

(EPO) until the 500 metric ton (mt) 

catch limit is reached. If the 500-metric 

ton limit, which was established under 

the Tuna Conventions Act (TCA) and 

regulations implementing Resolution C– 

13–02 of the Inter-American Tropical 

Tuna Commission (IATTC) in the EPO, 

is not met, the fishery will close on 

December 31, 2014. This reopening of 

the fishery vacates the closure made by 

NMFS on September 5, 2014. Following 

the closure, NMFS received updated 

information indicating that only 404 mt 

of the 500 mt catch limit was caught. 

Thus, the closure was imposed 

prematurely. This rule also imposes a 1 

mt trip limit on retention of PBF in the 

EPO by commercial vessels as an 

emergency action under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA). 

DATES: Effective November 13, 2014, 

through December 31, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Helvey, NMFS West Coast Region, 

562–980–4040, Mark,Helvey@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

takes this action in accordance with the 

TCA, 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq., and under 

section 305(c) of the MSA, 16 U.S.C. 

1855(c). NMFS published a final rule in 

the Federal Register (79 FR 28448, May 

16, 2014) implementing Resolution C– 

13–02, (‘‘Measures for the Conservation 

and Management of Bluefin Tuna in the 

Eastern Pacific Ocean’’) adopted by the 

IATTC at its 85th Meeting in June 2013. 

Resolution C–13–02 provided for an 

IATTC-wide (applicable to all members 

and cooperating non-members of the 

IATTC fishing in the EPO) commercial 

catch limit of 5,000 mt and up to 500 

mt set aside for IATTC members having 

a historical catch record of PBF in the 

EPO. Because the United States has a 

historical record of PBF catch in the 

EPO, the U.S. commercial fishing fleet 

qualifies for the 500 mt catch limit of 

PBF in the Convention Area for 2014, as 

explained in the final rule. The final 

rule further explains that when the 

IATTC-wide 5,000 mt catch limit is 

reached, the U.S. commercial fleet may 

continue to target, retain, transship, or 

land PBF until the 500 mt limit is 

reached. 

In late August 2014, NMFS received 

information that the PBF catch by U.S. 

purse seine vessels was 454 mt. As a 

result, on September 5, 2014, NMFS 

closed the fishery, believing that the 

United States was close to reaching the 

500 mt limit (79 FR 53631, September 

10, 2014). Following the closure, NMFS 

received updated landings data 

indicating that the total U.S. commercial 

catch in 2014 was 403.5 mt, not 454 mt. 

Since then, NMFS informed the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

of the early closure at their meeting in 

Spokane, Washington on September 13, 

2014, and the Council recommended 

that NMFS reopen the commercial 

fishery and establish a 1 mt trip limit 

until the 500 mt catch limit is reached. 

NMFS finds the Council’s request 

consistent with several of the MSA 

national standards for fishery 

conservation and management within 

the context of the Council’s Fishery 

Management Plan for U.S. West Coast 

Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species. 

While PBF are in an overfished and 

overfishing condition, the stock is being 

managed under IATTC Resolution C– 

13–02 in efforts to curtail catches in the 

EPO. The Council’s recommendation 

ensures that the remainder of the 500 mt 

will be available to the U.S. commercial 

fisheries and harvested in measured 

increments of 1 mt or smaller, which 

substantially reduces the risk of 

exceeding the limit while allowing for 

resource utilization. Its recommendation 

adheres to National Standard 1 of the 

MSA—‘‘conservation and management 

measures shall prevent overfishing 

while achieving, on a continuing basis, 

the optimum yield from each fishery for 

the United States fishing industry.’’ 

NMFS also recognizes that the number 

of U.S. vessels able to catch PBF is small 

because interacting with PBF is not a 

common event and that their catch can 

be readily monitored because some 

vessels capable of efficiently catching 

PBF in 1 mt increments or less (e.g., 

drift gillnet) will already have federally 

trained observers onboard to monitor 

the catch. In addition, NMFS plans to 

work with fish buyers and State of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

68134 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

California authorities to monitor PBF 

landings. The Council’s 

recommendation also supports National 

Standard 5—‘‘conservation and 

management measures shall, where 

practicable, consider efficiency in the 

utilization of fishery resources; except 

that no such measure shall have 

economic allocation as its sole 

purpose.’’ The 1 mt trip limit allows for 

the final 96 mt of the 500 mt overall 

limit to be harvested in a calculated and 

efficient way rather than taking the risk 

that the 500 mt limit will be exceeded 

within one or two trips (i.e., by purse 

seine gear). 

The trip limit also comports with 

MSA National Standard 8— 

‘‘conservation and management 

measures shall, consistent with the 

conservation requirements of this Act 

(including the prevention of overfishing 

and rebuilding of overfished stocks), 

take into account the importance of 

fishery resources to fishing communities 

by utilizing economic and social data 

that meet the requirement of paragraph 

(2), in order to (a) provide for the 

sustained participation of such 

communities, and (b) to the extent 

practicable, minimize adverse economic 

impacts on such communities.’’ 

Allowance for the retention of PBF in 1 

mt increments can add to U.S. 

harvesters’ portfolios of marketable 

species and minimizes lost economic 

opportunity until the 500 mt limit is 

reached, thereby benefiting West Coast 

fishing communities. 

NMFS recognizes that there are 

situations where commercial fishermen 

may inadvertently catch PBF during 

their fishing operations while targeting 

other species. The 1 mt trip allowance 

avoids the requirement to discard PBF 

catches until the 500 mt catch limit is 

reached and serves to minimize bycatch. 

The Council’s request comports with 

National Standard 9—‘‘conservation and 

management measures shall, to the 

extent practicable, (a) minimize bycatch 

and (b) to the extent bycatch cannot be 

avoided, minimize the mortality of such 

bycatch.’’ 

Lastly, the 1 mt limit ensures that 

National Standard 10—‘‘conservation 

and management measures shall, to the 

extent practicable, promote the safety of 

human life at sea’’—is met. Correcting 

the error by reopening this fishery 

without a trip limit could create a 

derby-style fishery; that is, a fishery of 

brief duration during which harvesters 

race, regardless of weather or ocean 

conditions, to catch as much as they can 

before the fishery closes again. 

Specifically, fishermen able to catch 

PBF in large quantities might risk the 

dangers of unsafe sea conditions just to 

ensure a last catch opportunity. 

This emergency trip limit will be 

effective only through the end of 2014, 

which is less than the maximum 180 

days allowed for emergency rules issued 

under section 305(c) of the MSA. 

NMFS acknowledges the petition 

received from the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD) requesting NMFS to 

undertake several actions pertaining to 

PBF, including prohibiting fishing or, as 

an alternative, establishing annual catch 

limits and a permanent minimum size 

requirement to protect age classes 1 to 

2 from fishing mortality. This action to 

reopen the fishery does not pertain to 

the petition. Rather, the action corrects 

an error and sets trip limits under an 

emergency action to ensure that the 

2014 catch limit adopted by the IATTC 

is not exceeded. The comment period 

for the petition ended on September 22, 

2014. Based on NMFS’ current review of 

those comments, as well as the outcome 

of the resumed 87th Meeting of the 

IATTC in late-October, and the 

Council’s scheduled action in November 

to establish a more restrictive bag limit 

for the recreational PBF fishery, NMFS 

will determine the need to proceed with 

regulations requested by the CBD to 

prohibit PBF fishing or establish size 

limits. 

NMFS’ policy guidelines for the use 

of emergency rules (62 FR 44421, 

August 21, 1997) specify the following 

three criteria that define an emergency 

situation and justification for final 

rulemaking: (1) The emergency results 

from recent, unforeseen events or 

recently discovered circumstances; (2) 

the emergency presents serious 

conservation or management problems 

in the fishery; and (3) the emergency 

can be addressed through emergency 

regulations for which the immediate 

benefits outweigh the value of advance 

notice, public comment, and 

deliberative consideration of the 

impacts on participants to the same 

extent as would be expected under the 

normal rulemaking process. NMFS’ 

policy guidelines further provide that an 

emergency action is justified for 

situations, in which it would prevent 

significant direct economic loss, or to 

preserve a significant economic 

opportunity that otherwise might be 

foregone. 

NMFS has determined that setting a 1 

mt trip limit on PBF catches meets all 

three criteria. The temporary rule results 

from recent, unforeseen events or 

recently discovered circumstances 

pertaining to an update on preliminary 

catch data. The best available 

information at the time of the closure 

indicated that the catch limit was less 

than 50 mt from being reached. The use 

of purse seine gear is an efficient 

method for capturing schooling fish and 

the purse seine vessels that had been 

harvesting PBF had the capacity to catch 

more than 50 mt in a single trip. 

Consequently, NMFS responded by 

closing the fishery on September 5, 

2014, only to later learn that the actual 

catch was 403.5 mt, not 454 mt. The 

Council’s recommendation for a 1 mt 

trip limit allows for reopening the 

fishery while establishing a 

precautionary management measure 

designed to prevent exceeding the 500 

mt limit. For the reasons explained 

below in the ‘‘Classification’’ section, 

the benefits of emergency action 

outweigh the value of the normally 

applicable notice and comment 

procedures. 

Classification 

The Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries, NOAA (AA) has determined 

that this emergency action to 

promulgate temporary regulations for 

setting a 1 mt trip limit under the 

authority of section 305(c) of the MSA 

is necessary to prevent bycatch, in the 

form of regulatory discards, of a species 

in an overfished and overfishing 

condition. The Council’s request to 

reopen the fishery with a per trip 

retention limit will provide limited 

economic opportunities to harvesters 

and fishing communities, while 

maintaining catch levels within limits to 

meet U.S. obligations as a member of the 

IATTC. This request is consistent with 

the TCA, MSA, and other applicable 

laws. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the AA 

finds good cause to waive prior notice 

and opportunity for advanced public 

comment. The benefits of implementing 

this action immediately outweigh the 

value of advance notice and public 

comment. Reopening the fishery 

corrects an error. Failure to correct that 

error would cause confusion and 

undermine the purpose of the 

underlying regulation. Imposition of the 

1 mt retention limit is an emergency 

action and prior notice and opportunity 

for advanced public comment would be 

contrary to the public interest. Delaying 

action intended to allow for the 

retention of PBF in increments of up to 

1 mt would increase the likelihood of 

waste and economic loss. There is no 

other action that NMFS can take 

through the normal rulemaking process 

that would enable the agency to allow 

for the commercial retention in fisheries 

interacting with PBF in time before the 

end of the year when the availability of 

the 500 mt catch limit expires. The 

urgency to issue a final rule that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 220 / Friday, November 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 68135 

provides an opportunity for harvesters 

to retain up to 1 mt in the event they 

catch PBF reduces the likelihood that 

the species would be targeted while 

allowing for economic opportunities to 

persist. 

Correcting the premature closure by 

reopening the fishery relieves a 

restriction, and, therefore, is not subject 

to the 30-day delay in effectiveness 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). For the same 

reasons provided above, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the AA finds good 

cause to waive the full 30-day delay in 

effectiveness for imposition of the 1 mt 

retention limit. It would be contrary to 

the public interest if the retention limit 

does not become effective immediately 

and concurrently with the reopening of 

the fishery because an incentive would 

remain for harvesters to target PBF with 

gear capable of exceeding the catch limit 

in one or two trips, thus undermining 

the purpose of the regulations. 

Because notice and opportunity for 

comment are not required pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the 

analytical requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required and has not been prepared. 

This rule has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. A Regulatory Impact 

Review was completed and is available 

upon request from the NMFS, West 

Coast Region (see ADDRESSES). 

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

U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: November 7, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26988 Filed 11–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 140930815–4916–01] 

RIN 0648–BE54 

Highly Migratory Species; Technical 

Amendment to Regulations 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is hereby making 

technical amendments to our 

regulations without altering the 

substance of the regulations. These 

changes will make our rules more 

internally consistent and easier to use. 

As a result of reorganizing 50 CFR part 

622 in a previously published final rule 

(September 19, 2013), two crossreferences in 50 CFR part 635 are no 

longer accurate. This final rule only 

corrects the outdated cross-references. 

The rule does not make any substantive 

change to the regulations governing 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS) or to species managed by NMFS’ 

Southeast Regional Office (SERO). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of other documents 

relevant to this rule are available from 

the Highly Migratory Species 

Management Division Web site at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ or upon 

request from the Atlantic HMS 

Management Division at 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick 

Pearson at 727–824–5399. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

HMS are managed under the dual 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). 

The authority to issue regulations under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA 

has been delegated from the Secretary of 

Commerce to the Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 

(AA). On May 28, 1999, NMFS 

published in the Federal Register (64 

FR 29090) regulations implementing the 

Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic 

Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 

FMP). On October 2, 2006, NMFS 

published in the Federal Register (71 

FR 58058) regulations implementing the 

2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS) FMP, which details the 

management measures for Atlantic HMS 

fisheries. The implementing regulations 

for Atlantic HMS are at 50 CFR part 635. 

Background 

These technical amendments are 

issued under 50 CFR part 635, entitled 

‘‘Atlantic Highly Migratory Species.’’ 

Currently, the regulations at 50 CFR part 

635 contain cross-references to several 

restricted fishing areas that are 

described in 50 CFR part 622, entitled 

‘‘Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf, and 

South Atlantic.’’ The cross-references in 

50 CFR part 635 ensure consistency 

with the regulations at 50 CFR part 622 

to protect certain reef species and/or 

habitat managed by the Caribbean, 

South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Councils. For 

example, some areas have been closed 

to bottom longline gear for reef fish 

permit holders through the 50 CFR part 

622 regulations for the Caribbean, Gulf, 

and South Atlantic. NMFS through 

rulemaking enacted complementary 

regulations to prohibit bottom longline 

gear in these same areas by HMS permit 

holders to implement the closures more 

effectively. 

On April 17, 2013, NMFS published 

an interim final rule (78 FR 22950) to 

reorganize the regulations implementing 

fishery management plans developed by 

the Caribbean, South Atlantic, and Gulf 

of Mexico Fishery Management 

Councils. The interim final rule did not 

create any new obligations, but 

reorganized the existing regulatory 

requirements in the Code of Federal 

Regulations in a more logical format; 

i.e., by fishery, so that the public could 

locate regulatory requirements more 

easily. The final rule was published on 

September 19, 2013 (78 FR 57534). As 

a result of reorganizing 50 CFR part 622, 

two cross-references in 50 CFR part 635 

are no longer accurate. With 

reorganization and changes in 

references to the 50 CFR part 622 

regulations, parallel changes are now 

needed in the HMS regulations at 50 

CFR part 635. This technical 

amendment would only correct the 

outdated cross-references. No other 

changes are being considered or 

implemented. 

Corrections 

Currently, the regulations at 

§ 635.21(a)(4)(i) contain a crossreference to areas designated at 

§ 622.34(d), the Tortugas marine 

reserves habitat area of particular 

concern (HAPC). This final rule corrects 

the cross-reference to indicate the same 

areas, which are now designated at 

§ 622.74(c), and specifies the name of 

the areas as the ‘‘Tortugas marine 

reserves HAPC.’’ 

The regulations at § 635.21(d)(1)(ii) 

currently contain a cross-reference to 

areas designated at § 622.33(a)(1) 

through (3), the Mutton snapper 

spawning aggregation area, the Red hind 

spawning aggregation areas, and the 

Grammanik Bank closed area. This final 

rule corrects the cross-reference to 

indicate the same areas, which are now 

designated at § 622.435(a)(2)(i) through 

(iii). 

Classification 

The NMFS Assistant Administrator 

(AA) has determined that this final rule 

is necessary for the conservation and 

management of U.S. Caribbean and Gulf 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES