41388 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 168 / Thursday, August 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 14, 2017. 

Deborah Jordan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18499 Filed 8–30–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 170109046–7749–01] 

RIN 0648–XF156 

Pacific Island Pelagic Fisheries; 2017 

U.S. Territorial Longline Bigeye Tuna 

Catch Limits 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed specifications; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a 2017 limit 

of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of longlinecaught bigeye tuna for each U.S. Pacific 

territory (American Samoa, Guam, and 

the Northern Mariana Islands). NMFS 

would allow each territory to allocate 

up to 1,000 mt each year to U.S. 

longline fishing vessels in a specified 

fishing agreement that meets established 

criteria. As an accountability measure, 

NMFS would monitor, attribute, and 

restrict (if necessary) catches of 

longline-caught bigeye tuna, including 

catches made under a specified fishing 

agreement. The proposed catch limits 

and accountability measures would 

support the long-term sustainability of 

fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific 

Islands. 

DATES: NMFS must receive comments 

by September 15, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2017–0004, by either of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017- 

0004, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Send written comments to 

Michael D. Tosatto, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands 

Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 

176, Honolulu, HI 96818. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable 

Fisheries, 808–725–5176. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

proposes to specify a 2017 catch limit of 

2,000 mt of longline-caught bigeye tuna 

for each U.S. Pacific territory. NMFS 

would also authorize each U.S. Pacific 

territory to allocate up to 1,000 mt of its 

2,000-mt bigeye tuna limit to U.S. 

longline fishing vessels that are 

permitted to fish under the Fishery 

Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of 

the Western Pacific (FEP). Those vessels 

must be identified in a specified fishing 

agreement with the applicable territory. 

The Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council recommended 

these specifications. The proposed catch 

and allocation limits and accountability 

measures are identical to those that 

NMFS specified for each U.S. territory 

in 2016 (81 FR 63145, September 14, 

2016). 

NMFS will monitor catches of 

longline-caught bigeye tuna by the 

longline fisheries of each U.S Pacific 

territory, including catches made by 

U.S. longline vessels operating under 

specified fishing agreements. The 

criteria that a specified fishing 

agreement must meet, and the process 

for attributing longline-caught bigeye 

tuna, will follow the procedures in 50 

CFR 665.819 (Territorial catch and 

fishing effort limits). When NMFS 

projects that a territorial catch or 

allocation limit will be reached, NMFS 

would, as an accountability measure, 

prohibit the catch and retention of 

longline-caught bigeye tuna by vessels 

in the applicable territory (if the 

territorial catch limit is projected to be 

reached), and/or vessels in a specified 

fishing agreement (if the allocation limit 

is projected to be reached). 

On March 20, 2017, in Territory of 

American Samoa v. NMFS, et al. (16– 

cv–95, D. Haw), a Federal judge vacated 

and set aside a NMFS rule that amended 

the American Samoa Large Vessel 

Prohibited Area (LVPA) for eligible 

longliners. The Court held that the 

action was inconsistent with the ‘‘other 

applicable law’’ provision of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act by not 

considering the protection and 

preservation of cultural fishing rights in 

American Samoa under the Instruments 

of Cession. The Instruments of Cession 

do not specifically mention cultural 


nlaroche on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 168 / Thursday, August 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 41389 

fishing rights, and the Court’s decision, 

although recognizing the need to protect 

those rights, does not define them. The 

Council is currently reevaluating the 

LVPA rule, including options to define 

cultural fishing rights in American 

Samoa that are subject to preservation 

and protection. NMFS specifically 

invites public comments on this 

proposed action that address the impact 

of this proposed rule on cultural fishing 

rights in American Samoa. 

NMFS will consider public comments 

on the proposed action and will 

announce the final specifications in the 

Federal Register. NMFS must receive 

any comments by the date provided in 

the DATES heading. NMFS may not 

consider any comments not postmarked 

or otherwise transmitted by that date. 

Regardless of the final specifications, all 

other management measures will 

continue to apply in the longline 

fishery. 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

has determined that this proposed 

specification is consistent with the 

applicable FEP, other provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable laws, subject to further 

consideration after public comment. 

Certification of Finding of No 

Significant Impact on Substantial 

Number of Small Entities 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce has 

certified to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration that these proposed 

specifications, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. A 

description of the proposed action, why 

it is being considered, and the legal 

basis for it are contained in the 

preamble to this proposed specification. 

In this action, NMFS proposes a 2017 

limit of 2,000 metric tons (mt) of 

longline-caught bigeye tuna for each 

U.S. Pacific territory (American Samoa, 

Guam, and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)). 

Without this catch limit, these U.S 

territories would not be subject to a 

limit because, as Participating 

Territories to the Western and Central 

Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), 

they do not have a bigeye tuna limit 

under international measures adopted 

by the WCPFC. The proposed action 

would also allow each territory to 

allocate up to 1,000 mt of its limit to 

U.S. longline fishing vessels in a 

specified fishing agreement. Each 

agreement must meet the established 

criteria in 50 CFR 665.819. As an 

accountability measure, NMFS would 

monitor, attribute, and restrict (if 

necessary) catches of longline-caught 

bigeye tuna by vessels in the applicable 

U.S. territory (if the territorial catch 

limit is projected to be reached), or by 

vessels operating under the applicable 

specified fishing agreement (if the 

allocation limit is projected to be 

reached). Payments under the specified 

fishing agreements support fisheries 

development in the U.S. Pacific 

territories and the long-term 

sustainability of fishery resources of the 

U.S. Pacific Islands. 

This proposed action would directly 

apply to longline vessels permitted 

Federally under the Fishery Ecosystem 

Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western 

Pacific (Pelagic FEP). Specifically, this 

action would apply to Hawaii longline 

limited entry, American Samoa longline 

limited entry, and Western Pacific 

general longline permit holders. 

As of July 2017, there were 145 

vessels with Hawaii permits (out of 164 

total) and 44 with American Samoa 

permits (out of 60 total). There were no 

Western Pacific general longline permits 

as of July 2017. 

Based on logbook data collected by 

NMFS, Hawaii longline vessels landed 

approximately 33,401,000 lb of fish 

valued at $101,582,000 in 2016. With 

142 vessels making either a deep- or 

shallow-set trip in 2016, the ex-vessel 

value of pelagic fish caught by Hawaiibased longline fisheries averaged about 

$715,336 per vessel in 2016. Fishery 

performance data for the American 

Samoa longline fishery in 2016 is not 

yet available. In 2015, American Samoabased longline vessels landed 

approximately 4,756,195 lb of fish, of 

which 4,662,869 lb was sold, valued at 

$4,994,004. Albacore made up the 

largest proportion of longline 

commercial landings at 3,475,497 lb. 

With 18 active longline vessels in 2015, 

the ex-vessel value of pelagic fish 

caught by American Samoa-based 

longline fisheries averaged about 

$277,445 per vessel in 2015. 

For Regulatory Flexibility Act 

purposes only, NMFS has established a 

small business size standard for 

businesses, including their affiliates, 

whose primary industry is commercial 

fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business 

primarily engaged in commercial fishing 

(NAICS code 114111) is classified as a 

small business if it is independently 

owned and operated, is not dominant in 

its field of operation (including its 

affiliates), and has combined annual 

receipts not in excess of $11 million for 

all its affiliated operations worldwide. 

Based on available information, NMFS 

has determined that all vessels 

permitted Federally under the Pelagic 

FEP are small entities, i.e., they are 

engaged in the business of fish 

harvesting (NAICS 114111), are 

independently owned or operated, are 

not dominant in their field of operation, 

and have annual gross receipts not in 

excess of $11 million. Even though this 

proposed action would apply to a 

substantial number of vessels, the 

implementation of this action would not 

result in significant adverse economic 

impacts to individual vessels. 

The Pelagic FEP established a process 

by which NMFS could specify catch 

and/or effort limits for pelagic fisheries 

in American Samoa, Guam and CNMI, 

regardless of whether the WCPFC 

adopts a limit for those entities or not. 

The Pelagic FEP also allows NMFS to 

authorize the government of each 

territory to allocate a portion of their 

catch and/or effort limits through 

territorial fishing agreements. 

Specifically, bigeye tuna landed by 

vessels included in a fishing agreement 

are attributed to the U.S territory to 

which the agreement applies, and not 

counted towards the U.S. bigeye tuna 

limit established by NMFS under a 

separate authority in 50 CFR 300, 

subpart O. 

In accordance with Federal 

regulations at 50 CFR 300, subpart O, 

vessels that possess both an American 

Samoa and Hawaii longline permit are 

not subject to the U.S bigeye tuna limit. 

Therefore, these vessels may retain 

bigeye tuna and land fish in Hawaii 

after the date that NMFS projects the 

fishery would reach that limit. Further, 

catches of bigeye tuna made by such 

vessels are attributed to American 

Samoa, provided the fish was not caught 

in the EEZ around Hawaii. In 2016, all 

dual American Samoa/Hawaii longline 

permitted vessels were included in the 

fishing agreement with CNMI. 

Therefore, NMFS attributed bigeye 

catches by those vessels to the CNMI. 

On August 4, 2017, NMFS established 

a 2017 bigeye tuna catch limit of 3,138 

mt applicable to U.S. longline fisheries 

(82 FR 36341). The 2017 limit is about 

12 percent lower than the 2016 limit. It 

accounts for the planned reduction of 

the U.S. limit from 3,554 mt in 2016 to 

3,345 mt in 2017, and adds a further 

reduction for exceeding the 2016 limit 

by 207 mt. Based on preliminary 

logbook data, NMFS expects the fishery 

to reach this limit in early September 

2017. 

The proposed action would 

potentially benefit the Hawaii fishery by 

allowing participants to fish under 

specified fishing agreements with one or 


nlaroche on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
41390 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 168 / Thursday, August 31, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

more territories. This could enhance the 

ability of these vessels to extend fishing 

effort in the western and central Pacific 

Ocean after reaching the 2017 U.S. limit 

and provide more domestic bigeye tuna 

for markets in Hawaii and elsewhere. 

Providing an opportunity to land bigeye 

tuna in Hawaii in the last quarter of the 

year when market demand is high 

would result in positive economic 

benefits for fishery participants and net 

benefits to the Nation. Allowing 

participating territories to enter into 

specified fishing agreements under this 

action benefits the territories by 

providing funds for territorial fisheries 

development projects. Establishing a 

2,000 mt longline limit for bigeye tuna 

catch where territories are not subject to 

WCPFC longline limits is not likely to 

adversely affect vessels based in the 

territories. 

The historical catch of bigeye tuna by 

the American Samoa longline fleet has 

been less than 2,000 mt, even including 

the catch of vessels based in American 

Samoa, catch by dual permitted vessels 

that land their catch in Hawaii, and 

catch attributed to American Samoa 

from U.S. vessels under specified 

fishing agreements. No longline fishing 

has occurred in Guam or the CNMI 

since 2011. 

Under the proposed action, longline 

fisheries managed under the Pelagic FEP 

are not expected to expand substantially 

nor change the manner in which they 

are currently conducted, (i.e., area 

fished, number of vessels longline 

fishing, number of trips taken per year, 

number of hooks set per vessel during 

a trip, depth of hooks, or deployment 

techniques in setting longline gear), due 

to existing operational constraints in the 

fleet, the limited entry permit programs, 

and protected species mitigation 

requirements. The proposed rule does 

not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

other Federal rules and is not expected 

to have significant impact on small 

organizations or government 

jurisdictions. Furthermore, there would 

be little, if any, disproportionate adverse 

economic impacts from the proposed 

rule based on gear type or relative vessel 

size. The proposed rule also will not 

place a substantial number of small 

entities, or any segment of small 

entities, at a significant competitive 

disadvantage to large entities. 

For the reasons above, NMFS does not 

expect the proposed action to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

such, an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required and none has 

been prepared. 

This action is exempt from review 

under the procedures of E.O. 12866 

because this action contains no 

implementing regulations. 

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

Dated: August 25, 2017. 

Chris Oliver, 

Assistant Administrator, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18452 Filed 8–30–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


nlaroche on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS