39044 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Subsector or industry code Exceptions and/or limitations 

562211—Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal.Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 

6921 et seq. 

562212—Solid Waste Landfill ......... Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 

6921 et seq. 

562213—Solid Waste Combustors 

and Incinerators.

Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 

6921 et seq. 

562219—Other Nonhazardous 

Waste Treatment and Disposal.

Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 

6921 et seq. 

562920—Materials Recovery Facilities.Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 

6921 et seq. 

■ 4. Amend § 372.38 by revising 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 372.38 Exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(h) Metal mining overburden. If a 

toxic chemical that is a constituent of 

overburden is processed or otherwise 

used by facilities in SIC code 10, or in 

NAICS codes 212221, 212222, 212230 or 

212299, a person is not required to 

consider the quantity of the toxic 

chemical so processed, or otherwise 

used when determining whether an 

applicable threshold has been met 

under § 372.25, § 372.27, or § 372.28, or 

determining the amounts to be reported 

under § 372.30. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17413 Filed 8–16–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 216 

[Docket No. 170303228–7752–02] 

RIN 0648–BG71 

Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur 

Seals on the Pribilof Islands; Final 

Annual Subsistence Harvest Levels for 

2017–2019 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; Final annual fur seal 

subsistence harvest levels. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the regulations 

governing the subsistence taking of 

North Pacific fur seals (Callorhinus 

ursinus) (northern fur seals), NMFS is 

publishing the expected harvest levels 

from 2017–2019 on St. George and St. 

Paul Islands, Alaska (the Pribilof 

Islands) to satisfy subsistence 

requirements of the Alaska Natives 

residing on the Pribilof Islands 

(Pribilovians). NMFS is establishing the 

2017–2019 harvest levels at 1,645 to 

2,000 fur seals for St. Paul Island and 

300 to 500 fur seals for St. George 

Island. 

DATES: Effective September 18, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Two Final Environmental 

Impact Statements (EISs), one Draft EIS, 

annual subsistence harvest reports, and 

other references are available on the 

Internet at the following address: 

https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/furseal. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Williams, NMFS Alaska 

Region, 907–271–5117, 

michael.williams@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Eastern Pacific stock of northern 

fur seals (fur seals) is considered 

depleted under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361, 

et seq. The subsistence harvest from this 

stock on the Pribilof Islands is governed 

by regulations found in 50 CFR part 216, 

subpart F, published under the 

authority of the Fur Seal Act (FSA), 16 

U.S.C. 1151, et seq. Pursuant to 50 CFR 

216.72(b), every three years NMFS must 

publish in the Federal Register a 

summary of the Pribilovians’ fur seal 

harvest for the previous three-year 

period. NMFS is also required to 

include an estimate of the number of fur 

seals expected to satisfy the subsistence 

requirements of Pribilovians in the 

subsequent three-year period. After a 

30-day comment period, NMFS must 

publish a final notification of the 

expected annual harvest levels for the 

next three years. 

On May 18, 2017 (82 FR 22797), 

NMFS published the summary of the 

2014–2016 fur seal harvests and 

provided a 30-day comment period on 

the estimates of the number of fur seals 

expected to be taken annually to satisfy 

the subsistence requirements of the 

Pribilovians of each island for 2017– 

2019. In that notice, NMFS estimated 

the annual subsistence needs for 2017– 

2019 would be 1,645 to 2,000 fur seals 

for St. Paul Island and 300 to 500 fur 

seals for St. George Island and provided 

background information related to these 

estimates. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Annual Harvest Estimates 

NMFS did not make any changes from 

the proposed notice of annual harvest 

levels. The harvest levels for each island 

remain the same and therefore the 

annual harvest levels remain 1,645 to 

2,000 fur seals for St. Paul Island and 

300 to 500 fur seals for St. George 

Island. 

Comments and Response 

NMFS received nine distinct 

comments from four parties on the 

notice of the 2017–2019 proposed 

annual harvest estimates (82 FR 22797; 

May 18, 2017). A summary of the 

comments received and NMFS’s 

responses follows. 

Comment 1: In an effort to stabilize 

the ecosystems, only indigenous people 

should be allowed to take part in these 

kills and every effort should be made to 

establish a line of communication with 

indigenous leaders regarding concerns 

of human influence and its effects on 

the ecosystem. Removing fur seals could 

result in an increase in lower trophic 

levels and a decrease in higher trophic 

levels. 

Response 1: Pursuant to the Fur Seal 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 1152, ‘‘it is unlawful, 

except as provided in the chapter or by 

regulation of the Secretary, for any 

person or vessel subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to 

engage in the taking of fur seals in the 

North Pacific Ocean or on lands or 

waters under the jurisdiction of the 

United States . . .’’ Regulations issued 

under the authority of the Fur Seal Act 

authorize Pribilovians to take fur seals 

on the Pribilof Islands if such taking is 

for subsistence uses and not 

accomplished in a wasteful manner (50 

CFR 216.71). NMFS works in 

partnership with the Pribilovians under 

co-management agreements pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act to 

discuss human influences on the 

ecosystem and issues of concern for the 

northern fur seal population on the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 39045 

Pribilof Islands in particular. NMFS 

prepared an Environmental Impact 

Statement for Setting the Subsistence 

Harvest of Northern Fur Seals (NMFS 

2005), which analyzed the effects of the 

subsistence harvest of fur seals on the 

Pribilof Islands. That analysis indicated 

that trophic level changes were not 

expected to occur, and NMFS has not 

observed trophic level changes resulting 

from the harvests in the intervening 

years. NMFS recently prepared a 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Management of 

Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur 

Seals on St. George, (NMFS 2014) and 

a Draft Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Management of 

Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur 

Seals on St. Paul (NMFS 2017). Both 

analyses indicate that trophic level 

changes still are not expected to occur. 

Comment 2: The currently authorized 

harvest is higher than is justifiable given 

that actual harvest numbers have been 

lower than authorized harvest levels 

since 1985 and given the continued 

decline in fur seal pup production. 

Response 2: NMFS disagrees. NMFS 

authorizes the harvest levels in order to 

satisfy the subsistence requirements of 

Alaska Natives on each island. NMFS 

evaluated the complexities of 

establishing an annual subsistence 

requirement in the EIS for the 

subsistence harvest of northern fur seals 

on the Pribilof Islands (NMFS 2005). 

The estimates of the number of seals 

expected to be taken annually over the 

next three years to satisfy the 

subsistence requirement reflects a 

combination of nutritional (food 

security), social, and cultural needs. The 

actual amount harvested in a given year 

may be less than the subsistence 

requirement and is dependent upon the 

seasonal availability of fur seals and 

other food resources as well as other 

factors such as environmental 

variability and the availability of 

harvesters. Through the co-management 

process NMFS and the Tribal 

governments have discussed the 

estimation of subsistence requirements 

and importance to community members 

to ensure the subsistence harvest levels 

are sufficient to account for 

environmental changes and changing 

needs of the Pribilovians. 

NMFS arrived at the authorized 

harvest level of 1,645 to 2,000 fur seals 

for St. Paul Island and 300 to 500 fur 

seals for St. George Island after 

considering these factors, consulting 

with Tribal representatives, and 

reviewing information in the 

environmental analyses which indicated 

that harvests up to this level will not 

have significant consequences for the 

fur seal population (NMFS 2005, 2014, 

and 2017). While NMFS acknowledges 

a decline in pup production, NMFS 

explained in the proposed notice that 

fur seal reproduction depends 

disproportionately on females. 

Consequently, the subsistence harvest of 

fur seals is limited to males that have 

not reached adulthood. Further, harvest 

at the maximum allowable level on St. 

George and St. Paul Islands would 

amount to 21.2 percent of the Potential 

Biological Removal (PBR) level (i.e., 

21.2 percent of the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from 

the stock while allowing the stock to 

reach or maintain the optimum 

sustainable population level). However, 

PBR assumes random mortality across 

all ages and both sexes. Because the 

subsistence harvest is regulated to select 

only sub-adult male fur seals (including 

pups on St. George) the population-level 

effect of the subsistence harvest on the 

stock is lower than 21.2 percent of PBR. 

Comment 3: The Pribilovians have 

managed to feed themselves and 

increase their own local population for 

over 30 years without the need of killing 

thousands of fur seals annually. 

Response 3: NMFS disagrees that the 

local populations on St. Paul and St. 

George have increased over the past 30 

years. Both the Alaska Native 

population and total population on St. 

Paul and St. George are smaller today 

than 30 years ago (NMFS 2017). In 

recent years fur seal harvests on both 

islands have been lower than the 

allowable harvest levels NMFS is 

identifying here (1,645 to 2,000 fur seals 

for St. Paul Island and 300 to 500 fur 

seals for St. George Island). As noted 

above in response to Comment 2, the 

actual amount harvested may be less 

than the full subsistence requirement 

due to factors such as environmental 

variability, availability of fur seals and 

other food resources, and the 

availability of harvesters. 

Comment 4: NMFS should cap the 

harvest levels at the highest number 

killed in the most recent five year 

period. 

Response 4: This comment is beyond 

the scope of this action. NMFS has 

developed the proposed and final notice 

pursuant to current regulations at 50 

CFR 216.72(b). These regulations dictate 

that NMFS provide a summary of the 

preceding three years of harvesting and 

a discussion of the number of seals 

expected to be taken annually over the 

next three years to satisfy the 

subsistence requirements of St. George 

and St. Paul Islands. Through this 

notice NMFS is neither proposing nor 

seeking comment on alternative ways to 

set harvest caps. 

Comment 5: NMFS should refrain 

from relying on the PBR level as the 

basis for its conclusion that the 

proposed harvest levels will not have 

adverse effects on the Eastern North 

Pacific Stock of fur seals. Instead NMFS 

should be using an approach that 

assesses the impact of losses to the 

population from subsistence harvests in 

addition to the population decline that 

already is occurring and that may 

continue to occur. 

Response 5: NMFS disagrees. 

Evaluating harvest levels relative to PBR 

is a valuable means to use the best 

available scientific information to 

evaluate the consequences of human 

caused mortality. As stated in response 

to Comment 2, harvest at the maximum 

allowable level on St. George and St. 

Paul Islands would amount to 21.2 of 

the PBR, and PBR assumes random 

mortality across all ages and both sexes. 

Because the subsistence harvest is 

regulated to select only sub-adult male 

fur seals (including pups on St. George) 

the population-level effects of the 

subsistence harvest on the stock is lower 

than 21.2 percent of PBR. 

In addition, NMFS has modeled and 

analyzed the population consequences 

of various harvest levels and age and sex 

restrictions on the harvest using 

alternative methods besides PBR, and 

has come to a similar determination: 

That the harvests of non-breeding male 

fur seals at the upper limit defined do 

not measurably effect the abundance or 

reproductive potential of the fur seal 

population, even in light of the observed 

decline in the population (NMFS 2005, 

2014). Analysis provided in the 2017 

draft SEIS on population consequences 

of various harvest levels and age and sex 

restrictions for St. Paul Island is also 

consistent with those conclusions. 

Comment 6: NMFS should provide a 

more rigorous analysis of subsistence 

needs, including a discussion of (1) why 

NMFS believes that those needs are 

more than five times higher than the 

average number of seals harvested per 

year on St. Paul over the past 15 years, 

(2) whether St. Paul residents have been 

foregoing the opportunity to stockpile 

meat during the harvest season for use 

later in the year and, if so, why this 

might be the case, and (3) how any 

shortfalls in the availability of seal meat 

may have been offset by greater reliance 

on other subsistence species (i.e., are 

data available that show corresponding 

trends in these other harvests?). 

Response 6: As indicated in response 

to Comment 2, NMFS, in consultation 

with the Tribal governments, considers 

recent harvest levels and nutritional 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39046 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

(food security), social, and cultural 

needs when developing estimates of the 

number of fur seals expected to be taken 

annually to satisfy the Pribilovians’ 

subsistence requirements over the next 

three years. During co-management 

meetings between NMFS and the Tribal 

governments, the Pribilovians conveyed 

that sudden, unanticipated, and 

prolonged environmental and/or 

socioeconomic changes may alter the 

annual subsistence requirements. As a 

result, the Pribilovian communities 

need flexibility built into the estimate of 

the number of fur seals expected to 

satisfy their subsistence requirements. 

The estimated number of seals expected 

to satisfy the subsistence requirements 

must be higher than the average number 

of seals harvested annually in recent 

years in order to ensure the Pribilovians’ 

subsistence requirements are satisfied 

annually over the next three years. 

Pribilovians forego opportunities to 

stockpile fur seal meat during the 

harvest season due to practical 

limitations and costs of freezer space, 

limited availability of volunteer 

harvesters due to competition with 

wage-earning jobs, and competition for 

available labor from the local halibut 

fishery. The Pribilovians have 

repeatedly indicated that seal meat is 

not interchangeable or replaceable with 

other meat. No other marine mammals 

are available in the same manner on the 

Pribilof Islands. Steller sea lion and 

harbor seal hunting primarily occurs 

during the winter and spring in the 

nearshore waters of the Pribilof Islands 

when few if any fur seals are present, 

and the harvest levels are modest due to 

limited availability. Approximately 20 

Steller sea lions were successfully 

retrieved each year on St. Paul over the 

past five years (Aleut Community of St. 

Paul Island unpublished data), and 

changes in any one year most likely 

represent a natural change in 

availability rather than the ability to 

substitute for the fur seal harvest by 

increasing hunting effort for sea lions. 

There are no data available to evaluate 

how changes in availability of one 

subsistence resource may be offset by 

another, and the Pribilovians have 

indicated that subsistence resources are 

not inter-changeable or replaceable. 

Pribilovians rely on fur seals to provide 

a significant portion of their annual 

meat requirement. In addition, as 

indicated in the response to Comment 2, 

the fur seal harvest provides a cultural 

sharing opportunity to connect the 

community with their environment and 

history. Even when fewer seals are 

harvested, the cultural component is 

important. Shortfalls of meat based on 

their availability can be offset, but not 

replaced, by greater use of store-bought 

or other subsistence resources. Both 

Pribilof communities regularly 

experience a lack of diversity and 

availability of store-bought and wild 

foods. The price and availability of 

store-bought and wild food on the 

Pribilof Islands can undermine food 

security and impact estimates of the 

number of fur seals necessary to meet 

the subsistence requirements of the 

Pribilovians. Further, community 

members must regularly choose between 

spending time pursuing subsistence 

resources to maintain cultural practices 

and food security versus spending time 

in wage-earning jobs to purchase storebought foods and other necessities. 

Comment 7: Harvest levels proposed 

for St. George are higher than the actual 

harvest reported since the regulatory 

change in 2014. The recent regulatory 

revisions to authorize the subsistence 

harvest of both sub-adult males and 

pups on St. George may have changed 

harvest patterns and the yield of meat 

per seal. As such, NMFS should provide 

a more rigorous analysis of the 

subsistence requirements of Pribilovians 

residing on St. George. 

Response 7: NMFS interprets this 

comment as requesting that we analyze 

the subsistence requirements of 

Pribilovians residing on St. George by 

analyzing the yield of meat per fur seal 

pup and sub-adult. Analyzing the yield 

of meat per fur seal pup and sub-adult 

would not provide an accurate estimate 

of the number of seals expected to be 

taken annually over the next three years 

to satisfy the subsistence requirements 

of Pribilovians on St. George. Meat is 

not the only edible subsistence resource 

obtained from fur seals. Seal oil, 

tongues, kidneys, and fermented seal 

flippers are highly valued subsistence 

resources which are not accurately 

reflected by measurements of edible 

meat. 

In addition, previous efforts by NMFS 

to quantify the yield of meat per seal (58 

FR 42027, August 6, 1993) created 

significant delays in the harvest process 

on St. Paul Island. This was largely a 

function of scientists and managers 

having to weigh and measure people’s 

food multiple times on the killing field. 

The additional handling ultimately 

extended the duration of the harvest, 

extended the time that seals were held 

in groups on the harvest grounds prior 

to stunning, and required harvesters to 

volunteer for longer periods. 

Comment 8: To the extent Native 

subsistence taking of northern fur seals 

is permitted, taking of fur seals for other 

than subsistence purposes should not be 

permitted. 

Response 8: NMFS agrees. As noted in 

response to Comment 1 above, the Fur 

Seal Act and its implementing 

regulations restrict the take of fur seals 

to take for subsistence uses and not 

accomplished in a wasteful manner. 

Comment 9: Pribilovians of St. Paul 

Island recently requested a revision of 

the harvest regulation to authorize, 

among other things, a longer harvest 

season, the use of firearms to harvest fur 

seals, the shooting of fur seals in the 

water, and the targeting of young 

animals that are not yet sexually 

dimorphic. The combined effect of the 

proposed revision in harvest guidelines 

appears likely to result in a dramatic 

increase in the number of animals killed 

each year such that close to 2000 fur 

seals could be killed annually. We 

support the ‘‘No Action’’ alternative that 

was presented in the notice of 

availability of the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

opportunity for public comment 

published in 83 FR 4337, January 13, 

2017. 

Response 9: This comment is beyond 

the scope of this action. NMFS will 

solicit comments separately on any 

proposal to revise the harvest 

regulations for St. Paul Island. 

Classification 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NMFS prepared an EIS evaluating the 

impacts on the human environment of 

the subsistence harvest of northern fur 

seals, which is available on the NMFS 

Web site (see ADDRESSES). A draft EIS 

was available for public review (69 FR 

53915; September 3, 2004), and NMFS 

incorporated the comments into the 

final EIS (May 2005). A draft SEIS was 

prepared regarding the management of 

the subsistence harvest of northern fur 

seals on St. George Island, made 

available for public review (79 FR 

31110; May 30, 2014), and NMFS 

incorporated the public comments into 

the final SEIS (79 FR 49774; August 22, 

2014). A draft SEIS was prepared 

regarding the management of the 

subsistence harvest of northern fur seals 

on St. Paul Island, made available for 

public review (82 FR 4336; January 13, 

2017), and NMFS is reviewing those 

public comments separately from the 

action considered here. An SEIS should 

be prepared if (1) the agency makes 

substantial changes in the proposed 

action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns; or (2) 

significant new circumstances or 

information exist relevant to 

environmental concerns and bearing on 

the proposed action or its impacts (40 

CFR 1502.9(c)(1)). After reviewing the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 39047 

information contained in the 2005 EIS 

and 2014 SEIS, the Regional 

Administrator has determined that (1) 

approval of the proposed 2017–2019 fur 

seal subsistence harvest notice does not 

constitute a change in the action; and (2) 

there are no significant new 

circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns and bearing on 

the proposed action or its impacts. 

Additionally, the proposed 2017–2019 

fur seal subsistence harvest levels will 

result in environmental impacts within 

the scope of those analyzed and 

disclosed in the previous EIS. Therefore, 

supplemental NEPA documentation is 

not necessary to implement the 2017– 

2019 fur seal subsistence harvest levels 

discussed in this document. 

Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

This proposed action is authorized 

under 50 CFR 216.72(b) and is not 

significant for the purposes of Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, 

Department of Commerce, certified to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration at the 

proposed action stage that it would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The harvest of northern fur seals on the 

Pribilof Islands, Alaska, is for 

subsistence purposes only, and the 

estimate of subsistence need would not 

have an adverse economic impact on 

any small entities. Background 

information related to the certification 

was included in the proposed estimates 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 18, 2017 (82 FR 22797). We 

received no comments on this 

certification and are not aware of 

anything that would change the 

conclusion of the certification; therefore 

a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required for this action, and none has 

been prepared. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not contain any 

collections of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This action does not contain policies 

with federalism implications sufficient 

to warrant preparation of a federalism 

assessment under E.O. 13132 because 

this action does not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Nonetheless, 

NMFS worked closely with local 

governments in the Pribilof Islands, and 

these estimates of subsistence use and 

need were prepared by the local 

governments in St. Paul and St. George, 

with assistance from NMFS officials. 

Executive Order 13175—Native 

Consultation 

Executive Order 13175 of November 

6, 2000 (25 U.S.C. 450 Note), the 

executive Memorandum of April 29, 

1994 (25 U.S.C. 450 note), the American 

Indian Native Policy of the U.S. 

Department of Commerce (March 30, 

1995), the Department of Commerce’s 

Tribal Consultation Policy (including 

the Department of Commerce 

Administrative Order 218–8, April 26, 

2012), and the NOAA Procedures for 

Government-to-Government 

Consultation With Federally Recognized 

Indian Tribes and Alaska Native 

Corporations (November 12, 2013) 

outline the responsibilities of NMFS in 

matters affecting tribal interests. Section 

161 of Public Law 108–100 (188 Stat. 

452) as amended by section 518 of 

Public Law 108–447 (118 Stat. 3267) 

extends the consultation requirements 

of E.O. 13175 to Alaska Native 

corporations. NMFS contacted the tribal 

governments of St. Paul and St. George 

Islands and their respective local Native 

corporations (Tanadgusix and Tanaq) 

about setting the next three years’ 

subsistence requirements and 

considered their input in formulating 

the proposed action. NMFS notified the 

tribal governments and Native 

corporations when the proposed action 

published in the Federal Register for a 

30-day comment period (82 FR 22797, 

May 18, 2017); no comments were 

received. 

Executive Order 13175—Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This rule is not expected to be an E.O. 

13771 regulatory action because this 

rule is not significant under E.O. 12866. 

Dated: August 11, 2017. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17379 Filed 8–16–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 150121066–5717–02] 

RIN 0648–XF615 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure of the 

coastwide General category fishery. 

SUMMARY: NMFS closes the coastwide 

General category fishery for large 

medium and giant (i.e., measuring 73 

inches curved fork length or greater) 

Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) until the 

General category reopens on September 

1, 2017. This action is being taken to 

prevent further overharvest of the 

General category June through August 

subquota and help ensure the fishery 

continues to the end of the calendar 

year. 

DATES: Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, 

August 16, 2017, through August 31, 

2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 

978–281–9260. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations implemented under the 

authority of the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et 

seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by 

persons and vessels subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 

635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. 

BFT quota recommended by the 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

among the various domestic fishing 

categories, per the allocations 

established in the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

Fishery Management Plan (2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, 

October 2, 2006) and amendments. 

NMFS is required, under 

§ 635.28(a)(1), to file a closure notice 

with the Office of the Federal Register 

for publication when a BFT quota is 

reached or is projected to be reached. 

On and after the effective date and time 

of such notification, for the remainder of 

the fishing year or for a specified period 

as indicated in the notification, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES