Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Highly Migratory Species Fisheries

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

NMFS publishes a final rule to implement the approved portions of the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (FMP), which was submitted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) for review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce and was partially approved on February 4, 2004, under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The intended effect of this final rule is to establish Federal management of manage U.S. fisheries for Pacific tunas, sharks, billfish, swordfish, and other highly migratory fish in the surface hook and line, drift gillnet, harpoon, pelagic longline, purse seine, and recreational fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California and (for U.S. vessels) in adjacent high seas waters. This final rule will prevent overfishing of the fish stocks to the extent practicable and achieve optimum yield for the U.S. fisheries involved while minimizing bycatch and protected species interactions consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The final rule implements consistent management of these fisheries with respect to the states, other fishery management councils, and international agreements. The final rule will promote the long-term economic health of the fisheries.

DATES:

Effective May 7, 2004, except for §§ 660.704 Vessel identification, 660.707 Permits, 660.708 Recordkeeping and reporting, 660.712(d) Vessel monitoring system, 660.712(f) pre-trip notification, which are effective 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of a notice announcing approval of the Paperwork Reduction Act clearance request for this information collection; and for § 660.712(e) Protected species workshop, which is effective January 1, 2005.

The prohibitions associated with the delayed requirements are applicable on the dates of the respective requirements as listed.

ADDRESSES:

Copies of the FMP may be obtained from Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon, 97220-1384. Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and associated final regulatory impact review (RIR) and final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) are available from the Southwest Region, NMFS,501 W. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to Svein Fougner, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or faxed to 202-395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Svein Fougner, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On December 10, 2003 (68 FR 68834), NMFS published a proposed rule to implement the proposed FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq. That proposed rule summarized the history of development of the FMP and its proposed conservation and management measures, and that discussion will not be repeated here. The comment period for the proposed rule ended on January 26, 2004. All provisions of the proposed FMP were approved on February 4, 2004, except a provision applicable to longline fishing by vessels with permits issued under the FMP. That issue is discussed below.

This final rule and its authorizing FMP are a response to increasing concern about the effect of fishing on HMS off the U.S. West Coast and on ocean resources caught incidentally to fishing for HMS. HMS comprise numerous species of tuna, billfish, oceanic sharks and other species that range throughout the Pacific Ocean. A significant amount of information exists on some species, such as some of the tunas, but comprehensive stock assessments are needed for many species, which are harvested by numerous coastal and distant-water fishing nations throughout the Pacific Ocean. U.S. West Coast fishermen fish HMS in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (U.S. EEZ) and on the high seas, and in some cases (e.g., Canada for albacore), in the exclusive economic zones of other nations.

Marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea birds caught incidentally to fishing are also affected by some of the fishing gear used to target HMS. The effect of fishing gear on protected resources is a problem throughout the Pacific Ocean, and the U.S. has taken action under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., to minimize the impact of U.S. vessels fishing longline, drift gillnet, and purse seine gear on these resources.

This final rule implements management measures necessary for management of the HMS fisheries, providing a foundation for future management actions that might be necessary as U.S. and international HMS fisheries change.

Management Unit Species

The species in the management unit are: striped marlin, swordfish, common thresher shark, pelagic thresher shark, bigeye thresher shark, shortfin mako (bonito shark), blue shark, north Pacific albacore, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, northern bluefin tuna, and dorado (also commonly referred to as mahi mahi and dolphinfish).

Fishing Gear Employed

The commercial gears in the management unit are surface hook-and-line, drift gillnet, longline, purse seine, and harpoon. Charter recreational vessels are subject to permit and reporting requirements and may be subject to observer requirements. No specific requirements are established for anglers using hook-and-line gear.

Permits

The final rule requires a permit with an endorsement for a specific gear for all commercial vessels. A permit would also be required for all recreational charter vessels. The purpose of a permit is to identify the vessels in the HMS fisheries so that surveys can be made when management information is required and to notify all participants of potential management actions affecting the fisheries. Permits based on gear type make surveys more efficient because landing and economic information is often needed for specific gear types. Permits would be issued to the owner of a specific vessel for a 2-year term. Data would be maintained so that landings by the permitted vessel or by the owner of the vessel can be summarized, which would give the Pacific Council flexibility in determining qualifications for limited entry permits if the Council should decide to develop a limited entry program. No Federal limited entry program is being proposed at this time because the Pacific Council does not have sufficient information to determine the need for such a program; however, the Pacific Council has assigned its HMS Management Team to begin evaluating a limited entry program for longline vessels fishing from West Coast ports. A limited entry program would require substantial analysis and an amendment to the FMP.

NMFS will administer the new permit system in the following manner. NMFS will begin the permit process by issuing HMS permit application forms to all individuals on this list with the required information filled in to the extent possible. Much of the needed information is already available. For example, NMFS has already compiled a list of vessels that would likely fall under the jurisdiction of the FMP. Permits are currently required for vessels fishing on the high seas under the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995 and for longline vessels fishing under the authority of the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region (Western Pacific Pelagics FMP). In compliance with U.S. obligations under the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, NMFS has compiled and provided to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission information for a vessel register including all U.S. vessels that fish for tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. This information will be put on the forms mailed to prospective permitees. There would be no performance criteria (e.g., historic fishing) to qualify for a permit. However, the vessel owner would have to confirm information on the form and provide information for blank spaces on the form about the vessel or owner in order to have the permit activated by notice from NMFS. NMFS would then notify owners to confirm the activation of their permits when the final information is received and processed. Vessel owners who have not received confirmation of activation of a permit to harvest HMS within 30 days of submission of their applications should contact NMFS (see ADDRESSES) to advise of their interest. Persons who have not been sent an application form within 60 days of the effective date of the final rule and who want a permit will need to apply for an HMS permit. Application forms also will be available by mail and on the SWR home page for persons who have not been contacted by NMFS. Clearance has been requested under the Paperwork Reduction Act for the information collection associated with the permit process. A notice will be published in the Federal Register when approval of the collection has been received, and 60 days after that notice, any vessel fishing for HMS in the fishery management area, or landing HMS in Washington, Oregon or California, will have to have a valid HMS permit registered for use with that vessel. Once issued, the permit must be maintained on board the vessel unless the vessel was at sea when the permit was issued. There would be no cost to fishermen for this permit. Fishing can continue without a permit until the permit requirements are in effect.

Recording and Recordkeeping

The final rule requires all permit holders on commercial fishing vessels and recreational charter vessels to maintain a logbook of catch and effort in the HMS fisheries. The final rule also requires all permit holders to submit data in the form and manner specified by state laws. Logbooks must be submitted to the Regional Administrator or the appropriate state agency following the end of a fishing trip. Federal logbooks are now required for (1) vessels fishing on the high seas under the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act of 1995 (HSFCA); (2) vessels fishing for tuna under the authority of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950; and (3) vessels fishing under the authority of the regulations implementing the Western Pacific Pelagics FMP. Under this final rule, the same form used under the HSFCA for troll vessels fishing albacore on the high seas would become mandatory for all albacore fishing. Clearance has been requested under the Paperwork Reduction Act for the information collection associated with the Federal logbook reporting requirement. A notice will be published in the Federal Register when approval of the collection has been received, and 60 days after that notice, any vessel fishing for HMS in the fishery management area, or landing HMS in Washington, Oregon or California, will have to report under these regulations. Until then, no new Federal reporting requirements are in effect. It is noted that there are currently several state reporting requirements in effect. The State of California requires a logbook for harpoon vessels, drift gillnet vessels, and recreational charter vessels. The State of Oregon requires a logbook for drift gillnet vessels. A person filing these state logbooks in the manner and form required by state law would satisfy Federal reporting requirements under this final rule. Duplicate logbooks would not be required. Logbook forms will be available for downloading from the Southwest Region home page.

Bycatch

A number of provisions are included in the FMP to assess and reduce bycatch; however, the FMP recognizes that better information is needed to assess the amount and type of bycatch in HMS fisheries. The FMP requires that NMFS, in consultation with the Pacific Council, its advisory bodies, and the fishery participants, develop observer sampling designs within 6 months of approval of the FMP for the longline, surface hook-and-line, small purse seine fisheries, and recreational charter vessel fisheries. However, a vessel operator of any vessel registered for use under these regulations must carry an observer when so requested by the Regional Administrator. An observer program is already in effect for drift gillnet vessels. In the longer term, NMFS will also develop an observer sampling plan for private recreational vessels to assess potential ways of improving information on managed species and on the quantity of bycatch in recreational fisheries.

Protected Species and the Framework Process

Drift gillnet and longline vessels encounter endangered and threatened sea turtles and marine mammals during fishing operations, and longline vessels encounter significant numbers of birds. Minimizing the impacts on these species has required regulatory action in the past under the authority of the MMPA and the ESA. Area closures and special equipment apply to drift gillnet and longline vessels. A possibility exists that other fishing gear used to harvest highly migratory species may also have an impact when more data is obtained. It also is likely that advances in gear or fishing techniques will reduce or prevent mortality from takes of these species in the future. The FMP recognizes that the Pacific Council is the body best suited to weigh and consider all potential impacts on fishing for HMS from West Coast ports. Section 118(f)(9) of the MMPA authorizes the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) to promulgate regulations governing commercial fishing operations to implement a take reduction plan to protect or restore a marine mammal stock or species. Likewise, vessels fishing for highly migratory species may have an impact on threatened or endangered species, which could require action by the AA under the authority of the ESA. The Take Reduction Team established by the MMPA reports to NMFS and biological opinions provide guidance to NMFS on actions needed to protect threatened and endangered species. The AA will also look to the Pacific Council for recommendations on how best to implement any necessary measures. If appropriate, the Pacific Council will utilize the framework processes in the FMP to address these issues. This process does not prevent the AA from taking action under the authority of the MMPA and the ESA independent of the Council process.

Major Issues

The principal issue addressed in consideration of the Pacific Council's proposed FMP has been management of the West Coast longline fishery. The Council's preferred alternative with regard to longline fishing was (1) to prohibit longline fishing in the U.S. EEZ; (2) for longline vessels fishing outside the U.S. EEZ and east of 150° W. long., to adopt the same restrictions as those that applied in 2003 to longline vessels fishing with a longline limited entry permit under the Western Pacific Pelagics FMP, except that the restrictions that prevent shallow sets for swordfish would not apply; and (3) for longline vessels fishing west of 150° W. long., to adopt all of the restrictions that applied to longline vessels fishing with a longline limited entry permit under the Pelagic FMP in 2003, which effectively prohibited shallow sets for swordfish.

The restrictions as proposed to prevent shallow sets for swordfish west of 150° W. long. were designed to reduce the impact on threatened and endangered sea turtles, not swordfish; however, the Pacific Council felt that there was not sufficient information available about fishing interactions with sea turtles in the eastern Pacific to justify restricting swordfish sets east of 150° W. long. Thus, owners of longline vessels fishing out of West Coast ports whose vessels were not registered for use under a western Pacific longline limited entry permit would have been able to target swordfish in the eastern Pacific east of 150° W. long. They also would have had to comply with all other restrictions, including the requirement to maintain a VMS on board the vessel, line clippers, and dip nets, as well as complying with the proper handling of sea turtles and seabirds.

This approach would have established consistency (west of 150° W. long.) with regulations applicable at the present time to vessels fishing under regulations implementing the Western Pacific Pelagics FMP, while minimizing the economic impact on vessels fishing from West Coast ports by not imposing the restrictions east of 150° W. long.

In reviewing the proposed FMP, however, NMFS engaged in consultations under section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the impacts of the fisheries on species listed as threatened or endangered under that statute. The consultation concluded that allowing shallow sets for swordfish east of 150° W. long. would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of loggerhead sea turtles. Therefore, that provision of the FMP has been disapproved, and NMFS is proceeding with rulemaking under the authority of the ESA to protect sea turtles east of 150° W. long. Those regulations could become effective at the same time as or even before the final rule implementing the FMP and would remain in effect as long as necessary to ensure that the fishery is operated to conform to the ESA. The rule will be found at 50 CFR Part 223.

In addition, this final rule has a new § 660.720 to ensure adequate protection for sea turtles in the period between implementation of the final rule and implementation of specific provisions that are contingent on vessels being registered for use for specific gear types. The sea turtle conservation provisions in § 660.712 and associated prohibitions of this rule pertaining to longline fishing are generally tied to the effective date by which vessels must be registered for use with specific gear under permits being issued under the rule. The final rule provides vessel owners with time to obtain those permits after the permit requirement becomes effective, which as noted earlier will depend on clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act. To ensure that excessive sea turtle takes will not occur while permits are being processed and issued, this rule establishes sea turtle protective provisions (e.g., no shallow swordfish sets, no possession of light sticks, incidental swordfish landing limit of 10 fish per trip, gear requirements) to be implemented immediately for West Coast longline vessels fishing west of 150° W. long. even though permit requirements are not yet effective.

All other provisions of the proposed FMP were approved and this final rule implements those provisions.

Comments and Responses

Comment 1: One comment indicated that the FMP violates the MMPA. This comment stated that the California-Oregon drift gillnet fishery is currently operating without any take authorization for ESA listed marine mammals. It asserted that NMFS on October 30, 2000, illegally issued a permit under section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA allowing take of sperm, fin, humpback, and eastern stock of stellar sea lion. Further, it asserted that the permit has now expired. Authorizing the continuation of the drift gillnet fishery through promulgation of the final rule to implement the FMP without a lawful permit based on a current finding of negligible impact, and without a recovery plan for the impacted species, would, therefore, be unlawful. The commenter also asserted that the continuation of the drift gillnet fishery violates the MMPA because the fishery has not reached the zero mortality rate goal (ZMRG) called for by the MMPA, notwithstanding that NMFS has yet to define ZMRG as required under the MMPA. The 2003 Draft Pacific Stock Assessment Report estimates 23 Northern Right Whale dolphins mortalities per year in this fishery which is in excess of the ZMRG for the species (8-16 depending on interpretation). Similar concerns were raised for the take of short-finned pilot, sperm, humpback, and fin whales.

Response: It is correct that the drift gillnet fishery is not operating under an MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) permit at this time; however, NMFS is in the process of preparing a Federal Register document that will consider the necessity of issuance of a permit to authorize the incidental take of listed marine mammals under the ESA by the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery under section 101(a)(5)(E) of the MMPA. There have been no listed marine mammals observed taken by the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery since NMFS issued its 101(a)(5)(E) permit in 2000. This final rule maintains the closure of the fishery (now implemented under the authority of the MMPA and ESA) from February 1 through April 30 each year off California and Oregon, and a 101(a)(5)(E) permit would not be necessary during this period. If NMFS concludes that there is a permit requirement, appropriate action will be taken before the fishery reopens.

In addition, in 1996, NMFS convened the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team to address the serious injury and mortality of strategic marine mammals stocks that were incidentally taken during commercial fishing operations by the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery. In 1997, NMFS issued regulations to implement the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Plan (POCTRP). The POCTRP has been successful at reducing strategic marine mammal stocks to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate, taking into account the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing State or regional fishery management plans. In addition, the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team and the Pacific Scientific Review Group have both recommended no further strategies to reduce marine mammals caught incidentally by the California/Oregon drift gillnet fishery.

Comment 2: One comment indicated that the FMP violates the Magnuson-Stevens Act with respect to bycatch because the FMP provides no tangible management measures to reduce bycatch levels as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For example, the California-Oregon Drift Gill Net fishery has high rates of bycatch of ocean sunfish and blue sharks and no actions are proposed to reduce this bycatch. Likewise, the large vessel tuna purse seine fishery catches juvenile tunas and sharks, yet the FMP does not include measures to address these bycatch issues.

Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that FMPs establish a standardized reporting methodology for assessing bycatch; reduce bycatch to the extent practicable; and reduce mortality of unavoidable bycatch to the extent practicable. In the recreational fishery, this includes a voluntary catch and release program in which released fish would not be considered bycatch. The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not require measures to reduce bycatch that are not practicable. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is developing a bycatch protocol that describes common elements of a standardized bycatch reporting methodology for fisheries under the jurisdiction of the agency. Consistent with this protocol, Chapter 5 of the FMP reviews all the fisheries to assess bycatch and evaluates the potential and practicability of alternative approaches (gear modifications, changes in fishing techniques, time/area closures, etc.) to reduce bycatch and of unavoidable bycatch mortality as required. The FMP concludes in most instances that measures already in place address bycatch to the extent practicable, though it is noted that the collection of additional information through observer programs is necessary to provide a better factual basis for developing and evaluating new alternatives. The final regulations require mandatory recording and submission of fishing logbooks for all commercial gear types and for the recreational CPFV fishery. For those HMS fisheries not already carrying at-sea observer's under authority of the MMPA or the ESA, the FMP will authorize the placement of observers on board at the discretion of the NMFS Regional Administrator to document, among other things, bycatch and protected species interactions. The FMP mandates NMFS to develop observer coverage levels and sampling designs based on the analysis of available observer data and following, to the extent practical, elements of the bycatch protocol. In the meantime, with respect to specific bycatch concerns for individual fisheries, it is noted that the majority of the ocean sunfish captured as bycatch in the DGN fishery are released alive. There are no known practicable means to reduce the bycatch levels in the fishery at this time. In the purse seine fishery, measures adopted by NMFS under the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) tuna fisheries management program addresses bycatch of juvenile tuna to the extent practicable at this time, though additional research is being pursued to determine if there are additional approaches (e.g., possible use of sidescan sonar to identify small fish prior to making a set) that can help reduce catches of small tuna. No other measures to reduce bycatch or bycatch mortality are determined to be practicable at this time.

Comment 3: One comment indicated that the action violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the FEIS for this action lacked full information about, or insufficient analysis of, seabird, marine mammal, sea turtle, and finfish bycatch under the proposed alternatives. In addition, a complete ban on longline and/or DGN gear types was not analyzed as an alternative.

Response: On December 22, 2003, NOAA filed with the Environmental Protection Agency the FEIS for the FMP in combination with the ESA rule. On January 2, 2004 (69 FR 69), the notice of availability for the FEIS was published in the Federal Register. The FEIS fully analyzes all the alternatives available to the Pacific Council and NMFS, including full analysis of seabird, marine mammal, sea turtle, and finfish bycatch and measures to avoid adverse impacts (and in the case of ESA species, jeopardy) from the fisheries as they would operate under the FMP. At the start of the FMP process, including scoping, the Pacific Council considered such alternatives as eliminating certain gear types, but there was little public interest in or desire for eliminating the DGN fishery or for eliminating the longline fishery as long as this gear was not permitted within the U.S. EEZ. Therefore, the Pacific Council did not further evaluate total elimination of these gears as the Pacific Council concluded these were not reasonable alternatives in its documents.

Comment 4: One comment indicated that current information shows that there are better seabird avoidance gear modifications and techniques than those in the FMP, which proposes the measures required for Hawaii-based longline vessels fishing under the FMP for the Western Pacific Pelagics FMP. This comment also indicated that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) imposes obligations on U.S. fishers, and the FMP does not meet those obligations.

Response: The information provided by the reviewer on seabird avoidance gear is from recent targeted studies and was not available to the Pacific Council during FMP development. The information will be provided to the Pacific Council for future consideration. The comment does not indicate what provisions of the MBTA have been violated; no violations are apparent to NMFS. This statute does not apply beyond the Territorial Sea of the U.S., and HMS fisheries occur almost exclusively beyond the Territorial Sea.

Comment 5: One comment indicated that the FMP might result in duplication of, or conflicts with, existing international agreements such as under the Tuna Conventions Act, and noted that the majority of the waters through which north Pacific albacore tuna migrate are out of the Pacific Council's jurisdiction. On a related theme, another comment recommended that the proposal to include tuna as managed species be disapproved because (a) unilateral management cannot be effective and (b) the FMP could result in serious harm to U.S. fisheries. This comment also suggests that the Council process is not suited to considering the international aspects of management of tuna fisheries and tuna stocks.

Response: NMFS does not anticipate any duplication or conflicts with international programs. Measures recommended by the IATTC and approved by the U.S. Department of State will continue to be implemented under the Tuna Conventions Act, 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq. The FMP will not affect implementation of the U.S-Canada Albacore Treaty as amended or affect fishing under that Treaty. The FMP will not affect implementation of the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific if and when that agreement is ratified by the U.S. In fact, the data collected under the FMP through logbooks and observer programs should provide better factual support to the U.S. in its activities in these international bodies. Similarly, the Council management process involves broad public involvement with transparent decision making and is, therefore, a good vehicle for the U.S. Department of State and NMFS to obtain advice on issues and opportunities for international collaboration to resolve issues. Further, the FMP notes that the ability to take management action under the Tuna Conventions Act (and later statutes to implement other treaties) is very limited and falls short of the authority needed and available under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for addressing domestic fishery problems. For example, the Tuna Conventions Act would not authorize regulation of any U.S. fisheries without recommendations from the IATTC.

Comment 6: One comment urged NMFS to take a stronger role in advocating international agreements for the protection of leatherback turtles killed by foreign fishermen targeting swordfish.

Response: NMFS is actively promoting international action for sea turtle conservation, both through international organizations and conventions and through direct discussions with other nations. For example, reduction of sea turtle takes and mortalities is a major new issue in the IATTC, where NMFS is supporting strong action to deal with this problem. NMFS is also aggressively distributing information about the results of its experimentation with new longline gear and techniques to reduce sea turtle takes and mortality. Actions taken to implement the FMP and the companion ESA rule demonstrate that the U.S. is actively regulating its own fisheries even as it promotes international collaboration.

Comment 7: One comment urged that NMFS use flexibility to reduce a burdensome time and area closure for the drift gill net fishery; the reviewer felt this closure was unnecessary and not supportable.

Response: The FMP proposed that current drift gill net fishery regulations be continued but under Magnuson-Stevens Act authority. The action to approve, disapprove, or disapprove in part the FMP is not an appropriate mechanism for implementing the requested change, which is beyond the scope of the Council proposals. The Council is the appropriate body for considering the request, and the views provided will be forwarded to the Pacific Council for its use.

Comment 8: One comment addressed the economic impacts of the NMFS decision to approve most of the FMP and then possibly impose the additional ESA rule. That comment indicated that the ESA rule would effectively eliminate the West Coast longline fishery as it was dependent on swordfish and would not be able to survive targeting tuna or other species.

Response: NMFS recognizes that the longline fishery is likely to be severely curtailed if not eliminated, at least in the short term, if both rules were finalized. NMFS acknowledges that it does not expect that longline fishing for species (e.g., tuna) other than swordfish will provide a profitable fishery based on current information. However, NMFS also believes that there may be alternatives available to the longline fishers in the future. First, NMFS is currently considering a proposal from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council that would alleviate much of the burden for longline vessels fishing out of Hawaii. That proposal effectively would reopen longline fishing for swordfish by vessels registered for use under western Pacific longline limited entry permits. If approved, this would provide an alternative fishing opportunity for most West Coast vessels, whose owners would be able to register their vessels for use under western Pacific longline limited entry permits. Second, NMFS research has demonstrated that longline fishing may be sufficiently protective of sea turtles if certain gear and bait combinations are required, especially if adopted with additional controls on overall fishing effort. The PFMC will be encouraged to explore the possible adoption of such measures to alleviate the burden placed on the West Coast fleet for the short term. In this context, it is noted that the fishery is generally at a low level in the summer and early fall, and the PFMC may be able to fashion an effective regulatory regime by the end of 2004. However, no changes have been made to the final rule at this time to respond to this comment.

Comment 9: A large number of letters and faxes were received supporting the proposed FMP and urging its approval. Most of these letters supported the proposal not to allow longline fishing in the EEZ due to bycatch and protected species interaction concerns. One letter specifically objected to the provision of the proposed FMP to allow longline fishing for swordfish outside the EEZ and east of 150° W. long.

Response: The FMP was approved as submitted with the exception of the provision allowing longline fishing for swordfish east of 150° W. long. The final rule reflects that decision.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

After consideration of public comments and other considerations, the following changes have been made from the proposed rule.

1. The term of permits in the final rule has been changed from the 5 years originally proposed to 2 years. A review of experience in other fisheries and other regions demonstrates that a permit period of 2 years or less is more effective in ensuring accurate information about patterns of fishery participation and the names and addresses of participants in the fisheries. A 5-year permit term would result in a high probability that changes in vessel names and owners and interests of related businesses will not be reported or recorded. In turn, NMFS might be unable to advise interested parties be adequately of changes in management measures or in permit and reporting requirements in the future. Further, the permit term will be staggered so that there will be less likelihood of an extreme permit renewal burden at any one time of the year. This is more efficient for NMFS and more likely to result in delivery of new permits to the fishers in a timely manner.

2. The final rule clearly establishes that initial permit decisions are made by the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Southwest Region, NMFS. This was inadvertently not discussed in the proposed rule. The final rule also includes a provision for appeals of permit decisions to the Regional Administrator. Experience in other permit programs indicates a need for an appeal process to review decisions that applicants believe are incorrect or based on inappropriate interpretation of facts.

3. A provision has been added to the final rule to require that longline vessel operators or owners contact the Southwest Region, NMFS, or a designated agent, prior to departure on a fishing trip. This requirement is identical to a provision in the rules implementing the Western Pacific Pelagics FMP. It is expected that the provision in the ESA rule discussed above that prohibits shallow longline sets will result in a low level of longline fishing because swordfish sets will be prohibited and sets targeting tuna are not expected to support a profitable fishery, at least for most of the year. NMFS has little information about the extent to which such fishing will result in interactions with sea turtles or other bycatch problems, and intends to place observers when available to ensure collection of this needed information when the opportunity arises. This provision will not become effective until Paperwork Reduction Act approval has been received.

4. The final rule includes a provision that permits, once issued, be on board vessels and available for inspection by an authorized agent unless the vessel was at sea when the permit was issued, in which case the permit must be on board the vessel on the next trip. This was inadvertently omitted from the proposed rule.

5. A new provision was added to § 660.712 to cross-reference the prohibition of shallow swordfish sets by longline vessels being implemented at 50 CFR Part 223. This will clearly indicate that operators of longline vessels managed under this subpart are subject to the provisions of the regulations in 50 CFR 223 if they plan to use longline gear in waters beyond the EEZ and east of 150° W. long. This is necessary to ensure that the fishing vessel operators do not construe the absence of the prohibition in the final rule implementing the FMP to mean that such sets would be permitted.

6. The vessel marking requirement has been changed to be consistent with regulations for other fisheries issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and to recognize the differing features of different size vessels. The final rule requires markings of 18 inches (45.7 cm) or greater for vessels 65 ft (20 m) in length or greater; and markings of 10 inches (25.4 cm) or greater for vessels less than 65 ft (20 m) length.

7. The final rule clarifies that a vessel is prohibited from fishing without an observer on board when the vessel owner or operator has been advised of the requirement to carry an observer.

8. The final rule contains a new § 660.720 to establish temporary provisions to limit longline fishing by West Coast vessels operating on the high seas of the Pacific Ocean west of 150° W. long. These interim measures will expire with the implementation of the permit requirements of § 660.707 and the longline fishery control measures in § 660.712. It is necessary to implement these temporary provisions to ensure that excessive sea turtle takes do not occur from unlimited longline fishing before the effective date of those permit requirements.

9. A number of technical changes were made for clarity and to correct errors in the proposed rule. Section 660.703 was revised to indicate that the management area includes all waters where vessels subject to this subpart may fish. With this change, the definition of fishery management area in § 660.702 was deleted as it was unnecessary. The procedures for processing permit applications and issuing permits under § 660.707 have been clarified and tied to approval of the Paperwork Reduction Act clearance request. The language detailing reporting requirements under § 660.708 has been revised to more clearly describe the extent to which use of existing logbooks satisfy reporting requirements under this subpart and to tie the requirements to approval of the Paperwork Reduction Act clearance request for this collection.

Classification

This final rule is implementing the approved portions of the FMP that were found to be consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws

The Pacific Council prepared and submitted the final FMP in the form of a final environmental impact statement. NOAA prepared addendum materials to reflect the decision to partially approve the FMP and to implement additional ESA regulations. These addendum materials were filed along with the final Pacific Council document as a Final Environmental Impact Statement that satisfies NEPA requirements for documentation and analysis of the impacts on the human environment of the fisheries as they would operate under the FMP. The FEIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on December 22, 2003, and is available from the Southwest Region, NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

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

NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that described the economic impact this rule, if implemented, would have on small entities. No comments were received on any aspect of the IRFA. One comment on the proposed rule addressed the economic impacts of the proposed rule and is addressed in the response to Comment 8 of this final rule. NMFS then prepared a FRFA for this final rule. The FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the FRFA follows:

A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY and in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portions of this final rule. A fish-harvesting business is considered a “small” business by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if it has annual receipts not in excess of $3.5 million. For related fish-processing businesses, the SBA considers a small business to be one that employs 500 or fewer persons. For marinas and charter/party boats, the SBA considers a small business to be one with annual receipts not in excess of $5.0 million. Fishing vessels targeting HMS and some businesses that support harvesters (especially buyers of swordfish from longline vessels) are expected to be the only types of small entities directly impacted by the proposed actions. The total number of vessels is estimated to be about 1,337, broken down as follows:

Purse Seine 27

Surface Hook-and-Line 887

Drift Gillnet 121

Longline 20

Harpoon 32

Charter 250

Total 1,337

In addition, approximately 100 small businesses are involved with the fisheries as processors and buyers of fish taken in HMS fisheries. None of their activities will be regulated under the FMP. The regulatory actions under the FMP that would result in a reduction in domestic landings of HMS are expected to be offset at the processor level by imports at comparative prices. None of the regulatory alternatives considered were expected to add to the costs or reduce revenues of marinas and charter boats. No comments were received directly addressing the IRFA, but one comment addressed the economic impacts of the NMFS decision to approve most of the FMP and then impose the additional ESA rule. That comment indicated that the added rule would effectively eliminate the West Coast longline fishery as it was dependent on swordfish and would not be able to survive targeting tuna or other species. NMFS recognizes that this is a likely result in the short term.

NMFS considered and evaluated a wide range of alternatives in the RIR/FRFA (see ADDRESSES), including not implementing the FMP, specifying different mixes of gears and species in the management unit, and deferring immediate regulations, as well as considering different types of regulations, for the drift gillnet and longline fisheries. NMFS concluded that the provisions in this final rule are necessary and appropriate for effective conservation and management of the HMS fisheries.

The final rule establishes regulations for 5 commercial fishing fleets and a fleet of recreational charter vessels. Each fleet has its own gear requirements, each has a differential impact on ocean resources, and each has different economic circumstances. The final rule defines commercial legal HMS gear as harpoon, surface hook and line, drift gillnet of at least 14 inch (35.56 cm) stretched mesh or greater, purse seine, and pelagic longline. The FMP authorizes rod and reel, spear, and hook and line as recreational gear. The principal economic effects are on the drift gillnet and longline fishing fleets.

An alternative for drift gillnet gear was to allow stretched mesh less than 14 inches (35.56 cm). The selected alternative of requiring 14 inch (35.56 cm) stretched mesh or larger for legal drift gillnet gear is consistent with the historic use of drift gillnet used to target swordfish and sharks. Fishermen estimated that there may be as many as 8-10 vessels that occasionally use small-mesh drift gillnets when albacore and bluefin tuna are available. Landings data indicate that there could be as many as 20 vessels that might have fished small-mesh drift gillnets based on landing receipts for drift gillnet vessels landing albacore and bluefin tuna, but not swordfish. Vessels fishing small mesh drift gillnet gear would be restricted to landing HMS only as an incidental catch. The economic impact on the four vessels that have been documented as using small mesh drift gillnets amounts to between 20 percent and 48 percent of gross receipts. These vessels landed between 1.0 and 15.0 mt of albacore and 0.0 to 3.0 mt of bluefin tuna during the 2001 season. The vessels might make up for the lost revenue through other small mesh gillnet fisheries or simply return to using large mesh nets because all four vessels also currently possess permits for use of the larger mesh gear. Vessels currently fishing large mesh nets would suffer no economic loss under this alternative as they would not need to modify their gear or current fishing practices. The opportunity for albacore surface hook-and-line vessels to deploy small mesh drift gillnet gear to target albacore while on overnight trips would be preempted under this alternative. Loss of this opportunity would prevent realization of potential efficiency gains from landing more albacore per unit of time on the water.

For drift gillnet vessels using 14 (35 cm) inch stretched mesh or greater, the FMP adopts all Federal conservation and management measures in place under the MMPA and ESA; adopts all state regulations for drift gillnet fishing under Magnuson-Stevens Act authority, except limited entry programs, which will remain under state authority; modifies an Oregon closure inside 1000 fathoms to be in effect year round; closes U.S. EEZ waters off Washington to all drift gillnet vessels; and implements turtle protection closures north of Point Sur, CA to 45° N. lat. (August 15 to November 15), and south of Pt. Conception to 120° W. long. during a forecasted or occurring El Nino event (June, July, and August). Existing Federal and state regulations, including current state drift gillnet time-area closures and gear restrictions were deemed appropriate for adopting. However, the Pacific Council concluded that implementing the existing state limited entry programs, which would significantly increase Federal costs and administrative burdens, was premature. Closures off Washington and Oregon are intended to protect the common thresher shark, sea turtles and marine mammals. This action modifies the current state regulations to prohibit, year round, drift gillnet fishing for swordfish and sharks in U.S. EEZ waters off Oregon east of a line approximating the 1,000 fm curve (deleting an existing May-August prohibition within 75 nautical miles) and prohibits drift gillnet fishing in all U.S. EEZ waters off Washington. The State of Washington currently does not allow the use of drift gillnet gear and Oregon does not allow drift gillnets to target thresher shark, although drift gillnet vessels have fished off both states and landed their catch in California.

Approximately 64 vessels actively participate in the drift gillnet fishery off the U.S. West Coast (see table below). All of these vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards. Therefore, there would be no financial impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large vessels under the proposed action.

With respect to longline fishing, the final rule prohibits the use of pelagic longline gear in the U.S. EEZ. This action continues the de facto longline prohibition throughout the U.S. EEZ by states' regulations and minimizes potential bycatch of fish and protected species, and reduces fishery competition problems. There are no vessels participating in a pelagic longline fishery within the U.S. EEZ off the U.S. West Coast. Oregon is the only state that allows pelagic longlining within the U.S. EEZ on a case by case basis, and no landings have occurred. All of the Oregon vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards; therefore, there would be no financial impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large vessels under the proposed action.

Financial impacts of each pelagic longline regulatory alternative considered for adoption within the U.S. EEZ were evaluated based on incremental changes from the status quo; i.e., the difference between pelagic longline ex-vessel private profits under the proposed action and pelagic longline private profits under the status quo. Because there are no empirical financial data available for this fishery, comparisons are based on the application of economic theory to potential fishing opportunities arising from the regulatory alternatives. The following table reports the estimated incremental qualitative changes in short-run financial profits for vessels for each regulatory alternative relative to the status quo. Financial impacts are evaluated as the present value of changes in short-run financial profits over a 25 year time period discounted at 7 percent and 4 percent discount rates. The annual average change in short-run financial profits is also shown.

There are not expected to be any financial impacts associated with Alternative 2 because it essentially represents the status quo. It would have eliminated the Oregon longline fishery, authorized outside 25 miles under the State's developmental fisheries program permit system. However, there are no active Oregon permits at the present time. This alternative would also eliminate the potential opportunity now available to West Coast based commercial fishermen for fishing off Oregon and California and landing in Oregon, which is currently not being exercised. The other alternatives offered potential increases in financial profits if it could be scientifically determined that there would not be an adverse impact on bycatch and protected species interactions.

Beyond the U.S. EEZ, the final rule applies to West Coast-based longline vessels all of the restrictions applied to Hawaii-based longline vessels when fishing west of 150° W. long. Restrictions control sea turtle and seabird interactions and improve monitoring of the fishery. A total of 38 vessels participated in the West Coast-based, high seas pelagic longline fishery during 2001. All of these vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards. Therefore, there would be no financial impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large vessels under the proposed action.

Financial impacts of each high seas pelagic longline regulatory alternative considered were evaluated based on incremental changes from the status quo; i.e., the difference between pelagic longline ex-vessel private profits under the proposed action and pelagic longline private profits under the no action alternative. The table below reports the estimated incremental changes in short-run financial profits for pelagic longline vessels for each regulatory alternative relative to the status quo. Financial impacts are evaluated as the present value of changes in short-run financial profits projected over a 25 year time period, discounted at 7 percent and 4 percent discount rates. The annual average change in short-run financial profits is also shown. The changes in financial profit were estimated using cost and earnings data voluntarily provided by industry members.

Under the status quo, regulations would not be promulgated to implement the FMP measures for the high seas, West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery. Fishing could continue without regulations until regulations are established under other authorities. Therefore, without the FMP, the future of the West Coast-based pelagic longline fishery operating on the high seas was expected to be different from recent conditions. Swordfish is the target species of this fishery, and swordfish sets would likely be prohibited; gear restrictions (no light sticks, minimum depth of sets, line clippers to release sea turtles) would apply; and seabird avoidance methods would be required. Longline fishing targeting tuna on the high seas out of West Coast ports might then be an alternative if swordfish targeting is prohibited, but current participants in the fishery indicate that without being able to target swordfish, the high seas longline fishery originating from West Coast ports would cease to exist. In view of this likelihood, the estimated financial impacts relative to Alternative 1 assumed that (absent action through this final rule) regulations are likely in the future that would prohibit West Coast-based pelagic longliners from targeting swordfish on the high seas, and that under those circumstances the fishery would cease to exist. Alternative 2, however, would have allowed the fishery to continue under selected restrictions, and the financial impact of Alternative 2, shown below, is based on a projection of current private profits in the fishery. Estimates of current private profits do not include the private costs that might be incurred in adopting turtle and seabird saving measures, placement of observers, and the installation and use of VMS, and any lost revenues from being unable to fish in waters bounded by 15° N. lat. and the equator and by 145° W. long. and 180° W. long. during April and May. Therefore, private profits under Alternative 2 in the table below may be overstated. While some West Coast-based, high seas pelagic longliners harvest species other than swordfish, no attempt was made to evaluate potential changes in fishing strategies by these vessels in response to different harvest opportunities under each of the regulatory alternatives, and what this would mean in terms of operating costs and ex-vessel revenues under alternative fishing strategies. Alternative 3 (the action being taken in this final rule) prohibits swordfish targeting in all waters by U.S. West Coast longline vessels. Under this alternative, it is expected that the fishery would cease in the long run, in which case there is no difference from the status quo.

Alternative 2 would have maintained the fishery, but imposed some slight additional costs on West Coast-based longliners targeting swordfish on the high seas. Fishermen would have incurred some of the cost of adopting turtle and seabird saving measures, accommodating observers and using monitoring equipment such as a vessel monitoring system. Therefore, under Alternative 2 there would have been a slight reduction in annual short-run, financial profits from those reported above. There may also have been reductions in swordfish catch rates due to the alternative of turtle and seabird mitigation measures. This could have further reduced short-run, financial profits. In the absence of this rule, the fishery would likely have been subject to regulations promulgated under other authorities, which would be expected to result in the longline fishery's disappearance in time. This is reflected in the long-term status quo, Alternative 1, where financial profits become zero with a phase out of the fishery. In the near term however, the fishery could persist under existing state regulations, in which case short-run financial profits would be expected to be $6.8 million per year under the status quo. These are the same as the annual average financial profits that would be expected under Alternative 2 minus the cost of adopting turtle and seabird saving measures, accommodating observers and using monitoring equipment such as vessel monitoring systems. Short and long-term profits would disappear under Alternative 3 with the prohibition on targeting swordfish. Therefore, in the long term, Alternative 3 is the same as the status quo. As noted above, all of the longline vessels would be considered small businesses under the SBA standards. Therefore, there would be no financial impacts resulting from disproportionality between small and large vessels under the proposed action.

The actions in the final rule were selected because they best meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ESA. Continuation of the drift gillnet rules under Magnuson-Stevens Act authority will facilitate timely management of the fishery in a public process with necessary protection for marine mammals and sea turtles. Allowing swordfish targeting without additional controls would result in fishing that appreciably reduced the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of loggerhead sea turtles, a species listed as threatened under the ESA. Prohibiting swordfish targeting was necessary to avoid jeopardy to this species. Other alternatives that were considered would not have provided the necessary protection to sea turtles.

NMFS also believes that there are or may be in the near term alternatives available to the longline fishers. First, NMFS is considering a proposal that would alleviate much of the burden for longline vessels fishing out of Hawaii. That proposal effectively would reopen longline fishing for swordfish by vessels registered for use under western Pacific longline limited entry permits. If approved, this would provide an alternative fishing opportunity for most West Coast vessels, whose owners would be able to register their vessels for use under western Pacific longline limited entry permits. Second, NMFS research has demonstrated that longline fishing may be sufficiently protective of sea turtles if certain gear and bait combinations are required, especially if adopted with additional controls on overall fishing effort. The Pacific Council will be encouraged to explore the possible adoption of such measures to alleviate the burden placed on the West Coast fleet for the short term. In this context, it is noted that the fishery is generally at a low level in the summer and early fall, and the Pacific Council may be able to fashion an effective regulatory regime by the end of 2004. However, no changes have been made to the final rule at this time. The action would impose new reporting and recordkeeping requirements for some HMS vessels. Application forms for permits must be confirmed and/or completed by owners seeking permits for all commercial gears and charter vessels. All commercial vessels and charter vessels must maintain and submit logbooks of catch and effort in the fisheries. State logbooks may satisfy this requirement, and this final rule includes a requirement that vessel owners and operators comply with all applicable regulations requiring reports to state agencies. A pre-trip notification is required for longline vessels. Also, longline vessels must have vessel monitoring system units on their vessels, provided by and installed at NMFS expense.

No specific actions have been taken to minimize the economic impacts on owners and operators of West Coast longline vessels, as there are no alternatives available that will meet the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ESA. The ESA requires that activities that would jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under that act be prohibited or curtailed. All the alternatives that allowed swordfish targeting by longline vessels would fail to meet the test of the ESA and therefore would violate the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The original proposal to prohibit swordfish targeting west of 150° W. long. and allow it east of 150° W. long. resulted in a jeopardy conclusion under the ESA. There is reason to believe that adjustments (such as gear and bait requirements) can be made in the future management program that will alleviate the burden and allow the West Coast longline fishery to resume, albeit perhaps at a lower level. It will take some time, however, to develop and implement any such changes in management. No adjustments are needed for other fishery sectors as there are minimal economic impacts from the final rule.

This FMP contains collection-of-information requirements for 6 separate fisheries subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval. The public reporting burden for these requirements is estimated to average 20-35 minutes for a permit application depending on the extent of correction of information on application forms and of new information to be submitted on those forms; 5 minutes for a pre-trip notification by longline vessel operators; and 45 minutes to affix the official number of a vessel to its bow and weather deck. In addition, for longline vessels, there would be a burden of 4 hours for installation of a vessel monitoring system, 2 hours for maintenance of the system, 24 seconds for each electronic report submitted via the satellite based vessel monitoring system; and 5 minutes for filling out a log each day. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Public comment is sought regarding whether these proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated information technology. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted to, Svein Fougner, Assistant Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, Southwest Region (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirement of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This final rule is consistent with the ESA. A formal consultation with NMFS Protected Resources under the ESA was initiated on September 23, 2003. Based on the conclusions of the consultation, the Regional Administrator determined that fishing activities under this final rule, when considered in combination with a rule being promulgated under the authority of the ESA, would not jeopardize the continued existence of any species. Consultations were also completed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which concluded that the fisheries would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species under the USFWS jurisdiction.

The Regional Administrator determined that fishing activities conducted under this final rule would have no adverse impacts on marine mammals.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR

Part 223

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine mammals, Transportation.

Part 224

Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Part 660

Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223, 224, and 660, are amended as follows:

50 CFR Chapter VI

PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.12 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

2. In § 223.206, paragraph (d)(6) is removed and reserved.

PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

3. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

4. In § 224.104, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

5. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

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

6. Add Subpart K to read as follows:

Subpart K—Highly Migratory Fisheries

Subpart K—Highly Migratory Fisheries

§ 660.714 Purse seine fishery. [Reserved]

§ 660.715 Harpoon fishery. [Reserved]

§ 660.716 Surface hook-and-line fishery. [Reserved]