How do I submit a public comment on Pacific Island Fisheries?

Mail a written comment to Sarah Malloy, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818, postmarked by December 9, 2026. This page includes talking points and a printable comment letter.

When is the public comment deadline for Pacific Island Fisheries?

Comments are due by December 9, 2026. Comments received after the deadline may not be considered by the agency.

Do public comments actually change federal decisions?

Yes, when they are substantive. Agencies are legally required to read and respond to substantive comments before finalizing a rule, and specific personal comments about real places and real uses carry far more weight than identical form letters. Courts have overturned rules when agencies ignored substantive comments.

← All fights

Fight 6 of 27Comment window 30 days left

Open for comment · closes December 9

Stop reopening Pacific Remote Islands Monument waters to commercial fishing

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration · Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion

What: NMFS would lift the commercial fishing ban in protected waters around Johnston Atoll, Wake Island, and Jarvis Island.
Where: Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion, Johnston Atoll
How much: over 300,000 square nmi (1,030,000 square km) ocean area reopened to commercial fishing; 163 longline vessels and 13 purse seine vessels active vessels likely affected by this rule; 0 to 1,321 sets fleetwide maximum longline sets that could shift into the area
By when: Comments to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by December 9, 2026.Date from Federal Register ↗, read November 9, 2026.

What to ask forAll 7 points →

NMFS should issue a FONSI with a complete significance determination or prepare an EIS, and state explicitly whether it considers this action subject to NEPA.

Where these four lines come from

WhatOur plain-English read of the Federal Register 2026-22815 ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
WhereThe places and states the notice names, as PLAN read them.
over 300,000 square nmi (1,030,000 square km)“expand areas open to commercial fishing by over 300,000 square nmi (1,030,000 square km)” Regulatory Flexibility Act Open the document ↗
163 longline vessels and 13 purse seine vessels“it would likely affect only the 163 permitted and active longline vessels and 13 licensed and active purse seine vessels” Regulatory Flexibility Act Open the document ↗
0 to 1,321 sets fleetwide“could range from 0 to 1,321 longline sets fleetwide” Regulatory Flexibility Act Open the document ↗
By whenDecember 9, 2026, from Federal Register, the document’s comment close date (federalregister.gov) ↗. Read November 9, 2026.
Read from PLAN’s record November 9, 2026.

Now make it count30 days left

Two ways to be heard on this, and both count. Comment for the legal record, then call the members who answer to you.

1 person told us they filed through PLAN →

None found on the agency’s record yet

Comment now

Comment

What to say

Make these points, in your own words

The NEPA section calls the environmental assessment 'voluntary' and frames the rulemaking as ministerial, yet no Finding of No Significant Impact appears anywhere in the notice.Read the point +
Under NEPA, an agency that prepares an EA must either issue a FONSI supported by that analysis or prepare an EIS; the notice discloses neither outcome. If NMFS believes NEPA does not apply because the action is non-discretionary, calling the EA 'voluntary' and using it to analyze impacts creates the appearance of NEPA compliance without the substance. Opening 300,000-plus square nmi of previously protected monument waters to commercial fishing is a major federal action potentially warranting full EIS review. NMFS should issue a FONSI with a complete significance determination or prepare an EIS, and state explicitly whether it considers this action subject to NEPA.
The NEPA section discloses that NMFS analyzed only two alternatives: the proposed action and no action.Read the point +
No intermediate alternatives were considered, such as phased reopening, seasonal restrictions, additional area-specific gear requirements, or exclusion zones around seamounts or key foraging habitat. NEPA requires a range of reasonable alternatives, not just the agency's preferred action against a do-nothing baseline. The notice provides no explanation for why no intermediate alternatives were developed or why they would be unreasonable in a monument context. NMFS should analyze at least one intermediate alternative, with supporting environmental review, before finalizing the rule.
The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION states that 'notice and comment rulemaking to amend monument-based prohibitions on commercial fishing would not be necessary' because NMFS claims no discretion under Proclamation 11035, yet the same section asks the public to comment on whether existing regulations provide adequate management of monument resources.Read the point +
If NMFS genuinely has no discretion to respond to those comments, the comment process cannot change the outcome and provides no meaningful opportunity for public participation as required by the court in Kapa'a v. Trump. NMFS should state clearly what regulatory discretion it retains and explain what specific changes it would make to the final rule if comments demonstrate the existing management measures are insufficient to protect monument resources.
The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION characterizes the action as 'reverting to existing management measures for resuming commercial fishing in the PRIMNM Expansion.'Read the point +
Those measures were written before the 2014 expansion that closed the area and have been inapplicable there for over 12 years. The notice acknowledges the PRIA FEP has been amended three times and the Pelagics FEP 12 times since 2010 but does not state whether any of those amendments updated the environmental baseline or management measures specifically for the PRIMNM Expansion during the closure period. NMFS should identify which FEP amendments included substantive environmental analysis applicable to the PRIMNM Expansion and explain why regulations that were never applied in this area during the period of full protection remain adequate without updating.
The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION dismisses cultural resource impacts with a single data point: 'Since the establishment of the PRIMNM Expansion, zero cultural practitioners have sought Special Use Permits for cultural activities.'Read the point +
Absence of permit applications does not establish absence of cultural significance; it may equally reflect the area's remoteness, lack of awareness of permit requirements, or barriers to access. The original PRIMNM proclamation cited objects of historic or scientific interest as the basis for monument protection, yet the notice provides no analysis of the cultural or historical significance of these waters to Pacific Islander communities. NMFS should conduct or disclose a substantive cultural resources analysis rather than relying solely on the absence of permit applications as a proxy for no impact.
The Executive Order 13175 section states that NMFS 'determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes' and therefore no Tribal consultation was required, with no supporting analysis disclosed.Read the point +
The original PRIMNM proclamation cited objects of historic interest, and Pacific Islander communities maintain traditional cultural, navigational, and fishing connections to these ocean areas. The notice provides no explanation of how this determination was reached, what sources were reviewed, or whether any outreach to Pacific Island Indigenous communities occurred. NMFS should disclose the factual and legal basis for its E.O. 13175 no-effect determination and document any government-to-government consultation or outreach that occurred before finalizing the rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act section projects effort shifting to the PRIMNM Expansion at 0 to about 6 percent of fleetwide effort based on 'past fishing in the action area prior to the initial commercial fishery prohibitions in 2009.'Read the point +
That pre-2009 baseline reflects fleet behavior and ecosystem conditions that predate over 12 years of full commercial fishing closure and substantial changes to fleet composition, entry limits, stock conditions, and market structure. The notice does not explain why pre-prohibition historical behavior predicts post-opening effort under current fleet economics, nor does it address whether target species abundance in the now-recovered area could attract higher effort than the pre-ban baseline suggests. NMFS should provide an effort projection grounded in current fleet data and updated stock assessments rather than pre-2009 historical levels.

Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.

Every point is checked against the agency’s own notice ↗. 7 findings verified against the text, word for word.

PLAN's read: critical threat

A language model's read of the agency's notice, not an agency rating and not an editor's finding. It’s read from the official notice ↗, and it isn’t a grade.

NMFS would lift the commercial fishing ban in protected waters around Johnston Atoll, Wake Island, and Jarvis Island.

What’s at risk

Marine ecosystems in one of the most remote and protected ocean areas under U.S. jurisdiction face commercial fishing pressure. The ban that shielded waters 50 to 200 nautical miles around these islands would be removed.

If this goes through

Commercial fishing fleets would be permanently authorized to operate in these previously off-limits monument expansion waters, reversing protections that had kept them closed.

Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.

By the numbers, from the agency’s own document

Ocean area reopened to commercial fishing: over 300,000 square nmi (1,030,000 square km)
Regulatory Flexibility Act
“expand areas open to commercial fishing by over 300,000 square nmi (1,030,000 square km)”
Open the document ↗
Active vessels likely affected by this rule: 163 longline vessels and 13 purse seine vessels
Regulatory Flexibility Act
“it would likely affect only the 163 permitted and active longline vessels and 13 licensed and active purse seine vessels”
Open the document ↗
Maximum longline sets that could shift into the area: 0 to 1,321 sets fleetwide
Regulatory Flexibility Act
“could range from 0 to 1,321 longline sets fleetwide”
Open the document ↗
Maximum purse seine sets that could shift into the area: 0 to 105 sets fleetwide
Regulatory Flexibility Act
“Implementing the proposed action could shift the number of purse seine sets in these waters ranging from 0 to 105 sets fleetwide”
Open the document ↗
Maximum fleet-wide purse seine access fee savings: up to $1,367,340 per year
Regulatory Flexibility Act
“the total savings fleetwide could be as high as $1,367,340”
Open the document ↗
Hawaii longline fishery revenue in 2025: $109 million fleetwide
Regulatory Flexibility Act
“In 2025, the Hawaii longline fishery earned $109 million fleetwide ($731,543 per vessel on average)”
Open the document ↗

Source: the agency’s document ↗

The agency’s case, tested

What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it

2
Hold up: 4
Not backed yet

The National Marine Fisheries Service wants to lift the commercial fishing ban in monument waters 50 to 200 nautical miles around Johnston Atoll and Wake and Jarvis Islands, leaving fishing there under existing rules. It says the change is needed to match two presidential proclamations and is seeking comment in light of a court order.

“This action is necessary to conform fishing regulations with Presidential Proclamation 10918 of April 17, 2025--Unleashing American Commercial Fishing in the Pacific, as amended by Presidential Proclamation 11035 of June 11, 2026--Restoring American Commercial Fishing in the Pacific, and in light of a court order.”
SUMMARY

Each Ask below goes into your letter when you write it with PLAN on this page, matched to what you tell it about how this land reaches you.

EffectsNot backed yetExisting fishery rules are enough to manage commercial fishing here and give monument resources proper care and management.
The agency's strongest support is specific: reef and shoreline resources lie within 12 nautical miles, inside the closed 50 nautical mile zone, and pelagic gear stays within 985 feet (300 meters) of the surface, away from seamounts and deep sea corals. It also expects a limited increase in fishing activity and says other federal laws would limit vessel impacts. But for sea turtles, seabirds and other migratory species, it measures effects across each species' whole range and gives no measure inside the monument. The environmental assessment isn't in this text, so this reading covers only this notice.
AskShow, with numbers, how existing rules protect sea turtles, seabirds and other migratory species inside the monument expansion, not just across their whole range.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“Under these existing regulations and restrictions, NMFS believes that commercial fisheries operating in the PRIMNM and PRIMNM Expansion would be appropriately managed and that monument resources would receive proper care and management, consistent with the direction in Proclamation 10918.”
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Elsewhere in the same document
“The purpose of the PRIMNM Expansion was to provide an expanded area for the protection of objects of scientific interest identified in the proclamation, including seamounts, deep sea corals, sea turtles, seabirds, and other migratory species.”
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
“NMFS evaluates the impacts of fishing activity on the population of target stocks and protected species throughout the entirety of their range.”
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
EffectsNot backed yetBecause catch limits, effort limits and limited-entry permits won't change, the rule will have negligible effects on catch, effort and target fish populations.
The agency's support is that catch and effort limits and limited entry permits won't change, that effort would shift from open areas rather than grow, up to a maximum of 6 percent of total effort, and that combined catch would stay within historical levels. Those limits apply however many vessels fish. Vessel caps do sit above today's fleets, with 40 purse seine licenses and 13 active, and a Hawaii cap of 164 with 149 permitted, but this rule doesn't change those caps. The text gives no catch limit figures, so readers must rely on the regulations it cites.
AskPublish the catch and effort limits, current catch against them, and an estimate of effort if the fleets grow toward their caps of 40 purse seine licenses and 224 longline vessels.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“Because the functional restraints, including catch and effort limits and limited entry permits on the fisheries will not change as a result of this action, NMFS expects negligible impacts on fisheries catch and effort and target fish populations.”
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Elsewhere in the same document
“The purse seine fleet is limited to a total of 40 licenses under the SPTA, with 13 active licensed vessels.”
Regulatory Flexibility Act
“The Hawaii longline fishery is capped at 164 vessels with 149 currently permitted.”
Regulatory Flexibility Act
EffectsNot backed yetEffects on cultural resources would be negligible because fishing is far from land-based practices and encounters with practitioners and voyagers are unlikely.
The agency's one data point is that zero cultural practitioners have sought Special Use Permits since the expansion was established, and it cites distance from land-based practices. A permit count speaks only to permitted activity. The text doesn't identify the cultural resources at issue, gives no data on voyagers, and doesn't show how the likelihood of encounters was judged.
AskIdentify the cultural resources and voyaging uses in the expansion, and explain how the agency judged the likelihood of encounters beyond counting Special Use Permits.
The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
The agency says
“NMFS further expects impacts on cultural resources would be negligible due to the geographic separation from fishing activities and land-based practices and the low likelihood of encounters between cultural practitioners and voyagers and fishing vessels in the PRIMNM Expansion.”
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Elsewhere in the same document
“Since the establishment of the PRIMNM Expansion, zero cultural practitioners have sought Special Use Permits for cultural activities.”
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The law
“shall take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property.” National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108 ↗
Show 1 more claim +Show fewer
- EconomicsNot backed yetReopening would bring a minor benefit: access to fishing areas closer to home ports, with reduced transit times and lower fuel and operating costs.
  The Supplementary Information section says vessels could save on fuel by fishing closer to home ports instead of on the high seas, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act section agrees there could potentially be some savings. But that section says Johnston Atoll and Jarvis Island are far from Honolulu relative to where most longline effort is concentrated, calls transit to Jarvis from the center of purse seine effort significant, and says fuel differences are difficult to estimate. The text doesn't show the savings it credits.
  AskReconcile the two sections and estimate fuel and transit changes for each fleet, or drop the claim of fuel savings.
  The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
  The agency says
  “NMFS expects a likely minor, beneficial impact to fisheries operations and management.”
  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
  Elsewhere in the same document
  “With regard to longline vessels, there could potentially be some savings in fuel costs associated with this anticipated switched effort; however, both Johnston Atoll and Jarvis Island are far from Honolulu relative to where the majority of longline effort is concentrated.”
  Regulatory Flexibility Act
  “Transit distances to Jarvis Island from the center of purse seine effort would be significant, but the lack of daily access fees in the PRIMNM Expansion may increase the economic value of reopened areas around Jarvis Island.”
  Regulatory Flexibility Act

Where its own record backs the agency

AuthorityThe proclamations themselves lift the monument fishing ban, so the agency has no discretion and must amend its conflicting rules.Why it holds +
The agency quotes Proclamation 11035 saying the proclamation itself removes the ban and that rulemaking is meant to amend inconsistent rules. Proclamation 10918, also quoted, says the Secretary of Commerce shall not prohibit commercial fishing between 50 to 200 nautical miles. Those words reach the waters this rule covers, so the document shows the direction applies to this action.
The agency says
“Proclamation 11035 amended Proclamation 10918 ``to clarify that the proclamation itself removes monument-based prohibitions on commercial fishing and agency rulemaking is intended to amend or repeal inconsistent regulations.''”
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Its own record backs it
“This action is necessary to ensure that MSA regulations implementing the PRIA FEP and Pelagics FEP are carried out consistent with Presidential Proclamation 10918, as amended by Proclamation 11035, directing the removal of monument-based prohibitions on commercial fishing in the PRIMNM Expansion.”
Magnuson-Stevens Act
EconomicsThe rule won't have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small fishing businesses.Why it holds +
The section sets purse seine savings at up to $105,180 per vessel per year, roughly 1 percent of average annual revenue. Its math checks: 6 percent of the 1,753 average sets is about 105 sets, and at $13,000 that comes to $1,367,340, split among 13 vessels. It describes minor benefits, says actual gains would likely be lower, and identifies no significant adverse effect on small businesses.
The agency says
“For the reasons above, NMFS does not expect the proposed action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Its own record backs it
“Implementing the proposed action could shift the number of purse seine sets in these waters ranging from 0 to 105 sets fleetwide.”
Regulatory Flexibility Act
“These access fees range from $10,000 to $13,000 per day, depending on the EEZ or groups of EEZs that are fished.”
Regulatory Flexibility Act

How this was read

Read from the agency’s own notice ↗, the notice that opens this window; the full analysis comes later, so what it leaves unsupported is what to ask it to show. Every quote is checked word for word against it, a claim marked contradicted stands on a quote from the same document, and a second reading argued the agency’s side of every verdict before it was published. The verdicts are our reading; the quotes are the agency’s. A court can set aside agency action it finds “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) ↗), which is why these gaps are worth putting in the record.

In the agency’s own words

NMFS proposes to amend regulations that prohibit commercial fishing in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Expansion (PRIMNM Expansion), which comprises waters of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) between 50 to 200 nautical miles (nmi; 93 to 370 kilometers (km)) around Johnston Atoll and Wake and Jarvis Islands. This action is necessary to conform fishing regulations with Presidential Proclamation 10918 of April 17, 2025--Unleashing American Commercial Fishing in the Pacific, as amended by Presidential Proclamation 11035 of June 11, 2026--Restoring American Commercial Fishing in the Pacific,…

Federal Register 2026-22815 ↗

More fights that need you

Stop weakened drilling rules across the National Petroleum Reserve in AlaskaCloses today Stop the Nationwide Post-Fire Salvage Plan Lacking Site-Level Analysis3 days left Stop NorthMet Mine from filling Minnesota wetlands and waterways18 days left

All 27 open fights →

Go deeper, free

Scorecard

See how your members of Congress vote on public lands

Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.

Open ↗The map

See the places under active threat

A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.

Open ↗

A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.