Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8807

DELEGATION STATUS FOR PART 63 STANDARDS—STATE OF NEW MEXICO—Continued [Excluding Indian Country]

Subpart Source category NMED 12 ABCAQCB 13

DDDDDDD ...... Prepared Feeds Areas Sources ...... X X EEEEEEE ...... Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production Area Sources ...... X X FFFFFFF–GGGGGGG .. (Reserved) ...... HHHHHHH ...... Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Major Sources ...... X X 1 Authorities which may not be delegated include: § 63.6(g), Approval of Alternative Non-Opacity Emission Standards; § 63.6(h)(9), Approval of Alternative Opacity Standards; § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Test Methods; § 63.8(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Monitoring; § 63.10(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting; and all authorities identified in the subparts (e.g., under ‘‘Delegation of Authority’’) that cannot be delegated. 2 Program delegated to New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) for standards promulgated by EPA, as amended in the Federal Reg- ister through August 29, 2013. 3 Program delegated to Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (ABCAQCB) for standards promulgated by EPA, as amended in the Federal Register through September 13, 2013. 4 The NMED was previously delegated this subpart on February 9, 2004 (68 FR 69036). The ABCAQCB has adopted the subpart unchanged and applied for delegation of the standard. The subpart was vacated and remanded to EPA by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See, Mossville Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 370 F. 3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Because of the DC Court’s holding this subpart is not delegated to NMED or ABCAQCB at this time. 5 This subpart was issued a partial vacatur on October 29, 2007 (72 FR 61060) by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Colum- bia Circuit. 6 Final rule. See 78 FR 7138 (January 31, 2013). 7 This subpart was vacated and remanded to EPA by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007. See, Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Because of the DC Court’s holding this subpart is not delegated to NMED or ABCAQCB at this time. 8 Initial Final Rule on February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304). Final on reconsideration of certain new source issues on April 24, 2013 (78 FR 24073). Portions of this subpart are in proposed reconsideration pending final action on June 25, 2013 (78 FR 38001).

* * * * * (Carcharhinus falciformis). The Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS, [FR Doc. 2015–03482 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] regulations apply to owners and Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), BILLING CODE 6560–50–P operators of U.S. fishing vessels used for 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, commercial fishing for highly migratory Honolulu, HI 96818. The initial species (HMS) in the area of application regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE of the Convention on the Conservation and final regulatory flexibility analysis and Management of Highly Migratory (FRFA) prepared under the authority of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Fish Stocks in the Western and Central the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) are Administration Pacific Ocean (Convention). The included in the proposed rule and this regulations for oceanic whitetip sharks final rule, respectively. 50 CFR Part 300 and silky sharks prohibit the retention, Written comments regarding the [Docket No. 130703588–5112–02] transshipment, storage, or landing of burden-hour estimates or other aspects oceanic whitetip sharks or silky sharks, of the collection-of-information RIN 0648–BD44 and require the release of any oceanic requirements contained in this final rule whitetip shark or silky shark as soon as may be submitted to Michael D. Tosatto, International Fisheries; Western and possible after it is caught, with as little Regional Administrator, NMFS PIRO Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly harm to the shark as possible. The (see ADDRESSES) and by email to OIRA_ Migratory Species; Fishing regulations for whale sharks prohibit [email protected] or fax to 202– Restrictions Regarding the Oceanic setting a purse seine on a whale shark 395–7285. Whitetip Shark, the Whale Shark, and and specify certain measures to be taken FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rini the Silky Shark and reporting requirements in the event Ghosh, NMFS PIRO, 808–725–5033. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries a whale shark is encircled in a purse SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and seine net. This action is necessary for 22, 2014, NMFS published a proposed Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States to satisfy its rule in the Federal Register (79 FR Commerce. obligations under the Convention, to 49745) to implement decisions of the which it is a Contracting Party. ACTION: Final rule. Commission on the oceanic whitetip DATES: This rule is effective March 23, shark, the whale shark, and the silky SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations 2015. shark. The proposed rule was open for under authority of the Western and ADDRESSES: Copies of supporting public comment through October 6, Central Pacific Fisheries Convention documents prepared for this final rule, 2014. Implementation Act (WCPFC including the regulatory impact review This final rule is issued under the Implementation Act) to implement (RIR) and the Environmental authority of the WCPFC Implementation decisions of the Commission for the Assessment (EA), as well as the Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), which Conservation and Management of proposed rule, are available via the authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, at in consultation with the Secretary of Western and Central Pacific Ocean www.regulations.gov (search for Docket State and the Secretary of the (Commission or WCPFC) on fishing ID NOAA–NMFS–2014–0086). Those Department in which the United States restrictions related to the oceanic documents, and the small entity Coast Guard is operating (currently the whitetip shark (Carcharhinus compliance guide prepared for this final Department of Homeland Security), to longimanus), the whale shark rule, are also available from NMFS at promulgate such regulations as may be (Rhincodon typus), and the silky shark the following address: Michael D. necessary to carry out the obligations of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES 8808 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

the United States under the Convention, shark, respectively, apply to the entire (PNA). The final rule includes a including the decisions of the Convention Area, including, for the definition of the PNA as the Pacific Commission. The authority to United States, state and territorial Island countries that are parties to the promulgate regulations has been waters. The WCPFC Implementation Act Nauru Agreement Concerning delegated to NMFS. states that regulations promulgated Cooperation in the Management of This final rule implements the under the act shall apply within the Fisheries of Common Interest, as WCPFC’s ‘‘Conservation and boundaries of any of the States of the specified on the Web site of the Parties Management Measure for Oceanic United States and any commonwealth, to the Nauru Agreement at Whitetip Shark’’ (CMM 2011–04), territory or possession of the United www.pnatuna.com. The PNA currently ‘‘Conservation and Management States (hereafter ‘‘State’’) bordering on includes the following countries: Measure for Protection of Whale Sharks the Convention Area if the Secretary of Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, from Purse Seine Fishing Operations’’ Commerce has provided notice to the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua (CMM 2012–04), and ‘‘Conservation and State, the State does not request an New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Management Measure for Silky Sharks’’ agency hearing, and the Secretary of Tuvalu. Vessel owners and operators (CMM 2013–08). The preamble to the Commerce has determined that the State may be subject to similar prohibitions proposed rule provides background has not, within a reasonable period of regarding the whale shark in the EEZs information on a number of matters, time after the promulgation of of the PNA, if implemented by one or including the Convention and the regulations, enacted laws or more PNA countries. Commission, the provisions of the promulgated regulations that implement The second element for the whale WCPFC decisions being implemented in the recommendations of the WCPFC shark in the final rule requires the crew, this rule, and the bases for the proposed within the boundaries of the State; or operator, and owner of a fishing vessel regulations, which is not repeated here. has enacted laws or promulgated to release any whale shark that is New Requirements regulations that implement the encircled in a purse seine net in the recommendations of the WCPFC that are Convention Area, and to take reasonable The final rule includes six elements— less restrictive than the regulations steps to ensure its safe release, without three regarding the oceanic whitetip promulgated under the WCPFC compromising the safety of any persons. shark and silky shark and three Implementation Act or are not regarding the whale shark. This element does not apply in the effectively enforced (16 U.S.C. 6907(e)). territorial seas or archipelagic waters of Oceanic Whitetip Shark and Silky Shark Some of the fisheries affected by the any nation, but does apply in all EEZs, Elements oceanic whitetip shark and silky shark including the EEZs of the PNA. elements of the rule operate within the For the oceanic whitetip shark and The third and final element for the waters of American Samoa, Guam, whale shark in the final rule requires silky shark, the first element prohibits Hawaii, and the Commonwealth of the the crew, operator, and owner of a the owner and operator of a fishing Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). vessel that encircles a whale shark with fishing vessel of the United States used NMFS furnished copies of the proposed for commercial fishing for HMS from a purse seine in the Convention Area to rule to these States at the time of ensure that the incident is recorded by retaining on board, transshipping, publication in the Federal Register and the end of the day on the catch report storing, or landing any part or whole will furnish copies of the final rule as form, or Regional Purse Seine Logsheet carcass of an oceanic whitetip shark or well. NMFS is available to discuss ways (RPL), maintained pursuant to 50 CFR silky shark that is caught in the to ensure that the conservation and 300.34(c)(1), in the format specified by Convention Area. The second element management measures implemented in the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional requires the crew, operator, and owner this rulemaking can be consistently Administrator. The NMFS Pacific to release any oceanic whitetip shark or applied to Federal, state, and territorial Islands Regional Administrator would silky shark caught in the Convention managed fisheries. Area as soon as possible after the shark provide vessel owners and operators is caught and brought alongside the Whale Shark Elements with specific instructions for how to vessel and take reasonable steps for its For the whale shark, the first element record whale shark encirclements on the safe release, without compromising the of the final rule prohibits owners, RPL. safety of any persons. The third element operators, and crew of fishing vessels Comments and Responses takes into consideration that, from setting or attempting to set a purse notwithstanding the other two oceanic seine in the Convention Area on or NMFS received comments from 38 whitetip and silky shark elements of the around a whale shark if the animal is individuals on the proposed rule, as rule, WCPFC observers may collect sighted prior to the commencement of well as three comment letters from samples of oceanic whitetip sharks or the set or the attempted set. CMM 2012– groups or organizations. The comments silky sharks that are dead when brought 04 includes language making the have been grouped together, where alongside the vessel and the crew, prohibition specific to ‘‘a school of tuna appropriate, in the summaries below. operator, or owner of the vessel must associated with a whale shark.’’ Comment 1: Four commenters allow and assist them to collect samples However, it is unclear exactly what this provided general statements of support in the Convention Area, if requested to phrase means. Thus, NMFS believes it for the rule and five additional do so. Observers deployed by NMFS or is appropriate to apply this prohibition commenters expressed support for the the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries to any purse seine set or attempted set rule stating that oceanic whitetip sharks, Agency are currently considered on or around a whale shark that has whale sharks, and silky sharks need to WCPFC observers, as those programs been sighted prior to commencement of be protected from the fishing industry as have completed the required the set or attempted set. This they are at risk of extinction. authorization process to become part of prohibition would not apply to sets Response: NMFS acknowledges these the WCPFC Regional Observer made in the territorial seas or comments. Programme. archipelagic waters of any nation or in Comment 2: One commenter stated CMM 2011–04 and CMM 2013–08, for the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of that there is no sustainable way to fish the oceanic whitetip shark and the silky the Parties to the Nauru Agreement for these sharks. Their lengthy gestation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8809

and low reproduction rate make them to have something for which to strive. conservation and management of three vulnerable to environmental changes. It is in a fisherman’s best interest to help shark species. Response: NMFS notes that U.S. protect the fragile ecosystem he or she Comment 11: Three commenters vessel owners and operators subject to relies upon. stated that they fully support the this final rule are generally not fishing Response: NMFS acknowledges the regulation of shark finning and more for these sharks, as there is no directed comment. responsible fishing, as specified in the commercial shark fishery in the U.S. Comment 6: One commenter stated proposed rule. They also stated that Pacific Islands region. that oceanic whitetip sharks scour the these animals are critical members of Comment 3: Six commenters open ocean which is devoid of most life, the ecosystem and should be protected discussed how they view sharks as so when they encounter potential food, and that these regulations should be important parts of a healthy ocean and they may test it to see if it is edible. strictly enforced. that loss of sharks would be detrimental According to the commenter, the bad Response: Please see the response to to the environment. Two of these reputation of sharks comes from being Comment 4, above, for a description of commenters suggested that preserving opportunistic. However, thousands of the elements of the final rule. The final sharks could help the shark diving people have swum with these sharks rule does not regulate the practice of industry, and one of them provided a without injury. The sharks need to finning sharks, but other existing laws photo they had taken of an oceanic survive in a harsh, barren environment and regulations do so (e.g., the Shark whitetip shark. and they excel at it, so we should let Conservation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111– Response: NMFS acknowledges these them live. 348)). comments and the photo. Comment 12: One commenter Response: NMFS acknowledges the Comment 4: Ten commenters called supported the proposed rule and hopes comment. for protections from fishing for all shark that the United States will set an Comment 7: One commenter stated species; half of these commenters asked example for other countries. The that it is unconscionable to not for broad protections for other species, commenter also provided background implement stronger protections for these including cetaceans. Most discussed the information on the status and sharks. According to the commenter, importance of sharks to the ecosystem importance of these sharks. However, and some discussed their vulnerability studies have shown declines in oceanic the commenter asked NMFS to review to fishing and environmental changes. whitetip shark populations in the Gulf the whale shark provisions of the Response: The final rule establishes of Mexico. Silky shark populations are proposed rule, recommending that nets regulations that prohibit the retention, estimated to have also declined should not be allowed in the water if a transshipment, storage, and landing of dramatically. The International Union whale shark is seen and the regulations oceanic whitetip sharks and silky for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists should clarify what would happen if a sharks, and require the release of any the oceanic whitetip shark as purse seine net is already in the water oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark as vulnerable, the silky shark as near when a whale shark is sighted. The soon as possible after it is caught, with threatened, and the whale shark as commenter also expressed concern over as little harm to the shark as possible. vulnerable. Many countries have the lack of clarity in the definition of a The final rule also establishes recognized the fragility of whale shark ‘‘school of tuna associated with a whale regulations that prohibit setting a purse populations and have legislated full shark’’ and suggested that it be seine on a whale shark and specify protection for them. None of these rewritten. certain measures to be taken in the species can sustain ongoing depletion. Response: The regulations in this final event a whale shark is encircled in a Response: Please see the response to rule prohibit setting or attempting to set purse seine net, as well as a requirement Comment 4. a purse seine in the Convention Area on to report the incident to NMFS. As Comment 8: One commenter asked or around a whale shark if the animal described in the EA, other domestic and NMFS to reconsider implementing the is sighted prior to the commencement of international management measures, proposed rule, so that abuse of the the set or the attempted set. Should a such as the U.S. Shark Conservation Act ocean’s beautiful creatures would stop. whale shark be sighted after of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–348), are in place Response: We understand this commencement of the set when the net to mitigate the impacts of fishing on comment to mean that the commenter is already in the water, it is not certain shark species. NMFS, as well as believes the rule would lead to that the whale shark would become international organizations and other increased abuse of living marine encircled in the net or that retrieving the countries are actively considering resources. However, please see the net immediately would avoid encircling additional management for sharks. For response to Comment 4, above, for a the whale shark. However, the example, the WCPFC’s CMM 2010–07 summary of the regulations being regulations also require the crew, provides management measures for implemented in this rule. operator, and owner of a fishing vessel sharks, and the WCPFC is considering Comment 9: One commenter to release any whale shark that is additional shark management measures. requested NMFS to provide better encircled in a purse seine net and take Comment 5: One commenter protection for sharks. reasonable steps for its safe release recommended that the proposed Response: As stated above in the without compromising the safety of any regulations be adopted. The commenter response to Comment 4, the final rule persons. CMM 2012–04 includes stated that these shark species face implements WCPFC decisions for the language prohibiting vessels from many man-made perils and need any conservation and management of three setting a purse seine on a ‘‘school of beneficial regulations that can keep shark species. tuna associated with a whale shark’’ if them from becoming endangered. Comment 10: One commenter asked the animal is sighted prior to the According to the commenter, the why everyone wants to kill these shark commencement of the set or the proposed regulations would provide a species, since they are simply fantastic attempted set. As stated in the proposed legal framework for the agency to take and keep the ocean healthy. rule, it is unclear exactly what the action against any offenses. The Response: As described above in the phrase ‘‘school of tuna associated with commenter stated that enforcement will response to Comment 4, the final rule a whale shark,’’ as used in the CMM, likely be challenging but that it is good implements WCPFC decisions for the means. Thus, NMFS is implementing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES 8810 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

broad regulations to prohibit any purse modify the regulations to include a commenter also provided background seine set or attempted set on or around reporting requirement for silky shark information on the stock status and a whale shark that has been sighted bycatch to monitor the effectiveness of importance of the three shark species. prior to the commencement of the set or the regulations and for collecting The commenter urged NMFS to extend the attempted set. NMFS believes that additional data. The commenters also the applicability of the oceanic whitetip this interpretation of the CMM is suggested that NMFS provide a better shark and silky shark regulations to all practical for the crew, operators, and definition for the phrase ‘‘as little harm fisheries, including non-commercial owners of fishing vessels to implement as possible,’’ which is part of the fisheries, that the United States manages and for enforcement officials to enforce. provisions of CMM 2013–08 regarding in the western and central Pacific Ocean Comment 13: One commenter stated the release of any silky sharks caught in (WCPO) to enhance conservation and that as an officer in the U.S. distant the Convention Area, to ensure the enforcement ability. The commenter water purse seine fleet one of his safety of silky sharks and provide fair expressed agreement with NMFS’ responsibilities is to act as a medical enforcement. According to the interpretation of CMM 2012–04’s phrase officer. The commenter strongly commenters, allowing the operators of ‘‘school of tuna associated with a whale encourages the word ‘‘safely’’ to be individual fishing vessels to determine shark.’’ added to the language requiring the what level of harm is acceptable would release of oceanic whitetip sharks and increase the risk of the regulations being Response: The final regulations for silky sharks as soon as possible. applied arbitrarily. The commenters oceanic whitetip sharks and silky sharks Captured sharks can cause serious requested NMFS to consult with experts apply to all U.S. commercial HMS injuries to the crewmen trying to release to develop a more thorough definition fisheries operating in the Convention them alive. Risking crew injury is or establish guidelines for allowable and Area. NMFS interprets the WCPFC unacceptable. prohibited conduct when releasing silky decisions for the oceanic whitetip shark Response: NMFS agrees that the safety sharks. and the silky shark as being applicable of crew members is of paramount Response: WCPFC CMM 2010–07 only to commercial HMS fisheries, and importance. The regulations in this final identifies the silky shark as a key shark therefore believes that the inclusion of rule for oceanic whitetip sharks and species and requires retained and other fisheries in the rule, as requested silky sharks require the crew, operator, discarded catches to be reported by each by the commenter, would not be and owner: ‘‘to release any oceanic WCPFC member in its annual report to appropriate. Should NMFS determine whitetip shark or silky shark caught in the Commission. NMFS believes that that oceanic whitetip shark and silky the Convention Area as soon as possible additional reporting for silky shark shark conservation measures are needed after the shark is caught and brought catches, including discards, is not in other fisheries, NMFS would be able alongside the vessel and take reasonable needed at this time. The final to implement such measures through steps for its safe release, without regulations specify that crew, operators, other processes, such as those under the compromising the safety of any and owners must release silky sharks Magnuson-Stevens Fishery persons.’’ caught in the Convention Area as soon Conservation and Management Act. Comment 14: One commenter who as possible after the shark is caught and has managed a U.S. built and owned Comment 17: One organization brought alongside the vessel, taking provided comments expressing its purse seine vessel that has operated out reasonable steps for its safe release, strong support for the proposed rule. of Pago Pago, American Samoa, since without compromising the safety of any The letter approved of NMFS’s 1981 expressed concerns over the persons. NMFS believes that this is a interpretation of the WCPFC measures proposal and stated that U.S. vessels reasonable interpretation of CMM 2013– to protect whale sharks, and noted the already practice the regulations being 08’s phrase ‘‘as little harm as possible’’ complementary nature of these implemented. The commenter believes that can be implemented and enforced. that piecemeal protections for various The WCPFC Scientific Committee has regulations to similar regulations that species are inefficient and generate considered appropriate guidelines for recently went into effect in the eastern excess paperwork. The commenter the safe release of encircled animals, Pacific Ocean. suggested that the United States instead such as whale sharks in purse seine Response: NMFS acknowledges these propose a full purse seine closure nets, but the WCPFC has not yet comments. period for all Commission Members, adopted uniform guidelines. NMFS will Cooperating Non-Members, and establish additional shark handling Changes From the Proposed Rule Participating Territories (WCPFC requirements if and when needed The phrase ‘‘areas under the national members), similar to what is in effect in should the WCPFC adopt further jurisdiction of the Parties to the Nauru the eastern Pacific Ocean. measures in this regard. NMFS does not Agreement’’ is used in the regulatory Response: The final rule implements believe issuance of these regulations text to refer to the EEZs of the PNA. For specific WCPFC decisions on oceanic should be postponed in order to develop clarification purposes, a definition of whitetip sharks, whale sharks, and silky such handling guidelines or areas under the national jurisdiction of sharks. The United States, as a member requirements. the Parties to the Nauru Agreement has of the WCPFC, regularly considers Comment 16: One organization been added to the regulatory text. conservation and management measures provided comments expressing support that could be adopted by the WCPFC for for the proposed regulations and noting The new paragraph under 50 CFR purse seine fisheries, but such measures that the implementation deadlines in 300.218 has been relabeled as (h) to are outside the scope of this rulemaking. CMM 2011–04, CMM 2012–04, and accommodate another addition to 50 Comment 15: One group of CMM 2013–08 have already passed. The CFR 300.218 under a separate commenters who submitted their commenter indicated the need for rapid rulemaking. The new paragraphs under comments jointly supported the completion of the implementation of the 50 CFR 300.222 have been relabeled as regulations, especially in regard to silky measures to ensure that the United (ss), (tt), (uu), (vv), and (ww) to sharks, and provided background States is in full compliance with its accommodate another addition to 50 information on silky sharks. The WCPFC obligations for shark CFR 300.222 under a separate commenters proposed that NMFS conservation and management. The rulemaking.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8811

Classification 2014); 165 longline vessels (based on Act, as well as additional requirements, The Administrator, Pacific Islands the number of longline vessels as described in the SUPPLEMENTARY Region, NMFS, has determined that this permitted to fish as of July 2014 under INFORMATION section of this final rule, final rule is consistent with the WCPFC the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pacific above. The classes of small entities Implementation Act and other Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific subject to the requirements and the applicable laws. Region, which includes vessels based in costs of complying with the Hawaii (a total of 164 Hawaii Longline requirements are described below for Executive Order 12866 Limited Entry permits are available), each of the six elements of the final This final rule has been determined to American Samoa (a total of 60 American rule—three elements regarding the be not significant for purposes of Samoa Longline Limited Entry permits oceanic whitetip shark and silky shark, Executive Order 12866. are available), and the Mariana Islands); and three elements regarding the whale 2,089 tropical troll and 572 Hawaii shark. Regulatory Flexibility Act handline vessels (based on the number Oceanic Whitetip Shark and Silky A FRFA was prepared. The FRFA of active troll and handline vessels in Shark Element (1): Prohibit the crew, incorporates the IRFA prepared for the American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, and operator, and owner of a fishing vessel proposed rule. The analysis in the IRFA Hawaii in 2012, the latest year for which from retaining on board, transshipping, is not repeated here in its entirety. complete data are available); 1 tropical storing, or landing any oceanic whitetip A description of the action, why it is pole-and-line vessel (based on the shark or silky shark. This element being considered, and the legal basis for number of active vessels in 2012), and prohibits the crew, operator, and owner this action are contained in the 13 albacore troll vessels (based on the of a fishing vessel of the United States preamble of the proposed rule and in number of albacore troll vessels used for commercial fishing for HMS the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY authorized to fish on the high seas in from retaining on board, transshipping, INFORMATION sections of this final rule, the Convention Area as of July 2014). storing, or landing any part or whole above. The analysis follows. Thus, the total estimated number of carcass of an oceanic whitetip shark or Significant Issues Raised by Public vessels that would be subject to the rule silky shark that is caught in the is approximately 2,880. Comments in Response to the IRFA Convention Area. This requirement Based on (limited) available financial would not impose any new reporting or NMFS did not receive any comments information about the affected fishing specifically on the IRFA. Two of the fleets and the SBA’s definition of a recordkeeping requirements. It is not public comments received on the small finfish harvester (i.e., gross annual expected to require any professional proposed rule touched on the economic receipts of less than $20.5 million, skills that the affected vessel owners, impacts of the proposed action; see independently owned and operated, and operators and crew do not already Comments #5 and #14, and NMFS’ not dominant in its field of operation), possess. This requirement would apply responses to those comments, above. and using individual vessels as proxies to owners, operators and crew of any for individual businesses, NMFS vessel used to fish for HMS for Description of Small Entities to Which commercial purposes in the Convention the Rule Will Apply believes that all of the affected fish harvesting businesses are small entities. Area. Accordingly, it would apply to all Small entities include ‘‘small As stated above, there are currently 40 vessels identified above. Based on the businesses,’’ ‘‘small organizations,’’ and purse seine vessels in the affected purse best available data, oceanic whitetip ‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ The seine fishery. Neither gross receipts nor shark and silky shark are not caught in Small Business Administration (SBA) ex-vessel price information specific to the Hawaii handline fishery, the Hawaii has established size standards for all the 40 vessels are available to NMFS. pole-and-line fishery, or the albacore major industry sectors in the United Average annual receipts for each of the troll fishery. Thus, compliance costs are States, including commercial finfish 40 vessels during the last 3 years for expected only in the purse seine, harvesters (NAICS code 114111). A which reasonably complete data are longline, and tropical troll fleets. This business primarily involved in finfish available (2010–2012) were estimated as requirement forecloses harvesting harvesting is classified as a small follows. The vessel’s reported retained businesses’ opportunity to retain and business if it is independently owned catches of skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, sell or otherwise make use of the two and operated, is not dominant in its and bigeye tuna in each year were each species. The compliance cost for each field of operation (including its multiplied by an indicative Asia-Pacific entity can be approximated by the ex- affiliates), and has combined annual regional cannery price for that species vessel value of the amount of the two receipts not in excess of $20.5 million and year (developed by the Pacific species that would be expected to be for all its affiliated operations Islands Forum Fisheries Agency and retained if it were allowed (under no worldwide. available at https://www.ffa.int/node/ action). Price data for specific shark The final rule will apply to owners 425#attachments); the products were species and in specific fisheries is and operators of U.S. fishing vessels summed across species for each year; lacking, so this analysis assumes that used to fish for HMS for commercial and the sums were averaged across the the ex-vessel value of both species in all purposes in the Convention Area. This 3 years. The estimated average annual affected fisheries is $1.50/kg, which is includes vessels in the purse seine, receipts for each of the 40 vessels were the 2011 ex-vessel price (converted to longline, tropical troll (including those less than the $20.5 million threshold 2013 dollars) for sharks generally in in American Samoa, the CNMI, Guam, used to classify businesses as small Hawaii’s commercial pelagic fisheries and Hawaii), Hawaii handline, Hawaii entities under the SBA size standard for (which do not include the purse seine pole-and-line, and west coast-based finfish harvesting businesses. fishery, in which the fate and value of albacore troll fleets. The estimated retained sharks are not known). number of affected fishing vessels is as Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Expected retained amounts of each of follows, broken down by fleet: 40 purse Compliance Requirements the two species in each fishery (under seine vessels (based on the number of The final rule will establish one new no action) are based on the recent level purse seine vessels licensed under the reporting requirement within the of fishing effort multiplied by the recent South Pacific Tuna Treaty as of March meaning of the Paperwork Reduction retention rate per unit of fishing effort.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES 8812 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

For all fisheries except the purse seine fisheries might be reasonable proxies for each of the approximately 35 vessels fishery, the average of the last 5 years catch rates in the Mariana Islands expected to participate in this fishery is for which complete data are available, fishery. In that case, to the extent either zero. 2008–2012, is used. The analysis of oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark is Oceanic Whitetip Shark and Silky impacts for the purse seine fishery uses caught and retained in the Mariana Shark Element (2): Require the crew, fishing effort and the retention rate Islands longline fishery in the future, operators, and owners of U.S. fishing averaged over 2010 and 2011 because the effects of the final rule can be vessels used for commercial fishing for the fleet was substantially smaller than expected to be about the same—on a HMS in the Convention Area to release the current 40-vessel size in years per-unit of fishing effort basis—as those any oceanic whitetip shark or silky previous to 2010, 100% observer in the other longline fisheries, as shark caught in the Convention Area. coverage started in 2010, and 2011 is the described here. In the Hawaii and This element requires the vessel crew, last year for which near-complete data American Samoa longline fisheries, it is operator, and owner to release any are available. Fishing effort estimates estimated that 0.2 oceanic whitetip oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark are based on vessel logbook data, except shark and 0.1 silky shark would be caught in the Convention Area as soon in the case of the American Samoa, retained (under no action) per vessel per as possible after the shark is caught and CNMI, and Guam troll fisheries, for year, on average. These amounts equate brought alongside the vessel and take which creel survey data are used. to estimated lost annual revenue of reasonable steps to ensure its safe Recent retention rates in the purse seine about $12 per vessel, on average. release, without compromising the safety of any persons. This requirement and longline fisheries are estimated Catch and retention rates of the two would not impose any new reporting or from vessel observer data. In the Hawaii shark species in the tropical troll recordkeeping requirements. It is not troll fishery, vessel logbook data are fisheries are difficult to estimate for expected to require any professional used, and in the American Samoa, several reasons. For example, in the skills that the affected vessel owners, CNMI, and Guam troll fisheries, creel Hawaii troll fishery, there is no species operators and crew do not already survey data are used. Fish numbers are code for silky shark, so any catches of possess. This requirement could bring converted to weights based on vessel that species are recorded as unidentified costs in the form of reduced efficiency observer data for each fishery, except for sharks. In the troll fisheries of the three the troll fisheries, for which weight data of fishing operations, but it is difficult territories, because the two carcharhinid are lacking and the average weights in to assess the costs because it is not species are retained only infrequently, it the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery are possible to predict whether or how is difficult to generate estimates of total used. The average weights used are, for vessel operators and crew would change catches of the two species with much oceanic whitetip shark and silky shark, their release/discard practices relative to certainty using the creel surveys that respectively: purse seine—23 kg and 32 what they do currently. For purse seine sample only a subset of all fishing trips. kg; Hawaii deep-set longline—27 kg and vessels, it is expected that in most cases, Because of these and other limitations, 28 kg; Hawaii shallow-set longline—27 the fish would be released after it is only very approximate estimates can be kg and 28 kg; American Samoa brailed from the purse seine and made. For this analysis, all unidentified longline—26 kg and 18 kg; and tropical brought on deck. In these cases, the troll—27 kg (the two species cannot be sharks in the data are assumed to be labor involved would probably be little accurately distinguished in the data and oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark, so different than current practice for are combined for the purpose of this the resulting estimates are upper-bound discarded sharks. If the vessel operator analysis). estimates. In the Hawaii troll fishery, it and crew determine that it is possible to In the purse seine fishery, in which is estimated that 9 sharks would be release the fish before it is brought on about 40 vessels are expected to retained (under no action) per year, on deck, this would likely involve greater participate in the near future, it is average, for the fishery as a whole. With intervention and time on the part of estimated that 0.1 oceanic whitetip approximately 1,694 vessels expected to crew members, with associated labor shark and 2.9 silky shark would be participate in the fishery (based on the costs. For longline and troll vessels, it retained (under no action) per vessel per number active in 2012), this equates to is expected that the fish would be year, on average. Applying the average about 0.01 sharks per vessel per year, quickly released as it is brought to the weights and price given above, these and an estimated lost annual revenue of side of the vessel, such as by cutting the amounts equate to estimated lost annual less than one dollar per vessel. The line or removing the hook. In these revenue of about $140 per vessel, on Guam troll fishery, with about 351 cases, no costs would be incurred. In average. vessels expected to participate in the some cases, the vessel operator and As indicated above, about 165 vessels near future, is expected to retain about crew might determine that it is are expected to participate in the 2 sharks per year (under no action), on necessary to bring the fish on board the affected longline fisheries in the near average, for the fleet as a whole. This vessel before releasing it. This would future. The longline fisheries operating equates to about 0.01 sharks per vessel involve greater labor than releasing the in the Convention Area include the per year, and an estimated annual fish from alongside the vessel, but the Hawaii-based fisheries, which include a compliance cost of less than one dollar release methods used in these cases tuna-targeting deep-set fishery and per vessel. In the American Samoa troll might be the same as those used under swordfish-targeting shallow set fishery, fishery, it is estimated that about 0.3 the status quo, in which case no new and the American Samoa-based fishery. sharks would be retained, on average, costs would be incurred. Occasionally there is also longline per year (under no action). With about Oceanic Whitetip Shark and Silky fishing by vessels based in the Mariana 9 vessels expected to participate in the Shark Element (3): Require the crew, Islands, where participation is typically fishery, this equates to about 0.03 sharks operators, and owners of U.S. fishing fewer than three vessels in any given per vessel per year, and an estimated vessels used for commercial fishing for year. No vessel observer data are annual compliance cost of less than one HMS in the Convention Area to allow available specifically for the Mariana dollar per vessel. The creel survey and assist observers in the collection of Islands longline fishery, making it encountered no retained sharks in the oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark difficult to analyze shark catch rates, but CNMI troll fishery in 2008–2012, so the samples. This element requires the shark catch rates in the other longline best estimate of lost annual revenue for vessel crew, operator, and owner to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8813

allow and assist a WCPFC observer to or attempting to set a purse seine in the above, they would occur 1.3 to 3.3 times collect samples of dead oceanic whitetip Convention Area on or around a whale per year, on average, for the fleet as a sharks or silky sharks when requested to shark if the animal is sighted prior to whole, or 0.03 to 0.08 times per year for do so by the observer. In such cases, and the commencement of the set or the each of the 40 vessels in the fleet, on in any case in which the observer attempted set. This requirement applies average. collects a sample of an oceanic whitetip to all U.S. purse seine vessels fishing on In those instances that a whale shark shark or silky shark, the crew, operator, the high seas and in the EEZs in the is sighted prior to an intended set, the and owner would be relieved of the two Convention Area, except the EEZs of the vessel operator would have to wait and/ requirements listed above. Under PNA. This requirement does not impose or move the vessel to find the next existing regulations, operators and crew any new reporting or recordkeeping opportunity to make a set. The of vessels with WCPFC Area requirements. It is not expected to consequences in terms of time lost and Endorsements (i.e., vessels authorized to require any professional skills that the distance travelled and associated costs be used for commercial fishing for HMS affected vessel owners, operators and cannot be projected with any certainty. on the high seas in the Convention crew do not already possess. At best, the operator would find an Area) are already required to assist In the event that a whale shark is opportunity to make a set soon after the observers in the collection of samples. sighted in the vicinity of a purse seine event, and only trivial costs would be This would effectively expand that vessel prior to a desired set, complying incurred. At worst, the vessel operator requirement—for just these two shark with the final rule could cause forgone would lose the opportunity to make a species—to vessels not required to have fishing opportunities and result in set for the remainder of the day. Under WCPFC Area Endorsements. This economic losses. It is difficult to project this worst-case assumption, a vessel requirement would not impose any new the frequency of pre-set whale shark- could lose the net benefits associated reporting or recordkeeping sighting events because such events are with 0.03 to 0.08 fishing days per year, requirements. It is not expected to not recorded. Historical data on whale on average. Those lost net benefits require any professional skills that the shark catches are available, but catches cannot be estimated because of a lack of affected vessel owners, operators and are not equivalent to pre-set whale shark fishing cost data, but information on crew do not already possess. Although sightings, for two reasons. On the one gross receipts can provide an upper- this element would relieve vessel hand, presumably not all whale sharks bound estimate. Using regional cannery owners, operators and crew from the within ‘‘sightable’’ distance of a set are prices in 2012 for each of the three requirements of the first two elements actually caught (thus, in this respect, marketable tuna species, and the U.S. described above in those cases where whale shark catch data under-represent fleet’s average catches and fishing days the vessel observer collects a sample of pre-set whale shark sighting events). On in 2011–2012, the expected gross an oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark, the other hand, according to anecdotal receipts per fishing day would be about it would not be expected to relieve information from purse seine vessel $60,000. Thus, an upper-bound estimate fishing businesses of the costs identified operators, not all captured whale sharks of the loss in gross revenue that could above for the no-retention requirement, are seen before the set commences (thus, occur to a vessel as a result of losing since the samples would be kept by the in this respect, the whale shark catch 0.03 to 0.08 fishing days is observer and would not be available for data over-represent pre-set whale shark- approximately $1,800 to $4,800 per sale or other use by the fishing business. sighting events). Nonetheless, historical year. whale shark catch rates can provide a Whale Shark Element (2): Require the This element could also bring additional rough indicator of the frequency of pre- crew, operator, and owner of U.S. costs to fishing businesses because it set whale shark sighting events in the fishing vessels used for commercial would require the owner, operator, and future. fishing for HMS in the Convention Area crew to assist the observer in the Based on unpublished vessel observer to release any whale shark that is collection of samples if requested to do data from the FFA observer program, the encircled in a purse seine net. This so by the observer. Observers would be average whale shark catch rate in 2010– element would require the crew, under instructions to collect samples 2011 for the U.S. purse seine fishery in operator, and owner of a fishing vessel only if they do so as part of a program the Convention Area, excluding the to release any whale shark that is that has been specifically authorized by EEZs of the PNA, was approximately 2 encircled in a purse seine net in the the WCPFC Scientific Committee, and fish per thousand fishing days. The Convention Area, and to do so in a only from sharks that are dead when average catch rate during that period in manner that results in as little harm to brought alongside the vessel. It is not the Convention Area as a whole the shark as possible, without possible to project how often observers (including the waters of the PNA EEZs) compromising the safety of any persons. would request assistance in collecting was about 5 fish per thousand fishing This requirement would apply to all samples. When it does occur, it is not days. For this analysis, this range of 2– U.S. purse seine vessels fishing on the expected that sample collection would 5 events per thousand fishing days is high seas and in the EEZs of the be so disruptive as to substantially delay used as an estimate of pre-set whale Convention Area, including the EEZs of or otherwise impact fishing operations, shark-sighting events in the future. the PNA. This requirement would not but the fishing business could bear Based on the average levels of U.S. impose any new reporting or small costs in terms of crew labor, and purse seine fishing effort in the recordkeeping requirements. It is not possibly the loss of storage space that Convention Area outside the EEZs of the expected to require any professional could be used for other purposes. PNA in 2010 and 2011 (462 and 842 skills that the affected vessel owners, Whale Shark Element (1): Prohibit fishing days, respectively; NMFS operators and crew do not already owners, operators, and crew of U.S. unpublished data), it can be expected possess. Unpublished historical vessel fishing vessels used for commercial that approximately 652 fishing days per observer data from the FFA observer fishing for HMS in the Convention Area year will be spent by the fleet in that program indicates that all whale sharks from setting or attempting to set a purse area in the future. At that level of captured in the U.S. WCPO purse seine seine on or around a whale shark. This fishing effort, if pre-set whale shark- fishery are released; that is, they are not requirement prohibits owners, operators sighting events occurred in 2 to 5 per retained or marketed. The release and crew of fishing vessels from setting thousand fishing days, as described requirement, therefore, is not expected

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES 8814 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

to have any effect on fishing operations Administrator. This requirement would element applies on the high seas and in or to bring any compliance costs. The apply to all U.S. purse seine vessels the EEZs of the Convention Area, except requirement to release the sharks in a fishing on the high seas and in the EEZs for the EEZs of the PNA. CMM 2012–04 manner that results in as little harm to of the Convention Area, including the states that WCPFC members ‘‘shall the shark as possible without EEZs of the PNA. Because catch and prohibit their flagged vessels from compromising the safety of any persons effort logbooks are already required to setting a purse seine on a school of tuna would be a new and potentially be maintained and submitted in the associated with a whale shark if the burdensome requirement, but it is not purse seine fishery, there would be no animal is sighted prior to the possible to quantitatively assess the cost additional cost associated with commencement of the set’’. NMFS for two reasons. First, it is not clear how submitting the logbook, but vessels considered developing alternative often whale sharks would be encircled. would be required to record additional means of implementing the prohibition As indicated above, the average annual information associated with whale shark on setting on a school of tuna, such as rate by U.S. purse seine vessels in the encirclements. The required information specifying a minimum distance for the Convention Area in 2010 and 2011 was for each incident would include a prohibition (e.g., no setting within half about 5 encirclements per thousand description of the steps taken to a mile of a whale shark sighting) or a fishing days. But the rate in the future minimize harm and an assessment of its minimum time period for the is expected to be reduced as a result of condition upon its release. This prohibition (e.g., no setting within 10 the setting prohibition described in the additional information requirement minutes of sighting a whale shark). first whale shark element, above. would be added to the information However, NMFS did not identify any Nonetheless, if 5 encirclements per required to be reported under a current such alternative for this element that thousand fishing days is considered an information collection (OMB control would be reasonable and feasible. After upper-bound projection, then at a future number 0648–0218; see the section on a whale shark is sighted, it is unclear fishing effort rate of 7,991 fishing days the Paperwork Reduction Act below for where and when it will be sighted next, per year in the Convention Area (based more information). As indicated for the since sharks do not have to return to the on the average spent in 2010 and 2011) previous element, it is not possible to surface regularly to breathe. Therefore, and 40 vessels in the fleet, an upper- project the rate of encirclements with NMFS determined that there is only one bound projection of the rate of certainty, but one encirclement per reasonable and feasible manner of encirclements per vessel is one per year, vessel per year, on average, is an upper- implementing this element of the final on average. The second reason for the bound projection. NMFS estimates that rule. difficulty in assessing the compliance it would take about 10 minutes to record CMM 2012–04 states that for fishing costs of this requirement is that current the required information for each activities in the EEZs of WCPFC vessel practices regarding whale shark encirclement. At an estimated labor cost members north of 30° N. latitude, releases are not known in detail. of $25 per hour, the annual cost per WCPFC members shall implement Although data on the condition of each vessel would be about $4. either the provisions of CMM 2012–04 captured whale shark is available (e.g., Disproportionate Impacts or compatible measures consistent with based on unpublished FFA observer There would be no disproportionate the obligations under CMM 2012–04. data for 2010 and 2011, 68 percent of economic impacts between small and The U.S. purse seine fleet does not fish captured whale sharks were released ° large vessel-operating entities resulting north of 30 N. latitude in the WCPO. alive, 2 percent were released dead, and from this final rule. Furthermore, there Thus, rather than attempting to develop the condition of the remainder was would be no disproportionate economic a separate set of ‘‘compatible measures’’ unknown), these data do not reveal impacts based on vessel size, gear, or for EEZs of WCPFC members north of 30 anything about whether the condition of ° home port, as all the vessels in the fleets N. latitude that may or may not be the released whale sharks could have would be subject to the same triggered by any actual U.S. purse seine been better, or what the vessel crew requirements and NMFS has not operations, NMFS decided to would have had to have done to identified any factors related to vessel implement the provisions of CMM improve the sharks’ condition. In size, gear, or home port that would lead 2012–04 for all EEZs in the Convention conclusion, this requirement might to disproportionate impacts. Area (with the exception of the first bring some costs to purse seine vessel element not being applicable to the operations, in the form of the crew Steps Taken To Minimize the EEZs of the PNA, as described above). potentially having to spend more time Significant Economic Impacts on Small NMFS did not identify any other handling encircled whale sharks (at Entities alternatives for any of the elements of most, one per year per vessel, on For the oceanic whitetip shark and the final rule. average) in order to release them with as silky shark elements of the final rule, Taking no action could result in lesser little harm as possible. NMFS did not identify any adverse economic impacts than the final Whale Shark Element (3): Require the alternatives—other than the no-action action for many affected entities. The owner and operator of a fishing vessel alternative—that would minimize economic impacts that would be that encircles a whale shark to record economic impacts on affected entities. avoided by taking no action are the incident on a catch report form. This For the whale shark elements of the described above, including quantitative requirement would require the owner final rule, NMFS considered several estimates—to the extent possible—for and operator of a fishing vessel that alternatives. As discussed above, the the first oceanic whitetip shark element encircles a whale shark with a purse first element of the final rule for the and the first and third whale shark seine net in the Convention Area to whale shark prohibits owners, elements of the final rule. However, ensure that the incident is recorded by operators, and crew of fishing vessels NMFS has determined that the no- the end of the day on the catch report from setting or attempting to set a purse action alternative would fail to form, or Regional Purse Seine Logsheet seine in the Convention Area on or accomplish the objectives of the WCPFC (RPL) maintained pursuant to 50 CFR around a whale shark if the animal is Implementation Act, including 300.34(c)(1), in the format specified by sighted prior to the commencement of satisfying the obligations of the United the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional the set or the attempted set. This States as a Contracting Party to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 8815

Convention. The no-action alternative is Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS vessel of the United States used for rejected for this reason. PIRO (see ADDRESSES) and by email to commercial fishing in the Convention [email protected] or fax Area that encircles a whale shark Small Entity Compliance Guide to 202–395–7285. (Rhincodon typus) with a purse seine in Section 212 of the Small Business Notwithstanding any other provision the Convention Area shall ensure that Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of of the law, no person is required to the incident is recorded by the end of 1996 states that, for each rule or group respond to, and no person shall be the day on the catch report forms of related rules for which an agency is subject to penalty for failure to comply maintained pursuant to § 300.34(c)(1), required to prepare a FRFA, the agency with, a collection of information subject in the format specified by the Pacific shall publish one or more guides to to the requirements of the PRA, unless Islands Regional Administrator. This assist small entities in complying with that collection of information displays a paragraph does not apply to the the rule, and shall designate such currently valid OMB control number. territorial seas or archipelagic waters of publications as ‘‘small entity any nation, as defined by the domestic List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300 compliance guides.’’ The agency shall laws and regulations of that nation and explain the actions a small entity is Administrative practice and recognized by the United States. required to take to comply with a rule procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, ■ 4. In § 300.222, paragraphs (ss), (tt), or group of rules. As part of this Marine resources, Reporting and (uu), (vv), and (ww) are added to read rulemaking process, a small entity recordkeeping requirements, Treaties. as follows: compliance guide has been prepared. Dated: February 12, 2015. The guide will be sent to permit and § 300.222 Prohibitions. license holders in the affected fishery. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for * * * * * The guide and this final rule will also (ss) Fail to submit, or ensure be available at www.fpir.noaa.gov and Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. submission of, a whale shark by request from NMFS PIRO (see encirclement report as required in ADDRESSES). For the reasons set out in the § 300.218(h). preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended Paperwork Reduction Act (tt) Set or attempt to set a purse seine as follows: on or around a whale shark (Rhincodon This final rule contains a collection- PART 300—INTERNATIONAL typus) in contravention of § 300.223(g). of-information requirement subject to (uu) Fail to release a whale shark FISHERIES REGULATIONS the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that encircled in a purse seine net of a has been approved by the Office of Subpart O—Western and Central fishing vessel as required in Management and Budget (OMB) under § 300.223(h). control number 0648–0218, ‘‘South Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (vv) Use a fishing vessel to retain on Pacific Tuna Act’’. The public reporting board, transship, store, or land any part burden for the catch report form (also ■ 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR or whole carcass of an oceanic whitetip known as the RPL) under that part 300, subpart O, continues to read as shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) or collection-of-information was estimated follows: silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) in to average one hour per response (i.e., contravention of § 300.226(a). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. per fishing trip), including the time for (ww) Fail to release an oceanic reviewing instructions, searching ■ 2. In § 300.211, the definitions of whitetip shark or silky shark as required existing data sources, gathering and ‘‘Areas under the national jurisdiction in § 300.226(b). maintaining the data needed, and of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement’’ ■ 5. In § 300.223, paragraphs (g) and (h) completing and reviewing the collection and ‘‘Parties to the Nauru Agreement’’ are added to read as follows: of information. The whale shark are added, in alphabetical order, to read encirclement reporting requirement as follows: § 300.223 Purse seine fishing restrictions. under this final rule changes the catch * * * * * report element of the collection-of- § 300.211 Definitions. (g) Owners, operators, and crew of information. Under this final rule, in the * * * * * fishing vessels of the United States used event that a whale shark is encircled in Areas under the national jurisdiction for commercial fishing for HMS in the a purse seine net, information about that of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Convention Area shall not set or attempt event would be required to be included means the exclusive economic zones of to set a purse seine in the Convention in the catch report form. Providing this the Parties to the Nauru Agreement. Area on or around a whale shark additional information will increase the * * * * * (Rhincodon typus) if the animal is reporting burden by approximately 10 Parties to the Nauru Agreement sighted at any time prior to the minutes per encirclement, which, given means the parties to the Nauru commencement of the set or the an estimated one encirclement per year Agreement Concerning Cooperation in attempted set. This paragraph does not and five fishing trips per year, on the Management of Fisheries of apply to the territorial seas or average, equates to approximately 2 Common Interest, as specified on the archipelagic waters of any nation, as minutes per fishing trip or per response. Web site of the Parties to the Nauru defined by the domestic laws and Therefore, the new estimated burden Agreement at www.pnatuna.com. regulations of that nation and per response (i.e., per fishing trip) for * * * * * recognized by the United States, or to the catch report form is 62 minutes. No ■ 3. In § 300.218, paragraph (h) is added areas under the national jurisdiction of comments were received on this to read as follows: the Parties to the Nauru Agreement. collection-of-information requirement in (h) The crew, operator, and owner of response to the proposed rule. Send § 300.218 Reporting and recordkeeping a fishing vessel of the United States comments regarding this burden requirements. used for commercial fishing for HMS in estimate, or any other aspect of this data * * * * * the Convention Area must release any collection, including suggestions for (h) Whale shark encirclement reports. whale shark that is encircled in a purse reducing the burden, to Michael D. The owner and operator of a fishing seine net in the Convention Area, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES 8816 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

take reasonable steps for its safe release, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NMFS (Regional Administrator) has without compromising the safety of any determined that the A season allowance persons. This paragraph does not apply National Oceanic and Atmospheric of the 2015 Pacific cod TAC to the territorial seas or archipelagic Administration apportioned to vessels using pot gear in waters of any nation, as defined by the the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA domestic laws and regulations of that 50 CFR Part 679 will soon be reached. Therefore, the nation and recognized by the United [Docket No. 130925836–4174–02] Regional Administrator is establishing a States. directed fishing allowance of 8,026 mt RIN 0648–XD714 and is setting aside the remaining 10 mt ■ 6. Section 300.226 is added to read as as bycatch to support other anticipated Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic follows: groundfish fisheries. In accordance with Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional § 300.226 Oceanic whitetip shark and silky Vessels Using Pot Gear in the Central Administrator finds that this directed shark. Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska fishing allowance has been reached. (a) The crew, operator, and owner of AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting a fishing vessel of the United States Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and directed fishing for Pacific cod by used for commercial fishing for HMS Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), vessels using pot gear in the Central cannot retain on board, transship, store, Commerce. Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the or land any part or whole carcass of an ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. effective date of this closure the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus maximum retainable amounts at longimanus) or silky shark SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time (Carcharhinus falciformis) that is caught fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using during a trip. in the Convention Area, unless subject pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area Classification to the provisions of paragraph (c) of this of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action This action responds to the best section. is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2015 Pacific available information recently obtained (b) The crew, operator, and owner of cod total allowable catch apportioned to from the fishery. The Assistant a fishing vessel of the United States vessels using pot gear in the Central Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA used for commercial fishing for HMS Regulatory Area of the GOA. (AA), finds good cause to waive the must release any oceanic whitetip shark DATES: Effective 1200 hours, Alaska requirement to provide prior notice and or silky shark caught in the Convention local time (A.l.t.), February 16, 2015, opportunity for public comment Area as soon as possible after the shark through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 is caught and brought alongside the 2015. U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is vessel, and take reasonable steps for its impracticable and contrary to the public safe release, without compromising the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: interest. This requirement is safety of any persons, unless subject to Obren Davis, 907–586–7228. impracticable and contrary to the public the provisions of paragraph (c) of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS interest as it would prevent NMFS from section. manages the groundfish fishery in the responding to the most recent fisheries GOA exclusive economic zone data in a timely fashion and would (c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this according to the Fishery Management delay the directed fishing closure of section do not apply in the event that a Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Pacific cod for vessels using pot gear in WCPFC observer collects, or requests Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. the assistance of the vessel crew, Pacific Fishery Management Council NMFS was unable to publish a notice operator, or owner in the observer’s under authority of the Magnuson- providing time for public comment collection of, samples of oceanic Stevens Fishery Conservation and because the most recent, relevant data whitetip shark or silky shark in the Management Act. Regulations governing only became available as of February 12, Convention Area. fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 2015. (d) The crew, operator, and owner of with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 The AA also finds good cause to a fishing vessel of the United States CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. waive the 30-day delay in the effective used for commercial fishing for HMS in Regulations governing sideboard date of this action under 5 U.S.C. the Convention Area must allow and protections for GOA groundfish 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon assist a WCPFC observer to collect fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR the reasons provided above for waiver of samples of oceanic whitetip shark or part 680. prior notice and opportunity for public The A season allowance of the 2015 silky shark in the Convention Area, if comment. Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) requested to do so by the WCPFC This action is required by § 679.20 apportioned to vessels using pot gear in and is exempt from review under observer. the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA Executive Order 12866. [FR Doc. 2015–03388 Filed 2–18–15; 8:45 am] is 8,036 metric tons (mt), as established Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA Dated: February 13, 2015. (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014) and Alan D. Risenhoover, inseason adjustment (80 FR 192, January Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 5, 2015). National Marine Fisheries Service. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), [FR Doc. 2015–03447 Filed 2–13–15; 4:15 pm] the Administrator, Alaska Region, BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:41 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19FER1.SGM 19FER1 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES