[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41239-41251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14967]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 300

[Docket No. 160205084-6510-02]
RIN 0648-BF76


International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 
for Highly Migratory Species; Purse Seine Observer Requirements, and 
Fishing Restrictions and Limits in Purse Seine and Longline Fisheries 
for 2016-2017

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 
Convention Implementation Act (WCPFC Implementation Act), NMFS issues 
this final rule that, first, requires that U.S. purse seine vessels 
carry observers on fishing trips in the western and central Pacific 
Ocean (WCPO); second, establishes restrictions in 2016 and 2017 on the 
use of fish aggregating devices (FADs) by U.S. purse seine vessels in 
the WCPO; and third, establishes limits in 2016 and 2017 on the amount 
of bigeye tuna that may be captured by U.S. longline vessels in the 
WCPO. This action implementing specific provisions of Conservation and 
Management Measure (CMM) 2015-01 is necessary to satisfy the 
obligations of the United States as a Contracting Party to the 
Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish 
Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention), pursuant 
to the authority of the WCPFC Implementation Act.

DATES: Effective July 25, 2016, except Sec.  300.223(b)(1) introductory 
text and paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv), and Sec.  300.224(a), which 
shall be effective July 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting documents prepared for this final rule, 
including the regulatory impact review (RIR), and the programmatic 
environmental assessment (PEA) and supplemental information report 
(SIR) prepared for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) purposes, 
as well as the proposed rule, are available via the Federal e-
rulemaking Portal, at www.regulations.gov (search for Docket ID NOAA-
NMFS-2016-0031). Those documents are also available from NMFS at the 
following address: Michael Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, 
Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, 
Honolulu, HI 96818.
    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) prepared under 
authority of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is included in the 
Classification section of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Graham, NMFS PIRO, 808-725-5032.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On April 27, 2016, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (81 FR 24772). The proposed rule was open for public comment 
until May 12, 2016.
    This final rule is issued under the authority of the WCPFC 
Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), which authorizes the 
Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State and 
the Secretary of the Department in which the United States Coast Guard 
is operating (currently the Department of Homeland Security), to 
promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the 
obligations of the United States under the Convention, including the 
decisions of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of 
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean 
(Commission or WCPFC). The authority to promulgate regulations has been 
delegated to NMFS.
    This final rule implements specific provisions of the Commission's 
Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2015-01, ``Conservation and 
Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin, and Skipjack Tuna in the 
Western and Central Pacific Ocean.'' The preamble to the proposed rule 
provides background information on the Convention and the Commission, 
the provisions of CMM 2015-01 that are being implemented in this rule, 
and the basis for the proposed regulations, which is not repeated here.

The Action

    This final rule includes three elements, described in detail below, 
that will be included in regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart O.

1. Purse Seine Observer Requirements

    This final rule prohibits U.S. purse seine vessels from fishing in 
the Convention Area between the latitudes of 20 [deg]N. and 20 [deg]S. 
without a WCPFC observer on board, with the exception of fishing trips 
during which any fishing in the Convention Area takes place entirely 
within areas under the jurisdiction of a single nation other than the 
United States. Although U.S. purse seine vessels are exempt from this 
requirement on trips in which fishing occurs only in the waters of a 
single foreign nation, it is expected that such foreign nations will 
require that U.S. purse seine vessels carry observers if fishing in 
their waters.
    A WCPFC observer is an observer deployed from an observer program 
that has been authorized by the Commission to be part of the WCPFC 
Regional Observer Programme (see definition at 50 CFR 300.211). 
Currently, the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) observer 
program, from which observers for the U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet have 
traditionally been deployed, and the NMFS observer program, among 
others, are authorized as part of the WCPFC Regional Observer 
Programme. Thus, observers deployed by these programs are considered 
WCPFC observers.

2. Purse Seine FAD Restrictions for 2016-2017

    This final rule establishes restrictions on the use of FADs by 
purse seine vessels, including periods in 2016 and 2017 during which 
specific uses of FADs are prohibited (FAD prohibition periods), annual 
limits in 2016 and 2017 on the number of purse seine sets that may be 
made on FADs (FAD sets), and restrictions on the use of FADs on the 
high seas throughout 2017.
    Specifically, this final rule establishes FAD prohibition periods 
from July 1 through September 30 in each of 2016 and 2017, a limit of 
2,522 FAD sets in each of 2016 and 2017, and a

[[Page 41240]]

prohibition on FAD sets on the high seas during 2017.
    As defined at 50 CFR 300.211, a FAD is ``any artificial or natural 
floating object, whether anchored or not and whether situated at the 
water surface or not, that is capable of aggregating fish, as well as 
any object used for that purpose that is situated on board a vessel or 
otherwise out of the water. The definition of FAD does not include a 
vessel.'' Although the definition of a FAD does not include a vessel, 
the restrictions during the FAD prohibition periods include certain 
activities related to fish that have aggregated in association with a 
vessel, or drawn by a vessel, as described below.
    During the July-September FAD prohibition periods in each of 2016 
and 2017, after the 2,522 FAD set limit is reached in 2016 or 2017 
(until the end of the respective calendar year), and on the high seas 
throughout 2017, owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels of the 
United States are prohibited from doing any of the following activities 
in the Convention Area in the area between 20 [deg]N. latitude and 20 
[deg]S. latitude:
    (1) Set a purse seine around a FAD or within one nautical mile of a 
FAD.
    (2) Set a purse seine in a manner intended to capture fish that 
have aggregated in association with a FAD or a vessel, such as by 
setting the purse seine in an area from which a FAD or a vessel has 
been moved or removed within the previous eight hours, setting the 
purse seine in an area in which a FAD has been inspected or handled 
within the previous eight hours, or setting the purse seine in an area 
into which fish were drawn by a vessel from the vicinity of a FAD or a 
vessel.
    (3) Deploy a FAD into the water.
    (4) Repair, clean, maintain, or otherwise service a FAD, including 
any electronic equipment used in association with a FAD, in the water 
or on a vessel while at sea, except that: A FAD may be inspected and 
handled as needed to identify the FAD, identify and release 
incidentally captured animals, un-foul fishing gear, or prevent damage 
to property or risk to human safety; and a FAD may be removed from the 
water and if removed may be cleaned, provided that it is not returned 
to the water.
    (5) From a purse seine vessel or any associated skiffs, other 
watercraft or equipment, submerge lights under water; suspend or hang 
lights over the side of the purse seine vessel, skiff, watercraft or 
equipment, or direct or use lights in a manner other than as needed to 
illuminate the deck of the purse seine vessel or associated skiffs, 
watercraft or equipment, to comply with navigational requirements, and 
to ensure the health and safety of the crew. These prohibitions do not 
apply during emergencies as needed to prevent human injury or the loss 
of human life, the loss of the purse seine vessel, skiffs, watercraft 
or aircraft, or environmental damage.

3. Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits for 2016-2017

    This final rule establishes limits on the amount of bigeye tuna 
that may be caught in the Convention Area by U.S. fishing vessels using 
longline gear in each of 2016 and 2017. The limit for 2016 is 3,554 mt, 
and the limit for 2017 is 3,345 mt. If NMFS later determines that there 
was an overage of the limit for 2016, NMFS will adjust the 2017 limit 
in accordance with the provisions of CMM 2015-01 and any other 
pertinent Commission decisions in force at the time.
    The 2016 and 2017 longline bigeye tuna catch limits apply only to 
U.S-flagged longline vessels operating as part of the U.S. longline 
fisheries. The limits do not apply to U.S. longline vessels operating 
as part of the longline fisheries of American Samoa, the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands, or Guam, which are U.S. Participating 
Territories in the Commission. Existing regulations at 50 CFR 
300.224(b), (c), and (d) detail the manner in which longline-caught 
bigeye tuna is attributed among the fisheries of the United States and 
the U.S. Participating Territories.
    The catch limits will be measured in terms of retained catches--
that is, bigeye tuna that are caught by longline gear and retained on 
board the vessel.
    As set forth under the existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(e), 
if NMFS determines that the 2016 or 2017 limit is expected to be 
reached before the end of the respective calendar year, NMFS will 
publish a notice in the Federal Register to announce specific fishing 
restrictions that will be effective from the date the limit is expected 
to be reached until the end of that calendar year. NMFS will publish 
the notice of the restrictions at least 7 calendar days before the 
effective date to provide vessel owners and operators with advance 
notice. Periodic forecasts of the date the limit is expected to be 
reached will be made available to the public on the Web site of the 
NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, at www.fpir.noaa.gov/SFD/SFD_regs_3.html, to help vessel owners and operators plan for the 
possibility of the limit being reached.
    As set forth under the existing regulations at 50 CFR 300.224(f), 
if the 2016 or 2017 limit is reached, the following restrictions will 
go into effect:
    (1) Retaining on board, transshipping, or landing bigeye tuna: 
Starting on the effective date of the restrictions and extending 
through December 31 of the applicable year, it will be prohibited to 
use a U.S. fishing vessel to retain on board, transship, or land bigeye 
tuna captured in the Convention Area by longline gear, with three 
exceptions, as described below.
    First, any bigeye tuna already on board a fishing vessel upon the 
effective date of the restrictions may be retained on board, 
transshipped, and/or landed, provided that they are landed within 14 
days after the restrictions become effective. A vessel that had 
declared to NMFS pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a) that the current trip 
type is shallow-setting will not be subject to this 14-day landing 
restriction, so these vessels will be able to land bigeye tuna more 
than 14 days after the restrictions become effective.
    Second, bigeye tuna captured by longline gear may be retained on 
board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are caught by a fishing 
vessel registered for use under a valid American Samoa Longline Limited 
Access Permit, or if they are landed in American Samoa, Guam, or the 
CNMI. However, the bigeye tuna must not be caught in the portion of the 
U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) surrounding the Hawaiian 
Archipelago, and must be landed by a U.S. fishing vessel operated in 
compliance with a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.
    Third, bigeye tuna captured by longline gear may be retained on 
board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are caught by a vessel that 
is included in a valid specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 
665.819(d), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(f)(1)(iv).
    (2) Transshipping bigeye tuna to certain vessels: To the extent 
authorized under the prohibition described above on ``retaining on 
board, transshipping, or landing bigeye tuna,'' starting on the 
effective date of the restrictions and extending through December 31 of 
the applicable year, it will be prohibited to transship bigeye tuna 
caught by longline gear in the Convention Area to any vessel other than 
a U.S. fishing vessel operated in compliance with a valid permit issued 
under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.
    (3) Fishing inside and outside the Convention Area: To help ensure 
compliance with the restrictions related to bigeye tuna caught by 
longline gear in the Convention Area, this final rule

[[Page 41241]]

establishes two additional, related prohibitions that will go into 
effect starting on the effective date of the restrictions and extending 
through December 31 of the applicable year. First, vessels will be 
prohibited from fishing with longline gear both inside and outside the 
Convention Area during the same fishing trip, with the exception of a 
fishing trip that is in progress at the time the announced restrictions 
go into effect. In the case of a fishing trip that is in progress at 
the time the restrictions go into effect, the vessel still must land 
any bigeye tuna taken in the Convention Area within 14 days of the 
effective date of the restrictions, as described above. Second, if a 
vessel is used to fish using longline gear outside the Convention Area 
and enters the Convention Area at any time during the same fishing 
trip, the longline gear on the fishing vessel must be stowed in a 
manner so as not to be readily available for fishing while the vessel 
is in the Convention Area. These two prohibitions will not apply to 
vessels on declared shallow-setting trips pursuant to 50 CFR 
665.803(a), or vessels operating for the purposes of this rule as part 
of the longline fisheries of American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI. This 
second group includes vessels registered for use under valid American 
Samoa Longline Limited Access Permits; vessels landing their bigeye 
tuna catch in one of the three U.S. Participating Territories, so long 
as these vessels conduct fishing activities in accordance with the 
conditions described above; and vessels included in a specified fishing 
agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(d), in accordance with 50 CFR 
300.224(f)(1)(iv).

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received several comments on the proposed rule. The comments 
are summarized below, followed by responses from NMFS.
    Comment 1: I support the proposed regulations; they are logical 
steps towards sustainable use of international fisheries and will have 
a positive impact on these fisheries and will contribute to improving 
sustainability of tropical tuna stocks. Additionally, the regulations 
may set a new standard for other nations to improve regulations on 
these important and vulnerable resources.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment.
    Comment 2: The Hawaii Longline Association commented as follows on 
the proposed longline bigeye tuna catch limits for 2016-2017.
    It is well established that the United States cannot end 
overfishing of bigeye tuna in the WCPO through unilateral actions, and 
unilateral suppression of U.S. commercial longline bigeye tuna fishing 
would be counterproductive to conservation of bigeye tuna and other 
species.
    We understand that there was no overage of the U.S. longline bigeye 
tuna catch limit for 2015, so we expect the 2016 limit to be 3,554 mt, 
as in the proposed rule. If the 2016 limit is reached and a specified 
fishing agreement (under 50 CFR 665.819(c)) is effective and has been 
approved at the time the limit is reached, any fish landed immediately 
after the limit is reached should be attributed to the U.S. territory 
that is a party to the specified fishing agreement.
    In 2015 the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery was closed for an 
extended period in the WCPO and a great many vessels had to cease 
fishing entirely--even though a specified fishing agreement had been 
executed--because NMFS' issuance of territory specification regulations 
was delayed. We request that NMFS act promptly and with all due 
diligence in completing the territory specification rulemaking process 
in 2016.
    Response: NMFS agrees that ending overfishing of bigeye tuna will 
require multilateral efforts by the countries involved in fisheries for 
the stock.
    With respect to the 2015 longline bigeye tuna catch limit, the 
commenter's understanding that there was no overage of the 2015 limit 
is correct. NMFS explained in the proposed rule that if, after 
publishing the proposed rule, NMFS determines that there was an overage 
in 2015, NMFS would adjust the 2016 limit as follows: An amount equal 
to the overage would be subtracted from 3,554 mt to determine the 
annual limit for 2016. Since publication of the proposed rule, NMFS has 
determined that that there was no overage of the 2015 limit. As a 
result, the limit for 2016, as established in this final rule, is 
unchanged from the proposed limit, 3,554 mt.
    With respect to what will occur if the 2016 longline bigeye tuna 
limit is reached, bigeye tuna caught by vessels included in specified 
fishing agreements under 50 CFR 665.819(c) will be attributed among 
fisheries according to the existing criteria and procedures at 50 CFR 
300.224(d) and 665.819, which are not revised by this final rule. NMFS 
emphasizes that whether a given bigeye tuna will be attributed to the 
U.S. territory that is party to a specified fishing agreement will 
depend on, among other things, the start date for the agreement as 
determined under 50 CFR 665.819(c)(9).
    With respect to the issuance of specifications related to longline 
bigeye tuna catch limits for the U.S. territories and specified fishing 
agreements for 2016, NMFS acknowledges the comment and will undertake 
the rulemaking process in accordance with applicable laws and 
regulations.
    Comment 3: The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) submitted 
comments stating that it has a strong interest in eliminating fisheries 
impacts on marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (MMPA), as well as marine species listed under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA).
    In support of its comments, CBD stated that WCPO fisheries involve 
primarily purse seine and longline fishing, targeting bigeye, 
yellowfin, and skipjack tuna species, but that bycatch in these 
fisheries is common, sometimes accounting for more than 30 percent of a 
ship's annual haul. CBD stated that every year, fishing fleets are 
known to ensnare species protected under the MMPA and ESA as part of 
their fishing operation, but observers on U.S. vessels only conduct 
limited identification and reporting of impacts to protected marine 
mammals and sea turtles, and observers remain undertrained for this 
task. CBD noted that the Biological Opinion on the Effects of the U.S. 
Tuna Purse Seine Fishery in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean on 
Listed Sea Turtles and Marine Mammals (2006 BiOp) described limitations 
on observer data collected for the U.S. purse seine fishery operating 
in the WCPO regarding the specific protected species with which the 
fishery interacts. Due to the limitations on the data, the 2006 BiOp 
did not estimate the total number of marine mammals projected to be 
captured each year, and NMFS did not set a take limit for these 
species. CBD noted that according to the 2006 BiOp, four of the 12 
recorded capture events between 1997 and 2004 involved interactions 
with whale species, possibly involving multiple individuals each time.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that that there were limitations in 
available data during completion of the 2006 BiOp. Beginning in 2010, 
however, consistent with WCPFC conservation and management measures, 
the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery has been subject to increased 
observer coverage requirements adopted by the WCPFC. With this 
increased observer coverage, more robust data have become available. 
NMFS reinitiated formal ESA Section 7 consultation for the WCPO purse 
seine fishery for the effects of the fishery on the recently listed 
Indo-West Pacific Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the scalloped 
hammerhead shark, and we expect completion of formal

[[Page 41242]]

consultation for that species by the end of 2016. NMFS also is 
developing a biological assessment for the U.S. WCPO purse seine 
fishery in anticipation of reinitiating ESA Section 7 consultation for 
one or more other species, as may be warranted, based on raw observer 
data recently obtained from the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency 
(FFA), located in Honiara, Solomon Islands.
    Comment 4: CBD submitted comments stating that in the 2006 BiOp, 
NMFS estimated that purse seining in the WCPO would take 61 sea turtles 
annually, and possibly as many as 122. In addition to being caught in 
nets, NMFS also determined in the 2006 BiOp that ship strikes remain a 
risk to both sea turtles and marine mammals, though the 2006 BiOp 
failed to estimate the number of individuals that may be taken in this 
manner or to set take limits based on assumptions regarding the risk of 
ship strikes.
    Response: The 2006 BiOp provides information on worldwide ship 
strikes of whales, but indicates that there were no recorded ship 
strikes in the action area and that observer data for the U.S. WCPO 
purse seine fishery available at the time indicated that interactions 
with large whales, including ESA-listed species, were relatively 
uncommon in both the action area and throughout the Pacific Ocean. 
According to the 2006 BiOp, of the 292 recorded ship strikes from the 
years 1975 to 2002, 134 incidents had a known vessel type and fishing 
vessels were responsible for four of those 134 ship strikes. Thus, NMFS 
determined that the probability of a vessel in the U.S. WCPO purse 
seine fishery colliding with listed whale species was low in the action 
area.
    The 2006 BiOp also states that relative to other threats, vessel 
collisions are not considered a current problem for sea turtle species 
in the action area, with the possible exception of green and hawksbill 
turtles in Hawaii and green turtles in Palau. The 2006 BiOp indicates 
that there are no reports of ship strikes of the U.S. WCPO purse seine 
fishery on sea turtles. Moreover, the 2006 BiOp states that data 
regarding sea turtles in the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery available at 
the time indicate that all sea turtles caught in nets were released 
alive.
    Comment 5: CBD submitted comments stating that in order for 
reporting to be meaningful and effective, NMFS must ensure observers 
are properly trained and that they provide accurate, reliable reports 
of protected animals taken down to the species level. According to CBD, 
the 2006 BiOp and the PEA highlight that the quality of purse seine 
observer data is unacceptably low. Moreover, CBD stated, one of the 
enforceable terms and conditions in the BiOp is to improve data 
collection, as NMFS mandated that the agency work to ensure that 
observers collect standardized information regarding the incidental 
capture, injury, and mortality of sea turtles including species, gear 
and set information for each interaction that occurs. That NMFS has no 
observer data regarding protected species is evidence that this term 
and condition has not been met. CBD stated that to ensure compliance 
with the ESA, the observer program must have a separate and equal focus 
of recording and reporting adequate information on the species taken, 
the number of impacted individuals in each observed take event, and all 
observed impacts to these individuals, in light of the low threshold 
for take. Without this information, it is impossible for NMFS to ensure 
that the WCPO fishery participants are adhering to the terms of its 
2006 Incidental Take Statement (ITS). Additionally, observers should 
not myopically focus only on net-related take events; instead, they 
also should be trained and ordered to report on all observed take 
events, including ship strikes, as other take events may be a 
significant yet unreported portion of the incidental take within this 
fishery.
    Response: As stated above, beginning in 2010, the U.S. WCPO purse 
seine fishery has been subject to increased observer coverage 
requirements adopted by the WCPFC. These observers are deployed by FFA 
and must undergo specialized training and certifications. FFA observers 
also have been authorized by the WCPFC to function as WCPFC observers 
and so meet the training and certification requirements of the WCPFC's 
Regional Observer Programme. NMFS has provided financial resources to 
the FFA to support the augmentation of the FFA observer training 
curriculum to focus on better identification of species of special 
concern, which include but are not limited to marine mammals, marine 
reptiles, sharks, and seabirds. FFA-deployed observers on U.S. purse 
seine vessels have collected specific information on all protected 
species interactions since 2008. This information is not focused solely 
on net-related take events. Preliminary raw data are currently 
available from 2008 to 2014. This raw observer data recently received 
from the FFA indicates low levels of interactions with some protected 
species since 2008. This data is currently being analyzed for 
management use. NMFS is continuing to work with FFA to obtain verified 
data closer to real-time in accordance with the ITS specified in the 
2006 BiOp and the terms and condition of the 2006 BiOp. As stated 
above, NMFS also is developing a biological assessment for the U.S. 
WCPO purse seine fishery in anticipation of reinitiating ESA Section 7 
consultation for one or more species (other than the Indo-West Pacific 
DPS of the scalloped hammerhead shark), as may be warranted, based on 
the observer data recently obtained from FFA.
    Comment 6: CBD also provided comments stating that it is crucial 
that NMFS annually make observer reports available to the public. The 
last time NMFS made these data available was in the 2006 BiOp, prior to 
the transition to 100 percent observer coverage. Without these observer 
data, it is impossible for concerned citizens, scientists, or 
organizations to evaluate adherence to or the effectiveness of any 
conservation measures NMFS has proposed and is authorized to enforce. 
Publishing this information would make it possible for interested 
parties to independently judge the quality of observer data, and, over 
the years, track any improvement or decline in the quality of this 
information. For these reasons and others, it is important that NMFS 
provide access to this information on a regular basis.
    Response: Observer data collected by the FFA observer program are 
subject to confidential handling under various authorities, including 
but not limited to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a; Trade Secrets Act, 
18 U.S.C. 1905; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 
1361, et seq.; South Pacific Tuna Act, 16 U.S.C. 973; and Endangered 
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. NMFS endeavors to make information 
on protected species impacts accessible to the public, but in a format 
that does not compromise the confidentiality of non-public domain data, 
or violate the United States' international obligations. NMFS further 
notes that the dissemination of observer data is outside the scope of 
this rulemaking.
    Comment 7: CBD provided comments stating that NMFS should 
reinitiate ESA Section 7 consultation for the U.S. WCPO purse seine 
fishery, based on events and conditions occurring after NMFS finalized 
its 2006 BiOp. According to CBD, the PEA incorrectly states that the 
U.S. purse seine fishery operating in the WCPO has had limited 
interactions with marine mammals in recent years and the number of 
these interactions and whether the marine

[[Page 41243]]

mammals were ESA-listed species is unknown at this time. CBD states 
that the 2006 BiOp includes references to recorded impacts to ESA-
listed whales and sea turtles and is evidence that NMFS anticipates 
future take, by virtue of the incidental take limits set for each 
species of sea turtle that occurs within the Convention Area. In 
addition, since 2006, fishing effort has increased dramatically, which 
requires reinitiation of consultation and revision of the 2006 BiOp. 
Since 2006, the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery has increased both in the 
number of vessels participating and in the total tonnage of fish 
caught, so the fishery is likely operating in a manner that exceeds the 
take limits set for each sea turtle species in the 2006 BiOp. The new 
relaxed fishing vessel registration policy, the four-fold increase in 
the number of U.S. fishing vessels, and the two-fold increase in 
fishing effort are more than sufficient to trigger reinitiation of 
Section 7 consultation. Moreover, the recent changes to the listing 
status of green and loggerhead turtles trigger reinitiation of 
consultation. The new DPS for these species contain new information 
that may affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not 
previously considered.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges CBD's comments. As stated above, 
observers deployed by the FFA on U.S. purse seine vessels operating in 
the WCPO currently collect detailed information on incidentally caught 
species, discards and interactions with species of special interest, 
including species protected under the ESA and MMPA. Since 2010, there 
has been observer coverage on virtually 100 percent of U.S. purse seine 
fishing trips in the Convention Area. NMFS is continuing to analyze the 
observer-collected data for recent years--that is, for years subsequent 
to the data used for the completion of the 2006 BiOp. NMFS has 
reinitiated ESA Section 7 consultation on the effects of the U.S. WCPO 
purse seine fishery on the Indo-West Pacific DPS of the scalloped 
hammerhead shark and, as indicated in the SIR, expects that 
consultation to be completed by the end of 2016. NMFS also is 
developing a biological assessment for the U.S. WCPO purse seine 
fishery in anticipation of reinitiating ESA Section 7 consultation for 
one or more other species under the jurisdiction of NMFS and any new 
ITS for ESA-listed species will be based on the completed analysis of 
the best available information. Observer-collected data would be made 
available, as appropriate, to the public in nonconfidential form 
through the publication of any Biological Opinion for the fishery.
    NMFS acknowledges that the number of vessels participating in the 
fishery has returned to historic levels since the 2006 BiOP was 
completed, and the current number of active vessels and the number of 
sets per year is more similar to the historic activity of the fleet in 
the late 1990s (see Table 2 of the PEA). However, the number of 
available licenses from FFA for the fleet that was analyzed within the 
PEA remains the same, the area where the fishery operates remains 
essentially the same, and the fishing techniques remain the same. As 
stated above, NMFS has reinitiated ESA Section 7 consultation on the 
effects of the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery on the Indo-West Pacific 
DPS of the scalloped hammerhead shark and as indicated in the SIR, 
expects that consultation to be completed by the end of 2016. NMFS also 
is developing a biological assessment for the U.S. WCPO purse seine 
fishery in anticipation of reinitiating ESA Section 7 consultation for 
one or more other species under the jurisdiction of NMFS, as 
applicable, based on observer data recently obtained from the FFA.
    Comment 8: CBD provided comments stating that in its new BiOp, NMFS 
must set a take limit for any ESA-listed marine mammals that occur 
within the Convention Area. In the 2006 BiOp, NMFS acknowledged that 
whales have interacted with nets and risk being struck by fishing 
vessels, but despite this, the 2006 BiOp failed to set a take limit for 
listed whale species. Contrary to the conclusions in the 2006 BiOp, any 
interaction with fishing gear constitutes a take within the meaning of 
the ESA, and take limits must be set accordingly. Furthermore, NMFS 
should consider take not only based off of net interactions, but also 
from probable ship strikes. Considering the real risk of these impacts, 
it is important for NMFS to reevaluate the risk of take, especially in 
light of the four-fold increase in U.S. fishing vessels and two-fold 
increase in fishing effort since NMFS published its WCPO BiOp in 2006. 
To issue a take limit for ESA-listed marine mammals, NMFS must first 
issue an MMPA authorization. The MMPA places a moratorium on the taking 
of marine mammals, and only under limited exceptions to this moratorium 
may NMFS allow take incidental to commercial fishing operations. NMFS 
must authorize vessels' take of threatened or endangered marine mammals 
during a period of up to three years after making a finding of 
negligible impact and finding that other MMPA requirements are met. 
NMFS cannot issue such authorization without a thorough analysis of the 
impacts of the fishery on the listed marine mammals. Thus, adequate 
monitoring of marine mammal mortality is necessary for continued 
operation of the fishery.
    Response: As stated above, NMFS is developing a biological 
assessment for the U.S. WCPO purse seine fishery in anticipation of 
reinitiating ESA Section 7 consultation for one or more other species 
under the jurisdiction of NMFS, based on recently obtained raw observer 
data from the FFA. NMFS will analyze the effects of the fishery on any 
ESA-listed species, including marine mammals, in the action area and 
develop ITS, as appropriate, based on the best available data. NMFS 
notes that some of the marine mammal species present in the action area 
are not ESA-listed or depleted under the MMPA. The U.S. WCPO purse 
seine fishery has been designated as a Category II fishery under the 
regulations that govern the incidental take of marine mammals during 
fishing operations under the MMPA. This means that the fishery is 
considered to result in occasional serious injuries and mortalities to 
marine mammals. NMFS is continuing to analyze observer-collected data, 
as well as other available data, and will follow the process to obtain 
the appropriate permits under the MMPA if they indicate that incidental 
takes of ESA-listed marine mammals have occurred in the U.S. WCPO purse 
seine fishery.

Changes From Proposed Rule

    No changes from the proposed regulations have been made in these 
final regulations.

Classification

    The Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, has determined 
that this final rule is consistent with the WCPFC Implementation Act 
and other applicable laws.

Administrative Procedure Act

    There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an 
effective date less than 30 days after date of publication for the 
purse seine FAD restrictions and the 2016 longline bigeye tuna catch 
limit. NMFS must establish the FAD restrictions by July 1, 2016, to 
comply with the provisions of CMM 2015-01. With respect to the longline 
bigeye tuna catch limit, NMFS' latest forecast indicates that the 2016 
limit of 3,554 mt could be reached in the latter half of July. Also, in 
the event the catch limit is expected to be reached, the regulations at 
50 CFR 300.224(e) provide for NMFS to publish the notice

[[Page 41244]]

announcing fishing prohibitions at least seven days in advance of the 
date the prohibitions go into effect. Thus, there would be substantial 
risk of the 2016 longline bigeye tuna catch limit being exceeded if 
this rule is not made effective by July 1, 2016. The FAD restrictions 
and longline bigeye tuna catch limits are intended to reduce or 
otherwise control fishing pressure on bigeye tuna in the WCPO in order 
to restore this stock to levels capable of producing maximum 
sustainable yield on a continuing basis. According to the NMFS stock 
status determination criteria, bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean is 
currently experiencing overfishing. Failure to establish the FAD 
restrictions and the 2016 longline bigeye tuna catch limit by July 1, 
2016, would result in additional fishing pressure on this stock, and 
would be inconsistent with CMM 2015-01. Thus, NMFS finds that delaying 
the effective date of the FAD restrictions and the 2016 longline bigeye 
tuna catch limit past July 1, 2016, would be contrary to the public 
interest.

Executive Order 12866

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared as 
required by section 604 of the RFA. The FRFA incorporates the initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) prepared for the proposed rule. 
The analysis in the IRFA is not repeated here in its entirety. A 
description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal 
basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY section of the 
preamble and in other sections of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this final rule, above. The analysis follows:

Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

    NMFS did not receive any comments on the IRFA, but the Hawaii 
Longline Association provided comments on the economic impacts of the 
longline bigeye tuna catch limit established in a previous rule, for 
2015, and requested that NMFS act promptly and with all due diligence 
in completing the territory specification rulemaking process in 2016 
(see comment 2 and NMFS' response, above).

Description of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

    Small entities include ``small businesses,'' ``small 
organizations,'' and ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' The Small 
Business Administration (SBA) has established size standards for all 
major industry sectors in the United States, including commercial 
finfish harvesters (NAICS code 114111). A business primarily involved 
in finfish harvesting 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 $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations 
worldwide.
    The final rule applies to owners and operators of U.S. purse seine 
and longline vessels used for fishing for HMS in the Convention Area. 
The number of purse seine vessels affected by the rule is approximated 
by the number with WCPFC Area Endorsements, which are the NMFS-issued 
authorizations required to use a vessel to fish commercially for HMS on 
the high seas in the Convention Area. As of May 2016 the number of 
purse seine vessels with WCPFC Area Endorsements was 41.
    The final rule applies to U.S. longline vessels used to fish for 
HMS in the Convention Area, except those operating as part of the 
longline fisheries of American Samoa, the CNMI, or Guam. The total 
number of affected longline vessels is approximated by the number of 
vessels with Hawaii Longline Limited Access Permits (issued under 50 
CFR 665.13), although some such vessels might be able to operate as 
part of the longline fisheries of the U.S. Participating Territories 
and thus not be affected. Under the Hawaii longline limited access 
program, no more than 164 permits may be issued. During 2006-2012 the 
number of permitted vessels ranged from 130 to 145. The number of 
permitted vessels as of April 2016 was 139. U.S. longline vessels based 
on the U.S. west coast without Hawaii Longline Limited Access Permits 
also could be affected by this rule if they fish in the Convention 
Area. However, the number of such vessels is very small and fishing in 
the Convention Area by such vessels is rare, so it is expected that 
very few, if any, such vessels will be affected.
    Most of the Hawaii longline fleet targets bigeye tuna using deep 
sets, and during certain parts of the year, portions of the fleet 
target swordfish using shallow sets. In the years 2005 through 2013, 
the estimated numbers of Hawaii longline vessels that actually fished 
ranged from 124 to 135. Of the vessels that fished, the number of 
vessels that engaged in deep-setting in the years 2005 through 2013 
ranged from 122 to 135, and the number of vessels that engaged in 
shallow-setting ranged from 15 to 35. The number of vessels that 
engaged in both deep-setting and shallow-setting ranged from 15 to 35. 
The number of vessels that engaged exclusively in shallow-setting 
ranged from zero to two.
    Based on limited available financial information about the affected 
fishing vessels and the SBA's small entity size standards for 
commercial finfish harvesters, and using individual vessels as proxies 
for individual businesses, NMFS believes that all the affected fish 
harvesting businesses--in both the purse seine and longline sectors--
are small entities. NMFS used estimates of average per-vessel returns 
over recent years to estimate annual revenue, because gross receipts 
and ex-vessel price information specific to the individual affected 
vessels are not available to NMFS.
    For the affected purse seine vessels, 2013 is the most recent year 
for which complete catch data are available, and NMFS estimates that 
the average annual receipts over 2011-2013 for each purse seine vessel 
were less than the $20.5 million threshold for finfish harvesting 
businesses. The greatest was about $20 million, and the average was 
about $12 million. This is based on the estimated catches of each 
vessel in the purse seine fleet during that period, and indicative 
regional cannery prices developed by the FFA (available at https://www.ffa.int/node/425). Since 2013, cannery prices for purse seine-
caught tuna have declined dramatically, so the vessels' revenues in 
2014 and 2015 very likely declined as well.
    For the longline fishery, the ex-vessel value of catches in the 
Hawaii longline fishery in 2013 was about $0.7 million per vessel, on 
average, well below the $20.5 million threshold for finfish harvesting 
businesses.

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

    The recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements are 
discussed below for each element of the final rule, as described 
earlier in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble. 
Fulfillment of these requirements is not expected to require any 
professional skills that the affected vessel owners and operators do 
not already possess. The costs of complying with the requirements are 
described below to the extent possible:

1. Purse Seine Observer Requirements

    This element of the final rule does not establish any new reporting 
or recordkeeping requirements. The new compliance requirement is for 
affected vessel owners and operators to carry

[[Page 41245]]

WCPFC observers on all fishing trips in the Convention Area between the 
latitudes of 20 [deg]N. and 20 [deg]S., with the exception of fishing 
trips during which any fishing in the Convention Area takes place 
entirely within areas under the jurisdiction of a single nation other 
than the United States. The expected costs of complying with this 
requirement are described below.
    Under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTT), U.S. purse seine 
vessels operating in the Treaty Area (which is almost entirely in the 
Convention Area) are required to carry observers on about 20 percent of 
their fishing trips, which equates to roughly one trip per year per 
vessel. The observers required under the terms of the SPTT are deployed 
by the FFA, which acts as the SPTT Administrator on behalf of the 
Pacific Island Parties to the SPTT. The FFA observer program has been 
authorized to be part of the WCPFC observer program, so FFA-deployed 
observers are also WCPFC observers. Thus, in a typical year for a 
typical U.S. purse seine vessel, the cost of carrying observers to 
satisfy requirements under the SPTT can be expected to constitute 20 
percent of the costs of the requirement in this rule. However, recent 
events associated with the SPTT make 2016 an atypical year. Because of 
late negotiations among the SPTT parties on the terms of access in 
foreign zones in the SPTT Area for 2016, no U.S. vessels were licensed 
under the SPTT until March of 2016, and thus none were authorized to 
fish in foreign zones or on the high seas in the Treaty Area until 
then. The terms of access for future years, and the SPTT itself, are 
uncertain. Given this uncertainty, an upper-bound estimate of the costs 
of compliance is provided here. For this purpose, it is assumed that 
fishing patterns in the Convention Area will be similar to the pattern 
in recent years, and that observer coverage under the terms of the SPTT 
will not contribute at all to the costs of complying with this 
requirement.
    Based on the U.S. purse seine fleet's fishing patterns in 2011-
2013, it is expected that each vessel will spend about 252 days at sea 
per year, on average, with some vessels spending as many as about 354 
days at sea per year.
    The compliance costs of the requirement can be broken into two 
parts: 1) The costs of providing food, accommodation, and medical 
facilities to observers (observer accommodation costs); and 2) the fees 
imposed by observer providers for deploying observers (observer 
deployment costs). Observer accommodation costs are expected to be 
about $20 per vessel per day-at-sea.
    With respect to observer deployment costs, affected fishing 
companies can use observers from any program that has been authorized 
by the Commission to be part of the WCPFC Regional Observer Programme. 
In other words, they are not required to use FFA observers, which they 
have traditionally used until now. Nonetheless, the costs of deploying 
FFA observers are probably good indications of observer deployment 
costs in the region generally, and they are used for this analysis. 
Based on budgets and arrangements for the deployment of observers under 
the FFA observer program, observer deployment costs are expected to be 
about $230 per vessel per day-at-sea. Thus, combined observer 
accommodation costs and observer deployment costs are expected to be 
about $250 per vessel per day-at-sea. For the average vessel, which is 
expected to spend about 252 days at sea per year, the total cost of 
compliance are therefore expected to be about $63,000 per year. The 
cost for vessels that spend fewer days at sea will be accordingly less. 
At the other extreme, if a vessel spends 354 days at sea (the top of 
the range in 2011-2013), the total cost of compliance will be about 
$88,500 per year. Both of these figures are upper-bound estimates. If 
arrangements under the SPTT return to something like they have been in 
the past, then the numbers of days spent at sea on fishing trips in the 
Convention Area are likely to be close to the levels described above, 
but the compliance costs will be about 20 percent less than estimated 
above because observer coverage under the SPTT will satisfy about 20 
percent of the coverage required under this rule. If arrangements under 
the SPTT do not return to something like they have been in the recent 
past, then the number of days spent at sea on fishing trips in the 
Convention Area could be substantially lower than as described above, 
and the costs of complying with this requirement will be accordingly 
less.

2. Purse Seine FAD Restrictions for 2016-2017

    This element of the final rule does not establish any new reporting 
or recordkeeping requirements. The new requirement is for affected 
vessel owners and operators to comply with the FAD restrictions 
described earlier in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the 
preamble, including FAD prohibition periods from July 1 through 
September 30 in each of 2016 and 2017; limits of 2,522 FAD sets that 
may be made in each of 2016 and 2017; and prohibitions on specific uses 
of FADs on the high seas in 2017. The expected costs of complying with 
this requirement are described below to the extent possible.
    The FAD restrictions will substantially constrain the manner in 
which purse seine fishing can be conducted in the specified areas and 
periods in the Convention Area; in those areas and during those 
periods, vessels will be able to set only on free, or ``unassociated,'' 
schools.
    The costs associated with the FAD restrictions cannot be 
quantitatively estimated, but the fleet's historical use of FADs can 
give a qualitative indication of the costs. In the years 1997-2013, the 
proportion of sets made on FADs in the U.S. purse seine fishery ranged 
from less than 30 percent in some years to more than 90 percent in 
others. Thus, the importance of FAD sets in terms of profits appears to 
be quite variable over time, and is probably a function of many 
factors, including fuel prices (unassociated sets involve more 
searching time and thus tend to bring higher fuel costs than FAD sets) 
and market conditions (e.g., FAD fishing, which tends to result in 
greater catches of lower-value skipjack tuna and smaller yellowfin tuna 
and bigeye tuna than unassociated sets, might be more attractive and 
profitable when canneries are not rejecting small fish). Thus, the 
costs of complying with the FAD restrictions will depend on a variety 
of factors.
    In 2010-2013, the last 4 years for which complete data are 
available and for which there was 100 percent observer coverage, the 
U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet made about 39 percent of its sets on FADs. 
During the months when setting on FADs was allowed, the percentage was 
about 58 percent. The fact that the fleet has made such a substantial 
portion of its sets on FADs indicates that prohibiting the use of FADs 
in the specified areas and periods could bring substantial costs and/or 
revenue losses.
    To mitigate these impacts, vessel operators might choose to 
schedule their routine vessel and equipment maintenance during the FAD 
prohibition periods. However, the limited number of vessel maintenance 
facilities in the region might constrain vessel operators' ability to 
do this. It also is conceivable that some vessels might choose not to 
fish at all during the FAD prohibition periods rather than fish without 
the use of FADs. Observations of the fleet's behavior in 2009-2013, 
when FAD prohibition periods were in effect, do not suggest that either 
of these responses occurred to an appreciable degree. The proportion of 
the fleet that fished during the two- and three-month FAD prohibition 
periods of 2009-2013

[[Page 41246]]

did not appreciably differ from the proportion that fished during the 
same months in the years 1997-2008, when no FAD prohibition periods 
were in place.
    The FAD restrictions for 2016 are similar to those in place in 
2013-2015, except that there is a limit of 2,522 FAD sets instead of 
the October FAD prohibition period that was in place in 2013-2015. 2016 
is an unusual year in that SPTT licenses for 2016 were not issued until 
March, and the number of licensed vessels (34 as of May 2016) is fewer 
than in recent years. Thus, the level of purse seine fishing effort to 
date in the Convention Area in 2016 is somewhat lower than typical 
levels in recent years. As a result, the expected amount of fishing 
effort in the Convention Area in 2016 is expected to be substantially 
less than in recent years. Consequently, the 2,522 FAD set limit will 
be less constraining than it would be if fishing effort were greater. 
For example, if total fishing effort in 2016 is 5,000 fishing days 
(about 62% of the average in 2010-2013), and the average number of sets 
made per fishing day is the same as in 2010-2013 (0.97), and the 
average number of all sets that are FAD sets (``FAD set ratio'') during 
periods when FAD sets are allowed is the same as in 2010-2013 (58%), 
and if fishing effort is evenly distributed through the year, then the 
number of FAD sets expected in 2016 under the final rule will be about 
2,130, somewhat less than the limit of 2,522. Under the assumptions 
described above, the limit of 2,522 FAD sets will start to become 
constraining at a total fishing effort level of 5,900 fishing days.
    The effects of the FAD restrictions in 2017 will likely be greater 
than in 2016 because of the additional prohibition on setting on FADs 
on the high seas. The magnitude of that additional impact cannot be 
predicted, but as an indication of the additional impact, in 2010-2013, 
about 10 percent of the fleet's fishing effort occurred on the high 
seas. As in 2016, the impact of the 2,522 FAD set limit in 2017 will be 
primarily a function of the fleet's total level of fishing effort. 
Given the uncertainty related to the future of the SPTT, fishing effort 
in 2017 is very difficult to predict. As described above for 2016, the 
limit will start to become constraining at a fishing effort level of 
about 5,900 fishing days, but in 2017 that threshold will be applicable 
only in the portion of the Convention Area that is not high seas 
(again, about 10 percent of fishing effort has occurred on the high 
seas in recent years).
    In summary, the economic impacts of the FAD prohibition periods and 
FAD set limits in 2016 and 2017 and the prohibition on using FADs on 
the high seas throughout 2017 cannot be quantified, but they could be 
substantial. Their magnitude will depend in part on market conditions, 
oceanic conditions, and the fleet's fishing effort in 2016 and 2017, 
which will be determined in part by any limits on allowable levels of 
fishing effort in foreign EEZs and on the high seas in the Convention 
Area.

3. Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits for 2016-2017

    This element of the final rule will not establish any new reporting 
or recordkeeping requirements. The new compliance requirement is for 
affected vessel owners and operators to cease retaining, landing, and 
transshipping bigeye tuna caught with longline gear in the Convention 
Area if and when the bigeye tuna catch limit is reached in 2016 (3,554 
mt) or 2017 (3,345 mt), for the remainder of the calendar year, subject 
to the exceptions and provisos described in other sections of this 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble. Although the 
restrictions that will come into effect in the event the catch limit is 
reached will not prohibit longline fishing, per se, they are sometimes 
referred to in this analysis as constituting a fishery closure. The 
costs of complying with this requirement are described below to the 
extent possible.
    Complying with this element of the final rule could cause foregone 
fishing opportunities and result in associated economic losses in the 
event that the bigeye tuna catch limit is reached in 2016 or 2017 and 
the restrictions on retaining, landing, and transshipping bigeye tuna 
are imposed for portions of either or both of those years. These costs 
cannot be projected quantitatively with any certainty. The limits of 
3,554 mt for 2016 and 3,345 mt for 2017 can be compared to catches in 
2005-2008, before limits were in place. The average annual catch in 
that period was 4,709 mt. Based on that history, as well as fishing 
patterns in 2009-2015, when limits were in place, there appears to be a 
relatively high likelihood of the limits being reached in 2016 and 
2017. 2015 saw exceptionally high catches of bigeye tuna. Although 
final estimates for 2015 are not available, the limit of 3,502 mt was 
estimated to have been reached by, and the fishery was closed on, 
August 5 (see temporary rule published July 28, 2015; 80 FR 44883). The 
fishery was subsequently re-opened for vessels included in agreements 
with the governments of the CNMI and Guam under regulations 
implementing Amendment 7 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic 
Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Pelagics FEP) (50 CFR 
665.819). If bigeye tuna catch patterns in 2016 or 2017 are like those 
in 2005-2008, the limits will likely be reached in the fourth quarter 
of the year. If catches are more accelerated, as in 2015, the limits 
could be reached in the third quarter of the year.
    If the bigeye tuna limit is reached before the end of 2016 or 2017 
and the Convention Area longline bigeye tuna fishery is consequently 
closed for the remainder of the calendar year, it can be expected that 
affected vessels would shift to the next most profitable fishing 
opportunity (which might be not fishing at all). Revenues from that 
next best alternative activity reflect the opportunity costs associated 
with longline fishing for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area. The 
economic cost of the rule would not be the direct losses in revenues 
that would result from not being able to fish for bigeye tuna in the 
Convention Area, but rather the difference in benefits derived from 
that activity and those derived from the next best activity. The 
economic cost of the rule on affected entities is examined here by 
first estimating the direct losses in revenues that would result from 
not being able to fish for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area as a 
result of the catch limit being reached. Those losses represent the 
upper bound of the economic cost of the rule on affected entities. 
Potential next-best alternative activities that affected entities could 
undertake are then identified in order to provide a (mostly 
qualitative) description of the degree to which actual costs would be 
lower than that upper bound.
    Upper bounds on potential economic costs can be estimated by 
examining the projected value of longline landings from the Convention 
Area that would not be made as a result of reaching the limit. For this 
purpose, it is assumed that, absent this rule, bigeye tuna catches in 
the Convention Area in each of 2016 and 2017 would be 5,000 mt, 
slightly more than the average in 2005-2008. Under this scenario, 
imposition of limits of 3,554 mt for 2016 and 3,345 mt for 2017 would 
result in 29 percent and 33 percent less bigeye tuna being caught in 
those two years, respectively, than under no action. In the deep-set 
fishery, catches of marketable species other than bigeye tuna would 
likely be affected in a similar way if vessels do not shift to 
alternative activities. Assuming for the moment that ex-vessel prices 
would not be affected by a fishery closure, under the rule, revenues in 
2016 and 2017 to entities that participate exclusively in

[[Page 41247]]

the deep-set fishery would be approximately 29 and 33 percent less than 
under no action in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Average annual ex-
vessel revenues (from all species) per mt of bigeye tuna caught during 
2005-2008 were about $14,332/mt (in 2015 dollars, derived from the 
latest available annual report on the pelagic fisheries of the western 
Pacific Region (Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 
2016, Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region: 2013 Annual 
Report. Honolulu, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council). If there 
are 128 active vessels in the fleet, as there were during 2005-2008, on 
average, then under the no-action scenario of fleet-wide annual catches 
of 5,000 mt, each vessel would catch 39 mt/yr, on average. Reductions 
of 29 percent and 33 percent in 2016 and 2017, respectively, as a 
result of the limits would be about 11 mt and 13 mt, respectively. 
Applying the average ex-vessel revenues (from all species) of $14,332 
per mt of bigeye tuna caught, the reductions in ex-vessel revenue per 
vessel would be $162,000 and $185,000, on average, for 2016 and 2017, 
respectively.
    In the shallow-set fishery, affected entities would bear limited 
costs in the event of the limit being reached (but most affected 
entities also participate in the deep-set fishery and might bear costs 
in that fishery, as described below). The cost would be about equal to 
the revenues lost from not being able to retain or land bigeye tuna 
captured while shallow-setting in the Convention Area, or the cost of 
shifting to shallow-setting in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO), which 
is to the east of 150 degrees W. longitude, whichever is less. In the 
fourth calendar quarters of 2005-2008, almost all shallow-setting 
effort took place in the EPO, and 97 percent of bigeye tuna catches 
were made there, so the cost of a bigeye tuna fishery closure to 
shallow-setting vessels would appear to be very limited. During 2005-
2008, the shallow-set fishery caught an average of 54 mt of bigeye tuna 
per year from the Convention Area. If the bigeye tuna catch limit is 
reached even as early as July 31 in 2016 or 2017, the Convention Area 
shallow-set fishery would have caught at that point, based on 2005-2008 
data, on average, 99 percent of its average annual bigeye tuna catches. 
Imposition of the landings restriction at that point in 2016 or 2017 
would result in the loss of revenues from approximately 0.5 mt (1 
percent of 54 mt) of bigeye tuna, which, based on recent ex-vessel 
prices, would be worth no more than $5,000. Thus, expecting about 26 
vessels to engage in the shallow-set fishery (the annual average in 
2005-2013), the average of those potentially lost annual revenues would 
be no more than $200 per vessel. The remainder of this analysis focuses 
on the potential costs of compliance in the deep-set fishery.
    It should be noted that the impacts on affected entities' profits 
would be less than impacts on revenues when considering the costs of 
operating vessels, because costs would be lower if a vessel ceases 
fishing after the catch limit is reached. Variable costs can be 
expected to be affected roughly in proportion to revenues, as both 
variable costs and revenues would stop accruing once a vessel stops 
fishing. But affected entities' costs also include fixed costs, which 
are borne regardless of whether a vessel is used to fish--e.g., if it 
is tied up at the dock during a fishery closure. Thus, profits would 
likely be adversely impacted proportionately more than revenues.
    As stated previously, actual compliance costs for a given entity 
might be less than the upper bounds described above, because ceasing 
fishing would not necessarily be the most profitable alternative 
opportunity when the catch limit is reached. Two alternative 
opportunities that are expected to be attractive to affected entities 
include: (1) Deep-set longline fishing for bigeye tuna in the 
Convention Area in a manner such that the vessel is considered part of 
the longline fishery of American Samoa, Guam, or the CNMI; and (2) 
deep-set longline fishing for bigeye tuna and other species in the EPO. 
These two opportunities are discussed in detail below. Four additional 
opportunities are: (3) Shallow-set longline fishing for swordfish (for 
deep-setting vessels that would not otherwise do so), (4) deep-set 
longline fishing in the Convention Area for species other than bigeye 
tuna, (5) working in cooperation with vessels operating as part of the 
longline fisheries of the Participating Territories--specifically, 
receiving transshipments at sea from them and delivering the fish to 
the Hawaii market, and (6) vessel repair and maintenance. A study by 
NMFS of the effects of the WCPO bigeye tuna longline fishery closure in 
2010 (Richmond, L., D. Kotowicz, J. Hospital and S. Allen, 2015, 
Monitoring socioeconomic impacts of Hawai`i's 2010 bigeye tuna closure: 
Complexities of local management in a global fishery, Ocean & Coastal 
Management 106:87-96) did not identify the occurrence of any 
alternative activities that vessels engaged in during the closure, 
other than deep-setting for bigeye tuna in the EPO, vessel maintenance 
and repairs, and granting lengthy vacations to employees. Based on 
those findings, NMFS expects that alternative opportunities (3), (4), 
(5) and (6) are probably unattractive relative to the first two 
alternatives, and are not discussed here in any further detail. NMFS 
recognizes that vessel maintenance and repairs and granting lengthy 
vacations to employees are two alternative activities that might be 
taken advantage of if the fishery is closed, but no further analysis of 
their mitigating effects is provided here.
    Before examining in detail the two potential alternative fishing 
opportunities that would appear to be the most attractive to affected 
entities, it is important to note that under the rule, once the limit 
is reached and the WCPO bigeye tuna fishery is closed, fishing with 
longline gear both inside and outside the Convention Area during the 
same trip would be prohibited (except in the case of a fishing trip 
that is in progress when the limit is reached and the restrictions go 
into effect). For example, after the restrictions go into effect, 
during a given fishing trip, a vessel could be used for longline 
fishing for bigeye tuna in the EPO or for longline fishing for species 
other than bigeye tuna in the Convention Area, but not for both. This 
reduced operational flexibility would bring costs, since it would 
constrain the potential profits from alternative opportunities. Those 
costs cannot be quantified.
    A vessel could take advantage of the first alternative opportunity 
(deep-setting for bigeye tuna in a manner such that the vessel is 
considered part of the longline fishery of one of the three U.S. 
Participating Territories), by three possible methods: (a) Landing the 
bigeye tuna in one of the three Participating Territories, (b) holding 
an American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit, or (c) being 
considered part of a Participating Territory's longline fishery, by 
agreement with one or more of the three Participating Territories under 
the regulations implementing Amendment 7 to the Pelagics FEP (50 CFR 
665.819). In the first two circumstances, the vessel would be 
considered part of the longline fishery of the Participating Territory 
only if the bigeye tuna were not caught in the portion of the U.S. EEZ 
around the Hawaiian Islands and were landed by a U.S. vessel operating 
in compliance with a permit issued under the regulations implementing 
the Pelagics FEP or the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast 
Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species.

[[Page 41248]]

    With respect to the first method of engaging in alternative 
opportunity 1 (1.a.) (landing the bigeye tuna in one of the 
Participating Territories), there are three potentially important 
constraints. First, whether the fish are landed by the vessel that 
caught the fish or by a vessel to which the fish were transshipped, the 
costs of a vessel transiting from the traditional fishing grounds in 
the vicinity of the Hawaiian Archipelago to one of the Participating 
Territories would be substantial. Second, none of these three locales 
has large local consumer markets to absorb substantial additional 
landings of fresh sashimi-grade bigeye tuna. Third, transporting the 
bigeye tuna from these locales to larger markets, such as markets in 
Hawaii, the U.S. west coast, or Japan, would bring substantial 
additional costs and risks. These cost constraints suggest that this 
alternative opportunity has limited potential to mitigate the economic 
impacts of the rule on affected small entities.
    The second method of engaging in the first alternative opportunity 
(1.b.) (having an American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit), would 
be available only to the subset of the Hawaii longline fleet that has 
both Hawaii and American Samoa longline permits (dual permit vessels). 
Vessels that do not have both permits could obtain them if they meet 
the eligibility requirements and pay the required costs. For example, 
the number of dual permit vessels increased from 12 in 2009, when the 
first WCPO bigeye tuna catch limit was established, to 20 in both 2011 
and 2012. The previously cited NMFS study of the 2010 fishery closure 
(Richmond et al. 2015) found that bigeye tuna landings of dual permit 
vessels increased substantially after the start of the closure on 
November 22, 2010, indicating that this was an attractive opportunity 
for dual permit vessels, and suggesting that those entities might have 
benefitted from the catch limit and the closure.
    The third method of engaging in the first alternative opportunity 
(1.c.) (entering into an Amendment 7 agreement), was also available in 
2011-2015 (in 2011-2013, under section 113(a) of Public Law 112-55, 125 
Stat. 552 et seq., the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2012, continued by Public Law 113-6, 125 Stat. 603, 
section 110, the Department of Commerce Appropriations Act, 2013; 
hereafter, ``section 113(a)''). As a result of agreements that were in 
place in 2011-2014, the WCPO bigeye tuna fishery was not closed in any 
of those four years because the annual limit for U.S. longline 
fisheries adopted by the WCPFC was not reached. In 2015 the fishery was 
closed in August but then reopened when agreements with the CNMI, and 
later with Guam, went into effect. Participation in an Amendment 7 
agreement would likely not come without costs to fishing businesses. As 
an indication of the possible cost, the terms of the agreement between 
American Samoa and the members of the Hawaii Longline Association (HLA) 
in effect in 2011 and 2012 included payments totaling $250,000 from the 
HLA to the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund, equal to $2,000 
per vessel. It is not known how the total cost was allocated among the 
members of the HLA, so it is possible that the owners of particular 
vessels paid substantially more than or less than $2,000.
    The second alternative opportunity (2) (deep-set fishing for bigeye 
tuna in the EPO), would be an option for affected entities only if it 
is allowed under regulations implementing the decisions of the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). Annual longline bigeye tuna 
catch limits have been in place for the EPO in most years since 2004. 
Since 2009, a bigeye tuna catch limit of 500 mt for 2016 has applied to 
U.S. longline vessels greater than 24 meters (m) in length (50 CFR 
300.25), and the limits were reached in 2013 (November 11), 2014 
(October 31), and 2015 (August 12). The highly seasonal nature of 
bigeye tuna catches in the EPO and the relatively high inter-annual 
variation in catches prevents NMFS from making a useful prediction of 
whether and when the limit in 2016 is likely to be reached. However, 
the trend in 2013-2015 suggests a relatively high likelihood of it 
being reached in 2016. If it is reached, this alternative opportunity 
would not be available for large longline vessels, which constitute 
about a quarter of the fleet. Currently there is no limit in place for 
2017; the IATTC would have to take further action to adopt a limit for 
2017, and NMFS would then need to implement it to put it into effect.
    Historical fishing patterns can provide an indication of the 
likelihood of affected entities making use of the opportunity of deep-
setting in the EPO in the event of a closure in the WCPO. The 
proportion of the U.S. fishery's annual bigeye tuna catches that were 
captured in the EPO from 2005 through 2008 ranged from 2 percent to 22 
percent, and averaged 11 percent. In 2005-2007, that proportion ranged 
from 2 percent to 11 percent, and may have been constrained by the 
IATTC-adopted bigeye tuna catch limits established by NMFS (no limit 
was in place for 2008). Prior to 2009, most of the U.S. annual bigeye 
tuna catch by longline vessels in the EPO typically was made in the 
second and third quarters of the year; in 2005-2008 the percentages 
caught in the first, second, third, and fourth quarters were 14, 33, 
50, and 3 percent, respectively. These data demonstrate two historical 
patterns--that relatively little of the bigeye tuna catch in the 
longline fishery was typically taken in the EPO (11 percent in 2005-
2008, on average), and that most EPO bigeye tuna catches were made in 
the second and third quarters, with relatively few catches in the 
fourth quarter when the catch limit will most likely be reached. These 
two patterns suggest that there could be substantial costs for at least 
some affected entities that shift to deep-set fishing in the EPO in the 
event of a closure in the WCPO. On the other hand, fishing patterns 
since 2008 suggest that a substantial shift in deep-set fishing effort 
to the EPO could occur. In 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the 
proportions of the fishery's annual bigeye tuna catches that were 
captured in the EPO were about 16, 27, 23, 19, 36, and 36 percent, 
respectively, and most bigeye tuna catches in the EPO were made in the 
latter half of the calendar years.
    The NMFS study of the 2010 closure (Richmond et al. 2015) found 
that some businesses--particularly those with smaller vessels--were 
less inclined than others to fish in the EPO during the closure because 
of the relatively long distances that would need to be travelled in the 
relatively rough winter ocean conditions. The study identified a number 
of factors that likely made fishing in the EPO less lucrative than 
fishing in the WCPO during that part of the year, including fuel costs 
and the need to limit trip length in order to maintain fish quality and 
because of limited fuel storage capacity.
    In addition to affecting the volume of landings of bigeye tuna and 
other species, the catch limits could affect fish prices, particularly 
during a fishery closure. Both increases and decreases appear possible. 
After a limit is reached and landings from the WCPO are prohibited, ex-
vessel prices of bigeye tuna (e.g., that are caught in the EPO or by 
vessels in the longline fisheries of the three U.S. Participating 
Territories), as well as of other species landed by the fleet, could 
increase as a result of the constricted supply. This would mitigate 
economic losses for vessels that are able to continue fishing and 
landing bigeye tuna during the closure. For example, the NMFS study of 
the 2010 closure (Richmond et al. 2015) found that ex-

[[Page 41249]]

vessel prices during the closure in December were 50 percent greater 
than the average during the previous five Decembers. (It is emphasized 
that because it was an observational study, neither this nor other 
observations of what occurred during the closure can be affirmatively 
linked as effects of the fishery closure.)
    Conversely, a WCPO bigeye tuna fishery closure could cause a 
decrease in ex-vessel prices of bigeye tuna and other products landed 
by affected entities if the interruption in the local supply prompts 
the Hawaii market to shift to alternative (e.g., imported) sources of 
bigeye tuna. Such a shift could be temporary--that is, limited to 2016 
and/or 2017--or it could lead to a more permanent change in the market 
(e.g., as a result of wholesale and retail buyers wanting to mitigate 
the uncertainty in the continuity of supply from the Hawaii longline 
fisheries). In the latter case, if locally caught bigeye tuna fetches 
lower prices because of stiffer competition with imported bigeye tuna, 
then ex-vessel prices of local product could be depressed indefinitely. 
The NMFS study of the 2010 closure (Richmond et al. 2015) found that a 
common concern in the Hawaii fishing community prior to the closure in 
November 2010 was retailers having to rely more heavily on imported 
tuna, causing imports to gain a greater market share in local markets. 
The study found this not to have been borne out, at least not in 2010, 
when the evidence gathered in the study suggested that few buyers 
adapted to the closure by increasing their reliance on imports, and no 
reports or indications were found of a dramatic increase in the use of 
imported bigeye tuna during the closure. The study concluded, however, 
that the 2010 closure caused buyers to give increased consideration to 
imports as part of their business model, and it was predicted that tuna 
imports could increase during any future closure. To the extent that 
ex-vessel prices would be reduced by this action, revenues earned by 
affected entities would be affected accordingly, and these impacts 
could occur both before and after the limit is reached, and as 
described above, possibly after 2017.
    The potential economic effects identified above would vary among 
individual business entities, but it is not possible to predict the 
range of variation. Furthermore, the impacts on a particular entity 
would depend on both that entity's response to the rule and the 
behavior of other vessels in the fleet, both before and after the catch 
limit is reached. For example, the greater the number of vessels that 
take advantage--before the limit is reached--of the first alternative 
opportunity (1), fishing as part of one of the Participating 
Territory's fisheries, the lower the likelihood that the limit would be 
reached. The fleet's behavior in 2011 and 2012 is illustrative. In both 
those years, most vessels in the Hawaii fleet were included in a 
section 113(a) arrangement with the government of American Samoa, and 
as a consequence, the U.S. longline catch limit was not reached in 
either year. Thus, none of the vessels in the fleet, including those 
not included in the section 113(a) arrangements, were prohibited from 
fishing for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area at any time during those 
two years. The fleet's experience in 2010 (before opportunities under 
section 113(a) or Amendment 7 to the Pelagics FEP were available) 
provides another example of how economic impacts could be distributed 
among different entities. In 2010 the limit was reached and the WCPO 
bigeye tuna fishery was closed on November 22. As described above, dual 
permit vessels were able to continue fishing outside the U.S. EEZ 
around the Hawaiian Archipelago and benefit from the relatively high 
ex-vessel prices that bigeye tuna fetched during the closure.
    In summary, based on potential reductions in ex-vessel revenues, 
NMFS has estimated that the upper bound of potential economic impacts 
of the rule on affected longline fishing entities could be roughly 
$162,000 per vessel, on average, in 2016 and $185,000 per vessel, on 
average, in 2017. The actual impacts to most entities are likely to be 
substantially less than those upper bounds, and for some entities the 
impacts could be neutral or positive (e.g., if one or more Amendment 7 
agreements are in place in 2016 and 2017 and the terms of the 
agreements are such that the U.S. longline fleet is effectively 
unconstrained by the catch limits).

Disproportionate Impacts

    As indicated above, all affected entities are believed to be small 
entities, so small entities would not be disproportionately affected 
relative to large entities. Nor would there be disproportionate 
economic impacts based on home port.
    Purse seine vessels would be impacted differently than longline 
vessels, but whether the impacts would be disproportional between the 
two gear types cannot be determined.
    For the longline sector, as described above, there could be 
disproportionate impacts according to vessel type and size and the type 
of fishing permits held. A vessel with both a Hawaii Longline Limited 
Access Permit and an American Samoa Longline Limited Access Permit 
would be considered part of the American Samoa longline fishery (except 
when fishing in the U.S. EEZ around the Hawaiian Archipelago), so it 
would not be subject to the catch limits. Because the EPO bigeye tuna 
catch limit for 2016 applies only to vessels greater than 24 m in 
length, in the event that the WCPO bigeye tuna fishery is closed and 
the 500 mt limit is reached in the EPO, only vessels 24 m or less in 
length would be able to take advantage of the alternative opportunity 
of deep-setting for bigeye tuna in the EPO. On the other hand, smaller 
vessels can be expected to find it more difficult, risky, and/or costly 
to fish in the EPO during the relatively rough winter months than 
larger vessels. If there are any large entities among the affected 
entities, and if the vessels of the large entities are larger than 
those of small entities, then it is possible that small entities could 
be disproportionately affected relative to large entities.

Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impacts on Small 
Entities

    NMFS has sought to identify alternatives that would minimize the 
rule's economic impact on small entities (``significant 
alternatives''). Taking no action could result in lesser adverse 
economic impacts than the action for affected entities in the purse 
seine and longline fisheries (but as described below, for some affected 
longline entities, the rule could be more economically beneficial than 
no-action), but NMFS has determined that the no-action alternative 
would be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the 
Convention, and NMFS has rejected it for that reason. Alternatives 
identified for each of the three elements of the rule are discussed 
below.

1. Purse Seine Observer Requirements

    NMFS has not identified any significant alternatives to the purse 
seine observer requirements that would comport with U.S. obligations to 
implement the Commission decisions regarding observer coverage.

2. Purse Seine FAD Restrictions for 2016-2017

    NMFS considered in detail one set of alternatives to the 
restrictions on the use of FADs. Under CMM 2015-01, the United States 
could use either of two options in either of 2016 and 2017 (in addition 
to the three-month FAD closure periods in both years and the 
prohibition on FAD sets on the high seas in 2017). One option is a 
fourth-

[[Page 41250]]

month FAD prohibition period, in October. The second option, which is 
part of this rule, is an annual limit of 2,522 FAD sets. The relative 
effects of the two options would depend on the total amount of fishing 
effort exerted by the U.S. purse seine fleet in the Convention Area in 
a given year. If total fishing effort is relatively high, an October 
FAD prohibition period would likely allow for more FAD sets than a 
limit of 2,522 FAD sets, and thus likely cause lesser adverse impacts. 
The opposite would be the case for relatively low levels of total 
fishing effort. For example, given the fleet's recent historical 
average FAD set ratio of 58 percent when FAD-setting is allowed (2010-
2013), and assuming an even distribution of sets throughout the year, 
the estimated ``breakeven'' point between the two options is 6,502 
total sets for the year. The levels of fishing effort in 2016 and 2017 
are very difficult to predict; they will be determined largely by the 
level of participation in the fishery (number of vessels) and any 
limits imposed on fishing effort. Fishing effort in foreign zones and 
on the high seas in the SPTT Area is likely to be limited by the terms 
of arrangements under the SPTT. Fishing effort elsewhere in the 
Convention Area (e.g., in the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas outside the 
Treaty Area) will be constrained by any limits established by NMFS to 
implement the provisions of CMM 2015-01. NMFS has not yet established 
or proposed any such limits for 2016 or 2017, and cannot speculate what 
limits it might propose, but a point of reference are the limits that 
were in place in 2009-2015. Those limits applied to the Effort Limit 
Area for Purse Seine, or ELAPS, which consists of all areas of high 
seas and U.S. exclusive economic zone in the Convention Area between 
the latitudes of 20 [deg]N. and 20 [deg]S. The limits in 2009-2013 were 
2,588 fishing days per year. The limits in 2014-2015 were 1,828 fishing 
days per year. With respect to numbers of vessels and allowable fishing 
effort limits under the SPTT, 2016 is an unusual year in that SPTT 
licenses for 2016 were not issued until March, and the number of 
licensed vessels (34 as of May 2016) is fewer than in recent years. 
Thus, there has been relatively little purse seine fishing effort to 
date in the Convention Area in 2016, and NMFS expects that total 
fishing effort in 2016 is likely to be less than 6,502 sets (the 
estimated breakeven point between the two options). For reference, the 
average number of sets made annually in 2010-2013, when an average of 
38 vessels were active in the fishery, was 7,835. The average number of 
fishing days made annually in 2010-2013 was 8,030, so the average 
number of sets made per fishing day was 0.97. Predicting the situation 
for 2017 is even more difficult than for 2016, but current 
circumstances suggest that participation in 2017 could be less than in 
recent years. Also, because setting on FADs on the high seas will be 
prohibited in 2017 under this rule, the estimated breakeven point of 
6,502 total sets applies not everywhere in the Convention Area, but 
only those portions that are not high seas. Assuming that about 10 
percent of fishing effort takes place on the high seas, as in 2010-
2013, the breakeven point for the Convention Area as a whole is about 
7,224 total sets. Assuming 0.97 sets per fishing day, on average, as 
occurred in 2010-2013, this equates roughly to 7,371 fishing days. This 
is slightly less than the average annual fishing effort in 2010-2013 
(7,835 sets; 8,030 fishing days), but again, given current 
circumstances and uncertainty surrounding the future of the SPTT, NMFS 
expects that total fishing effort in 2017 is likely to be less than 
that breakeven level. Based on the above expectations and assumptions 
for conditions in 2016 and 2017, a FAD prohibition period in October is 
likely to have greater adverse impacts on fishing businesses than an 
annual limit of 2,522 FAD sets, in both 2016 and 2017. After 
considering the objectives of CMM 2015-01, the expected economic 
impacts of both alternatives on U.S. fishing operations and the nation 
as a whole, and expected environmental and other effects, NMFS expects 
that for both 2016 and 2017, a limit of 2,522 FAD sets is likely to be 
somewhat more cost-effective than a FAD prohibition period in October. 
For this reason, NMFS has rejected the latter alternative.

3. Longline Bigeye Tuna Catch Limits

    NMFS has not identified any significant alternatives to this 
element of the rule, other than the no-action alternative.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance 
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. NMFS has 
prepared small entity compliance guides for this rule, and will send 
the appropriate guide(s) to holders of permits in the relevant 
fisheries. The guides and this final rule also will be available at 
www.fpir.noaa.gov and by request from NMFS PIRO (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300

    Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, 
Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: June 17, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended 
as follows:

PART 300--INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS

Subpart O--Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly 
Migratory Species

0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300, subpart O, continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  300.222, add paragraph (ww) to read as follows:


Sec.  300.222  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (ww) Fail to carry an observer as required in Sec.  300.223(e).


0
3. In Sec.  300.223:
0
a. Revise paragraph (b)(1) introductory text and paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 
and (ii); and
0
b. Add paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (iv), and paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  300.223  Purse seine fishing restrictions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) During the periods and in the areas specified in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels 
of the United States shall not do any of the activities described below 
in the Convention Area in the area between 20[deg] N. latitude and 
20[deg] S. latitude:
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) From July 1 through September 30, 2016;
    (ii) From July 1 through September 30, 2017;
    (iii) During any period specified in a Federal Register notice 
issued by NMFS announcing that NMFS has determined that U.S. purse 
seine vessels have collectively made, or are projected to make, 2,522 
sets on FADs in the

[[Page 41251]]

Convention Area in the area between 20[deg] N. latitude and 20[deg] S. 
latitude in 2016 or 2017. The Federal Register notice will be published 
at least seven days in advance of the start of the period announced in 
the notice. NMFS will estimate and project the number of FAD sets using 
vessel logbooks, and/or other information sources that it deems most 
appropriate and reliable for the purposes of this section; and
    (iv) In any area of high seas, from January 1 through December 31, 
2017.
* * * * *
    (e) Observer coverage. (1) A fishing vessel of the United States 
may not be used to fish with purse seine gear in the Convention Area 
without a WCPFC observer on board. This requirement does not apply to 
fishing trips that meet either of the following conditions:
    (i) The portion of the fishing trip within the Convention Area 
takes place entirely within areas under the jurisdiction of a single 
nation other than the United States; or,
    (ii) No fishing takes place during the fishing trip in the 
Convention Area in the area between 20 [deg]N. latitude and 20 [deg]S. 
latitude.
    (2) Owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels subject to 
paragraph (e)(1) of this section must accommodate WCPFC observers in 
accordance with the provisions of Sec.  300.215(c).
    (3) Meeting either of the conditions in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and 
(ii) of this section does not exempt a fishing vessel from having to 
carry and accommodate a WCPFC observer pursuant to Sec.  300.215 or 
other applicable regulations.

0
4. In Sec.  300.224, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  300.224  Longline fishing restrictions.

    (a) Establishment of bigeye tuna catch limits. (1) During calendar 
year 2016 there is a limit of 3,554 metric tons of bigeye tuna that may 
be captured in the Convention Area by longline gear and retained on 
board by fishing vessels of the United States.
    (2) During calendar year 2017 there is a limit of 3,345 metric tons 
of bigeye tuna that may be captured in the Convention Area by longline 
gear and retained on board by fishing vessels of the United States.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-14967 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P