Vol. 79 Tuesday, No. 231 December 2, 2014

Part II

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 15 CFR Part 902 50 CFR Part 635 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 7; Final Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71510 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE inseason adjustment of the General proposed the ‘‘preferred alternatives’’ category quota and Harpoon category analyzed in the Draft Amendment 7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric retention limits; and changes the Environmental Impact Statement and Administration allocation of the Angling category solicited public comments on the Trophy South subquota for the Gulf of measures, which were designed to 15 CFR Part 902 Mexico. Finally, this rule implements address the following objectives: (1) several measures not directly related to Prevent overfishing of and rebuild 50 CFR Part 635 bluefin tuna management, including a bluefin tuna stock, achieve on a continuing basis optimum yield, and [Docket No. 120328229–4949–02] U.S. North Atlantic albacore tuna quota; modified rules regarding permit minimize bluefin bycatch to the extent RIN 0648–BC09 category changes; and minor changes in practicable by ensuring that domestic the HMS regulations for administrative bluefin tuna fisheries continue to Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; or clarification purposes. operate within the overall total 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly DATES: Effective January 1, 2015, except allowable catch (TAC) set by ICCAT Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery for § 635.9(b)(2)(ii), (e)(1), which are consistent with the existing rebuilding Management Plan; Amendment 7 effective June 1, 2015; and plan; (2) optimize the ability for all permit categories to harvest their full AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries § 635.15(b)(3), (b)(4)(ii), and (b)(5)(i), Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and which are effective January 1, 2016. bluefin quota allocations, account for mortality associated with discarded Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 7 to bluefin in all categories, maintain Commerce. the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, including the Final Environmental flexibility of the regulations to account ACTION: Final rule. for the highly variable nature of the Impact Statement (FEIS), and other bluefin fisheries, and maintain fairness SUMMARY: This final rule implements relevant documents are available from among permit/quota categories; (3) Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated the HMS Management Division Web site reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna Atlantic Highly Migratory Species at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. and minimize reductions in target catch Fishery Management Plan (2006 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in both directed and incidental bluefin Consolidated HMS FMP) to ensure Thomas Warren or Brad McHale at 978– fisheries, to the extent practicable; (4) sustainable management of bluefin tuna 281–9260. improve the scope and quality of catch consistent with the 2006 HMS FMP and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. data through enhanced reporting and address ongoing management challenges Atlantic tuna fisheries are managed monitoring to ensure that landings and in the Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries. under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP dead discards do not exceed the quota This final rule also implements minor and regulations at 50 CFR part 635, and to improve accounting for all regulatory changes related to the pursuant to the authority of the sources of fishing mortality; and (5) management of Atlantic HMS. Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. adjust other aspects of the 2006 Amendment 7 management measures Under ATCA, the Secretary shall Consolidated HMS FMP as necessary were developed by NMFS under the promulgate such regulations as may be and appropriate, including northern authority of the Magnuson-Stevens necessary and appropriate to carry out albacore tuna quota implementation. Fishery Conservation and Management International Commission for the On August 22, 2013 (78 FR 52123), Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) NMFS published a notice in the Federal Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). recommendations. The authority to Register informing the public of the date This final rule: Allocates U.S. bluefin issue regulations under the Magnuson- and locations of public hearings on tuna quota among domestic fishing Stevens Act and ATCA has been Amendment 7. From August 2013 to categories; implements measures delegated from the Secretary to the January 2014, NMFS conducted 11 applicable to the pelagic longline Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, public hearings, and consulted with the fishery, including Individual Bluefin NOAA (AA). On October 2, 2006, NMFS New England Fishery Management Quotas (IBQs), two new Gear Restricted published in the Federal Register (71 Council, the Gulf of Mexico Areas, closure of the pelagic longline FR 58058) final regulations, effective Management Council, and the South fishery when annual bluefin tuna quota November 1, 2006, implementing the Atlantic Fishery Management Council. is reached, elimination of target catch 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which The hearings were held in diverse requirements associated with retention details the management measures for locations in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico of incidental bluefin tuna in the pelagic Atlantic HMS fisheries, including the coastal states. On August 30, 2013, the longline fishery, mandatory retention of incidental and directed Atlantic bluefin Environmental Protection Agency legal-sized bluefin tuna caught as tuna fisheries. published a Notice of Availability of the bycatch, expanded monitoring draft environmental impact statement requirements, including electronic Background (DEIS) (78 FR 53754; August 30, 2013). monitoring via cameras and bluefin tuna A brief summary of the background of The August 21, 2013, Amendment 7 catch reporting via Vessel Monitoring this final action is provided below. A proposed rule set the end of the public System (VMS), and transiting provisions more detailed history of the comment period as October 23, 2013, for pelagic and bottom longline vessels; development of these regulations, and but given the length and complexity of requires VMS use and reporting by the the alternatives considered, are the rule, and to provide additional time Purse Seine category; changes the start described in Amendment 7 to the 2006 for consideration of public comments in date of the Purse Seine category from Consolidated HMS FMP Final light of the November meeting of July 15 to a date within a range of June Environmental Impact Statement ICCAT, the end of the comment period 1 to August 15, to be established by an (Amendment 7 FEIS, August, 2014), was extended to December 10, 2013 (78 annual action; requires use of the which can be found online at the HMS FR 57340; September 18, 2013). Automated Catch Reporting System by Web site noted above. Subsequently, due to the government the General and Harpoon categories; NMFS published a proposed rule on shutdown in October 2013, and NMFS’ provides additional flexibility for August 21, 2013 (78 FR, 52032), which inability to respond to constituents

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71511

during that time frame and based on below, the final rule measures were may be made for either 2 or 3 years from requests for an extension due to the designed to allow fishery participants to the subject year (i.e., adjustments based complexity of the measures covered in fully harvest, but not exceed, the U.S. on 2013 catches would be made in the DEIS, NMFS again extended the end bluefin quota by refining the existing either 2015 or 2016). Pursuant to ATCA of the public comment period until management tools. NMFS is and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in this January 10, 2014, to provide additional implementing a detailed, multi-level final rule NMFS implements the ICCAT- opportunity for informed comment (78 approach to resolving challenges in recommended U.S. quota and FR 75327; December 11, 2013). On administering and carrying out the establishes provisions to adjust the base December 26, 2013, NMFS published a current quota system, which, if left quota for over or underharvests via Federal Register notice announcing a unaddressed, may otherwise result in annual quota specifications. public hearing conference call and overharvests of the U.S. quota in the webinar to provide additional future. These final rule measures Implemented Measures opportunity for the public from all directly support the goals of reducing The rule finalizes most of the geographic areas to comment (78 FR overfishing, rebuilding the western management measures that were 78322). bluefin stock, and achieving optimum contained in the proposed rule for The comments received on Draft yield by ensuring that the fishery Amendment 7 as they were proposed, Amendment 7 and its proposed rule, continues to be managed within the with several exceptions. This section and responses to those comments, are ICCAT-approved TAC, and consistent provides a summary of the final summarized below in the section with National Standard 1’s management measures being labeled ‘‘Response to Comments.’’ requirements. The bluefin tuna fishery is managed implemented by Amendment 7 and principally through a quota. Currently, Northern Albacore Tuna notes certain changes from the proposed NMFS implements and codifies the Amendment 7 also includes measures rule to this final rule that may be of ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota for management of north Atlantic particular interest to the regulated through rulemaking, annually or bi- albacore (or ‘‘northern albacore’’) tuna. community. These include changes to annually depending on the length of the Since 1998, ICCAT has adopted the basis for annual purse seine quota relevant ICCAT recommendation. Also recommendations regarding the availability, changes to two Gear through rulemaking (the ‘‘quota northern albacore tuna fishery. A multi- Restricted Areas (GRAs), changes to the specifications process’’) NMFS annually year management measure for northern range of years used in the performance adjusts the U.S. baseline bluefin quota albacore tuna was first adopted in 2003, metrics and BFT quota allocations to account for any underharvest or setting the TAC at 34,500 mt. ICCAT’s formula, changes to VMS requirements, overharvest of the adjusted U.S. quota Standing Committee on Research and and changed to effective dates. from the prior year; specifies subquotas Statistics (SCRS) assessed the northern Measures that are different from the that result from application of the 2006 albacore tuna stock in 2009 and proposed rule, or measures that were Consolidated HMS FMP allocations; and concluded that the stock continues to be proposed but not implemented, are adjusts subquotas as appropriate overfished with overfishing occurring, described in detail in the section titled, following consideration of domestic recommending a level of catch of no ‘‘Changes from the Proposed Rule.’’ management needs. NMFS must more than 28,000 mt to meet ICCAT 1. Quota Reallocation account not only for landings but for management objectives by 2020. In bluefin tuna discarded dead. NMFS response, in 2009 ICCAT established a Codified Quota Reallocation estimates and accounts for dead North Atlantic albacore tuna rebuilding discards in the pelagic longline fishery, program via Recommendation 09–05, The Longline category’s percentage of which cannot target bluefin tuna but setting a 28,000mt TAC and including the baseline U.S. bluefin tuna quota catches them while targeting swordfish several provisions to limit catches by remains at 8.1 percent, but each year the and other tunas. individual ICCAT parties (for major and Longline category quota will be National Standard 1 requires that minor harvesters) and reduce the increased by a net amount of 62.5 mt ‘‘conservation and management amount of unharvested quota that could based on deductions from the other measures shall prevent overfishing be carried forward from one year to the quota categories, to more fully and while achieving, on a continuing basis, next, from 50 percent to 25 percent of predictably account for Longline the optimum yield from each fishery for a party’s initial catch quota. The 2009 category incidental bluefin catch, the United States fishing industry.’’ The recommendation expired in 2011. including both dead discards and Magnuson-Stevens Act defines In 2011, ICCAT Recommendation 11– landings. This measure does not modify ‘‘optimum yield’’ as the amount of fish 04 again set a TAC of 28,000 mt for 2012 the previously-codified category quota that, among other things, provides for and for 2013 and contained specific allocation percentages. Rather, NMFS rebuilding to a level consistent with recommendations regarding the North will calculate the bluefin quota for each producing the maximum sustainable Atlantic albacore tuna rebuilding of the quota categories through the yield from the fishery. In ATCA, program, including an annual TAC for following process: First, 68 mt will be Congress also directed NMFS to manage 2012 and 2013 allocated among the subtracted from the baseline annual U.S. the bluefin fishery to ensure that NMFS European Union, Chinese Taipei, the BFT quota for reallocation to the provides U.S. fishing vessels ‘‘with a United States, and Venezuela. The U.S. Longline category quota. All quota reasonable opportunity to harvest such quota for 2012 and 2013 is 527 mt. The categories will be reduced consistent allocation, quota, or at such fishing recommendation limits Japanese with the allocation percentages codified mortality level. . . .’’ This rule builds northern albacore tuna catches to 4 at 50 CFR 635.27. Second, the remaining upon an extensive regulatory framework percent in weight of its total Atlantic quota will be divided among the for management of the domestic bluefin bigeye tuna longline catch, and limits categories according to those allocation fishery pursuant to the 20-year the catches of other ICCAT parties to percentages. Third, the 68 mt derived in rebuilding program adopted in the 1999 200 mt. The recommendation also Step One from all categories, including FMP and continued under the 2006 specifies that quota adjustments for a the Longline category, will be added to Consolidated HMS FMP. As described given year’s underharvest or overharvest the Longline category quota. The net

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71512 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

amount of quota increase for the Based on public comment, this catch. In summary, if Purse Seine Longline category will be 62.5 mt. measure was modified from the fishery participants catch a large portion Thus, 32.0 mt will be deducted from proposed rule so that the annual of their individual allocated base quota the General category (i.e., 47.1 percent formula for quota availability is based in one year, they have available for use of 68 mt), 2.7 mt from the Harpoon on the previous year’s individual purse a large portion of their base quota in the category (3.9 percent), 12.6 mt from the seine participant’s catch, rather than next year. If a Purse Seine fishery Purse Seine category (18.6 percent), 5.5 based on the catch of the Purse Seine participant’s catch is low in one year, a mt from the Longline category (8.1 category as a whole. This modification larger portion of their Purse Seine base percent), 13.4 mt from the Angling ties quota allocation more closely to the quota becomes available for other category (19.7 percent), and 1.7 mt from individual participants catch and management purposes. The Purse Seine the Reserve category (2.5 percent). This creates incentive for fishery participants quota available would not be ‘‘locked- equals 68 mt, which will be added to to remain active in the fishery. Without in’’ at a low level because the criteria the Longline category, resulting in a net this modification, individual allocations are structured to enable increased increase to the Longline category of 62.5 would be tied to the catch of the other utilization of available quota. For mt (68 mt minus the Longline category’s vessels in the fishery, which could have example, if the catch in year one is contribution of 5.5 mt). If, for example, unfair results if catch were to vary between 0 and 20 percent of their the baseline annual U.S. quota is 923.7 greatly among the vessels. For example, individual year one baseline Purse mt in a given year, then 403.0 mt would in a year where overall category catch Seine quota, the Purse Seine fishery be allocated to the General category (i.e., were low, an individual purse seine participant would have available for use 47.1 percent of 855.7 mt), 33.4 mt to the participant could have a relatively low 25 percent of their individual baseline Harpoon category (3.9 percent), 159.1 amount of quota available for use, even quota in year two. If, in year two, the mt to the Purse Seine category (18.6 if that participant landed a substantial individual catch is greater than 20 percent), 137.3 mt for the Longline portion of its allocation during the percent of their individual baseline category (8.1 percent plus the 62.5 mt), previous year. quota, but still within their individual 168.6 mt for the Angling category (19.7 Annually, NMFS will make a annual allocation (i.e., catch is between percent), and 21.4 mt for the Reserve 20 percent and 25percent), the Purse determination regarding the quota category (2.5 percent) Seine fishery participant would have available for each purse seine This measure provides additional available for use 50% of their individual participant for the year, based on the quota to the Longline category to baseline quota in year three. The Purse bluefin catch by such participants in the facilitate the ability to account for both Seine participants catch levels and previous year. Purse Seine participants landings and dead discards within the allocation levels have been staggered to will have available for use either 100 Longline category quota, consistent with allow for an increase in allocation in the percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, or 25 the historical separate dead discard following year, without causing the percent of their base quota, according allocation, yet limits the amount of Purse Seine fishery participant to the following allocation criteria: If the reallocation to the Longline category if exceed the current year’s allocation to the total U.S. quota increases. For more individual catch is between 0 and 20 do so. information on the historical dead percent of the individual base quota in This measure balances the need to discard allocation and the associated year one, the Purse Seine fishery provide the Purse Seine category rationale for the 68 mt augmentation of participant will have available for use participants a reasonable amount of the Longline category, see the Codified 25 percent of their base quota in year fishing opportunity in a predictable Reallocation section (2.1.2) of the FEIS. two, and 75 percent of their quota will manner, while making use of quota that be available to the Reserve Category for Annual Quota Reallocation may otherwise be unused. As described that year. If the individual catch is under ‘‘Modifications to the Reserve NMFS will annually adjust the Purse greater than 20 percent and up to 45 Category,’’ quota that is available to the Seine quota, using a formula based on percent of their individual base quota in Reserve Category may be utilized in a the weights of reported landings and year one, the Purse Seine fishery variety of ways to meet multiple estimated weights of dead discards participant will be allocated 50 percent objectives. NMFS will annually (calculated from reported lengths) by of their quota in year two, and 50 calculate the Purse Seine catch for that purse seine fishery participants in the percent of their quota will be available year and publish a notice in the Federal previous year. Twenty-five percent of to the Reserve Category for that year. If Register regarding the amount of quota each Purse Seine category participant’s the individual catch is greater than 45 that would be allocated to the Purse base quota will be available as a percent and up to 70 percent of their Seine fishery participants, as well as the minimum to each Purse Seine fishery base quota in year one, the Purse Seine corresponding amount allocated to the participant annually. Beyond that fishery participant will have available Reserve category and any disposition of amount, quota will be available to such for use 75 percent of their individual the quota from the Reserve category for participants based on the fishery base quota in year two, and 25 percent the subsequent year made at that time. participant’s catch in the previous year. of their quota will be available to the After the initial adjustment, NMFS may Any quota not allocated to the Purse Reserve Category for that year. If the make additional modifications to the Seine category participants will be individual catch is greater than 70 Purse Seine quota inseason in allocated to the Reserve category for percent of their base quota in year one, accordance with the criteria for inseason possible redistribution consistent with the Purse Seine fishery participant will adjustments specified at § 635.27(a), or specified regulatory criteria to other have available for use 100 percent of make subsequent use of quota from the quota categories, and to support other their baseline quota in year two, and no Reserve category. objectives of the 2006 Consolidated quota will be available to the Reserve HMS FMP. By moving portions of the Category for that year. These thresholds Modifications to the Reserve Category unused Purse Seine quota to the Reserve (>20 percent, >45 percent, >70 percent) This measure gives NMFS category annually, this measure will will apply following the same pattern in management flexibility by augmenting give NMFS more flexibility in years beyond year two, with each year’s the amount of quota in the Reserve administering the quota system. quota reflecting the previous year’s category under certain circumstances

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71513

and adds new criteria to the list of Under this management measure, below (Comment 26), NMFS modified determination criteria NMFS considers NMFS annually will grant qualified the relevant historical time period from in redistributing quota to or from the vessels conditional access to this GRA the proposed rule (which was 2006– Reserve category, to be responsive to the to fish with pelagic longline gear. 2011). Atlantic Tuna Longline permit current conditions in the fisheries and Access will be granted based on a holders will be notified annually of the facilitate adaptation to future changes in formula consisting of the following status of their relevant vessel, and only the fisheries. The potential sources of metrics: Ratio of bluefin tuna aggregated information regarding the quota for the Reserve category on top of interactions to designated species catch, vessel status will be made public. its baseline allocation of 2.5 percent are: compliance with the Pelagic Observer Atlantic Tuna Longline permit holders (1) Available underharvest of the U.S. Program requirements, and compliance will be able to appeal their relevant quota that is allowed to be carried with HMS logbook reporting vessel performance scores to NMFS by forward; and (2) unused Purse Seine requirements. Vessels will not qualify to submitting a written request to appeal, quota, under the Annual Quota fish in the area with pelagic longline indicating the reason for the appeal and Reallocation measure described above. gear if they have not demonstrated their providing supporting documentation for For example, under the Annual Quota ability to avoid bluefin tuna and/or the appeal (e.g., copies of landings Reallocation, NMFS will annually comply with reporting and monitoring records and/or permit ownership, adjust the purse seine quota, using a (observer) requirements. Non-qualifying Pelagic Observer Program information, formula based on the weights of vessels will be allowed to use other gear logbook data, etc.). NMFS will evaluate reported landings and estimated weights types to fish for non-bluefin HMS the appeal based upon the following of dead discards (calculated from species authorized for use by pelagic criteria: (1) The accuracy of NMFS reported lengths) by each Purse Seine longline vessels, such as buoy gear, records regarding the relevant fishery participants in the previous year. green-stick gear, or rod and reel, in the information; and (2) correct assignment Any remaining amount of Purse Seine area during the months of the restriction of historical data to the vessel owner/ quota will then be reallocated to the (December through April), but they may permit holder. Such permit holders may Reserve category for that subsequent not fish with pelagic longline gear in also appeal on the basis of changes in year. NMFS could utilize quota from the during those months. Although vessel ownership or permit transfers. Reserve category inseason after originally proposed in the Proposed Appeals based on hardship factors will considering defined criteria and Rule, the final rule does not allow non- not be considered. See below for more objectives. NMFS adds five criteria to qualifying vessels access to the GRA to information on appeals. the existing nine criteria to consider fish under the General category NMFS will have the authority to when making inseason or annual quota regulations and target bluefin (discussed terminate access for all pelagic longline adjustments. The five new criteria, further in the Comments and vessels or individual pelagic longline added to § 635.27(a)(8)(1)–(9) are: (10) Responses). The principal objective of vessels to the GRA via inseason action Optimize fishing opportunity; (11) conditional access to the GRA is to to address issues including: (1) Failure account for dead discards; (12) facilitate balance the objective of reducing dead to achieve or effectively balance the quota accounting; (13) support other discards with the objective of providing objective of reducing dead discards with fishing monitoring programs through reasonable fishing opportunity. The the objective of providing fishing quota allocations and/or generation of second objective is to provide strong opportunity; (2) bycatch of bluefin tuna or other HMS species that may be revenue; and (14) support research incentives to modify fishing behavior to inconsistent with the objectives or through quota allocations andr avoid bluefin tuna and reduce dead regulations or the 2006 Consolidated generation of revenue. discards, as well as improve compliance HMS FMP, or ICCAT recommendations; with the logbook reporting and observer These modifications to the Reserve or (3) bycatch of marine mammals or requirements. This regulatory approach category will increase management protected species that is inconsistent is based on the fact that, historically, flexibility in administering the quota with the Marine Mammal Protection Act relatively few vessels have consistently system in a way that takes into account (MMPA), Pelagic Longline Take been responsible for the majority of the fluctuations in the characteristics of the Reduction Plan (PLTRP), or the 2004 bluefin tuna dead discards within the fishery. Biological Opinion (BiOP). Longline category. Conditioning access The performance metric formula will 2. Gear Restricted Areas on compliance with reporting and enable qualified vessels to continue to monitoring requirements reflects the Modified Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted fish in the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, critical importance of fishery data to the Area, With Conditional Access yet will substantially reduce bluefin successful management of the fisheries. tuna dead discards by precluding This final rule establishes a GRA off The initial evaluation of performance fishing in the GRA by those with a Cape Hatteras, NC, and limits access to metrics will be based upon data from history of high bluefin tuna interaction this area for vessels fishing with pelagic 2006 through 2012, and subsequent in relation to other designated species longline gear during the 5-month period ‘‘performance scores’’ will be based catch. In order to characterize vessel from December through April. The upon the most recent complete three- performance in a manner that is fair, shape of the GRA has been modified consecutive-year period for which data consistent, and feasible to administer, from the proposed rule to remove the are available. In a situation where an the performance metric formula is based southeastern corner of the defined Atlantic Tunas Longline permit has on relatively simple, objective, and geographic area. This change was to been transferred from one vessel to quantifiable information. For each of the avoid unintended effects on fishing another, or there has been an ownership three performance metrics, a vessel will outside the closed area that would have change of a permitted vessel, the be scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 occurred if the action were relevant vessel fishing history used for reflecting better performance. Vessels implemented as proposed because it did the calculation of the performance score with a ratio of bluefin tuna interactions not account for the effect of the regarding access to the Cape Hatteras to designated species catch of 1 will not prevailing currents on how pelagic GRA remains with the vessel. As further be allowed to fish in the Modified Cape longline gear drifts in that area. explained in the Response to Comments Hatteras GRA using pelagic longline

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71514 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

gear. If a vessel’s Pelagic Observer bluefin tuna distribution, the economic closure date/time. Criteria NMFS will Program Compliance score is 2 or less, importance of the fishery, and other consider include those listed under that vessel will not be allowed to access factors. § 635.27(a)(8) as well as: Total estimated the area and fish with pelagic longline Other gear types authorized for use by bluefin tuna catch (landings and dead gear, unless the vessel’s logbook pelagic longline vessels such as buoy discards) in relation to the quota; compliance score is 4 or 5. gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel are estimated amount by which the bluefin The performance metric formula will allowed in these areas, provided the tuna quota might be exceeded; reflect bluefin tuna interactions as vessel abides by any rules/regulations usefulness of data relevant to measured by the ratio of the number of that apply to those gear types monitoring the quota; uncertainty in the bluefin tuna interactions (landings, dead documented or estimated dead discards discards, and live discards, in number Transiting Closed Areas or landings of bluefin tuna; amount of of fish) to the weight of designated This final rule allows vessels with an bluefin tuna landings or dead discards species landings (in pounds). These Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, within a short time; effects of continued designated species will consist of the Swordfish Incidental or Directed fishing on bluefin tuna rebuilding and more common marketable catch Limited Access permit, or a Shark overfishing; provision of reasonable harvested by pelagic longline vessels: Limited Access permit fishing with opportunity for pelagic longline vessels Swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, bottom or pelagic longline gear to transit to pursue the target species; variations and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and areas that are closed or restricted to in seasonal distribution, abundance or porbeagle, shortfin mako, and thresher such gear, if they remove and stow the migration patterns of bluefin tuna; and sharks. The use of a ratio incorporating gangions, hooks, and buoys from the other relevant factors. NMFS will use both designated species landings and mainline and drum. No baited hooks are the best available data to calculate the bluefin tuna interactions provides a allowed. The specific closed and most recent, complete, and available metric that is intended to eliminate bias restricted areas to which this transiting estimate of dead discards on a fishery- resulting from the differences among provision applies include those wide basis consistent with current vessels in size or fishing effort. established by this rule (Spring Gulf of regulations. Best available data may The Pelagic Observer Program metric Mexico GRAs and Modified Cape include, among other things, vessel- reflects compliance with requirements Hatteras GRA), as well as the following based reports, electronic monitoring regarding communications, and other pelagic longline closed areas in effect: data, and observer data, as appropriate. aspects of observer deployment. The Northeastern U.S. Closure, Northeast Individual Bluefin Quotas (IBQs) scoring system is designed to be neutral Distant Restricted Fishing Area, with respect to valid reasons that a Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast This final rule implements an IBQ vessel was selected by the observer Closed Area, and DeSoto Canyon Closed management system, which is program but did not take an observer, Area. This measure will allow vessels to summarized and then described in and designed to weigh trips that were transit the following bottom longline further detail below. not observed due to noncompliance closed areas in effect: Mid-Atlantic Summary of the IBQ Program with the communication requirements Shark, Snowy Grouper Wreck, Northern NMFS is implementing an IBQ more heavily than those that were not South Carolina, Edisto, Charleston Deep observed due to noncompliance with Program pursuant to section 303A of the Artificial Reef, Georgia, North Florida, MSA, which authorizes development of the safety and accommodation St Lucie Hump, East Hump, Madison- requirements. The logbook reporting limited access privilege programs Swanson, Steamboat Lumps, and Edges (LAPP). A LAPP creates permits, which metric reflects compliance with the 40 Fathom Contour. requirement that the vessel owner/ are issued for a period of not more than This regulatory provision reduces 10 years, to harvest a quantity of fish operator must submit the logbook forms travel costs by allowing more direct postmarked within 7 days of offloading expressed by a unit(s) representing a routes of travel, and addresses the portion of the total allowable catch that the catch, and, if no fishing occurred safety-at-sea concern associated with the during a month, must submit a no- may be received or held for exclusive requirement to steam around restricted use by a person. Section 303A(c), 16 fishing form postmarked no later than 7 areas. days after the end of that month. U.S.C. 1853a, identifies the 3. Quota Controls requirements for such a program (note Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline that the referendum requirements of Gear Restricted Areas NMFS Closure of the Pelagic Longline section 303A(c)(6)(D) are inapplicable to This final rule establishes two GRAs Fishery this program for the Atlantic HMS in the Gulf of Mexico and limits access Under measures adopted in the final fisheries). This final rule implements to these areas for vessels fishing with rule, the pelagic longline fishery will IBQs for vessels permitted in the pelagic longline gear during the 2- close (i.e., use of pelagic longline gear is Atlantic Tunas Longline category month period from April through May prohibited) when the total Longline (provided they also hold necessary to reduce dead discards and protect category quota is reached, projected to limited access swordfish and shark bluefin tuna on their spawning grounds, be reached or exceeded, or when there permits). Specifically, the IBQ Program while maintaining fishing opportunities is high uncertainty regarding the requires vessels fishing with pelagic for pelagic longline vessels as estimated or documented levels of longline gear to account for bluefin tuna appropriate. As described in the bluefin tuna catch. These closures will landings and dead discards using IBQ Response to Comments below help prevent overharvest of the Longline allocation (obtained through shares or (Comments 52 and 53), the size and category quota and prevent further leases of allocation), and prohibits the location of the geographic area of the discards of bluefin tuna. When NMFS use of pelagic longline gear when the GRA has been modified from the projects that the quota will be reached, vessel’s IBQ allocation has been caught. proposed rule to take into account the it will file a closure action with the An IBQ share is a percentage of the total best available information about the Office of the Federal Register for available Longline quota. Thus, if the location of bluefin interactions publication. Vessels will be required to total available Longline quota is (eastward trend), the high variability of offload all bluefin tuna prior to the modified as a result of an ICCAT

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71515

recommendation and the Longline quota debt’’), it may land the fish, but must bluefin tuna IBQ allocation from IBQ is changed as a result, the share (specific lease additional IBQ allocation from allocation holders. Permits that are not percentage) associated with an eligible another vessel to account for the excess associated with a vessel, such as a permit would not change, but would catch, and is not allowed to fish with permit characterized as ‘‘No Vessel ID,’’ result in a modified amount of IBQ pelagic longline gear until the quota are not eligible for an initial IBQ share allocation (mt or equivalent pounds). debt is balanced in the system (is but would be eligible to receive IBQ The Northeast Distant Area (NED) is accounted for) and the minimum allocation (through a lease) if and when a distinctly managed geographic area allocation required for a vessel to depart the permit is reassociated with a vessel. due to the specification of a separate on a trip is acquired. A vessel’s IBQ Such a vessel would be required to lease ICCAT quota relative to the rest of the allocation cannot carry-over from one IBQ allocation before fishing with pelagic longline fishery and is not year to the next, but if a vessel is unable pelagic longline gear. New entrants to managed under the full IBQ Program to satisfy its quota ‘debt’ in a particular the fishery must either obtain an restrictions. However, there are fishing year, quota will be deducted Atlantic Tunas Longline permit with provisions of the IBQ Program that will from the vessel’s allocation during the associated quota share, or if the valid apply to vessels fishing with pelagic subsequent year. permit did not have quota share, obtain longline gear in the NED. For example, Although temporary leasing of IBQ bluefin tuna quota through lease/sale to vessels will be required to have the allocation can occur, no permanent sale fish. minimum IBQ allocation to operate in of IBQ shares is allowed at this time, to the NED starting in 2016 and when NED reduce risks for permit holders during How much bluefin tuna quota does bluefin quota has been exhausted, the initial stages of the IBQ Program, each eligible vessel get? permitted vessels must abide by all the when the market for bluefin tuna quota A vessel’s IBQ share of the Longline requirements of the IBQ Program. shares is new and uncertain. Measures quota is based upon two elements: The The IBQ Program is a suite of to allow permanent sale of bluefin tuna amount of bluefin tuna caught between management measures intended to work quota shares may be implemented in the 2006 and 2012, and the amount of together. An IBQ share is the percentage future through separate proposed and designated species landings (i.e., of the Longline category quota that is final rulemaking. This will allow time swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, associated with an eligible vessel, based for IBQ fishermen to familiarize and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and upon the IBQ share formula and the themselves with the IBQ Program and porbeagle, shortfin mako, and thresher relevant vessel history, and an IBQ market for bluefin tuna shares. sharks). As discussed below in the allocation is the amount (mt) of bluefin As described in more detail below, ‘‘Response to Comments’’ (Comment tuna quota that is distributed to a NMFS is implementing an internet- 76), this date range includes 2012, and permitted vessel, based upon the based system to track bluefin tuna catch therefore is one year longer than that relevant IBQ share, and the annual (pelagic longline and purse seine), and proposed to consider the most recent Longline category quota. Eligible pelagic the use and leases of IBQ allocation. fishing activity of vessels, and to be longline vessels will receive one of three VMS must be used by vessel operators inclusive regarding the important IBQ share percentages (1.2%, 0.6%, or to report bluefin tuna catches to elements. More specifically, the two 0.37%), which must be used by increase the timeliness of dead discard factors that are the basis of the individual vessels to account for all data; and electronic monitoring allocation formula are: (1) Historical their bluefin tuna landings and dead (cameras and associated equipment) are bluefin tuna catch (from vessel logbook discards. Shares and allocations are required on pelagic longline vessels as data) expressed as ratio of the number designated as either Gulf of Mexico one element of the monitoring program. of bluefin tuna interactions to (GOM) or Atlantic (ATL). Vessels are The IBQ Program will be evaluated ‘designated species’ landings; and (2) prohibited from using Atlantic after 3 years, and NMFS will implement ‘designated species’ landings (from the allocation to account for bluefin tuna a cost recovery program through NMFS dealer data (weigh-out slips) and catch in the Gulf of Mexico, thereby separate rulemaking. logbook information). The use of these limiting potential shifts in effort. two factors in the quota share allocation Specifically, a vessel with bluefin catch What vessels are eligible to receive formula is intended to acknowledge past in the Gulf of Mexico may not use initial bluefin tuna quota shares? bluefin tuna avoidance, ensure a fair Atlantic allocation to account for such Vessels must meet two requirements initial allocation, and consider the catch. However, vessels may use Gulf of to be eligible to receive IBQ shares: diversity in vessel fishing patterns and Mexico allocation to account for bluefin (1) Vessels must have a valid Atlantic harvest characteristics. Past fishing that catch in both the Gulf of Mexico and Tunas Longline category permit; and (2) resulted in fewer bluefin tuna Atlantic. Allocations may be leased vessel must be deemed to be ‘‘active’’. interactions will result in larger IBQ annually by Atlantic Tunas Longline Vessels that made at least one set using shares of bluefin tuna. Landings of category permit holders or Purse Seine pelagic longline gear between 2006 and designated species are an indicator of category participants, and a minimum 2012 (based on pelagic longline logbook both the level of fishing effort and amount of allocation is required for a data) are defined as ‘‘active’’ This date activity as well as vessel success at pelagic longline vessel to depart on a range includes 2012, and therefore is targeting those species and minimizing trip in the Atlantic (0.125 mt) using one year longer than that proposed to bluefin bycatch interactions. This pelagic longline gear. A higher ensure that recent participants in the method incorporates the rate of minimum amount of quota (allocation) fishery are defined as ‘‘active.’’ For the historical bluefin tuna interactions but is required for a pelagic longline vessel purpose of IBQ share eligibility, a ‘‘valid also includes the amount of designated to depart on a fishing trip in the Gulf of Atlantic Tunas Longline category species landings, recognizing that Mexico (0.25 mt). A pelagic longline permit’’ is one held as of the date the greater levels of fishing activity are vessel may not use Atlantic allocation to proposed rule was published, which likely to be correlated with a greater satisfy the minimum share requirement was August 21, 2013. number of bluefin tuna interactions. for a fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico. Vessels with valid Atlantic Tunas The specific IBQ allocation formula is If a vessel retains legal sized bluefin Longline permits that do not meet the as follows: Because the bluefin tuna tuna in excess of its allocation (‘‘quota initial eligibility criteria may lease interactions to designated species

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71516 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

landings ratio is very small, designated number of eligible vessels analyzed at an allocation of 100 percent ‘‘Atlantic’’ species landings were multiplied by the proposed rule stage. The number of quota (and none designated as ‘‘Gulf of 10,000 in order to derive a ratio that is eligible vessels determined by the Mexico’’) because 10 percent of 0.51 mt more practical (i.e., 0.95 instead of proposed rule was higher because the (.005 mt) is less than the minimum 0.000095). In order to combine the two proposed rule analysis included permits share required to fish in the Gulf of metrics, scores were assigned to each that were not associated with vessels at Mexico (0.25 mt). Owners of vessels metric (the bluefin tuna catch to the time of the publication of the with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline designated species landings ratio and proposed rule (August 21, 2013), and category permit will be sent certified historical designated species landings) did not reflect both eligibility criteria. letters informing them of their IBQ share as described below. Active vessels were Allocation among fewer eligible vessels and resultant allocation. In determining sorted into three categories, using total increases the allocation amount per initial quota share eligibility and designated species landings from 2006 vessel. The rationale for this measure is calculating the initial quota share NMFS through 2011, based on percentiles of to implement criteria that reflect used data associated with a vessel’s landings from lowest to highest (low, participation in the fishery. By history. In the future, the IBQ share will medium, and high, 0 to <33 percent; 33 allocating only to ‘‘active’’ vessels, the be associated with the permit, not the to <66 percent and 66 to 100 percent, measure will facilitate continued vessel. For example, if a permitted respectively). Similarly, the active participation in the fishery by vessels vessel has IBQ shares, and the owner of vessels were sorted according to the that have made past investments in the the permitted vessel decides to sell the ratio of bluefin interactions to HMS fishery. Permitted vessels that do not permit but keep the vessel, the seller of landings, from lowest to highest. For meet the initial eligibility criteria the permit (the vessel owner) would no example, a vessel with a 2006–2011 necessary to receive bluefin quota share longer have any quota share or weight of designated species landings of allocation will still be eligible to obtain privileges with respect to the IBQ greater than or equal to 367,609 lb (the quota through a lease of IBQ allocation. Program because IBQ shares would be 66 to 100th percentile of landings) The criteria did not include 2013 or associated with the permit that was would be placed in the ‘‘High’’ category 2014 because the DEIS and FEIS, sold. In contrast, the buyer of the permit and assigned a score of 3 (the highest respectively, were being written, during would receive IBQ shares and allocation score). In contrast, a vessel with a total those years, and there were limitations associated with that permit once the designated species landing of only on the availability of finalized data. permit is associated with a vessel. 95,000 pounds for 2006 through 2011 Availability of finalized logbook and Appeals of Initial IBQ Shares and GRA would receive a designated species dealer data during 2013 and 2014 was Access Determinations landings score of 1. A vessel with a limited to 2011 and 2012 data, bluefin to designated species landings respectively. This final rule implements a two-step ratio of less than 0.2884 (66 to 100th As described below, under ‘‘Appeal of appeals process for review of the percentile of bluefin to designated Initial IBQ Shares,’’ when NMFS Secretary’s decisions regarding initial species landings ratios), would place in determines that all requests for appeal assignment of IBQ shares. This rule also the top category and receive a bluefin to have been resolved, NMFS may adjust adds an opportunity for HMS designated species landings ratio score all IBQ shares as necessary to Management Division to initially review of 3. A low ratio indicates relatively few accommodate permitted holders that a request for a quota share adjustment bluefin interactions and therefore have been deemed eligible or provided or access to the Cape Hatteras GRA, in receives a high score. an increased IBQ share through the order to facilitate possible expedited Finally, the two scores were appeals process. resolution of such requests without a combined to form the basis of the All bluefin tuna quota allocated to requestor needing to go through a full allocation. For each vessel, the score for Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine participants National Appeals Office process. designated species landings was added is also designated as ‘‘Atlantic,’’ subject Specifically, the final rule describes an to the score for bluefin to designated to the restriction that it may only be initial review step by the HMS species ratio. For example, if a vessel used in the Atlantic (by either a Purse Management Division through which scored in the ‘‘High’’ category for both Seine vessel or via a lease to a pelagic the appellant must first submit a written designated species landings and bluefin longline vessel). request to appeal their initial IBQ share to designated species landings its If a vessel has fishing history in both or access the Cape Hatteras GRA prior combined score would be 6 (3 + 3). If the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, it may to submitting any appeals to the a vessel scored High for bluefin ratio, receive quota shares of both the Gulf of National Appeals Office. It also adds but Low for designated landings, it Mexico and Atlantic, depending upon administrative details about the process would be scored a 4 (1 + 3) and it would the amount of quota share and the (i.e., on acceptable supporting be placed in the Medium rating score proportion of fishing history in the two documentation, and the specific timing category. Vessels assigned to a areas. A relatively small percentage of of the steps). This modification was particular category will be allocated the sets in one area will not be reflected in made in response to public comment same percentage share. the quota share. If a vessel would be requesting clarification of the process. Vessels are allocated shares of 1.2%, allocated less than a minimum share Although this final rule adds 0.6%, or 0.37% of the Longline category amount for a particular area (i.e., less administrative details regarding the quota. For 2015 (unless the U.S. quota than 0.125 mt for the Atlantic or less appeals process, the range of criteria is modified by ICCAT in 2014), based on than 0.25 mt for the Gulf of Mexico), that permit holders may base an appeal a revised baseline Longline category then no allocation will be designated for on did not change from the proposed to bluefin tuna quota of 137 mt (baseline that area and all of the permit holder’s the final rule. Additional discussion of plus 62.5 mt), vessels will be allocated share would be designated to the other these changes is in the section of this 1.64 mt, 0.82 mt, or 0.51 mt of bluefin area (Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico). For preamble called ‘‘Changes to the tuna, respectively. These specific example, if a vessel is eligible for an Proposed Rule.’’ allocations are larger than those allocation of 0.51 mt, and historically Upon publication of this final rule, proposed because the actual number of landed 10 percent of their catch in the NMFS will notify all permit holders by eligible vessels was less than the Gulf of Mexico, the vessel would receive certified letter of their initial IBQ share

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71517

and resultant allocation and whether informed of their initial IBQ shares and Mandatory Retention of Legal-Sized they have granted access to the Cape resultant allocations and/or access Bluefin Tuna Hatteras GRA. If permit holders wish to determination, they will be provided Pelagic longline vessels must retain appeal their IBQ share determination or instructions regarding the process to all legal-sized commercial bluefin tuna GRA access determination, they must appeal that decision. Landings that are dead at haul-back. Because first submit a written request for eligibility criteria require evidence of these fish must be retained, regulatory adjustment of their initial IBQ share or documented legal landings during the discards and the waste of fish will be GRA access determination to the HMS timeframe from January 1, 2006, through decreased, and it will be more likely Management Division, indicating the December 31, 2012. Public comment on that such fish are accurately accounted reason for the requested change and the DEIS and proposed rule reflected a for and have a positive use (e.g., providing supporting documentation as need to clarify aspects of the appeals marketed, used for scientific detailed below. All requests for process. Thus, NMFS is clarifying in information, etc.). Bluefin tuna, of all adjustment to initial IBQ shares or GRA this final rule that, regarding what will size classes, that are live at haul-back access determination must be submitted be considered ‘‘documented legal should be carefully removed from the to the HMS Management Division landings,’’ NMFS will consider official hooks and returned to the ocean to within 90 days of publication of the NMFS logbook records or weighout ensure survivability. Legal-sized final rule. HMS Management Division slips for landings between January 1, commercial bluefin tuna that are alive at staff will evaluate all such requests and 2006, through December 31, 2012, that haul-back may be retained; however supporting documentation, then notify were submitted to NMFS prior to March they will be accounted for under the the appellant by letter signed by the 2, 2013 (60 days after the cutoff date for IBQ allocation. HMS Management Division Chief of eligible landings), and verifiable sales NMFS’ decision to approve or deny the slips, receipts from registered dealers, Fishing Under the IBQ Program request. If the request is approved, then state landings records, and permit This section provides a brief example NMFS will appropriately adjust the records as accompanying of how some of the Amendment 7 appellant’s initial IBQ share and documentation of an appeal. Landings requirements applicable to a vessel resultant allocation and/or grant access data are required to be submitted within fishing with pelagic longline gear will to the Cape Hatteras GRA. If denied, the 7 days of landing under the applicable work together. Additional details permit holder may appeal the decision regulations. Recognizing that somewhat- regarding the VMS and electronic to the NMFS National Appeals Office late reporting could have occurred for a monitoring programs are provided within 90 days of receipt of the notice variety of reasons, however, NMFS is below in sections of this preamble titled of denial by submitting a written clarifying that it will consider ‘‘VMS’’: and ‘‘Electronic Monitoring.’’ petition of appeal. Appeals will be ‘‘documented’’ landings for appeals As discussed in the proposed rule, governed by the regulations and policy purposes to be those reported within 60 IBQ allocation leases would be executed of the National Appeals Office at 15 CFR days. NMFS will count only those by the eligible vessel owners, or their part 906. National Appeals Office designated species landings that were representatives, through the internet regulations detail the procedure for landed legally when the vessel owner and a NMFS database. Owner- appealing the quota share decision (See had a valid permit. Appeals regarding performed leases will provide the § 906.3). bluefin interactions may be based on quickest execution of leases because any The decisions subject to a request for HMS logbook records as described, eligibility criteria will be verified appeal are: (1) Initial eligibility for IBQ observer data, or other NMFS data. No automatically based on information shares based on ownership of an active other proof of catch history will be loaded into that system, and will not vessel (as defined by this rule under considered. NMFS permit records will involve the submission or review of a § 635.15) with a valid Atlantic Tunas be the sole basis for determining permit paper application, or any lag time Longline category permit combined transfers . Photocopies of the written associated with NMFS staff being with the shark and swordfish limited documents are acceptable in the original directly involved in the lease approval access permits required under the application or appeal; NMFS may process. The online IBQ System used to current permit regulations; (2) the request the originals at a later date. track and lease bluefin IBQ shares and accuracy of NMFS records regarding a NMFS may refer any submitted resultant allocations will be operated vessel’s amount of designated species materials that are of questionable out of NMFS’s Southeast Regional landings and/or bluefin interactions; authenticity to the NMFS Office of Office (SERO). The administrative and (3) correct assignment of target Enforcement for investigation. Appeals functions associated with this IBQ species landings and bluefin based on hardship factors will not be System (e.g., registration and account interactions to the vessel owner/permit considered. Consistent with most setup, landing and dead discard holder. As discussed under the IBQ limited effort and catch share programs, tracking, and leases of allocation) are measures above, the IBQ share formula hardship is not a valid basis for appeal designed to be accomplished online; is based upon historical data associated due to the multitude of potential therefore, a participant must have an with a permitted vessel. Because vessels definitions of hardship and the IBQ System account to participate. may have changed ownership, or difficulty and complexity of NMFS will provide instructions to IBQ permits may have been transferred administering such criteria in a fair participants about the required software, during 2006 through 2012, the current manner. how to use the IBQ System to lease IBQ owner of a permitted vessel may also When NMFS determines that all allocation and track IBQ use and appeal on the basis of historical changes requests for IBQ share appeals have balances, how to perform the necessary in vessel ownership or permit transfers, been resolved, NMFS may adjust all IBQ accounting actions that support if current owner believes that the data share percentages as appropriate to administration of the program, and how used in the analysis were not accurate accommodate permitted holders that are to obtain assistance with using the because of such changes. NMFS will deemed eligible or that are provided an system. An eligible permit holder must consider only written requests for increased IBQ share through the appeals create an IBQ System account online, appeals. When permit holders are process. and log into the password protected IBQ

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71518 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

System to execute an IBQ allocation from a previous year. For those permit provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ lease, to check the amount of IBQ in holders who own or operate multiple accounts, adjust IBQ allocation for the their account, or perform other vessels with allocation, if, at the end of upcoming year, etc. If a vessel with the functions, according to instructions the year, one or more of the vessels has required minimal IBQ allocation departs provided by NMFS. Similarly, a dealer an outstanding quota debt, yet the other on a trip prior to the end of a calendar purchasing bluefin tuna caught from a vessels still have allocation, the IBQ year and returns to port after the start of vessel fishing with pelagic longline or system will apply any remaining the following year, any bluefin landings Purse Seine gear must have an online unused allocation associated with the or dead discards will be counted against dealer account, computer access, and other vessels to account for the quota the new year’s allocation. internet access. debt of the other. This system In this final rule, NMFS will maintain Before they may depart to fish with functionality has been added since the the authority to ensure that the bluefin pelagic longline gear vessels must have proposed rule because unused catch by pelagic longline vessels does the required minimum IBQ allocation allocation does not carry over from one and must have balanced any year to the next, but quota debt does. not exceed the Longline quota. NMFS outstanding quota debt from previous This addition will ease the regulatory may, under certain circumstances, such trips, and comply with the VMS and burden of resolving quota debt, and as high uncertainty regarding the VMS electronic monitoring requirements. reduces the possibility that a permit reported dead discards, utilize the Vessels are required to haul gear and holder of multiple vessels may current methodology for generating and handle catch in accordance with the inadvertently fail to manually resolve an using estimates of pelagic longline dead electronic monitoring program existing quota debt with allocation discards. Prior to this final rule NMFS requirements (described below under associated with one of their other has used previous years’ estimate as electronic monitoring requirements), vessels at the end of the year and proxy for anticipated dead discards, and retain any legal sized dead bluefin, and otherwise miss the opportunity to subtracted that estimate of dead report bluefin catch and information on resolve the debt. discards ‘‘off the top’’ of the entire sets through their VMS during the trip For example, if a permit holder owns Longline quota. Although not (described below under VMS two vessels, Vessel A and Vessel B and anticipated, NMFS will maintain this Requirements). If a vessel retains legal- both have IBQ allocations but at the end ability until both methodologies can be sized bluefin tuna in excess of its IBQ of the year Vessel A has a quota debt of compared in parallel to verify accuracy. allocation, it may land and sell the fish, .20 mt, and Vessel B has remaining The Northeast Distant Area (NED) and but the permit holder must acquire unused IBQ allocation of .10 mt, the IBQ the IBQ Program additional IBQ allocation to account for System would automatically transfer .10 the excess catch, and is not allowed to mt of Vessel B IBQ allocation to Vessel Under current ICCAT fish with, or have onboard, pelagic A to count toward resolving Vessel A’s recommendations, the NED is a longline gear until the quota debt has quota debt. Vessel A would still have a distinctly managed geographic area been resolved. quota debt of .10 mt and, when annual managed under a separate quota. At the end of the trip, the permitted IBQ allocation occurs at the start of the Because the NED is managed as a dealer purchasing the landings must subsequent year, Vessel A’s annual IBQ distinct area with a relatively small enter all bluefin landing information allocation would be reduced by .10 mt quota, and managing the NED under the from the trip. The vessel owner or to account for the previous year’s quota IBQ system would add additional operator, or their designee, must debt. complexity to the IBQ system, the quota coordinate with the dealer to enter their This final rule clarifies the associated with the NED (25 mt) is not dead discards, into the IBQ System. The relationship of accrued quota debt and managed under the full IBQ Program landing transaction completed by the Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit dealer must include the name and under the IBQ Program. If an Atlantic restrictions. However, there are permit number of the vessel that landed Tunas Longline category permit holder provisions of the IBQ Program that will the bluefin and any other information participated in the IBQ Program and has apply to vessels fishing with pelagic regarding the landings, as instructed by a quota debt that remains unresolved at longline gear in the NED. For example, NMFS (such as the shareholder’s the time of such permit’s sale or vessels will be required to have the account number, vessel account transfer, then that quota debt remains minimum IBQ allocation to operate in number, individual tag number, weights associated with the permit. This is the NED starting in 2016 and when NED for landed bluefin tuna, and the number consistent with the IBQ share remaining bluefin quota has been exhausted, of dead discarded bluefin tuna by linked to the eligible permit itself and permitted vessels must abide by all the appropriate length bin). The permit further refines how IBQ shares, resultant requirements of the IBQ Program. holder, or designee, must validate the allocation, and quota debt will be Electronic monitoring systems, installed landings information and enter the dead managed to ensure accountability under by June 1, 2015, will be required in discard information (such as numbers of the IBQ Program, even if permits are order for vessels to fish with pelagic fish by approximate size) before the sold or transferred. longline gear including in the NED, and transaction is processed. If, by the end To ensure that all IBQ Program data from the electronic monitoring of the fishing year a permit holder does activity can be accounted for on an system may be used to ensure that not have adequate allocation (obtained annual basis, the IBQ System will targeting fishing is not occurring. NMFS either through leasing under paragraph prohibit any and all online transactions, reminds the regulated community that (c)), or additional allocation under such as catch transactions and IBQ the international separate allocation is paragraph (f) to settle their vessel’s allocation leases, between December 31 only for bycatch in the NED and of the quota debt, the vessel’s allocation will at 6 p.m. and January 1 at 2 p.m. domestic prohibitions against targeting be reduced in the amount equal to the (Eastern Time). IBQ System functions bluefin tuna using pelagic longline gear. quota debt, in the subsequent year, or will resume after January 1 at 2 p.m. the NMFS will re-visit this issue if years, until the quota debt is fully following year. No IBQ System necessary if subsequent years’ data accounted for. A vessel may not fish if transactions will be allowed or available indicate that additional controls are there is outstanding annual quota debt during this 20 hour time period to needed.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71519

Quota Leasing process of permit renewal or permit (landings and dead discards), effort, This measure allows Longline and transfer, IBQ allocations will be made revenues, and allocation leases and Purse Seine category vessels to lease when the eligible permit holder accumulation. Other indicators include allocation to or from other vessels in completes the permit transaction(s). the number of and distribution of these categories (provided they have Subsequent to the annual allocation of bluefin tuna interactions. The review active accounts in the IBQ system), so quota, additional IBQ may be allocated may also include analysis of data that allocations will become better to the vessels with bluefin quota share collection, monitoring, and reporting; aligned with catch (i.e., vessels that as a result of a U.S. baseline quota enforcement; quota performance; quota catch bluefin tuna may be able to obtain increase or transfer of quota from the distribution among permit holders; Reserve category to the Longline quota from those that do not interact quota share and resultant allocation category, pursuant to criteria for quota with bluefin tuna, or that have not used transferability; other elements of the adjustments. Subsequent to the annual their full allocation of bluefin tuna). IBQ Program; or aspects of the 2006 allocation of quota, quota may be Allocation may be leased annually by Consolidated HMS FMP relevant to the deducted from vessels as a result of a Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit IBQ Program such as gear restricted decrease in the U.S. baseline quota, or holders from other Atlantic Tunas areas or purse seine measures. to account for a quota debt (bluefin Longline category permit holders or catch by a vessel that must be accounted Cost Recovery from Purse Seine category participants, for under the IBQ system, for which the regardless of whether they are eligible Section 303A(e) of the Magnuson- vessel has insufficient quota). Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1853a(e)) for their own quota share. Leasing of With respect to the relationship requires that, in establishing a LAPP, a IBQ allocations is allowed among all between the Atlantic Tunas Longline Council shall develop a methodology Longline category vessels with valid permit and the IBQ share, upon and the means to identify and assess the limited access permits, regardless of implementation of Amendment 7, the management, data collection and whether they are eligible for their own IBQ share is associated with the Atlantic analysis, and enforcement programs that quota share. If a vessel catches bluefin Tunas Longline permit, and is not are directly related to and in support of tuna using allocation that it has leased severable. If, in the future, NMFS allows the LAPP; and provide for a program of from another vessel, the fishing history permanent sale of quota shares, NMFS fees paid by LAPP holders that will associated with the catch of bluefin tuna would also consider whether or not the cover the costs of management, data will be associated with the vessel that share is severable from the Atlantic catches the bluefin tuna (the lessee, not Tunas Longline permit. Under this final collection and analysis, and the lessor vessel). In other words, the rule, any quota debt associated with an enforcement activities. Such fees may lessee (vessel catching the fish) gets the Atlantic Tunas Longline permit will be not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel ‘credit’ for the landings and dead associated with (and accompany) the value of fish harvested under the LAPP. discards, and not the lessor (the vessel permit upon sale/transfer of the permit. While section 303A(e) requires that leased the allocation to the catching Quota debts will be also be associated development of cost recovery in vessel). The future catch of bluefin tuna with Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine establishing a LAPP, NMFS plans to will not affect the quota shares, but will category participants. implement cost recovery after the IBQ affect the calculation of the performance Program evaluation (after 3 years). This metric of each vessel. Sub-leasing of Elimination of Target Catch step-wise approach is consistent with quota is allowed (i.e., IBQ leased from Requirement the purpose of section 303A(e) and vessel A to vessel B, then re-leased by This final rule eliminates the current appropriate given the nature of the vessel B to vessel C). For a particular target catch requirements for pelagic LAPP being proposed. The purpose of calendar year, an individual lease longline vessels (including those fishing section 303A(e) is to collect fees to transaction will be valid from the time in the NED), which restricts the number cover management, data collection and of the lease until December 31. of incidentally caught bluefin tuna a analysis, and enforcement activities. The initial limit on the amount of pelagic longline vessel may retain in However, the cost of administering a allocation an individual Longline or relation to the amount of target species cost recovery program may be high Purse Seine category participant may retained and sold. In the context of the relative to the amount of money lease annually will be the combined IBQ system being implemented by recovered, because some active vessels Longline and Purse Seine category Amendment 7, the current target catch have very high fishing activity whereas allocations. This will provide flexibility requirement is no longer be necessary. others have relatively low activity. for vessels to purchase quota in a NMFS also notes that the underlying Formal IBQ Program Evaluation manner that can accommodate various objective of the IBQ is to reduce levels of unintended catch of bluefin NMFS will formally evaluate the incidental catch of bluefin tuna, which tuna, and enable the development of an success and performance of the IBQ will impact the amount and ex-vessel unrestricted quota market. Program in achieving its objectives, after value of fish harvested. Immediate three years of operation and provide the implementation of a cost recovery Annual Individual Bluefin Quota HMS Advisory Panel with a publicly- program, without obtaining further Allocation available written document with its information about the operation of the Annual allocation of bluefin quota to findings. The review will describe and fishery with IBQs, would be very eligible vessels with IBQ shares will analyze the changes that have taken difficult and would increase costs and occur January 1, based on the criteria place in the fishery since uncertainty for fishing vessels during a described above (‘‘What Vessels Are implementation of the IBQ Program. time period when the fishery would be Eligible to Receive Initial Bluefin Tuna NMFS will utilize its standardized bearing other new costs and sources of Quota Shares?’’ and ‘‘How Much economic performance indicators, uncertainty. For the above reasons, Bluefin Tuna Quota Does Each Eligible developed by its Office of Science and NMFS is not implementing cost Vessel Get?’’). For vessels that are not Technology, as part of its review. For recovery until after it conducts the eligible as of December 31 because they example, the standardized economic program evaluation. After the IBQ have begun—but not completed—the performance indicators include catch Program is evaluated after 3 years,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71520 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

NMFS will implement a cost recovery during which interruption of automatic and associated data recording and program through separate rulemaking. position reports has occurred, the monitoring equipment, which will vessel’s owner or operator must have a record all longline catch and relevant 4. Reporting Measures qualified marine electrician replace or data regarding pelagic longline gear Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) repair the VMS unit prior to the vessel’s retrieval and deployment. NMFS will Requirements next trip. Finally, as a condition of use the recorded data to verify the This final rule implements VMS obtaining an HMS limited access accuracy of counts and identification of reporting requirements for vessels permit, the vessel owners or operators bluefin tuna reported by the vessel fishing with pelagic longline gear and must allow NMFS, the United States owner/operator, as well as observers. issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline Coast Guard (USCG), or their designees Electronic monitoring will enable the access to the vessel’s position data. category permit. It also requires vessels collection of video images and fishing Vessels fishing for Atlantic tunas with fishing with purse seine gear and issued effort data that may be used in purse seine gear must submit, through an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category conjunction with other sources of VMS, a ‘‘Highly Migratory Species information to estimate bluefin tuna permit to install VMS and report Bluefin Tuna Catch Report’’ for each set. through VMS to support the inseason dead discards, and may augment the Specifically, such vessels must report ability of an observer to fulfill their monitoring of the pelagic longline and the number of sets within 12 hours of purse seine fisheries, as proposed. duties by providing a record of catch the set; and report the length of all during the time periods the observer Additional detail is provided in this bluefin discarded dead or retained (by final rule to explain application of the may be unable to observe the catch standardized size ranges) within 12 directly. requirements to the Purse Seine hours of completion of each the set In light of public comments category, in response to public comment (including reporting zero bluefin on a expressing concern about ensuring the asking for clarification and because of set). NMFS will provide vessel owners functionality of electronic monitoring the need for additional administrative with instructions regarding the detailed systems and the costs of such systems, detail. methods of reporting such information this final rule relieves certain purchase using their VMS units. At least three Purse Seine Vessels and installation requirements that were hours prior to the end of a trip, the Vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Purse set out in the proposed rule. Rather than vessel operator must provide advanced requiring currently eligible vessel Seine category permit must have an notice of landing by submitted the approved Enhanced Mobile ‘‘Highly Migratory Species Pre-Landing owners to buy and install equipment Transmitting Unit (E–MTU) VMS unit Notification Form’’ with information on and make decisions about equipment installed by a qualified marine the time and location of landing. specifications and functionality, this electrician to fish for Atlantic tunas If a vessel operator decides not to fish final rule instead requires the currently with purse seine gear. Vessels must for or retain HMS for two or more trips, eligible vessel owners to obtain follow the procedures for installation the operator may choose to ‘‘declare certification from a NMFS-approved and activation provided by NMFS and out’’ of the fishery, according to contractor stating that the contractor has submit to NMFS the completed instructions provided by NMFS, and not properly installed and verified the checklist and compliance certification be subject to the HMS hail in/hail out functionality of the electronic statement. The VMS unit must submit requirements during trips for which monitoring system in accordance with automatic position reports every hour, they are declared out of the HMS more detailed equipment and system 24 hours a day, unless a valid power fishery. requirements provided in the final rule. down exemption has been granted by Vessels fishing with pelagic longline As set out in the proposed rule, vessel NMFS law enforcement. Owners of gear must report through VMS the owners would have been responsible for purse seine vessels may request a number of hooks and sets within 12 the costs of the equipment and for documented power down exemption hours of completion of each pelagic installation for the electronic from NMFS law enforcement if the longline haul-backs and, for pelagic monitoring systems. Since publication vessel will not be fishing for an longline sets with bluefin tuna of the proposed rule and the FEIS, and extended period of time. The request interactions, must report the length of in response to public comment and to must describe the reason an exemption all bluefin tuna retained or discarded ease the regulated community’s burden is being requested; the location of the dead (by standardized size ranges) associated with the new monitoring vessel during the time an exemption is within 12 hours of completion of the requirements, NMFS has identified sought; the exact time period for which pelagic longline haul-back. funds to pay for the equipment and its an exemption is needed; and sufficient NMFS will make specific VMS installation for those currently eligible information to determine that a power reporting instructions available to the vessels (eligible for initial quota shares). down exemption is appropriate. Prior to purse seine and pelagic longline For all vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas departing on a trip vessels that intend fisheries to facilitate this reporting Longline permit that fish with pelagic to fish for Atlantic tunas with purse requirement. longline gear, vessel owners (or their seine gear must declare through E–MTU representatives) must coordinate with VMS their intent to fish with such gear Electronic Monitoring the NMFS-approved contractor to install and note their HMS target species), by The final rule adopts electronic and test electronic monitoring submitting a ‘‘Highly Migratory Species monitoring requirements for all vessels equipment, and the contractor will then Trip Declaration Form’’ (‘hail out’). If a issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline provide certification that the equipment vessel operator is aware that permit that fish with pelagic longline has been properly installed. Vessel transmission of automatic position gear. This final rule requires all such owners will be required to make their reports has been interrupted, or is vessels that are currently eligible to vessel accessible to designated notified by NMFS that such reports are have a NMFS-approved contractor personnel on a specific date, or range of not being received, the vessel operatory install a system and obtain certification dates, to allow installation and testing of must contact NMFS and follow the of such installation. They must then electronic monitoring equipment, and instructions given. After a fishing trip properly maintain the video cameras may be required to steam to a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71521

designated port within their geographic indicates that the system is fully box must contain removable hard drives region to enable such installation and functioning. Upon successful and storage system adequate to store training. This is consistent with the installation and testing by the NMFS- data for the entire trip (e.g., adequate to proposed rule’s requirement that vessels approved contractor, the NMFS- store the data associated with a trip be available for inspection, as it will not approved contractor will provide vessel lasting approximately 30 days). A result in any additional absence from owners with a certificate that the wheelhouse monitor must provide a fishing time than was analyzed and equipment installed constitutes a ‘‘fully graphical user interface for harvesters to proposed in the proposed rule or functioning electronic monitoring monitor the state and performance of impose additional financial costs or system’’ based on written instructions the control box and should include regulatory burden. and requirements that NMFS provided information such as: Current date and To fish using pelagic longline gear, a the contractor. The vessel owner must time synced via GPS, GPS coordinates, vessel must have a valid certification make the certificate available upon current hydraulic pressure reading, form from the NMFS-approved request by NMFS OLE. The required presence of a data disk, percentage used contractor certifying that it has a fully cameras must be installed to provide a of the data disk, and video recording functioning electronic monitoring view of the area where the longline gear status. system on board. Because the pelagic is retrieved and catch is removed from Hydraulics: Prior to system longline fleet is diverse with respect to the hook (prior to placing in the hold or installation, vessel operators must vessel size, mechanical infrastructure, discarding boatside) and such system possess and install a fitting for the pressure side of the line of the drum and operation, and the technology must be connected to the mechanical hydraulic system. The fitting may be supporting electronic monitoring is hauling device so that recording is either ‘‘T’’ or inline, with a female 1⁄4’’ changing and improving, NMFS is initiated by gear retrieval. The specific threaded National Pipe Thread (NPT) implementing detailed regulations that equipment functionality requirements port to enable connection to the include some technical specifications are as follows: Video Cameras: Video data are pressure transducer. regarding the necessary equipment that produced by digital IP (Internet Power: Electronic monitoring systems constitutes an electronic monitoring protocol) video cameras at a resolution are capable or being powered by both system to respond to public comment of no less than 720p (1280×720). The alternating current (AC) and direct that more details are needed while still individual vessel systems must include current (DC) power. An EM system that providing flexibility to allow vessels to no less than two cameras: At least one is to be powered by a DC circuit must install equipment that performs well in camera to record close-up images of the have free space on a 12-volt bus bar in a cost effective manner. NMFS will deck at the haul back station for species the wheelhouse and a dedicated DC utilize both third party experts and identification/length estimation, and at power switch. If the EM systems are to NMFS staff to provide vessel owners least one camera to record activity along be powered by AC circuits, vessels must instructions regarding the specific the side of the vessel at the water line provide an Uninterrupted Power Supply required equipment and operational of the haul back station to document (UPS) in the wheelhouse. features of the system. As explained in animals that are caught and discarded Camera Mounts: During installation of more detail below, vessels must, in but not brought aboard, as well as the the EM system, cameras must be accordance with instructions provided disposition of that catch (released alive/ mounted so that the camera may be by NMFS and/or NMFS-approved dead). The frame rates of the footage positioned to view the waterline contractor, coordinate installation and will need to allow for easy of viewing. outboard of the vessel rail. If determined maintain the following equipment, as The cameras are not required to record during the vessel assessment that there components of an electronic monitoring audio. is not suitable mounting structure system: Two to four video cameras, a GPS Receiver: A GPS receiver is onboard, vessels may be required to recording device, video monitor, required to produce output, which provide a mount that allows a camera to hydraulic pressure transducer, winch includes location coordinates, velocity, be positioned to view the waterline drum rotation sensor, system control and heading data, and is directly logged outboard of the vessel rail. Before each box, GPS receiver, and related support continuously by the control box at a scheduled installation of an EM system, equipment needed to achieve the minimum rate of 10 seconds. The GPS NMFS-approved contractors will objectives (e.g., power supply, camera receiver must be installed and remain in discuss mounting alternatives with the mounts, lighting). Slight modifications a location that receives a strong signal vessel’s owner or operator. to the equipment listed above may be continuously. Lighting: Vessels must provide required to support the objectives of Hydraulic & Drum Rotation Sensors: sufficient lighting for cameras to clearly electronic monitoring, adapt to unique A hydraulic sensor is required to illuminate individual fish on deck at the vessel characteristics, or achieve cost continuously monitor the hydraulic haul back station and along the vessel savings or efficiencies. Vessel owners/ pressure, and a drum rotation sensor rail at the waterline, at all times. operators must coordinate installation must continuously monitor drum Lighting will be evaluated by NMFS- and subsequently maintain and operate rotations in order to provide the data approved contractors during the vessel the system in accordance with necessary for the EM system to trigger assessment/EM installation. After instructions provide by NMFS, and the video camera to record. The installation, if NMFS-approved allow inspection of the equipment by combination of these two sensors contractors review video footage and NMFS. The electronic monitoring provide a mechanism to ensure that determine that lighting is insufficient, system must include software to enable specific periods of time are captured on the vessel owner must adjust the a test function so that the vessel video, such as when gear is being lighting to ensure it is sufficient before operator may test the status of the retrieved and catch is removed from the the EM system can be recertified. system (i.e., whether it is fully hooks. Upon completion of a fishing trip, the functional) prior to each trip, and record EM Control Box & Monitor: The vessel operator must mail the removable the outcome of the test. A vessel system must include a ‘control box’ to EM system hard drive containing all operator may not depart on a pelagic receive and store the raw data provided data to NMFS or the NMFS-approved longline trip unless the pre-trip test by the sensors and cameras. The control contractor, within 48 hours of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71522 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

completion of the trip, according to 5. General Category Flexibility for The default Harpoon category daily instructions provided by NMFS. Prior to Quota Adjustment retention limit of large medium bluefin departing on a subsequent trip, the This final rule allows NMFS to tuna will be two fish per vessel (the vessel owner or operator must install a proactively transfer General category large medium bluefin tuna daily replacement EM system hard drive to quota from one or more of the time- retention limit that applied prior to the enable data and video recording. The periods that follow the January time- 2011 regulatory change). The retention vessel owner or operator is responsible period to the January or other preceding limit of giant bluefin tuna will remain for contacting NMFS, or NMFS- sub-quota time periods within a fishing unlimited. The objective of this measure approved contractors, if they have not year, either through annual is to optimize fishing opportunity for the Harpoon category participants received a replacement hard drive(s). specifications or through inseason within the available quota. This The vessel operator is responsible to action. In other words, under this rule, management measure enhances NMFS’s ensure that all bluefin tuna are handled NMFS may transfer subquota from one ability to more precisely manage the in a manner that enables the electronic time period to another time period, landing rate of large medium bluefin earlier in the same calendar year. As monitoring system to record such fish, tuna by the Harpoon category, thereby described in more detail under and must identify a crew person or optimizing opportunities while Response to Comments (Comment 98), employee responsible for ensuring that preventing landings from exceeding the NMFS may transfer quota from the all handling, retention, and sorting of subquota. bluefin tuna occurs in accordance with December sub-quota time period to the the regulations. NMFS or the NMFS- January sub-quota time period to 7. Angling Category Trophy Subquota approved contractor, with the vessel address the unique characteristics of the Distribution owner or operators’’ input, will develop January sub-quota period. For example, This final rule allocates one third of and provide a written Vessel Monitoring for an upcoming year (i.e., prior to the Angling category trophy subquota Plan, to document the standardized January), NMFS may transfer quota from specifically to account for those bluefin procedures relating to electronic the December to the January sub-quota tuna caught incidentally while pursuing monitoring and facilitate period. NMFS may also conduct lower other species in Gulf of Mexico. The communication of such procedures to priority transfers of sub-quota between trophy subquota would be divided as the vessel crew. The vessel owner or time periods, for example, subquota follows: 33 percent to each of the could be transferred from the October 1 operator is responsible for ensuring that northern area, the southern area outside through November 30 time period to the the EM system remains powered for the the Gulf of Mexico, and the Gulf of September time period. duration of each trip; that cameras are Mexico. Based upon the recent average This final rule adds a new objective trophy fish weight, this would allow up cleaned routinely to ensure called ‘‘quota adjustment’’ to the current unobstructed views, and the EM system to 8 trophy bluefin tuna to be landed list of criteria and relevant factors annually in each of the three respective components are not tampered with. NMFS considers when making inseason areas. To distinguish bluefin tuna NMFS will communicate or annual quota adjustments. incidentally caught in the Gulf of instructional information in writing, via 6. Harpoon Category NMFS Authority Mexico from those caught in the permit holder letters, to the vessel To Adjust Retention Limits Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico region owners during all phases of the program includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west to provide direction and assistance to To optimize fishing opportunity for and north of the boundary stipulated at vessel owners, and facilitate the the Harpoon category participants § 600.105(c), which is essentially west provision of technical assistance. within the available quota, NMFS may of 83° 00′ West longitude but also increase or decrease the daily retention includes the waters off southwestern Electronic Catch Reporting limit of large medium bluefin tuna Florida and north of the Florida Keys. (greater than 73″ CFL and less than 81″ This final rule requires Atlantic Tunas The objective of this measure is to CFL) within a range from two to four reduce discards for recreational vessels General, Harpoon, and HMS Charter/ fish. Any adjustment will be based upon Headboat categories to report the length in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and the regulatory determination criteria account for incidentally caught bluefin of all bluefin tuna retained or dead under § 635.27(a)(8) (as revised by this discards through an online catch tuna by converting a small number of final rule) that apply to inseason bluefin potential dead discards in the Gulf of reporting system (either through a Web tuna adjustments including: The Mexico to potential landings. A separate site designated by NMFS or calling a usefulness of information obtained from subquota allocation for the Gulf of phone number) within 24 hours of the catches in the particular category for Mexico increases the likelihood that landings or end of each trip. biological sampling and monitoring of there will be trophy quota available to Specifically, vessels must report the the status of the stock; effects of the account for any potential incidental number of bluefin tuna retained, and the adjustment on bluefin tuna rebuilding catch of bluefin tuna in that area, while number of bluefin tuna discarded dead, and overfishing; effects of the still providing incentives not to target according to instructions that will be adjustment on accomplishing the bluefin tuna. provided by NMFS. NMFS also operates objectives of the fishery management a similar automated landings reporting plan; variations in seasonal distribution, 8. Purse Seine Category Fishing Year system (ALRS) for recreational bluefin abundance, or migration patterns of Start Date tuna catch in the HMS Angling and bluefin tuna; effects of catch rates in one NMFS considered two alternatives at Charter/Headboat category (when area precluding vessels in another area the proposed rule stage. The No Action fishing recreationally). This discard from having a reasonable opportunity to Alternative would have maintained the information will enhance NMFS’s harvest a portion of the category’s quota; current practice: The purse seine fishery ability to more fully and accurately and review of dealer reports, daily starts on the default start date of July 15 account for all sources of fishing landing trends, and the availability of each year unless NMFS takes action to mortality, consistent with ICCAT the bluefin tuna on the fishing grounds, delay the season start date to as late as recommendations. as well as any other relevant factors. August 15. A second alternative, which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71523

was preferred in the proposed rule and 10. Northern Albacore Tuna Quota 12. Minor Regulatory Changes in the FEIS, would change the default start date to June 1 (instead of July 15), This measure implements the U.S. Amendment 7 is implementing minor unless NMFS takes action to delay the annual quota of northern albacore tuna regulatory changes (such as minor start date to as late as August 15. In the recommended by ICCAT and establishes corrections and clarifications; the final rule, after considering public provisions for the accounting of removal or modification of obsolete comments after the FEIS was published, overharvest and underharvest of the cross-references; and minor changes to HMS is choosing a third option that quota via annual specifications. definitions and prohibitions) to improve removes the default start date altogether. Specifically, the codified U.S. northern the administration and enforcement of Instead, NMFS will establish the purse albacore tuna quota will be adjusted as HMS regulations. Several of these items season start date annually, within a appropriate for prior year catch (up or have been identified by constituents range from June 1 to August 15, based down), including delayed adjustment over the past few years or were raised on the already-existing criteria in the (that would skip a year) or adjustments during scoping hearings. The corrections, clarifications, changes in regulations, which are unchanged in the over several years. Consistent with the definitions, and modifications to final rule text. Although the third option ICCAT recommendation, carry-forward remove obsolete cross-references are was not directly analyzed as an of unused quota from one year to the consistent with the intent of previously alternative in the FEIS, the range of next will be limited to 25 percent of the dates for possible opening (June 1– analyzed and approved management initial quota. NMFS will adjust and August 15) remains within the range measures. Under § 635.5(c)(1), the analyzed in the FEIS (June 1–August 15 implement the following via regulatory relevant internet address will be between the two alternatives), and the framework adjustments: Actions to updated. Under § 635.20(a), the method regulated community was aware that implement ICCAT recommendations, as of determining length of Atlantic tunas this range was being considered and appropriate; allocating and refining will apply regardless of permit type. that NMFS intended to retain maximum domestic allocation of the U.S. quota; Regulations at § 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B), will flexibility under any option to adjust the establishing retention limits; refer to a ‘‘gear restricted area,’’ instead date as necessary to be responsive to the implementing effort restrictions, etc. of a ‘‘closed’’ area. Under public and the fishery under the Although an FMP amendment is not § 635.27(a)(7)(i), the reference to regulatory provisions. By relieving the needed, framework adjustments still go ‘‘Fishery-independent research’’ is default date, the new approach will through extensive public and analytical changed to ‘‘research.’’ Under allow additional public input to the review and must be consistent with the § 635.27(a)(1)(iii), the descriptor start-date-setting process annually, is MSA and other applicable law. ‘‘coastwide’’ when referring to the responsive to public comment General category fishery, is deleted. (particularly from the harpoon category 11. Adjustment of Management Under § 635.71(b)(13), the prohibition is fishermen), and substantively does not Measures corrected to clarify that the relevant result in effects different from those This final rule adds to the list of amount of bluefin tuna is the already analyzed. The only change from ‘‘applicable limit’’ instead of ‘‘a’’ bluefin management measures that NMFS may the current practice is that the fishery tuna. These changes were not analyzed modify or establish in accordance with can start earlier now (June 1 instead of because they do not make substantive July 15), and the only change from the the framework procedures of the 2006 changes to the regulations. Consolidated HMS FMP as amended, proposed rule is that there will be no This final rule notifies the public that default date. and provides examples of Amendment 7 measures that are within the scope of the collection-of-information 9. Rules Regarding Permit Category management measures currently listed requirements contained in §§ 635.5, 635.9, 635.14, 635.15, and 635.69 have Changes in the regulations. With exceptions as been approved by OMB and are This final rule allows a vessel owner noted under ‘‘Changes from Proposed to modify the category of an Atlantic effective. In addition this final rule will Rule,’’ these measures were contained update the table on NOAA information Tunas or HMS permit issued for up to within the proposed rule. The 45 days from date of issuance, provided collections approved by OMB that Amendment 7 measures not previously appears under 15 CFR part 902. the vessel has not landed bluefin tuna contained in the 2006 Consolidated as verified via landings data. The HMS FMP are as follows: The quota Response to Comments previous restriction (10 calendar days) shares or allocations for bluefin tuna; NMFS received over 188,000 written was intended to preclude vessels from electronic monitoring requirements; and fishing in more than one category comments from fishermen, states, administration of the IBQ Program during a year and to discourage environmental groups, academia and (including requirements pertaining to speculative use of fishing permits. scientists, and other interested parties. leasing of IBQ allocations, regional or However, based on feedback NMFS has Comments included submissions of received over a number of years from minimum quota share requirements, large numbers of identical or similar vessel owners affected by the 10 day quota share caps (individual or by comments by organizations (or restriction, NMFS has concluded that category), permanent sale of shares, facilitated by organizations), as well as limiting the time period during which a NED IBQ rules, etc.). The Amendment 7 oral statements made at public hearings. vessel may change permit categories to measures that are within the scope of All written comments can be found at 10 calendar days is overly restrictive, measures currently in the regulations http://www.regulations.gov/. The and does not allow the flexibility to are Performance metrics (within the comments received resulted in changes, resolve the problems of a permit issued scope of ‘‘time/area restrictions’’ in as described below, and in the section by mistake. The 45 day restriction current regulations) and Angling of this final rule called ‘‘Changes from achieves a better balance of allowing category trophy south/north/Gulf of Proposed Rule’’. Significant comments flexibility for vessel owners, while still Mexico percentages (within the scope of are summarized below by major topic preventing fishing in more than one ‘‘allocations among user groups’’ in together with NMFS’ responses. There permit category during a fishing year. current regulations). are 29 major issues:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71524 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

1. General Support for Proposed ‘‘strong’’ management measures, and stock of bluefin. The responses to Measures (Comment 1), others supporting the measures comments 50 through 62 address 2. General Concerns (Comments 2–7), generally but urging NMFS to adopt measures specific to the GOM. NMFS 3. Codified Reallocation (Comments stronger management measures than acknowledges that pelagic longline gear 8–13), those proposed. Commenters’ support affects other species in addition to 4. Annual Reallocation (Comments was based upon their concerns about bluefin tuna and therefore, Amendment 14–17), the current status of the bluefin stock 7 measures may indirectly affect other 5. Modification to Reserve Category and the desire to ensure long-term species. As described in the FEIS (Comments 18–19), sustainability of bluefin for future analyses, the cumulative impacts on 6. General Comments About Gear generations of people. Some other species are likely to be neutral or Restricted Areas (Comments 20–42), commenters urged NMFS to implement positive. 7. Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area the preferred alternatives to ‘‘Save the 2. General Concerns (Comments 43–49), Bluefin,’’ based on their perception that 8. Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area bluefin tuna are at imminent risk of Comment 2: Many commenters, (Comments 50–62), going extinct. Commenters expressed particularly those with small businesses 9. Pelagic Longline Vessels Fishing concerns about the impacts of pelagic involved in the pelagic longline fishery Under General Category Rules longline gear on bluefin tuna, noting the expressed concern regarding the (Comment 63), waste associated with discarding potential for negative economic impacts 10. Pelagic Longline Limited bluefin, especially in the Gulf of Mexico of Amendment 7 on jobs, families, and Conditional Access to Closed Areas (GOM), and supported changes to the communities, and noted the importance (Comment 64), management of the pelagic longline of pelagic longline-caught fish in 11. Pelagic and Bottom Longline fishery to reduce dead discards of supplying high quality seafood to the Transiting Closed Areas (Comment 65), bluefin tuna, as well as other highly nation. These commenters were 12. Gear-Based Measures (Comments migratory species, marine mammals, sea concerned about the potential for the 66–67), turtles, and other species. Commenters Amendment 7 measures to put people 13. General Comments About noted that many coastal communities out of business, and ‘‘destroy the pelagic Individual Bluefin Quotas (Comments depend upon healthy stocks of fish to longline fishery.’’ Commenters stated 68–75), contribute to their economic well-being that vessels that are currently only 14. IBQ Eligibility (Comments 76–85), and to that of individuals supported by marginally economically viable would 15. IBQ Leasing (Comments 86–88), commercial and recreational fisheries. be at particular risk of going out of 16. Measures Associated with the IBQ Response: The need for management business, but were also concerned about Program (Comments 89–90), action and the specific objectives of any secondary impacts on related 17. Closure of the Pelagic Longline Amendment 7 are described in detail in businesses such seafood dealers, gear Fishery (Comment 91), Chapter 1 of the FEIS, and the proposed manufacturers, etc. They urged NMFS to 18. VMS Requirements (Comment 92), rule. This final rule implements a suite use a balanced regulatory approach to 19. Electronic Monitoring of management measures that will address the Amendment 7 objectives, Requirements (Comment 93), achieve the Amendment 7 objectives in and stated that Amendment 7 measures 20. Automated Catch Reporting a balanced manner. Amendment 7 would increase uncertainty in the (Comment 94), enhances long-term sustainability of pelagic longline fishery. 21. Expand the Scope of the Large bluefin tuna through reduced dead Response: The seafood supplied to the Pelagics Survey (Comment 95), discards; improved monitoring; Nation by the pelagic longline fleet is 22. Deployment of Observers increased flexibility in the quota system valuable as both a source of food, and (Comment 96), to both account for dead discards and for the generation of income supporting 23. General Category Subquota optimize allocation of quota among the local jobs, communities, and the broader Management (Comments 97–98), diverse bluefin fisheries; and increased economy. NMFS designed management 24. Harpoon Category Retention Limit accountability in the pelagic longline measures to minimize economic (Comment 99), fishery. impacts by relying on the combined 25. Angling Category Trophy Sub- Based upon the advice of ICCAT’s effects of multiple management tools Quota (Comments 100–101), Standing Committee on Research and and incorporating flexibility into the 26. Purse Seine Start Date (Comments Statistics, continued management with system. Amendment 7 measures will 102–103), catch levels that comport with ICCAT affect all permit/quota categories and 27. Permit Category Changes recommendations should support reflect the balance of addressing the (Comment 104), further stock growth of the Western issues confronting the bluefin tuna stock 28. North Atlantic Albacore Tuna Atlantic stock of bluefin and is and management of the fishery while Quota (Comment 105), and consistent with the ICCAT rebuilding maintaining the viability of the pelagic 29. Other Concerns (Comments 106– plan given the current state of the longline and other fisheries dependent 107). science regarding the stock status. The upon bluefin tuna. For example, MSA requires consideration of both the reductions in dead discards will be 1. General Support for Proposed biological and economic impacts of achieved through the use of multiple Measures conservation and management measures, including gear restricted Comment 1: NMFS received a wide measures, and NMFS has determined areas, the IBQ system, and IBQ range of comments expressing general that Amendment 7 measures will allocation measures. This final rule will support for the proposed conservation achieve a balance that will support the modify the quota system to increase and management measures. broader objectives of both stock management flexibility to allocate quota Commenters stated that the proposed rebuilding and continued viability of among categories and maximize measures are a step in the correct the commercial and recreational opportunities to catch available quota, direction for the future management of fisheries that depend upon bluefin tuna. account for dead discards, and respond bluefin tuna, many noting support for The GOM has an important function to changing conditions in the fishery. As Amendment 7 due to the inclusion of in the ecology of the Western Atlantic the pelagic longline fleet is adjusting to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71525

the suite of new measures, NMFS will The Final Regulatory Flexibility previously. On June 1, 2009, NMFS have the flexibility to allocate a limited Analysis includes a description of the published an Advanced Notice of amount of additional quota to the steps taken to minimize the economic Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR; 74 FR pelagic longline vessels if necessary to impacts on small entities, and the 26174) requesting specific comments on prevent a fishery closure, and still, as a reasons for the preferred measures. regulatory changes that would result of the gear restricted areas, and The United States manages its potentially increase opportunities for IBQ system, reduce the net amount of exclusive economic zone in accordance U.S. bluefin tuna and swordfish bluefin catch from the levels recently with applicable U.S. laws and in fisheries to fully harvest the U.S. quotas caught. The Amendment 7 management response to the unique characteristics of recommended by ICCAT while measures work together to reduce dead its fisheries, and therefore the U.S. balancing continuing efforts to end BFT discards and otherwise reduce bycatch regulations regarding bluefin tuna are overfishing by 2010 and rebuild the to the extent practicable, increase different from the rules affecting stock by 2019 as set out in the 2006 accountability, enhance reporting and citizens of other countries, which Consolidated HMS FMP, consistent monitoring, and optimize quota operate under different laws and with the ICCAT rebuilding plan. The allocation, in a predictable but flexible circumstances. Where U.S. regulations ANPR was in response to various public manner. The potential economic are more restrictive than those abroad, suggestions about bluefin tuna impacts of the measures affecting the NMFS believes that the corresponding management during the previous two pelagic longline fleet are analyzed in ecological and socio-economic benefits years, precipitated by declines in the Chapters 5 and 7, of the FEIS, and the that result from such restrictions are total volume of bluefin tuna landings, economic rationale is summarized in also likely to be greater than those which were well below the available the Final Regulatory Flexibility abroad. U.S. quota, and a reduction in the Analysis. Public comments that address Comment 4: Commenters stated that overall allowable western Atlantic specific measures are addressed below the Amendment 7 DEIS contained too bluefin TAC recommended by ICCAT. in the responses to more specific much information, was too complex, In the ANPR, NMFS also requested comments. and was difficult to understand. Others public comment regarding the potential Comment 3: Commenters stated that were concerned that the DEIS was implementation of catch shares, LAPPs, when determining whether the pelagic developed too quickly, leaving out too and individual bycatch caps (IBCs) in longline fleet should be subject to many details such as those associated highly migratory species fisheries. In additional restrictions, NMFS should with implementation of measures. response, NMFS received a wide range consider the current and past regulatory Response: The proposed rule clearly of suggestions for changes to the environment and other factors as described the proposed management management of the U.S. bluefin tuna context. Commenters stated the pelagic measures, and NMFS facilitated fisheries. longline fishery is already heavily communication with the public via the While the DEIS and proposed regulated to minimize its environmental internet and its Web site. The amount regulations contained sufficient detail impacts, especially in the GOM (e.g., and complexity of information in the for the public to understand the closures, weak hook requirement, DEIS and the FEIS reflect primarily the measures and their potential impacts, observer deployment, bait scope of the objectives of Amendment 7 including implementation, the FEIS and requirements), and that progress is being and the number of alternatives this final rule provide additional details made. Furthermore, increases in fuel analyzed. The complexity of the DEIS to clarify certain aspects of costs strain fishers’ ability to make a and FEIS also is due to the diversity of implementation. These are not new living, and events such as the 2010 oil the bluefin tuna fisheries, and the measures but clarification of measures spill in the GOM continue to be number of applicable laws and within the scope of the impacts relevant. Commenters noted that bluefin processes (both national and analyzed by the DEIS. The regulatory tuna is managed at the international international). The DEIS and FEIS process of proposed and final level and believe that the United States contain an Executive Summary which rulemaking allows for such flexibility to manages its citizens in a more effective provides a condensed version of the respond to public comments and and responsible way than other relevant information including tables of implement regulations that address the countries, and that NMFS should not important information. NMFS regulatory objectives. The changes made further regulate bluefin tuna and conducted public hearings (including a from the proposed rule are summarized increase the management disparity language interpreter for one hearing) in the section of this final rule called between the United States and other that were designed to inform the public ‘‘Changes from Proposed Rule’’. The countries. of the proposed measures in a readily comment period was extended to allow Response: The context in which understandable format, as well as maximum public participation in this vessels operate, including current provide opportunities for the public to process. regulations and other factors was a comment and ask questions. Comment 5: Some commenters asked relevant factor NMFS considered in Significant time and opportunity for why the focus of Amendment 7 is the determining whether new regulations public comment have gone into what pelagic longline fishery, perceived the were needed. NMFS took into has been a very thorough rulemaking Amendment as an ‘‘unfair attack’’ on consideration many factors in selecting process for this Amendment. The formal this fishery, and asked why no preferred measures which address the development of Amendment 7 began additional restrictions were proposed diverse objectives of Amendment 7 in a with the publication of the Notice of for the General, Harpoon, or Angling balanced manner. Chapter 6 of the FEIS Intent (April 23, 2012; 78 FR 24161), categories. Other commenters did not contains a cumulative impacts analysis which announced NMFS’ intent to hold want one user group in the fishery to which is broad in scope and takes into public scoping meetings to determine bear the regulatory burden, but believed consideration past, present, and the scope and significance of issues to that all should sacrifice for the good of reasonably foreseeable factors. In be analyzed in a DEIS and a potential the fishery as a whole. addition, Chapter 2 in the FEIS contains amendment to the 2006 Consolidated Response: The focus of Amendment 7 a description of measures and the HMS FMP. However, the informal is the list of stated objectives, including rationale for the preferred measures. development began several years reducing and accounting for dead

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71526 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

discards, optimizing quota allocations, bluefin interactions. Vessels with a may have a smaller ‘carbon footprint’ and enhancing reporting and relatively low rate of bluefin than the other quota categories; the monitoring. Although many of the interactions will qualify for a higher other categories are frequently under- measures being implemented will apply share of the total bluefin quota than harvested; the Longline category to vessels fishing with pelagic longline vessels with a higher rate of provides the U.S consumer access to gear, all user groups will be subject to interactions, and have access to the important food sources; the General new regulations as appropriate and Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline Gear category exports much of the bluefin necessary, to contribute to the Restricted Area. tuna it catches; and all user groups sustainability of the bluefin fisheries. Comment 7: Several commenters should bear the regulatory burden. Amendment 7 fundamentally alters the stated that the solution to the challenge Response: Amendment 7 implements pelagic longline bluefin tuna of how to account for all catch (landings systematic management and operational management structure in order to and dead discards) in the context of a changes to reduce bluefin bycatch and decrease dead discards and increase limited quota is to increase the amount maintain the pelagic longline directed accountability, yet it also implements of quota allocated to the United States fishery and the other bluefin tuna new restrictions for vessels fishing through ICCAT (instead of the measures fisheries. The combined measures of under the other permit categories. proposed under Amendment 7). this final rule, which include modified Although the components of the Response: Although a larger U.S. quota allocations, gear restricted areas, regulated bluefin fisheries are very quota would facilitate easier quota and individual bluefin quotas, will different and therefore have been accounting (i.e., ensure that the total reduce bluefin catch and provide subject to different restrictions in the bluefin landings and dead discards do incentives to utilize alternative, more past, NMFS developed the Amendment not exceed the total bluefin quota), a selective gear types. To achieve the 7 management measures based upon a larger quota, without concurrent Amendment 7 objectives of reducing common set of objectives. changes to the 2006 Consolidated HMS dead discards while minimizing Comment 6: NMFS should exempt FMP is a short-term solution and would associated reductions in target catch, pelagic longline fishery participants that not achieve the broader objectives of NMFS will allocate bluefin quota to the have never interacted with bluefin tuna Amendment 7 or the 2006 Consolidated Longline category in amounts that from the programs proposed in HMS FMP. For example, a larger quota exceed its current allocation of 8.1 Amendment 7. would not reduce the relative amount of percent, but will reduce levels of Response: Amendment 7 enhances dead discards of bluefin by the pelagic incidental bluefin catch by the Longline long-term sustainability of bluefin tuna longline fishery, increase accountability category. NMFS anticipates that the through reduced dead discards, for the pelagic longline fishery, optimize catch of bluefin by pelagic longline gear improved monitoring, increased and provide additional flexibility to the will be reduced by between 17 and 42 flexibility in the quota system to both quota system, or enhance reporting and percent, depending upon the amount of account for dead discards and optimize monitoring. Furthermore, the United quota allocated and leased, and fishery allocation of quota among the diverse States does not independently set the conditions. Some flexibility in the bluefin fisheries, and increased quota at ICCAT and any quota amount of quota allocated to the accountability in the pelagic longline established must be based on the best Longline and other quota categories is fishery. NMFS acknowledges that some available scientific information ICCAT needed to accommodate the highly pelagic longline vessels may not members (including U.S. delegates) vote variable bluefin fisheries, as well as to encounter bluefin tuna as a function of to recommend an appropriate bluefin mitigate some of the uncertainty and where and how those individuals fish. quota, based on the recommendation of negative impacts associated with a brief However, the effective implementation the ICCAT scientists (which include transitional period in the pelagic of the management measures requires U.S. scientists). longline fishery as it adjusts to the consistent treatment and participation preferred Amendment measures. 3. Codified Reallocation of all of the participating vessels. NMFS As explained in the FEIS, there are cannot exclude individual HMS pelagic Comment 8: Many commenters did several reasons why additional quota longline fishermen from the provisions not support reallocation of additional should be provided to the Longline of Amendment 7 given the mobility of quota to the Longline category as a category, as one element of a more the pelagic longline fleet and means to achieve the Amendment 7 comprehensive strategy to resolve the uncertainty about bluefin interactions objectives. They stated that shifting challenge of accounting for bluefin by individual vessels in the future. quota would not reduce interactions catch and reducing dead discards. The Through this Amendment 7 final rule, with bluefin or dead discards and that pelagic longline fishery interacts with NMFS is redesigning many operational providing additional quota would bluefin tuna when it targets swordfish, aspects of the entire pelagic longline undercut the benefits of a ‘‘catch cap’’ yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, and other fleet. Exclusion of a small pool of (i.e., setting a strict maximum/cap on species, because the occurrence of those individuals would create an inequitable the amount of bluefin that could be species overlap as a result of their management environment across the caught, including dead discards and similar biology and ecology. The fleet. The measures implemented by this landings), would discourage the use of Longline category is required to account final rule do, however, include specific alternative gears, and would reward a for dead discards and landings, yet the provisions that are based on the data ‘‘destructive fishery’’ by moving quota historical basis for the relative size of that indicate that some participants from quota categories that fish with the Longline category’s quota allocation have few or no interactions with more selective gear to the Longline (8.1 percent) was only landings, and did bluefin. For example, under the IBQ category, which fishes with less not consider the amount of quota that program, eligible permitted vessels will selective gear and has more bycatch. could be necessary to account for dead receive a percentage share of the overall Many commenters supported the discards in addition to those landings pelagic longline bluefin quota. The codified reallocation for the reasons within the total allowable catch. amount of quota share, either ‘‘high’’, NMFS stated in the proposed rule, as Based on the best available ‘‘medium’’, or ‘‘low’’ will depend in well as other reasons including the information, an allocation of 8.1 percent part upon the vessel’s historical rate of statement that the Longline category has been inadequate to account for both

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71527

landings and dead discards since ICCAT therefore, if the U.S. bluefin quota effectively limits the amount of adopted a requirement to account for increases as a result of stock growth, the reallocation into the future. In contrast, dead discards within the existing quota. amount deducted from the various altering the base allocation percentages In recent years, NMFS has accounted for categories will not increase, but the total associated with each quota category pelagic longline bluefin dead discards quota allocated to each category would would have had the potential effect of by relying in part upon under harvest of increase. Furthermore, the other quota increasing the amount reallocation to quota by other quota categories. The allocation measures implemented by the longline category if the total U.S. merits of allocating additional quota to this final rule (‘‘Annual Reallocation’’ quota increases. Although increasing the the Longline category must be and ‘‘Modifications to Reserve amount of quota reallocated to the considered in the context of all of the Category’’) provide mechanisms to Pelagic Longline category in association other management measures being reallocate quota back to these categories, with increases in total quota would implemented by Amendment 7. Because if quota is available. The ‘‘Annual facilitate accounting for incidental catch the Amendment 7 measures Reallocation Alternative’’ guarantees a of bluefin and achieve one of the implemented by this final rule will minimum amount of quota to the objectives of this Amendment, it would provide quota accountability on an participants in the Purse Seine fishery, not effectively limit bycatch and reduce individual vessel and category-wide and enables increases in quota dead discards, which are also key basis for the Longline category, the allocations over time with increasing objectives of Amendment 7. amount of quota allocated to the levels of bluefin catch. Providing an Comment 11: Commentors suggested category is of critical importance. amount of bluefin quota to the pelagic that NMFS should, instead of the Specifically, when the quota allocated longline fishery that both reduces dead ‘‘Codified Reallocation’’ of quota from to an individual vessel has been caught, discards, yet also accounts for a all quota categories, reallocate quota the use of pelagic longline gear by that reasonable amount of incidental catch from only the Purse Seine category; vessel will be prohibited. If the that can be anticipated (based on impose greater restrictions on the category-wide quota has been caught historical catch rates and the effect of pelagic longline fishery to reduce their NMFS may prohibit all vessels in the Amendment 7 gear restricted areas) will discards; or implement more restrictive fleet from fishing with pelagic longline enable the continued generation of gear restricted areas in the Gulf of gear. Based on current information revenue associated with the pelagic Mexico and off Cape Hatteras in order regarding the range of bluefin tuna longline fishery’s target catch. to further reduce incidental bluefin tuna interactions that can be expected, Comment 10: One commenter stated catch. continuing to limit the Longline that providing 68 mt of ‘‘additional Response: NMFS prefers that all quota category to a quota of 8.1 percent of the quota’’ to the Longline category is not categories contribute to addressing the available quota would result in a shut- appropriate, and that the amount should challenge of accounting for dead down in the fishery relatively early in be larger, because the discard estimation discards, which, as explained in the the year. Notwithstanding the other methodology that the amount was based response to Comment 8 is a problem measures being implemented by this on is no longer in use. Another which has multiple root causes, and is final rule, which will result in commenter stated that the amount of reductions in dead discards by vessels additional quota should be smaller than integrally related to the operation and fishing with pelagic longline gear, a 68 mt because the size of the U.S. quota management of the fishery as a whole. quota allocation of 8.1 percent quota has been reduced since the time the 68 This Amendment 7 final rule addresses would result in a severely diminished or mt set-aside was established. the issue of the recurring under-harvest eliminated fishery, contrary to the Response: Although the codified associated with the Purse Seine fishery objective of optimizing fishing reallocation measure is intended to through the ‘‘Annual Reallocation’’ opportunities. facilitate accounting for dead discards measure, which provides a predictable Comment 9: Commenters suggested by the Longline category, the specific method to optimize the use of Purse that the amount of bluefin quota amount (68 mt) is not intended to serve Seine quota that might otherwise remain allocated to the Longline category as an estimate of current dead discards unharvested. This final rule implements should be reduced, or set at zero. or establish a proportion of discards to new conservation and management Response: As discussed in the landings. NMFS prefers 68 mt as the measures applicable only to the response to Comment 8 there are several amount of quota to be contributed from Longline category, which will limit reasons why the Longline category all categories, resulting in augmenting bycatch, reduce dead discards, increase quota should be increased. Moreover, the Longline category by 62.5 mt, incentives to avoid bluefin, and increase reducing the Longline category quota because the amount of additional quota accountability. NMFS disagrees that would not be consistent with the achieves an appropriate balance of costs greater restrictions on the Longline Amendment 7 objectives and would and benefits in the fishery and because category—instead of reallocating a result in severe economic impacts that of its historical relevance as a set-aside limited amount of quota— would can be avoided through the use of other for dead discards, the inclusion of achieve the Amendment 7 objectives in management tools. NMFS designed the which was a critical factor in first a manner that minimizes economic quota allocation measures to minimize establishing the formula under which impacts to the extent practicable. As the economic impacts on the non- all categories received their current explained in the response to Comment longline categories. The amount of allocations. No adjustment to those 9 above, NMFS designed the quota quota being deducted from each of the allocations was made when ICCAT first allocation measures to minimize the categories (for allocation to the Pelagic eliminated the dead discard allowance, economic impacts on the non-longline Longline category under the ‘‘Codified and such an adjustment clearly is categories. The alternatives take into Reallocation Alternative’’) is warranted given the resulting consideration the relative size of each proportional to the size of each management challenges in accounting category quota (in the case of the category’s quota and is relatively small for both landings and dead discards ‘‘Codified Reallocation Alternative’’), or (approximately 7 percent). Secondly, within the available quota. Furthermore, the level of activity of vessels (‘‘Annual the amount of quota that will be providing a fixed amount of additional Reallocation Alternative’’), and are deducted from the categories is fixed, quota to the Longline category designed to consider changing levels of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71528 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

quota or landings, respectively, in ways communities and regions may be Reallocation of quota may result in that reduce economic impacts. impacted to different degrees due to frustration or negative attitudes among Comment 12: Many commenters their unique regulatory and economic fishery participants of different quota strongly opposed reallocating quota to circumstances. The FEIS contains an categories, due to the changes to an the Longline category because of analysis of the community impacts from historically accepted quota allocation concerns about the economic impacts the 2010 Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil system, or perceptions of unfairness. on a particular geographic region (e.g., Spill, and a 2013 analysis that presents However, the modifications to the quota New England or mid-Atlantic), or quota social indicators of vulnerability and system are warranted for the reasons category (e.g., the General category or resistance for 25 communities selected described in the response to comments the Angling category). Some for having a greater than average 8 through 13 and fair due to the fact that commenters urged NMFS to respect the number of HMS permits associated with all quota categories are affected in historical allocation percentages, and them. Those communities with proportion to their quota percentage. noted that reallocation would have the relatively higher dependence upon As explained in the response to effect of pitting the different categories commercial fishing included Dulac, LA; Comment # 9 above, NMFS designed the against each other. Some commenters Grand Isle, LA; Venice, LA; Gloucester, quota allocation measures to minimize suggested that NMFS consider other MA; New Bedford, MA; Beaufort, NC; the economic impacts on the non- regulatory and economic circumstances Wanchese, NC; Barnegat, NJ; Cape May, longline categories. The management facing vessels that may be impacted by NJ; and Montauk, NY. The analyses are measures take into consideration the a reduced quota. principally at a fishery-wide, or permit relative size of each category quota (in For example, Congressional category level. The bluefin tuna the case of the ‘‘Codified Reallocation representatives from Massachusetts, and fisheries (and other HMS fisheries) are Alternative’’, or the level of activity of the New England Fishery Management widely distributed and highly variable vessels (‘‘Annual Reallocation Council (Council) stated that the due to the diversity of participants Alternative’’), and are designed to proposed reallocation would (location, gear types, commercial, consider changing levels of quota or disadvantage the New England Fishery, recreational), and because bluefin tuna landings, respectively, in ways that the traditional Massachusetts fleet, and are highly migratory over thousands of reduce negative economic impacts. shore-side infrastructure, and would miles, with an annual distribution that Comment 13: Many recreational allow fleets from other regions to use a is highly variable. The specific ports anglers wanted to insulate the Angling disproportionate amount of quota. They and communities that provide the goods category from any potential effect of were concerned about the commercial and services to support the fishery may quota reallocation to the Longline fleet that is experiencing economic vary as well, as vessels travel over large category, citing the economic impacts and high value of the recreational damage due to the decline in key stocks distances to pursue their target species. in the groundfish fishery. The Council bluefin fishery to the economy, as well Due to this variability, it is difficult to suggested that NMFS assess the port- as the economic investments of the predict potential revenue and secondary specific impacts of reallocation. A participants and the current regulatory impacts of preferred management commenter was concerned that burden such vessels face. Vessel owners measures by port or by state. Vessels recreational vessels in the mid-Atlantic with General category commercial fishing in any geographic area in the region would be disproportionately permits expressed concern about the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico are likely to affected by quota reallocation because potential impacts to the General have only limited access to bluefin tuna, the quota may not last until the time the category. Commenters requested unless they travel long distances within bluefin are off the mid-Atlantic coast. additional quantitative analyses Response: A reduction in quota may the bluefin’s migratory range. comparing the different quota impact the revenue associated with a It is important to note that the actual categories, including primary and particular quota category or geographic economic impacts of reallocation of secondary impacts. region, or result in secondary economic quota depend upon the total amount of Response: As stated above in the impacts on a community. The FEIS quota allocated to (and harvested from) response to the previous comment, a analysis estimates that reallocation of each of the quota categories, as a result reduction in quota may impact the quota to the Longline category could of the combined effect of all of the revenue associated with a particular reduce revenue for individual vessels measures that affect quota. For example, quota category or result in secondary with a General category permit by $850 in addition to the amount of quota economic impacts on a community. The and result in total reduction in available as a result of the percentage objective of the allocation measures is maximum revenue of $542,000 for all allocations, and deductions for the 68 not to reallocate quota based on General category vessels. Although mt Annual Reallocation, there may be economic optimization, but to: account thirty percent of the General category quota available for redistribution to for bluefin dead discards within the permits are associated with the State of various quota categories. Specifically, Longline category; reduce uncertainty in Massachusetts (1,150 permits as of pursuant to the preferred ‘‘Annual annual quota allocation and accounting; October 2013), the total number of Reallocation’’ measure, as described in optimize fishing opportunity by active vessels is substantially lower. Of Chapter 2 of the FEIS, if the Purse Seine increasing flexibility in the current the total number of General category category has not caught 70 percent of its bluefin quota allocation system; and permits issued throughout the Atlantic quota during the previous year, quota ensure that the various quota categories coast (3,783), the average number of may be moved to the Reserve category are regulated fairly relative to one General category vessels landing at least and subsequently reallocated across another. one bluefin between 2006 and 2012 was multiple user groups. Furthermore, in The reallocation measures of this final 474 vessels (total). Thus, the number of recent years, many categories have not rule will minimize adverse economic active vessels in Massachusetts can be fully harvested their amount of quota impacts to the extent practicable presumed to be substantial fewer than available to them. Thus, the actual because the relative amount of quota 1,150. impacts of reallocation may be minor or reallocated is small and proportional to When considering the social and may be mitigated by future reallocation the size of the category quota, and the economic impacts of actions, different when available. overall quota system will be more

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71529

flexible and predictable and able to may be extremely valuable and other FEIS). Under the measure implemented offset some or all of the negative catch is far less important. by this final rule, annual reallocation economic impacts. This approach was will be based on the previous year’s 4. Annual Reallocation developed consistent with our individual purse seine participants obligation under National Standard 6 Comment 14: Some commenters catch rather than category-wide catch. (Conservation and management supported the annual reallocation This management measure will tie quota measures shall take into account and measure as proposed, based on the allocation more closely to individual allow for variations among, and underlying concept of tying the Purse Purse Seine participants catch and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery Seine category annual allocation to the create incentive for fishery participants resources, and catches) and National level of fishing activity by Purse Seine to remain active in the fishery. Thus, the Standard 8 (Conservation and vessels (i.e., ‘‘use or lose’’), and the individual allocation could either management measures shall, consistent strategy of making unused quota increase or decrease. Without this with the conservation requirements of available for use by other quota modification to the alternative (from this chapter (including the prevention of categories. that proposed), individual allocations overfishing and rebuilding of overfished Response: The Amendment 7 annual would be tied to the catch of the other stocks), take into account the reallocation measure represents an participants in the fishery, which could importance of fishery resources to improvement to the quota system by have unfair results if catch were to vary fishing communities by utilizing implementing a predictable means to greatly among the vessels. For example, economic and social data that meet the utilize quota that may otherwise remain in a year where overall category requirements of paragraph (2), in order unused. Because the reallocation of landings were low, an individual purse to (A) provide for the sustained quota from the Purse Seine category to seine participant could be allocated a participation of such communities, and the Reserve will occur prior to the relatively low amount of quota, even if (B) to the extent practicable, minimize beginning of the calendar year and prior they landed a substantial portion of adverse economic impacts on such to the start of the Purse Seine fishery, their allocation the previous year. As communities.) there will be increased predictability in such, the alternative would not tie the Although the FEIS includes estimates the quota system. In contrast, in the allocation to individual catch and thus of the value of bluefin tuna quota by past, there was uncertainty that resulted would not encourage full use of the quota category for comparative from the fact that the amount of category quota, which would be purposes, the codified reallocation unharvested quota associated with the inconsistent with the intent of this measure was not based on a specific Purse Seine category which would be alternative. economic analysis, but the achievement available for quota accounting was Regarding the comment that only 25 of the stated objectives. unknown until the end of the calendar percent of the Purse Seine allocation be An elaborate quantitative analysis that year. Because of that timing problem, available for reallocation (instead of 75 compares the economic value of the the ability for other users to catch any percent), if only a relatively small Angling, Longline, and General category unharvested quota was markedly percentage of the quota were available fisheries was not conducted in the FEIS diminished. for reallocation (and a relatively large due to the different characteristics of the Comment 15: Commenters suggested percentage of the quota guaranteed for Angling, Longline and General category various modifications to the proposed the Purse Seine allocation), there would fisheries, the variable amount of data annual reallocation measure. One be the possibility that Purse Seine associated with these fisheries, and the commenter suggested that the concept participants remain inactive, yet only a large number of factors and assumptions be applied to the individual vessel relatively small percentage of the quota that contribute to estimating the value of instead of at the scale of the whole is transferred to the Reserve category. a fishery. For example, under the IBQ Purse Seine category in order to prevent Such a scenario, which increases the system implemented by Amendment 7, the situation where an individual vessel likelihood that the Purse Seine quota as bluefin tuna quota may be a limiting may be disadvantaged. One commenter a whole may not be utilized by any factor for a pelagic longline vessel, and suggested that only 25 percent of the category, would be inefficient and therefore the lack of adequate bluefin Purse Seine quota should be available would not optimize the quota system. quota, by even a small amount, could for reallocation, instead of 75 percent. A Making up to 75 percent of the quota result in a vessel being prohibited from commenter suggested that more than available to the Reserve category will fishing with pelagic longline gear. In one year of catch should be the basis of maximize the amount of quota that may that circumstance, the value of the the allocation, instead of a single year. be reallocated, and will provide a bluefin quota to the vessel owner may One commenter suggested that the reasonable minimum amount for the be very high, and related to the value of annual reallocation alternative be Purse Seine participants. The measure the target catch (e.g., swordfish or combined with an alternative that was implemented by this final rule yellowfin tuna). On the other hand, the not proposed, which would have guarantees vessels 25 percent of their value of a bluefin tuna to a recreational allocated 40 percent of the Purse Seine base allocation, but makes up to 75 angler or to the recreational fishery at- category to the Longline category. percent available for reallocation to the large may include the value of the Response: In response to the comment Reserve category, while not precluding recreational experience to the angler, as that the annual reallocation measure Purse Seine participants from increasing well as the associated goods and service should be implemented at the level of their catches over time (multiple years). supporting the fishing trip. The FEIS the individual vessel in order to prevent Regarding the comment that more indicates that the Angling category a situation where a vessel fishes its full than one year of catch should be used would potentially face unquantified allocation but, due to inactivity by other as the basis of the Purse Seine reductions in economic and social vessels, is only allocated a portion of its allocation, a time scale of two years activity associated with the 7.36 percent base allocation for the subsequent year, would reduce the relative importance of reduction in available quota. NMFS modified the preferred a single year’s catch in determining In contrast, for a vessel fishing alternative, and is implementing the subsequent quota allocations, but may commercially in the General category, a measure at a vessel level (as described also decrease the availability of quota. high quality bluefin tuna sold to Japan in detail in the preamble above, and the The method of annual reallocation being

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71530 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

implemented (i.e., based on one year) the perception that the Purse Seine context of the fishery as a whole, the will provide a better balance between category has not had the same fishing benefits of the annual reallocation providing a fair allocation to the Purse opportunities as the other categories due measure are expected to outweigh the Seine category and providing a to low availability of giant (greater than negative aspects, and the amount of predictable system for utilizing quota 81 inch) bluefin, and the restriction on quota fluctuation may be reduced by a among all categories that may otherwise retention of large medium bluefin. consistent level of Purse Seine catches. be unused, and is consistent with the Response: NMFS agrees that the Under the annual reallocation measure annual time scale applicable to quota Annual Reallocation alternative should implemented by this final rule, Purse related management measures (i.e., the be evaluated in the context of other Seine participants will have similar relevant time scale for most aspects of regulations applicable to the Purse fishing opportunities as the other the quota system is annual). Seine category and Longline category. commercial categories that direct on Regarding the comment that the Modification of the start date of the bluefin tuna, but if substantial portions annual reallocation alternative should Purse Seine category to June 1 is one of of the quota remain unused, there will be combined with an annual allocation the measures being implemented by this be a fair system to relocate quota in a of 40 percent of the Purse Seine category Amendment 7 final rule. NMFS predictable and efficient way. The to the Longline category, NMFS considered but did not further analyze annual reallocation system will also be determined that the annual reallocation an alternative that would modify or responsive to any future increased measure better meets the objectives of relieve the tolerance limit for large- levels of catch by Purse Seine reducing uncertainty in annual quota medium fish in the purse seine category. participants. If a Purse Seine participant allocation and accounting; optimizing Such an alternative was not further is allocated the minimum amount of fishing opportunity by increasing considered for reasons explained in quota (25 percent of its base quota), with flexibility in the current bluefin quota Chapter 2 of the FEIS, including because increasing catch over time, the allocation system; and ensuring that the recent data was not available about individual participant could be various quota categories are regulated fishery operations that reflected to what allocated 100 percent of their base quota fairly in relative to one another. Under extent the purse seine fishery three years after being allocated the the annual reallocation measure experienced regulatory dead discards as minimum amount. For example if implemented by this final rule, the a result of the tolerance limit. In during the first year of fishing the amount of quota allocated to Purse furtherance of gathering such data and participant caught 22 percent of their Seine participants and the Reserve in the interest of examining bycatch in baseline quota, for year two they would category is responsive to the level of the fishery, on August 1, 2014, NMFS be allocated 50 percent. During year two activity of Purse Seine participants, but issued an exempted fishing permit that if the participant caught 46 percent of will not reduce the size of the Purse will exempt a Purse Seine vessel from their baseline quota, for year three they Seine category percentage (18.6 the annual incidental purse seine would be allocated 75 percent of its percent), which is the foundation upon retention limit on the harvest of large baseline quota. If during year three they which the allocations to Purse Seine medium Atlantic bluefin tuna, in order caught 71 percent of their baseline quota participants are based. In contrast, to investigate and gather such data. for year four they would be allocated combining this measure with an annual NMFS could consider changes to the 100 percent of its baseline quota. allocation of 40 percent of the Purse Purse Seine category size restrictions in Under the annual reallocation Seine category to the Longline category a future rulemaking after further data- measure, quota will be reallocated to the would substantially reduce the size of gathering and consideration. The Reserve category, and potentially then the Purse Seine allocation regardless of Annual Reallocation measure will not to any or all quota categories. Transfers the level of activity by Purse Seine result in a negative ecological impact of quota from the Reserve category may vessels. Such a reduction is not due to the different size restrictions include transfers to the Longline consistent with the objective of the applicable to the Purse Seine category category, but NMFS will consider and measure. The objective of the and the Longline category as explained balance the needs of the fishery as a management measure is not to reduce in Chapter 4 of the FEIS (the potential whole. Quota could also be allocated to the size of the Purse Seine allocation, change in the amount of bluefin caught the other fishery categories as but to make Purse Seine quota available of different size categories is relatively appropriate, considering the relevant for use by other categories in a small compared with the overall stock factors in that year. Specifically, NMFS predictable manner (reflecting a Purse size). will base such decisions on the criteria Seine vessel’s previous year level of Comment 17: Commenters did not described under the ‘‘Modifications to activity), as well as allow levels of support annual reallocation for a variety the Reserve Category’’ measure, as well fishing activity of Purse Seine vessels to of reasons. One stated that the Purse as other applicable regulations and laws increase within the scope of the Seine category should not have a (e.g., the MSA National Standards (NS) category’s allocation. fluctuating quota; one was concerned such as the NS 9 requirement to Comment 16: One commenter that the Longline category will take the minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality supported annual reallocation, but entire Purse Seine quota in the future, to the extent practicable). stated that the implementation of the and one was concerned that reallocation annual reallocation measure should be to the Longline category would increase 5. Modification to Reserve Category linked to a Purse Seine fishery start date discards. Comment 18: Several commenters of June 1, as well as elimination of the Response: NMFS acknowledges that supported the modifications to the provision limiting the relative amount the Purse Seine quota may fluctuate Reserve category regulations, which of 73 to 81 inch bluefin Purse Seine under the annual reallocation measure, would increase the amount of quota that vessels may retain. One commenter did and that a fluctuating quota may have may be put into the Reserve category not support annual reallocation due to some negative implications for the Purse and increase the potential uses of the different retention rules applicable Seine fishery, such as challenges to Reserve category quota. One commenter to the Longline and Purse Seine long-term business planning, and stated that NMFS should be authorized categories. One commenter did not fluctuating levels of revenue from the to allocate from the Reserve category at support annual reallocation because of Purse Seine fishery. However, in the any time. A commenter suggested

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71531

splitting the Reserve category into quota that an excessive amount of quota from NMFS designed the gear restricted areas derived from under-harvest, and quota the Reserve category should not be used (i.e., their timing and configuration) transferred from the Purse Seine to account for Longline category dead after considering the amount of reduced category, to increase transparency. One discards and has structured the fishing opportunity as well as the commenter suggested redistribution of alternatives to give management amount of reduced bluefin interactions, unused Reserve quota to active Longline flexibility to move available quota to in order to minimize potential category vessels during the last quarter other categories as warranted. As stated disruptions in markets. NMFS designed of the year. A commenter stated that in the response to Comment 8, under the Cape Hatteras GRA to provide access NMFS should make up to 50 percent of the Amendment 7 management opportunities to fishermen that have a the Reserve quota available to the measures, NMFS will allocate quota to proven ability to avoid bluefin, and are Longline category during the first three the Longline category in amounts that compliant with the observer and years of the IBQ Program. exceed its current allocation of 8.1 logbook requirements. As described in Response: The management measure percent of the current annual quota, but the Response to Comments # 46 and 47, regarding the Reserve category will not allow historic levels of bluefin NMFS specifically modified the Cape implemented by this final rule will catch by the Longline category catch. In Hatteras Gear Restricted Area that was provide additional management evaluating the amount of quota to preferred in the DEIS, to reduce flexibility in the quota system and reallocate to any category (including the disruption to ongoing fishing in an enable consideration of various quota Longline category), NMFS will consider adjacent area and therefore reduce strategies such as those suggested by the the regulatory criteria for quota transfer, potential economic impacts of the commenters. Although NMFS has the which include broad biological and alternative. Evaluation of all alternatives authority to allocate bluefin quota from economic considerations (e.g., ‘‘effects considered both economic and the Reserve category at any time, the of the adjustment on accomplishing the ecological considerations (i.e., the regulations implemented by objectives of the fishery management potential reductions in revenue Amendment 7 will enable NMFS to add plan’’). For example, with respect to associated with estimated reductions in underharvest from the previous year transfers of quota to the Longline bluefin interactions). and any reallocated quota from the category, some important considerations Comment 21: NMFS should not Purse Seine category to the Reserve may include the amount of dead implement GRAs. NMFS received category base allocation of 2.5 percent. discards by pelagic longline gear comments indicating that, due to a Secondly, Amendment 7 adds new relative to the size of the Longline variety of reasons, commercial criteria to broaden and clarify the category quota, the overall trend in the fishermen may be limited to certain potential uses of the Reserve quota. It is amount of dead discards and landings fishing locations by the size and not possible to evaluate the merits of the in the Longline category, the configuration of their vessels, insurance commenters’ specific quota suggestions effectiveness of gear restricted areas, the requirements, or safety concerns, and without any context. There are many status of the bluefin stock, trends in that some participants in the fishing potential uses of Reserve quota, relevant data reporting, the amount of fleet have nowhere else to fish (except including transfer to the Longline uncertainty regarding dead discard in the location of the GRA) and they category in order to facilitate the information, the level of accountability would be ‘‘shut out’’ of the fishery. transition to IBQs, or transfer to the for bluefin dead discards by vessels in Response: The underlying concept of General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, Angling, other quota categories, and the the Cape Hatteras GRA minimizes or Trap categories if warranted in order economic benefits of quota transfers. For economic impacts by providing to increase fishing opportunity (while transfers to other categories, important conditional access to the area, based on still preventing catch from exceeding considerations may include effects of performance criteria. The majority of the the overall U.S. quota, and abiding by catch rates in one area precluding pelagic longline fleet will be allowed to the other ICCAT restrictions). In order to vessels in another area from having a fish in the area upon implementation of facilitate transparency and full reasonable opportunity to harvest a this Amendment 7 final rule, and in the understanding of the quota system, portion of the category’s quota; the future if conditions for access continue NMFS will communicate clearly about projected ability of the vessels fishing to be met. In estimating ecological and how quota transfers are distributed under the particular category quota to socio-economic impacts of the Cape among all quota categories, including harvest the additional amount of BFT Hatteras GRA (called the ‘‘Modified’’ descriptions of specific amount of quota before the end of the fishing year; the Cape Hatteras GRA in the FEIS), NMFS derived from various sources. estimated amounts by which quotas for determined that 14 vessels (of 135 Comment 19: A commenter did not other gear categories of the fishery might vessels) would not have access to this support the addition of new criteria to be exceeded; effects of the adjustment GRA. Of these 14 vessels, four vessels the existing criteria regarding in-season on bluefin rebuilding and overfishing; made over 75 percent of their sets in the transfer of quota among categories and effects of the adjustment on Cape Hatteras GRA. Based upon the because the criteria are long-standing accomplishing the objectives of the location of their historical catch, and to and provide adequate flexibility. FMP. ensure that NMFS did not Commenters did not want to allow the underestimate the potential economic Reserve category to be ‘‘padded’’ to 6. General Comments About Gear impacts, the analysis assumes that these cover Longline category dead discards, Restricted Areas vessels would not redistribute effort and did not want most of the Reserve Comment 20: NMFS should avoid outside of the GRA. Although these four quota to go to the Longline category. closures to the pelagic longline fishery. vessels could redirect from fishing Response: The addition of the new Any closure would disrupt markets. grounds off Oregon Inlet, NC to fishing criteria under Amendment 7 will not Response: NMFS acknowledges that grounds between Cape Fear and Cape change the overall scope of NMFS GRAs designed to reduce bluefin tuna Hatteras, such a change in fishing authority to transfer quota among interactions and regulatory discards and grounds may involve substantial costs categories, but includes specific criteria to thus decrease bycatch have costs (fuel, longer trips, possible transfer and that have the effect of clarifying associated with them, and may have dockage in a new port, etc.). However, potential uses of quota. NMFS agrees disruptive effects on local markets. NMFS modified the Cape Hatteras GRA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

in a way that NMFS believes will Take Reduction Plan (a plan designed to (swordfish, bigeye and yellowfin) except achieve the reduction in bluefin reduce the incidental interactions of for certain times of year and in limited discards, but will also allow fishermen pelagic longline gear with marine locations. Any rigid management to continue to deploy gear in regions mammals in order to reduce serious framework that cannot adapt south and west of the GRA and thereby injury and mortality of long-finned and management to real-time distributions reduce adverse impacts. With respect to short-finned pilot whales and Risso’s and availability of targeted and non- the potential negative impacts of the dolphins in the Atlantic). targeted HMS species will be unlikely to Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA, Response: Several comments received optimize yield, support economic approximately 61 vessels that fish in the suggested options similar to those viability, and eliminate discards. Gulf of Mexico would be affected. Given currently employed under the Pelagic Response: Bluefin tuna distribution is the consistent pattern of historical catch Longline Take Reduction Plan highly variable; however, the scientific of large numbers of bluefin tuna in (described below). One comment noted literature as well as the data in the FEIS certain times and locations by pelagic the importance of developing a (Chapters 3 and 4) support the longline gear, NMFS determined that a communication protocol similar to what conclusion that there is sufficient GRA area in both the Gulf of Mexico is encouraged by the Pelagic Longline consistency in the patterns of and the Atlantic are necessary in order Take Reduction Plan for marine distribution to make GRAs an effective to achieve reductions in bluefin tuna mammals. NMFS also encourages management tool on a long-term basis. dead discards, and that the potential captains to communicate the location of If warranted by changes in the economic impacts are unavoidable in bluefin to each other to aid fleet-wide characteristics of the fishery (e.g, long- order to achieve the necessary avoidance practices. However, NMFS term shifts in the distribution of bluefin reductions. The potential negative believes that this approach is best tuna and target species), NMFS can re- socio-economic impacts were employed on a voluntary basis, as is evaluate whether GRAs continue to be minimized by using an iterative process done for marine mammals, given an effective management tool that to design the gear restricted areas. The potential confidentiality concerns. appropriately balances the associated Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline Mandatory aspects of the Pelagic costs and benefits. GRAs were designed in order to achieve Longline Take Reduction Plan include a Comment 24: NMFS received a balance between a reduction in bluefin requirement to post the marine mammal suggestions to consider dynamic time- dead discards, protection of the Gulf of safe handling and release placard in the area closures because the distribution of Mexico spawning stock, and continued wheelhouse and on the working deck, a bluefin is highly variable. operation of the pelagic longline fleet in restriction of mainline length to no more Response: In the Predraft of the Gulf of Mexico. The specific than 20 nmi when fishing within the Amendment 7, NMFS considered a real- boundaries of the area were determined Mid-Atlantic Bight, and special observer time monitoring system that would by an iterative process that included and research participation requirements periodically close ‘‘hot spots’’ of bluefin consideration of public comment and for vessels operating in the Cape interactions with the pelagic longline input, by selecting areas of historical Hatteras Special Research Area fleet. However, the Agency chose to not pelagic longline interactions with (CHSRA). Unlike the requirements for further analyze this alternative in the bluefin, and comparing both the operating in the CHSRA, Amendment 7 DEIS and the FEIS because a reporting anticipated reduction in bluefin does not require fishermen fishing in and monitoring system to support this interactions, and the estimated the Cape Hatteras GRA to notify the measure does not currently exist. reduction in revenue, of different agency between 48 to 96 hours prior to Furthermore, the development and configurations. In addition, the time making a trip in order to arrange for administration of such a system would period was selected due to its observer coverage or research be highly complex, and would require occurrence during the peak bluefin participation, in part because substantial resources to be able to fully spawning period in the Gulf of Mexico. notifications of intent to fish are a monitor the entire region across which The magnitude of the potential standard requirement through VMS. the pelagic longline fleet fishes, publish economic impacts result from the Additionally, Amendment 7 does not a rule quickly enough to respond to specific location and duration of the require fishermen to retain or post any changing oceanic conditions, and GRA. The size of the Spring Gulf of new placards, nor does it change the provide adequate notice to the pelagic Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA is based requirements regarding mainline length longline fleet. Instead of the dynamic upon the historical location and number restrictions. It is important to note that measures supported by the commenter, of bluefin interactions, as well as the the provisions of Amendment 7 do not which would respond to short-term recent persistent trend in fishing effort replace the provisions of CHSRA or the aggregations of bluefin, the measures shifting to the east of this area, and the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan; implemented by this final rule rely on known variability in the fishery in pelagic longline fishermen are still a different strategy of reducing bluefin general. A smaller geographic area expected to fully comply with the bycatch, based upon the long-term, would be unlikely to achieve requirements outlined in the Pelagic consistent special and temporal patterns meaningful reductions in bluefin tuna Longline Take Reduction Plan while of bluefin distribution. interactions. The duration of the GRA fishing with pelagic longline gear in any Comment 25: NMFS received encompasses the months with the part of the CHSRA that may overlap comments asserting that the Agency highest number of interactions during with the Cape Hatteras GRA. lacks sufficient data to make a reliable the spawning period. An alternate, or Comment 23: A commenter stated that determination regarding true interaction shorter time period would coincide with NOAA and ICCAT do not have rates of any given vessel. Some neither the highest number of bluefin sufficient scientific information to be commenters felt that NMFS should interactions, nor the bluefin spawning able to predict where and when the prohibit fishing in areas of concern until period peak. distribution of bluefin may overlap with more reliable data collection methods Comment 22: NMFS should evaluate the pelagic longline fleet target species, are in place, whereas others felt that the preferred alternatives for the Cape and thus fishermen are also highly NMFS should not prohibit fishing until Hatteras GRA in light of the difficulties unlikely to be able to predictably avoid more reliable data collection methods in implementing the Pelagic Longline BFT while targeting other HMS species are in place. Several commenters cited

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71533

weaknesses in logbook data and asserted characteristics of the fishery in the Through analysis of logbook data that logbook data are not sufficient to recent past. The 2012 data set represents between 2006 and 2012, NMFS noted verify vessel behavior, count the most recent calendar year for which that a small number of vessels were interactions, or monitor bycatch. complete data was available at the time responsible for the majority of reported Response: As indicated in the the FIES analysis was begun. Therefore, bluefin interactions. In this and Response to Comment # 82 NMFS in the FEIS NMFS included sets made previous rulemakings, members of the recognizes that some vessel operators in 2012 in the pool of data used to pelagic longline fleet have repeatedly may have under-reported in their calculate the bluefin-to-designated asked for increased individual logbooks the amount of bluefin tuna target species ratios for allocation and accountability in the fishery. they have caught. NMFS conducted an GRA access analyses. NMFS also Amendment 7 is implementing analysis that compared logbook data to included 2012 data from the Pelagic management measures that will address observer data to get an indication of Observer Program and the Logbook this situation, and will hold individuals how vessel-reported logbook data program to calculate the Observer and accountable for their bluefin compares with observer data, because Logbook Compliance scores. NMFS also interactions. observer data can serve as a useful adjusted the historical qualification Comment 29: NMFS should not validation tool. Compared to the period from 2006 to 2011, to 2006 to penalize small vessels because of their observer data, the logbook data showed 2012, in order to better reflect the inability of provide adequate space for both over-reporting and under-reporting variability in the fishery and account for observers. of bluefin tuna, with the average amount recent trends. Response: NMFS designed the scoring of under-reporting of bluefin discards of Comment 27: Commenters expressed system for the Pelagic Observer Program 28 percent at the aggregate level for all concern about access to the GRAs based Performance metric being implemented vessels. Individual vessel data varied on performance criteria based on by this final rule such that valid reasons substantially from being more than 90 logbook data, validity of which the for not carrying an observer will not be percent accurate with observer data for commenter stated was questionable, penalized. Observer coverage is integral that trip to more than 75 percent given the possible incentives to to the management of the fishery as it inaccurate compared to observer data misreport bluefin interactions through contributes important, objective data in for that trip. These data indicate a wide the logbook. support of the management of protected range in reporting accuracy at a vessel Response: As explained in Response species and provides important level. Specific information on this to Comments 25 and 82 NMFS information on the pelagic longline analysis is in the Appendix of the FEIS. acknowledges that there are issues with fishery utilized in the management of Notwithstanding potential under- logbook data accuracy; however, it bluefin and other HMS species. Due to reporting by some vessels, logbook data offers the most comprehensive data on the importance of having enough are the most complete source of the fishery and provides a means to observed trips to meet the observer available data regarding vessel level analyze individual vessel behavior. coverage targets required by national interactions with bluefin tuna because HMS logbook data represents a census and international obligations, NMFS 100 percent of pelagic longline vessels of the fishery. also evaluated vessels on the number of are required to submit logbook reports Comment 28: One commenter stated trips observed. The agency utilizes for every set. that there was no regulation that vessels observer data to develop estimates of NMFS also analyzed observer data in must avoid bluefin tuna in the past, and protected resources interactions and order to verify the spatial and temporal vessels should not be singled out now estimates of discards of other species patterns of bluefin interactions that for catching more bluefin by chance. including bluefin. These data are were noted in the logbook data (Chapter Response: Directed fishing on bluefin essential for stock assessments and are 3 of FEIS). Although the observer data tuna with pelagic gear is not permitted. critical in meeting international could not be compared directly to the Any interactions with pelagic longline management obligations. Under ATCA logbook data because it is collected with are incidental to other directed fishing and as a contracting party of ICCAT, the lower frequency and at a different scale, and regulations have been designed to United States is required to take part in the observer data indicated similar discourage any such interactions and to the collection of biological, catch, and patterns of bluefin interactions as the minimize bycatch to the extent effort statistics for research and logbook data. The logbook data practicable. NMFS has managed the management purposes. represents the best available source of pelagic longline fishery as an incidental Comment 30: NMFS received fine-scale information on bluefin category for bluefin for many years and comments on the data used to calculate interactions at this time. This final rule has implemented a number of scores for performance metrics and IBQ also implements enhanced monitoring regulations to limit the bluefin that can allocations. NMFS received comments and reporting requirements that will be retained and to discourage indicating that dolphinfish and wahoo improve information on bluefin interactions with bluefin (e.g., limiting from the HMS logbook needed to be interactions in the pelagic longline the number of bluefin that can be included in the performance metric fishery (i.e., VMS and electronic landed based on the weight of target scoring. Several commenters requested monitoring). species, implementing a time-area the Agency include landings of Comment 26: NMFS received closure for bluefin in June in the designated target species (primarily multiple comments regarding access to northeast, requiring weak hooks in the dolphinfish and wahoo) reported in the the GRAs based on performance. Gulf of Mexico). The pelagic longline coastal fisheries logbook in calculations Comments 26–42 relate to specific category as a whole has traditionally used to assess IBQ and performance. performance criteria. A commenter been allocated 8.1 percent of the total Other commenters suggested that NMFS stated that NMFS should include 2012 U.S. quota to cover incidental catch should use all pelagic longline logbooks data in the IBQ Allocation calculations during directed fishing operations for in determining the Bluefin Avoidance and GRA area access calculations. other species, but those catches Score. Response: NMFS agrees that 2012 (including dead discards) have been Response: Dolphinfish and wahoo data should be included in these data significantly over that subquota in reported in the HMS logbook were used calculations in order to reflect the recent years. to develop scores for performance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

metrics. However, landings of these landings data reported in the Coastal of the permitted vessel decides to sell species reported in the Coastal Fisheries Fisheries Logbook. the permit but keep the vessel, the seller Logbook were not used in the Comment 31: NMFS should not base of the permit will no longer have any performance metrics for several reasons. performance metrics on the Northeast privileges with respect to the IBQ (1) The Coastal Fisheries Logbook Distant (NED) Area. Program (they would only have fishing would not contain landings of the Response: NMFS incorporated all data both without a permit). In contrast, the primary target species of the HMS reported through the HMS logbook in buyer of the permit would have the pelagic longline fishery (swordfish and the calculation of performance metrics, eligibility for the IBQ associated with BAYS tunas), and would not provide for regardless of where vessels fished. that permit (although the permit buyer the reporting of bluefin tuna Exclusion of the sets made in the NED would need to put that permit on a interactions. Therefore, the actual ratio area could result in certain vessels that vessel in order to receive quota of landings of designated target species had a lot of fishing effort in this region allocation). to bluefin interactions cannot be receiving a competitive advantage or a Comment 33: One commenter asked accurately calculated for sets reported in disadvantage in terms of performance whether the public will know the the Coastal Fisheries Logbook. (2) metric scores. Further, vessels that fish identity of vessels excluded from the Fishermen in the southeast Atlantic that in the NED are not exempt from GRA. observer (if selected) or logbook Response: NMFS does not intend to report in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook reporting requirements. publicly release the identity of vessels could have an advantage over fishermen Comment 32: NMFS should consider without access to the GRA. in the Gulf of Mexico or New England that, by allowing access based on the Comment 34: NMFS received several that do not have the same type of performance of a vessel, the new owner suggestions concerning changes to the reporting requirements and the same of a vessel may be evaluated based on logbook performance metric, logbook mechanism to report retention of prior poor vessel performance under a reporting requirements, and requests for dolphinfish. (3) The HMS logbook and different owner. faster logbook submission methods. the Coastal Fisheries Logbook require Response: As explained below, NMFS Some commenters felt that NMFS different types of data to be reported determined that the relevant historical should not include a logbook which creates a mismatch in how the activity should be that associated with performance metric. Commenters noted data can be combined and collectively the vessel (and not the permit), and that logbook reports are usually late analyzed, which in turn could result in therefore, the preferred IBQ Program because it takes time to collect the inconsistencies between the two data would evaluate vessels based on all required economic information, and sets. (4) Specific geographic data (i.e., activity attributed to that vessel through sometimes fishermen are out for latitude and longitude for each set) that the qualification time period (2006– extended periods of time. Dealers would were reported in the HMS 2012). In general, the use of historical sometime take 2 or more weeks to get logbook and used to identify and data as part of an individual quota share a return done, which results in delays evaluate the ecological and economic (or a performance criteria) can be in submitting data to the Logbook effects of gear restricted areas are complex due to historical transfers of Program. For offshore/distant water unavailable through the Coastal the limited access permit from one fishermen, it sometimes takes more than Fisheries Logbook. Rather, fishermen vessel to another or changes in vessel a week for the receipt of information report location where the majority of all ownership. The quota share formula from dealers, especially if the catch is catches of each species were made implemented by Amendment 7 is based offloaded in Canada. The commenters through reference to a 1° latitude × 1° upon historical data associated with a felt that if NMFS wants to retain this longitude grid cell. If NMFS were to permitted vessel. NMFS determined that performance metric, the agency should incorporate data at the finest scale the historical ‘platform’ upon which to require that dealer tally sheets be available (1° latitude × 1° longitude), base the quota share should be the submitted separately from the logbooks. NMFS would have to disregard the vessel history instead of the permit NMFS received suggestions to transition overwhelming number of requests for history for the following reasons: (1) the logbook performance metric from management (and visualization/ Vessel history reflects current and the date of opening the letter to the date depiction of data) at a finer scale. (5) historical participation in the fishery; of receipt by the Agency to allow for The Coastal Fisheries Logbook requires (2) the regulations regarding the transfer contingencies such as a government landings per trip to be reported by of Atlantic Tunas Longline category shutdown (or other factors that may weight whereas the HMS Logbook permits do not address fishing history delay Agency officials from opening requires all interactions per set to be (i.e., do not specify whether when an letters). A commenter felt that NMFS reported by number. Also, fishermen Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit should establish a tolerance for the reporting in the Coastal Fisheries is transferred from one vessel to mailing of logbook reports from Logbook may report gutted or whole another, whether the fishing history also different parts of the country to Miami, weight. (6) A percentage (20%) of transfers); and (3) the structure of the FL, because fishermen in Florida have fishermen reporting through the Coastal databases in which the logbook data an advantage over fishermen based in Fisheries Logbook are selected to report resides uses the vessel as a key more distant locations (e.g., Maine) due discarded fish through a Supplemental organizing feature, and therefore the to the length of time it takes to deliver Discard and Gear Trip Report form at compilation of data associated with a mail. NMFS was asked to establish a the trip level, whereas all fishermen particular vessel is simpler and less process whereby fishermen can submit reporting in the HMS Logbook must prone to error (i.e., it is more complex logbooks by fax or online to minimize provide this information for every set, to compile data based on an individual delays due to the distance a letter has which also creates a mismatch in how permit history). However, once the to travel. data can be combined and collectively initial allocations are established, Response: Current regulations require analyzed. For these reasons NMFS used bluefin quota shares will be associated fishermen to submit logbooks within 7 dolphinfish and wahoo catch data from with the permit for future vessel days of offloading. Logbook reports the HMS logbooks to develop scores for transactions. For example, if a permitted must include weighout slips showing performance metrics, but did not use the vessel has quota shares, and the owner the dealer to whom fish were

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71535

transferred, the date of transferal, and Reporting and observer requirements Response: The GRAs are selected as the carcass weight of fish for which have been in place for several years, and locations with relatively high numbers individual weights are recorded. Timely NMFS regularly communicates with of historical bluefin interactions. The logbook reporting is a critical constituents concerning the rules Bluefin Avoidance Score was designed component of quota monitoring, pertaining to these programs. NMFS to evaluate a vessel’s ability to avoid particularly for species like HMS that notifies individuals selected for bluefin tuna, relative to its landings. have small annual or seasonal quotas. reporting annually with letters that New entrants to the fishery will have Many pelagic longline fishermen are detail reporting requirements. performance metrics associated with the able to comply with the requirement to Furthermore, NMFS produces outreach permit that the entrant purchased. All submit logbooks within seven days. materials, compliance guides, and a vessels will have a new performance There are members of the fleet, Web site that clearly state reporting score at the start of each year, based however, that take months to a full year requirements. With respect to the upon the three most recent years of to submit logbook reports. These late observer program, NMFS also clearly available data, and therefore reports, either late due to logistics or notifies individuals of vessel selection performance scores may improve over non-compliance, make quota for observer coverage. The Pelagic time. management of HMS very difficult, Observer Program regularly Comment 38: Some commenters were especially if quotas are small. communicates with the points of concerned about the incentives that a Amendment 7 will require catch contact (captains and vessel owners) conditional access program may reporting via VMS units to ensure regarding the organization and provide. timely report of bluefin catches. NMFS scheduling of observed trips. Response: The concept of providing may pursue faster mechanisms to report Commercial fishermen are therefore conditional access to a GRA (i.e., the logbooks in the future, such electronic provided ample notification of the Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic logbooks. regulations concerning observer and Longline GRA) is based on the historical data, which indicate that a relatively Comment 35: NMFS should have logbook reporting. small number of vessels are responsible solicited feedback on performance Comment 36: NMFS should not deny for a large portion of the bluefin tuna criteria from the industry. The access to individuals who are good interactions. Because conditional access commenter felt that NMFS developed bluefin avoiders. The intent of the rule will be based upon the rate of bluefin the performance criteria in a ‘‘black is to reduce bluefin discards, not to penalize fishermen for being out of tuna interactions (as well as reporting box’’ and did not provide ample compliance with observer or reporting metrics), the program rules provide notification that the agency would be requirements. NMFS Office of Law incentives to all pelagic longline vessels evaluating individuals on these metrics. Enforcement should be solely with respect to bluefin tuna Response: Significant time and responsible for penalizing fishermen interactions. Specifically, vessels with opportunity for public comment have that are out of compliance. historically high bluefin tuna gone into what has been a very thorough Response: NMFS regulations that interactions that are not allowed access rulemaking process for this require fishermen to submit logbooks or will have an incentive to reduce their Amendment. NMFS repeatedly solicited to carry observers are designed to collect rate of bluefin interactions if they desire public feedback and Advisory Panel information that NMFS uses to manage to fish in the GRA. Conversely, vessels input on the alternatives in Amendment HMS fisheries. When fishermen do not with a relatively low rate of bluefin 7, including the development of the comply with such regulations, they interactions that are allowed to fish in performance criteria. NMFS has jeopardize NMFS’ ability to develop the GRA will have an incentive to discussed the management of bluefin sound management strategies, conduct continue to avoid bluefin in order to discards with the public and with the stock assessments with the best maintain a low rate of bluefin Advisory Panel since a 2009 Advanced scientific information available, interactions. In contrast, if all vessels Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. NMFS estimate bycatch interactions and were precluded from the Modified Cape indicated in both the Predraft and the bluefin discards, and comply with Hatteras GRA, regardless of the amount DEIS that a small number of individuals international treaty requirements. As of a vessel’s interactions with bluefin, were responsible for the majority of such, under the Amendment 7 there would be no incentives with bluefin interactions. NMFS received regulations, NMFS will consider a respect to the catch of bluefin tuna (and numerous public comments in fisherman’s compliance with current the scale of potential economic impacts Amendment 5 to the Consolidated HMS logbook and observer requirements would be disproportionate to the FMP indicating that the pelagic longline when evaluating whether or not NMFS estimated amount of reduction in fleet desired individual accountability will grant that fisherman access to the bluefin tuna interactions). No access to measures, instead of holding the entire Cape Hatteras GRA—an area where the Gulf of Mexico GRAs was proposed fleet responsible for high interactions of interactions with bluefin tuna are likely. because the interactions with bluefin in a few vessels with dusky sharks. NMFS NMFS wants to ensure that fishermen the Gulf of Mexico are more evenly developed the performance criteria as a allowed access to the Cape Hatteras distributed among all of the vessels means to evaluate fishermen and hold GRA will abide by all relevant fishing there (and not concentrated them individually accountable for regulations to facilitate monitoring of among a few vessels as in the area off reduction of bluefin discards and fishing activities in these areas. Cape Hatteras). compliance with the reporting and Comment 37: NMFS should consider Comment 39: NMFS should not count monitoring regulations. These vessels that have no history or are new bluefin interactions from sets made performance criteria offer an alternative to the fishery as qualified to access the while participating in NMFS programs to fleet-wide time/area closures. closed areas (‘‘innocent until proven (e.g., shark research fishery) towards the Furthermore, the multiple criteria offer guilty’’). Vessels should have a ‘‘clean calculation of bluefin to designated individuals who have moderate levels of slate’’ at the start of each year and target species ratios because fishermen bluefin interactions to still access GRAs access to the GRA. If they interact with fish differently on those trips. provided that they comply with the too many BFT, then they should be Response: NMFS did not exclude reporting and monitoring requirements. closed out. such trips because of the relatively few

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71536 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

vessels that might be affected; use of Performance Metrics is to provide noted that the Agency would be participation in research programs incentives for future fishing behavior penalizing fishermen for bluefin could have affected vessels in either a that will result in reduced rates of interactions (specifically, discards) positive or negative manner. In most interactions between pelagic longline when there was not previously a instances, minor differences in the gear and bluefin. Although there is regulation that required bluefin amounts of catch of either target species variability in fish distribution and avoidance. Some commenters felt that or bluefin would not likely affect a activity from one year to the next, there the implementation of performance vessel’s allocation due to the three are certain vessels that consistently metrics is too severe a management tiered allocation system (i.e., a range of report high interactions with bluefin measure, and fishermen that might be catch values is designated to each of the tuna through logbooks. As explained in excluded from fishing in the Cape three tiers), and the performance metric Response to Comment # 38 conditional Hatteras GRA noted that the proposed scoring system (based on a range of access based on past performance measures would have severe economic values). Fishermen that believe they provides continuing incentives to avoid implications for their businesses. Some have been disadvantaged through bluefin tuna and to comply with commenters only supported the Cape participation in research may appeal relevant reporting and monitoring Hatteras GRA if pelagic longline vessels access and IBQ decisions through the requirements. are allowed to fish under General two-stage appeal process. Comment 42: NMFS should evaluate category rules in the area. Comment 40: NMFS should calculate vessels on the number of interactions Response: Analysis of logbook data performance metrics only on the most with protected resources (e.g., pilot from 2006 through 2012 indicated that recent data available. NMFS needs to whales) as part of the criteria for a relatively low number of vessels were revisit criteria for inclusion—some accessing the Cape Hatteras GRA. responsible for the majority of bluefin vessels have hardly fished over the last Response: Although Amendment 7 interactions in the Atlantic. NMFS few years. management measures are consistent developed the concept of conditional Response: NMFS agrees that the with the relevant laws and regulations access to the GRA in light of this inclusion of newer data is important. In regarding protected species, the pattern, in order to incentivize the Predraft and the DEIS, NMFS objectives upon which it is based did individual fishermen to avoid bluefin analyzed and developed alternatives not include any specific objective tuna, and to reduce economic impacts to based on pelagic longline data from regarding protected species, and did not the extent practicable. 2006 to 2011. NMFS included an include any specific management A system of conditional access will additional year of logbook data (2012) in measures regarding protected species. hold fishermen individually the FEIS analyses for each time-area Therefore the commenter’s suggestion to accountable for their interactions, as alternative. In the FEIS, the 2006–2012 incorporate criteria relating to protected opposed to holding the entire fleet time period was chosen because the last resources is outside of the scope of the responsible for high interactions by a significant bluefin fishery management Amendment 7. The impacts of the small number of fishermen. Because action was the 2006 Consolidated HMS Amendment 7 measures on protected conditional access will be based upon FMP, and therefore fishing behavior species are analyzed in this FEIS. the rate of bluefin tuna interactions (as from prior to 2006 would have been well as reporting metrics), the program 7. Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area based on previous management rules will provide incentives to all measures and may not be representative Comment 43: NMFS received a large pelagic longline vessels with respect to of the current fishery. The 2006 to 2012 number of comments supporting the bluefin tuna interactions. Specifically, time period is long enough to minimize five-month Cape Hatteras Pelagic vessels with historically high bluefin the influence of one-time events such as Longline GRA as proposed (DEIS tuna interactions that are not allowed natural or man-made disasters. NMFS preferred Alternative). NMFS also access will have an incentive to reduce intentionally designed the GRAs to be received comments suggesting their rate of bluefin interactions if they flexible and allow fishing vessels that modifications to the scope and duration desire to fish in the GRA. Conversely, have been affected by short-term events of the area, and commented on whether vessels with a relatively low rate of to participate in the pelagic longline or not conditional access to the area is bluefin interactions that are allowed to fishery. appropriate. fish in the GRA will have an incentive The Agency will distribute letters Response: The Cape Hatteras area has to continue to avoid bluefin in order to indicating the final performance metrics consistently been a location where a maintain a low rate of bluefin and what members of the fishery could high number of bluefin interactions interactions. In contrast, if all vessels expect by the start of the fishing year. with the pelagic longline fleet have were precluded from the Modified Cape Initial performance metrics will be occurred, and was initially identified in Hatteras GRA, regardless of the amount calculated on the entire historical time the Predraft to Amendment 7 as a of a vessel’s interactions with bluefin, period considered for determining IBQ geographic area where a GRA may be there would be no incentives with allocations. However, in subsequent warranted. Responses to the specific respect to the catch of bluefin tuna (and years, the performance metrics will be suggestions regarding the Cape Hatteras the scale of potential economic impacts calculated on the previous three years of GRA are below (see responses to would be disproportionate to the available data. comments 43–49. As described in estimated amount of reduction in Comment 41: NMFS should not base comments 46 and 47, NMFS modified bluefin tuna interactions). No access to access on history. High bluefin the preferred alternative in the FEIS (the the Gulf of Mexico GRAs was proposed interactions in one year do not ‘‘Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic or implemented because the interactions necessarily mean that there will be high Longline GRA’’). with bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico are bluefin interactions the following year. Comment 44: Some commenters more evenly distributed among all of the Response: As noted in the response to supported the proposed GRA because vessels fishing there (and not Comment # 44 NMFS acknowledges that access would be granted to some concentrated among a few vessels as in past performance may not be a perfect vessels, while other commenters stated the area off Cape Hatteras). indicator of future performance. that NMFS should implement GRAs Regarding the comment that it is However, one of the objectives of the without conditional access. Commenters unfair to use past interactions with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71537

bluefin as part of the allocation formula would result in a comparable reduction close the majority of the continental because in the past it was lawful to in bluefin interactions, but at nearly shelf to fishermen that do not meet interact with bluefin tuna: Pelagic quadruple the cost in estimated performance objectives. These suggested longline regulations were designed to economic losses for the pelagic longline modifications did not achieve as much limit or reduce retention of bluefin tuna fleet. The additional incentives that the reduction in bluefin interactions (e.g., target catch requirements, weak performance metrics regarding compared with the reduction in target hook requirements). Therefore, it is compliance with logbook and observer catch. Therefore, NMFS but did not appropriate that the IBQ Program requirements were also determined to include the suggested GRAs as an implemented by this final rule provide be important to support the Amendment alternatives in the FEIS. some benefit in the form of IBQ 7 objective regarding enhanced Comment 46: The North Carolina allocation for vessels that may have reporting and monitoring. Department of Environment and Natural fished in a manner that reduced Comment 45: Commenters suggested Resources and pelagic longline interactions with, or avoided bluefin that NMFS should modify the proposed fishermen commented that NMFS tuna, consistent with the regulations. Cape Hatteras GRA to include the areas should omit the southeast corner of the NMFS acknowledges that past north and east, as well as southwest of proposed GRA (preferred alternative in performance may not be a perfect the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA, to the DEIS) due to the prevailing direction indicator of future performance. One of address possible redistribution of of currents in this area, and the fact that the objectives of the Cape Hatteras fishing effort and other areas of gear set south or southwest of the Cape Pelagic Longline GRA measure moderate to high bluefin interactions. A Hatteras GRA would drift into the GRA. implemented by this final rule is to commenter requested consideration of a Response: NMFS analyzed additional provide incentives for future fishing specific extension of the proposed GRA spatial and temporal configurations of behavior that will result in reduced northward to cover a region with the Cape Hatteras GRA and determined rates of interactions between pelagic moderate bluefin interaction in order to that little conservation benefit could be longline gear and bluefin. As explained prevent increased fishing effort in the expected from limiting access to this in response to comment # 63 NMFS area as a result of redistribution by area and that the associated economic proposed, but is not implementing a fishermen whose performance scores are costs were not warranted. NMFS agrees measure that would have allowed not high enough to fish in the Cape that the prevailing currents would have pelagic longline vessels to fish under Hatteras GRA. The commenter stated effectively closed productive fishing the General category rules. that the area could further act as a buffer grounds southwest of the GRA in federal NMFS acknowledges that some to protect migrating bluefin tuna that waters off the coast of central and vessels could experience economic aggregate there. NMFS also received a southern North Carolina. As a result of hardship due to not having access to the comment suggesting a GRA along the these analyses, and considerations, Cape Hatteras GRA. However the data continental shelf between the Delmarva NMFS modified the measure from the indicate that there will also be Peninsula and Georges Banks for the configuration which was proposed to a substantial reductions in the number of time periods of June through July, and gear restricted area during the same bluefin tuna interactions associated November through December to months (December through April), but with the changes in fishing behavior complement the preferred alternatives. with a slightly different configuration. (i.e., 34 percent reduction in bluefin Response: NMFS analyzed the impact Comment 47: NMFS should consider discarded, and 6 percent reduction in of the suggested GRA to the north of the the potential negative economic impact bluefin kept, fishery-wide) as a result of proposed Cape Hatteras GRA (assuming on fishermen in the area who do not this action. The performance metric redistribution of fishing effort). The have access to other fishing grounds. system is designed to incentivize suggested extension to the north would Response: The design of the Cape fishermen to avoid bluefin tuna and to result in a reduction of only 3 bluefin Hatteras GRA being implemented by comply with observer and reporting tuna, after redistribution of effort. this final rule was the result of an requirements. Based on the FEIS Reductions in other species would be iterative process. NMFS analyzed analysis, 14 vessels of 135 would not minor. While the suggested GRA would multiple time periods and geographic have access to the Cape Hatteras GRA be small in both time and space, it is not areas in order to take into consideration being implemented. NMFS determined anticipated to contribute much to the both the potential reduction in the that, after redistribution of effort, there goal of reducing bluefin discards. For number of bluefin interactions and the was not a sizable difference in the these reasons, NMFS considered but did potential reductions in target catch. The number of bluefin kept and discarded not further analyze or otherwise include analysis considered relevant fisheries between implementation of the Cape this suggested modification as an data, and also oceanographic trends. In Hatteras GRA without access for any alternative in the FEIS. the DEIS, due to current patterns in the vessels (¥389 fish per year), and NMFS also analyzed a GRA along the Cape Hatteras area, the zone affected by implementation of the original Cape continental shelf between the Delmarva the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA was Hatteras GRA with Access Based on Peninsula and Georges Banks for the analyzed beyond itsexplicit boundaries. Performance (¥401 fish per year). The time periods of June through July and Analysis of a buffer region was needed total economic losses as a result of November through December and because vessels to the south and west of implementing the proposed Cape determined that the reduction in effort the GRA would be prevented from Hatteras GRA for all vessels, the with redistribution would result in fishing in these areas because their gear proposed Cape Hatteras GRA with notable reduction in bluefin interactions would drift into the GRA (having the Access Based on Performance, and the (¥48 fish/year kept; ¥310 fish/year effect of creating a larger affected Modified Cape Hatteras GRA with discarded). However, the reductions in geographic area that the boundary of the Access Based on Performance being target catch would be substantial (bigeye GRA). The DEIS analysis of impacts not implemented, after redistribution of tuna kept (¥977 fish/year); yellowfin only considered the reduced fishing effort are ¥$893,562; ¥$301,651; and tuna kept (¥1,206 fish/year); and the effort within the GRA, but also the ¥$210,956, respectively. NMFS numbers of swordfish kept (¥1,118/ reduced fishing effort in a buffer region therefore is not implementing the GRA year)). That configuration, combined to the south and west of the area. NMFS without access because the measure with the Cape Hatteras GRA, would included sets made in this buffer region

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71538 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

into the redistribution analyses. Based 8. Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area would be expected to only result in a 14 on public comment and additional Comment 50: A large number of percent decrease in the numbers of analyses, NMFS decided to implement commenters expressed general support bluefin tuna discarded, yet would the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, which for a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico, while reduce revenue from pelagic longline will minimize the adverse impacts on others stated that NMFS should not gear by approximately $7.63 million per fishing opportunities while still implement a GOM GRA, due to the year, and affect up to 75 vessels. NMFS also analyzed the possible achieving comparable reductions of severe economic impact it would have effects of the GRA alternatives on bluefin discards and almost identical on the fishery. multiple species, including sea turtles. conservation and management benefits Response: Implementation of a GRA The FEIS contains the results of the as the original proposal. in the Gulf of Mexico supports the Comment 48: NMFS should analyses that evaluated the GRA achievement of the Amendment 7 implement a GRA and have various alternatives using redistribution objectives. A GRA will, in conjunction requirements including mandatory analyses to ensure that the GRAs would with the other management measures observer coverage, electronic not substantially increase interactions implemented by this final rule, result in monitoring, or the use of weak hooks in with sea turtles if fishermen were to the reduction of dead discards of bluefin order to fish the area. Several redistribute their effort into open waters tuna by the pelagic longline fishery. commenters suggested that NMFS of the Atlantic Ocean. These analyses Although implementation of a GRA will implement the GRA and only allow showed that there would be no net have a negative economic impact on the access with 100 percent observer change in the average number of annual coverage. pelagic longline fishery, the preferred interactions with leatherback or Response: Observer coverage is an alternative will have less of an impact loggerhead sea turtles for the Modified important tool in monitoring the pelagic than some of the other alternatives Cape Hatteras GRA, and a reduction of longline fishery. Vessels with access to considered and analyzed. As described 1 interaction for these turtles for the the Cape Hatteras GRA will be subject in more detail in the responses to Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA. to the same level of observer coverage as comments below, NMFS analyzed a NMFS expects Amendment 7 measures the rest of the pelagic longline fleet. range of alternatives, and took into implemented will have a neutral or Electronic monitoring is an important account the importance of fishery minor beneficial impact on protected aspect of the new IBQ Program, which resources to fishing communities by species as a result of potential impacts includes the GRAs. Under Amendment analyzing economic and social data. on fishing effort, especially fishing effort 7 regulations, any vessel fishing with Because GRAs may result in the associated with pelagic longline gear. pelagic longline gear will be required to reduction and/or redistribution of The fisheries managed under the 2006 have an operational electronic fishing effort by pelagic longline gear, Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its monitoring system onboard. NMFS did the preferred alternative represents a amendments have undergone formal not consider an alternative that would balance between anticipated reductions and/or informal Section 7 consultation implement new weak hook in dead discards of bluefin, and and collectively address the ongoing requirements for the Atlantic, because potential negative economic impacts on Atlantic HMS fisheries. On August 15, we do not presently have data the pelagic longline fishery. 2013, NMFS determined that the indicating that such measures would be Furthermore, the preferred alternative proposed measures in Amendment 7 to effective in meeting the objectives of will support the broader objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP would Amendment 7, given size differentials both stock rebuilding as well as the not require reinitiation of formal between fish in the Gulf of Mexico and continued viability of the commercial consultation. The environmental effects the Atlantic and the current state of and recreational fisheries that depend of the preferred alternatives in this FEIS research on the subject. upon bluefin tuna. are substantially the same as those Comment 49: NMFS should establish Comment 51: Some commenters analyzed in the DEIS, although some communication protocols designed to supported the Amendment 7 alternative different alternatives are now preferred help fishermen minimize interactions that would prohibit the use of pelagic and two of the alternatives have been for the regions of concern instead of longline gear throughout the Exclusive slightly modified. No additional or implementing GRAs. One commenter Economic Zone (EEZ), year-round, in substantively different effects on listed suggested the establishment of order to protect spawning bluefin, and species are expected as a result of these communication protocols, similar to aggregations of bluefin. Some changes. For detailed information on those designed for the Pelagic Longline commenters noted the potential for a reinitiation of formal Section 7 Take Reduction Plan, be required within gulf-wide closure to reduce injuries and consultation on HMS fisheries, see the the boundaries of the Cape Hatteras deaths of protected species such as sea Classification section. GRA. turtles. Comment 52: Some commenters Response: Communication protocols Response: NMFS analyzed the supported the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA, can be valuable and could assist pelagic biological and socio-economic impacts which would prohibit the use of pelagic longline vessels to avoid bluefin tuna. of this Alternative, and although longline gear from March through May, Captains are already required to follow prohibition of pelagic longline gear while others supported expanding the a communication protocol for pilot would eliminate interactions between duration of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA whales in this area. NMFS believes such pelagic longline gear and bluefin in the to include all the months during which a system would work best for bluefin Gulf of Mexico, such a prohibition bluefin tuna may be present in the Gulf avoidance if it were voluntary, and had would not minimize the reductions in of Mexico, or suggested specific ranges the full support of those involved. target catch (e.g., yellowfin tuna, of months (e.g., December through June, However, in the interest of avoiding swordfish) in the pelagic longline March through May, March through bluefin and minimizing the risk of fishery or the and negative economic August). A large number of commenters shutting down the pelagic longline impacts on the fishery, both goals felt that a GRA that encompassed the fishery, NMFS strongly encourages consistent with Amendment objectives. entire Gulf of Mexico EEZ would better vessel captains to communicate the The prohibition of pelagic longline gear account for variability in bluefin location of bluefin tuna with each other. in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ (year round) distribution and areas of spawning

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71539

activity and changing fishing patterns encompassing only a portion of the Gulf GOM GRA being implemented by this within the fleet. Many commenters of Mexico for specific months is likely final rule, will not preclude the believed that a larger GRA should be to reduce dead discards over a multi- collection of the necessary data in implemented instead of any changes to year time scale. In other words over support of the stock assessments, and quota allocations, or felt that the time there are consistent patterns in will reduce bycatch during the implementation of such a GRA would bluefin distribution that may not be spawning season, as well as augment eliminate the need for IBQs. exhibited to the same extent each year. the IBQ Program in ensuring that catch Response: In selecting the preferred Therefore, a GRA is not likely to achieve does not exceed the quota. alternative, NMFS analyzed the time the same level of effectiveness each With respect to the relationship and areas in which the highest number year, but over time is expected to between the size of a GRA and other of bluefin interactions have occurred, in achieve reductions in dead discards Amendment 7 alternatives (i.e., IBQs order to achieve meaningful reductions similar to that indicated by NMFS’ and quota allocation), the use of in bluefin catch by pelagic longline gear, analysis. multiple management tools will reduce but also to minimize the reductions in In analyzing the Gulf of Mexico negative economic impacts on the target catch. A Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA closure alternatives in the FEIS, NMFS pelagic longline fishery, as well as encompassing the entire Gulf of Mexico also considered the need to gather achieve the diverse Amendment 7 EEZ for the suggested range of months scientific data from the Gulf of Mexico objectives in a balanced manner. was not justified. First, there exists an longline fishery data for the Comment 53: Several commenters historical pattern of relatively high development of effective conservation expressed support for the Small Gulf of number of interactions occurring in and management measures. A larger Mexico GRA in the DEIS, which was particular locations and months. GRA for the Gulf of Mexico EEZ would proposed, but is not being implemented. Additionally, a GRA encompassing the severely reduce the collection of A number of comments indicated the whole of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ would important data from the pelagic longline Small Gulf of Mexico GRA was the have included locations where there fishery and would increase uncertainty minimum acceptable size for a GRA in have been relatively few interactions. in the western Atlantic bluefin stock the Gulf of Mexico, while other Similarly, inclusion of locations with assessment. Gulf of Mexico pelagic commenters did not support the relatively few historical interactions in longline data are critical to the proposed Small Gulf of Mexico GRA, the GRA would still preclude fishing development of catch per unit effort feeling that NMFS ought to do more to with pelagic longline gear in such (CPUE) information, which is used as protect bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico. A locations, increasing the likelihood of the index of abundance for spawning large number of commenters requested additional lost revenue, with relatively bluefin tuna, an important element of that the agency re-evaluate the GRA and little reduction in bluefin interactions. the stock assessment for western identify other alternatives. One Inclusion of months during which Atlantic bluefin tuna. Such uncertainty commenter felt the DEIS lacked there have been relatively few would make it more difficult to assess compelling justification for choosing an interactions would preclude fishing the status of stocks, to set the alternative that does not protect all opportunity, with relatively little appropriate optimum yield and define spawners and increases fishing pressure reduction in bluefin interactions. In overfishing levels, and to ensure that in critical areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Chapter 3 of the FEIS, Table 3.29 optimum yield is attained and Other commenters felt that the presents a breakdown of all bluefin tuna overfishing levels are not exceeded. boundaries encompassed by the Small interactions reported in the HMS NMFS conducted a ‘‘power analysis’’ Gulf of Mexico GRA did not reflect the Logbook, by month, in the Gulf of to determine the number of pelagic best scientific knowledge available. Mexico EEZ. Although bluefin tuna longline sets that would be required to Specific suggestions included were noted year round in the Gulf of maintain the current level of precision modification of the duration (change, Mexico, the data indicated distinct for the CPUE and found that shorten, lengthen, or include specific spatial and temporal patterns. For approximately 60 percent of the recent months) to cover peak spawning periods example, between 2006 and 2012, there number of pelagic longline sets in the or provide a buffer due to variability in were 13, 3, 13, 16, and 13 total bluefin Gulf of Mexico would be required. the timing and area of bluefin spawning tuna interactions reported in July, Although NMFS could transition from activity and longline fishing patterns August, September, October, and using this fishery dependent data to from year to year. Some commenters November, respectively. In comparison, another data source (i.e., fishery believed the months of the GRA should the months that some comments independent data), it would require cover the full bluefin spawning period. suggested for a GRA (March through several years before a new fishery Other commenters suggested that the May) had 266, 498, and 496 total bluefin independent data source could be used GRA be extended to the east or north to interactions in March, April, and May, for stock assessment purposes and an encompassed additional known respectively. NMFS does not believe abrupt cessation of the current CPUE spawning areas, or extended south to that a GRA is warranted at this time data would mean a break in the time cover areas where large numbers of during the late summer or early fall series and increase uncertainty in stock interactions have occurred. based on the reported numbers of assessment results. NMFS will continue Response: As stated in the response to bluefin tuna that occurred in this area. to explore alternative methods for the comments 50, 51, and 52, NMFS There is variability in bluefin collection of independent data. In analyzed a range of GRA alternatives distribution, and fishing patterns may contrast to a GRA applicable to the full that encompass a range of biological and change over time. Due to this variability, EEZ, a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico with socio-economic impacts, and would any specific GRA that does not cover the a smaller area and short duration will achieve various amounts of reductions whole EEZ year-round may be less still be effective in reducing bycatch to in bluefin interactions and result in effective, or more effective, at reducing the extent practicable and protecting different reductions in revenue. As dead discards than the historical data spawning-sized bluefin while explained above in the response to would indicate. Notwithstanding this permitting allowable fishing and the comments 51 and 52, a complete Gulf of variability, a specific GRA designed collection of data needed for index of Mexico EEZ closure for a full year or using historic information, and abundance. The size and duration of the portion of the year is not warranted

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71540 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

because a smaller GRA is sufficient to reasons (e.g., activity range of would be a little more than twice as achieve the Amendment 7 objectives seismographic vessels, which can much under the EEZ GRA (44.2 mt and to minimize bycatch and bycatch operate for up to six months, and oils versus 19.2 mt under the Spring mortality to the extent practicable. rigs). Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA), but the Based on public comment, NMFS Response: NMFS acknowledges that reduction in total revenue associated analyzed the impacts of additional areas the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico with the EEZ GRA would be more than and times in the Gulf of Mexico, not Pelagic Longline GRAs being six times larger than the reduction in analyzed in the DEIS, and included implemented by this final rule will total revenue associated with the Spring 2012 data. As a result of these further reduce the amount of fishable Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA additional analysis, and careful areas in the Gulf of Mexico available for ($1,793,922 versus $281,614 under the consideration of both the biological and the use of pelagic longline gear, and that Preferred). In other words, compared to socio-economic impacts, NMFS is vessels choosing to fish in the Gulf of the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico implementing the Spring Modified Gulf Mexico with pelagic longline gear will GRA, the amount of additional costs of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRAs. need to work around other industrial that would be associated with the EEZ The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico users of Gulf of Mexico resources. GRA would be disproportionately Pelagic Longline GRAs include most of NMFS selected the boundaries of the greater than the additional conservation the geographic area of the GRA that was Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs benefits associated with the EEZ GRA. originally proposed, but are larger, with careful consideration of the The Amendment 7 measures are not extending further to the east, and are associated benefits and costs. NMFS designed to target a particular amount of slightly reduced in size on the western optimized the size of the GRAs being reduction in dead discards, but rather to and northern borders. Additionally, the implemented to achieve a meaningful reduce dead discards in a meaningful Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic reduction in dead discards, and still way, provide strong incentives to avoid Longline GRAs include a second area leave fishing grounds open for the and reduce bycatch, and take into that is adjacent to the southern border pelagic longline fleet. The Cumulative account the potential impacts on the of the Desoto Canyon Closed Area’s Impacts Analysis in the FEIS (Chapter 6) pelagic longline fishery. The combined northwestern ‘block.’ considers the impacts of the preferred effect of the Modified Spring Gulf of The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico alternatives in the broader context of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA and the Pelagic Longline GRAs encompass other historical and current activities. Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic additional areas of historic bluefin Comment 55: NMFS should consider Longline GRA will reduce the number interaction in the eastern-central Gulf of the impact on the yellowfin tuna and of bluefin discarded by 40 percent, and Mexico, and address a recent shift in swordfish fisheries, which are active in the number of bluefin kept by 10 pelagic longline fishing activity the Gulf of Mexico and in the areas percent (fishery-wide). eastward. Between 2009 and 2012, there covered by the GRAs. Specifically, the Comment 56: One commenter asked was a 10 to 20 percent shift from the commenter questioned whether the Gulf why NMFS did not propose conditional Mid-Gulf Louisiana region to the eastern of Mexico pelagic longline fleet would access to the Gulf of Mexico GRAs, Gulf of Mexico region. The area defined be able to remain active. based on performance metrics, in by the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Response: NMFS carefully considered contrast to the Cape Hatteras GRA, for Pelagic Longline GRAs includes a larger the impact of the Spring Modified Gulf which access was proposed. The portion of the spawning areas of Mexico GRAs on yellowfin and commenter suggested that performance documented in the peer-reviewed swordfish fisheries, both of which are metrics should be applied to all GRAs. literature at this time, but does not robust and healthy fisheries in the Gulf Response: NMFS did not propose and include all of the known bluefin of Mexico. The Spring Modified Gulf of is not implementing conditional access spawning areas in the GOM for reasons Mexico GRAs achieve a balance to the Gulf of Mexico GRAs (based on previously explained. The Spring between conservation objectives and performance metrics) in part because Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic providing continuing opportunity for they would not be as effective in Longline GRAs will occur during the the swordfish and yellowfin tuna reducing discards of bluefin tuna in the months of April and May, the same time fisheries. The primary conservation GOM as they would be in the Atlantic. period as proposed for the original objective of the GRAs is to reduce The fact that a relatively small number Small Gulf of Mexico GRA. bluefin interactions, and reduce bycatch of vessels are responsible for the NMFS previously regulated large and bycatch mortality to the extent majority of bluefin interactions in the portions of the eastern Gulf of Mexico practicable. NMFS compared among the Atlantic makes access to the Modified through implementation of the DeSoto alternatives the amount of ‘savings’ of Cape Hatteras GRA based on Canyon closed area, Madison-Swanson bluefin tuna and the reduction in target performance metrics effective, in order and Steamboat Lumps Sites, and the catch as part of its analysis of the GRAs. to reduce dead discards, provide Edges closure. The pelagic longline fleet Under the Spring Modified Gulf of incentives for modifying fishing fishes the continental shelf along the Mexico GRA being implemented, the behavior, and acknowledge past west coast of Florida between the annual reductions in revenue associated performance. In contrast, the pattern of southern DeSoto Canyon box and the with the reduced catches of swordfish interactions with bluefin tuna in the Florida Keys. However, bluefin and yellowfin tuna are estimated at GOM is different from that in the interactions in this area are relatively $41,504 and $207,110, respectively. The Atlantic, with the interactions more few compared to the areas evaluated in annual reduction in total revenue is evenly distributed among all vessels the FEIS. estimated at $1,793,922. An example of (i.e., more vessels responsible for the Comment 54: One commenter noted how the data was compared and interactions). NMFS evaluated the that the size of the fishable area in the alternatives evaluated follows: Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA Gulf of Mexico is already small, given Comparing the Spring Modified Gulf of using performance metrics, and the constraints on the locations where Mexico GRA with the alternative that applying them, only three vessels out of they can fish, including existing pelagic would restrict the full EEZ for the the 61 that fished in the Spring longline closed areas, as well as the months of March through May, the Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs would areas that must be avoided for other reduction in the weight of bluefin catch not have had access to the GRAs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71541

Therefore, the savings from Response: NMFS’ authority to assist not a complete census survey of the implementing the performance metrics fishers in this way requires a fishery, and the extent of observer would be very small, and the resulting determination of a commercial fishery coverage is not necessarily useful in ecological impacts would have been failure due to a fishery resource disaster assessing ecological or economic effects similar to not implementing a GRA at under section 312(a) of the MSA or of GRAs. Furthermore, there is a all. section 308(b) of the Interjurisdictional percentage of vessels that have not been Comment 57: Some commenters felt Fisheries Act, followed by an observed and NMFS determined that that NMFS should delineate a GRA appropriation from Congress. Neither of some of these vessels contributed using the same boundaries as the these have occurred. sizable numbers of bluefin interactions bluefin Habitat Area of Particular Comment 61: NMFS should not in the Cape Hatteras GRA. NMFS, Concern (HAPC). distinguish between bluefin tuna in the therefore, decided to base the estimation Response: NMFS determined that the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic as they are of impacts on HMS logbook data. reductions in bluefin tuna interactions from the same breeding stock. Response: For the purposes of 9. Pelagic Longline Vessels Fishing resulting from a Gulf of Mexico GRA Under General Category Rules that encompasses the boundaries of the Amendment 7, NMFS differentiates bluefin HAPC would be very similar to between bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Comment 63: Some commenters the savings incurred from a GRA drawn Mexico and bluefin tuna in the Atlantic supported the proposed measure to encompassing the boundaries of the for the implementation of certain allow vessels fishing with pelagic Gulf of Mexico EEZ. NMFS therefore management measures for a number of longline gear that are not authorized did not further evaluate a GRA that was reasons. As noted above, the conditional access to the Cape Hatteras designed to encompass the boundaries distribution of interactions across GRA, to fish under General category of the HAPC or develop an alternative vessels is different between the Gulf of rules. Vessel owners wanted to have this type of fishing opportunity as mitigation around this proposed boundary. Mexico and the Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna that interact with pelagic for the lost opportunity of fishing with Comment 58: A commenter indicated longline gear are often heavier and older pelagic longline gear in the Cape that he could support a Gulf of Mexico than tuna that interact with pelagic Hatteras GRA, from December through GRA alternative if the pelagic longline longline gear in the Atlantic, and are April. Some commenters did not fleet is provided flexibility through found in spawning condition during support the proposed opportunity for some of the alternatives proposed such certain months of the year. The pattern such vessels to fish under the General as access to current closed areas, and of discarding in the Gulf of Mexico is category rules for various reasons. Some ability to fish under General Category also very different from the discard asserted that the activity would be a rules. pattern documented in the Atlantic (i.e., ‘‘dangerous precedent,’’ because limited Response: As described under the larger fish discarded in the Gulf of access vessels would be allowed to fish Response to Comments #63, and #64, Mexico). NMFS does not make such a under the rules applicable to an open access to certain closed areas, and the distinction between Gulf of Mexico and access category, but General category ability to fish under General Category Atlantic bluefin in the assessment of the vessels would not be allowed to fish as rules in certain closed area were bluefin stock. Although Gulf of Mexico a pelagic longline vessel. Others were proposed but are not being finalized in bluefin often migrate up the east coast concerned about the expansion of a this final rule. The measures to feeding grounds in the northwest targeted bluefin fishery in the Cape implemented by Amendment 7 provide Atlantic Ocean, data suggest that some Hatteras GRA, an area that already has flexibility and balance the Amendment proportion of fish in the Atlantic are large numbers of interactions with 7 objectives to reduce dead discards, yet individuals from the eastern Atlantic bluefin. A commenter found it ironic also provide fishing opportunity. and Mediterranean stock, whereas that vessels not allowed to fish with Comment 59: The Gulf of Mexico bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico are pelagic longline gear in the Cape Fishery Management Council predominantly from the western Hatteras GRA (proposed in order to commented that NMFS should consider Atlantic stock. reduce bluefin interactions with pelagic potential impacts on vessels using Comment 62: NMFS should examine longline gear) due to their low bottom longline gear. They were observer data in addition to logbook performance criteria score would be concerned about the synergistic effects data to estimate bluefin tuna savings; provided an opportunity to target of the pelagic longline and bottom the estimate of savings in 2010 and 2011 bluefin tuna. Some noted concern about longline regulations on vessels. is low because fishing effort was low in the potential impacts on the rate of Response: The Modified Spring Gulf those years. harvest of the General category quota, of Mexico GRAs are designed for the Response: NMFS acknowledges that which is limited, and the indirect pelagic longline fishery only. Vessels estimates of savings might be low in impacts on General category vessels. that exclusively use bottom longline 2010 and 2011 as a result of depressed Others noted that the replacement of gear would not be affected by the GRAs. effort due to the effects of the Deepwater pelagic longline gear with handgear Vessels that use both bottom longline Horizon oil spill. However, estimated (targeting bluefin) is not economically gear and pelagic longline gear during savings are presented as an average from viable due to the size of the pelagic the year would be impacted, and would a 7-year period. Interannual variability longline vessels and the associated trip likely modify their fishing behavior or is therefore incorporated into the expenses. A commenter stated that the business plan. Bottom longline gear is estimation of ecological impacts of proposed measure would facilitate currently subject to regulations different GRA alternatives. NMFS trans-shipment of bluefin from Longline including time and area restrictions, and developed GRA alternatives from HMS category to General category vessels. A is not likely to capture bluefin tuna due Logbook data because every fisherman commenter suggested that all pelagic its deployment near the bottom of the must submit logbooks detailing activity longline vessels should be able to fish ocean. and interactions with all fish kept, under the General category rules, and Comment 60: NMFS should discarded alive, and discarded dead. not only those affected by the GRA. compensate vessels for the time period While extremely useful in estimating Response: Based upon public the Gulf of Mexico GRAs are in place. dead discards, the observer program is comment and further consideration,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71542 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

NMFS is not implementing the measure were to maintain the relevant Therefore, the benefits associated with management measure that would have conservation aspects of the closure, providing additional fishing allowed vessels fishing with pelagic balance the objectives of the closures, opportunities (by providing access) longline gear that are not authorized provide commercial data from within would not outweigh the costs in terms conditional access to the Cape Hatteras the closures, and provide additional of the risk of undermining the GRA to fish under General category fishing opportunities for permitted conservation benefits of the closed rules. While this measure would have longline vessels (mitigating the potential areas. With respect to providing provided additional fishing negative economic impacts of commercial data from within the opportunities to pelagic longline vessels Amendment 7). The East Florida Coast, closures, as stated previously, NMFS without access to the Cape Hatteras Charleston Bump, and DeSoto Canyon may obtain data from within the GRA, the differences in fishing costs Closed Area were implemented as part closures through the use of exempted and productivity between pelagic of a bycatch reduction strategy, based on fishing permits. longline gear and handgear are great three objectives: (1) Maximize the 11. Pelagic and Bottom Longline enough that handgear fishing for bluefin reduction in incidental catch of billfish Transiting Closed Areas tuna would not be economically viable and of swordfish less than 33 lb dressed Comment 65: The North Carolina for a pelagic longline vessel. Given the weight; (2) minimize the reduction in Department of Environment and Natural unlikely -economic benefits as well as the target catch of larger swordfish and Resources supported the preferred public perceptions of unfairness, the other marketable species; and (3) ensure alternative (Alternative E8) to allow potential benefits of allowing vessels to that the incidental catch of other species fish under the General category rules do transiting of closed areas by vessels (e.g., bluefin, marine mammals, and possessing bottom or pelagic longline not outweigh the potential costs and turtles) either remains unchanged or is risks associated with this activity. gear. reduced. Upon implementation, NMFS Response: Allowing HMS vessels that 10. Pelagic Longline Limited recognized that all three objectives possess bottom or pelagic longline gear Conditional Access to Closed Areas might not be met to the maximum on board to transit closed areas Comment 64: NMFS received a large extent and that conflicting outcomes provided they remove and stow the number of comments that did not would require some balancing of the gangions, hooks (unbaited), and buoys support the proposed limited objectives. There are data that supports from the mainline and drum would conditional access to closed areas for the assertion that the closed areas have reduce potential economic costs vessels using pelagic longline gear, for contributed to the achievement of their associated with indirect routes of travel a variety of reasons. Commenters, objectives, in concert with other (more time at sea and more fuel, etc.) as including the Florida Fish and Wildlife management measures. NMFS provides well as reduce potential safety-at-sea Conservation Commission, were an annual review of the potential issues. effectiveness of the current suite of foremost concerned about potential 12. Gear-Based Measures negative biological impacts on management measures, including closed swordfish, billfish, and other species, as areas, at reducing bycatch in its annual Comment 66: Authorizing buoy gear well as the indirect negative socio- SAFE report for HMS. Although this to be used by Swordfish Incidental economic impacts on the recreational review does not isolate and quantify the permit holders to catch swordfish fishing community if there were effectiveness of closed areas as a (Alternative B2b) and authorizing the negative biological impacts. separate management tool, the estimated harvest of bigeye, albacore, yellowfin Specifically, commenters cited the reductions in discards of swordfish, and skipjack tunas (‘BAYS’) with buoy benefits of the DeSoto Canyon and East blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, and gear by Swordfish Directed and Florida Coast closed areas contributing spearfish, as a result of all management Incidental permit holders (Alternative to the rebuilding of the swordfish stock, measures, have remained consistently B2c) would reduce dead discards in a and the stabilization of the blue and high (¥50 to ¥70 percent), suggesting direct manner and should be supported. white marlin stocks. Commenters stated that the current suite of international Response: Buoy gear used in and near that the biological analysis of the and domestic management measures the Florida Straits has been shown to be alternative was inadequate, and one have played a significant role in efficient at catching swordfish with a commenter was concerned about the allowing the United States to reduce its relatively low bycatch rate. However, impacts on dusky sharks. Some bycatch interactions. Given the likely due to a lack of data, it is unknown commenters supported access, noting benefits of the closed areas, the what the catch and bycatch of buoy gear the importance of such access as a difficulty in determining the precise would be when used to target swordfish means to provide flexibility to pelagic magnitude of the benefits of the closed at night in other areas of the Atlantic, longline vessels in the context of the areas in the context of other Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Caribbean, and IBQ Program restrictions, while others management measures, as well as the high seas or to target BAYS tunas in suggested modifications to the difficulty predicting the potential these areas during daylight hours. This alternative such as allowing the use of impacts that access to closed areas lack of information makes assessing an electronic monitoring instead of human would have, NMFS believes that there is expansion in the use of buoy gear for observers. uncertainty whether in fact the first swordfish or tunas difficult, especially Response: Based upon public objective of the alternative (maintain considering the potential to interact comment and further consideration of relevant conservation aspects of the with adult bluefin tuna in the Gulf of potential administrative costs, NMFS is closure) would be met. The access to Mexico, other HMS such as billfishes, or not implementing this management closed areas alternative did not include protected species in areas such as off the measure. The potential benefits of defined bycatch limits, but would have Outer Banks of North Carolina (as an allowing pelagic longline vessels relied upon the assumption that low example). NMFS is not implementing limited conditional access to the closed levels of fishing effort is sufficient to alternatives B2b or B2c because of the areas would not outweigh the potential prevent excessive bycatch. Furthermore, lack of available information needed to costs and risks associated with this there would be administrative costs assess the ecological impacts of activity. The objectives of the proposed associated with the access program. expanded buoy gear use when used to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71543

target swordfish or BAYS tunas. NMFS 2014. Throughout the NRDA process, fishing practices through modification will continue to assess additional the trustees have invited comments on of fishing behavior (including time, information as it becomes available and broad types of restoration projects, as location and methods of fishing, and the may re-evaluate buoy gear fishery well as specific projects. In addition to use of non-longline gear); increasing regulations in the future. accepting verbal comments at public communication within the fishery to Comment 67: Pelagic longline meetings, the trustees have accepted facilitate bluefin avoidance; and leasing fishermen should use more selective comments and ideas by U.S. Mail, email of individual bluefin quota. Under fishing gears such as greenstick gear and to [email protected], and via the Amendment 7, NMFS may also provide buoy gear and part of the Deepwater Internet via additional flexibility by allocating Horizon oil spill restoration funds www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov. As additional quota to the Longline should be used to help pelagic longline part of their ongoing commitment to category, as described in the response to fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico make maximum transparency, the NRDA Comments 18 and 19. this transition. No financial hardship for trustees have posted input gathered Comment 69: Some commenters fishing gear transition conducted as part during these public comment periods stated that NMFS should consider some of oil spill restoration efforts should fall online at http:// of the broad questions such as what will upon affected fishers. www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/ happen when the bluefin stock grows, Response: This final rule does not restoration/give-us-your-ideas/view- which may lead to more dead discards; implement a management measure that submitted-projects/. The NRDA trustees what about unintended consequences of would require vessels to transition from also continue to accept project ideas the IBQ system such as creating a pelagic longline to greenstick gear or from the public by mail and via http:// directed fishery; and what will happen buoy gear. However, under specific www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/ to a vessel if they have an atypically fishing permits, greenstick gear is restoration/give-us-your-ideas/suggest- large BFT catch event (also known as a currently authorized to fish for Atlantic a-restoration-project/. During the NRDA ‘‘disaster set’’)? tunas and buoy gear is authorized to fish process, the trustees have received Response: As the bluefin stock size for swordfish. Fishermen may utilize suggestions that restoration project continues to grow, the total number of any legal fishing gear as authorized funds help pelagic longline fishermen interactions between the pelagic under the valid permits that are on their transition to greenstick and buoy gear. longline fleet and bluefin tuna may vessel when used in accordance with increase. However, the relative amount applicable regulations. Fishermen may 13. General Comments About of dead discards by pelagic longline change fishing gears in accordance with Individual Bluefin Quotas vessels (e.g., percentage of total catch) applicable regulations. ‘‘Prohibition of Comment 68: Commenters supported may be a better way to evaluate a trend the Use of Pelagic Longline Gear in the implementation of the IBQ system in in the amount of dead discards rather HMS Fishery’’ is an alternative in the order to hold vessels accountable and than the absolute number. A second FEIS characterized as ‘‘Considered but provide incentives to reduce discards. important metric of success of the IBQ Not Analyzed Further’’, because it Commenters noted that NMFS should Program will be whether the catch of would not provide a balanced approach provide some flexibility in the IBQ bluefin by the Longline category to achieving the Amendment 7 system, particularly in the short-term, to exceeds the Longline category quota. objectives or be consistent with the ensure that vessels, and especially small Amendment 7 management measures provisions of the MSA. Amendment 7 vessels, are able to adapt to the new are expected to reduce the percentage of management measures provide restrictions and the overall program is bluefin catch that is comprised of incentives for vessels to transition from successful. Commenters urged NMFS to discards (which from 2006 to 2012, pelagic longline gear to greenstick or continue to support the pelagic longline ranged from 61 to 75 percent of the buoy gear, but do not mandate such a swordfish fishery, which is important Longline bluefin catch), and prevent the transition. for multiple reasons. catch of bluefin by pelagic longline The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Response: Implementation of the IBQ vessels from exceeding the Longline authorizes certain federal agencies, system will increase the responsibility category quota. states, and Native American tribes, and accountability of individual vessels, The IBQ Program will not create a collectively known as the Natural and the pelagic longline fishery as a directed fishery for bluefin by the Resource Trustees (trustees), to evaluate whole, for the catch of bluefin tuna. As pelagic longline fleet. Although pelagic the impacts of oil spills on natural explained in detail in the responses to longline vessels will be allocated resources and recreation, and to plan more specific comments below, the IBQ bluefin quota and be able to derive restoration projects to fully offset those system implemented by this final rule is revenue from the sale of legal-sized impacts. In the case of the Deepwater designed to provide a reasonable and bluefin tuna, the quota share of bluefin Horizon oil spill, NOAA is one of the effective means of reducing dead tuna for each vessel is a relatively small nine trustees responsible for jointly discards, increasing accountability, and percentage of the Longline category conducting this process, which is maintaining a viable pelagic longline quota. Based on the size of recent known as a Natural Resource Damage fishery. The management measures are Longline category quotas, individual Assessment (NRDA). Throughout the intended to provide flexibility at the vessels will be allocated the equivalent Deepwater Horizon oil spill NRDA level of the individual vessel, and in the of between 2 and 13 bluefin tuna per process, the trustees have conducted quota system as a whole, so that the year (depending upon the specific quota multiple public comment periods and fishery can operate under the challenges share percentage and whether the dozens of public meetings throughout of a substantially new regulatory bluefin is a Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic the Gulf Coast states intended to gather structure. Furthermore, the fishery must bluefin). Due to the relatively small input on the public’s preferred be able to adapt on a continuing basis bluefin quota allocation per vessel, the approaches to natural resource to the variability of highly migratory requirement to utilize quota to account restoration. The most recent public species, and changing ecological for both dead discards and landings, the comment period related to the conditions. requirement to have a minimum amount Deepwater Horizon oil spill restoration Individual pelagic longline vessels of quota to depart on a fishing trip using planning concluded on February 19, have the flexibility to change their pelagic longline gear, and the cost

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71544 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

associated with leasing additional become a large proportion of their total limited to changes in ICCAT quota, there will be strong economic revenue due to the low amount of recommendations, inseason actions, or disincentives to target bluefin. bluefin quota and the other elements of NMFS’ annual adjustment authority. If a vessel catches an atypically large the IBQ Program. Measures throughout Under this final rule, if an eligible number of bluefin tuna (i.e., a ‘‘disaster the Amendment were specifically permit holder has been awarded IBQ set’’), Amendment 7 measures will implemented to ensure that the pelagic allocation and does not fully utilize that allow the vessel to retain and sell all longline BFT catch remains an IBQ allocation (i.e., account for bluefin legal-sized bluefin, but prohibit the incidental fishery, not a directed caught, or leases the IBQ allocation to vessel from departing on a subsequent fishery. Although the management another eligible participant) during the trip using pelagic longline gear until all measures do not require a portion of the year, and has a balance of quota at the the bluefin has been accounted for by revenue from the sale of bluefin by end of the year, the quota would not leasing additional quota from another Longline category vessels to fund carry forward into the subsequent year permitted vessel owner with quota research, NMFS may utilize bluefin as IBQ in association with a particular allocation. This restriction will create a quota from the Reserve category in permit. However, based on the unused strong economic incentive to avoid support of relevant research. IBQ allocation associated with bluefin tuna in order to not exceed Comment 71: A commenter stated individual vessels, NMFS would individual bluefin quota. Furthermore, that, in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS calculate the total amount of unused if the vessel in such circumstances should limit catch using gear IBQ allocation for the Longline category holds quota share and at the end of the restrictions and the use of alternative as a whole, and carry that quota forward year would otherwise be eligible to gears instead of IBQs. Some commenters (or a portion of that quota) as allowed receive quota share for the subsequent noted that NMFS should separate Gulf under ICCAT into the subsequent fishing year, the quota debt would be of Mexico quota from Atlantic quota. fishing year. U.S. bluefin quota that is settled by deducting quota from the Response: A discussion of alternative allowed to be carried forward from one subsequent year’s quota allocation. The gears is provided in the response to year to the next will be placed in the quota debt would persist from one year Comments 66 and 67. Alternative gears Reserve category and may be reallocated to the next until settled. alone are unlikely to provide the same to any/all domestic quota categories. Under Amendment 7 measures, benefits of the IBQ Program, which will Under Amendment 7, pelagic longline NMFS may also consider transferring limit total catch and provide vessel operators will be able to land and quota from the Reserve category to the accountability at the level of individual sell any legal-sized retained bluefin, in Longline category, to make quota vessels. The IBQ management measures order to maintain full accountability, available for the fishery as a whole. include a provision that designates retain flexibility to accommodate With the exception of quota in support quota share as either Gulf of Mexico or variable bluefin catches, and to provide of research (e.g., an Exempted Fishing Atlantic, and prohibits the use of incentives to retain rather than discard Permit), NMFS may allocate additional Atlantic quota in the Gulf of Mexico to fish. Although a vessel operator may quota to the Longline category as a prevent potential increases in the land and sell bluefin in excess of their whole via a disbursement of quota to relative amount of bluefin caught in the quota, they may not depart on a eligible vessels via the IBQ Program for Gulf of Mexico. subsequent trip using pelagic longline the purpose of accounting for bluefin Comment 72: Several commenters had gear until the fish have been fully catch. Under Amendment 7, NMFS’ concerns or made suggestions regarding accounted for with quota allocation. The review of the IBQ Program after 3 years some of the specific aspects of the revenue derived from the sale of the of operation will include anevaluation design of the IBQ Program that are not bluefin will facilitate the ability of a of the question of whether the IBQ among the principal design elements. vessel owner to lease additional quota. system adequately addresses large catch These comments were as follows: NMFS If, at the end of the year, they have not events. should implement strict enforcement paid the ‘quota debt’ with additional Comment 70: Some commenters had and fines associated with the IBQ quota (obtained through leasing), the concerns about the legality of the IBQ system; the annual distribution of quota balance of quota owed will be ‘paid’ for Program and argued that NMFS should should take place in time for the January from the subsequent year’s allocation or consider the legality of ‘‘diminishing a 1 start of the fishing year; NMFS should the vessel will be prohibited from vessel’s opportunity to catch its quota.’’ not allow quota to carryforward from fishing with pelagic longline gear. The Commenters stated that NMFS should year to year; NMFS should not allow vessel owner is fully accountable. not give a public resource to individuals vessels to land and sell bluefin without In contrast, a system in which a vessel for their financial benefit, and that the sufficient quota; money from the sale of operator must place the revenue from pelagic longline fishery should not bluefin should be put in escrow until the sale of a bluefin in escrow until they profit from bluefin, but proceeds should quota is purchased to account for all account for the fish with quota (as be used for other programs and research. catch, and; NMFS should not suggested by a commenter) is a more Response: Allocation of fishery implement the IBQ system because it is complex system that would provide a resources to individual entities under a too complex. stronger incentive to discard bluefin, catch share program is legal under the Response: Enforcement is an impose additional administrative Magnuson-Stevens Act. The IBQ important aspect of ensuring the burdens, and would not provide the Program includes an allocated privilege effectiveness of any regulatory program. flexibility a vessel operator may need. If of catching a specified portion of the New management tools such as the while still at sea the vessel operator total annual bluefin quota in the form of preferred electronic monitoring will catches more bluefin than they have quota shares. IBQ shares are not augment NMFS’ ability to effectively quota,, there would be more incentive to property, but are a privilege to an enforce the regulations. discard the fish because the vessel amount of fish in a given year that can On an annual basis, IBQ allocation owner would face the uncertainty of be renewed or revoked. Although will be distributed to eligible permit whether they would be able to lease pelagic longline vessel owners/operators holders in time for vessels to begin quota (and at what price) and the may derive revenue from the sale of fishing on January 1. Adjustments to the operator would be uncertain whether or bluefin, bluefin is not expected to IBQ allocations may occur, but are not not any revenue could be derived from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71545

the sale of the bluefin. If the revenue may be used to ensure that targeting other alternatives analyzed (Regional or were to be placed in escrow, the vessel fishing is not occurring. NMFs reminds Group Quota Controls). NMFS operator may have insufficient revenue the regulated community that the considered and analyzed multiple to lease additional quota allocation, and international separate allocation is only alternatives for all elements of the IBQ therefore the system itself would be an for bycatch in the NED, and there are Program in the DEIS and FEIS, and will impediment to the operation of a leasing domestic prohibitions against targeting fully evaluate the IBQ Program after market. Additionally, there would be bluefin tuna using pelagic longline gear. three years of operation. questions associated with an escrow NMFS will re-visit this issue if Comment 75: The Louisiana requirement such as: If the vessel necessary if subsequent years’ data Department of Natural Resources operator is unable to lease additional indicate that additional controls are (Louisiana DNR) commented that quota, and forfeited the revenue, would needed. Amendment 7 will have large negative the vessel still be responsible for Comment 74: Several commenters socio-economic impacts on the Gulf of accounting for the bluefin, (i.e., would made suggestions that the IBQ Program Mexico pelagic longline fishery. the ‘quota debt’ remain with the vessel be split apart from the other major Louisiana DNR asserts the greatest into the following year), even though elements of Amendment 7 and negative impact will occur in Louisiana, the vessel owner never obtained any implemented sequentially through with minimal benefits to the bluefin revenue from the fish? separate regulatory actions stock, and attributed the economic Although the IBQ Program will result (amendments). One commenter impacts mostly to the IBQ Program, in a more complex management system requested that the first amendment which it feels is inconsistent with the than currently exists, NMFS has focus on the Longline category Louisiana Coastal Resources Program. minimized complexity in the design of management measures (individual Louisiana DNR noted that the potential the preferred management measures bluefin quotas and gear restricted areas), benefits to the stock of bluefin tuna are (including the IBQ Program), and has and that any quota reallocation among minimal compared to the potentially noted examples in the Response to quota categories or enhanced reporting large socio-economic impact to the Comments. While this is first catch for non-Longline categories only be targeted fisheries, and NMFS’ share program for Atlantic HMS considered after additional information consistency determination lacks fisheries, the elements and approach of is obtained from the pelagic longline sufficient data and information. the Amendment 7 IBQ Program are fishery operating under the IBQ system. Response: NMFS has concluded that similar to that of the many successful The North Carolina Department of Amendment 7 is fully consistent with catch share programs currently in Natural Resources suggested that the the enforceable policies of the operation in the United States. NMFS GRAs and allocation measures should management program, though the State will educate the public regarding the be implemented first, followed by the of Louisiana objects. The FEIS analysis program, and provide the public with IBQs, and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery demonstrates that NMFS utilized many ongoing access to the information to Management Council suggested that the of the factors cited by Louisiana DNR as facilitate the smooth operation of the IBQs should follow in a separate action lacking in NMFS’ evaluation. NMFS preferred IBQ Program and enhance (with additional analyses and also explored the availability of transparency. alternatives). alternative methods of achieving the Comment 73: Commenters noted that Response: This final rule implements Amendment 7 objectives, and NMFS did not provide adequate details a wide range of regulatory measures considered the economic impacts, as in the proposed rule regarding the through a single action, because well as the long term benefits of the relationship of the Northeast Distant comprehensive modifications to many measures. The alternative methods to Area (NED) to the IBQ Program and aspects of the bluefin tuna fisheries are reduce dead discards of no action or suggested that the current bluefin needed, and the management measures group or regional quotas would have possession limit be maintained in the are highly inter-related. Amendment 7 more adverse impacts and be less NED, but when the limit is reached, the utilizes a holistic approach to address effective in achieving Amendment 7 vessel should fish under their IBQ. the complex problems effectively, and objectives to reduce dead discards and Response: Under current ICCAT minimizes potential negative economic maximize fishing opportunity. The recommendations, the NED is a impacts. For example, to first focus on design of the IBQ management measures distinctly managed geographic area management of the Longline category in and other aspects of Amendment 7 managed under a separate quota than isolation and delay consideration of minimize the significant adverse the rest of the fishery. Therefore, the other measures such as reallocation and economic impacts, disruption of social quota associated with the NED (25 mt) enhanced reporting for non-Longline patterns, and adverse cumulative will not be part of the Amendment 7 category vessels would ignore the impacts, to the extent practicable, quota allocation measures, or managed current differences in reporting relative to other methods analyzed under the IBQ Program. However, there requirements among quota categories, while also meeting Amendment 7 are provisions of the IBQ Program that continue a high level of uncertainty in objectives. For detailed information on will apply to vessels fishing with the quota system, and would fail to NMFS’ response, see the Classification pelagic longline gear in the NED. For minimize adverse economic impacts for section. example, vessels will be required to the Longline category. have the minimum IBQ allocation to Accountability for bluefin catch by 14. IBQ Eligibility operate in the NED starting in 2016 and, the Longline category is a high priority, Comment 76: Commenters suggested when NED bluefin quota has been and the IBQ Program provides such modifications to the proposed method exhausted, permitted vessels must abide accountability. It ensures that the of defining which vessels are eligible to by all the requirements of the IBQ fishery operates within the allowable receive quota share (i.e., ‘‘active’’ Program. Electronic monitoring systems, quota established by ICCAT consistent vessels, defined as those vessels that installed by June 1, 2015, will be with the rebuilding program, and made at least one set using pelagic required to fish with pelagic longline minimizes bycatch to the extent longline gear between 2006 and 2011, gear including in the NED, and data practicable, in a manner that will have based on logbook data). Some stated that from the electronic monitoring system less adverse economic impacts than the the criteria is too restrictive, and that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71546 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

the criteria should instead be any vessel Because the intent of the program is person may purchase a permitted vessel with a valid permit, while others to specify a pool of eligible vessels that without IBQ shares, but lease quota believed the criteria is too lenient and excludes inactive vessels, the IBQ allocation from another permitted results in an excessive number of Program utilizes the secondary criteria vessel. Under the IBQ Program, as in the vessels eligible to receive quota share. that the vessel must have had a valid past, participation in the pelagic Some commenters suggested specific permit as of August 21, 2013. Therefore, longline fishery by new entrants will alternative criteria such as 50 sets a vessel is required to meet the require substantial capital investment within the previous 3 years. definition of ‘‘active,’’ and also to have and potential new entrants will face Response: The definition of a set of been issued a valid Longline category costs which are similar to historical vessels that are eligible to receive permit as of August 21, 2013 (the date participants. However, the structure of bluefin quota share is a very important of publication of the Amendment 7 the IBQ Program does not create any aspect of the design of the IBQ Program proposed rule). This second criterion unreasonable barriers to new entry. because the definition sets the boundary addresses the situation in which a NMFS considered the merits of setting of which entities are eligible for the vessel met the criteria of having made aside a specified amount of quota for privilege of being granted quota shares, at least one pelagic longline set during new entrants, but found several negative and the number of eligible entities has the years from 2006 through 2012, but, aspects of such a provision. For a large influence on the amount of quota subsequent to the time of the qualifying example, providing quota to new share each entity will receive. Regarding set(s), became inactive, as evidenced by entrants would essentially create a the comment that the criteria should be a lapsed (non-renewed) Longline second quota allocation system, which any vessel with a valid permit, the category permit (which must be would complicate the overall preferred bluefin quota allocation method renewed on an annual basis), or as IBQ Program by creating a separate class implemented by Amendment 7 is evidenced by a vessel that has been of vessels with different allocations. A intended to limit the catch of, and removed from association with a quota set aside for new entrants would provide accountability and incentives particular vessel. result in less quota available for other for pelagic longline vessels that are Comment 77: Commenters were participants in the fishery, and rather fishing and interacting with, bluefin concerned about the ability of new than the market controlling the quota, tuna, and therefore only vessels that are entrants to become active in the fishery, there would be many policy decision to likely to go fishing should be eligible for and some suggested that NMFS use an be made (e.g., would the amount of set quota share. Additionally, if vessels that annual system to define eligible vessels, aside vary according to the number of have a Longline category permit that do such as a minimum number of sets new entrants, or be a fixed amount not typically fish were eligible to during the previous year. A commenter annually? Would the quota be divided receive quota share, they could utilize noted that businesses which supply new equally among new entrants, be the quota solely for economic gain by equipment to outfit pelagic longline allocated in the minimum share leasing the quota or influencing the vessels would be negatively impacted if amounts, or allocated based on fishing leasing market. Further, the set of new entrants are not able to enter the history). NMFS believes in simplifying eligible vessels would be substantially fishery. the IBQ Program upon implementation larger (and each eligible vessel would Response: The ability for people who where possible, in order to minimize receive substantially smaller proportion are currently not involved in the pelagic regulatory burden and complexity. A of the Longline category quota), and longline fishery to become participants system of rules regarding quota set aside result in such small IBQ allocations that in the fishery (new entrants) is an would add additional complications to the IBQ Program would not function important consideration, which is a the IBQ Program. Therefore, NMFS well. Relatively small quota shares make required consideration under Section determined that given the lack of it likely that most vessels will have 303A(c)(5)(C) of the MSA. The information with which to base such insufficient IBQ allocation and be Amendment 7 IBQ Program will add a restrictions, and the uncertainty dependent upon leased quota to account single additional prerequisite for whether there would be a pressing need for bluefin caught. participation in the pelagic longline for such restrictions, that additional Regarding the comment that the fishery to the previously existing two restrictions or a quota set aside are not definition of ‘‘active,’’ which did not prerequisites and associated monitoring warranted. During the three year review include 2012 data, was too restrictive, and compliance requirements (e.g., of the IBQ Program NMFS will consider the initial allocation implemented by VMS). Prior to this Amendment, the two information from the fishery after this final rule reflects a definition of principal elements for participation in implementation of the IBQ Program, and active that based upon the years 2006 the fishery were a vessel and limited evaluate whether the IBQ Program through 2012, instead of through 2011. access permit. The IBQ Program provides adequate opportunities to new Regarding the comment that the implements a requirement for a vessel to entrants. See FEIS at pages 70–71 for proposed definition of ‘‘active’’ is too have the minimum amount of bluefin additional analyses. lenient, the objectives of the preferred quota allocation in order to fish with As suggested by commenters, NMFS IBQ Program do not support further pelagic longline gear, as well as considered the concept of making an restricting the scope of eligible vessel to electronic monitoring requirements annual determination of which vessels an arbitrary number of sets, and associated with the IBQ Program. are eligible to receive quota allocations excluding vessels with a low level of The Amendment 7 IBQ Program based on a set of criteria (such as a fishing activity. Even vessels with low provides adequate opportunities for new certain number of longline sets during levels of fishing activity may need entrants to the fishery, because there are the previous year). NMFS found that bluefin quota shares to account for multiple means by which a new entrant there are negative aspects of such an bluefin catch. Instead, the objectives of may satisfy the quota requirement. A annual system. If the vessels allocated the IBQ Program will be achieved using person interested in participating in the quota shares vary on an annual basis, more flexible management tools, fishery may purchase a permitted vessel the IBQ Program would be more including incentives for vessels for with IBQ shares, and therefore be complex and difficult to administer; avoid bluefin tuna and to fish with allocated quota annually (due to the IBQ there would be greater uncertainty alternative gears. share associated with the permit), or a annually in the fishery; there would be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71547

incentives to fish on an annual basis participation, and other factors as well and some estimated that a large vessel (due to criteria to fish in order to receive as public comment, ensures fair and would need about 20 bluefin to account quota); and any value associated with a equitable initial allocations. for the number of bluefin they catch, permit that would be derived from the Comment 80: Commenters stated that rather than the 2 to 13 fish they believe associated IBQ share may be minimized NMFS should associate IBQ with a would be allocated under the IBQ if the IBQ share is only valid for a year. permit and not a vessel. system. Some highlighted the difference Although such a system could limit the Response: As explained in the FEIS, between the proposed IBQ allocations number of years a vessel without quota the use of historical data to evaluate and the number of bluefin tuna that may share (i.e., a new entrant) must lease whether a vessel meets certain criteria be retained by a vessel with a General quota, the negative aspects of this as part of the implementation of a category commercial permit (up to 5 approach would be substantial. For limited access or catch share program bluefin a trip), as justification for having example, in order to have an IBQ system (or a performance criteria) can be larger individual quota allocations. that includes strong accountability, any complex due to historical transfers of a Response: Under the Amendment 7 quota ‘debt’ accrued must persist from limited access permit from one vessel to IBQ Program, some vessels may not one fishing year to the next. It would be another, or changes in vessel owners. have enough quota share to continue to difficult to implement persistent Over time, a single permit may be account for the same amount of bluefin accountability if the vessels eligible for issued to multiple vessels, or a single they caught in the past. The FEIS quota change on an annual basis. vessel may have multiple owners. The analysis indicates that at a quota level Comment 78: A commenter suggested IBQ Program as finalized uses the of 137 mt, approximately 25 percent of that NMFS should address latent historical ‘platform’ upon which to base vessels would need to lease additional permits by eliminating the ability to the quota share as the vessel history bluefin quota in order to land their reactivate such permits. instead of the permit history for the historical average amount of target Response: Neither Amendment 7 following reasons: (1) Vessel history species (if they do not change their overall, nor the IBQ Program objectives reflects current and historical behavior to reduce their historical rate include the reduction of latent effort. participation in the fishery; (2) the of bluefin interactions). If no leasing of The likelihood of a meaningful increase regulations regarding the transfer of IBQ allocation were to occur, there in fishing effort is low because the Atlantic Tunas Longline category could be a reduction in target species number of vessels fishing has been fairly permits do not address fishing history landings with an associated reduction in constant, and as stated in the response (i.e., do not specify, when an Atlantic revenue of approximately $7,574,590 to comment number 77, although there Tunas Longline category permit is total, or $56,108 per vessel (135 vessels). are avenues for new entrants to the transferred from one vessel to another, fishery, participation in the pelagic whether the fishing history also The precise impacts of the IBQ longline fishery by new entrants would transfers; and (3) the structure of the Program are difficult to predict due to require substantial capital investment. databases in which the logbook data the variability of bluefin distribution as Although the number of Atlantic Tunas reside uses the vessel as a key well as the potential range of fishing Longline category permits has averaged organizing feature, and therefore the behaviors (and business strategies) of approximately 239 vessels (2006— compilation of data associated with a vessels in response to the new 2012), under Amendment 7 as finalized, particular vessel is simpler and less regulations. In order to reduce the only 135 vessels are eligible for initial prone to error (it is more complex to likelihood of interactions, vessel bluefin quota shares. Furthermore, the compile data based on an individual operators may have to pursue new risk associated with an increase in permit history). strategies including communication fishing effort (for either bluefin or the Although, as noted above, the basis with other pelagic longline operators target stock of swordfish) is low, given for the quota shares is the fishing regarding the known locations of the fact that Amendment 7 implements history associated with a vessel, the IBQ bluefin, modifications to fishing time, strict bluefin catch limits, one of the Program associates the share with a location, and technique, as well as use principal target stocks (swordfish) is permit. In other words, for the purpose of alternative gears. In conjunction with rebuilt and another target stock of vessel, permit, and quota these strategies, leasing additional quota (yellowfin tuna) is not overfished and transactions, quota shares under the IBQ may be necessary. The IBQ eligibility overfishing is not occurring, and there Program will be associated with the criteria include the requirement that the has been unharvested swordfish quota Atlantic Tunas Longline category relevant vessel have a permit as of on a regular basis. permit, even though the initial August 21, 2013, which limits the Comment 79: A commenter suggested eligibility for the quota share was number of eligible vessels, and therefore that NMFS use criteria such as determined on the basis of a particular slightly increases the amount of quota dependence upon commercial fishing vessel history. share per vessel. Due to the difficulty of for determining which vessels are Comment 81: Many pelagic longline predicting the precise impacts of the eligible to receive quota shares. vessel owners expressed strong IBQ Program, NMFS may, as the fishery Response: NMFS generally considered concerns that the amount of bluefin adjusts to the new system, need to dependence upon commercial fishing in quota allocated to individual vessels consider providing additional quota to establishing its approach for initial would be inadequate to continue to fish, the Longline category as a whole in allocations. The amount of target and that despite efforts to avoid bluefin, order to increase the amount of quota species caught is a factor in the vessels would sooner or later encounter available to eligible vessels via the IBQ allocation formula. However, NMFS bluefin. The proposed allocations would Program, thereby balancing the need to cannot at this time quantify fishery make continuing fishing operations have an operational fishery with the dependence in a uniform manner due to extremely difficult, because they would need to reduce bluefin bycatch in the many issues relating to data availability be forced to stop fishing, and therefore fishery. The Amendment 7 IBQ Program and confidentiality. NMFS believes that revenue would be cut off, but expenses includes a three-year formal review of the final rule, which takes into would continue. Vessel owners stated the IBQ system, at which time NMFS consideration best available information that they would not be able to remain will consider whether any structural on current and historical harvests, in business under such circumstances, changes to the program are necessary.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71548 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

The pelagic longline fishery is an for every set. It is important to note that provide higher quota allocations for incidental bluefin fishery unlike the the relative number of bluefin some vessels than under the proposed directed General category handgear interactions is only one component of method. Additionally, a commenter fishery, and retention limits and other the IBQ allocation formula, which also noted that it may not be necessary to management measures are different. considers the amount of target catch, consider the amount of target catch in This final rule implements a regulatory resulting in a higher score (and the quota share formula (and provide system that would mitigate the effects of contributing to more allocation) for more quota to vessels catching more the different restrictions among the vessels with larger amounts of target target catch) because larger fishing different permit categories. catch (‘‘designated species catch’’). operations are better equipped Comment 82: Some commenters did Amendment 7 includes a requirement financially to adapt to new regulations. not want the bluefin quota share for pelagic longline vessels to have Another commenter supported basing formula to include a criterion that relies operational electronic monitoring the allocation on target species landings upon logbook data on bluefin catch, due systems, which will enhance the and fishing effort, because higher effort to the concern that such data may be accuracy of vessel-reported information. is likely to result in more bluefin catch. inaccurate. The quota share formula that Regarding the comment that it is Response: NMFS carefully considered was proposed includes a metric that unfair to use past interactions with allocating quota shares on an equal results in a higher score (and bluefin as part of the allocation formula basis, but decided to implement the contributing in the formula to a higher because in the past it was lawful to method as proposed, which allocation) for vessels that had fewer interact with bluefin tuna, pelagic incorporates two metrics of equal interactions with bluefin (relative to the longline regulations were designed to weight: Designated species landings and ‘‘designated species,’’ i.e., target catch). limit or reduce retention of bluefin tuna the ratio of bluefin to designated species The commenters’ specific concern was (e.g., target catch requirements, weak landings. While an equal share formula that if some vessels under-reported the hook requirements). Therefore, it is has some positive attributes, the overall amount of bluefin they caught in their appropriate that the IBQ Program accrue merits of the method being logbook, such vessels may receive a some benefit in the form of IBQ implemented are greater. It is important higher score (and larger allocation) than allocation for vessels who may have to take into consideration the diversity vessels that had accurately reported fished in a manner that reduced of the pelagic longline fleet, maximize higher numbers of bluefin catch. In interactions with, or avoided bluefin the potential for the success of the IBQ other words, accurate reporters would tuna, consistent with the regulations. Program, and provide incentives for be penalized relative to inaccurate NMFS acknowledges that past vessels to avoid bluefin tuna. reporters. Commenters noted that it is performance may not be an indicator of NMFS analyzed the pelagic longline unfair to emphasize past bluefin catch future performance. One of the logbook data on target catch and bluefin in the quota allocation formula because objectives of the bluefin IBQ Program is interactions, and for most vessels, there in the past interactions with bluefin to provide incentives for future fishing is positive correlation between the tuna were legal. Another commenter behavior that will result in reduced amount of target catch, and the number noted that past performance may not be rates of interactions between pelagic of bluefin tuna interactions. In other a predictor of future performance. longline gear and bluefin. The principal words, for most vessels, the more Response: NMFS recognizes that some incentive of the IBQ Program results swordfish, yellowfin tuna, or other vessel operators may have under- from the fact that vessels are required to target species a vessel catches, the more reported the amount of bluefin tuna account for all bluefin tuna dead bluefin tuna it interacts with. However, caught in their logbooks. NMFS discards and landings (with IBQ a few vessels (those responsible for the conducted an analysis that compared allocation), and the prohibition of the largest number of interactions) interact logbook data to observer data to get an use of pelagic longline gear if a vessel with large numbers of bluefin, out of indication of how vessel reported does not have any (or sufficient) IBQ proportion with the amount of their logbook data compares with observer allocation. The future fishing behaviors target catch. Considering this historic data, because observer data can serve as may include avoiding or minimizing pattern, basing one of the allocation a useful validation tool. Compared to setting pelagic longline gear in areas or formula elements on the amount of the observer data, the logbook data during time periods where there are designated species landings would showed both over-reporting and under- known interactions with bluefin tuna; increase the likelihood that vessels reporting of bluefin tuna, with the increasing communication with other would be allocated quota in relation to average amount of under-reporting of vessels fishing with pelagic longline the amount of quota they may need to bluefin discards of 28 percent at the gear; incorporating the use of alternative account for their catch of bluefin. aggregate level for all vessels. Individual gears into a vessel’s fishing strategy and The second of the two elements (the vessel data varied substantially from business plan; ‘test sets’ to determine ratio of bluefin interactions to being more than 90 percent accurate whether bluefin are present in an area; designated species landings) is useful with observer data for that trip to more and pelagic longline gear modifications. because it takes into consideration the than 75 percent inaccurate compared to In determining how to allocate bluefin fact that relatively few vessels (i.e., observer data for that trip. These data quota, NMFS considered historical about fifteen percent of the vessels) are indicate a wide range in reporting catches of both target species and responsible for about 80 percent of the accuracy at a vessel level. For additional bluefin tuna to consider both past interactions with bluefin tuna. Because information, see the Appendix in the performance and potential future needs. this element of the allocation formula FEIS (section 11.5). Comment 83: Some commenters results in a lower allocation for vessels Notwithstanding potential under- urged NMFS to allocate equal shares of with a higher rate of historic reporting by some vessels, logbook data bluefin quota to all eligible vessels, for interactions, it provides a strong are the most complete source of multiple reasons. Equal shares would incentive for such vessels to make available data regarding vessel level avoid the use of historical logbook data; changes in their fishing practices to interactions with bluefin tuna because would reduce potential negative feelings reduce their number of bluefin 100 percent of pelagic longline vessels among permit holders with different interactions. Vessels with historically are required to submit logbook reports amounts of allocation; and would high catches of target species and a low

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71549

rate of interactions with bluefin receive the flexibility vessels may need to and price of quota that may be leased. a larger quota share than vessels with account for bluefin if they have A well-functioning leasing market, either higher rates of bluefin insufficient quota, or obtain additional which enables quota to be leased by interactions or lower amounts of target revenue if they are able to avoid bluefin those who need it will be a key factor species. and have quota they do not need. Only in whether the preferred IBQ Program Comment 84: Some commenters were vessels that meet the eligibility criteria functions as intended. concerned that either hurricanes, the will be allocated quota shares; however, Comment 88: Some commenters did 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, or any vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas not support allowing pelagic longline specific regulations (such as a closed Longline category permit may lease vessels to lease quota from Purse Seine area) may have lowered the amount of quota. Allowing quota to be leased to vessels. A commenter was concerned catch a vessel had (during the 2006 any permitted vessel enables vessels that the leasing program may through 2012 time period on which the that are not allocated quota to become disadvantage the Purse Seine vessels, IBQ share is based), and the resultant active in the fishery (i.e., new entrants), and a commenter was concerned that influence on the vessel’s bluefin quota but would not provide a lasting Purse Seine businesses could share. opportunity because leased quota would consolidate or control quota. A Response: There are many factors that expire at the end of a year (and may not commenter suggested that NMFS should may determine the amount of a be carried over to the following year by set aside quota and lease it to pelagic particular vessel’s catch, including an individual vessel). No sale of quota longline vessels rather than allowing regulatory and environmental factors shares (in contrast to leasing of quota Purse Seine vessels to lease, and a and factors unique to the vessel. As allocation) is allowed upon the commenter thought that the Purse Seine noted in the response to comment # 40 implementation of Amendment 7. These category should be allowed to lease to the Amendment 7 quota share formula quota restrictions provide a balanced all other permit categories. is based upon a seven-year time period approach to the types of transactions Response: Leasing quota must be (2006 through 2012), which is long allowed, in order to provide flexibility confined to permit categories that are enough to reduce the influence of one- to account for bluefin caught and enable limited access due to the different time events or short term environmental participation of new entrants, but limit characteristics of limited access and or regulatory conditions. Additionally, the potential for permanent shifts in open access fisheries, and the the quota share formula implemented by ownership of quota shares and complexities of a leasing program. this final rule includes an additional speculative activity by entities not Therefore, Amendment 7 limits quota year of data (2012), a longer duration active in the fishery. NMFS will leasing to the Longline and Purse Seine than originally proposed. conduct a full review of the IBQ permit categories. The provision for Comment 85: Commenters suggested Program after three years of operation, Longline category vessels to lease quota other methods for allocating quota and may at that time consider allowing from Purse Seine category participants shares such as auctioning the quota, and the permanent sale of quota shares or provides an additional opportunity for basing quota shares in relation to the other modifications to the leasing pelagic longline vessels to lease quota number of hooks, or the number of program as warranted. that may not otherwise be present, and longline sets in the previous year. NMFS acknowledges that a will increase the chances that there will Response: NMFS considered an functioning infrastructure is required to be a well-functioning leasing market. As auction system, but decided that it support a quota leasing system, and is previously stated, a well-functioning would not result in distribution of implementing the system necessary to leasing market, which enables quota to limited access privilege shares in a way enable the leasing of IBQ shares and be leased by those who need it at an that met IBQ program objectives. Among accounting of bluefin quota shares and affordable price, will be a key factor in other things, NMS wants to facilitate allocations. whether the preferred IBQ Program continued participation in the fishery by Comment 87: Commenters expressed functions as intended. vessels that have made past investments concern about whether vessel owners With regard to the concern over Purse in the fishery. An auction may not would be willing to lease quota to other Seine control of quota, as noted in the reflect recent or historical participation vessels, given the low amounts of quota Response to Comment 87, NMFS in the fishery and could increase allocated to vessels, and concern that anticipates that only 25 percent of uncertainty in fishery participation. the cost of leasing would be affordable, vessels would need to lease additional especially for owners of small vessels. quota, and this final rule allows such 15. IBQ Leasing Other commenters did not support leasing from either the Longline or Comment 86: Some commenters leasing because access to additional Purse Seine category. Further, the supported the provision that would quota could enable vessels to target Annual Reallocation measure allow pelagic longline vessels to lease bluefin. implemented by this final rule will have quota allocation to and from one Response: The analysis of the the effect of reducing the amount of another, but prohibit permanent sale of preferred IBQ Program in the FEIS quota that is available to the Purse Seine quota shares. A commenter said that indicates that at a quota of 137 mt, 25 category if such participants do not NMFS should only allow leasing to percent of vessels would need to lease catch the majority of their quota during active vessels with intent to fish, and a additional quota in order to land their the previous year. The net effect of the commenter suggested that NMFS should historical average amount of designated Annual Reallocation measure on the ensure that a fully functioning quota species (if they do not change their IBQ leasing program should be to trading infrastructure is in place before behavior to reduce their historical rate reduce the amount of quota available for implementing the IBQ system. of bluefin interactions). Therefore, a leasing to the Longline category, or Response: Quota leasing is an majority of vessels may have quota in leaving less quota available to the Purse essential component of the IBQ Program excess of what is needed to account for Seine category with which to because the amount of quota share a their bluefin catch, and may have consolidate or otherwise influence the vessel has many not be aligned with the incentive to lease quota to other vessels. leasing market (by holding rather than amount of quota they need, based on Notwithstanding the analysis, there is leasing quota). However, the IBQ leasing bluefin catch. Quota leasing provides uncertainty regarding both the amount measure will not disadvantage Purse

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71550 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Seine participants due to its interaction measuring 27 to less than 47 inches, to documented levels of bluefin catch, with the Annual Reallocation measure. 10 percent of the total U.S. quota. NMFS may close the fishery to prevent The amount of quota allocated to the Reduction in minimum size to 47 or overharvest of the Longline category Purse Seine category participants will 59 inches for commercial categories was quota, or prevent further discarding of depend upon the level of bluefin an alternative that was considered, but bluefin. landings and dead discards during the not further analyzed in the FEIS. As As described in many of the responses previous year, but will not take into new information from the fishery to comments, NMFS designed consideration whether or not unused becomes available in the future, or if Amendment 7 management measures Purse Seine quota (that is not used to new scientific information or ICCAT not only to reduce dead discards and account for catch) is leased. recommendations warrant, NMFS may ensure accountability, but also to Regarding the comment that NMFS consider modifications to the bluefin provide flexibility for pelagic longline should be directly involved in the quota size restrictions in the future. vessels fishing under the IBQ Program leasing market, NMFS did not analyze Comment 90: A commenter stated that restrictions, and flexibility in the quota an alternative that would give a central NMFS should not require retention of system as a whole, to balance the needs role in the leasing market to NMFS. bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico because of the pelagic longline fishery with the Although NMFS could indirectly the bluefin are too big to bring on board. needs of the other quota categories. influence the quota leasing market Response: Most vessels that fish with 18. VMS Requirements through quota adjustments, direct pelagic longline gear target large pelagic involvement in the quota leasing system species and are capable of boarding very Comment 92: NMFS received would create many administrative large fish. Approximately 82 percent of comments on proposed VMS concerns and is not preferred at this the vessels participating in the pelagic requirements for the Purse Seine and time. For example, if NMFS were a longline fishery are greater than 40 feet Longline categories (preferred broker of IBQ leases, the leasing market in length overall and either can already Alternative D1b), expressing both would be more complicated, might handle large fish, or should be able to support and opposition. Several function more slowly, and would add modify their equipment to be able to commenters were concerned about the additional burden and costs to NMFS’ handle large fish. functionality of certain VMS models, particularly those used in the mid- support and oversight of the IBQ 17. Closure of the Pelagic Longline system. Atlantic. Fishery Response: NMFS recently published a 16. Measures Associated With the IBQ Comment 91: Comments on NMFS’ proposed rule regarding type-approval Program authority to close the pelagic longline of VMS units to ensure vendors and Comment 89: Commenters supported fishery ranged from those who support associated mobile communications elimination of the target catch closing the fishery in conjunction with providers are meeting fishing industry requirements and mandatory retention a Longline category quota allocation of needs (79 FR 53386; September 9, 2014). of legal-sized bluefin that are dead at 8.1 percent, to those who said that the Specifically, the rule proposed NMFS haul-back. Some commenters suggested fishery should be closed only if there is procedures for EMTU/MTU and MCS that NMFS require retention of all dead unusually high catch of bluefin (and not type approval, type-approval renewal, bluefin regardless of size in order to when the quota is reached). and revocation; revision of latency address the problem of undersized Commenters noted the potential impacts standards; and methods to ensure juvenile bluefin discards. of closures early in the year on the compliance with type approval Response: Under Amendment 7 pelagic longline fishery, supporting standards. By codifying requirements measures the target catch requirement (a business, consumers of the fish and processes, NMFS will be better able strict bluefin retention limit based on products, and future ICCAT to ensure vendor compliance with the the amount of target catch retained) will recommendations. VMS type-approval requirements. no longer be needed to restrict bluefin Response: A closure of the pelagic retention because catch will be limited longline fishery may have adverse direct 19. Electronic Monitoring Requirements by the IBQ Program restrictions. Dead and secondary economic impacts, the Comment 93: NMFS received discards are an important consideration severity of which would depend upon comments that supported electronic with respect to the evaluation of how early in the year the closure monitoring (i.e., video camera and gear minimum size restrictions, but are not occurred. Under the IBQ Program sensors), while other comments either the only consideration. The current implemented by this final rule, in which expressed concern or opposed it. bluefin size restriction for pelagic individual vessels may not fish with Comments supporting electronic longline vessels reflects ICCAT pelagic longline gear unless they have monitoring indicated that it is not cost recommendations, as well as quota, it is not likely that NMFS will be prohibitive, that it would allow NMFS consideration of other factors, including required to close the fishery as a whole. to ground-truth other data, and that it dead discards. In general, size However, individual vessels will be supports accountability and restrictions have been instituted to prohibited from fishing if they have not enforcement. Those opposed to protect the overall health and breeding accounted for their catch or do not have electronic monitoring said that it is cost viability of the species, as well as to the required minimum amount of quota prohibitive, an invasion of privacy, and distribute fishing opportunities among allocation to depart on a pelagic is redundant with existing information. both recreational and commercial longline trip. Some comments expressed concern fishermen, year-round. If, based on the best available data, about the functionality of a system, Retention of all bluefin, regardless of NMFS estimates that the total amount of considering the issues experienced with size, would conflict with ICCAT dead discards and landings are some VMS functionality, and the ability recommendations in effect. The current projected to reach, have reached, or to identify the difference between ICCAT recommendation prohibits the exceed the Longline category quota, bigeye and bluefin tuna using video harvest of Western bluefin measuring NMFS may prohibit fishing with pelagic cameras. Implementation using a pilot less than 115 cm (the equivalent of 27 longline gear. Similarly, if there is high scale was suggested, which would allow inches). It also limits the amount of BFT uncertainty regarding the estimated or time to set up a functioning

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71551

infrastructure. Expansion of electronic more detailed equipment and system methodology including the data to be monitoring to other categories with dead requirements provided in the final rule. collected and techniques for discards was also suggested. As set out in the proposed rule, vessel verification. Response: Amendment 7 establishes owners would have been responsible for Response: Amendment 7 implements requirements to monitor dead discards the costs of the equipment and for mandatory dead discard reporting for for all commercial user categories to installation for the electronic General, Harpoon, and Charter/ better achieve the ICCAT requirement to monitoring systems, which are Headboat category vessels. The account for sources of bluefin tuna estimated to be approximately $19,175 reporting system will be an extension of fishing mortality and to better monitor for purchase and installation per vessel the web-based landings reporting the fishery for bluefin accounting as well as variable costs of system, which must currently be used purposes domestically. This final rule approximately $225 per trip for data by fishermen in the Angling category to implements a requirement for Purse retrieval, fishing activity interpretation, submit mandatory bluefin tuna landings Seine category vessels to report dead and catch data interpretation. These reports. Although catch card systems discards via VMS, and for hand gear costs are lower than the cost of have been shown to provide a more fisheries (General, Harpoon, and increased observer coverage. The accurate accounting for landings in Charter/headboat categories) to report Southeast Fisheries Science Center some geographic areas (i.e., Maryland using an automated catch reporting estimates that observer deployment and North Carolina), they are more system via the internet or phone. As costs approximately $1,075 per sea day, costly to employ and are difficult to implement in regions with a large described above, for all vessels issued which equates to approximately $9,675 number of private docks. Further, catch an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit that per average nine-day pelagic longline cards may not be as effective in fish with pelagic longline gear, vessel trip. Video monitoring is currently used in accounting for discarded fish that are owners (or their representatives) must several fisheries, and NMFS has funded not landed. The data fields NMFS will coordinate with the NMFS-approved over 30 pilot projects to further research collect through a required form include contractor to install and test electronic the use and effectiveness of electronic information such as, the trip start and monitoring equipment, and the monitoring, including research on the end date, trip departure and end time, contractor will then provide accuracy of finfish identification. These port and state of departure and landing, certification that the equipment has studies provide evidence that properly fishing technique, bait type, hook type, been properly installed. Longline deployed and maintained video approximate time hooked, approximate category vessels are required maintain monitoring camera systems can provide fight time, species, fish size, vessel an electronic monitoring system effective data for accurately identifying name, registration number, permit (including video recording and data large pelagic species. NMFS holder’s name, Atlantic HMS permit sensors) that will record all catch and acknowledges that identification of number, type of trip, and tournament relevant data regarding pelagic longline closely related species such as bluefin name (if applicable). gear deployment and retrieval. The and bigeye tuna can be challenging, 21. Expand the Scope of the Large purpose of video monitoring for the particularly with smaller fish. The size Pelagics Survey Longline category is to provide a cost of tunas that are caught on pelagic effective and reliable source of longline vessels tend to be larger due to Comment 95: One commenter information to verify the accuracy of the size of the hooks used in opposed taking no action on the Large bluefin tuna interactions reported via commercial fisheries. To ensure Pelagics Survey (preferred Alternative VMS and logbooks. In many instances, accurate identification of all species, the D6a), stating that a change is needed the FEIS analysis found discrepancies NMFS-approved contractor will place from the status quo. between logbook data and observer data cameras to ensure a clear view of the Response: NMFS analyzed expanding (considered to be highly accurate) gear hauling location. NMFS white the Large Pelagics Survey temporally to reported for the same trip. The papers on electronic monitoring are include the months of May, November, Amendment 7 electronic monitoring available at the following Web address: and December, and geographically to requirement supports accurate catch http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/ include the states south of Virginia, as data and bluefin tuna IBQ management Councils/ccc_2013/K_NMFS_EM_ a means to collect more data about the measures, by providing a means to WhitePapers.pdf. NMFS will take into recreational bluefin tuna fishery, and verify the accuracy of the counts and account the time required for owners to further refine recreational bluefin tuna identification of bluefin reported by the outfit their vessels with newly required landings estimates. Although the vessel operator. In light of public equipment when establishing the expansion of the survey would likely comments expressing concern about timetable for requirement vessels to provide some landings estimates in time ensuring the functionality of electronic have fully operational electronic periods and geographic regions that are monitoring systems and the costs of monitoring systems. currently not covered by the survey, the such systems, this final rule relieves likelihood of the survey intercepting certain purchase and installation 20. Automated Catch Reporting activity in what is considered to be a requirements that were set out in the Comment 94: Several commenters ‘‘rare event’’ fishery at the edges of its proposed rule. Rather than requiring supported electronic catch reporting for geographic and temporal range is low, vessel owners to buy and install the General, Harpoon, and Charter/ and the resultant catch estimates would equipment and make decisions about headboat categories, and one commenter likely be imprecise. NMFS estimated the equipment specifications and suggested that electronic catch reporting economic cost of these data is functionality, this final rule instead be required for all categories. Two approximately $165,000 per year. Thus, requires the vessel owners to obtain commenters questioned the the benefits of the data may not certification from a NMFS-approved effectiveness of this reporting outweigh the cost. The NMFS Office of contractor stating that the contractor has methodology. One suggested that a Science and Technology may consider properly installed and verified the catch card system be used, and another future studies to enhance recreational functionality of the electronic requested additional technical bluefin tuna landings estimates under monitoring system in accordance with information on the reporting the Marine Recreational Information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71552 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Program (https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ and Natural Resources commented that preferred because the potential negative recreational-fisheries/index). NMFS should shift subquota for social and economic impacts outweigh December to the January subquota the positive impacts. The negative 22. Deployment of Observers period. aspects of this alternative include the Comment 96: Several commenters Response: Under the quota potential for gear conflicts and derby supported the expansion of observer regulations, the General category quota fishing, as well as the potential for the coverage for the Longline category, is divided into subquotas for each time historical geographic distribution of the suggesting increases in coverage up to period versus specific geographic areas. fishery to be dramatically altered. 100%. Another commenter suggested Under the measures implemented by Although this alternative would provide implementing industry-funded observer this final rule, NMFS can transfer quota some stability to the fishery by coverage. A commenter thought that from one subquota period to another, establishing a known amount of quota NMFS should use observer data to earlier in the calendar year. For that would be available at the first of monitor Longline category catch limits. example, subquota could be transferred each month, if catch rates are high in Another commenter was concerned that from the December subquota to the the early portion of the month, these observers might not be available to January subquota for that same calendar quotas could be harvested rapidly and cover pelagic longline vessel trips into year. Although NMFS could transfer may lead to derby style fisheries on the closed areas. quota from one subquota period to any first of each month. Additionally, if Response: This Amendment 7 final other subquota period, based on public catch rates are high and subquotas are rule makes no changes to current comment NMFS will prioritize transfer reached quickly, NMFS may need to observer coverage requirements for from the winter fishery that occurs in institute multiple closures notices commercial Atlantic tunas vessels. December to the winter fishery that throughout the year. Catch data collected by observers is occurs in January within a fishing year considered to be highly accurate and (e.g., prioritize transfer of quota from 24. Harpoon Category Retention Limit current levels of observer coverage are December in Year A to January of Year Comment 99: NMFS received a adequate to produce statistically sound A). comment supporting increased estimates of bluefin catches, but the Comment 98: NMFS received a flexibility for the Harpoon category. high cost of observer coverage can be comment that NMFS should consider Response: In 2011, NMFS increased prohibitive (see response to comment the fact that transfers will have the the incidental retention limit of large 93). Thus, NMFS is not implementing a effect of moving quota from the medium bluefin after considering requirement for industry to fund traditional Northeast fishery to the mid- requests from Harpoon category observers or requiring an increase in Atlantic and South; Alternative E1c will participants to eliminate certain observer coverage at this time or negatively impact Northeast fishermen. regulations perceived as unnecessarily exploring further the possibility of One commenter stated that NMFS restrictive (76 FR 74003, November 30, industry-funded observers. Under should take no action on General 2011). Since then, NMFS has received Amendment 7 measures, NMFS is category subquotas (Alternative E1a). requests from Harpoon category requiring Longline category vessels to Another commenter stated that NMFS participants to instead manage the large use electronic monitoring systems (i.e., should establish 12 equal monthly medium size class retention limit over video cameras and gear sensors) that subquotas (Alternative E1b). a range, similar to how NMFS manages will provide data to corroborate logbook Response: NMFS acknowledges the the daily General category retention reports and serve as a source of high concerns that quota distribution may limit, for increased flexibility in setting quality data for use in monitoring impact historical geographic the limit based on consideration of Longline category catch. Amendment 7 distribution and considered these applicable factors (i.e., the regulatory does not include a measure that will factors in selecting which alternative to determination criteria applicable to allow access to previously closed areas, finalize. Note that current regulations do retention limit adjustments). Under the or require observer coverage for access not preclude General category and HMS Amendment 7 measure implemented by to the Cape Hatteras GRA at this time. Charter/Headboat category vessels from this final rule, NMFS will have the traveling from one area to another. In ability to increase or decrease the daily 23. General Category Subquota fact, many vessels travel from the retention limit of large medium bluefin Management northeast and mid-Atlantic states to within a range of two to four fish, based Comment 97: NMFS received a participate in the winter fishery that on the former and current daily variety of comments on the proposed occurs largely off North Carolina. NMFS retention limits. This measure enhances measure to allow transfer of General will continue to consider the regulatory NMFS’ ability to more precisely manage category quota from one or more the determination criteria regarding the landing rate of large medium bluefin time periods that follow the January inseason quota transfers in an attempt to by the Harpoon category, thereby time-period to the January or other balance reasonable opportunity to optimizing opportunities while preceding sub-quota time periods. The harvest quota with other considerations, preventing landings from exceeding the comments included that NMFS should including variations in bluefin subquota. allow more flexibility in the General distribution and availability, among category; NMFS should provide more others. The measure implemented by 25. Angling Category Trophy Sub-Quota quota to the January subquota period; Amendment 7 will provide additional Comment 100: NMFS received NMFS should provide half the subquota fishing opportunities within the General comments on allocating a portion of the to the first half of the year and half the category quota while acknowledging the trophy south subquota to the Gulf of subquota to the second half of the year; traditional fishery. Prioritizing transfer Mexico (preferred Alternative E3b), NMFS should give a share of the from one winter fishery subquota to including that NMFS should not reduce subquota to North Carolina to fish from another will minimize negative impacts the trophy south subquota; the January to June, as the current 5.5 of transferring quota that is traditionally reduction would negatively affect percent of quota in January to June is used by Northeast fishermen in the charter captains in the mid-Atlantic and caught in less than 14 days. The North summer and fall months. Division of the South Atlantic areas; and that the Carolina Department of Environment quota equally by month was not change in allocation would increase

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71553

landings of spawning bluefin in the Gulf category a start date of June 15 if there day restriction, NMFS believes that of Mexico. Other commenters stated that is a need to compromise with other limiting the time period during which a NMFS should change the division of categories. Subsequent to the date the vessel may change permit categories to subquota, but not split the subquota FEIS was published NMFS received 10 calendar days is overly restrictive, equally between the southern area and many comments expressing concerns and may not allow the flexibility to the Gulf of Mexico; and that NMFS regarding the proposed June 1 start date. resolve the problems of a permit issued should allocate 10% or 17% of the Specifically, commenters feared that the by mistake. This measure, which will trophy south subquota to the Gulf of June 1 start date would flood the June allow permit category changes within 45 Mexico. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery and early July market for bluefin, days of permit issuance, provided the Management Council commented that depress the price, and cause a severe vessel has not fished (as verified via NMFS should take no action on this social and economic impact to small landings data), will achieve a better issue (Alternative E3a) and that boat handgear fishermen. Other balance of allowing flexibility for vessel Alternative E3b would lead to an concerns were the increased potential owners, while still preventing fishing in unreasonably small recreational bluefin for gear conflicts, and a concern that more than one permit category during a trophy quota for the northern region. fish behavior would change and the fish fishing year. Response: Under the Amendment 7 may be dispersed by relatively early 28. North Atlantic Albacore Tuna measure implemented by this final rule, Purse Seine fishing activity . the trophy subquota will be divided to Response: We had proposed changing Quota provide 33% each to the northern area, the default start date of the Purse Seine Comment 105: NMFS received a the southern area outside the Gulf of category fishery from July 15 to June 1, comment on implementing a U.S. North Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico. The with the ability to delay the season start Atlantic albacore tuna quota (preferred objective of this measure is to provide date from June 1 to no later than August Alternative E6b), stating that NMFS a reasonable fishing opportunity for 15, to help optimize fishing opportunity should be cautious with carrying recreational vessels in the Atlantic and for Purse Seine category vessels, given forward multiple years of underharvest Gulf of Mexico, reduce discards, and the other measures affecting the Purse given the status of the northern albacore account for incidentally caught bluefin. Seine category implemented by this stock. A separate subquota allocation for the Amendment 7 final rule. Based on Response: NMFS acknowledges the Gulf of Mexico will improve the equity public comments, however, in the final concern about carrying forward large of the trophy-sized fish allocation by rule NMFS is removing the default start amounts of unused quota (often referred increasing the likelihood that there will date of the Purse Seine fishery, and to as ‘‘stockpiling’’). The ICCAT be trophy quota available to account for instead will establish by action (via Contracting Parties have discussed that incidental catch of bluefin in that area Federal Register notice) the start date of issue in recent years, particularly (while still providing incentives not to the fishery, during a range from June 1 regarding the potentially large adjusted target bluefin). An equal 33% division through July 15. quotas for the major harvesters of among the three areas provides the most Comment 103: One commenter stated northern albacore (specifically the equitable trophy subquota allocation. that NMFS should not change the start European Union, with 77 percent of the This measure will not affect the amount date because the average value of northern albacore quota). The current of Trophy subquota available to the bluefin is lower in June. ICCAT northern albacore northern area. Response: NMFS has received recommendation (Recommendation 13– Comment 101: One commenter stated comments over recent years from 05; Supplemental Recommendation by that NMFS should eliminate the trophy commercial bluefin fishery participants ICCAT Concerning the North Atlantic category because it is not possible to and dealers that fish quality tends to be Albacore Rebuilding Program) allows monitor the catch. lower earlier in the year, with lower for 25% of a country’s quota to be Response: Currently, NMFS monitors associated price per pound. However, carried forward, if unused, and to be trophy bluefin along with all other sizes providing purse seine operators the used within the two years following the of recreationally-caught bluefin through ability to start fishing on June 1 subject year of catch. Because the U.S. the Large Pelagics Survey, the provides additional flexibility for quota represents less than 2 percent of Automated Catch Reporting System, and deciding when to make sets. These the northern albacore TAC, and the state catch card programs (for landings decisions are based largely on the most the adjusted quota could be under in Maryland and North Carolina). NMFS availability of bluefin and the size the current recommendation is 658.75 considers the combined methods of composition of schools. To the extent mt (125% of the 527-mt quota), there is monitoring trophy bluefin catch to be that this flexibility could allow the little risk of stock harm. Regarding stock adequate such that closure of the trophy harvest of the Purse Seine category status, based on the 2013 northern bluefin fishery is not warranted at this quota while minimizing dead discards, albacore stock assessment and the time. the management measure meets the domestic thresholds for minimum stock size (i.e., the MSST) and maximum 26. Purse Seine Category Start Date Amendment 7 objectives. fishing mortality (i.e., the MFMT), the Comment 102: NMFS received 27. Permit Category Changes stock is not overfished (i.e., rebuilding), comments on changing the start date of Comment 104: One commenter did with overfishing not occurring. Carry- the Purse Seine category to June 1 not support modifying the rules forward of unused quota would be (preferred Alternative E4b), including regarding permit category changes limited to 25 percent of the initial quota, that NMFS should change the Purse (preferred Alternative E5b), stating that consistent with the current ICCAT Seine category start date to June 1 as the 10-day restriction is sufficient and recommendation. fish have tended to be available on the changing the restriction would give fishing grounds earlier than July 15 in people the chance to abuse the rules and 29. Other Concerns recent years; NMFS should give the fish in multiple categories. Comment 106: Commenters expressed Purse Seine category the same start date Response: Based on feedback NMFS concerns and made suggestions about a as other commercial categories; and has received over a number of years variety of topics related to the NMFS should give the Purse Seine from vessel owners affected by the 10- management of bluefin tuna or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71554 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

associated HMS fisheries, but not issues, discusses management ideas, IBQ Shares and Allocation specific to one of the proposed and obtains public input in the context Administration of the IBQ Program management measures or alternatives of the HMS Advisory Panel, which Program Requirements and Scope analyzed. The underlying science was a typically convenes twice a year at (635.15): The IBQ allocation shares in concern, and commenters suggested that meetings that are open to the public. the proposed rule were based on NMFS should reevaluate the methods Possession and use of dehooking eligibility criteria and a quota share and timing of stock assessments; should devices are currently required onboard formula based on the time period from revise the method of dead discard pelagic longline vessels. 2006 through 2011. The final rule estimates; should increase overall Comment 107: Commenters requested includes an additional year of data research; and should increase that NMFS modify the Purse Seine (2012) that became available after communication between scientists and landings tolerance regulations that publication of the proposed rule. NMFS managers. Other commenters restrict the amount of large medium stated in the DEIS that analyses would questioned why some permit categories bluefin tuna relative to the amount of be updated where 2012 data became are open access and some are limited giant bluefin that can be landed. available for the FEIS, and public access; suggested that NMFS open the Specifically, they recommended that the comment on the DEIS also reflected the Florida East Closure or the DeSoto tolerance be increased or eliminated in need to update these analyses. The Canyon Closure; should modify the order to reduce dead discards. The range of seven years provides a weak hook regulations; suggested that current tolerance is no more than 15 reasonable representation of historical NMFS ban longlines; NMFS only cares percent of the total amount of giant fishing activity, including recent years. about the commercial interests; the bluefin (81 inches or greater) per year, Seven years is long enough to prevent management of bluefin is unfair because by weight. However, as the total number short-term circumstances from the U.S. regulations are more restrictive of future trips, and catch, is unknown, disproportionately impacting a vessel, than in other countries; and, observers the vessel owner/operators have been but recent enough to reflect current should be required in all commercial self-imposing this regulation on a trip fishery participation. By including 2012 categories. Commenters stated that level basis to ensure compliance at the data, nine more vessels meet the criteria greenstick gear and rod and reel cannot end of the year. to be deemed ‘‘active’’ for the purposes replace pelagic longline in regard to the of IBQ eligibility. amount of fish landed by the gears; Response: Although there has been The final rule also clarifies that there expressed concern that pelagic longline past interest in altering this limit, the are two aspects to how the pool of vessels in the Gulf of Mexico are issue was raised in the comments on the eligible vessels is determined: A vessel generally too large to effectively fish 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP—this must meet the definition of ‘‘active,’’ with greenstick gear; concern was alternative was not considered further and also must have been issued a valid expressed that tuna landed with in the DEIS because there was very little Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit greenstick gear are low in quality, bring data available to determine whether as of August 21, 2013 (the date of the a lower price than longline-caught tuna; such as change might be warranted and proposed rule). ‘‘Active’’ vessels are and that greenstick-caught tuna are not the impacts of such a change given those vessels that made at least one set as acceptable in domestic or recent low catch/landings from the using pelagic longline gear from 2006 international markets. Commenters Purse Seine category. Data are now through 2012 based on pelagic longline stated that other fishing practices available on dead discards by size logbook data. At the DEIS stage, this should be used to reduce discards of relative to retained catch for the Purse criterion was based on logbook data for fish including the use of shorter Seine category from the 2013 fishing 2006–2011. Logbook data for 2012 data longlines, thinner monofilament on year. NMFS believes that additional became available after publication of the mainlines or gangions, increased analysis about the potential benefits of DEIS, however. NMFS stated in the floatation on mainlines, using mackerel altering the limit, both by reducing dead DEIS that analyses would be updated for bait, and/or reducing soak time. A discards and improving the Purse Seine where 2012 data became available for commentor stated that dehooking category’s opportunity to harvest its the FEIS, and public comment on the devices should be used to promote post- quota, is warranted and beneficial to the DEIS also reflected the need to update release survival of organisms. stock and the fishery. Additional data these analyses. Thus, the final action Response: Although the comments are are needed to conduct such analyses uses 2006 to 2012 data. In addition to directly or indirectly related to the and to make fishery management being ‘‘active,’’ vessels must have a management of bluefin tuna, decisions. NMFS may take future action valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category Amendment 7 considered (i.e., analyzed in a subsequent rulemaking, if permit. NMFS clarifies here that, for and proposed) a discrete range of warranted, but such changes are not purposes of IBQ share eligibility, a management measures. In adopting any supportable at this time in this ‘‘valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category final measures, NMFS is restricted in Amendment. permit’’ is one held as of the date the scope to management measures closely Changes From the Proposed Rule (78 proposed rule was published, which related to those proposed, and within FR 52032; August 21, 2013) was August 21, 2013. the range of impacts analyzed in the In response to public comment that DEIS. Therefore, many of the This section explains the changes in NMFS should provide additional management measures or ideas the regulatory text from the proposed administrative details about the appeals suggested by the public, regardless of rule to the final rule. Some changes process, the final rule includes an initial potential merits, were not included in were made in response to public administrative step regarding the the FEIS (for analysis and comment, others clarify text for the final appeals of initial quota shares, and consideration), but would have to be rule, and others provide more detail or specifies the documentation that may be considered in the context of a future specifications about the administration used to appeal. In the proposed rule management action. In addition to the of the measures as proposed. The appeals were to be made directly to the formal regulatory process of proposed changes from the proposed rule text in NMFS National Appeal Office. The final and final rulemaking, NMFS considers the final rule are as follows: rule includes a provision that vessel

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71555

owners may first submit a written This rule provides additional details inadvertently fail to manually resolve an request for review of initial IBQ shares about and clarifies requirements existing quota debt with IBQ allocation to the HMS Management Division regarding the IBQ System used to track associated with one of their other within 90 days of publication of this IBQ shares and resultant allocation, vessels at the end of the year. final rule. The written request to adjust usage and balances of IBQ allocation, To ensure that all IBQ Program their initial quota share, must indicate and conduct leasing of IBQ allocation. activity can be accounted for on an the reason for the requested change and The proposed rule stated that NMFS annual basis, the IBQ System will provide supporting documentation (see would implement an Internet based prohibit any and all online transactions, below). HMS Management Division staff system to track leases of IBQ allocation, such as catch transactions and IBQ will evaluate all requests and but did not specifically note that the allocation leases, between December 31 accompanying documentation, then IBQ system would also be used to track at 6 p.m. and January 1 at 2 p.m. notify the requestor by letter signed by IBQ shares, or provide details regarding (Eastern Time). IBQ System functions the HMS Division Chief, of NMFS’ the associated requirements for IBQ will resume after January 1 at 2 p.m. the decision to approve or deny the request Program participants to create an following year. No IBQ System for adjustment. If the request is account. Therefore, the following transactions will be allowed or available approved, NMFS will issue the administrative details are being added: during this 20 hour time period to appropriate adjustment to the initial Eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ quota share and resultant allocation by category permit holders must have an accounts, adjust IBQ allocation for the letter, identifying any alteration to the IBQ System accounts in order to be upcoming year, etc. If a vessel with the quota share percentage and associated issued IBQ shares and resultant required minimal IBQ allocation departs allocation. If the HMS Management allocation or lease IBQ. NMFS will set on a trip prior to the end of a calendar Division denies the request, the permit up these accounts for initial IBQ System year and returns to port after the start of holder may appeal that decision within accounts for eligible IBQ participants. the following year, any bluefin landings 90 days of receipt of the notice of denial Similarly, a permitted dealer purchasing or dead discards will be counted against by submitting a written petition of bluefin tuna caught from a vessel fishing the new year’s allocation. appeal to the NMFS National Appeals with pelagic longline gear must also This final rule provides additional Office in accordance with regulations at have an IBQ System account and access administrative detail and guidance 15 CFR part 906. This final rule the system online to provide landings about aspects of the annual process IBQ specifies what will be considered data at the end of pelagic longline trips allocation. Annual IBQ allocations to ‘‘documented legal landings’’ in support where bluefin were purchased or eligible permit holders will occur of an appeal of a quota share received (i.e., data on the amount of January 1. For those permit holders awarded IBQ shares but are not eligible determination because public comment bluefin landings and dead discards). to receive the resultant IBQ allocation as indicated that additional guidance on NMFS will also set up accounts for of December 31 because they have this issue was necessary. Specifically, those dealers who have historically begun—but not completed—the process for the purposes of appeals, NMFS purchased bluefin from pelagic longline of permit renewal or permit transfer, considers ‘‘documented legal landings,’’ vessels. This final rule provides additional IBQ allocations will be made when the to be official NMFS logbook records or details for two aspects of IBQ transaction regarding permit renewal weighout slips for landings between accounting as follows: If an Atlantic and/or transfer has been completed. January 1, 2006, through December 31, Tunas Longline category permit holder Subsequent to the annual IBQ 2012, that were submitted to NMFS participating in the IBQ Program has a allocation, additional IBQ allocation prior to March 2, 2013 (60 days after the quota debt that remains unresolved at may be made available to eligible permit cutoff date for eligible landings), and the time of such permits sale or transfer, holders as a result of a U.S. quota verifiable sales slips, receipts from then that quota debt remains associated increase or potential in-season quota registered dealers, state landings with that permit. This is consistent with transfer from the Reserve category, records, and permit records. Landings the IBQ share remaining linked to the pursuant to determination criteria data are required to be submitted within eligible permit itself and further refines associated with quota adjustments. 7 days of landing under the applicable how IBQ shares, resultant allocation, Subsequent to the annual IBQ regulations. Recognizing that somewhat- and quota debt will be managed to allocation, IBQ allocation may be late reporting could have occurred for a ensure accountability under the IBQ reduced as a result of a decrease in the variety of reasons, however, NMFS is Program, even if permits are sold or U.S. bluefin quota, or to account for clarifying that it will consider transferred. Secondly, for those permit accrued quota debt. ‘‘documented’’ landings for appeals holders who own or operate multiple Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area purposes to be those reported within 60 vessels with IBQ allocation, if, at the days to include those that were slightly end of the year, one or more of the This final rule modifies the definition late. vessels has an outstanding quota debt, of the Gulf of Mexico GRA at § 635.2 This final rule includes a provision yet the other vessels still have IBQ from the definition in the proposed rule. that when NMFS determines that all allocation, the IBQ system will apply NMFS proposed a Gulf of Mexico GRA requests for IBQ share adjustments and any remaining unused regional IBQ for the months of April and May, during appeals have been resolved, NMFS may allocation associated with the other which time vessels would be prohibited adjust all IBQ share percentages to vessels to account for the quota debt of from fishing with pelagic longline gear accommodate permitted holders that the other. This functionality has been in the defined area. Based on public have been deemed eligible or provided added since the proposed rule because comment, NMFS re-analyzed additional an increased IBQ quota share through unused IBQ allocation does not carry spatial and temporal configurations of the appeals process. NMFS will notify over from one year to the next, but quota GRAs in the Gulf of Mexico, and instead IBQ participants in writing with any debt does. This functionality facilitates is implementing a GRA during the same resulting changes in their IBQ quota the resolution of quota debt, and months (April and May), but of a shares stemming from approved reduces the possibility that a permit different configuration than proposed. appeals. holder of multiple vessels may However, the GRA remains within the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71556 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

range of areas considered and analyzed under General category rule (in the time included measures requiring the use of in the FEIS and the range of alternatives. period and area associated with the VMS units for Purse Seine vessels, as The total area of the Spring Gulf of GRA). Based upon public comment and well as reporting requirements for the Mexico GRAs being implemented is further consideration, this alternative is Purse Seine and Longline category larger than that of the proposed Small not being implemented as part of the vessels, but did not provide all the Gulf of Mexico GRA. This final rule Amendment 7 final rule due to concerns relevant details. The scope of the implements a GRA comprised of two about ecological impacts, and uncertain measures in this final rule are within separate areas: An area based on that economic benefits. Other commenters the scope of the measures proposed. proposed, but extended to the east, and were concerned about the expansion of This final rule clarifies the scope of the reduced in size on the western and a targeted bluefin fishery in the Cape VMS requirements applicable to Purse northern borders, and a second area that Hatteras GRA, an area that already has Seine category vessels by explaining is adjacent to the southern border of the large numbers of interactions with that vessels fishing with purse seine Desoto Canyon Closed Area’s bluefin. Some noted concern about the gear are subject to the same northwestern ‘block.’ A larger potential impacts on the rate of harvest requirements as pelagic longline vessels, geographic area in the Gulf of Mexico of the General category quota, which is including hardware and that includes areas to the east of what limited, and the indirect impacts on communications specifications, was proposed is required to effectively General category vessels. Others noted installation checklists, power down reduce bluefin interactions, given the that the replacement of pelagic longline exemptions, hail in and hail out location of historic interactions between gear with handgear (targeting bluefin) is requirements, declaration out of the bluefin and pelagic longline gear, and not economically viable due to the size HMS fishery, interruption in position the high variability of bluefin of the pelagic longline vessels and the reports, repair and replacement distribution in the Gulf of Mexico. associated trip expenses. Based on these requirements, NMFS access to data, etc. public comments, NMFS determined Secondly, the specific bluefin tuna Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area that the potential benefits of allowing reporting requirements in this final rule Under § 635.2, the definition of the pelagic longline vessels, which are part differ from the proposed rule. The Cape Hatteras GRA was modified. of a limited access fishery, to fish under proposed rule stated that vessels fishing NMFS proposed a Cape Hatteras GRA the open-access General category rules with either pelagic longline gear or for the months of December through do not outweigh the potential costs and purse seine gear would be required to April during which time vessels would risks associated with this activity at this submit bluefin catch reports for each be prohibited from fishing with pelagic time. day on which gear is set, and that no longline gear in the defined area, with report would be required for sets where Limited Conditional Access to Pelagic the exception of vessels granted access there is no catch of bluefin. In contrast, Longline Closed Areas based upon performance criteria. Based this final rule requires submission of a on public comment, NMFS re-analyzed Section § 635.21 and paragraph bluefin tuna catch report for each spatial and temporal configurations of § 635.23(f)(2) were modified because pelagic longline or purse seine set, the Cape Hatteras GRA, and instead is this measure that would have provided providing information on the date the implementing a modified GRA during vessels fishing with pelagic longline haul was completed, the number of the same months (December through gear some access to the existing pelagic hooks (for pelagic longline gear) and the April), but of a slightly different longline closed areas was not number and size range of bluefin caught configuration than proposed. The total implemented. This measure was (including reporting a catch of zero area of the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA included in the proposed rule but based bluefin). being implemented is smaller than that upon additional information, public of the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA, due comment, and further consideration of Electronic Monitoring to the modification of the southeastern potential administrative costs, NMFS is The final rule provides details about region of the GRA. Specifically, the not implementing this measure in the the specific requirements of the southeastern corner as proposed was a final rule. NMFS may obtain data from electronic monitoring program that were ninety degree angle, but this final rule within the closures through the use of not in the proposed rule. Section 635.9 connects the southwestern corner to a exempted fishing permits. As explained was modified from the proposed rule. more northerly point on the eastern further in Response to Comment # 65, This final rule provides further boundary of the Cape Hatteras GRA, the potential benefits of allowing clarification of the electronic monitoring eliminating a triangular shaped area pelagic longline vessels limited program. In addition to those from the southeast region of the GRA. conditional access to closed areas would requirements in the proposed rule, this The shape of the Modified Cape not outweigh the potential costs and final rule implements the following Hatteras GRA as implemented will risks associated with this activity. The requirements: The permit holder must minimize the likelihood that pelagic objectives of this alternative were to make the pelagic longline vessel longline gear set south of the GRA will maintain the relevant conservation accessible to NMFS or a NMFS- drift into the GRA (based upon the aspects of the closure, balance the approved contractor to allow for the prevailing direction of currents). objectives of the closures, provide installation and testing of the electronic commercial data from within the monitoring system, which will include Allow Pelagic Longline Vessels To Fish closures, and provide additional fishing training for the captain and crew, and Under General Category Rules opportunities for permitted longline may be required to steam to a Under § 635.21, paragraph (c)(3) was vessels (mitigating the potential designated port for these activities. The modified, however this measure is not negative economic impacts of NMFS-approved contractor will provide being implemented by this final rule. In Amendment 7). the vessel owner a certificate that the the proposed rule, NMFS proposed installed equipment is a fully allowing pelagic longline vessels that Vessel Monitoring System functioning electronic monitoring are not allowed to fish in the Cape Paragraphs § 635.69(a) and system. The final rule contains more Hatteras GRA (based on the performance § 635.69(e)(4) were modified from the detailed info on video cameras; GPS criteria) to instead fish for bluefin tuna proposed rule. The proposed rule receiver; hydraulic drum rotation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71557

sensors; control box and monitor; and final rule adds two items to this list of mortality associated with discarded includes some requirements related to management measures and provides bluefin in all categories; maintain hydraulics, power, camera mounts and examples of Amendment 7 measures flexibility of the regulations to account lighting. This final rule notes the that are within the scope of management for the highly variable nature of the requirement for a written Vessel measures currently listed in the bluefin fisheries; and maintain fairness Monitoring Plan, to be developed by the regulations. The Amendment 7 among permit/quota categories; (2) NMFS-approved contractor with the measures not included in the proposed reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna vessel owner; and includes a pre-trip rule list are as follows: Electronic and minimize reductions in target catch electronic monitoring system test monitoring requirements and examples in both directed and incidental bluefin requirement. of measures under the purview of the fisheries, to the extent practicable; (3) administration of the IBQ Program improve the scope and quality of catch Annual Reallocation (quota share caps by individual or by data through enhanced reporting and Paragraph 635.27(a)(4) was modified category, permanent sale of shares, and monitoring to ensure that landings and from the proposed rule, based on public NED IBQ rules). dead discards do not exceed the quota comment. In this final rule, the and to improve accounting for all Classification allocations for a particular year will be sources of fishing mortality; and (4) based on the previous year’s individual The NMFS Assistant Administrator adjust other aspects of the 2006 purse seine participant catch rather than has determined that this final rule is Consolidated HMS FMP as necessary category-wide catch. This modified consistent with the 2006 Consolidated and appropriate. These objectives are measure will tie quota allocation more HMS FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, intended to support the following goals: closely to individual participant catch ATCA, and other applicable law. Prevent overfishing and rebuild bluefin and create an incentive for fishery NMFS prepared an environmental tuna, achieve on a continuing basis participants to remain active in the impact statement that analyzes the optimum yield, and minimize bluefin fishery. Without this modification to the impact on the environment of a range of bycatch to the extent practicable by alternative, individual allocations alternatives that would achieve the ensuring that domestic bluefin tuna would be tied to the catch of the other objectives of Amendment 7, which are fisheries continue to operate within the participants in the fishery, which could described in the background section of overall TAC set by ICCAT consistent have unfair results if catch were to vary the preamble for this action. A copy of with the existing rebuilding plan. greatly among the participants. the FEIS is available from NMFS (see Specifically, pursuant to this final rule, ADDRESSES). As further explained in the Summary of Significant Issues Raised each Purse Seine fishery participant will Background, in this action, NMFS is by Public Comments initially be given a fifth of the quota implementing measures to minimize Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires available to the category for the year bycatch to the extent practicable; a summary of the significant issues (159.1 mt divided by five participants optimize fishing opportunity and raised by the public comments in equals 31.8 mt per participant under the account for dead discards; reduce response to the IRFA, a summary of the current ICCAT quota). Next, NMFS will bluefin tuna dead discards; enhance assessment of the Agency of such issues, determine the annual quota available for reporting; and adjust other aspects of and a statement of any changes made in use by each individual tuna Purse Seine the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as the rule as a result of such comments. participant that year based on the necessary and appropriate. NMFS received many comments on the previous year’s performance. Each This final rule has been determined to proposed rule and IRFA. Summarized participant will have available either 25 be not significant for purposes of public comments and the Agency’s percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, or 100 Executive Order 12866. The Agency has responses to them are included in this percent of its allocation share of the consulted, to the extent practicable, final rule, in the ‘‘Responses to base Purse Seine quota, depending upon with appropriate state and local officials Comments’’ section of this preamble, the level of that participant’s bluefin to address the principles, criteria, and above. The specific economic concerns catch the previous year. requirements of Executive Order 13132. raised in the comments are also summarized and addressed here (the Provide Additional Flexibility for Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis numbering of the excerpted comments General Category Quota-Adjustment A final regulatory flexibility analysis reflects the numbering in the Paragraph 635.27(a)(1)(ii) was (FRFA) was prepared for this rule. The ‘‘Responses to Comments’’ section, modified to clarify the measure. This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory above). final rule clarifies that, based on public Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary Comment 2: Many commenters, comments, NMFS will prioritize the of the significant issues raised by the particularly those with small businesses transfer of quota from December sub- public comments in response to the involved in the pelagic longline fishery, quota time period to the January IRFA, our responses to those comments, expressed concern regarding the subquota time period within a fishing and a summary of the analyses potential for negative economic impacts year in order to address the unique completed to support the action. The of Amendment 7 on jobs, families, and characteristics of the January sub-quota full FRFA and analysis of economic and communities, and noted the importance period. ecological impacts are available from of pelagic longline-caught fish in NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of supplying high quality seafood to the Adjustment of Management Measures the FRFA follows. nation. These commenters were Paragraph 635.34 was modified to The purpose of this final rulemaking, concerned about the potential for the clarify as follows: As a result of the consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Amendment 7 measures to put people implementation of new management Act, and the 2006 Consolidated HMS out of business, and ‘‘destroy the pelagic tools via Amendment 7, the proposed FMP and its amendments, is to longline fishery.’’ Commenters stated rule added to the list of management implement HMS management measures that vessels that are currently only measures that NMFS may modify or that: (1) Optimize the ability for all marginally economically viable would establish in accordance with the permit categories to harvest their full be at particular risk of going out of framework procedures of the FMP. This bluefin quota allocations, account for business, but were also concerned about

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71558 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

any secondary impacts on related closures, weak hook requirement, facing vessels that may be impacted by businesses such seafood dealers, gear observer deployment, bait a reduced quota. For example, manufacturers, etc. They urged NMFS to requirements), and that progress is being Congressional representatives from use a balanced regulatory approach to made. Furthermore, increases in fuel Massachusetts and the New England address the Amendment 7 objectives, costs strain fishers’ ability to make a Fishery Management Council (Council) and stated that Amendment 7 measures living, and events such as the 2010 oil stated that the proposed reallocation would increase uncertainty in the spill in the GOM continue to be would disadvantage the New England pelagic longline fishery. relevant. Commenters noted that bluefin Fishery, the traditional Massachusetts Response: The seafood supplied to the tuna is managed at the international fleet, and shore-side infrastructure, and Nation by the pelagic longline fleet is level and believe that the United States would allow fleets from other regions to valuable as both a source of food, and manages its citizens in a more effective use a disproportionate amount of quota. for the generation of income supporting and responsible way than other They were concerned about the local jobs, communities, and the broader countries, and that NMFS should not commercial fleet, which is experiencing economy. NMFS designed management further regulate bluefin tuna and economic damage due to the decline in measures to minimize economic increase the management disparity key stocks in the groundfish fishery. impacts by relying on the combined between the United States and other The Council suggested that NMFS effects of multiple management tools countries. assess the port-specific impacts of and incorporating flexibility into the Response: The context in which reallocation. A commenter was system. The preferred measures will vessels operate, including current concerned that recreational vessels in affect all permit/quota categories, and regulations was a relevant factor NMFS the mid-Atlantic region would be reflect the balance of addressing the considered in determining whether new disproportionately affected by quota issues confronting the bluefin tuna stock regulations are justified. NMFS took reallocation because the quota may not and management of the fishery while into consideration many factors in last until the time the bluefin are off the maintaining the viability of the pelagic selecting preferred measures that mid-Atlantic coast. longline and other fisheries dependent address the diverse objectives of Response: A reduction in quota may upon bluefin tuna. For example, Amendment 7 in a balanced manner. impact the revenue associated with a reductions in dead discards would be Chapter 6 of the FEIS contains a particular quota category or geographic achieved through the use of multiple cumulative impacts analysis which is region, or result in secondary economic measures, including gear restricted broad in scope and takes into impacts on a community. The FEIS areas, the IBQ system, and quota consideration past, present, and analysis estimates that reallocation of allocation measures. The preferred reasonably foreseeable factors. In quota to the Longline category could measures would modify the quota addition, Chapter 2 of the FEIS contains reduce revenue for individual vessels system to increase management a description of measures and the with a General category permit by $850 flexibility in order to allocate quota rationale for the preferred measures. and result in total reduction in among categories to maximize This FRFA includes a description of the maximum revenue of $542,000 for all opportunities to catch available quota, steps taken to minimize the economic General category vessels. Although account for dead discards, and respond impacts on small entities, and the thirty percent of the General category to changing conditions in the fishery. As reasons for the preferred measures. permits are associated with the State of the pelagic longline fleet is adjusting to The United States manages its Massachusetts (1,150 permits as of the suite of new measures, NMFS would exclusive economic zone in accordance October 2013), the total number of have the flexibility to allocate a limited with applicable U.S. laws and in active vessels is substantially lower. Of amount of additional quota to the response to the unique characteristics of the total number of General category pelagic longline vessels if necessary to its fisheries, and therefore the U.S. permits issued throughout the Atlantic prevent a fishery closure, and still, as a regulations regarding bluefin tuna are coast (3,783), the average number of result of the gear restricted areas and different from the rules affecting General category vessels landing at least IBQ system, reduce the net amount of citizens of other countries, which one bluefin between 2006 and 2012 was bluefin catch from the levels recently operate under different laws and 474 vessels. Thus, the number of active caught. The management measures work circumstances. Where U.S. regulations vessels in Massachusetts can be together to reduce dead discards and are more restrictive than those abroad, presumed to be substantially fewer than otherwise reduce bycatch to the extent NMFS believes that the corresponding 1,150. practicable, increase accountability, ecological and socio-economic benefits When considering the social and enhance reporting and monitoring, and that result from such restrictions are economic impacts of actions, different optimize quota allocation, in a also likely to be greater than those communities and regions may be predictable but flexible manner. The abroad. impacted to different degrees due to potential economic impacts of the Comment 12: Many commenters their unique regulatory and economic measures affecting the pelagic longline strongly opposed reallocating quota to circumstances. The FEIS contains an fleet are analyzed in Chapters 5 and 7, the Longline category because of analysis of the community impacts from of the FEIS, and the economic rationale concerns about the economic impacts the 2010 Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil is summarized in this FRFA. on a particular geographic region (e.g., Spill, and a 2013 analysis that presents Comment 3: Commenters stated that New England or mid-Atlantic), or quota social indicators of vulnerability and when determining whether the pelagic category (e.g., the General category or resistance for 25 communities selected longline fleet should be subject to the Angling category). Some for having a greater than average additional restrictions, NMFS should commenters urged NMFS to respect the number of HMS permits associated with consider the current and past regulatory historical allocation percentages, and them. Those communities with environment and other factors as noted that reallocation would have the relatively higher dependence upon context. Commenters stated the pelagic effect of pitting the different categories commercial fishing included Dulac, LA; longline fishery is already heavily against each other. Some commenters Grand Isle, LA; Venice, LA; Gloucester, regulated to minimize its environmental suggested that NMFS consider other MA; New Bedford, MA; Beaufort, NC; impacts, especially in the GOM (e.g., regulatory and economic circumstances Wanchese, NC; Barnegat, NJ; Cape May,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71559

NJ; and Montauk, NY. The analyses are of each category quota (in the case of the requirements of paragraph (2), in order principally at a fishery-wide, or permit ‘‘Codified Reallocation Alternative,’’ or to (A) provide for the sustained category level. The bluefin tuna the level of activity of vessels (‘‘Annual participation of such communities, and fisheries (and other HMS fisheries) are Reallocation Alternative’’), and are (B) to the extent practicable, minimize widely distributed and highly variable designed to consider changing levels of adverse economic impacts on such due to the diversity of participants quota or landings, respectively, in ways communities.) (location, gear types, commercial, that reduce economic impacts. Although the FEIS includes estimates recreational), and because bluefin tuna Comment 13: Many recreational of the value of bluefin tuna quota by are highly migratory over thousands of anglers wanted to insulate the Angling quota category for comparative miles, with an annual distribution that category from any potential effect of purposes, the preferred codified is highly variable. The specific ports quota reallocation to the Longline reallocation was not based on a specific and communities that provide the goods category, citing the economic impacts economic analysis, but the achievement and services to support the fishery may and high value of the recreational of the stated objectives. An elaborate vary as well, as vessels travel over large bluefin fishery to the economy, as well quantitative analysis that compares the distances to pursue their target species. as the economic investments of the economic value of the Angling, Due to this variability, it is difficult to participants and the current regulatory Longline, and General category fisheries predict potential revenue and secondary burden such vessels face. Vessel owners was not conducted due to the different impacts of preferred management with General category commercial characteristics of the Angling, Longline measures by port or by state. Vessels permits expressed concern about the and General category fisheries, the fishing in any geographic area in the potential impacts to the General variable amount of data associated with Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico are likely to category. Commenters requested these fisheries, and the large number of have only limited access to bluefin tuna, additional quantitative analyses factors and assumptions that contribute unless they travel long distances within comparing the different quota to estimating the value of a fishery. For the bluefin’s migratory range. categories, including primary and example, under the preferred IBQ It is important to note that the actual secondary impacts. system, the availability of bluefin tuna economic impacts of reallocation of Response: As stated above in the quota may be a limiting factor for a quota depend upon the total amount of response to the previous comment, a pelagic longline vessel, and therefore quota allocated to (and harvested from) reduction in quota may impact the the lack of adequate bluefin quota, by each of the quota categories, as a result revenue associated with a particular even a small amount, could result in a of the combined effect of all of the quota category or result in secondary vessel being prohibited from fishing measures that affect quota. For example, economic impacts on a community. The with pelagic longline gear. In that in addition to the amount of quota objective of the preferred allocation circumstance, the value of the bluefin available as a result of the percentage measures is not to reallocate quota quota to the vessel owner may be very allocations, and deductions for the 68 based on economic optimization, but to: high, and related to the value of the mt Annual Reallocation, there may be account for bluefin dead discards within target catch (e.g., swordfish or yellowfin quota available for redistribution to the Longline category; reduce tuna). On the other hand, the value of various quota categories. Specifically, uncertainty in annual quota allocation a bluefin tuna to a recreational angler or pursuant to the preferred ‘‘Annual and accounting; optimize fishing to the recreational fishery at-large may Reallocation’’ measure, as described in opportunity by increasing flexibility in include the value of the recreational Chapter 2 of the FEIS, if the Purse Seine the current bluefin quota allocation experience to the angler, as well as the category has not caught 70 percent of its system; and ensure that the various associated goods and service supporting quota during the previous year, quota quota categories are regulated fairly in the fishing trip. The FEIS indicates that may be moved to the Reserve category relative to one another. the Angling category would potentially and subsequently reallocated across The reallocation measures face unquantified reductions in multiple user groups. Furthermore, in implemented by this final rule will economic and social activity associated recent years, many categories have not minimize adverse economic impacts to with the 7.36 percent reduction in fully harvested their amount of quota the extent practicable because the available quota. In contrast, for a vessel available to them. Thus, the actual relative amount of quota reallocated is fishing commercially in the General impacts of reallocation may be minor or small and proportional to the size of the category, a high quality bluefin tuna may be mitigated by future reallocation category quota, and the overall quota sold to Japan may be extremely valuable when available. system will be more flexible and and other catchfar less important. Reallocation of quota may result in predictable and able to offset some or all Comment 20: NMFS should avoid frustration or negative attitudes among of the negative economic impacts. This closures to the pelagic longline fishery. fishery participants of different quota approach was developed consistent Any closure would disrupt markets. categories, due to the changes to an with our obligation under National Response: NMFS acknowledges that historically accepted quota allocation Standard 6 (Conservation and GRAs designed to reduce bluefin tuna system, or perceptions of unfairness. management measures shall take into interactions and regulatory discards and However, the modifications to the quota account and allow for variations among, to thus decrease bycatch have costs system are warranted for the reasons and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery associated with them, and may have described in the response to comments resources, and catches) and National disruptive effects on local markets. 8 through 1. They are also fair due to the Standard 8 (Conservation and NMFS designed the GRAs (i.e., their fact that all quota categories are affected management measures shall, consistent timing and configuration) after in proportion to their quota percentage. with the conservation requirements of considering the amount of reduced As explained in the response to this chapter (including the prevention of fishing opportunity as well as the Comment# 9 above, NMFS designed the overfishing and rebuilding of overfished amount of reduced bluefin interactions, quota allocation alternatives to stocks), take into account the in order to minimize potential minimize the economic impacts on the importance of fishery resources to disruptions in markets. NMFS designed non-longline categories. The alternatives fishing communities by utilizing the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA to take into consideration the relative size economic and social data that meet the provide access opportunities to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71560 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

fishermen that have a proven ability to historical catch of large numbers of bluefin and other HMS species. Due to avoid bluefin, and are compliant with bluefin tuna in certain times and the importance of having enough the observer and logbook requirements. locations by pelagic longline gear, observed trips to meet the observer As described in the Response to NMFS determined that a GRA in both coverage targets required by national Comment #47, NMFS specifically the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic are and international law, NMFS also modified the Cape Hatteras GRA from necessary in order to achieve reductions evaluated vessels on the number of trips what was proposed to reduce disruption in bluefin tuna dead discards, and that observed. The agency utilizes observer to ongoing fishing in an adjacent area, the potential economic impacts are data to develop estimates of protected and thereby reduce potentially negative warranted in order to achieve such resources interactions and estimates of economic impacts of the alternative. reductions. The potential negative discards of other species including Evaluation of all alternatives considered socio-economic impacts were bluefin. These data are essential for both economic and ecological minimized by using an iterative process stock assessments and are critical in considerations (i.e., the potential to design the gear restricted areas. The meeting international management reductions in revenue associated with Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic obligations. Under ATCA and as a estimated reductions in bluefin Longline GRAs were designed in order contracting party of ICCAT, the United interactions). to achieve a balance between a States is required to take part in the Comment 21: NMFS should not reduction in bluefin dead discards, collection of biological, catch, and effort implement GRAs. NMFS received protection of the Gulf of Mexico statistics for research and management comments indicating that, due to a spawning stock, and continued purposes. variety of reasons, commercial operation of the pelagic longline fleet in Comment 48: NMFS should consider fishermen may be limited to certain the Gulf of Mexico. The specific the potential negative economic impact fishing locations by the size and boundaries of the area were determined on fishermen in the area who do not configuration of their vessels, insurance by an iterative process, by selecting have access to other fishing grounds. requirements, or safety concerns, and areas of historical pelagic longline Response: The preferred design of the that some participants in the fishing interactions with bluefin, and Cape Hatteras GRA was the result of an fleet have nowhere else to fish (except comparing both the anticipated iterative process. NMFS analyzed in the location of the GRA) and they reduction in bluefin interactions with multiple time periods and geographic would be ‘‘shut out’’ of the fishery. the estimated reduction in revenue, of areas in order to take into consideration Response: The underlying concept of different configurations. In addition, the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA both the potential reduction in the NMFS selected the time period due to number of bluefin interactions and the minimizes economic impacts by its occurrence during the peak bluefin providing conditional access to the area, potential reductions in target catch. The spawning period in the GOM.The analysis considered relevant fisheries based on performance criteria. The magnitude of the potential economic data and oceanographic trends. In the majority of the pelagic longline fleet impacts result from the specific location DEIS, due to current patterns in the will be allowed to fish in the area upon and duration of the GRA. The size of the Cape Hatteras area, the zone affected by implementation, and in the future if Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA was conditions for access continue to be Longline GRA was based upon the analyzed beyond the explicit boundaries met. In estimating ecological and socio- historical location and number of of the GRA. Analysis of a buffer region economic impacts of the Modified Cape bluefin interactions, as well as the was needed because vessels to the south Hatteras GRA, NMFS determined that recent persistent trend in fishing effort and west of the GRA would be 14 vessels will not have access to this shifting to the east of this area, and the prevented from fishing in these areas GRA. Of these 14 vessels, four vessels known variability in the fishery in made over 75 percent of their sets in the general. A smaller geographic area due to their gear drifting into the GRA Modified Cape Hatteras GRA. Based would be unlikely to achieve (having the effort of creating a larger upon the location of their historical meaningful reductions in bluefin tuna affected geographic area that the catch, and to ensure that NMFS did not interactions. The duration of the GRA boundary of the GRA). The DEIS underestimate the potential economic encompasses the months with the analysis of impacts not only considered impacts, the analysis assumes that these highest number of interactions during the reduced fishing effort within the vessels would not redistribute effort the spawning period. An alternate, or GRA, but also the reduced fishing effort outside of the gear restricted area. shorter time period would coincide with in a buffer region to the south and west Although these four vessels could neither the highest number of bluefin of the area. Therefore, NMFS included redirect from fishing grounds off Oregon interactions nor the bluefin spawning sets made in this buffer region into the Inlet, NC to fishing grounds between period peak. redistribution analyses. In the FEIS, Cape Fear and Cape Hatteras, such a Comment 29: NMFS should not based on public comment and change in fishing grounds may involve penalize small vessels because of their additional analyses, NMFS now prefers substantial costs (fuel, longer trips, inability of provide adequate space for the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA which possible transfer and dockage in a new observers. would minimize the adverse impacts on port, etc.). However, NMFS modified Response: NMFS designed the scoring fishing opportunities while still the Cape Hatteras GRA in a way that system for the Pelagic Observer Program achieving comparable reductions of would achieve the reduction in bluefin Performance metric in the preferred bluefin discards and almost identical discards, and would also allow alternative such that valid reasons for conservation and management benefits fishermen to continue to deploy gear in not carrying an observer will not be as the original proposal. regions south and west of the GRA, penalized. Observer coverage is integral Comment 50: A large number of thereby reducing adverse impacts. With to the management of the fishery as it commenters expressed general support respect to the potential negative impacts contributes important, objective data in for a GRA in the GOM, while others of the Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico support of the management of protected stated that NMFS should not implement GRA, approximately 61 vessels that fish species and provides important a GOM GRA, due to the severe in the Gulf of Mexico would be affected. information on the pelagic longline economic impact it would have on the Given the consistent pattern of fishery utilized in the management of fishery.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71561

Response: Implementation of a GRA swordfish fisheries, which are active in pelagic longline fishery. The combined in the GOM supports the achievement of the GOM and in the areas covered by effect of the Modified Spring Gulf of the Amendment 7 objectives. A GRA the GRAs. Specifically, the commenter Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA and the will, in conjunction with the other questioned whether the GOM pelagic Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic management measures implemented by longline fleet would be able to remain Longline GRA, would reduce the this final rule, result in the reduction of active. number of bluefin discarded by 40 dead discards of bluefin tuna by the Response: NMFS carefully considered percent and the number of bluefin kept pelagic longline fishery. Although the impact of the preferred Modified by 10 percent (fishery-wide). implementation of a GRA would have a Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs on Comment 63: Some commenters negative economic impact on the yellowfin and swordfish fisheries, both supported the proposed measure to pelagic longline fishery, the preferred of which are robust and healthy allow vessels fishing with pelagic alternative would have less of an impact fisheries in the GOM. The estimated longline gear that are not authorized than some of the other alternatives reductions in revenue totals of the conditional access to the Cape Hatteras considered and analyzed. As described preferred GRAs (assuming effort is GRA, to fish under General category in more detail in the responses to redistributed) were calculated for the rules. Vessel owners wanted to have this comments below, NMFS analyzed a alternatives for both swordfish (ranged type of fishing opportunity as mitigation range of alternatives, and took into from $11,583 to $2,089,885 on average for the lost opportunity of fishing with account the importance of fishery per year) and for yellowfin tuna (ranged pelagic longline gear in the Cape Hatteras GRA, between December resources to fishing communities by from $59,500 to $3,964,682, on average through April. Some commenters did analyzing economic and social data. per year) fisheries. The preferred Spring not support the proposed opportunity Because GRAs may result in the Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs would for such vessels to fish under the reduction and/or redistribution of achieve a balance between conservation General category rules for various fishing effort by pelagic longline gear, objectives and providing continuing reasons. Some noted that the activity the preferred alternative represents a opportunity for the GOM swordfish and would be a ‘‘dangerous precedent,’’ balance between anticipated reductions yellowfin tuna fisheries. The primary because limited access vessels would be in dead discards of bluefin, and conservation objectives of the GRAs is potential negative economic impacts on allowed to fish under the rules to reduce bluefin interactions, and the pelagic longline fishery. applicable to an open access category, reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality to Furthermore, the preferred alternative General category vessels would not be the extent practicable. NMFS compared will support the broader objectives of allowed to fish as a pelagic longline among the alternatives the amount of both stock rebuilding as well as the vessel. Others were concerned about the ‘savings’ of bluefin tuna and the continued viability of the commercial expansion of a targeted bluefin fishery reduction in target catch as part of its and recreational fisheries that depend in the Cape Hatteras GRA, an area that analysis of the gear restricted areas. upon bluefin tuna. already has large numbers of Comment 55: One commenter noted Under the Preferred Alternative, the interactions with bluefin. A commenter that the size of the fishable area in the annual reductions in revenue associated found it ironic that vessels not allowed GOM is already small, given the with the reduced catches of swordfish to fish with pelagic longline gear in the constraints on the locations where they and yellowfin tuna are estimated at Cape Hatteras GRA (proposed in order can fish, including existing pelagic $41,504 and $207,110, respectively. The to reduce bluefin interactions with longline closed areas, as well as the annual reduction in total revenue is pelagic longline gear) due to their low areas that must be avoided for other estimated at $1,793,922. An example of performance criteria score would be reasons (e.g., activity range of how the data was compared and provided an opportunity to target seismographic vessels, which can alternatives evaluated follows: bluefin tuna. Some noted concern about operate for up to six months, and oils Comparing the Preferred Alternative the potential impacts on the rate of rigs). with the alternative that would restrict harvest of the General category quota, Response: NMFS acknowledges that the full EEZ from March through May, which is limited, and the indirect the preferred Spring Modified GOMo the reduction in the weight of bluefin impacts on General category vessels. Pelagic Longline GRAs would further catch would be a little more than twice Others noted that the replacement of reduce the amount of fishable areas in as much under the EEZ GRA (44.2 mt pelagic longline gear with handgear the GOM available for the use of pelagic versus 19.2 mt under the Preferred), but (targeting bluefin) is not economically longline gear, and that vessels choosing the reduction in total revenue associated viable due to the size of the pelagic to fish in the GOM with pelagic longline with the EEZ GRA would be more than longline vessels and the associated trip gear must work around other industrial six times larger than the reduction in expenses. A commenter stated that the users of Gulf of Mexico resources. total revenue associated with the proposed measure would facilitate NMFS selected the boundaries of the Preferred Alternative ($1,793,922 versus trans-shipment of bluefin from Longline Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs $281,614 under the Preferred). In other category to General category vessels. A with careful consideration of the words, compared to the Preferred commenter suggested that all pelagic associated benefits and costs. NMFS Alternative, the amount of additional longline vessels should be able to fish optimized the size of the preferred costs that would be associated with the under the General category rules, and GRAs to achieve a meaningful reduction EEZ GRA would be disproportionately not only those affected by the GRA. in dead discards, and still leave fishing greater than the additional conservation Response: Based upon public grounds open for the pelagic longline benefits associated with the EEZ GRA. comment and further consideration, fleet. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis The Amendment 7 measures are not NMFS is not implementing the in the FEIS (Chapter 6) considers the designed to target a particular amount of management measure that would have impacts of the preferred alternatives in reduction in dead discards, but rather allowed vessels fishing with pelagic the broader context of other historical reduce dead discards in a meaningful longline gear that are not authorized and current activities. way, provide strong incentives to avoid conditional access to the Cape Hatteras Comment 56: NMFS should consider and reduce bycatch, and take into GRA to fish under General category the impact on the yellowfin tuna and account the potential impacts on the rules. While this measure would have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71562 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

provided additional fishing Closed Area were implemented as part closures through the use of exempted opportunities to pelagic longline vessels of a bycatch reduction strategy, based on fishing permits. without access to the Cape Hatteras three objectives: (1) Maximize the Comment 68: Commenters supported GRA, the differences in fishing costs reduction in incidental catch of billfish implementation of the IBQ system in and productivity between pelagic and of swordfish less than 33 lb dressed order to hold vessels accountable and longline gear and handgear are great weight; (2) minimize the reduction in provide incentives to reduce discards. enough that handgear fishing for bluefin the target catch of larger swordfish and Commenters noted that NMFS should tuna would not be economically viable other marketable species; and (3) ensure provide some flexibility in the IBQ for a pelagic longline vessel. Given the that the incidental catch of other species system, particularly in the short-term, to unlikely -economic benefits as well as (e.g., bluefin, marine mammals, and ensure that vessels, especially small public perceptions of unfairness, the turtles) either remains unchanged or is vessels, are able to adapt to the new potential benefits of allowing vessels to reduced. Upon implementation, NMFS restrictions and the overall program is fish under the General category rules do recognized that all three objectives successful. Commenters urged NMFS to not outweigh the potential costs and might not be met to the maximum continue to support the pelagic longline risks associated with this activity. extent, and that conflicting outcomes swordfish fishery, which is important Comment 64: NMFS received a large would require some balancing of the for multiple reasons. Response: Implementation of the IBQ number of comments that did not objectives. There are data that supports system will increase the responsibility support the proposed limited the assertion that the closed areas have and accountability of individual vessels conditional access to closed areas for contributed to the achievement of their and the pelagic longline fishery as a vessels using pelagic longline gear, for objectives, in concert with other a variety of reasons. Commenters, whole, for the catch of bluefin tuna. As management measures. NMFS provides including the Florida Fish and Wildlife explained in detail in the responses to an annual review of the potential Conservation Commission, were more specific comments, the individual effectiveness of the current suite of foremost concerned about potential bluefin quota system implemented by management measures, including closed negative biological impacts on this final rule is designed to provide a areas, at reducing bycatch in its annual swordfish, billfish, and other species, as reasonable and effective means of SAFE report for HMS. Although the well as the indirect negative socio- reducing dead discards, increasing SAFE report does not isolate and economic impacts on the recreational accountability, and maintaining a viable quantify the effectiveness of closed fishing community if there were pelagic longline fishery. The negative biological impacts. areas as a separate management tool, the management measures are intended to Specifically, commenters cited the estimated reductions in discards of provide flexibility at the level of the benefits of the DeSoto Canyon and East swordfish, blue marlin, white marlin, individual vessel, and in the quota Florida Coast closed areas contributing sailfish, and spearfish, as a result of all system as a whole, so that the fishery to the rebuilding of the swordfish stock, management measures have remained can operate under the challenges of a and the stabilization of the blue and consistently high (-50 to -70 percent), substantially new regulatory structure. white marlin stocks. Commenters stated suggesting that the current suite of Furthermore, the fishery must be able to that the biological analysis of the international and domestic management adapt on a continuing basis to the alternative was inadequate, and one measures have played a significant role variability of highly migratory species, commenter was concerned about the in allowing the United States to reduce and changing ecological conditions. impacts on dusky sharks. Some its bycatch interactions. Given the likely Individual pelagic longline vessels commenters supported access, noting benefits of the closed areas, the have the flexibility to change their the importance of such access as a difficulty in determining the precise fishing practices through modification means to provide flexibility to pelagic magnitude of the benefits of the closed of fishing behavior (including time, longline vessels in the context of the areas in the context of other location and methods of fishing, and the IBQ Program restrictions, while others management measures, as well as the use of non-longline gear); increasing suggested modifications to the difficulty predicting the potential communication within the fishery to alternative such as allowing the use of impacts that access to closed areas facilitate bluefin avoidance; and leasing electronic monitoring instead of human would have, NMFS believes that there is of individual bluefin quota. Under observers. uncertainty whether in fact the first Amendment 7, NMFS may also provide Response: Based upon public objective of the alternative (maintain additional flexibility by allocating comment and further consideration of relevant conservation aspects of the additional quota to the Longline potential administrative costs, NMFS is closure) would be met. The access to category, as described in the response to not implementing this management closed areas alternative did not include Comments 18 and 19. measure. The potential benefits of defined bycatch limits, but would have Comment 76: The Louisiana allowing pelagic longline vessels relied upon the assumption that low Department of Natural Resources limited conditional access to the closed levels of fishing effort is sufficient to (Louisiana DNR) commented that areas would not outweigh the potential prevent excessive bycatch. Furthermore, Amendment 7 will have large negative costs and risks associated with this there would be administrative costs socio-economic impacts on the GOM activity. The objectives of the proposed associated with the access program. pelagic longline fishery, with greatest measure were to maintain the relevant Therefore, the benefits associated with impacts in Louisiana. The Louisiana conservation aspects of the closure, providing additional fishing DNR also asserted the rule will have balance the objectives of the closures, opportunities (by providing access) minimal benefits to the bluefin stock, provide commercial data from within would not outweigh the costs in terms and attributed the economic impacts the closures, and provide additional of the risk of undermining the mostly to the IBQ Program, which it fishing opportunities for permitted conservation benefits of the closed feels is inconsistent with the Louisiana longline vessels (mitigating the potential areas. With respect to providing Coastal Resources Program. Louisiana negative economic impacts of commercial data from within the DNR noted that the potential benefits to Amendment 7). The East Florida Coast, closures, as stated previously, NMFS the stock of bluefin tuna are minimal Charleston Bump, and DeSoto Canyon may obtain data from within the compared to the potentially large socio-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71563

economic impact to the targeted quota per vessel to continue fishing at required consideration under the MSA. fisheries, and NMFS’ consistency their historic rates. The estimate of the The preferred Amendment 7 IBQ determination lacks sufficient data and total amount of quota that vessels with Program would add a single additional information. a home port of New York would need prerequisite for participation in the Response: Pelagic longline vessels to lease is 13.4 mt (11 vessels), and the pelagic longline fishery to the may be negatively impacted by the total amount of quota that vessels with previously existing two prerequisites preferred IBQ Program, and such a home port in Louisiana would need to and associated monitoring and impacts would likely be felt in the ports lease is 17.4 mt (25 vessels). NMFS has compliance requirements (e.g., VMS). and communities associated with the concluded that this action is fully Prior to this Amendment, the two fishery, including those in Louisiana, consistent with the enforceable policies principal elements for participation in which is home to approximately 27 of the management program, though the the fishery were a vessel and limited percent of the active pelagic longline State of Louisiana objects. The FEIS access permit. The preferred IBQ vessels. Florida, New York, and New analysis demonstrates that NMFS Program would implement a Jersey would also be impacted due to utilized many of the factors cited by requirement for a vessel to have the the distribution of active pelagic Louisiana as lacking in NMFS’ minimum amount of bluefin quota longline vessels (31 percent, 16 percent, evaluation. Specifically, NMFS used the allocation to fish with pelagic longline and 16 percent of the active vessels, best available logbook, dealer, and gear, as well as electronic monitoring respectively). Bluefin dead discards in observer data, conducted vessel-specific requirements associated with preferred the GOM by pelagic longline vessels analyses for preferred alternatives on IBQ Program. have typically ranged from 36 to 86 mt GRAs and IBQ measures, and relevant The preferred IBQ Program would per year. The benefits of the preferred recent scientific information. NMFS also provide adequate opportunities to new IBQ Program include strictly limiting explored the availability of alternative entrants to the fishery because there bluefin catch in the pelagic longline methods of achieving the Amendment 7 would be multiple means by which a fishery, reduction of dead discards and objectives, and considered the economic new entrant may satisfy the quota waste, and promotion of economic impacts, and the long-term benefits of requirement. The structure of the efficiency, all of which will contribute the measures. The alternative methods preferred IBQ Program would not create to stock growth and a sustainable to reduce dead discards—no action or any unreasonable barriers to new entry. bluefin tuna fishery in the long term. group or regional quotas—would have A person interested in participating in The fact that the GOM is a critically more adverse impacts and be less the fishery may purchase a permitted important spawning area for bluefin effective in achieving Amendment 7 vessel with IBQ shares, and therefore be contributes to the biological importance objectives to reduce dead discards and allocated quota annually (due to the IBQ of having a quota system that effectively maximize fishing opportunity. The share associated with the permit), or a limits bluefin catch and provides design of the IBQ management measures person may purchase a permitted vessel incentives for pelagic longline vessels to and other aspects of Amendment 7 without IBQ shares, and lease quota minimize interactions with bluefin. minimize the significant adverse allocation from another permitted The IBQ Program was analyzed by economic impacts, disruption of social vessel. Under the preferred IBQ home port state, and the impacts by patterns, and adverse cumulative Program, as in the past, participation in state vary, depending upon the specific impacts, to the extent practicable, the pelagic longline fishery by new measurement (i.e., number of vessels relative to other methods analyzed entrants would require substantial with quota share, number of vessels that while also meeting Amendment 7 capital investment and potential new may need more quota than allocated; objectives. entrants will face costs which are amount of quota that each vessel would The preferred IBQ Program was similar to historical participants. need; and total amount of quota that designed to provide flexibility for NMFS considered the merits of setting each state would need). The states with vessels to be able to continue to aside a specified amount of quota for the highest number of vessels with maintain viable businesses, through new entrants, but found several negative quota shares would be Florida (43 initial allocations, potential allocation aspects of such a provision. For vessels with quota shares), Louisiana of quota from the Reserve category, example, providing quota to new (25 vessels), New Jersey (18 vessels), quota leasing, elimination of the target entrants would essentially create a North Carolina (14 vessels) and New species requirement, and, as described second quota allocation system, which York (11 vessels). Under the regulatory above, the flexibility for vessels to fully would complicate the overall preferred conditions of the Preferred Alternatives, account for their catch at the end of a IBQ Program by creating separate class within those home port states, the trip, after sale of the bluefin. of vessels, with different allocations. A number of vessels that would need to Comment 78: Commenters were quota set aside for new entrants would lease additional quota (above their concerned about the ability of new result in less quota available for other initial allocation) to continue fishing at entrants to become active in the fishery, participants in the fishery, and rather their historic rates are as follows: and some suggested that NMFS use an than the market controlling the quota, Florida (5 vessels), Louisiana (13 annual system to define eligible vessels, there would be many policy decisions to vessels), New Jersey (4 vessels), North such as a minimum number of sets be made (e.g., would the amount of set Carolina (2 vessels) and New York (3 during the previous year. A commenter aside vary according to the number of vessels). Although the proportion of noted that businesses which supply new new entrants, or be a fixed amount vessels in a particular state that would equipment to outfit pelagic longline annually? Would the quota be divided need to lease additional quota is highest vessels would be negatively impacted if equally among new entrants, be in New Orleans, the average amount of new entrants were not able to enter the allocated in the minimum share quota that the vessels would need to fishery. amounts, or allocated based on fishing lease is almost identical similar among Response: The ability for people who history?). NMFS believes in simplifying vessels from the ports of Louisiana, are currently not involved in the pelagic the IBQ Program upon implementation Florida, and New Jersey. Vessels with longline fishery to become participants where possible, to minimize regulatory the homeport state of New York would in the fishery (new entrants) is an burden and complexity. A system of need to lease about four times more important consideration, and is a rules regarding quota set aside would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71564 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

add additional complications to the IBQ proposed IBQ allocations and the different restrictions among the different Program. Therefore, when considering number of bluefin tuna that may be permit categories. whether additional restrictions to retained by a vessel with a General Comment 84: Some commenters facilitate new entrants to the fishery are category commercial permit (up to 5 urged NMFS to allocate equal shares of warranted, NMFS determined that given bluefin a trip), as justification for having bluefin quota to all eligible vessels, for the lack of information with which to larger individual quota allocations. multiple reasons. Equal shares would base such restrictions, and the Response: Under the preferred IBQ avoid the use of historical logbook data; uncertainty whether there would be a Program, some vessels will not have would reduce potential negative feelings pressing need for such restrictions, a enough quota share to continue to among permit holders with different quota set aside was not warranted. account for the same amount of bluefin amounts of allocation; and would During the three year review of the IBQ they caught in the past. The FEIS provide higher quota allocations for Program NMFS will consider analysis indicates that at a quota level some vessels than under the proposed information from the fishery after of 137 mt approximately 25 percent of method. Additionally, a commenter implementation of the IBQ Program, and vessels will need to lease additional noted that it may not be necessary to evaluate whether the IBQ Program bluefin quota in order to land their consider the amount of target catch in provides adequate opportunities to new historical average amount of target the quota share formula (and provide entrants. species if they do not change their more quota to vessels catching more As suggested by commenters, NMFS behavior to reduce their historical rate target catch) because larger fishing considered the concept of making an of bluefin interactions. If no leasing of operations are better equipped annual determination of which vessels IBQ allocation occurs, there could be a financially to adapt to new regulations. are eligible to receive quota allocations reduction in target species landings Another commenter supported basing based on a set of criteria (such as a with an associated reduction in revenue the allocation on target species landings certain number of longline sets during of approximately $7,574,590 total, or and fishing effort, because higher effort the previous year). NMFS found that $56,108 per vessel (135 vessels). is likely to result in more bluefin catch. there are negative aspects of such an The precise impacts of the IBQ Response: NMFS carefully considered annual system. If the vessels allocated Program are difficult to predict due to allocating quota shares on an equal quota shares varied on an annual basis, the variability of bluefin distribution as basis, but prefers to implement the the IBQ Program would be more well as the potential range of fishing method as proposed, which will complex and difficult to administer; behaviors (and business strategies) of incorporate two metrics of equal weight: there would be greater uncertainty vessels in response to the new Designated species landings and the annually in the fishery; there would be regulations. In order to reduce the ratio of bluefin to designated species incentives to fish on an annual basis likelihood of interactions, vessel landings. While an equal share formula (due to criteria to fish in order to receive operators may have to pursue new has some positive attributes, the overall quota); and any value associated with a strategies including communication merits of the preferred method would be permit that would be derived from the with other pelagic longline operators greater. It is important to take into associated IBQ share may be minimized regarding the known locations of consideration the diversity of the (if the IBQ share is only valid for a year). bluefin, modifications to fishing time, pelagic longline fleet, maximize the Although such a system could limit the location, and technique, and use of potential for the success of the IBQ number of years a vessel without quota alternative gears. In conjunction with Program, and provide incentives for share (i.e., a new entrant) must lease these strategies, leasing additional quota vessels to avoid bluefin tuna. quota, the negative aspects of this may be necessary. The preferred IBQ NMFS analyzed the pelagic longline approach would be substantial. For Program includes the requirement that logbook data on target catch and bluefin example, in order to have an IBQ system the relevant vessel have a permit as of interactions, and for most vessels, there that includes strong accountability, any August 21, 2013, which reduced the is positive correlation between the quota ‘debt’ accrued must persist from number of eligible vessels, and therefore amount of target catch, and the number one fishing year to the next. It would be will slightly increase the amount of of bluefin tuna interactions. For most difficult to implement persistent quota share per vessel. Due to the vessels, the more swordfish, yellowfin accountability if the vessels eligible for difficulty of predicting the precise tuna, or other target species a vessel quota changed on an annual basis. impacts of the preferred IBQ Program, catches, the more bluefin tuna it Comment 82: Many pelagic longline NMFS may, as the fishery adjusts to the interacts with. However, a few vessels vessel owners expressed strong new system, need to consider providing (those responsible for the largest concerns that the amount of bluefin additional quota to the Longline number of interactions) interact with quota allocated to individual vessels category in order to increase the amount large numbers of bluefin out of would be inadequate to continue to fish, of quota available to individual vessels, proportion with the amount of their and that despite efforts to avoid bluefin, thereby balancing the need to have an target catch. Considering this historic vessels would sooner or later encounter operational fishery with the need to pattern, basing one of the allocation bluefin. The proposed allocations would reduce bluefin bycatch in the fishery. formula elements on the amount of make continuing fishing operations During the preferred alternative’s three- designated species landings would extremely difficult, because they would year formal review of the IBQ system, increase the likelihood that vessels be forced to stop fishing, and therefore NMFS will consider any structural would be allocated quota in relation to revenue would be cut off, but expenses changes to the program necessary. the amount of quota they may need to would continue. Vessel owners stated The pelagic longline fishery is an account for their catch of bluefin. that they would not be able to remain incidental bluefin fishery unlike the The second of the two elements (the in business under such circumstances, directed General category handgear ratio of bluefin interactions to and some estimated that a large vessel fishery, and retention limits and other designated species landings) is useful would need about 20 bluefin to account management measures are different. The because it takes into consideration the for the anticipated amount of bluefin preferred alternatives in Amendment 7 fact that relatively few vessels (i.e., catch (instead 2 to 13 fish). Some would implement a regulatory system about fifteen percent of the vessels) are highlighted the difference between the that would mitigate the effects of the responsible for about 80 percent of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71565

interactions with bluefin tuna. Because unless they have quota, it is not likely fisheries (General, Harpoon, and the preferred allocation formula would that NMFS will be required to close the Charter/headboat categories) would be result in a lower allocation for vessels fishery as a whole. However, individual required to report using an automated with a higher rate of historic vessels will be prohibited from fishing catch reporting system via internet or interactions, it will provide a strong if they have not accounted for their phone. Longline category vessels would incentive for such vessels to make catch or do not have the required be required to coordinate installation changes in their fishing practices to minimum amount of quota allocation to and maintain a video and gear reduce their number of bluefin depart on a pelagic longline trip. If, electronic monitoring system that would interactions. Vessels with historically based on the best available data, NMFS record all catch and relevant data high catches of target species and a low estimates that the total amount of dead regarding pelagic longline gear rate of interactions with bluefin will discards and landings are projected to deployment and retrieval. The purpose receive a larger quota share than vessels reach, have reached, or exceed the of video monitoring for the Longline with either higher rates of bluefin Longline category quota, NMFS may category would be to provide a cost interactions or lower amounts of target prohibit fishing with pelagic longline effective and reliable source of species. gear. Similarly, if there is high information to verify the accuracy of Comment 87: Commenters expressed uncertainty regarding the estimated or bluefin tuna interactions reported via concern about whether vessel owners documented levels of bluefin catch, VMS and logbooks. In many instances, would be willing to lease quota to other NMFS may close the fishery to prevent the FEIS analysis found discrepancies vessels, given the low amounts of quota overharvest of the Longline category between logbook data and observer data allocated to vessels, and concern about quota, or prevent further discarding of whether the cost of leasing will be bluefin. (considered to be highly accurate) affordable, especially for owners of As described in many of the responses reported for the same trip. The preferred small vessels. Other commenters did not to comments, NMFS has designed electronic monitoring measure would support leasing because access to Amendment 7 not only reduce dead support accurate catch data and the additional quota could enable vessels to discards and implement accountability, preferred bluefin tuna IBQ management target bluefin. but also to provide flexibility for pelagic measures, by providing a means to Response: The analysis of the longline vessels fishing under the verify the accuracy of the counts and preferred IBQ Program in the FEIS preferred IBQ Program restrictions, and identification of bluefin reported by the indicates that at a quota of 137 mt, 25 flexibility in the quota system as a vessel operator. The per-vessel cost of percent of vessels will need to lease whole, to balance the needs of the this gear is expected to be additional quota in order to land their pelagic longline fishery with the needs approximately $19,175 for purchase and historical average amount of designated of the other quota categories. installation (including maintenance species if they do not change their Comment 94: NMFS received costs and loan interest), or $3,835 per behavior to reduce their historical rate comments that supported electronic year over the five-year life of the of bluefin interactions. Therefore, a monitoring (i.e., video camera and gear equipment. NMFS has been able to majority of vessels may have quota in sensors), while other comments either procure funding for the initial excess of what is needed to account for expressed concern or opposed it. installation of these systems. Variable their bluefin catch, and may have Comments supporting electronic costs are approximately $225 per trip, incentive to lease quota to other vessels. monitoring indicated that it is not cost including data retrieval, fishing activity Notwithstanding the analysis, there is prohibitive, that it would allow NMFS interpretation, and catch data uncertainty regarding both the amount to ground-truth other data, and that it interpretation. These costs are lower and price of quota that may be leased. supports accountability and than the cost of increased observer A well-functioning leasing market, enforcement. Those opposed to coverage. The Southeast Fisheries which enables quota to be leased by electronic monitoring said that it is cost Science Center estimates that observer those who need it, will be a key factor prohibitive, an invasion of privacy, and deployment costs approximately $1,075 in whether the preferred IBQ Program is redundant with existing information. per sea day, which equates to functions as intended. Some comments expressed concern approximately $9,675 per average nine Comment 92: Comments on NMFS’ about the functionality of a system, day pelagic longline trip. authority to close the pelagic longline considering the issues experienced with fishery ranged from those who support some VMS functionality, and the ability Video monitoring is currently used in closing the fishery in conjunction with to identify the difference between several fisheries, and NMFS has funded a Longline category quota allocation of bigeye and bluefin tuna using video over 30 pilot projects to further research 8.1 percent, to those who said that the cameras. Implementation using a pilot on the use and effectiveness of fishery should be closed only if there is scale was suggested, which would allow electronic monitoring, including unusually high catch of bluefin (and not time to set up a functioning research on the accuracy of finfish when the quota is reached. Commenters infrastructure. Expansion of electronic identification. These studies provide noted the potential impacts of closures monitoring to other categories with dead evidence that properly deployed and early in the year on the pelagic longline discards was also suggested. maintained video monitoring camera fishery, supporting businesses, Response: The preferred measures systems provide effective data for consumers of the fish products, and would establish requirements to accurately identifying large pelagic future ICCAT recommendations. monitor dead discards for all species. NMFS white papers on Response: A closure of the pelagic commercial user categories to better electronic monitoring are available at longline fishery may have adverse direct achieve the ICCAT requirement to the following Web address: http:// and secondary economic impacts, the account for sources of bluefin tuna www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/ severity of which will depend upon fishing mortality and to better monitor Councils/ccc_2013/K_NMFS_EM_ how early in the year the closure the fishery for bluefin accounting WhitePapers.pdf. NMFS would take into occurred. Under the preferred IBQ purposes domestically. The Purse seine account the time required for owners to Program, in which individual vessels category would be required to report outfit their vessels with newly required may not fish with pelagic longline gear dead discards via VMS, and hand gear equipment when establishing the dates

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71566 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

of required effectiveness for electronic including that NMFS should not reduce as a ‘‘small business’’ if it is monitoring. the trophy south subquota; the independently owned and operated, is Comment 99: NMFS received a reduction would negatively affect not dominant in its field of operation comment that NMFS should consider charter captains in the mid-Atlantic and (including its affiliates), and has the fact that transfers of quota under the South Atlantic areas; and that the combined annual receipts (revenue) not measure that would provide more change in allocation would increase in excess of $20.5 million for all its flexibility for General category quota landings of spawning bluefin in the Gulf affiliated operations worldwide (NAICS transfers will have the effect of moving of Mexico. Other commenters stated that code 114111, finfish fishing). NAICS is quota from the traditional Northeast NMFS should change the division of the North American Industry fishery to the mid-Atlantic and South; subquota, but not split the subquota Classification System, a standard system in other words that Alternative E1c will equally between the southern area and used by business and government to negatively impact Northeast fishermen. the Gulf of Mexico; or that NMFS classify business establishments into One commenter stated that NMFS should allocate 10% or 17% of the industries, according to their economic should take no action on General trophy south subquota to the Gulf of activity. The United States government category subquotas (Alternative E1a). Mexico. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery developed NAICS to collect, analyze, Another commenter stated that NMFS Management Council commented that and publish data about the economy. In should establish 12 equal monthly NMFS should take no action on this addition, the SBA has defined a small subquotas (Alternative E1b). issue (Alternative E3a) and that charter/party boat entity (NAICS code Response: NMFS acknowledges the Alternative E3b would lead to an 487210, for-hire) as one with average concerns that quota distribution may unreasonably small recreational bluefin annual receipts (revenue) of less than impact temporal fishing opportunities trophy quota for the northern region. $7.5 million. The SBA recently and considered these factors in selecting Response: Under the preferred modified its definitions of small preferred alternatives. Note that current alternative, the trophy subquota would businesses, and therefore the definitions regulations do not preclude General be divided to provide 33 percent each were slightly different between the category and HMS Charter/Headboat to the northern area, the southern area proposed and final rules (79 FR 33647; category vessels from traveling from one outside the Gulf of Mexico, and the Gulf June 12, 2014). area to another. In fact, many vessels of Mexico. The objective of this The average annual revenue per active travel from the northeast and mid- alternative is to provide reasonable pelagic longline vessel is estimated to be Atlantic states to participate in the fishing opportunities for recreational $187,000 based on the 170 active vessels winter fishery that occurs largely off vessels in the Atlantic and GOM, reduce between 2006 and 2012 that produced North Carolina. NMFS would continue discards, and account for incidentally an estimated $31.8 million in revenue to consider the regulatory determination caught bluefin. A separate subquota annually. The maximum annual criteria regarding inseason quota allocation for the GOM would improve revenue for any pelagic longline vessel transfers in an attempt to balance the equity of the trophy-sized fish during that time period was less than reasonable opportunity to harvest quota allocation by increasing the likelihood $1.4 million, well below the SBA size with other considerations, including that there would be trophy quota threshold of $20.5 million in combined variations in bluefin distribution and available to account for incidental catch annual receipts. Therefore, NMFS availability, among others. The of bluefin in that area (while still considers all Tuna Longline category preferred alternative would provide providing incentives not to target permit holders to be small entities. additional fishing opportunities within bluefin). An equal 33 percent division NMFS is unaware of any other Atlantic the General category quota while among the three areas would provide Tunas category permit holders that acknowledging the traditional fishery. the most equitable trophy subquota potentially could earn more than $20.5 Division of the quota equally by month allocation. This preferred measure million in revenue annually. Therefore, was not preferred because the potential would not affect the amount of Trophy NMFS considers all Atlantic Tunas negative social and economic impacts subquota available to the northern area. permit holders subject to this action to outweigh the positive impacts. The be considered small entities. NMFS is Description and Estimate of the Number negative aspects of this alternative also unaware of any charter/headboat of Small Entities to Which the Final include the potential for gear conflicts businesses that could exceed the SBA Rule Will Apply and a derby fishery, as well as the receipt/revenue thresholds for small potential for the historical geographic Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires entities. distribution of the fishery to be a description and estimate of the The preferred alternatives would dramatically altered. Although this number of small entities to which the apply to the 4,059 Atlantic Tunas alternative would provide some stability final rule would apply. This final rule permit holders based on an analysis of to the fishery by establishing a known is expected to directly affect commercial permit holders in October 2013 (NMFS amount of quota that would be available and for-hire fishing vessels that possess 2014). Of these permit holders, 252 have at the first of each month, if catch rates an Atlantic Tunas permit or Atlantic Longline category permits, 14 have are high in the early portion of the HMS Charter/Headboat permit. In Harpoon category permits, 7 have Trap month, these quotas could be harvested general, the HMS Charter/Headboat category permits, 5 have Purse Seine rapidly and may lead to derby style category permit holders can be regarded category participants, and 3,783 have fisheries on the first of each month. as small entities for RFA purposes. HMS General category permits. The preferred Additionally, if catch rates are high and Angling (Recreational) category permit alternatives would also impact HMS subquotas are reached quickly, NMFS holders are typically obtained by Angling category and HMS Charter/ under this alternative may have to individuals who are not considered Headboat category permit holders. In implement multiple closures notices small entities for purposes of the RFA. 2013, 3,968 vessel owners obtained throughout the year. The Small Business Administration HMS Charter/Headboat category Comment 101: NMFS received (SBA) has established size criteria for all permits. It is unknown what portion of comments on allocating a portion of the major industry sectors in the U.S. these permit holders actively participate trophy south subquota to the Gulf of including fish harvesters. A business in Atlantic HMS fishing or fishing Mexico (preferred Alternative E3b), involved in fish harvesting is classified services for recreational anglers. NMFS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71567

has determined that the preferred to determine whether they qualify to accountability for providing accurate alternatives would not likely directly gain access to the Cape Hatteras GRA. data on catch and harvest. Preferred affect any small government These metrics would be based on the alternative C2g2 (same as D2b) would jurisdictions defined under RFA. More vessel’s historical catch and reporting require pelagic longline vessels to information regarding the description of compliance. Pelagic longline permit install an electronic monitoring system, the fisheries affected, and the categories holders would be permitted to appeal including video cameras and associated and number of permit holders, can be their performance metrics by submitting recording and monitoring equipment, in found in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. a written request, indicating the reason order to record all longline catch and for the appeal, and providing supporting relevant data regarding pelagic longline Description of Projected Reporting and documentation (e.g., copies of landings gear deployment and retrieval. Data Record-Keeping Requirements records, permit ownership, etc.). Each collected during each fishing trip would Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires appeal request is expected to take be required to be provided to NMFS, a description of the projected reporting, approximately two hours to compile. within a specified time frame after each record-keeping, and other compliance trip. This alternative would require both Quota Control Alternatives requirements of the final rule, including fixed and variable costs over the service an estimate of the classes of small The preferred alternatives for bluefin life of each camera installed onboard. entities which would be subject to the tuna quota controls include several The per-vessel cost of this gear is requirements of the report or record. reporting requirements necessary to expected to be approximately $19,175 Several Amendment 7 measures include implement IBQs for pelagic longline for purchase and installation (including reporting, record-keeping, and vessels. Some of these requirements are maintenance costs and loan interest), or compliance requirements that require a also addressed under the alternatives in $3,835 per year over the five-year life of new Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) other sections of this document. the equipment. NMFS has been able to filing, and some of the preferred The alternatives in this section procure funding for the initial alternatives would modify existing include options for assigning IBQ installation of these systems. Variable reporting and record-keeping shares. Preferred alternative C2j would costs are approximately $225 per trip, requirements, and add compliance implement a process for individuals to including data retrieval, fishing activity requirements. NMFS estimates that the appeal their IBQ share. Individuals interpretation, and catch data number small entities that would be would be required to submit a written interpretation. subject to these requirements would request for an appeal, and include the Preferred alternative C2g1 (same as include the Longline category (252), reason for appeal and supporting D1b) would require pelagic longline Charter/Headboat category (3,968), documentation. The reporting burden vessels to use their E–MTU VMS to General category (3,783), Harpoon associated with each appeal, those submit daily reports of bluefin tuna category (14) and Purse Seine category submitted to the HMS Management catch and harvest and fishing effort. (3), based on the number of permit Division or to the National Appeals Purse seine vessels would be required to holders in commercial bluefin tuna Office, are expected to be approximately purchase and install E–MTU VMS units, fishing categories in 2013. The two hours. and submit daily reports of catch, following section describes the Preferred alternative C2c2 would harvest, and effort as well. This projected reporting, record-keeping and authorize transfer of quota among alternative would provide more timely other compliance requirements of the eligible Atlantic tunas Longline permit data as required by the IBQ system than final rule as required. holders and Purse Seine category the current pelagic longline logbook participants. To support tracking of IBQ Area-Based Alternatives program and dealer reporting transfers among IBQ participants and requirements. As noted above, the Currently, pelagic longline vessels establish a tracking system for purchase additional reporting burden for the VMS must have agency approved E–MTU of bluefin tuna under the IBQ System, reports is 5 minutes per report/day and VMS units installed and must use them preferred alternative C2e1 would $0.12 per report. The cost of installing to hail in and out of port prior to and require IBQ participants to track and E–MTU VMS is $3,300 per vessel and at the end of a fishing trip. The Area- execute transfers of IBQ allocation via daily position reports cost based preferred alternative that would the IBQ System. To access the IBQ approximately $1.44 per day. grant conditional access (based on System eligible users must be able to Several alternatives include performance metric criteria) to the access the system electronically. IBQ additional compliance requirements Modified Cape Hatteras GRA System users will need some basic without additional reporting. Preferred (Alternative B 1d) would require that computer and Internet skills to input alternative C21.2b would require pelagic longline vessels authorized to information for bluefin tuna trade into mandatory retention of all legal-sized fish in the area also submit daily reports the IBQ System. The record-keeping and dead bluefin tuna caught on pelagic to NMFS via E–MTU VMS summarizing reporting burden for permit holders is longline gear. Preferred alternative C4b their fishing effort and bluefin tuna expected to be approximately 15 would allow NMFS to prohibit fishing catch and harvest. This is a slightly minutes per trade. The IBQ System will using pelagic longline gear once the modification of the preferred alternative also require interaction with federal bluefin tuna quota is reached. in the DEIS and in the proposed rule, bluefin tuna dealer permit holders that Conversely, preferred alternative C21.1b but it has the same additional reporting purchase bluefin from pelagic long line would relieve certain compliance burden, which is expected to take five vessels; however, electronic dealer requirements by repealing target catch minutes per report/day at a cost of $0.12 reporting for bluefin tuna purchases was requirements for pelagic longline per report. This data will allow NMFS previously analyzed and approved by vessels. to determine whether continued access NMFS in the 2006 Consolidated HMS Lastly, one of the preferred to the areas is warranted based on FMP rulemaking (71 FR 58058, October alternatives would have an additional bluefin tuna interaction rates, among 2, 2006) and thus the rule effectively reporting requirement, but would occur other things. does not impose a new requirement for via a future action under separate NMFS would calculate performance dealers in this category. An IBQ System rulemaking. As required by the MSA, a metrics for each pelagic longline vessel for bluefin demands a high degree of cost recovery program for management

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71568 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

and enforcement costs associated with 603(c)(1)–(4)) lists four general measures, covers six main alternatives, the preferred IBQ Program (Preferred categories of ‘‘significant’’ alternatives which include VMS requirements, alternative C2i) will be addressed via a that would assist an agency in the electronic monitoring of the Longline subsequent regulatory action, at which development of significant alternatives. category, automated catch reporting, time NMFS will update/modify current These categories of alternatives are: deployment of observers, logbook record-keeping and compliance 1. Establishment of differing requirements, and expanding the scope requirements. This action may require compliance or reporting requirements or of the Large Pelagics Survey. The fifth new PRA filings, but does not at this timetables that take into account the category of alternatives, other measures, time. resources available to small entities; covers seven main alternatives that 2. Clarification, consolidation, or Enhanced Reporting Measures address other Tunas permit categories simplification of compliance and besides Longline and other tuna quotas. Several preferred alternatives are reporting requirements under the rule The expected economic impacts of the identified as measures to enhance for such small entities; different alternatives considered and reporting for bluefin tuna. Three of 3. Use of performance rather than analyzed are discussed below. these include the VMS requirements design standards; and, The potential impacts that these 4. Exemptions from coverage of the (C2g1 and D1b), and electronic alternatives may have on small entities monitoring of the Longline category rule for small entities. In order to meet the objectives of this have been analyzed and are discussed in (C2g2 and D2b), discussed above. The the following sections. The economic last is the preferred alternative to Amendment, consistent with all legal requirements, NMFS cannot exempt impacts that would occur under these require automated catch reporting for preferred alternatives were compared General, Harpoon, and Charter/ small entities or change the reporting with the other alternatives to discuss Headboat permit categories (D3b). This requirements only for small entities how the economic impacts to small alternative would require individuals because all the entities affected are entities were minimized while still with those vessel permits to report their considered small entities. Thus, there accomplishing the stated objectives of catch (i.e., landings and discards) after are no alternatives discussed that fall this rule. each trip using an automated system under the first and fourth categories such as a Web site or phone recording described above. Under the third Allocation Alternatives system. NMFS estimates that each category, ‘‘use of performance rather These alternatives would either report will take approximately 5 than design standards,’’ NMFS modify the base allocations (percentages minutes. Based on previous years’ considers Alternative B 1c ‘‘Cape of the U.S. quota designated to landings, NMFS estimates that the total Hatteras Gear Restricted Area with particular for bluefin quota categories) annual reporting burden will be Access based on Performance’’, and remain the same until and if approximately 607 hours and could Alternative B 1d ‘‘Modified Cape changed by future amendment, or affect approximately 8,226 permit Hatteras Pelagic Longline Gear would set up a regulatory mechanism holders. Restricted Area with Access Based on Performance’’, Alternative C 2 ‘‘IBQs for modifying the quotas annually or in Other Measures Based on Designated Species Landings certain years based on defined criteria. The other measures implemented by and the Ratio of Bluefin Catch to Alternative A 1—No Action this rule would not increase reporting or Designated Species Landings’’, and B 3b compliance requirements. ‘‘Limited Conditional Access to Closed The No Action alternative would Areas using Pelagic Longline Gear Based make no changes to the current Description of Steps Taken To Minimize on Performance Criteria’’ to all be percentages that each quota category is Significant Economic Impacts of This alternatives that use performance allocated (General: 47.1 percent; Action standards. As described below, NMFS Harpoon: 3.9 percent; Purse Seine: 18.6 Section 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires analyzed several different alternatives percent; Longline: 8.1 percent; Trap: 0.1 a description of the steps NMFS has and provides the rationale for percent; Angling: 19.7 percent; Reserve: taken to minimize the significant identifying the preferred alternatives to 2.5 percent). Dead discards would economic impacts on small entities achieve the desired objective. continue to be accounted for separately consistent with the stated objectives of NMFS considered five different from the quota allocations through the applicable statutes, including a categories of potential bluefin annual specification process. statement of the factual, policy, and management measures, each with its In the short-term, minor to moderate legal reasons for selecting the alternative own range of alternatives that would direct adverse economic impacts are adopted in the final rule and the reason meet the objectives of the Magnuson- likely to be limited to the Longline that each one of the other significant Stevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated category due to quota shortages. In 2012, alternatives to the rule considered by HMS FMP. The first category, allocation NMFS projected that the Longline the Agency which affected small entities alternatives, covers four main category was likely to fully harvest their was rejected. The impacts NMFS has alternatives that address various quota allocated quota before the end of the identified and the steps NMFS has taken reallocation strategies. The second fishing year, and closed the southern to minimize them are discussed below category of alternatives, area based area on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 31546) and and in the FEIS. One of the alternatives, explores various gear the northern area on June 30, 2012 (77 requirements of an FRFA is to describe restricted areas, gear measures, and FR 38011, June 26, 2012). In 2013, the any alternatives to the preferred access to closed areas using pelagic Longline category northern and alternatives which accomplish the longline gear. The third category of southern areas were closed on June 25 stated objectives and which minimize alternatives, bluefin tuna quota controls, (78 FR 36685) because the adjusted any significant economic impacts. These covers four main alternatives, which quota had been reached. In the long- impacts and the steps taken to minimize include IBQs, regional and group term, there could be additional minor to them are discussed below and in quotas, and closure of the pelagic moderate direct adverse economic Chapters 4 and 5 of the FEIS. longline fishery. The fourth category of impacts if other quota categories are Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. alternatives, enhanced reporting closed early in the fishing year.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71569

Alternative A 2—Codified Reallocation 55.56%, and 48.05%, respectively. transfer quota inseason to or from any The Codified reallocation alternative Revising the quota allocations for all fishing category to or from the Reserve, (Preferred) would reallocate quota and categories to reflect recent catch would and could continue to transfer any result in increased bluefin quota for the increase the potential revenue from amount of quota inseason, even if purse Longline category, and would therefore bluefin for the Longline category by seine vessels receive the minimum alleviate some of the current challenges approximately $11,305 per permit amount of quota (25 percent) at the start associated with the domestic quota holder per year. The General category of the season. In recent years, little of system. could face a potential reduction in the the Purse Seine category quota has been This alternative would codify a quota maximum revenue from bluefin of landed. If that continues into the future, category increase of 62.5 mt whole approximately $1,254 per permit holder under alternative A 3a, the Purse Seine weight to the Longline category per year. The Harpoon category could quota could be reduced by 75 percent. reflecting the historical 68 mt dead face a potential reduction in the The 23.8 mt associated with that discard allowance and the current maximum revenue from bluefin of reduction would reduce the maximum allocation percentages. All of the approximately $4,996 per permit holder revenue from bluefin that the purse categories, including the Longline per year. The Purse Seine category seine vessel could land by $403,000 category, would contribute to the 68 mt could face a potential reduction in the annually. However, given the recent historical allowance, with a net increase maximum revenue from bluefin of bluefin landings history of the purse of 62.5 to the Longline category after its approximately $713,558 per permit seine fleet, it is unlikely that future share of the deduction, (i.e., based on holder per year. bluefin landings would be constrained Alternative A 2c (Reallocation from the current 8.1 percent allocation, the substantially by this reduction and Purse Seine to Longline Category) Longline category portion of the 68 mt allocations would be re-evaluated on an would reallocate two-fifths (40 percent) annual basis. Therefore, alternative A 3a is 5.5 mt; 68 mt–5.5 mt equals 62.5 mt, of the current Purse Seine category hence an increase of 62.5 mt. This would likely only result in minor direct quota to the Longline category and adverse short-term economic impacts to alternative results in a net increase of would result in 91.84% increase in the 62.5 mt for the Longline category, which permitted Purse Seine vessels. Other Longline category quota and a decrease categories would benefit from the would increase the potential revenue the Purse Seine quota by 39.99%. The from bluefin for the Longline category potential of increased revenue, and this permanent reallocation of two-fifths of alternative would increase predictability by approximately $11,269 per permit the Purse Seine category to the Longline holder per year. The General category in the fishery. This alternative category would increase the potential minimizes economic impacts by would face a potential reduction in the revenue from bluefin for the Longline maximum revenue from bluefin of providing a means to optimize quota category by approximately $12,387 per utilization and account for dead approximately $850 per permit holder permit holder per year. The Purse Seine per year. The Harpoon category would discards, enhance quota flexibility in a category could face a potential predictable manner, as well incorporate face a potential reduction in the reduction in the maximum revenue maximum revenue from bluefin of a system for Purse Seine fishery from bluefin of an equivalent $582,202 participants to be allocated their total approximately $2,409 per permit holder per permit holder per year. The other per year. The Purse Seine category base quota percentage if they are bluefin quota categories would not be consistently active in the fishery. could face a potential reduction in the impacted by this alternative. maximum revenue from bluefin of Under alternative A 3b (Annual Purse approximately $107,627 per permit Alternative A 3—Annual Reallocation of Seine Allocation Commensurate with holder per year. Although the Bluefin Quota From Purse Seine the Number of Purse Seine Vessels), magnitude of revenue loss appears to be Category NMFS would make Purse Seine category high for the Purse Seine category, this Annual reallocation Alternatives A 3a quota available annually to that category alternative actually would likely have and A 3b would reallocate anticipated based on the number of active Purse minor adverse economic impacts on unused quota from the Purse Seine Seine vessels and would reallocate the Purse Seine fishermen since landings in category to other quota categories or remainder to the Reserve category. An this category have recently been very would allocate to the Purse Seine active Purse Seine vessel would be low. This alternative minimizes category in proportion to the number of defined as a vessel with a valid Purse economic impacts by reallocating only a permitted vessels (respectively). Seine category permit, which has relatively small portion of each Under alternative A 3a, the preferred requested and received an allocation in category’s quota to the Longline alternative, 25 percent of the Purse accordance with the regulations category. Seine category bluefin quota would be (§ 635.27(a)(4)), and is capable of fishing Alternative A 2b (Reallocation guaranteed to be available to the five purse seine gear (defined at Incorporating Recent Catch Data) would historically permitted fishery § 635.21(e)(vi)) to harvest Atlantic revise the quota allocation percentages participants (permit holders) in that bluefin tuna. The net result would be for all categories, basing the new category, but beyond that, the bluefin that only those Purse Seine category allocation on both the current codified quota would be based on the previous permit holders with active vessels allocation (50%) and recent catch (50%) year’s landings and dead discards. would receive Purse Seine quota, and as applicable to each quota category. Based on a formula, quota may be individually they would be allocated Reallocating the quota based on recent reallocated from the Purse Seine one fifth of the overall Purse Seine base catch data would result in a 83.56% category to the Reserve category quota, acknowledging the preferred increase in the Longline category quota annually. The allocation formula is codified allocation alternative and an increase for the Angling category designed to allocate a minimum level of (Alternative A 2a), under which the of 47.1%. However, this reallocation quota to permitted fishery participants, Purse Seine base quota would be 159.1 alternative would result in a decrease in as well as enable quota to increase over mt. The economic impacts of this the quotas of the General, Harpoon, successive years, in order to avoid being alternative would be similar to those Purse Seine, Trap, and Reserve too restrictive. Note that NMFS would under alternative A 3a. Alternative A 3b categories of 10.85%, 15.56%, 49.01%, still have the regulatory authority to would also likely only result in minor

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71570 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

direct adverse short-term economic longline fishery is likely to stay the metrics, and based on that review, impacts resulting from the loss of same or increase under the No Action authorize some vessels fishing with potential revenue if current bluefin alternative, without implementation of a pelagic longline gear to have access to fishing levels remain the same. new GRA. This could result in moderate the Cape Hatteras GRA. As described in long-term adverse economic impacts more detail in Chapter 2, the Alternative A 4—Modifications to when the Longline category exceeds its performance metrics are: (1) Level of Reserve Category quota earlier in the fishing year because bluefin interactions/avoidance; (2) Under the alternative A 4a, the No of dead discards and is required to shut observer program participation; and (3) Action alternative, there would be no down. logbook submissions. NMFS would changes to the allocation to the Reserve Alternative B 1b would define a notify vessel owners by mail whether or category or the determination criteria modified rectangular area off Cape not they are authorized to fish in the that are considered prior to making any Hatteras, North Carolina, and prohibit area. This alternative would use the adjustments to/from this category. This the use of pelagic longline gear in that same area off Cape Hatteras, North alternative would not impact small area annually during the five-month Carolina, as in Alternative B 1b, and entities. The Reserve category would be period from December through April. would define criteria for access by HMS allocated the current 2.5 percent of the Other gear types authorized for use by permitted vessels fishing with pelagic U.S. annual quota, and NMFS could pelagic longline vessels, such as buoy longline gear during the five-month allocate any portion of the Reserve gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel, period from December through April. category quota for inseason or annual would be allowed. This region off North Vessels that are determined by NMFS to adjustments to any other quota category Carolina contains seasonally consistent have a relatively low rate of interactions provided NMFS considered the current concentrations of bluefin and catches by with bluefin based on past performance, determination criteria and other the pelagic longline fleet. Logbook and and that comply with reporting and relevant factors first. observer data indicate that historically monitoring requirements would be Alternative A 4b (Modify Reserve there have been relatively high catches allowed to fish in the area using pelagic Category), the preferred alternative, and catch rates of bluefin by pelagic longline gear. Vessels that have not would increase the amount of quota that longline vessels in this region. The demonstrated their ability to avoid may be put into the Reserve category specific time and area of the Cape bluefin would not be allowed to fish from several sources and expand the Hatteras GRA represents a time and area with pelagic longline gear in this area; potential uses of Reserve category quota. combination likely to result in reduced or if a vessel has demonstrated its Specifically, it would potentially bluefin interactions based on past ability to avoid bluefin, but has had increase the Reserve category quota patterns of interactions. This alternative poor record of compliance with beyond the current baseline allocation is expected to have moderate short and reporting and monitoring requirements, of 2.5 percent and broaden the long-term direct adverse economic it would not be allowed to fish with determination criteria to be considered impacts on 50 vessels that have pelagic longline gear in this area from in making adjustments to/from the historically fished in the Cape Hatteras December through April. Individual Reserve category. This could result in GRA during the months of December vessel data would be evaluated annually moderate beneficial economic impacts if through April. The average annual for the purpose of determining access, unused quota from a previous year revenue per vessel made in the gear and results would be communicated to could be reallocated to the Reserve restricted area is approximately $28,000 the individual permit holders via a annually during the restricted months category to potentially offset any permit holder letter. This evaluation assuming that fishing effort does not overharvests in another category, would be based on the most recent move to other areas. However, it is consistent with ICCAT complete information available in order likely that some of the vessels that recommendations on carry-forward of to provide future opportunities and would be impacted by this gear unharvested quota. accommodate changes in fishing restricted area would be able to behavior, both positively and Area Based Alternatives redistribute their effort to other fishing negatively, based on performance. Alternative B 1—Gear Restricted Areas areas. NMFS estimated that if a vessel historically made less than 40 percent of Based on the proposed performance Under alternative B 1, NMFS their sets in the GRA, it would likely criteria, NMFS determined that, of 161 considered a range of GRA alternatives redistribute all of its effort. If a vessel active vessels in the entire pelagic from maintaining existing pelagic made more than 40 percent, but less longline fleet, 50 vessels fished in the longline closures (the no action than 75 percent of its sets in the GRA, Cape Hatteras GRA or buffer region. Of alternative) to a year-round GRA of the it would likely redistribute 50 percent of these 50 active vessels, 16 vessels that entire Gulf of Mexico EEZ (west of 82° its effort impacted by the gear restricted fished in the Cape Hatteras GRA or longitude) in order to reduce area to other areas. Finally, if a vessel buffer region did not meet the criteria interactions with bluefin tuna. made more than 75 percent of its sets for access based on their inability to Alternative B 1a, the No Action solely within the gear restricted area, avoid bluefin tuna, and/or compliance Alternative, would result in the status NMFS assumed it would not likely shift with POP observer and logbook quo regarding GRAss. Although the its effort to other areas. Based on these reporting requirements. The average current pelagic longline closed areas redistribution assumptions, the net annual revenue made in the GRA by would remain effective, the data impact of the Cape Hatteras GRA on these 16 vessels is approximately indicate that large numbers of fishing revenues after redistribution of $29,000 per vessel during the restricted interactions of pelagic longline gear effort is estimated to be $17,900 per months. However, it is likely that some with bluefin occur in consistent areas year. of the vessels that would be impacted by during predictable time periods, which Under Alternative B 1c (Cape Hatteras this gear restricted area would be able are outside of the current closed areas. Pelagic Longline GRA with Access to redistribute their effort to other The No Action alternative would based on Performance), NMFS would fishing areas. The net impact of therefore not reduce dead discards. The annually review pelagic longline vessel Alternative B 1c on fishing revenues magnitude of the discards in the pelagic performance using three performance after redistribution of effort is estimated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71571

to be $19,000 per vessel per year for impacted by this alternative’s yellowfin, and skipjack from that area those 16 vessels. implementation of the GRA would would result in short-term, direct, Alternative B 1d (Modified Cape redistribute their effort to other fishing minor, beneficial economic impacts, Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA with areas. The net impact of Alternative B although substantially less so than Access Based on Performance; 1d on fishing revenues after continuing to use longline gear, which Preferred), would delineate a gear redistribution of effort is estimated to be accounts for a much larger proportion of restricted area off Cape Hatteras, North $15,000 per vessel per year for those 14 catch of bigeye, albacore, and yellowfin Carolina and prohibit the use of pelagic vessels. tuna than does handgear. If other longline gear in the area annually This alternative is as effective at alternatives, such as annual reallocation during the five-month period from reducing dead discards as the originally- from the Purse Seine category (A3a) or December through April. Access to the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA but it providing additional flexibility for GRA would be evaluated annually for minimizes economic impacts to the General category quota adjustment (E1c) each permitted vessel in the pelagic extent practicable, consistent with the are implemented, adverse economic longline fleet using the same objectives of Amendment 7. The impacts for General category performance metrics discussed under modified alternative thereby strikes a participants may be reduced. Alternative B 1c. better balance between reducing dead Alternative B 1f would prohibit the NMFS proposed a Cape Hatteras GRA discards of bluefin and continued use of pelagic longline gears in the GOM for the months of December through operation of the pelagic longline fleet in for 3 months each year. This alternative April during which time vessels would the Atlantic. Therefore, NMFS prefers is expected to have moderate short and be prohibited from fishing with pelagic this modification (i.e., shaving off the long-term direct adverse economic longline gear in the defined area, with southeast corner of the restricted area) impacts on 69 vessels that have the exception of vessels granted access to balance environmental, ecological, historically fished in the GOM EEZ based upon performance criteria. Based and economic impacts of the alternative. during the months of March through on public comment, NMFS re-analyzed This alternative minimizes economic May. The average annual revenue from the spatial and temporal configurations impacts by providing access to vessels fishing sets made in the GRA is of the Cape Hatteras GRA, and instead if certain parameters are met and approximately $26,000 per vessel is implementing a modified gear because the time and area of the GRA during the closure months. Based on restricted area during the same months were set based on consideration of historical fishing patterns of vessels that (December through April), but of a bluefin interactions as well as economic fish in the OM, it is unlikely that effort slightly different configuration than impacts in order to optimize the design will be redistributed into areas outside proposed. The total area of the Modified to achieve the objectives. of this region. Cape Hatteras GRA being implemented Alternative B 1e would allow vessels Alternative B 1g would define a is smaller than that of the proposed with an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit rectangular area in the GOM and Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, due to fish under the rules/regulations prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear to the modification of the southeastern applicable to the General category as during the two-month period from April region of the GRA. Specifically, the they pertain to targeting bluefin using through May. NMFS tailored the Small southeastern corner as proposed was a non pelagic longline-gear (gear GOM GRA to maximize the reductions ninety degree angle, but this final rule authorized under the General category, in bluefin interactions while connects the southwestern corner to a including rod and reel, handline, minimizing the area where pelagic more northerly point on the eastern harpoon, etc.), in the area defined as the longline gear use is restricted. This boundary of the Cape Hatteras GRA, Cape Hatteras GRA during the time of alternative is expected to have moderate eliminating a triangular shaped area the restriction (December through short- and long-term direct adverse from the southeast region of the Gear April), when the General category economic impacts on 36 vessels that Restricted Area. The shape of the fishery is open. The bluefin landed with have historically fished in the Small Modified Cape Hatteras GRA as authorized handgear would be counted Gulf of Mexico GRA during April and implemented will minimize the against the General category quota. The May. The average annual revenue from likelihood that pelagic longline gear set amount of bluefin landings allowed fishing sets made in the GRA is south of the GRA will drift into the GRA under this alternative would be limited approximately $7,500 per vessel during due to the prevailing direction of by the available General category the restricted months. However, it is currents. As a result of these analyses, subquotas for December and for January. likely that some of the vessels that and considerations, NMFS has modified Alternative B 1d would result in short- would be impacted by this gear the preferred alternative to a gear term, direct, minor, beneficial economic restricted area would be able to restricted area during the same months impacts for Longline category fishermen redistribute their effort to other fishing (December through April), but with a that otherwise would not be able to fish areas within the GOM. The net impact slightly different configuration. for bluefin in the Cape Hatteras GRA. It of the Small GOM GRA on fishing NMFS determined that only 14 would result in short-term, direct, revenues after redistribution of effort is vessels that fished in the Modified Cape minor, adverse economic impacts for estimated to be $2,600 per vessel per Hatteras GRA would not meet the General category participants to the year. criteria for access based on their extent that any Longline category vessel Alternative B 1h would prohibit the inability to avoid bluefin tuna, and/or landings of bluefin under General use of pelagic longlines in the same area compliance with POP observer and category rules results in the available as in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA (i.e., logbook reporting requirements. The subquota being met earlier than it would anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico), year- average annual revenue from fishing otherwise. A loss or gain of one fish is round. This alternative is expected to sets made in the GRA by these 14 approximately $3,500. If a Longline have moderate short- and long-term vessels is approximately $22,000 per category vessel chooses to fish with direct adverse economic impacts on 75 vessel during the restricted months General category gear in the Cape vessels that have historically fished in based on past fishing patterns from Hatteras GRA versus outside the area the Gulf of Mexico EEZ. The average 2006–2012. However, it is likely that with pelagic longline gear, the ability to annual revenue from fishing in the GRA some of the vessels that would be land and sell bigeye, albacore, is approximately $102,000 per vessel.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71572 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Alternative B 1i, a preferred vessels that need to transit the closed or potential need to acquire different alternative, would establish modified restricted areas. Allowing transit permits while fishing with buoy gear. GRAs in the central GOM that would through these areas could also This alternative would have no effect on prohibit the use of pelagic longlines potentially improve safety at sea by vessels with a Swordfish Incidental from April through May. This allowing more direct transit routes and permit, unless Alternative B 2b is alternative is based upon public reducing transit time, particularly adopted. Without Alternative B 2b, this comments on the Small GOM GRA, during inclement weather. More direct alternative would provide additional which was the preferred alternative in transit routes and reduced transiting flexibility for vessels with a Swordfish the DEIS. The total area of the Modified time minimize economic impacts of the Directed permit and an Atlantic Tunas Spring GOM GRA is larger than that of closed and restricted areas. Longline permit. the Small GOM GRA. The Spring Gulf Alternative B 2—Gear Measures Alternative B 3—Access to Closed Areas of MexicoGRAs are comprised of two Using Pelagic Longline Gear separate areas: An area based on the Alternative B 2a, the preferred No Small GOM GRA preferred in the DEIS, Action alternative, would not change Alternative B 3a, the preferred No but extended to the east and reduced in current authorized gear requirements Action alternative, would maintain the size on the western and northern (with respect to the use of buoy gear and current regulations that do not allow borders, and a second area that is associated restrictions on possession of vessels to enter a closed area with adjacent to the southern border of the bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack pelagic longline gear during the time of Desoto Canyon Closed Area’s tunas (BAYS) and bluefin) applicable to the closure, unless issued an Exempted northwestern ‘block.’ NMFS will also those vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Fishing Permit. It would not result in conduct a three-year review to Longline category permit and either a any further costs to small entities. determine the effectiveness of the Swordfish Directed or Swordfish Incidental permit. Currently, vessels Alternative B 3b would allow Modified Spring GOMGRAs during the restricted and conditional access to the review of the IBA program and will with an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit must also have both a following closed areas: Charleston consider any changes at that time as Bump closed area (February through appropriate. This alternative is expected Swordfish Directed or Incidental permit, and a Shark Directed or Incidental April), a portion of the East Florida to have moderate short and long-term Coast closed area (year-round), the direct adverse economic impacts on 49 permit. There are no economic impacts associated with this ‘‘no action’’ DeSoto Canyon closed area (year- vessels that have historically fished in alternative. Alternative B 2b would round), and the Northeastern U.S. the Modified Spring GOM GRAs during authorize vessels with a Swordfish closed area (June). All trips into any of April and May. The average annual Incidental permit to fish with buoy gear, the eligible pelagic longline closed areas revenue from fishing sets made in the except vessels fishing in the East Florida would be required to be observed. gear restricted area is approximately Coast Pelagic Longline Closed Area. Current NMFS Pelagic Observer $11,000 per vessel during the restricted Under this alternative, vessels would Program vessel selection procedures months. However, it is likely that some still be limited to 35 buoys. The would be used to select vessels using of the vessels impacted by these GRAs rationale for this alternative is to the current strata (i.e., the procedures would be able to redistribute their effort provide increased flexibility and that select vessels to obtain observer to other fishing areas within the encouragement for pelagic longline coverage each calendar quarter, and GOMand therefore reduce any losses. vessels to utilize gears other than deploy in each of various geographic The net impact of the Modified Spring pelagic longline to maintain and (statistical) areas). If selected, a vessel GOM GRAs on fishing revenues after enhance fishing opportunities. This would be informed of the statistical area redistribution of effort is estimated to be would result in short- and long-term for which the vessel was selected, and $5,700 per vessel per year. The direct beneficial economic impacts by the vessel would be allowed to fish economic impacts of this alternative providing greater flexibility in the gear within the eligible pelagic longline were minimized through the iterative type that can be used and also by closed area provided it is within that design of the GRA. NMFS carefully reducing the need to acquire a different particular statistical area and that an evaluated the costs and benefits permit to use buoy gear. Alternative B observer is onboard. The scope of the associated with this GRA, and 2c would allow vessels with an Atlantic alternative and its effects would depend determined that the specific time and Tunas Longline category permit and the upon the level of observer coverage. area achieves a balance between a Swordfish Directed or Incidental permit Currently, eight percent of fishing effort reduction in bluefin dead discards, to retain BAYS and bluefin when is covered by observers and funded protection of the GOM Spawning stock, fishing with buoy gear. The rationale for wholly by NMFS. Due to the limits on and continued operation of the pelagic this alternative is the same as for the level of observers, observer longline fleet in the GOM. Alternative B 2b: To provide increased availability and cost would serve as the Alternative B 1j, a preferred flexibility and encouragement for principal constraint to the amount of alternative, would allow HMS vessels pelagic longline vessels to utilize gears access. Participating vessels would be that possess bottom or pelagic longline other than pelagic longline to maintain required to ‘‘declare into’’ the area via gear on board to transit the closed areas and enhance fishing opportunities in their VMS unit and report species and GRAs if they remove and stow the the context of new restrictions that may caught and effort daily via VMS. There gangions, hooks, and buoys from the be implemented by Amendment 7. This would be minor short- and long-term mainline and drum. The hooks would alternative would result in short- and direct beneficial economic and social not be allowed to be baited. Allowing long-term direct beneficial economic impacts associated with the added pelagic and bottom longline vessels to impacts by increase the potential option for vessels to potentially fish in transit closed and GRAs after removing revenue opportunities by allowing these areas, which could potentially and stowing gear would result in direct additional species to be landed when increase landings revenues and decrease short- and long-term beneficial using buoy gear, reducing costs fishing costs by providing access to economic impacts by potentially associated with discarding, and closer and/or more productive fishing reducing fuel costs and time at sea for reducing the costs associated with the areas.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71573

In addition to the requirement to carry locations outside the closed areas, and lease or have sufficient capital to lease an observer and declare and report catch may not represent the potential revenue a sufficient amount of IBQs. via VMS, this alternative would further from inside the closed areas. The second alternative, sub- require that permitted pelagic longline alternative C 2a.2 is the preferred Bluefin Tuna Quota Controls vessels meet various performance alternative and would consider only criteria to be authorized to fish in a Alternative C1—No Action active permitted Atlantic Tunas longline closed area. Vessels that are determined vessels. Based on HMS Logbook records by NMFS to have a relatively low rate Under this alternative, there would be from 2006–2012, there were 135 active of interactions with bluefin based on no change to the current regulations that pelagic longline vessels during that past performance, and are compliant restrict pelagic longline vessel retention period, with active defined as having with reporting and monitoring of bluefin once the Longline category reported in the HMS Logbook requirements would be allowed to fish quota has been reached; hence, the total successfully setting pelagic longline in the area using pelagic longline gear. amount of dead discards would not be gear at least once between 2006 and Those vessels that have not restricted. There are no short-term 2012. Allocation of quota shares to a demonstrated their ability to avoid economic impacts to vessel owners smaller number of vessels may reduce bluefin or comply with reporting and associated with this alternative, but in the likelihood that a permitted vessel monitoring requirements would not be the long-term, if dead discards are not without quota shares would fish and allowed to fish with pelagic longline curtailed, the pelagic longline fishery increase the likelihood that available gear in the area. The rationale could face reduced allocations and quota would be sufficient for active underlying this requirement is that the earnings. vessels. This alternative minimizes economic impacts by utilizing criteria commercial data from within the closed Alternative C 2—Individual Bluefin that result in a pool of eligible vessels areas may be utilized in the future as Quotas part of the information used to evaluate that is optimized in terms of the number the effectiveness and impacts of closed This preferred alternative would of vessels. The optimization balances areas, as well as for stock assessments implement IBQs for vessels permitted in the benefits of a small number of or other management measures. the Atlantic Tunas Longline category eligible vessels (resulting in a larger Confidence in the data may be enhanced (provided they also hold necessary percentage quota share per vessel), and if the vessels allowed to fish in the limited access swordfish and shark the benefits of an inclusive criteria, closed areas have consistently permits) that would result in prohibiting which includes the majority of vessels demonstrated compliance with relevant the use of pelagic longline gear when that have fished with pelagic longline regulations and are among the vessels the vessel’s annual pelagic longline IBQ gear since 2006. The number of vessels that have demonstrated the ability to has been caught. The allocation of an eligible (135) is slightly larger than the avoid bluefin at the level exhibited by IBQ share to individual vessels/permits average number of vessels that have the majority of the fleet. The as well as a provision for transferability fished annually since 2006. In addition to determining who is performance criteria may lead to of IBQs would reduce bluefin dead eligible to receive IBQs, NMFS also beneficial economic incentives for discards by capping the amount of catch considered four alternatives for how fishery participants to better comply (landings and dead discards); provide IBQ should be initially allocated to with reporting and monitoring strong incentives to reduce interactions those eligible vessel owners. Under requirements and reduce bluefin and flexibility for vessels to continue to Alternative C 2b.1, NMFS would base interaction rates. Potential revenue operate profitably; accommodate different fishing practices within the the initial allocation of IBQs on an equal would be gained if this alternative were share of the quota to eligible vessels. To pelagic longline fleet; and create new implemented. estimate the potential landings each potential for revenue (from a market for The maximum number of potential vessel could make given its initial IBQ transferrable IBQs). observed trips into the closed areas was under this alternative, NMFS analyzed estimated based on historical rates of NMFS considered two alternatives for the ratio of bluefin tuna landings and observer coverage (per quarter) in vessel eligibility to receive bluefin quota dead discards to designated species various statistical areas, and the fact that shares. The first alternative would be to weight. These estimated potential observer coverage would be a condition consider any permitted Atlantic Tunas landings were then compared to average of a trip into a closed area. NMFS Longline category vessel (sub-alternative annual historical landings to estimate estimated the maximum number of trips C 2a.1) as being eligible to receive an the reduction in designated species into the pelagic longline closed areas initial allocation of IBQs. Based on the landings. Under the 74.8 mt Longline would be 20 trips into the East Florida most recent number of Atlantic Tuna category quota scenario, NMFS Coast closed area, witht an average longline limited access permit holders, estimates that there could be a reduction revenue of $17,575 per trip; 80 trips into NMFS estimates that 223 vessels would of 2.1 million pounds of designated the DeSoto Canyons at an average be eligible to receive IBQs under this species landing per year if an IBQ revenue of $17,692 per trip; 2 trips into alternative. While this alternative might allocation based on designated species the Northeast closure at an average be more inclusive of all members of the landings is used and no trading of IBQs revenue of $40,726 per trip; and 5 trips fishery, it would reduce the amount of occurs. This would be a reduction of into the Charleston Bump at an average IBQs allocated to each vessel. There annual landings of approximately 36 revenue of $17,575 per trip. It is import would also likely be negative short-term percent, and result in a reduction in to note that these revenue estimates are and potentially long-term direct adverse annual revenues of approximately an overestimate, with a large amount of economic impacts associated with $91,000 per vessel. Under the 137 mt uncertainty. The estimates are high reduced initial allocation of IBQs to the Longline category quota scenario, NMFS because it is very unlikely that all most active participants in the fishery. estimates that there could be a reduction observed trips in a particular statistical Their initial allocations would likely be of 1.5 million pounds of designated area would fish in a closed area. The insufficient to be able to maintain their species landing per year if an IBQ estimates are uncertain because the current levels of fishing activity and allocation based on designated species average revenue per trip data is from they may not be able to find IBQs to landings is used and no trading of IBQs

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71574 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

occurs. This would be a reduction of designated species weight, NMFS subalternative C 2b.4 would then annual landings of approximately 19 estimated the potential landings each designate all IBQ shares and allocations percent, and result in a reduction in vessel could make given its initial IBQ. as either ‘‘Gulf of Mexico’’ or ‘‘Atlantic’’ annual revenues of approximately These estimated potential landings were based upon the geographic location of $47,000 per vessel. Under the 216.7 mt then compared to average annual sets (associated with the vessels fishing Longline category quota scenario, NMFS historical landings to estimate the history used to determine the vessel’s estimates that there could be a reduction reduction in designated species. Under quota share). Gulf of Mexico IBQ of 0.9 million pounds of designated the 74.8 mt Longline category quota allocation could be used in either the species landing per year if an IBQ scenario, NMFS estimates that there Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic, but allocation based on designated species could be a reduction of 2.7 million Atlantic IBQ allocation could only be landings is used and no trading of IBQs pounds of designated species landing used in the Atlantic (and not the Gulf occurs. This would be a reduction of per year if an IBQ allocation based on of Mexico). For a vessel to fish with annual landings of approximately 10 designated species landings is used and pelagic longline gear in the Gulf of percent and result in a reduction in no trading of IBQs occurs. This would Mexico, the vessel would be required to annual revenues of approximately be a reduction of annual landings of have the minimum amount of IBQ to $27,000 per vessel. approximately 33 percent, and result in depart, and the IBQ would have to be Under Alternative C 2b.2, NMFS a reduction in annual revenues or Gulf of Mexico. The minimum IBQ would base the initial allocation of IBQs approximately $84,000 per vessel. amount required to fish in the Gulf of based on the historical landings of Under the 137 mt Longline category Mexico would be 0.25 mt based on the designated species from 2006 through quota scenario, NMFS estimates that larger average size of bluefin in the Gulf 2012. The designated species include there could be a reduction of 1.8 million of Mexico. The minimum IBQ amount swordfish, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, pounds of designated species landing required to fish in the Atlantic would be albacore tuna, skipjack tuna, per year if an IBQ allocation based on 0.125 mt based on the smaller average dolphinfish, wahoo, blue shark, designated species landings is used and size of bluefin tuna encountered in the porbeagle, shortfin mako, and thresher no trading of IBQs occurs. This would Atlantic. The economic impact of shark. These are the main marketable be a reduction of annual landings of creating these two regional designations pelagic species landed by pelagic approximately 22 percent, and result in would primarily be associated with the longline vessels in addition to bluefin. a reduction in annual revenues or larger minimum IBQ allocations Under the 74.8 mt Longline category approximately $56,000 per vessel. required to fish in the Gulf of Mexico quota scenario, NMFS estimates that Under the 216.7 mt Longline category and the restriction from transferring or there could be a reduction of 2.2 million quota scenario, NMFS estimates that using Atlantic IBQ in the Gulf of pounds of designated species landing there could be a reduction of 1.2 million Mexico. This would reduce the number per year if an IBQ allocation based on pounds of designated species landing of potential trading partners for IBQs in designated species landings is used and per year if an IBQ allocation based on the Gulf of Mexico region, thus no trading of IBQs occurs. This would designated species landings is used and potentially leading to less available IBQ be a reduction of annual landings of no trading of IBQs occurs. This would allocation that could be leased, approximately 40 percent and result in be a reduction of annual landings of potentially making it more difficult to a reduction in annual revenues of approximately 14 percent and result in find potential trading partners and approximately $102,000 per vessel. a reduction in annual revenues or therefore increasing transaction costs for Under the 137 mt Longline category approximately $36,000 per vessel. The conducting a lease. The regional quota scenario, NMFS estimates that economic impacts of the allocation designations minimize economic there could be a reduction of 2.0 million alternative were minimized through the impacts by allowing Gulf of Mexico IBQ pounds of designated species landing use of the dual criteria, which considers allocation to be utilized in the Atlantic, per year if an IBQ allocation based on both the bluefin catch rate, as well as and through the rules regarding the designated species landings is used and the amount of designated species catch. NED, which provide different IBQ no trading of IBQs occurs. This would The scoring system that determines the accounting rules for that unique be a reduction of annual landings of allocations considers the diversity in the particular area. approximately 24 percent, and result in fleet so that some vessels are not a reduction in annual revenues of In defining the scope of IBQ transfer approximately $62,000 per vessel. disadvantaged due to the level of their for alternative C 2c, NMFS considered Under the 216.7 mt Longline category fishing activity. Vessels that have two subalternatives, because only two quota scenario, NMFS estimates that historically caught larger amounts of Tuna permit categories are under there could be a reduction of 1.2 million target species, as reflected in the limited access systems. Sub-alternative pounds of designated species landing logbook and dealer data will score C 2c.1 would allow transfer of bluefin per year if an IBQ allocation based on higher on the ‘designated species’ quota shares or quota allocation among designated species landings is used and element of the allocation criteria. The permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline no trading of IBQs occurs. This would other aspects of the IBQ Program (e.g., category vessels only, and would not be a reduction of annual landings of quota allocation leasing) as well as other include transferring with other limited approximately 15 percent, and result in aspect of Amendment 7 (e.g., allocation access quota categories such as the a reduction in annual revenues of alternatives), were designed to mesh Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category. approximately $37,000 per vessel. with the IBQ Program in order to The rationale for this sub-alternative is Under Alternative C 2b.3, a preferred provide flexibility to increase the to provide flexibility for pelagic longline alternative, NMFS would base the initial likelihood of profitable fishing vessels to obtain or sell quota as allocation of IBQs on the historical operations and minimize negative necessary, so that allocations may be landings of designated species from economic impacts, in addition to aligned with catch (i.e., vessels that 2006 through 2012 and the ratio of minimizing and accounting for bluefin catch bluefin may be able to obtain bluefin catch to designated species catch. quota from those that do not interact landings. Using the ratio of bluefin tuna After issuing IBQ shares and with bluefin, or have not used their full landings and dead discards to allocation based upon the formula, allocation of bluefin). This sub-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71575

alternative would constrain the amount but would make additional quota leasing. The IBQ allocation leasing of bluefin quota available to the available if purse seine vessels are alternatives minimize economic impacts Longline category vessels to the willing to lease quota. This alternative by providing flexibility for pelagic Longline category quota, and not make would also modify the Purse Seine longline vessels to lease IBQ as additional quota available. Quota category regulations which currently necessary so that their IBQ allocations transfers would be allowed among all restrict the transfer of Purse Seine quota may be aligned with catch (i.e., vessels Longline category vessels with a valid to vessels with Purse Seine category that catch bluefin may be able to obtain limited access permit, regardless of permits. Purse Seine quota would be IBQ from those that do not interact with whether they have been allocated quota transferable to vessels with an Atlantic bluefin, or have not used their full IBQ under Alternative C 2b. If a vessel Tunas Longline category permit. allocation of bluefin). catches bluefin using quota that has Similarly, Purse Seine fishery Sub-alternative C 2d.2 would allow been leased from another vessel, the participants would be able to lease permanent sale of quota share among fishing history associated with the catch quota allocation from pelagic longline eligible vessels. Through this sub- of bluefin tuna would be associated vessels. Quota transfer would be alternative, vessel owners would be able with the vessel that catches the bluefin allowed among all Longline category (the lessee, not the lessor vessel). In vessels with a valid limited access to purchase (or sell) quota share and other words, the lessee (vessel catching permit, regardless of whether they have permanently increase (or decrease) their the fish) gets the ‘credit’ for the landings been allocated quota under Alternative quota share percentage. Permanent sale and dead discards, and not the lessor C 2b. If a vessel catches bluefin using of quota share provides a means for (the vessel that transferred the quota quota that has been leased from another vessel owners to plan their businesses allocation to the catching vessel). NMFS vessel, the fishing history associated and manage their quota according to a assumed that the total surplus of IBQs with the catch of bluefin tuna would be longer time scale than a single year. would potentially be traded to vessels associated with the vessel that catches Vessel owners may be able to save with IBQ shortfalls. To simulate trading, the bluefin (the lessee, not the lessor money through a single quota share the total amount of IBQs surplus was vessel). In other words, the lessee transaction instead of reoccurring divided equally by the number of (vessel catching the fish) gets the ‘credit’ annual quota allocation transactions. vessels that needed additional IBQs. for the landings and dead discards, and This sub-alternative may be combined This occurred in two rounds of trades. not the lessor (the vessel that transferred with the temporary transfer of quota Under the 74.8 mt quota scenario, the the quota allocation to the catching (i.e., annual leasing of quota, Sub- estimated reduction in annual revenues vessel). This alternative would have Alternative C 2d.2), but is a separate and goes from $84,000 per vessel under no short-term direct moderate beneficial distinct type of transaction. (Note, that trading to $18,000 per vessel with economic impacts. elsewhere in this document NMFS trading. Under the 137 mt quota NMFS considered both annual leasing considers measures for codified quota scenario, the estimated reduction in and permanent sale of IBQs under reallocation alternatives unrelated to an annual revenues goes from $56,000 per alternative C 2d. Sub-alternative C 2d.1, IBQ Program; See Alternative A 2). To vessel under no trading to $19 per a preferred alternative, would allow enable effective accounting and reduce vessel with trading. Finally, under the temporary leasing of bluefin quota program complexity, permanent quota 216.7 mt quota scenario, the estimated among eligible vessels on an annual share transfers would become effective reduction in annual revenues goes from basis. Temporary quota transfer would in the subsequent year, and would have $36,000 per vessel under no trading to give vessels flexibility to lease quota, to be executed prior to the annual no change in annual revenues with but as a separate and distinct type of allocation of quota to IBQ holders. trading since there would be a sufficient transaction from the permanent sale of Limits would be placed on the amount amount of surplus quota to easily cover quota share. Vessel owners would be of quota an individual entity could the vessels that do not receive initial able to obtain quota on an annual basis permanently transfer in order to prevent IBQ allocations to cover their historical to facilitate their harvest of target the accumulation of an excessive share fishing levels. While this alternative species. Sub-leasing of quota would be of quota. This alternative would have would have short-term direct minor allowed (i.e., IBQ leased from vessel A long-term direct moderate beneficial beneficial economic impacts, those to vessel B, then to vessel C). This sub- economic impacts to participants in the beneficial impacts would be lower than alternative may be combined Sub- fishery by allowing the ownership of those under sub-alternative C 2c.2. Alternative C 2d.2 (permanent sale of IBQs to shift to where they provide the Sub-alternative C 2c.2, the preferred quota share), if implemented. IBQ best economic benefit in the long-term. alternative, would allow transfer of allocation leases of one year duration However, in the short-term, there could bluefin quota shares or quota allocation would coincide with the time period of be issues associated with the IBQ between those permitted in the limited annual quota allocation for the fishery market. For example the process of the access Atlantic Tunas Longline and as a whole. For a particular calendar buyers and sellers arriving at a price for Purse Seine categories. This sub- year, an individual lease transaction IBQ shares may be difficult or highly alternative would provide flexibility for would be valid from the time of the variable due to uncertainties such as pelagic longline vessels to obtain, lease, lease until December 31. This how to value IBQ shares, information or sell quota as necessary, so that alternative would have short-term direct availability, and associated risks. allocations may be aligned with catch moderate beneficial economic impacts Experiences in other catch share (i.e., vessels that catch bluefin may be to participants in the fishery. However, programs have shown that fishermen able to obtain quota from those that do in the long-term, the annual transaction may not know how to effectively value not interact with bluefin, or have not costs associated with matching lessors the IBQs initially and uncertainty in this used their full allocation of bluefin). and lessees, the costs associated with new market may cause IBQs to be This sub-alternative would not drafting agreements, and the uncertainty undervalued in the first few years. This constrain the amount of bluefin quota vessel owners would face regarding could result in both adverse social and available to pelagic longline vessels (i.e., quota availability would reduce some of economic impacts in the fishing through the Longline category quota), the economic benefits associated with community if participants sell out of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71576 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

IBQ market in the early years for less Owner-executed transfers would Information on this unrestricted market than the long-term value of the IBQs. provide the quickest execution of a could be used to develop future Sub-alternative C 2d.3, a preferred transfer because any eligibility criteria restrictions (through proposed and final alternative, would allow permanent sale would be verified automatically via the rulemaking) if necessary. This of quota shares among eligible vessel user log-in and password, and not alternative would result in short- and owners in the future, after NMFS and involve the submission or review of a long-term minor beneficial economic fishery participants have multiple years paper application for a transfer to/by impacts by accommodating the various of experience with the IBQ Program. NMFS. This would result in short- and needs of vessel owners for IBQ trades. Until NMFS develops and implements a long-term minor beneficial economic Sub-alternative C 2f.3, a preferred permanent IBQ transfer program, vessel impacts resulting from reduced alternative, would have NMFS consider owners would only be able to conduct transactions costs. in the future the development of further temporary (annual) leasing of quota Under sub-alternative C 2e.2, quota limits on the amount of quota allocation allocation, and therefore, vessel owners and quota share transfers would be an individual vessel (Longline or Purse would not be able to purchase (or sell) executed by NMFS. For example, a Seine), or the Longline or Purse Seine quota share to permanently increase (or paper application for a sale of quota category (in its entirety), could lease decrease) their quota share percentage. share could be submitted by the two annually. Setting a different limit than A phased-in approach would reduce vessel owners involved in the quota the combined amount of Longline and risks for vessel owners during the initial share transaction, and NMFS would Purse Seine category allocations would stages of the IBQ Program, when the review and approve the transaction be difficult, as the market for bluefin market for bluefin quota shares is new based on eligibility criteria (and enter allocations is new and, as a and uncertain. During the first years of data into a computer database that consequence, there are no data to inform the IBQ Program, price volatility may be would track the transfers of quota). This potential, alternative limits. Further, reduced, as well as undesirable method would not include the use of a NMFS does not believe there is a need outcomes of selling or buying quota web-based system, but would rely upon for a reduced limit. The IBQ Program shares at the ‘‘wrong’’ time or price. mail or facsimile submission of preferred alternatives are designed to NMFS intends to develop a program to applications by the vessel owners to incentivize longline vessels to minimize allow the permanent sale of quota share NMFS. In comparison to sub-alternative bluefin interactions, and only 25 in the future because it would provide C 2e.1, this alternative may result in percent of vessels are expected to need a means for vessel owners to plan their some minor adverse economic impacts to lease additional bluefin quota. In business and manage their quota if delays in NMFS’ review of recent years, the Purse Seine category according to a longer time scale than a applications results in increased has not fished or not fully harvested the single year, in a manner that would be transactions costs and fewer trades. amount of quota available. This informed by several years of the Under sub-alternative C 2f.1, there alternative could result in long-term temporary leasing market. NMFS may would be no limit on the amount of minor adverse economic impacts if the wait until a formal evaluation of the IBQ quota allocation an individual vessel limits cause some vessel owners to not Program before developing this (Longline or Purse Seine) could lease be able to acquire sufficient IBQs for alternative (see IBQ Program Evaluation annually. This alternative would their fishing activity needs. Alternatives C 2h.1 and C 2h.2). This provide flexibility for vessels to The measures under alternative C 2g sub-alternative may be combined with purchase quota in a manner that could are based on the premise that the the temporary transfer of quota accommodate various levels of success of an IBQ Program rests upon allocation (i.e., annual leasing of quota, unintended catch of bluefin, and enable the ability to track ownership of quota Sub-Alternative C 2d.1), but is a the development of an unrestricted shares and quota allocation holders; separate and distinct type of transaction. market. Because the duration of a allocate the appropriate amount of While this alternative may result in temporary lease would be limited to a annual harvest privileges (quota long-term moderate beneficial economic single year, the impacts on an allocation); reconcile landings and dead impacts, the uncertainty regarding the unrestricted market for bluefin quota discards against those privileges; and timeline may make business planning would be limited in duration. then balance the amounts against the for vessel owners and IBQ holders more Information on this unrestricted market total allowable quota. The current difficult and result in some minor could be used to develop future pelagic longline reporting requirements adverse economic impacts. This restrictions if necessary. This alternative and the monitoring program that alternative minimizes economic impacts would result in short- and long-term provide data on pelagic longline bluefin by ensuring that during the initial years minor beneficial economic impacts by landings and dead discards were not of the IBQ Program, permanent transfer accommodating the various needs of designed to support inseason of IBQ shares will not be possible, and vessel owners for IBQ trades. accounting of dead discards. More therefore reduces one of the potential Under sub-alternative C 2f.2,the limit timely information on catch would be risks of the IBQ Program (that a transfer on the amount of IBQ allocation that necessary in order to monitor a pelagic will have negative unintended may be leased annually would be the longline IBQ, inclusive of dead discards. economic impacts). combined Longline and Purse Seine VMS reporting Sub-alternative C 2g.1, a Under sub-alternative C 2e.1, a category allocations. This alternative preferred alternative, is the same preferred alternative, quota allocation would provide flexibility for vessels to management alternative described in and/or quota share transfers would be purchase quota in a manner that could Alternative D 1b. This alternative is executed by the eligible vessel owners, accommodate various levels of intended to support the implementation or their representatives. For example, unintended catch of bluefin, and enable of a pelagic longline IBQ. The economic the two vessel owners involved in a the development of an unrestricted impacts are detailed in the section lease of quota or sale of quota share market. Because the duration of a below discussing Alternative D 1b. could log into a password protected temporary lease would be limited to a Electronic monitoring sub-alternative web-based computer system (i.e., a single year, the impacts on an C 2g.2, a preferred alternative, is the NMFS database), and execute the quota unrestricted market for bluefin quota same management alternative described allocation or quota share transfer. would be limited in duration. in Alternative D 2b of this document.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71577

This alternative is intended to support Under alternative C 2i, a preferred impacts if it actually discouraged the implementation of a pelagic longline alternative, NMFS would develop and speculative fishing behavior that may IBQ. The economic impacts are detailed implement a cost recovery program of have occurred without the control date. in the section below discussing up to 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of Sub-alternative C 2l.1, the elimination Alternative D 2b. fish harvested under the program, for of target catch requirements is a Under sub-alternative C 2g.3, a costs associated with the costs of preferred alternative. Current target preferred alternative, in order to management, data collection and catch requirements act at the level of an conduct inseason quota monitoring and analysis, and enforcement activities, individual trip to limit bluefin estimate total bluefin dead discards and could result in direct long-term retention, but do not prevent landings, NMFS may extrapolate moderate adverse economic impacts to interactions potentially resulting in observer-generated data (in-season) the industry. The Magnuson-Stevens discarding bluefin dead (although it is regarding bluefin discards (rate, Act provides NMFS the authority for intended to dis-incentivize interactions number, location, etc.) by pelagic cost recovery under § 303A(e). A cost with bluefin by reducing any financial longline vessels, based on reasonable recovery program would not be incentive for such interactions by statistical methods, and available implemented until after the IBQ limiting retention). The target catch observer data. This alternative would Program evaluation described in requirement therefore contributes to the not require a regulatory change, but Alternative C 2h. Immediate discarding of bluefin if the amount of would inform the public that NMFS implementation of a cost recovery target catch species is insufficient to would use this management practice if program without the information retain the numbers of bluefin caught. warranted. NMFS would use this obtained from the operation of the Under this sub-alternative C 2l.1a, the observer information in conjunction fishery under an IBQ Program would be current target catch requirements would with, or in place of, vessel-generated very difficult, and would increase costs remain in effect. This would have estimates of bluefin discards in order to and uncertainty for fishing vessels neutral economic impacts since it develop inseason estimates of total during a time period when the fishery would not change what is currently in bluefin landings and dead discards. would be bearing other new costs and place. Sub-alternative C 2l.1b, preferred NMFS may use this method to estimate sources of uncertainty. This alternative alternative, would eliminate the current dead discard rates of bluefin for could result in direct long-term target catch requirements for pelagic individual vessels in the context of an moderate adverse economic impacts to longline vessels. This alternative is IBQ Program. This sub-alternative the industry. intended to work in conjunction with an would address the potential for Alternative C 2j, a preferred IBQ. The objective of this alternative is uncertain dead discard data from the alternative, would implement an appeals process for administrative to reduce bluefin dead discards and pelagic longline fleet that may result review of NMFS’ decisions regarding optimize fishing opportunity for target from challenges in the implementation initial allocation of quota shares for the species. If an IBQ Program is of new regulations, technical problems IBQ Program. The appeals process for implemented, elimination of the target relating to the reporting and monitoring administrative review of NMFS’ catch requirement could reduce dead system, or time lags in the availability decisions regarding initial allocation of discards, and enable vessels to fish for of data. This alternative would quota shares for the IBQ Program would target species in a more flexible manner. potentially have short-term minor or result in neutral economic impacts A vessel that has caught some bluefin neutral indirect beneficial economic because it would utilize the National but has insufficient target species to impacts by addressing the potential for Appeals Office procedures and ensure a meet the target catch requirement would fishery disruptions if there are issues in standardized and centralized appeals no longer have to choose between the transition to an IBQ monitoring process, which would provide discarding bluefin or fishing for more system. procedural certainty to the participants. target species; rather, the vessel would Under sub-alternative C 2h.1, a If an IBQ Program is implemented, use the annual individual bluefin quota preferred alternative, NMFS would preferred alternative C 2k would (IBQ). Thus, the IBQ would replace the formally evaluate the program after implement a control date in conjunction target catch requirement as the means of three years of operation and provide the with the implementation (effective date) limiting the amount of bluefin landed HMS Advisory Panel with a publicly- of the IBQ Program. The control date and discarded dead per vessel on an available written document with its would serve as a reference date that may annual basis, instead of on a per trip findings. NMFS would utilize its be utilized with future management basis. This alternative would likely have standardized economic performance measures, such as a modification to direct short- and long-term minor indicators as part of its review. This aspects of the IBQ program as a result beneficial economic impacts. would result in neutral economic of items identified during the 3-year Sub-alternative C 2l.2a would impacts because it is administrative in review of the IBQ program. The maintain the status quo regarding nature. implementation of a control date by retention of bluefin by pelagic longline Under sub-alternative C 2h.2, NMFS itself would have no effect, but would vessels. There would be no requirement would conduct a formal evaluation of provide NMFS with a potential to retain commercial legal-sized bluefin the IBQ Program after five years of management tool that may be utilized if that are dead. Vessels would continue to operation and provide the HMS necessary as part of a future be able to discard bluefin even if they Advisory Panel with a written management measure. A control date is are of commercial legal-size (i.e., 73″ or document with its findings. As typically used to discourage speculative greater) and dead. If the IBQ Program is described above, NMFS would utilize fishing behavior or speculative entry implemented, all dead discards would its standardized economic performance into a fishery and notifies the public be accounted for under that program. indicators (and associated standardized that a date may be used in conjunction This alternative would have neutral definitions) as part of its review. This with future management measures. This economic impacts since it does not alternative would result in neutral alternative would likely have neutral change what is currently occurring. economic and social impacts because it economic impacts and would only Under sub-alternative C 2l.2b, a is administrative in nature. result in beneficial short-term economic preferred alternative, pelagic longline

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71578 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

vessels would be required to retain all swordfish limited access permits) that target species, and must discard any legal-sized commercial bluefin tuna that would define three bluefin quota groups bluefin caught. The economic impacts are dead at haul-back. Because these and assign vessels with a valid permit of this alternative would lead to short- fish would be required to be retained, to one of the three groups. Both bluefin and long-term direct minor economic legal discards and the waste of fish landings and dead discards would count and social impacts due the loss of would be decreased, and it would be toward the group quotas. Each active revenue from bluefin tuna. more likely that such fish are accurately vessel would be assigned to a quota Under alternative C 4b, a preferred accounted for, and result in a positive group based upon the associated alternative, NMFS would close the use (marketed, used for scientific permit’s historical bluefin interactions pelagic longline fishery (i.e., prohibit information, etc.). However, given that to ‘‘designated species’’ landings ratio. the use of pelagic longline gear) when current behavior may be to discard some Active vessels with relatively high the total Longline category bluefin quota fish in order to optimize landings value numbers of bluefin interactions would is reached; projected to be reached; is of bluefin, there could be minor adverse be assigned to one quota group, active exceeded; or in order to prevent over- economic impacts associated with this vessels with a moderate level of bluefin harvest of the Longline category bluefin alternative since vessel operators would interactions would be assigned to a quota and prevent further discarding of no longer have the option to discard second group, and the active vessels bluefin; or when there is high legal-sized bluefin. with a low level of bluefin interactions uncertainty regarding the estimated or would be assigned to a third quota Alternative C 3—Regional and Group documented levels of bluefin catch. The group. Using the current quota Quotas economic impacts of this alternative allocation (8.1%) and the 2012 Longline would depend upon when the closure Alternative C 3a would implement category quota (74.8 mt) to illustrate, the occurred, ranging from January through annual bluefin quotas by region for low avoider quota group would be December. The time the pelagic longline vessels possessing the Atlantic Tunas allocated 24.1 mt and the medium and fishery would be closed would depend Longline category permit (combined high avoider quota groups would be upon many factors, including the size of with the required shark and swordfish allocated 25.1 mt. Although the three the Longline category quota, the type of limited access permits) that would quota groups have almost the identical quota control alternative and other result in prohibiting the use of pelagic number of vessels assigned to them (53, alternatives implemented by longline gear when a particular region’s 54, 54, respectively), as well as similar Amendment 7, and non-regulatory annual bluefin quota has been caught. quota, the average amount of bluefin factors. The range of quotas that would Both bluefin landings and dead discards that they caught historically varies from be available to the Longline category would count toward the regional quota. group to group. The number of bluefin would depend upon the combination of Annual bluefin quotas would be tuna interactions from 2006 to 2011 for alternatives implemented. associated with defined geographic the low, medium, and high avoiders was Based on the Longline category being regions. While regional quotas may be 8,050, 1,348, and 95, respectively. closed in late spring and early summer simpler than an IBQ system and have Converted to averages, the average over the past few years and the 2013 advantages over a single quota allocated annual number of bluefin interactions closure occurring in June, NMFS for the entire Longline category, some would be 1,342, 225, and 16. Utilizing estimates that a June closure is a regions may face chronic shortages of a rough conversion factor of a .125 mt plausible example to examine. A June bluefin quota if that region experiences per fish, 225 fish is equivalent to 28 mt. closure of the pelagic longline fishery increased fishing effort or bluefin The high and medium avoider groups would result in a potential loss of interaction rates. It is difficult to predict are likely to have adequate quota, revenue of approximately $21.0 million, the total amount of fishing effort that whereas the low avoider group would or $156,000 per vessel per year. This would occur under regional quotas, and have inadequate quota if the future would result in a major short-term the amount of bluefin quota that would interaction rate of the vessels is similar. adverse direct economic impact to the be caught. There is likely to be less The average number of interactions pelagic longline fishery and this fishing effort under the Regional quota associated with the low avoider group control alternative (compared with the economic impact would continue into equates to approximately 168 mt. It is the long-term if landings and dead No Action alternative) because a few likely that the group quota associated vessels could catch a large number of discard rates continue along the current with vessels with the highest historical trend. bluefin, and because of the closure of rate of bluefin interactions would be the entire area to the use of pelagic attained first. This indicates that there Enhanced Reporting Measures longline gear. The historical data would be potentially significant direct Alternative D 1—VMS Requirements indicate that the majority of bluefin short- and long-term adverse economic have been caught by relatively few impacts to the low avoider group. Alternative D 1a, the No Action vessels. The amount of target species However, there could be moderate to alternative, would have no requirement catch such as swordfish and yellowfin minor positive economic impacts to the under HMS regulations for an Atlantic tuna, would depend primarily upon the high and medium avoider groups. Tunas Purse Seine category vessel to amount of fishing effort and whether the obtain a VMS unit and there would be regional quotas or IBQs become Alternative C 4—NMFS Authority To no change to the reporting requirements constraining. If the regional quotas Close the Pelagic Longline Fishery applicable to purse seine vessels. There reduce pelagic longline fishing effort, Under alternative C 4a, No Action, the would also be no additional VMS there may be some minor adverse current regulatory situation would requirements under HMS regulations for economic and social impacts on continue, in which NMFS does not have a vessel using pelagic longline gear. regional fishing communities where the authority to prohibit the use of E–MTU VMS Installation and Operation effort is reduced. pelagic longline gear when the bluefin Alternative C 3b would implement a quota is attained. When the quota is Alternative D 1b, a preferred quota system for vessels possessing the projected to be reached, pelagic longline alternative, would require the three Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit vessels may no longer retain bluefin vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Purse (combined with the required shark and tuna, but may continue to fish for their Seine category permit to have an E–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71579

MTU VMS unit installed by a qualified baseline monthly plan costs (i.e., $44/ Purse Seine marine electrician to remain eligible for month). The characteristics of the purse seine the Purse Seine permit. Purse seine If a vessel has already installed a type- fishery are unique. Many bluefin may be vessel owners would be required to approved E–MTU VMS unit, this caught by the fishery in a relatively provide a hail-out declaration using alternative would have neutral direct short period of time, and the proportion their E–MTU VMS units, indicating and indirect socioeconomic impacts in of discarded to retained fish may be target species and gear possessed the short and long-term as the only high in some instances. Timely onboard the vessel when leaving port on expense would be monthly information on discarded bluefin tuna, every trip. Purse seine vessel owners communication service fees which they and more timely information on would also be required to provide a are already paying for participation in a retained bluefin, would improve the hail-in declaration, using their E–MTU Council-managed fishery. If vessels do current monitoring of bluefin landings VMS units, providing information on not have an E–MTU VMS unit installed and dead discards. This alternative the timing and location of landing or an Atlantic tunas purse seine permit would provide timely information on before returning to port. The units is transferred to another vessel lacking purse seine fishing effort, and improve would be required to send position VMS, direct, adverse, short-term NMFS’ ability to interpret and utilize information to NMFS every hour on a socioeconomic impacts are expected as the bluefin data in the context of the 24/7 basis, unless the vessel has a result of having to pay for the E–MTU fishery as a whole. Recently, there has declared out of the fishery or been VMS unit and a qualified marine been limited effort in the Atlantic tunas granted a power-down exemption from electrician to install the unit. In the purse seine fishery for a variety of NMFS. long-term, direct economic impacts reasons, including availability and would become minor, because monthly quantity of commercial size bluefin and/ All of the three vessels that are communication service provider costs currently authorized to deploy purse or current permit holders are ($44) would be the only expense. participating in Council-managed seine gear for Atlantic tunas have Economic impacts to shore-based already installed E–MTU VMS units in fisheries. This alternative would require businesses, including fish dealers, bait vessel operators to use their E–MTU compliance with regulations for other and gear suppliers, and other fishing Council-managed fisheries, including VMS to submit electronic reports related industries are not expected. describing the number and size of Northeast Multispecies and/or Atlantic Pelagic longline vessels are already bluefin that were landed and discarded scallop. If vessels have not already had required to use an E–MTU VMS that has dead. a type-approved E–MTU VMS unit been installed by a qualified marine Vessel operators fishing for Atlantic installed, or if permits were transferred electrician to provide hourly position tunas with purse seine gear are already to vessels that have not yet installed E– reports and hail in/out declarations to be required to have an E–MTU VMS MTU VMS, they may be eligible for provide information on target species, unit installed and capable of submitting reimbursement (up to $3,100) to offset gear possessed, and expected time/ hourly position reports while fishing in the costs of procuring a type-approved location of landing. Therefore, this addition to hail out/in declarations unit subject to availability of funds. This alternative would result in neutral before and after fishing. This alternative reimbursement would only cover the economic impacts in the short and long would, however, increase the amount of cost of the E–MTU VMS and could not term. Economic impacts to shore-based information that vessel operators be applied to offset installation costs by businesses, including fish dealers, bait provide using their E–MTU VMS units. a qualified marine electrician ($400) or and gear suppliers, and other fishing Typically, fishermen would make a monthly communication costs ($44). related industries are not expected. single declaration for each set that Initial costs, per vessel, for compliance details the quantity and size of bluefin with E–MTU VMS requirements Reporting Bluefin Tuna Interactions Using E–MTU VMS retained. This alternative would result included in this alternative would be in neutral economic impacts in the short $3,500 if no reimbursement were Preferred alternative D 1b would also and long-term because the vessel received, and $400 if a reimbursement require vessels fishing for Atlantic tunas owners would already be paying, on were received. On a monthly basis, with pelagic longline or purse seine gear average, $44 per month to cover the vessels would be required to establish a to report daily the number of bluefin costs of a communication service communication service plan retained, discarded (dead and alive), provider. The number of additional corresponding to the type-approved E– fish disposition, and fishing effort characters transmitted to report bluefin MTU VMS selected. Costs vary based on (number of sets, number of hooks, retained and discarded dead are the E–MTU VMS unit and respectively). This alternative is expected to be less than 50 characters communication service provider that is intended to support the inseason per set, and are not expected to exceed selected; however, these costs average monitoring of the purse seine and the typical monthly allowance for data $44/month and include hourly pelagic longline fisheries. Although sent using the E–MTU VMS. Economic transmission reporting and a limited NMFS currently has the authority to impacts to shore-based businesses, amount of hail in and hail out require logbook reporting for the purse including fish dealers, bait and gear declarations. Charges vary by seine fishery, NMFS has not exercised suppliers, and other fishing related communication service provider for this authority (see Section 2.3.7). industries are not expected. additional messaging or transmission of Current information on the catch of the data in excess of what allowed in their purse seine fishery is limited to dealer Pelagic Longline individual plan. Furthermore, costs data on sold fish, and does not include With respect to pelagic longline might vary depending on how many information of discarded bluefin or vessels, this alternative is intended to trips a vessel makes on a monthly basis other species caught or discarded. support the implementation of a pelagic as the number of declarations (hail in/ Inseason information on catch, longline IBQ Program, whether hail out) increase proportionately. For including dead discards, would enhance individual or regional, described under this analysis, all communication costs NMFS’ ability to monitor and manage Section 2.3. For example, under an IBQ were expected to be covered under all quota categories. Program, each vessel must not harvest

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71580 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

more than is permitted by the total of all pelagic longline vessel operators to More specifically, this alternative his/her quota share. The IBQ Program provide hail out/in declarations and would require the installation of NMFS- would require vessel owners/operators provide location reports on an hourly approved equipment that may include have the ability to track quota shares basis at all times unless they have one to four video cameras, a recording and quota allocations, reconcile declared out of the fishery or been device, video monitor, hydraulic landings against quota allocations, and granted a power down exemption by pressure transducer, winch rotation then balance the amounts against the NMFS. In order to comply with these sensor, system control box, or other total allowable quota. Although the regulations, vessel owners must equipment needed to achieve the current pelagic longline reporting subscribe to a communication service objectives. Vessel owner/operators requirements and the monitoring plan that includes an allowance for would be required to install, maintain, program provide data on pelagic sending similar declarations (hail out/ facilitate inspection of the equipment by longline discards and landings, and in) describing target species, fishing gear NMFS, and obtain NMFS approval of enable inseason monitoring and possessed, and estimated time/location the equipment. The vessel owner/ management based upon landings, the of landing using their E–MTU VMS. operator would be required to store and reporting requirements and monitoring This alternative would require, on make the data available to NMFS for at program were not designed to support average, 1 additional report per trip that least 120 days, and facilitate the inseason monitoring of dead discards. describe bluefin interactions and fishing submission of data to NMFS. The vessel More timely information on dead effort. Each report is expected to be operator would be responsible for discards would be necessary in order to comprised of less than 50 characters. ensuring that all catch is handled in a monitor and enforce a pelagic longline Because of the minimal time manner than enables the electronic IBQ Program. Although the current (approximately 5 minutes) required to monitoring system to record such fish, information on bluefin discards from submit these short reports and the fact and must identify a crew person or the pelagic longline fishery, which is that owners would likely already be employee responsible for ensuring that obtained through logbook data on effort enrolled in a communication service all handling, retention, and sorting of and catches from the observer program, plan that would encompass bluefin occurs in accordance with the is sufficient to estimate bluefin dead transmission of these additional regulations. discards on an annual basis, the time lag characters, adverse economic impacts While the electronic monitoring associated with the current information are not expected. program is being designed and is not useful for ‘‘real-time’’ in-season implemented, NMFS would continue to monitoring of an IBQ Program. Alternative D 2—Electronic Monitoring use logbook, observer, and landings Specifically, there is a time lag between of Longline Category information to assess catch by the the time logbooks are submitted or the Under alternative D2a, the No Action pelagic longline fleet. NMFS would field information is recorded by the alternative, NMFS would maintain the communicate in writing with the vessel owners during all phases of the program observer during the fishing trip, the time status quo and would not pursue any to provide information to assistant the data are entered into a database, and additional measures that would require vessel owners, and facilitate the the time the data are finalized (after a permitted pelagic longline vessels to provision of technical assistance. process of quality control) and available install electronic devices such as for use. A trip declaration requirement This alternative would require both cameras in order to support the fixed and variable costs over the service could be necessary in order for NMFS monitoring or verification of bluefin to obtain timely information on pelagic life of each camera installed onboard. catch under the IBQ Program. Currently, Fixed costs for vessel owners would longline fishing effort, and interpret and pelagic longline vessels are required to utilize the bluefin data in the context of include purchasing the camera ($3,565) use E–MTU VMS units to provide the fishery as a whole. and having it installed on the vessel hourly position reports and to provide HMS logbook data (2006–2012) ($500). Variable costs for vessel owners indicate that, on average, pelagic hail out/in declarations describing target include data retrieval ($45/hour; $4,500/ longline vessels have one interaction species, fishing gear onboard, and time/ year); service ($45/hour; $270/year); (9,660 interactions/10,262 trips = 0.94 location of landing unless they have technician travel ($0.5/mile; $1,680/ interactions/trip) with a bluefin per declared out of the fishery or been year); fishing activity interpretation vessel per trip. This alternative would granted a power down exemption by ($47/hour; $1,175 year); and catch data require all pelagic longline vessel NMFS. Under this alternative, these interpretation ($1.5 hours per haul at a operators to report all interactions (kept, requirements would be maintained, and labor rate of $47/hour, 1 haul per trip discarded dead, discarded alive) and no additional electronic monitoring and 100 trips; $7,050/year). The estimate fish size (> or < than 73″ CFL) requirements would be implemented. estimated total variable costs would be using their E–MTU VMS within 12 This alternative would not result in $14,663, and first year fixed costs would hours of the completion of the haul- economic impacts because it would be $4,065 for the purchase and back. Furthermore, additional maintain existing requirements. installation of the equipment. First year information on fishing effort, including Alternative D 2b, a preferred fixed and variable costs total $18,728/ the number of hooks deployed on the alternative, would require the use of vessel for the first year. After the first set that had a bluefin would also be electronic monitoring, including video year, the annual variable costs of reported. cameras, by all vessels issued an operation are estimated to be $14,663/ This alternative is expected to have Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit vessel. The estimate provided here for neutral to minor adverse economic that intend to fish for highly migratory catch data interpretation is likely an impacts on pelagic longline vessel species. Specifically, vessels would be overestimate as the Agency is primarily operators and owners in the short and required to install and maintain video concerned with verification of bluefin long-term. Economic impacts to shore- cameras and associated data recording reports and no other species (i.e., based businesses, including fish dealers, and monitoring equipment in order to yellowfin tuna, swordfish, dolphin, bait and gear suppliers, and other record all longline catch and relevant wahoo, etc.) being landed on pelagic fishing related industries are not data regarding pelagic longline gear longline vessels. After purchasing the expected. Existing regulations require retrieval and deployment. camera and having it installed, expenses

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71581

would be limited to the variable costs Atlantic Tunas Longline, General, Purse Alternative D 6—Expand the Scope of listed. This alternative would result in Seine, Harpoon, or HMS Charter/ the Large Pelagics Survey direct and indirect adverse economic Headboat categories. Therefore, there ‘‘No Action’’ is the preferred impacts to pelagic longline vessel would be no additional cost to small alternative for the scope of the Large owners in the short and long term. businesses. Pelagics Survey, and would have no NMFS is minimizing the economic Alternative D 4b would increase the social or economic impacts. The non- impacts of this alternative by paying for preferred alternative would expand the the initial installation of the equipment, level of NMFS-funded observers on a portion of trips by vessels fishing under Large Pelagics Survey to include May, as well as for some of the variable costs November, and December, and add such as review of the data. the Atlantic Tunas Longline, General, Purse Seine, Harpoon, or HMS Charter/ surveys to the states south of Virginia, including those bordering the Gulf of Alternative D 3—Automated Catch Headboat categories. There might be Mexico, in order to increase the amount Reporting some minor costs to vessel operators of information available about the The preferred alternative D 3 would with the increased chance that they will recreational bluefin fishery, and further require Atlantic Tunas General, be selected for observer coverage and refine recreational bluefin landings Harpoon and HMS Charter/Headboat will have to accommodate an observer. estimates. permit holders to report their bluefin Alternative D 5—Logbook Requirement The direct economic impact of this catch (i.e., landings and discards) using non-preferred alternative is the amount an expanded version of the bluefin for Atlantic Tunas and HMS Category Permit Holders of time that fishermen would expend recreational automated landings participating in the survey. The impacts reporting system (ALRS). The would be minor, adverse, and long-term. automated system includes two Alternative D 5, the No Action alternative, is preferred and would make There are no financial costs to reporting options, one that is web-based fishermen since the survey is conducted and an interactive voice response no changes to the current logbook requirements applicable to any of the in person and over the phone, and there telephone system. The ‘‘No Action’’ would be no direct economic impacts to alternative is not preferred because it permit categories. It would have no economic impact on fishing vessel fishermen for this alternative. NMFS would not meet the Amendment 7 estimates that the dockside survey takes owners. objectives, and would have no social or 5 minutes on average, the phone survey economic impacts. Alternative D 5b would require the takes 8 minutes, and collection of The primary impacts of the preferred reporting of catch by Atlantic Tunas supplemental biological information alternative are the amount of time the General, Harpoon, and HMS Charter/ takes about 1 minute. Previously, NMFS new reporting requirement would take, Headboat category vessels targeting estimated that annual implementation and the reporting costs, respectively. bluefin through submission of an HMS of the Large Pelagics Survey throughout NMFS estimated the potential annual logbook to NMFS. The direct social and Atlantic and Gulf coastal states using catch for each permit category based on economic impacts of this non-preferred the current target sample-size of 7,870 previous years data and multiplied it by for the dockside survey, 10,780 for the the 5 minutes it takes to complete a alternative include the amount of time to complete logbook forms and the cost phone survey and 1,500 for the report (NMFS 2013) for each fish to biological survey would result in a estimate a total reporting burden of 607 of submission (i.e., mailing) for all fishermen permitted in the affected reporting burden of 656 hours, 924 hours for potentially 8,226 permit hours, and 25 hours respectively, for a holders as a result of this alternative. permit categories. These impacts would be minor, adverse, and long-term. A total reporting burden of 1,730 hours Since the data are collected online or (NMFS 2011b). This estimate could be via telephone, there are no monetary high-end proxy for the impacts of this alternative is the current reporting used as a high-end proxy for the costs to fishermen or direct economic reporting burden associated with this burden and cost for the entire HMS impacts to fishermen from this alternative. Another method for logbook program, which have been alternative. estimating the reporting burden Adjustments to both the online and estimated for all commercial HMS associated with this alternative is to use IVR systems of the ALRS to implement fisheries (28,614 permits, NMFS 2011a). a ratio comparing the sample frame (i.e., catch reporting for General, Harpoon, The annual reporting burden for the number of permits) used in the and HMS Charter/Headboat category entire program is estimated at 36,189 coastwide estimate with the sample permit holders are estimated to cost hours and costs are $94,779 for postage. frame for the alternative (i.e., number of NMFS a total of between $15,000 and A more refined estimate is 6,735 hours, permits in states south of VA). Using $35,000 (B. McHale, pers. comm.) which is based on the number of this method, the reporting burden Annual maintenance would likely cost fishermen likely to conduct directed estimate is 559 hours. Because of the approximately $8,700 per year, which is fishing trips for bluefin based on the sampling design, adding the months of the current cost for maintaining the total number of General, Charter/ May, November, and December is not ALRS and the call-in system for reports Headboat, and Harpoon category permit expected to add any reporting burden or of other recreational HMS landings holders in the states from Maine cost (Ron Salz, pers. comm.). (NMFS 2013). The economic impacts of through South Carolina. This is likely this alternative are minimized because Other Measures the online reporting requirement results also an over-estimate, since many Alternative E 1—Modify General in a relatively low reporting burden. General and Charter/Headboat permit holders in these states fish for yellowfin, Category Subquota Allocations Alternative D 4—Deployment of or other tunas rather than bluefin, or, for If no action is taken under Alternative Observers Charter/Headboat permit holders, other E 1a to modify the General category sub- Under alternative D 4a, the No Action HMS. NMFS estimates this alternative period allocations, economic impacts alternative, which is the preferred would have a total annual reporting would be neutral and largely would alternative, there would be no changes burden of 16,526 hours and a cost of vary by geographic area, with continued to the current observer coverage in the $8,263. higher potential revenues during the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71582 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

summer months in the northeast and and could result in a shift in the impact of the No Action alternative is lower amounts to winter fishery distribution of quota and thus fishing expected to be direct and neutral to participants off the mid- and south opportunities to the earlier portion of slightly beneficial and short-term, as Atlantic states. General category the year. For example, in 2011 and participants would continue to be able participants that fish in the January 2012, June through August General to retain and land a 3rd and 4th large bluefin fishery may continue to perceive category landings totaled 140.3 mt and medium bluefin, if available, and would a disadvantage as the available quota for 192.2 mt, out of an available (base) not have to discard these fish if caught that period is relatively small (5.3% of quota of 217.6 mt. In 2010, June through while targeting giant bluefin. In 2012, the General category quota) and they do August General category landings the first year following implementation not benefit from the rollover of unused totaled 125.4 mt of an available of the four-fish limit on large mediums, quota either inseason or from one time (adjusted) quota of 269.4 mt. If quota there were only two trips on which period to the next. Nor do they benefit that is anticipated to be unused in the three large mediums were landed and from prior-year underharvest, because of first part of the summer season is made two trips on which four large mediums the timing of the annual final quota available to January period General were landed, or 6% total of successful specifications (published in the middle category participants and bluefin are trips. Harpoon quota revenues in 2012 of the year). landed against the January period were 24 percent lower than 2011 and 71 Alternative E 1b would establish a 12 subquota, it would potentially result in percent higher than in 2010. equal monthly subquotas. It would improved and fuller use of the General Under alternative E 2b, a preferred allow the General category to remain category quota. Also, because bluefin alternative, the daily retention limit of open year-round, and would revise price per lb is often higher in the large medium bluefin would range from subquotas so that they are evenly January period than during the summer, two to four bluefin, and the default large distributed throughout the year (i.e., the shifting quota to this earlier period medium limit would be set at two fish. base quota of 435.1 mt would be divided would result in beneficial impacts to On a per-trip basis, there would be into monthly subquotas of 8.3 percent of early season General category minor short-term direct adverse social the General category base quota, or 36.1 participants off the mid- and south and economic impacts that would mt). NMFS would continue to carry Atlantic states. It is possible, however, depend on availability of large mediums forward unharvested General category that an increase of bluefin on the market to Harpoon category vessels on a per quota from one time period to the next in the January period could reduce the trip basis and the actual retention limit time period. This alternative would average price for that time of year. that NMFS sets inseason (or that is in result in increased harvest in the earlier Participants in the summer fishery may place by default). Looking at successful portions of the General category bluefin perceive such quota transfer to be a shift 2012 trips, NMFS can estimate potential season and decreased harvest in the away from historical participants in the impacts of this change by determining later portions of the season. For early traditional General category bluefin the number of trips on which three or season (January–March) General fishing areas off New England and thus four large mediums were landed in category participants, an additional 85.2 adverse. However, because unused 2012, and assume that those fish may mt would be available (i.e., 108.3–23.1 quota rolls forward within a calendar not be able to be landed under this mt). At $9.13/lb, this represents a year from one period to the next, any alternative. Using 2012 successful trip potential increase in revenue of unused quota from the adjusted January data, if the limit was set at two large approximately $1.7 million overall period would return to the June through mediums, the revenue from up to six during this time period, nearly five August period and onward if not used large mediums would be foregone for times the current amount. NMFS does completely during that period. Overall, the season, and with a three fish limit, not have General category price/lb short-term, direct impacts depend on the revenue of up to two large mediums information for April or May since there the amount and timing of quota would be foregone. At an average 2012 is currently no General category fishing transferred inseason and would be weight of 296 lbs. and an average price during those months, but using $9.13/lb expected to be neutral to minor, of $9.13/lb for the Harpoon category, a as an estimate, potential revenues for beneficial for January fishery each of those months would be participants and neutral to minor, loss of one to six fish would be $726,621. Potential revenues for the adverse impacts for participants in the approximately $2,702 to $16,215 for the current June–August and September June through December General Harpoon category as a whole for the periods would decrease by category fishery. This alternative year. approximately $2.2 million (50%) and minimizes economic impacts by Potentially beneficial economic $1.7 million (69%), given recent average providing additional regulatory impacts are possible if a lower limit at price ($9.13 and $9.61, respectively). flexibility for NMFS to transfer quota the beginning of the season results in For October–November and for among seasons, and respond to and the Harpoon category quota lasting December, potential revenues would adapt to changes in the bluefin fishery. longer into the season, as the average increase by approximately $317,000 This flexibility therefore enhances price/lb is generally higher in July and (28%) and $287,000 (60%) at $9.21/lb NMFS’ ability to optimize quota August than it is in June. NMFS has not and $9.65/lb, respectively. Relative to distribution among participants, needed to close the Harpoon category in the No Action alternative, under seasons, and regions. recent years (i.e., as a result of the quota Alternative E 1b, there would generally being met), but depending on the size of be substantially increased revenues for Alternative E 2—NMFS Authority To the amount of quota available and the January through May and October Adjust Harpoon Category Retention number of Harpoon category through December and substantially Limits Inseason participants, this may be a decreased revenues for June through Under the No Action alternative, consideration. This alternative September, and total annual revenues alternative E 2a, Harpoon category minimizes economic impacts by would decrease by approximately participants would continue to have the providing additional regulatory $100,000 (1%). ability to retain and land up to four flexibility for NMFS to set bluefin trip Alternative E 1c, a preferred large medium fish per vessel per day, as limits, and respond to and adapt to alternative, is similar to Alternative E 1b well as unlimited giants. The economic changes in the bluefin fishery.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71583

Alternative E 3—Angling Category perception of greater fairness among the average price per pound was $5.96. Subquota Distribution southern area participants may result in NMFS minimized the potential Under alternative E 3a, the No Action indirect, longer-term, beneficial, social economic impacts of this alternative by alternative, Angling category impacts. There would be minor, short- altering this measure from that which participants fishing south of 39°18′ N. term, direct and indirect adverse social was proposed, to remove the default lat. (approximately, Great Egg Inlet, NJ) impacts (and economic impacts for start date of June 1, which was of would continue to have their landings charter vessels) for those outside the concern to handgear fishermen, but of trophy bluefin count toward a shared Gulf of Mexico as the perceived instead will finalize an expanded range 66.7% of the Angling category large opportunity to land a trophy bluefin of potential start dates to the Purse medium and giant bluefin subquota. may be diminished. Seine fishery. The social impact of the No Action Alternative E 4—Change Start Date of Alternative E 5—Rule Regarding Permit alternative is expected to vary by Purse Seine Category to June 1 Category Changes geographic area and be dependent on Under Alternative E 4a, the No Action Under the No Action alternative, E 5a, the availability of trophy-sized bluefin alternative, there would be no change to there would be no changes made to on the fishing grounds. If the pattern of the start date of the Purse Seine category current regulations regarding the ability high activity off Virginia and North fishery, which is currently set at July 15. of an applicant to make a correction to Carolina continues, fishermen in the Economic impacts would be expected to their open-access HMS permit category. mid-Atlantic may have greater be direct and neutral to adverse The current regulations prohibit a vessel opportunities to land a bluefin and depending on availability of schools of issued an open-access Atlantic Tunas or participants in the Gulf of Mexico may bluefin for purse seine operators to an HMS permit from changing the have no opportunity to land a bluefin decide to make a set on. That is, category of the permit after 10 calendar when the fish are in their area as the currently, if conditions would warrant days from the date of issuance. This No southern trophy fishery may already be making a set (e.g., based on information Action alternative is administrative in closed for the year. For Angling and from spotter pilots) before July 15, purse nature, and therefore the social and Charter/Headboat fishermen, based on seine operators would not be able to fish economic impacts associated with it the last two years, there would be direct, and would miss the economic would be neutral for most applicants. beneficial, short-term social impacts in opportunity to land and sell bluefin However, for those applicants who the mid-Atlantic and direct, adverse, while the other commercial bluefin discover their permit category may not short-term impacts for participants fisheries are open. Social impacts would allow the vessel to fish in a manner as south of that area, including the Gulf of be minor and neutral to adverse for intended, they may experience Mexico. The issue of economic costs for purse seine fishery participants and moderate adverse social and economic Angling category participants is not would be minor and neutral to impacts at an individual level. For relevant as there is no sale of tunas by beneficial for fishermen in other example, if a commercial fishermen Angling category participants. For categories due to reduced actual or obtained an Angling category permit charter vessels, which sell fishing trips perceived gear conflict from June 1 (recreational) versus a General category to recreational fishermen, economic through July 14. permit (commercial) and did not impacts are expected to be neutral to Under the preferred alternative, E 4b, discover the error until after the 10 beneficial for those in the mid-Atlantic extending the range of potential start calendar day window, their vessel and neutral to adverse for those south of dates for the Purse Seine fishery, would not be allowed to fish that area, including the Gulf of Mexico, beginning fishing on June 1, would commercially for Atlantic tunas for the as the perceived opportunity to land a allow NMFS more flexibility in remainder of that year. Likewise, if trophy bluefin may be diminished. This determining when the appropriate start recreational fishermen obtained a should be tempered in the Gulf of date should be set, and the potential for General category permit (commercial) Mexico, where there is no directed increased flexibility for purse seine versus an Angling category permit fishing for bluefin allowed. Given that operators to choose when to fish, based (commercial) and did not discover the the current southern trophy bluefin on availability of schools of appropriate- error until after the 10 calendar subquota of 2.8 mt represents sized bluefin and market price. window, their vessel would not be approximately 17–30 individual fish, Economic impacts would be expected to allowed to fish under the recreational impacts are expected to be minor. be direct and neutral to moderate and rules and regulations for the remainder Under Alternative E 3b, the preferred beneficial depending on when of the year. These two examples alternative, a portion of the trophy south determines the start date should be, and demonstrate the potential in lost fishing subquota would be allocated depending upon the availability of opportunities as a result of the No specifically for the Gulf of Mexico. schools of bluefin for purse seine Action alternative. Specifically, the trophy subquota would operators to decide to make a set on and Under the preferred alternative, E 5b, be divided as 33% each to the northern market conditions. Social impacts NMFS would allow category changes to area, the southern area outside the Gulf would be minor and neutral to an open-access HMS permit for a time of Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico. At beneficial for purse seine fishery period greater than 10 calendar days the current average trophy fish weight, participants and would be minor and (e.g., 30, 45, or 60 days), provided the this would allow annually up to 8 neutral to adverse for fishermen in other vessel has not fished as verified via trophy bluefin to be landed in each of categories due to increased actual or landings data. This alternative would the three areas. perceived gear conflict from June 1 result in neutral social and economic There would be minor, short-term, through July 14. In 2012, the average impacts for most applicants as there are direct, beneficial social impacts to a price per pound was $12.46, although approximately 20 requests annually that small number of vessels in the Gulf of the price likely reflects the relatively would fall outside the 10 calendar day Mexico given the small amount of fish small amount of purse seine-caught window. However, those applicants that would be allowed to be landed (as bluefin on the market that year. In 2009, who discover their permit category may well as indirect beneficial economic the last year in which there were not allow the vessel to fish in a manner impacts for charter vessels), but the Atlantic purse seine bluefin landings, as intended (∼20 per year), would

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71584 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

experience moderate beneficial social In addition, any adverse social and reduce fishing effort) implemented in and economic impacts provided they economic impacts of exceeding the conjunction with current measures in discover the error in the liberalized TAC, which was adopted as part of the the HMS fisheries would not change the window (e.g., 30, 45, or 60 days). Using overall ICCAT northern albacore determination that ongoing operations the two examples illustrated above and rebuilding program, would be reduced are unlikely to jeopardize the continued assuming no bluefin were caught in and, in the long term, may be beneficial existence of the right whale, humpback, either case, each applicant would be for fishermen as the stock grows. There fin, or sperm whales, or Kemp’s ridley, allowed to correct their open-access may be slight differences in the level of green, loggerhead, hawksbill or HMS permit category to match their economic and social impacts leatherback sea turtles. A complete intended fishing practices for the experienced by the specific individuals discussion of the effect of the remainder of that year, thereby of the northern albacore fishery, as well alternatives applicable to the Longline mitigating the potential of lost fishing as by participants within a particular category on quota allocation and fishing opportunities, as well as potential fishery sector. effort is located in Section 4.1.6.1 of the income. NMFS has determined that FEIS. Amendment 7 does not require On July 3, 2014, NMFS published a Alternative E 6—North Atlantic reinitiation of consultation and that, per final rule to list four Distinct Albacore Tuna Quota ESA section 7(d), it would not result in Populations Segments (DPS) of Alternative E 6a, the No Action an ‘‘irreversible or irretrievable scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna alternative, maintains the current commitment of resources’’ that would lewini): Two as threatened (Central and northern albacore tuna quota. In the last have the effect of foreclosing the Southwest Atlantic DPS and Indo-West 10 years, U.S. catches reached or formulation or implementation of any Pacific DPS) and two as endangered exceeded the current U.S. initial quota reasonable and prudent alternative (Eastern Atlantic DPS and Eastern (527 mt for 2013) in 2004 with 646 mt measures during the ongoing Pacific DPS) under the Endangered and in 2007 with 532 mt. However, consultations. Species Act (79 FR 38214). The Central catches have been less than the adjusted On March 31, 2014, NMFS reinitiated and Southwest Atlantic DPS consists U.S. quotas (currently about 659 mt) for consultation for the pelagic longline primarily of the population found in the the last several years. Under the No fishery. That fishery operates consistent Caribbean Sea and off the Atlantic coast Action alternative, there is no domestic with a 2004 Biological Opinion (BiOp) of Central and South America (includes mechanism to limit annual catches of that concluded that the Atlantic pelagic all waters of the Caribbean Sea, northern albacore beyond the current longline fishery was not likely to including the U.S. EEZ off Puerto Rico requirements for Atlantic tunas or HMS jeopardize the continued existence of and the U.S. Virgin Islands). vessel permits, authorized gear, loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s On August 27, 2014, NMFS published observers/logbooks, and time/area ridley or olive ridley sea turtles but was a final rule to list the following 20 coral closures. Therefore, expected short- likely to jeopardize the continued species as threatened: Five in the term, direct economic impacts and existence of leatherback sea turtles. Caribbean including Florida and the social impacts under the No Action NMFS implemented the Reasonable and Gulf of Mexico (Dendrogyra cylindrus, alternative would be neutral. If future Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) and Terms Orbicella annularis, Orbicella faveolata, overharvests result in the United States and Conditions specified in that BiOp Orbicella franksi, and Mycetophyllia being out of compliance with the ICCAT (e.g., hook type, bait type, mandatory ferox); and 15 in the Indo-Pacific recommendation, the United States workshops). On March 31, 2014, NMFS (Acropora globiceps, Acropora would need to put control measures in requested reinitiation of consultation of jacquelineae, Acropora lokani, place and neutral to adverse longer-term the pelagic longline BiOp due to new Acropora pharaonis, Acropora retusa, direct economic and social impacts information on mortality rates and total Acropora rudis, Acropora speciosa, could occur if the resulting annual mortality estimates for leatherback Acropora tenella, Anacropora spinosa, quota needs to be reduced by the turtles that exceed those specified in the Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora amount of the overharvest. RPAs, changes in information about crateriformis, Montipora australiensis, If, under preferred alternative, E 6b, leatherback and loggerhead populations, Pavona diffluens, Porites napopora, and NMFS implements a domestic quota for and new information on sea turtle Seriatopora aculeata). Additionally, in northern albacore and recent catch mortality. While the mortality rate that August 2014 rule, two species that levels continue, and the U.S. quota measure needs to be re-evaluated, this had been previously listed as threatened (including the adjusted quota) does not affect the overall ability of the (Acropora cervicornis and Acropora recommended by ICCAT is maintained RPAs to avoid jeopardy during the palmata) in the Caribbean were found to at the current amount, economic and reinitiation. still warrant listing as threatened. social impacts would not be expected. NMFS is continuing to implement The Central and Southwest Atlantic However, if either the U.S. quota is these RPAs during the ongoing DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks reduced as part of a new TAC consultation and has previously and seven Caribbean species of corals recommendation or catches increase determined that ongoing operations in occur within the management area of above the current adjusted U.S. quota, compliance with that BiOp are Atlantic Highly Migratory Species there could be adverse impacts resulting consistent with sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) (HMS) commercial and recreational from reduced future fishing of the ESA. fisheries which are managed by NMFS’s opportunities and ex-vessel revenues. Implementation of this final rule will Office of Sustainable Fisheries, HMS At an average price of $1.29/lb for not affect NMFS’ ability to comply with Management Division. Following these commercially-landed albacore in 2011, a the RPAs and RPMs in the 2004 BiOp, listings and based on the information reduction of one mt would represent and will not trigger additional ESA included in an October 2014 biological approximately $2,800 under a full quota requirements or considerations evaluation, NMFS determined that use situation. Actual impacts would pertaining to the pelagic longline fishery certain authorized Atlantic HMS gear largely depend on the availability of and listed sea turtles and other species types may affect and are likely to northern albacore and the ability of covered in the 2004 BiOp. Amendment adversely affect scalloped hammerhead fishery participants to harvest the quota. 7 measures (including those that could sharks within the Central and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71585

Southwest Atlantic DPS. Additionally, 6. Pelagic Longline appeal of Quota disagreed with the conclusion that the certain authorized Atlantic HMS gear Shares, OMB # 0648–0677, (2 hr/ proposed activity is consistent to the types may affect, but are not likely to response) maximum extent practicable with the adversely affect, threatened Caribbean 7. Pelagic Longline and Purse Seine LCRP, claiming that the determination coral species. Thus, on October 30, IBQ Trade Execution and Tracking, lacks information sufficient to support 2014, NMFS requested reinitiation of Transfer of Allocation, OMB # 0648– the consistency statement ‘‘as required ESA section 7 consultation for the 2006 0677, (2 min/response) by federal regulations at 15 CFR Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery 8. IBQ Trade Execution and Tracking, 930.39(a) and as identified in the Management Plan activities, as amended Online Account Initial Application, enforceable policies of the Louisiana and as previously consulted on in the OMB # 0648–0677, (10 min/response) Administrative Code, Title 43, Part I.’’ 2001 Atlantic HMS biological opinion 9. IBQ Trade Execution and Tracking, The State of Louisiana states that and the 2012 Shark and Smoothhound Online Account Renewal Application, Amendment 7 is inconsistent with biological opinion, to assess potential OMB # 0648–0677, (10 min/response) three, and is not fully consistent with adverse effects of certain gear types on Notwithstanding any other provision six, of the enforceable policies of the the Central and Southwest DPS of of the law, no person is required to Louisiana Administrative Code and scalloped hammerhead sharks and respond to, and no person shall be states that Amendment 7 lacks seven threatened coral species. subject to penalty for failure to comply comprehensive data and information with, a collection of information subject With regard to the new listings, per sufficient to support the consistency to the requirements of the PRA, unless statement. The specific factors of section ESA section 7(d), NMFS has determined that collection of information displays a that Amendment 7 would not result in 701 of the Louisiana Administrative currently valid OMB control number. Code that the State of Louisiana states an ‘‘irreversible or irretrievable Section 212 of the Small Business are not fully consistent with commitment of resources’’ that would Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of Amendment 7 are Section 701 F(5), have the effect of foreclosing the 1996 states that, for each rule or group availability of feasible alternative sites formulation or implementation of any of related rules for which an agency is or methods of implementing the use; reasonable and prudent alternative required to prepare a FRFA, the agency F(7) economic need for use and extent measures during the ongoing shall publish one or more guides to of impacts of use on economy of consultations. There are scalloped assist small entities in complying with locality; F(11) extent of impacts on hammerhead shark interactions in the the rule, and shall designate such existing and traditional uses of the area Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS, publications as ‘‘small entity and on future uses for which the area is based on Fisheries Logbook System and compliance guides.’’ The agency shall suited; F(16) proximity to and extent of Pelagic Observer Program data. The explain the actions a small entity is impacts on public lands or works, or number of interactions is consistent required to take to comply with a rule historic, recreational, or cultural with the conclusion that scalloped or group of rules. Copies of this final resources; F(17) extent of impacts on hammerhead sharks in the Central and rule and the compliance guide are navigation, fishing, public access, and Southwest Atlantic DPS are rarely available upon request from NMFS (see recreational opportunities; and F(19) targeted and that recreational fishing ADDRESSES). Copies of the compliance extent of long term benefit or adverse results in catch and release of low guide will also be available from the impacts. numbers of under-sized scalloped Highly Migratory Species Management After reviewing these concerns and, hammerhead sharks. Additionally, Division Web site at http:// in accordance with the Coastal Zone Atlantic HMS gear types may affect but www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. Management Act (CZMA) regulations at are not likely to adversely affect, This final rule does not conflict, 15 CFR 930.43(d)(2), NMFS has threatened Caribbean coral species. duplicate, or overlap with other relevant concluded that the proposed action is This final rule contains a collection- Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)). consistent to the maximum extent of-information requirement subject to Fishermen, dealers, and managers in practicable with the enforceable policies the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and these fisheries must comply with a of the LCRP, as noted below, though the which has been approved by OMB number of international agreements, State of Louisiana objects. Specifics on under control numbers 0648–0372, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These this conclusion are as follows. 0648–0328, and 0648–0677. Public include, but are not limited to, the Regarding factor F(5), there are no reporting burden for these collections of Magnuson-Stevens Act, the ACTA, the alternative sites for implementing the information are estimated to average, as High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the use of pelagic longline fishing within follows: Marine Mammal Protection Act, the the Gulf of Mexico—pelagic longline 1. Purse Seine VMS hail out & in, Endangered Species Act, the National fishing already occurs within all OMB # 0648–0372, (5 min/response); Environmental Policy Act, the available federal and state waters. As 2. Pelagic Longline (PLL) and Purse Paperwork Reduction Act, and the noted below, alternative methods of Seine (PS) VMS catch reports and Coastal Zone Management Act. We do reducing dead discards that were analyzed included group or regional verification, OMB # 0648–0372, (5 min/ not believe that the new regulations quotas and would have had more response for PLL; 15 min for PS) duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any relevant regulations, Federal or adverse impacts than the preferred 3. Electronic Monitoring of Pelagic otherwise. alternative. Regarding factor F(7), the Longline Vessels, Data Retrieval, OMB The State of Louisiana objected to the State of Louisiana correctly states that # 0648–0328, (5 min/response) consistency determination required by pelagic longline fishing is an important 4. General, Harpoon, and Charter/ 15 CFR 930.39, and stated that the economic activity contributing to the Headboat reporting via automated potential biological benefits of the Louisiana economy. Pelagic longline systems, OMB # 0648–0328, (5 min/ Amendment are minimal compared to fishing will continue to be authorized response) the potentially large socio-economic within the Gulf of Mexico, and valuable 5. Pelagic Longline appeal of impacts for pelagic longline vessels, target species such as swordfish and Performance Metrics, OMB # 0648– especially those related to the IBQ yellowfin tuna are abundant in the 0677, (2 hr/response) program. The State of Louisiana also region such that, should pelagic

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71586 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

longline vessels continue to offload to Reallocation alternatives would provide longline fleet under the combination of Louisiana-based federal dealers, pelagic short and long term benefits to the all preferred alternatives. longline fishing will continue to pelagic longline fishery through an Regarding G(10), the Gulf of Mexico contribute to the Louisiana economy. increased codified quota of 62 mt in pelagic longline fleet is a heavily Regarding factor F(11), as stated addition to potential for additional regulated fishery and has experienced above, pelagic longline fishing will quota as a result of the annual several natural and man-made adverse continue to be authorized within the reallocation alternative. Implementation impacts as well as regulatory changes in Gulf of Mexico such that existing and of IBQs, as noted above, would provide recent years. Several regulatory traditional uses as well as future uses of approximately 75 percent of pelagic measures have been implemented to the area will continue. Therefore, NMFS longline vessels an allocation sufficient reduce bycatch of threatened or believes that the proposed action is for reported bluefin interactions. A endangered species (i.e., circle hooks in consistent to the maximum extent portion of Louisiana homeported vessels 2004) and overfished species such as practicable with the enforceable policies would likely need to lease additional bluefin (e.g., weak hooks in 2011) or of the LCRP. bluefin quota or modify fishing behavior coastal sharks (i.e., sandbar sharks in Regarding factor F(16), productive to reduce bluefin interactions, although 2008 and scalloped hammerhead sharks fishing grounds will still be available for implementation of the Modified Spring in 2013). These measures often have pelagic longline fishing within the Gulf Gulf of Mexico GRAs would limit access short term adverse impacts but are of Mexico even with the preferred to areas of high bluefin interactions, ultimately needed for the sustainability alternative that would implement the thereby likely reducing bluefin of the fishery in the long term. In each Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs. interactions without additional changes of these actions, NMFS has minimized As noted in Chapter 4 of the Final by fishermen. Therefore, NMFS believes adverse impacts to the extent Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), that the proposed action is consistent to practicable while still meeting with redistribution of effort, NMFS the maximum extent practicable with conservation objectives, consistent with anticipates a reduction of approximately the enforceable policies of the LCRP. applicable law. $281,000 in ex-vessel value from Furthermore, the FEIS analysis The State of Louisiana also states that implementing the preferred alternative, demonstrates that NMFS utilized many Amendment 7 is inconsistent with the which, while approximately 3 percent of the factors cited by the State of enforceable policies of the Lousiana of the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline Louisiana as lacking in NMFS’s Administrative Code’s Section 701G (2), fleet total ex-vessel value of $9.74 evaluation. Specifically, NMFS used the adverse economic impacts on the million, means that roughly 97 percent best available logbook, dealer, and locality of the used and affected of ex-vessel value within the Gulf of observer data, conducted vessel-specific governmental bodies; (6), adverse Mexico will continue to contribute to analyses for preferred alternatives on the State of Louisiana economy. disruption of existing social patterns; gear restricted areas and IBQ measures, Therefore, NMFS believes that the and (10), adverse effects of cumulative and relied on relevant recent scientific proposed action is consistent to the impacts. information. NMFS also explored the maximum extent practicable with the Regarding factors G(2) and (6), the availability of alternative methods of enforceable policies of the LCRP. implementation of Amendment 7 achieving the Amendment 7 objectives, Regarding factor F(17), the preferred measures would provide different and considered the economic impacts, alternative to implement the Modified benefits and adverse impacts for the as well as the long term benefits of the Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA would pelagic longline fleet within the Gulf of measures. The alternative methods to restrict access to two additional areas Mexico depending on the measure. reduce dead discards of no action or within the Gulf of Mexico where bluefin While some impacts are expected to be group or regional quotas would have bycatch has consistently occurred from short-and long-term moderate adverse more adverse impacts and be less 2006–2012 and which comprise impacts, NMFS has balanced the overall effective in achieving Amendment 7 approximately 11 percent of the area. In impacts to the pelagic longline fleet as objectives to reduce dead discards and combination with the DeSoto Canyon well as other user groups to achieve maximize fishing opportunity. The pelagic longline closed areas, which Amendment 7 objectives in a fair and design of the IBQ management measures were closed to reduce bycatch of appropriate manner, and as described in and other aspects of Amendment 7 juvenile swordfish and overfished Chapters 5, 7, and 8 of the FEIS, has minimize the significant adverse billfish and coastal sharks, and other minimized adverse social and economic economic impacts, disruption of social applicable HMS pelagic longline closed impacts to the extent practicable, patterns, and adverse cumulative areas, approximately 25 percent of the consistent with the National impacts, to the extent practicable, Gulf of Mexico is restricted to pelagic Environmental Policy Act, Regulatory relative to other methods analyzed longline gear. While these measures Flexibility Act, and CZMA. Providing while also meeting Amendment 7 impact pelagic longline fishing, other additional codified quota as well as the objectives. fishing activities, navigation, public potential of additional quota through As explained in Chapter 5 of the access, and recreational opportunities annual reallocation, in combination FEISit includes limited state specific would remain unaffected. Therefore, with GRAs where bluefin interactions analyses of the impacts of the preferred NMFS believes that the proposed action have been historically high and IBQs codified and IBQ measures. Due to the is consistent to the maximum extent that provide 75 percent of the fleet with nature of the bluefin fisheries (widely practicable with the enforceable policies sufficient quota to continue current distributed and highly variable), the of the LCRP. fishing practices- balances the need to FEIS analyses are principally at a Regarding factor F(19), reduce dead discards with providing fishery-wide, or permit category level. implementation of Amendment 7 fishing opportunities to all user groups. The IBQ analyses show that measures would provide different The adverse impacts to 13 Louisiana approximately 75 percent of the pelagic benefits and adverse impacts for the homeported vessels that would likely longline fleet would receive an initial pelagic longline fleet within the Gulf of need to lease approximately 7 metric allocation that would be consistent with Mexico depending on the measure. The tons of bluefin are warranted given the their historical reported landings such preferred Codified and Annual long-term benefits to the overall pelagic that they would be able to continue to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71587

operate without having to acquire Dated: November 21, 2014. ■ b. Add the definitions of ‘‘Cape additional quota. Under the preferred Samuel D. Rauch III, Hatteras gear restricted area,’’ ‘‘In 137 mt alternative (see Table 5.26), the Deputy Assistant Administrator for transit,’’ ‘‘Spring Gulf of Mexico gear total additional amount of quota needed Regulatory Programs, National Marine restricted area,’’ and ‘‘Transiting’’ in to continue fishing at historical levels is Fisheries Service. alphabetical order. estimated to total 51.3 metric tons For the reasons set out in the The revisions and additions read as across all the vessels needing additional preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR follows: part 635 are amended as follows: quota. Many vessels, however, would § 635.2 Definitions. not need their full initial IBQ allocation Title 15—Commerce and Foreign Trade * * * * * to continue fishing at their historic Bottom longline means a longline that levels. The total of this surplus quota PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION is deployed with enough weights and/ across all vessels likely not fully use COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER or anchors to maintain contact with the their initial IBQ allocation is estimated THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: ocean bottom. For the purposes of this to be 82.8 mt in the context of the OMB CONTROL NUMBERS part, a vessel is considered to have preferred 137 mt alternative. The total ■ bottom longline gear on board when a surplus of quota exceeds the total 1. The authority citation for part 902 power-operated longline hauler, a amount needed under the preferred 137 continues to read as follows: mainline, weights and/or anchors mt alternative, so the transfer of quota Authority: 44 U.S.C. 350 et seq. capable of maintaining contact between among pelagic longline vessels should ■ 2. In § 902.1, the table in paragraph (b) the mainline and the ocean bottom, and reduce potential economic impacts of under 50 CFR is amended by adding leaders (gangions) with hooks are on the IBQ program. new entries in numerical order for board. Removal of any of these elements The states with the largest amount of §§ 635.5(a)(4), 635.9(e), 635.14(d), constitutes removal of bottom longline additional IBQ needed include 635.15(a)(2), (c)(2) and (k)(4), and gear. Bottom longline vessels may have a limited number of floats and/or high Louisiana, New York, and Florida, 635.69(a) and (e)(4) to read as follows: flyers onboard for the purposes of while vessels with home ports in § 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned marking the location of the gear but Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. removal of these floats does not would have the most surplus quota * * * * * constitute removal of bottom longline available to trade. Specific to pelagic (b) * * * gear. longline vessels homeported in * * * * * Louisiana, NMFS estimates that CFR Part or Cape Hatteras gear restricted area approximately 12 vessels would receive section where the Current OMB control means the area within the Atlantic an initial allocation either at or above information collection number (all numbers Ocean bounded by straight lines their historical reported landings and requirement is begin with 0648–) connecting the following coordinates in would have approximately 10.4 mt of located the order stated: 34°50′ N. lat., 75°10′ W. surplus allocation. Conversely, long.; 35°40′ N. lat., 75°10′ W. long.; approximately 13 vessels would need 35°40′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long.; 37°10′ N. additional quota of 17.4 mt to maintain ***** ° ′ ° ′ 50 CFR: ...... lat., 75 00 W. long.; 37 10 N. lat., current fishing practices. Therefore, the 74°20′ W. long.; 34°30′ N. lat., 74°20′ W. total quota need among State of ***** long.; 34°50′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long; Louisiana homeported vessels would be 635.5(a)(4) ..... –0328 34°50′ N. lat., 75°10′ W. 7 mt. Vessels may change their fishing * * * * * practices such that the amount of quota ***** Green-stick gear means an actively they need is reduced or they may be 635.9(e) ...... –0328 trolled mainline attached to a vessel and able to lease quota from other vessels 635.14(d) ...... –0677 635.15(a)(2), elevated or suspended above the surface with surplus quota. Therefore, the (c)(2) and of the water with no more than 10 hooks adverse impacts to State of Louisiana (k)(4) ...... –0677 or gangions attached to the mainline. homeported vessels would be The suspended line, attached gangions minimized to the extent practicable ***** and/or hooks, and catch may be while still meeting the objectives of 635.69(a) and retrieved collectively by hand or Amendment 7. (e)(4) ...... –0372 mechanical means. Green-stick does not constitute a pelagic longline or a bottom List of Subjects ***** longline as defined in this section. 15 CFR Part 902 In transit means non-stop progression Title 50—Wildlife and Fisheries through an area without any fishing activity occurring. Reporting and recordkeeping PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY requirements. MIGRATORY SPECIES * * * * * Pelagic longline means a longline that 50 CFR Part 635 ■ 3. The authority citation for part 635 is suspended by floats in the water Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, continues to read as follows: column and that is not fixed to or in contact with the ocean bottom. For the Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. Reporting and recordkeeping 1801 et seq. purposes of this part, a vessel is requirements, Treaties. considered to have pelagic longline gear ■ 4. In § 635.2: on board when a power-operated ■ a. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Bottom longline hauler, a mainline, floats longline,’’ ‘‘Green-stick gear,’’ and capable of supporting the mainline, and ‘‘Pelagic longline,’’ and leaders (gangions) with hooks are on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71588 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

board. Removal of any of these elements (a) * * * the VMS reporting requirements under constitutes removal of pelagic longline (3) Bluefin tuna landed by a § 635.69(e)(4) and the applicable gear. commercial vessel and not sold. If a Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Program * * * * * person who catches and lands a large and/or leasing requirements under Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted medium or giant bluefin tuna from a § 635.15(a)(2). area means two areas within the Gulf of vessel issued a permit in any of the (b) * * * Mexico described here. The first area is commercial categories for Atlantic tunas (2) * * * bounded by straight lines connecting does not sell or otherwise transfer the (i) * * * the following coordinates in the order bluefin tuna to a dealer who has a dealer (A) Landing reports. Each dealer with stated: 26°30′ N. lat., 94°40′ W. long.; permit for Atlantic tunas, the person a valid Atlantic Tunas dealer permit 27°30′ N. lat., 94°40′ W. long.; 27°30′ N. must contact a NMFS enforcement issued under § 635.4 must submit the lat., 89° W. long.; 26°30′ N. lat., 89° W. agent, at a number designated by NMFS, landing reports to NMFS for each long.; 26°30′ N. lat., 94°40′ W. long. The immediately upon landing such bluefin bluefin received from a U.S. fishing second area is bounded by straight lines tuna, provide the information needed vessel. Such reports must be submitted connecting the following coordinates in for the reports required under paragraph electronically by sending a facsimile to the order stated: 27°40′ N. lat., 88° W. (b)(2)(i) of this section, and, if requested, a number designated by NMFS not later ° ° ° long.; 28 N. lat., 88 W. long.; 28 N. make the tuna available so that a NMFS than 24 hours after receipt of the ° ° ′ ° lat., 86 W. long.; 27 40 N. lat., 86 W. enforcement agent or authorized officer bluefin. Landing reports must include ° ′ ° long.; 27 40 N. lat., 88 W. long. may inspect the fish and attach a tag to the name and permit number of the * * * * * it. Alternatively, such reporting vessel that landed the bluefin and other Transiting means progressing through requirement may be fulfilled if a dealer information regarding the catch as an area without any fishing activity who has a dealer permit for Atlantic instructed by NMFS. Landing reports occurring. tunas affixes a dealer tag as required submitted via facsimile must be signed * * * * * under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section by the permitted vessel owner or ■ 5. In § 635.4 revise paragraphs (j)(3) and reports the bluefin tuna as being operator immediately upon transfer of and (o)(4) to read as follows: landed but not sold on the reports the bluefin. When purchasing bluefin required under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this tuna from eligible IBQ Program § 635.4 Permits and fees. section. If a vessel is placed on a trailer, participants or Atlantic Tunas Purse * * * * * the person must contact a NMFS Seine category participants, permitted (j) * * * enforcement agent, or the bluefin tuna Atlantic Tunas dealers must also enter (3) A vessel owner issued an Atlantic must have a dealer tag affixed to it by landing reports into the electronic IBQ Tunas permit in the General, Harpoon, a permitted Atlantic tunas dealer, System established under 635.15, not or Trap category or an Atlantic HMS immediately upon the vessel being later than 24 hours after receipt of the permit in the Angling or Charter/ removed from the water. All bluefin bluefin. The vessel owner or operator Headboat category under paragraph (b), tuna landed but not sold will be applied must confirm that the IBQ System (c), or (d) of this section may change the to the quota category according to the landing report information is accurate category of the vessel permit once permit category of the vessel from by entering a unique PIN when the within 45 calendar days of the date of which it was landed. dealer report is submitted. The dealer issuance of the permit, provided the (4) Bluefin tuna discarded dead, or must inspect the vessel’s permit to vessel has not landed bluefin tuna landed by a commercial vessel and sold. verify that it is a commercial category, during those 45 calendar days as The owner of a vessel that has been the required vessel name and permit verified by NMFS via landings data. permitted or that is required to be number as listed on the permit are After 45 calendar days from the date of permitted under § 635.4 in the Atlantic correctly recorded on the landing report, issuance of the permit, the vessel owner Tunas General or Harpoon categories, or and that the vessel permit has not may not change the permit category has been permitted or is required to be expired. until the following fishing season. permitted under § 635.4 under the HMS * * * * * * * * * * Charter/Headboat category and fishing (iii) Dealers must comply with dealer (o) * * * under the General category quotas and requirements related to the Individual (4) The owner of a vessel issued an daily limits as specified at § 635.23(c), Bluefin Quota Program under HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat must report all discards and/or landings § 635.15(a)(4)(iii). permit may fish for, take, retain, or of bluefin tuna through the NMFS possess only BAYS tunas, Atlantic electronic catch reporting system within * * * * * swordfish, and Atlantic sharks, subject 24 hours of the landings or the end of (c) * * * to the trip limits specified at § 635.24. trip. Such reports may be made by (1) Bluefin tuna. The owner of a * * * * * either calling a phone number vessel permitted, or required to be ■ 6. In § 635.5: designated by NMFS or by submitting permitted in the Atlantic HMS Angling ■ a. Paragraph (a)(3) is revised; the required information online to a or Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat ■ b. Paragraph (a)(4) is redesignated as Web site designated by NMFS. The category under § 635.4 must report the paragraph (a)(5); owner of a vessel that has been catch of all bluefin tuna discarded dead ■ c. New paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(6) are permitted in a different bluefin tuna and/or retained under the Angling added; category must report as specified category quota designated at § 635.27(a) ■ d. Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) is revised; elsewhere in this section (§ 635.5). through the NMFS electronic catch ■ e. Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) is added; and reporting system within 24 hours of the * * * * * ■ f. Paragraph (c)(1) is revised. landing. The revisions and additions read as (6) Atlantic Tunas permitted vessels. * * * * * follows: The owner or operator of an Atlantic Tunas vessel fishing with pelagic ■ 7. Add § 635.9 to subpart A—with § 635.5 Recordkeeping and reporting. longline gear or an Atlantic Tunas Purse paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (e)(1) effective * * * * * Seine category participant is subject to June 1, 2015—to read as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71589

§ 635.9 Electronic monitoring. the following components and (6) The EM system must have (a) Applicability. An owner or capabilities: software that enables the system to be operator of a commercial vessel (1) Video camera(s). (i) Video cameras tested for functionality and that records permitted or required to be permitted in must be mounted and placed so as to the outcome of the tests. the Atlantic Tunas Longline category provide clear, unobstructed views of the (d) Data maintenance, storage, and under § 635.4, and that has pelagic area(s) where the pelagic longline gear viewing. The EM system must have the longline gear on board, is required to is retrieved and of catch being removed capacity to allow NMFS, the USCG, and have installed, operate, and maintain an from hooks prior to being placed in the their authorized officers and designees, electronic monitoring (EM) system on hold or discarded. There must be or any NMFS-approved contractor to the vessel, as specified in this section. lighting sufficient to illuminate clearly observe the live video on the EM Vessel owner or operators can contact individual fish. systems monitor as described in NMFS or a NMFS-approved contractor (ii) Video camera(s) must be in paragraph (c)(5) of this section. Vessel for more details on procuring an EM sufficient numbers (a minimum of two owner or operators must provide access system. and up to four), with sufficient to the system, including the data upon (b) EM Installation. (1) NMFS or a resolution (no less than 720p (1280 × request. NMFS-approved contractor will assess 720)) for NMFS, the USCG, and their (e) Operation. (1) Unless otherwise individual Atlantic Tunas Longline authorized officers and designees, or authorized by NMFS in writing, a vessel permitted vessels that are currently any individual authorized by NMFS to described in paragraph (a) of this eligible for IBQ share, install and test all determine the number and species of section must collect video and sensor EM systems; provide training to vessel fish harvested. To obtain the views data in accordance with the owners or operators or their designees; described in paragraph (c)(1)(i), at least requirements in this section, in order to and develop in consultation with vessel one camera must be mounted to record fish with pelagic longline gear. owners or operators or their designees close-up images of fish being retained (2) Vessel monitoring plan. The vessel required operational plans (Vessel on the deck at the haulback station, and owner or operator must have available Monitoring Plan or VMP) for the EM at least one camera must be mounted to onboard a written VMP for its system, systems, as described in paragraph (e)(2) record activity at the waterline along the which is an operational plan developed of this section. side of the vessel at the haul back by the NMFS-approved contractor (2) Vessel owners or operators, as station. NMFS or the NMFS-approved containing the standardized procedures instructed by NMFS, will be required to contractor will determine if more relating to the vessel’s EM system. coordinate with NMFS or a NMFS- cameras are needed. VMPs may include, but are not limited approved contractor to schedule a date (iii) The EM system must be capable to, information on the locations of EM or range of dates for EM installation, of initiating video recording at the time system components; contact information and/or may be required to steam to a gear retrieval starts. It must record all for technical support; instructions on designated port for EM installation on periods of time when the gear is being how to conduct a pre-trip system test; NMFS-determined dates. NMFS may retrieved and catch is removed from the instructions on how to verify proper require vessel owners to make minor hooks until it is placed in the hold or system functions; location(s) on deck modifications to vessel equipment to discarded. where fish retrieval should occur to facilitate installation and operation of (2) GPS receiver. A GPS receiver is remain in view of the cameras; the EM system, such as, but not limited required to produce output, which procedures for how to manage EM to, installation of a fitting for the includes location coordinates, velocity, system hard drives; catch handling pressure side of the line of the drum and heading data, and is directly logged procedures; a size reference for hydraulic system, a power supply for continuously by the control box. The facilitating determination of fish size; the EM system and power switches/ GPS receiver must be installed and periodic checks of the monitor during connections, additional lighting, and/or remain in a location where it receives a the retrieval of gear to verify proper a mounting structure(s) for installation strong signal continuously. functioning; reporting procedures. The of the camera(s). EM installation must (3) Hydraulic and drum rotation VMP should minimize to the extent be completed by June 1, 2015 in order sensors. Hydraulic sensors are required practicable any impact on the current to fish with pelagic longline gear after to continuously monitor the hydraulic operating procedures of the vessel, and that date. pressure and a drum rotation sensor should help ensure the safety of the (i) Certificate of Installation. After must continuously monitor drum crew. confirming that an EM system that rotations. (3) Handling of fish and duties of meets the requirements of this section is (4) EM control box. The system must care. The vessel owner or operator must properly installed, the system has been include a control box that receives and ensure that all fish that are caught, even tested, and training and a required stores the raw data provided by the those that are released, are handled in operational plan (VMP) are completed, sensors and cameras. The control box a manner that enables the video system NMFS or the NMFS-approved must contain removable hard drives and to record such fish, and must ensure contractor will provide a Certificate of storage systems adequate for a trip that all handling and retention of Installation to the vessel owner or lasting 30 days. bluefin tuna occurs in accordance with operator. (5) EM systems monitor. A relevant regulations and the operational (ii) Vessels described under paragraph wheelhouse monitor must provide a procedures outlined in the VMP. The (a) of this section may not depart on a graphical user interface for harvester to vessel owner or operator is responsible fishing trip without having a valid monitor the state and performance of for ensuring the proper continuous Certificate of Installation and VMP on the control box and provide information functioning of the EM system, including board. on the current date and time that the EM system must remain (c) EM System Components. The EM synchronized via GPS, GPS coordinates, powered on for the duration of each system installed by the NMFS-approved current hydraulic pressure reading, fishing trip from the time of departure contractor must be comprised of video presence of a data disk, percentage used to time of return; cameras must be camera(s), recording equipment, and of the data disk, and video recording cleaned routinely; and EM system other related equipment and must have status. components must not be tampered with.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71590 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

(4) Completion of trip. Within 48 Subpart B—Individual Vessel requirements outlined in § 635.7 of this hours of completing a fishing trip,, the Measures part and § 600.746 of this chapter. In vessel owner or operator must mail the addition, the scoring system will removable EM system hard drive(s) ■ 8. Revise the subpart B heading to consider the number of trips for which containing all data to NMFS or NMFS- read as set forth above. an individual vessel was selected to approved contractor, according to ■ 9. Add § 635.14 to subpart B to read carry an observer, the number of trips instructions provided by NMFS. The as follows: actually observed, the reason why a vessel owner or operator is responsible particular trip was not observed, and § 635.14 Performance metrics. for using shipping materials suitable to other relevant observer information. The protect the hard drives (e.g.,, bubble (a) General. For purposes of scoring system is neutral with respect to wrap), tracking the package, and § 635.21(c)(3), NMFS will determine valid reasons that a vessel may have including a self-addressed mailing label ‘‘qualified’’ vessels based on the been selected by the observer program, for the next port of call so replacement performance metrics in paragraph (b) of but did not take an observer (e.g., no hard drives can be mailed back to the this section. Specifically, NMFS will observer was available or the vessel was vessel owner or operator. Prior to use fishery dependent and fishery not fishing with pelagic longline gear). departing on a subsequent trip, the independent data to evaluate vessel The scoring system is designed to weigh performance based on avoidance of vessel owner or operator must install a trips that were not observed due to bluefin tuna interactions while fishing replacement EM system hard drive(s) to noncompliance with the with a pelagic longline gear and history enable data collection and video communication requirements more of compliance with the observer and recording. The vessel owner or operator heavily than those not observed due to logbook requirements of §§ 635.7 and is responsible for contacting NMFS or noncompliance with the safety and 635.5, respectively. NMFS-approved contractor if they have accommodation requirements. The (b) Calculation of performance scoring system is also designed to requested but not received a metrics. In year one of implementation, replacement hard drive(s) and for consider evidence of fishing activity NMFS will analyze the relevant data that may have occurred without informing NMFS or NMFS-approved from the period 2006 to 2012 to contractor of any lapse in the hard drive required communication or observer determine a vessel’s score and coverage. management procedures described in qualification status. Subsequently, the VMP. (3) Logbook compliance performance NMFS will analyze available data from metric. NMFS will score vessels based (f) Failure to adequately monitor the the most recent complete three on both the vessel owner’s and vessel gear and catch. The vessel owner or consecutive year period to determine a operator’s compliance with the logbook operator must monitor and maintain the vessel’s score and qualification status. reporting requirements outlined in EM system in working condition, which NMFS will communicate the results of § 635.5. This metric will reflect the includes ensuring the proper the annual determination to individual timeliness of the submission of the continuous functioning of the EM permit holders in writing. NMFS may logbooks (for example, the amount of system, cameras provide clear revise, through the framework time elapsed between the offloading of unobstructed views, and video picture procedures under § 635.34, the scoring the catch and the logbook submission). quality is clear. Prior to departing on a system to reflect changes in the fishery (4) Combining performance metrics. trip with pelagic longline gear on board, or ensure that it provides the desired The performance metrics described the vessel owner or operator must test incentives and meets the goals of this under paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of the functionality of the system and program. The process used to calculate this section will be combined through contact NMFS or the NMFS-approved the performance metrics are described the use of a decision formula described contractor if the system is not fully in Amendment 7 to the 2006 in Amendment 7 to the 2006 functioning properly. In that case, or if Consolidated HMS FMP. The main Consolidated HMS FMP. The decision NMFS independently determines that metrics are summarized below. formula will result in a designation for an EM system fails to meet the (1) Bluefin tuna interactions each vessel of ‘‘qualified’’ or ‘‘not requirements of this section, the vessel performance metric. The basis for the qualified.’’ cannot leave port unless and until bluefin tuna interactions performance (c) Annual notification. NMFS will NMFS provides written authorization. metric is the ratio of the number of notify permitted vessel owners annually NMFS may grant such authorization bluefin tuna interactions (i.e., the of the score of their vessel (i.e., after confirming that an EM system is number of fish landed, discarded dead, ‘‘qualified’’ or ‘‘not qualified’’) by functioning properly or other and discarded alive) to the total weight certified mail. The score applies for only circumstances as determined by NMFS of designated target species landings (in one year. NMFS will make aggregate warrant authorization. pounds). For the purposes of this data regarding access to gear restricted (g) Repair and replacement. If the section, the designated target species areas available to the general public. vessel owner or operator becomes aware are: Swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye, (d) Appeals. Permitted vessel owners that the EM system on the vessel is not albacore, and skipjack tunas; dolphin; can appeal their performance score functioning properly at sea, the vessel wahoo; and porbeagle, shortfin mako, determinations pursuant to the owner or operator must contact NMFS and thresher sharks. A relatively low procedures, timing, and other and follow the instructions given. Such bluefin tuna interaction to designated requirements at § 635.15(k)(4)(i), (ii), instructions may include but are not species ratio (‘bluefin tuna ratio’) and (iv). Any initial administrative limited to returning to port until the EM indicates that the vessel has determination or appeal would be system is repaired. Once in port, an EM successfully avoided catching bluefin evaluated based upon the following system must be functioning properly tuna while fishing with pelagic longline criteria: (e.g., repaired, reinstalled, or replaced) gear in the performance metric period. (1) The accuracy of NMFS records consistent with the installation (2) Observer compliance performance regarding the relevant information; and requirements in this section before the metric. NMFS will score vessels based (2) correct assignment of historical vessel can fish with pelagic longline on both the vessel owner’s and the data to the vessel owner/permit holder. gear. operator’s compliance with the observer The current owner of a permitted vessel

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71591

may also appeal on the basis of of Mexico or the Atlantic regions. PLL simultaneously with the dealer entering historical changes in vessel ownership ATL shares and resultant allocations that trip’s landings information into the or permit transfers. Appeals based on can only be used to fish with pelagic electronic IBQ system (pursuant to hardship factors will not be considered. longline gear in the Atlantic region. § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A)). The vessel owner or ■ 10. Add § 635.15 to subpart B—with Purse Seine category annual allocations operator must also confirm the accuracy paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4)(ii) and (b)(5)(i) can only be used to fish in the Atlantic of the dealer reported data at the time effective January 1, 2016—to read as region, even if leased to a PLL of entry in the electronic IBQ System. follows: participant. For the purposes of this No IBQ transactions will be processed section, the Gulf of Mexico region between 6 p.m. eastern time on § 635.15 Individual bluefin tuna quotas. includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west December 31 and 2 p.m. Eastern Time (a) General. This section establishes and north of the boundary stipulated at on January 1 of each year to provide an IBQ Program for eligible Atlantic 50 CFR 600.105(c) and the Atlantic NMFS time to reconcile IBQ accounts Tunas Longline permit holders that use region includes all other waters of the and update IBQ shares and allocations pelagic longline gear under this part and Atlantic Ocean with the exception for the upcoming fishing year. addresses Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine regarding fishing taking place in the (5) Exceeding an available allocation. category leasing. Northeast Distant (NED) gear restricted This paragraph (b)(5) applies to a vessel (1) Overview. Under the IBQ Program, area defined at § 635.2 and is further with, or an permit holder of, an Atlantic NMFS will assign eligible Atlantic described in paragraph (b)(8) of this Tunas Longline category permit or an Tunas Longline permit holders initial section. Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category IBQ shares equivalent to a percentage of (3) Minimum IBQ allocation. Before permit unless otherwise specified. If the the annual Longline category quota. departing on a fishing trip, a vessel with amount of bluefin tuna catch for a Purse Seine Category quota shares are an eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline particular trip (as defined at § 600.10 of allocated separately pursuant to category permit that fishes with or has this chapter) exceeds the amount of § 635.27(a)(4). pelagic longline gear onboard, must allocation available to the vessel, the (2) Electronic IBQ System. IBQ have the minimum IBQ allocation for Program participants, Atlantic Tunas permitted vessel is considered to have a either the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic, ‘‘quota debt’’ equal to the difference Purse Seine category participants, and depending on fishing location. The other permit holders eligible to lease between the catch and the allocation. minimum IBQ allocation for a vessel For example, if a vessel has an IBQ allocations under paragraph (c) of fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, or this section, must have access to the allocation of 0.40 mt (882 lb), and departing for a fishing trip in the Gulf catches 0.50 mt (1,102 lb) of bluefin electronic IBQ system and set up an IBQ of Mexico, is 0.25 mt ww (551 lb ww). account on that system as instructed by tuna on a trip, that vessel would have The minimum IBQ allocation for a a quota debt of 0.10 mt (220 lb). NMFS. vessel fishing in the Atlantic or (i) Trip level quota debt. Vessels with (b) IBQ allocation and usage. An IBQ departing for a fishing trip in the a quota debt cannot fish with or have quota allocation is the amount of bluefin Atlantic is 0.125 mt ww (276 lb ww). A gear for which the vessel is permitted tuna (whole weight) in metric tons (mt), vessel owner or operator may not onboard until the quota debt is settled which an IBQ Program participant is declare into or depart on a fishing trip by leasing allocation for the appropriate allotted to account for incidental catch with pelagic longline gear onboard region (per paragraph (c) of this section) of bluefin tuna during a given calendar unless it has the relevant required year. Unless otherwise required under minimum IBQ allocation for the region and applying the leased allocation to paragraph (b)(5) of this section, an in which the fishing activity will occur. settle the quota debt or through Atlantic Tunas Longline permitted (4) Accounting for bluefin tuna additional allocation (per paragraph (f) vessel’s initial IBQ allocation for a caught. (i) With the exception of vessels of this section) such that the permitted particular year is derived by multiplying fishing in the NED, in compliance with vessel has at least the minimum quota its IBQ share (percentage) by the the requirements of paragraph (b)(8) of allocation required to fish as specified Longline category quota for that year. this section, all bluefin tuna catch (dead in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. (1) Annual calculation and discards and landings) must be (ii) Annual level quota debt. If, by the notification of IBQ allocations. accounted for and deducted from the end of the fishing year, a permit holder Annually, as described in detail in vessel’s IBQ allocation. does not have adequate allocation paragraph (f) of this section, NMFS will (ii) If the amount of bluefin tuna catch (obtained either through leasing under notify IBQ share recipients of their IBQ on a particular trip exceeds the amount paragraph (c) of this section) or allocation for the next calendar year. of the vessel’s IBQ allocation, the vessel additional allocation under paragraph IBQ allocations expire at the end of each may continue to fish and complete the (f) of this section to settle their vessel’s calendar year. trip, but must resolve any quota debt quota debt, the vessel’s allocation will (2) Regional designations. As (see paragraph (b)(5) of this section be reduced in the amount equal to the described further under paragraph (k)(3) before declaring into or departing on a quota debt in the subsequent year or of this section, all IBQ shares and subsequent fishing trip with pelagic years until the quota debt is fully resultant allocations are designated as longline gear onboard by acquiring accounted for. A vessel may not fish if either ‘‘Gulf of Mexico’’ or ‘‘Atlantic’’ additional IBQ allocation through it has outstanding quota debt, even based upon the geographic location of leasing, as described in paragraph (c) of across fishing years. sets as reported to NMFS under the this section. (iii) Association with permit. Quota requirements of § 635.5. Regional (iii) IBQ Program participants, debt is associated with the vessel’s percentages determine the share and Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit, and remains associated with the allocation within the two pelagic participants, and dealers must comply permit if/when the permit is transferred longline (PLL) share categories: Gulf of with reporting requirements at or sold. At the end of the year, if an Mexico (PLL GOM) and Atlantic (PLL § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A). The vessel owner or owner with multiple permitted vessels ATL). PLL GOM shares and resultant operator of a vessel that caught bluefin has a quota debt on one or more vessels allocations can be used to fish with tuna must enter dead discard owned, the IBQ system will apply any pelagic longline gear in either the Gulf information from the trip remaining unused allocation associated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71592 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

with that owner’s other vessels to (iii) Denial of lease application. transfer with the permit to the new resolve the quota debt. NMFS may deny an application to lease vessel, and remain associated with that (6) Duration. IBQ allocation issued IBQ allocation for any of the following permit. Within a fishing year, when an under this section is valid for the reasons, including, but not limited to: Atlantic Tunas Longline permit transfer relevant fishing year unless it is The application is incomplete; the IBQ occurs (from one vessel to another), the revoked, suspended, or modified or lessor or IBQ lessee is not eligible to associated IBQ shares are transferred unless the Atlantic Tunas Longline lease per paragraph (c)(1) of this section; with the permit, however IBQ allocation category quota is closed per § 635.28(a). the IBQ lessor or IBQ lessee permits is is not, unless the IBQ allocation is also (7) Unused IBQ allocation. Any IBQ sanctioned pursuant to an enforcement transferred through a separate allocation that is unused at the end of proceeding; or the IBQ lessor has an transaction within the electronic IBQ the fishing year may not be carried insufficient IBQ allocation available to system. As described under paragraphs forward by a permit-holder to the lease (i.e., the requested amount of lease (c)(1) and (k)(1) of this section, a person following year, but would remain may not exceed the amount of IBQ or entity that holds an Atlantic Tunas associated with the Longline category as allocation associated with the lessor). Longline permit that is not associated a whole, and subject to the quota As the electronic IBQ system is with a vessel may not receive or lease regulations under § 635.27, including automated, if any of the criteria above IBQ allocation. annual quota adjustments. are applicable, the lease transaction will (f) Annual notification of shares and (8) The IBQ Program and the not be allowed to proceed. The decision allocations. On January 1 of each year, Northeast Distant Area (NED). The by NMFS is the final agency decision; NMFS will notify eligible IBQ following restrictions apply to vessels there is no opportunity for an Participants, as specified in paragraph fishing with pelagic longline gear in the administrative appeal. (k)(1) of this section, of their IBQ share NED: (3) Conditions and restrictions of and the resulting IBQ allocation (mt) for (i) When NED bluefin quota is leased IBQ allocation—(i) Subleasing. In the relevant fishing year, as well as the available. Permitted vessels fishing with a fishing year, an IBQ allocation may be regional designations based on the pelagic longline gear may fish in the leased numerous times following the available Atlantic Tunas Longline category quota, and any existing quota NED, and any bluefin catch will count process specified in paragraph (c)(2) of debt. NMFS will provide this toward the ICCAT-allocated separate this section. (ii) History of leased IBQ allocation information through the electronic IBQ NED quota until the NED quota has been use. The fishing history associated with system and via annual permit holder filled. Permitted vessels fishing in the the catch of bluefin tuna will be letters. Unless specified otherwise, NED are still required to have the associated with the vessel that caught those IBQ shares and resultant minimum IBQ allocation, specified the bluefin tuna regardless of how the allocations will be available for use at under paragraph (b)(3) of this section to vessel acquired the IBQ allocation (e.g., the start of each fishing year. Permit depart on a trip using pelagic longline through initial allocation or lease), for holders (of eligible Atlantic Tunas gear. the purpose of calculation of the Longline category permits) that have not (ii) When NED bluefin quota is filled. performance metrics described under completed the process of permit Permitted vessels fishing with pelagic § 635.14(b), or other relevant restrictions renewal or permit transfer as of longline gear may fish in the NED after based upon bluefin catch. December 31 will be issued IBQ the ICCAT-allocated separate NED quota (iii) Duration of IBQ allocation lease. allocation upon completion of the has been filled but the permitted vessels IBQ allocations expire at the end of each permit renewal or permit transfer, must abide by all the requirements of calendar year. Thus, an IBQ lessee may provided the eligible permit is the IBQ program. Bluefin catch will be only use the leased IBQ allocation associated with a vessel. accounted for using the vessel’s IBQ during the fishing year in which the IBQ (g) Evaluation. NMFS will continually allocation, as described under allocation is applicable. monitor the IBQ Program with respect to paragraphs (b)(2) and (k)(3) of this (iv) Temporary prohibition of leasing the objectives listed in the FEIS and section. IBQ allocation. No leasing of IBQ make any changes through future (c) IBQ Allocation Leasing—(1) allocation is permitted between 6 p.m. rulemakings as deemed necessary to Eligibility. The permit holders of vessels eastern time on December 31 of one year meet those objectives. Three years after issued valid Atlantic Tunas Longline and 2 p.m. Eastern Time on January 1 full implementation, NMFS will publish permits and participants in the Atlantic of the next. . This period is necessary to a written report describing any findings. Tunas Purse Seine category are eligible provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ (h) Property rights. IBQ shares and to lease IBQ allocation to and/or from accounts, and update IBQ shares and resultant allocations issued pursuant to each other. A person who holds an allocations for the upcoming fishing this part may be revoked, limited, Atlantic Tunas Longline permit that is year. modified or suspended at any time not associated with a vessel may not (v) Related restrictions. Other subject to the requirements of the lease IBQ allocation. regulations specific to the Atlantic Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, or other (2) Application to lease—(i) Tunas Purse Seine category are set forth applicable law. Such IBQ shares and Application information requirements. at § 635.27(a)(4)(v). resultant allocations do not confer any All IBQ allocation leases must occur (d) Sale of IBQ shares. Sale of IBQ right to compensation and do not create electronically through the electronic shares currently not permitted. any right, title, or interest in any bluefin IBQ system, and include all information (e) Changes in vessel and permit tuna until it is landed or discarded required by NMFS. ownership. In accordance with the dead. (ii) Approval of lease application. regulations specified under § 635.4(l), a (i) Enforcement and monitoring. Unless NMFS denies an application to vessel owner that has an IBQ share may NMFS will enforce and monitor the IBQ lease IBQ allocation according to transfer the Atlantic Tunas Longline Program through the use of the reporting paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, the category permit to another vessel that he and record keeping requirements electronic IBQ system will provide an or she owns or transfer the permit to described under § 635.5, the monitoring approval code to the IBQ lessee another person. The IBQ share as requirements under §§ 635.9 and confirming the transaction. described under this section would 635.69, and its authority to close the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71593

pelagic longline fishery specified under vessel between 2006 and 2012. Persons may appeal their initial IBQ shares § 635.28. that held an Atlantic Tunas Longline through the two-step process described (j) Cost recovery. In a future action, category permit that was not associated below. NMFS will provide further NMFS will develop and implement cost with a vessel as of August 21, 2013 are explanation on how to submit an appeal recovery for the IBQ program that will not eligible for an initial IBQ share. when it informs permit holders of their cover costs of management, data Atlantic Tunas Longline category initial IBQ shares. collection and analysis, and permits holders that are ineligible to (i) Initial administrative enforcement activities. Fees shall be receive an initial IBQ share would need determination (IAD). The HMS collected from quota share and/or to lease IBQ allocation per paragraph (c) Management Division will evaluate allocation holders for the IBQ program of this section, as well as meet all other requests from Atlantic Tunas Longline pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens Act applicable requirements, before the Permit holders regarding their initial sections 303A(e) and 304(d)(2). Such vessel could fish with or possess pelagic IBQ shares. Any request must be fees shall not exceed 3 percent of the ex- longline gear onboard. postmarked no later than March 2, 2015, vessel value of fish harvested under the (2) IBQ share determination (i) Initial be in writing, and indicate the reason program. IBQ shares. NMFS has reviewed each for the request, and contain (k) Initial IBQ shares. During year one permitted vessel’s reported bluefin tuna documentation supporting the request of implementation of the IBQ Program interactions (all discards and landings) (see paragraphs (k)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this described in this section, NMFS will and landings of designated species section). The HMS Management issue IBQ shares to eligible Atlantic (swordfish, yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, Division will evaluate the request and Tunas Longline permit holders, as and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and supporting documentation, and notify specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this porbeagle, shortfin mako and thresher the appellant by a written IAD regarding section. New entrants to the pelagic sharks) and placed each permitted a decision to approve or deny the longline fishery would need to obtain an vessel into one of three tiers: Low, request. The IAD will explain the basis Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, as well medium and high based on the ratio of for any denial decision. as other required limited access permits, bluefin tuna interactions. The IBQ share (ii) Appeal of IAD. Within 90 days as described under § 635.4(l), and would will be assigned based on the three tiers. after the date of issuance of the IAD, the need to lease IBQ allocations per (ii) Appeals to initial IBQ shares. permit holder may appeal the IAD to the paragraph (c) of this section if the When NMFS determines that all appeals NMFS National Appeals Office, permits acquired did not qualify for an pursuant to paragraph (k)(4) of this pursuant to procedures at 15 CFR part initial IBQ share. section have been resolved, NMFS may 906. (1) Eligible IBQ share Recipients. (i) adjust the initial IBQ share percentages (iii) Items subject to IAD and appeal. Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit described under paragraph (k)(2)(i) as The only items subject to an IAD or holders whose valid permit was necessary to accommodate those appeal are: Initial IBQ share eligibility associated with a vessel as of August 21, appellants that have been deemed based on ownership of an active vessel 2013, and that was determined to be eligible for an initial IBQ share or are with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline ‘‘active’’ would be eligible to receive an provided an increased IBQ share. category permit combined with the initial IBQ share. ‘‘Active’’ vessels are (3) Regional designations. All initial required shark and swordfish limited those vessels that have used pelagic IBQ shares and resultant allocations are access permits; the accuracy of NMFS longline gear on at least one set between designated as either ‘‘Gulf of Mexico’’ or records regarding that vessel’s amount 2006 and 2012 as reported to NMFS on ‘‘Atlantic’’ based upon the geographic of designated species landings and/or logbooks, per the requirements of location of sets as reported to NMFS bluefin interactions; and correct § 635.5. In determining a permitted under the requirements of § 635.5. assignment of target species landings vessel’s initial IBQ share eligibility and Eligible permit holders may use Gulf of and bluefin interactions to the vessel calculating the initial IBQ share, NMFS Mexico IBQ shares and resultant owner/permit holder. As described used the data associated with the allocations to fish in either the Gulf of under paragraph (k)(1) of this section, qualifying vessel’s history (and not the Mexico or the Atlantic regions. Eligible the IBQ share formulas are based upon permit). Therefore, for the purposes of permit holders may use Atlantic IBQ historical data associated with a this section, the vessel owner at the time shares and resultant allocations only to permitted vessel. Because vessels may of reporting is not relevant. If the fish in the Atlantic region. If a permitted have changed ownership or permits may logbook reports indicate that a vessel had fishing history in both the have been transferred during 2006 particular vessel used pelagic longline Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, it may through 2012, the current owner of a gear for at least one set between 2006 receive both the Gulf of Mexico and permitted vessel may also appeal on the and 2012, and the vessel was issued a Atlantic IBQ shares, depending upon basis of historical changes in vessel valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category the amount of IBQ share and the ownership or permit transfers. Appeals permit as of August 21, 2013, the proportion of fishing history in the two based on hardship factors (e.g., illness of current permit holder is qualified to areas. Based on the procedures vessel owner, divorce, etc.) will not be receive an initial IBQ share. described under paragraphs (k)(1) and considered. (ii) Except as described in paragraph (2) of this section, if a permit holder (iv) Supporting documentation for (k)(4) of this section regarding appeals, would be issued a regional IBQ share IAD or appeal. NMFS will consider if the logbook reports indicate that a that results in a regional allocation less official NMFS logbook records or particular vessel did not use pelagic than a minimum amount for a particular weighout slips for landings between longline gear for at least one set between area (i.e., less than 0.125 mt for the January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006 and 2012, and/or the vessel was Atlantic or less than 0.25 mt for the Gulf 2012, that were submitted to NMFS not issued a valid Atlantic Tunas of Mexico), the de minimis regional IBQ prior to March 2, 2013 (60 days after the Longline category permit on August 21, share and resultant allocation would be cutoff date for eligible landings) and 2013, the current permit holder is not designated to the other regional verifiable sales slips, receipts from eligible to receive an initial IBQ share designation. registered dealers, state landings even if the current permit holder fished (4) Appeals of initial IBQ share. records, and permit records as with pelagic longline gear on a different Atlantic Tunas Longline Permit holders supporting documentation for a request

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71594 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

or appeal under paragraph (k)(4) of this Caribbean, as defined at § 622.2 of this Atlantic commercial shark permit may section. NMFS will count only those chapter, may have on board and use possess sharks taken with rod and reel, designated species landings that were handline, harpoon, rod and reel, bandit handline, bandit gear, longline, or landed legally when the owner had a gear, green-stick gear, and buoy gear. gillnet if the vessel is not engaged in a valid permit. No other proof of catch (1) Angling. Speargun (for BAYS for-hire fishing trip. history or species interactions will be tunas only), and rod and reel (including (e) Swordfish. (1) No person may considered, except for NMFS logbook downriggers) and handline (for all possess north Atlantic swordfish taken records, observer data, or other NMFS tunas). from its management unit by any gear data. NMFS permit records will be the (2) Charter/headboat. Rod and reel other than handgear, green-stick, or sole basis for determining permit (including downriggers), bandit gear, longline, except that such swordfish transfers. Copies of documents may be handline, and green-stick gear are taken incidentally while fishing with a submitted, provided they are of equal authorized for all recreational and squid trawl may be retained by a vessel legibility and quality as the originals, commercial Atlantic tuna fisheries. issued a valid Incidental HMS squid and such copies shall have the same Speargun is authorized for recreational trawl permit, subject to restrictions force and effect as if they were originals. Atlantic BAYS tuna fisheries only. specified in § 635.24(b)(2). No person NMFS may request the originals at a (3) General. Rod and reel (including may possess south Atlantic swordfish later date. NMFS may refer any downriggers), handline, harpoon, bandit taken from its management unit by any submitted materials that are of gear, and green-stick. gear other than longline. questionable authenticity to the NMFS (4) Harpoon. Harpoon. (2) An Atlantic swordfish may not be Office of Enforcement for investigation. (5) Longline. Longline and green-stick. retained or possessed on board a vessel ■ 11. Add § 635.19 to subpart C to read (6) Purse seine. Purse seine. with a gillnet. A swordfish will be (7) Trap. Pound net and fish weir. as follows: deemed to have been harvested by (c) Billfish. (1) Only persons who have gillnet when it is onboard, or offloaded § 635.19 Authorized gears. been issued a valid HMS Angling or from, a vessel fishing with or having on (a) General. No person may fish for, valid Charter/Headboat permit, or who board a gillnet. catch, possess, or retain any Atlantic have been issued a valid Atlantic Tunas (3) A person aboard a vessel issued or HMS with gears other than the primary General category or Swordfish General required to be issued a valid directed gears specifically authorized in this Commercial permit and are handgear LAP for Atlantic swordfish or part. Consistent with § 635.21(a), participating in a tournament as an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small secondary gears may be used at boat provided in § 635.4(c), may possess a Boat permit may not fish for swordfish side to aid and assist in subduing, or blue marlin, white marlin, or roundscale with any gear other than handgear. A bringing on board a vessel, Atlantic spearfish in, or take a blue marlin, white swordfish will be deemed to have been HMS that have first been caught or marlin, or roundscale spearfish from, its harvested by longline when the fish is captured using primary gears. For management unit. Blue marlin, white on board or offloaded from a vessel purposes of this part, secondary gears marlin, or roundscale spearfish may fishing with or having on board longline include, but are not limited to, dart only be harvested by rod and reel. gear. Only vessels that have been issued harpoons, gaffs, flying gaffs, tail ropes, (2) Only persons who have been a valid directed or handgear swordfish etc. Secondary gears may not be used to issued a valid HMS Angling or valid LAP or an HMS Commercial Caribbean capture, or attempt to capture, free- Charter/Headboat permit, or who have Small Boat permit under this part may swimming or undersized HMS. Except been issued a valid Atlantic Tunas utilize or possess buoy gear. for vessels permitted under § 635.4(o) or General category or Swordfish General (4) Except for persons aboard a vessel as specified in this section, a vessel Commercial permit and are that has been issued a directed, using or having onboard in the Atlantic participating in a tournament as incidental, or handgear limited access Ocean any unauthorized gear may not provided in § 635.4(c), may possess or swordfish permit, a Swordfish General possess an Atlantic HMS on board. take a sailfish shoreward of the outer Commercial permit, an Incidental HMS (b) Atlantic tunas. A person that boundary of the Atlantic EEZ. Sailfish squid trawl permit, or an HMS fishes for, retains, or possesses an may only be harvested by rod and reel. Commercial Caribbean Small Boat Atlantic bluefin tuna may not have on (d) Sharks. No person may possess a permit under § 635.4, no person may board a vessel or use on board a vessel shark in the EEZ taken from its fish for North Atlantic swordfish with, any primary gear other than those management unit without a permit or possess a North Atlantic swordfish authorized for the category for which issued under § 635.4. No person issued taken by, any gear other than handline the Atlantic tunas or HMS permit has a Federal Atlantic commercial shark or rod and reel. been issued for such vessel. Primary permit under § 635.4 may possess a (5) A person aboard a vessel issued or gears are the gears specifically shark taken by any gear other than rod required to be issued a valid Swordfish authorized in this section. When fishing and reel, handline, bandit gear, longline, General Commercial permit may only for Atlantic tunas other than bluefin or gillnet. No person issued an HMS possess North Atlantic swordfish taken tuna, primary gear authorized for any Commercial Caribbean Small Boat from its management unit by rod and Atlantic Tunas permit category may be permit may possess a shark taken from reel, handline, bandit gear, green-stick, used, except that purse seine gear may the U.S. Caribbean, as defined at § 622.2 or harpoon gear. be used only on board vessels permitted of this chapter, by any gear other than ■ 12. Section 635.21 is revised to read in the Purse Seine category and pelagic with rod and reel, handline or bandit as follows: longline gear may be used only on board gear. No person issued an HMS Angling vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas permit or an HMS Charter/Headboat § 635.21 Gear operation, restricted areas, Longline category tuna permit, a LAP permit under § 635.4 may possess a and deployment restrictions. other than handgear for swordfish, and shark if the shark was taken from its (a) All Atlantic HMS fishing gears. (1) a LAP for sharks. A person issued an management unit by any gear other than An Atlantic HMS harvested from its HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat rod and reel or handline, except that management unit that is not retained permit who fishes for, retains, or persons on a vessel issued both an HMS must be released in a manner that will possesses BAYS tunas in the U.S. Charter/Headboat permit and a Federal ensure maximum probability of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71595

survival, but without removing the fish transiting a closed area with all fishing (v) In the Cape Hatteras gear restricted from the water. gear stowed appropriately. Longline area from December 1 through April 30 (2) If a billfish is caught by a hook and gear is stowed appropriately if all each year; not retained, the fish must be released gangions and hooks are disconnected (vi) In the Spring Gulf of Mexico gear by cutting the line near the hook or by from the mainline and are stowed on or restricted area from April 1 through May using a dehooking device, in either case below deck, hooks are not baited, and 30 each year; without removing the fish from the all buoys and weights are disconnected (vii) In the Northeast Distant gear water. from the mainline and drum (buoys may restricted area at any time, unless (3) Restricted gear and closed areas remain on deck). persons onboard the vessel complies for all Atlantic HMS fishing gears. (i) No (3) When a marine mammal or sea with the following: person may fish for, catch, possess, or turtle is hooked or entangled by pelagic (A) The vessel is limited to possessing retain any Atlantic HMS or anchor a or bottom longline gear, the operator of onboard and/or using only 18/0 or larger fishing vessel that has been issued a the vessel must immediately release the circle hooks with an offset not to exceed permit or is required to be permitted animal, retrieve the pelagic or bottom 10 degrees. The outer diameter of the under this part, in the areas and seasons longline gear, and move at least 1 nm circle hook at its widest point must be designated at § 622.34(a)(3) of this (2 km) from the location of the incident no smaller than 2.16 inches (55 mm) chapter. before resuming fishing. Similarly, when measured with the eye on the (ii) From November through April of when a smalltooth sawfish is hooked or hook on the vertical axis (y-axis) and each year, no vessel issued, or required entangled by bottom longline gear, the perpendicular to the horizontal axis to be issued, a permit under this part operator of the vessel must immediately (x-axis), and the distance between the may fish or deploy any type of fishing release the animal, retrieve the bottom circle hook point and the shank (i.e., the gear in the Madison-Swanson closed longline gear, and move at least 1 nm gap) must be no larger than 1.13 inches area or the Steamboat Lumps closed (2 km) from the location of the incident (28.8 mm). The allowable offset is area, as defined in § 635.2. before resuming fishing. Reports of (iii) From May through October of measured from the barbed end of the marine mammal entanglements must be hook and is relative to the parallel plane each year, no vessel issued, or required submitted to NMFS consistent with to be issued, a permit under this part of the eyed-end, or shank, of the hook regulations in § 229.6 of this title. may fish or deploy any type of fishing when laid on its side. The only (4) Vessels that have pelagic or bottom allowable offset circle hooks are those gear in the Madison-Swanson or the longline gear on board and that have Steamboat Lumps closed areas except that are offset by the hook manufacturer. been issued, or are required to have If green-stick gear, as defined at § 635.2, for surface trolling. For the purposes of been issued, a permit under this part this section, surface trolling is defined is onboard, a vessel may possess up to must have only corrodible hooks on 20 J-hooks. J-hooks may be used only as fishing with lines trailing behind a board. vessel which is in constant motion at with green-stick gear, and no more than (c) Pelagic longlines. (1) If a vessel 10 hooks may be used at one time with speeds in excess of four knots with a issued or required to be issued a permit visible wake. Such trolling may not each green-stick gear. J-hooks used with under this part: green-stick gear may be no smaller than involve the use of down riggers, wire (i) Is in a closed area designated under lines, planers, or similar devices. 1.5 inch (38.1 mm) when measured in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and has a straight line over the longest distance (iv) From January through April of bottom longline gear onboard, the vessel each year, no vessel issued, or required from the eye to any other part of the may not, at any time, possess or land hook; and, to be issued, a permit under this part any pelagic species listed in table 2 of (B) The vessel is limited, at all times, may fish or deploy any type of fishing appendix A to this part in excess of 5 to possessing onboard and/or using only gear in the Edges 40 Fathom Contour percent, by weight, of the total weight whole Atlantic mackerel and/or squid closed area, as defined in § 635.2. of pelagic and demersal species bait, except that artificial bait may be (b) Longline—general restrictions. (1) possessed or landed, that are listed in possessed and used only with green- All vessels that have pelagic or bottom tables 2 and 3 of appendix A to this stick gear, as defined at § 635.2, if green- longline gear onboard and that have part. stick gear is onboard; and, been issued, or are required to have, a (ii) Has pelagic longline gear on limited access swordfish, shark, or tuna board, persons aboard that vessel may (C) Vessels must possess, inside the Longline category permit for use in the not possess, retain, transship, land, sell, wheelhouse, a document provided by Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean or store silky sharks, oceanic whitetip NMFS entitled, ‘‘Careful Release Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great Protocols for Sea Turtle Release with possess inside the wheelhouse the hammerhead sharks. Minimal Injury,’’ and must post, inside document provided by NMFS entitled (2) Except as noted in paragraph (c)(3) the wheelhouse, sea turtle handling and ‘‘Careful Release Protocols for Sea of this section, if pelagic longline gear release guidelines provided by NMFS; Turtle Release with Minimal Injury,’’ is on board a vessel issued or required and, and must also post inside the to be issued a permit under this part, (D) Required sea turtle bycatch wheelhouse the sea turtle handling and persons aboard that vessel may not fish mitigation gear, which NMFS has release guidelines provided by NMFS. or deploy any type of fishing gear: approved under paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of (2) Transiting and gear stowage: If a (i) In the Northeastern United States this section, on the initial list of vessel issued a permit under this part is closed area from June 1 through June 30 ‘‘NMFS-Approved Models For in a closed or gear restricted area each calendar year; Equipment Needed For The Careful described in this section with pelagic or (ii) In the Charleston Bump closed Release of Sea Turtles Caught In Hook bottom longline gear on board, it is a area from February 1 through April 30 And Line Fisheries,’’ must be carried rebuttable presumption that any fish on each calendar year; onboard, and must be used in board such a vessel were taken with (iii) In the East Florida Coast closed accordance with the handling pelagic or bottom longline in the closed area at any time; requirements specified in paragraphs or gear restricted area except where (iv) In the Desoto Canyon closed area (c)(2)(vii)(E) through (G) of this section; such possession is aboard a vessel at any time; and,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71596 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

(E) Sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, possible must be removed from the (for the relevant year) using the specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of turtle without causing further injury performance metrics described in this section, must be used to disengage prior to its release. Refer to the careful § 635.14. any hooked or entangled sea turtles that release protocols and handling/release (4) In the Gulf of Mexico, pelagic cannot be brought on board, and to guidelines required in paragraph longline gear may not be fished or facilitate access, safe handling, (c)(2)(vii)(C) of this section, and the deployed from a vessel issued or disentanglement, and hook removal or handling and resuscitation requirements required to have been issued a limited hook cutting from sea turtles that can be specified in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title, access permit under this part with live brought on board, where feasible. Sea for additional information. bait affixed to the hooks; and, a person turtles must be handled, and bycatch (G) Non-boated turtles: If a sea turtle aboard a vessel issued or required to mitigation gear must be used, in is too large, or hooked in a manner that have been issued a limited access accordance with the careful release precludes safe boating without causing permit under this part that has pelagic protocols and handling/release further damage or injury to the turtle, longline gear on board may not possess guidelines specified in paragraph sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, live baitfish, maintain live baitfish in (c)(2)(vii)(C) of this section, and in specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of any tank or well on board the vessel, or accordance with the onboard handling this section, must be used to disentangle set up or attach an aeration or water and resuscitation requirements specified sea turtles from fishing gear and circulation device in or to any such tank in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title. disengage any hooks, or to clip the line or well. For the purposes of this section, and remove as much line as possible the Gulf of Mexico includes all waters (F) Boated turtles: When practicable, from a hook that cannot be removed, of the U.S. EEZ west and north of the active and comatose sea turtles must be prior to releasing the turtle, in boundary stipulated at 50 CFR brought on board, with a minimum of accordance with the protocols specified 600.105(c). injury, using a dipnet approved on the in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C) of this (5) The operator of a vessel permitted initial list specified in paragraph section. Non-boated turtles should be or required to be permitted under this (c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section. All turtles brought close to the boat and provided part and that has pelagic longline gear less than 3 ft. (.91 m) carapace length with time to calm down. Then, it must on board must undertake the following should be boated, if sea conditions be determined whether or not the hook sea turtle bycatch mitigation measures: permit. A boated turtle should be placed can be removed without causing further (i) Possession and use of required on a standard automobile tire, or injury. A front flipper or flippers of the mitigation gear. Required sea turtle cushioned surface, in an upright turtle must be secured, if possible, with bycatch mitigation gear, which NMFS orientation to immobilize it and an approved turtle control device from has approved under paragraph (c)(5)(iv) facilitate gear removal. Then, it should the list specified in paragraph of this section as meeting the minimum be determined if the hook can be (c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section. All design standards specified in removed without causing further injury. externally embedded hooks must be paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (M) of All externally embedded hooks should removed, unless hook removal would this section, must be carried onboard, be removed, unless hook removal would result in further injury to the turtle. No and must be used to disengage any result in further injury to the turtle. No attempt should be made to remove a hooked or entangled sea turtles in attempt to remove a hook should be hook if it has been swallowed, or if it accordance with the handling made if the hook has been swallowed is determined that removal would result requirements specified in paragraph and the insertion point is not visible, or in further injury. If the hook cannot be (c)(5)(ii) of this section. if it is determined that removal would removed and/or if the animal is (A) Long-handled line clipper or result in further injury. If a hook cannot entangled, as much line as possible cutter. Line cutters are intended to cut be removed, as much line as possible must be removed prior to release, using high test monofilament line as close as should be removed from the turtle using an approved line cutter from the list possible to the hook, and assist in approved monofilament line cutters specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of removing line from entangled sea turtles from the initial list specified in this section. If the hook can be removed, to minimize any remaining gear upon paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section, it must be removed using a long- release. NMFS has established and the hook should be cut as close as handled dehooker from the initial list minimum design standards for the line possible to the insertion point, using specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of cutters, which may be purchased or bolt cutters from that list, before this section. Without causing further fabricated from readily available and releasing the turtle. If a hook can be injury, as much gear as possible must be low-cost materials. The LaForce line removed, an effective technique may be removed from the turtle prior to its cutter and the Arceneaux line clipper to cut off either the barb, or the eye, of release. Refer to the careful release are models that meet these minimum the hook using bolt cutters, and then to protocols and handling/release design standards. One long-handled line slide the hook out. When the hook is guidelines required in paragraph clipper or cutter meeting the minimum visible in the front of the mouth, an (c)(2)(vii)(C) of this section, and the design standards, and a set of approved mouth-opener from the initial handling and resuscitation requirements replacement blades, are required to be list specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) specified in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title, onboard. The minimum design of this section may facilitate opening the for additional information. standards for line cutters are as follows: turtle’s mouth, and an approved gag (3) Restricted access to the Cape (1) A protected and secured cutting from that list may facilitate keeping the Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. A vessel blade. The cutting blade(s) must be mouth open. Short-handled dehookers that has been issued, or is required to capable of cutting 2.0–2.1 mm (0.078 for ingested hooks, long-nose pliers, or have been issued, a limited access in.–0.083 in.) monofilament line (400-lb needle-nose pliers from the initial list permit under this part may fish with test) or polypropylene multistrand specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of pelagic longline gear in the Cape material, known as braided or tarred this section should be used to remove Hatteras gear restricted area described in mainline, and must be maintained in visible hooks that have not been paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this section, working order. The cutting blade must swallowed from the mouth of boated provided the vessel has been be curved, recessed, contained in a turtles, as appropriate. As much gear as determined by NMFS to be ‘‘qualified,’’ holder, or otherwise designed to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71597

facilitate its safe use so that direct dehooker, meeting the minimum design design standards for dipnets are as contact between the cutting surface and standards, is required onboard for use follows: the sea turtle or the user is prevented. on externally-hooked sea turtles that (1) Size of dipnet. The dipnet must The cutting instrument must be securely cannot be boated. The long-handled have a sturdy net hoop of at least 31 attached to an extended reach handle dehooker for ingested hooks described inches (78.74 cm) inside diameter and a and be easily replaceable. One extra set in paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B) of this section bag depth of at least 38 inches (96.52 of replacement blades meeting these would meet this requirement. The cm) to accommodate turtles below 3 ft. standards must also be carried on board minimum design standards are as (0.914 m) carapace length. The bag mesh to replace all cutting surfaces on the line follows: openings may not exceed 3 inches (7.62 cutter or clipper. (1) Construction. A long-handled cm). There must be no sharp edges or (2) An extended reach handle. The dehooker must be constructed of 5/16- burrs on the hoop, or where the hoop is line cutter blade(s) must be securely inch (7.94 mm) 316 L stainless steel rod. attached to the handle. fastened to an extended reach handle or A 5-inch (12.7-cm) tube T-handle of 1- (2) Extended reach handle. The pole with a minimum length equal to, inch (2.54 cm) outside diameter is dipnet hoop must be securely fastened or greater than, 150 percent of the height recommended, but not required. The to an extended reach handle or pole of the vessel’s freeboard, or 6 feet design should be such that a fish hook with a minimum length equal to, or (1.83 m), whichever is greater. It is can be rotated out, without pulling it greater than, 150 percent of the height recommended, but not required, that the out at an angle. The dehooking end of the vessel’s freeboard, or at least 6 ft handle break down into sections. There must be blunt with all edges rounded. (1.83 m), whichever is greater. The is no restriction on the type of material The device must be of a size appropriate handle must made of a rigid material used to construct this handle as long as to secure the range of hook sizes and strong enough to facilitate the sturdy it is sturdy and facilitates the secure styles used in the pelagic longline attachment of the net hoop and able to attachment of the cutting blade. fishery targeting swordfish and tuna. support a minimum of 100 lbs (34.1 kg) (B) Long-handled dehooker for (2) Extended reach handle. The without breaking or significant bending ingested hooks. A long-handled handle must be a minimum length equal or distortion. It is recommended, but not dehooking device is intended to remove to the height of the vessel’s freeboard or required, that the extended reach handle ingested hooks from sea turtles that 6 ft. (1.83 m), whichever is greater. break down into sections. cannot be boated. It should also be used (D) Long-handled device to pull an (F) Tire. A minimum of one tire is to engage a loose hook when a turtle is ‘‘inverted V.’’ This tool is used to pull required onboard for supporting a turtle entangled but not hooked, and line is a ‘‘V’’ in the fishing line when in an upright orientation while it is being removed. The design must shield implementing the ‘‘inverted V’’ onboard, although an assortment of the barb of the hook and prevent it from dehooking technique, as described in sizes is recommended to accommodate re-engaging during the removal process. the document entitled ‘‘Careful Release a range of turtle sizes. The required tire One long-handled device, meeting the Protocols for Sea Turtle Release With must be a standard passenger vehicle minimum design standards, is required Minimal Injury,’’ required under tire, and must be free of exposed steel onboard to remove ingested hooks. The paragraph (a)(3) of this section, for belts. minimum design standards are as disentangling and dehooking entangled (G) Short-handled dehooker for follows: sea turtles. One long-handled device to ingested hooks. One short-handled (1) Hook removal device. The hook pull an ‘‘inverted V’’, meeting the device, meeting the minimum design removal device must be constructed of minimum design standards, is required standards, is required onboard for 5/16-inch (7.94 mm) 316 L stainless onboard. If a 6-ft (1.83 m) J-style removing ingested hooks. This dehooker steel and have a dehooking end no dehooker is used to comply with is designed to remove ingested hooks larger than 1–7/8-inches (4.76 cm) paragraph (c)(5)(i)(C) of this section, it from boated sea turtles. It can also be outside diameter. The device must will also satisfy this requirement. used on external hooks or hooks in the securely engage and control the leader Minimum design standards are as front of the mouth. Minimum design while shielding the barb to prevent the follows: standards are as follows: hook from re-engaging during removal. (1) Hook end. This device, such as a (1) Hook removal device. The hook It may not have any unprotected standard boat hook or gaff, must be removal device must be constructed of terminal points (including blunt ones), constructed of stainless steel or 1⁄4-inch (6.35 mm) 316 L stainless steel, as these could cause injury to the aluminum. A sharp point, such as on a and must allow the hook to be secured esophagus during hook removal. The gaff hook, is to be used only for holding and the barb shielded without re- device must be of a size appropriate to the monofilament fishing line and engaging during the removal process. It secure the range of hook sizes and styles should never contact the sea turtle. must be no larger than 15⁄16 inch (3.33 used in the pelagic longline fishery (2) Extended reach handle. The cm) outside diameter. It may not have targeting swordfish and tuna. handle must have a minimum length any unprotected terminal points (2) Extended reach handle. The equal to the height of the vessel’s (including blunt ones), as this could dehooking end must be securely freeboard, or 6 ft. (1.83 m), whichever is cause injury to the esophagus during fastened to an extended reach handle or greater. The handle must be sturdy and hook removal. A sliding PVC bite block pole with a minimum length equal to or strong enough to facilitate the secure must be used to protect the beak and greater than 150 percent of the height of attachment of the gaff hook. facilitate hook removal if the turtle bites the vessel’s freeboard, or 6 ft. (1.83 m), (E) Dipnet. One dipnet, meeting the down on the dehooking device. The bite whichever is greater. It is recommended, minimum design standards, is required block should be constructed of a 3⁄4-inch but not required, that the handle break onboard. Dipnets are to be used to (1.91 cm) inside diameter high impact down into sections. The handle must be facilitate safe handling of sea turtles by plastic cylinder (e.g., Schedule 80 PVC) sturdy and strong enough to facilitate allowing them to be brought onboard for that is 10 inches (25.4 cm) long to allow the secure attachment of the hook fishing gear removal, without causing for 5 inches (12.7 cm) of slide along the removal device. further injury to the animal. Turtles shaft. The device must be of a size (C) Long-handled dehooker for must not be brought onboard without appropriate to secure the range of hook external hooks. A long-handled the use of a dipnet. The minimum sizes and styles used in the pelagic

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71598 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

longline fishery targeting swordfish and be able to cut hard metals, such as thermoplastic polymer, and strong tuna. stainless or carbon steel hooks, up to 1⁄4- enough to withstand biting without (2) Handle length. The handle should inch (6.35 mm) diameter. splintering. To accommodate a variety be approximately 16–24 inches (40.64 (K) Monofilament line cutters. One of turtle beak sizes, a set must include cm–60.69 cm) in length, with pair of monofilament line cutters is one large (51⁄2–8 inches (13.97 cm–20.32 approximately a 5-inch (12.7 cm) long required on board. Required cm) in length), and one small (31⁄2–41⁄2 tube T-handle of approximately 1 inch monofilament line cutters must be used inches (8.89 cm–11.43 cm) in length) (2.54 cm) in diameter. to remove fishing line as close to the eye canine chew bones. (H) Short-handled dehooker for of the hook as possible, if the hook is (4) A set of two rope loops covered external hooks. One short-handled swallowed or cannot be removed. To with hose. A set of two rope loops dehooker for external hooks, meeting meet the minimum design standards covered with a piece of hose can be the minimum design standards, is such monofilament line cutters must used as a mouth opener, and to keep a required onboard. The short-handled generally be approximately 71⁄2 inches turtle’s mouth open during hook and/or dehooker for ingested hooks required to (19.05 cm) in length. The blades must be line removal. A required set consists of comply with paragraph (c)(5)(i)(G) of 1 in (4.45 cm) in length and 5⁄8-in (1.59 two 3-foot (0.91 m) lengths of poly braid this section will also satisfy this cm) wide, when closed, and are rope (3⁄8-inch (9.52 mm) diameter requirement. Minimum design recommended to be coated with Teflon suggested), each covered with an 8-inch standards are as follows: (a trademark owned by E.I. DuPont de (20.32 cm) section of 1⁄2-inch (1.27 cm) (1) Hook removal device. The Nemours and Company Corp.). or 3⁄4-inch (1.91 cm) light-duty garden dehooker must be constructed of 5⁄16- (L) Mouth openers/mouth gags. hose, and each tied into a loop. The inch (7.94 cm) 316 L stainless steel, and Required mouth openers and mouth upper loop of rope covered with hose is the design must be such that a hook can gags are used to open sea turtle mouths, secured on the upper beak to give be rotated out without pulling it out at and to keep them open when removing control with one hand, and the second an angle. The dehooking end must be ingested hooks from boated turtles. piece of rope covered with hose is blunt, and all edges rounded. The They must allow access to the hook or secured on the lower beak to give device must be of a size appropriate to line without causing further injury to control with the user’s foot. secure the range of hook sizes and styles the turtle. Design standards are included (5) A hank of rope. Placed in the used in the pelagic longline fishery in the item descriptions. At least two of corner of a turtle’s jaw, a hank of rope targeting swordfish and tuna. the seven different types of mouth can be used to gag open a sea turtle’s (2) Handle length. The handle should openers/gags described below are mouth. A 6-foot (1.83 m) lanyard of be approximately 16–24 inches (40.64 required: approximately 3⁄16-inch (4.76 mm) cm–60.69 cm) long with approximately (1) A block of hard wood. Placed in braided nylon rope may be folded to a 5-inch (12.7 cm) long tube T-handle of the corner of the jaw, a block of hard create a hank, or looped bundle, of rope. approximately 1 inch (2.54 cm) in wood may be used to gag open a turtle’s Any size soft-braided nylon rope is diameter. mouth. A smooth block of hard wood of allowed, however it must create a hank (I) Long-nose or needle-nose pliers. a type that does not splinter (e.g. maple) of approximately 2–4 inches (5.08 cm– One pair of long-nose or needle-nose with rounded edges should be sanded 10.16 cm) in thickness. pliers, meeting the minimum design smooth, if necessary, and soaked in (6) A set of four PVC splice couplings. standards, is required on board. water to soften the wood. The PVC splice couplings can be positioned Required long-nose or needle-nose dimensions should be approximately 11 inside a turtle’s mouth to allow access pliers can be used to remove deeply inches (27.94 cm) 1 inch (2.54 cm) 1 to the back of the mouth for hook and embedded hooks from the turtle’s flesh inch (2.54 cm). A long-handled, wire line removal. They are to be held in that must be twisted during removal. shoe brush with a wooden handle, and place with the needle-nose pliers. To They can also hold PVC splice with the wires removed, is an ensure proper fit and access, a required couplings, when used as mouth inexpensive, effective and practical set must consist of the following openers, in place. To meet the minimum mouth-opening device that meets these Schedule 40 PVC splice coupling sizes: design standards such pliers must requirements. 1 inch (2.54 cm), 11⁄4 inch (3.18 cm), 11⁄2 generally be approximately 12 inches (2) A set of three canine mouth gags. inch (3.81 cm), and 2 inches (5.08 cm). (30.48 cm) in length, and should be Canine mouth gags are highly (7) A large avian oral speculum. A constructed of stainless steel material. recommended to hold a turtle’s mouth large avian oral speculum provides the (J) Bolt cutters. One pair of bolt open, because the gag locks into an open ability to hold a turtle’s mouth open and cutters, meeting the minimum design position to allow for hands-free to control the head with one hand, standards, is required on board. operation after it is in place. A set of while removing a hook with the other Required bolt cutters may be used to cut canine mouth gags must include one of hand. The avian oral speculum must be hooks to facilitate their removal. They each of the following sizes: small (5 9-inches (22.86 cm) long, and should be used to cut off the eye or barb inches) (12.7 cm), medium (6 inches) constructed of 3⁄16-inch (4.76 mm) wire of a hook, so that it can safely be pushed (15.24 cm), and large (7 inches) (17.78 diameter surgical stainless steel (Type through a sea turtle without causing cm). They must be constructed of 304). It must be covered with 8 inches further injury. They should also be used stainless steel. A 1-inch (4.45 cm) piece (20.32 cm) of clear vinyl tubing (5⁄16- to cut off as much of the hook as of vinyl tubing (3⁄4-inch (1.91 cm) inch (7.9 mm) outside diameter, possible, when the remainder of the outside diameter and 5⁄8-inch (1.59 cm) 3⁄16-inch (4.76 mm) inside diameter). hook cannot be removed. To meet the inside diameter) must be placed over (M) Turtle control devices. One turtle minimum design standards such bolt the ends to protect the turtle’s beak. control device, as described in cutters must generally be approximately (3) A set of two sturdy dog chew paragraph (c)(5)(i)(M)(1) or (2) of this 17 inches (43.18 cm) in total length, bones. Placed in the corner of a turtle’s section, and meeting the minimum with 4-inch (10.16 cm) long blades that jaw, canine chew bones are used to gag design standards, is required onboard are 21⁄4 inches (5.72 cm) wide, when open a sea turtle’s mouth. Required and must be used to secure a front closed, and with 13-inch (33.02 cm) canine chews must be constructed of flipper of the sea turtle so that the long handles. Required bolt cutters must durable nylon, zylene resin, or animal can be controlled at the side of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71599

the vessel. It is strongly recommended this section, must be used to facilitate handling and resuscitation requirements that a pair of turtle control devices be access, safe handling, disentanglement, specified in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title, used to secure both front flippers when and hook removal or hook cutting of sea for additional information. crew size and conditions allow. turtles that can be brought onboard, (C) Non-boated turtles. If a sea turtle Minimum design standards consist of: where feasible. Sea turtles must be is too large, or hooked in a manner that (1) Turtle tether and extended reach handled, and bycatch mitigation gear precludes safe boating without causing handle. Approximately 15–20 feet of 1⁄2- must be used, in accordance with the further damage or injury to the turtle, inch hard lay negative buoyance line is careful release protocols and handling/ sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear used to make an approximately 30-inch release guidelines specified in required by paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) loop to slip over the flipper. The line is paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and in through (D) of this section must be used fed through a 3⁄4-inch fair lead, eyelet, accordance with the onboard handling to disentangle sea turtles from fishing or eyebolt at the working end of a pole and resuscitation requirements specified gear and disengage any hooks, or to clip and through a 3⁄4-inch eyelet or eyebolt in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title. the line and remove as much line as in the midsection. A 1⁄2-inch quick (B) Boated turtles. When practicable, possible from a hook that cannot be release cleat holds the line in place near active and comatose sea turtles must be removed, prior to releasing the turtle, in the end of the pole. A final 3⁄4-inch brought on board, with a minimum of accordance with the protocols specified eyelet or eyebolt should be positioned injury, using a dipnet as required by in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. approximately 7-inches behind the cleat paragraph (c)(5)(i)(E) of this section. All (1) Non-boated turtles should be to secure the line, while allowing a safe turtles less than 3 ft. (.91 m) carapace brought close to the boat and provided working distance to avoid injury when length should be boated, if sea with time to calm down. Then, it must releasing the line from the cleat. The conditions permit. be determined whether or not the hook line must be securely fastened to an (1) A boated turtle should be placed can be removed without causing further extended reach handle or pole with a on a standard automobile tire, or injury. A front flipper or flippers of the minimum length equal to, or greater cushioned surface, in an upright turtle must be secured with an approved orientation to immobilize it and than, 150 percent of the height of the turtle control device from the list facilitate gear removal. Then, it should vessel’s freeboard, or a minimum of 6 specified in paragraph (c)(2)(v)(D) of be determined if the hook can be feet (1.83 m), whichever is greater. this section. removed without causing further injury. There is no restriction on the type of (2) All externally embedded hooks material used to construct this handle, (2) All externally embedded hooks must be removed, unless hook removal as long as it is sturdy. The handle must should be removed, unless hook would result in further injury to the include a tag line to attach the tether to removal would result in further injury turtle. No attempt should be made to the vessel to prevent the turtle from to the turtle. No attempt to remove a remove a hook if it has been swallowed, breaking away with the tether still hook should be made if it has been or if it is determined that removal attached. swallowed and the insertion point is not (2) T&G ninja sticks and extended visible, or if it is determined that would result in further injury. If the reach handles. Approximately 30–35 removal would result in further injury. hook cannot be removed and/or if the animal is entangled, as much line as feet of 1⁄2-inch to 5⁄8-inch soft lay (3) If a hook cannot be removed, as polypropylene or nylon line or similar much line as possible should be possible must be removed prior to is fed through 2 PVC conduit, fiberglass, removed from the turtle using release, using a line cutter as required or similar sturdy poles and knotted monofilament cutters as required by by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. If using an overhand (recommended) knot paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, and the hook can be removed, it must be at the end of both poles or otherwise the hook should be cut as close as removed using a long-handled dehooker secured. There should be approximately possible to the insertion point before as required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this 18–24 inches of exposed rope between releasing the turtle, using boltcutters as section. the poles to be used as a working required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this (3) Without causing further injury, as surface to capture and secure the section. much gear as possible must be removed flipper. Knot the line at the ends of both (4) If a hook can be removed, an from the turtle prior to its release. Refer poles to prevent line slippage if they are effective technique may be to cut off to the careful release protocols and not otherwise secured. The remaining either the barb, or the eye, of the hook handling/release guidelines required in line is used to tether the apparatus to using bolt cutters, and then to slide the paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the the boat unless an additional tag line is hook out. When the hook is visible in handling and resuscitation requirements used. Two lengths of sunlight resistant the front of the mouth, a mouth-opener, specified in § 223.206(d)(1) for 3⁄4-inch schedule 40 PVC electrical as required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this additional information. conduit, fiberglass, aluminum, or section, may facilitate opening the (iii) Gear modifications. The similar material should be used to turtle’s mouth and a gag may facilitate following measures are required of construct the apparatus with a keeping the mouth open. Short-handled vessel operators to reduce the incidental minimum length equal to, or greater dehookers for ingested hooks, long-nose capture and mortality of sea turtles: than, 150 percent of the height of the pliers, or needle-nose pliers, as required (A) Gangion length. The length of any vessel’s freeboard, or 6 feet (1.83 m), by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, gangion on vessels that have pelagic whichever is greater. should be used to remove visible hooks longline gear on board and that have (ii) Handling and release from the mouth that have not been been issued, or are required to have, a requirements. (A) Sea turtle bycatch swallowed on boated turtles, as limited access swordfish, shark, or tuna mitigation gear, as required by appropriate. Longline category permit for use in the paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (D) of (5) As much gear as possible must be Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean this section, must be used to disengage removed from the turtle without causing Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must be at any hooked or entangled sea turtles that further injury prior to its release. Refer least 10 percent longer than any cannot be brought onboard. Sea turtle to the careful release protocols and floatline length if the total length of any bycatch mitigation gear, as required by handling/release guidelines required in gangion plus the total length of any paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(E) through (M) of paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the floatline is less than 100 meters.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71600 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

(B) Hook size, type, and bait. Vessels Other devices proposed for use as line (H) East Hump. Bounded by rhumb fishing outside of the NED gear clippers or cutters or dehookers, as lines connecting, in order, the following restricted area, as defined at § 635.2, specified under paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A), points: 24°36.5′ N. lat., 80°45.5′ W. that have pelagic longline gear on board, (B), (C), (G), (H), and (K) of this section, long.; 24°32′ N. lat., 80°36′ W. long; and that have been issued, or are must be approved as meeting the 24°27.5′ N. lat., 80°38.5′ W. long; required to have, a limited access minimum design standards before being 24°32.5′ N. lat., 80°48′ W. long.; 24°36.5′ swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas used. NMFS will examine new devices, N. lat., 80°45.5′ W. long. Longline category permit for use in the as they become available, to determine (2) The operator of a vessel required Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean if they meet the minimum design to be permitted under this part and that Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, are limited, standards, and will file with the Office has bottom longline gear on board must at all times, to possessing on board and/ of the Federal Register for publication undertake the following bycatch or using only whole finfish and/or squid notification of any new devices that are mitigation measures to release sea bait, and the following types and sizes approved as meeting the standards. turtles, prohibited sharks, or smalltooth of fishing hooks: (d) Bottom longlines. (1) If bottom sawfish, as appropriate. (1) 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an longline gear is onboard a vessel issued (i) Possession and use of required ° offset not to exceed 10 ; and/or, a permit under this part, persons aboard mitigation gear. The equipment listed in (2) 16/0 or larger non-offset circle that vessel may not fish or deploy any paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section must hooks. type of fishing gear in the following be carried on board and must be used (i) For purposes of paragraphs areas: to handle, release, and disentangle (c)(5)(iii)(B)(1) and (2) of this section, (i) The mid-Atlantic shark closed area hooked or entangled sea turtles, the outer diameter of an 18/0 circle from January 1 through July 31 each prohibited sharks, or smalltooth sawfish hook at its widest point must be no calendar year; in accordance with requirements smaller than 2.16 inches (55 mm), and (ii) The areas designated at specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this the outer diameter of a 16/0 circle hook § 622.33(a)(1) through (3) of this section. at its widest point must be no smaller chapter, year-round; and than 1.74 inches (44.3 mm), when (ii) Handling and release (iii) The areas described in paragraphs requirements. Sea turtle bycatch measured with the eye of the hook on (d)(1)(iii)(A) through (H) of this section, the vertical axis (y-axis) and mitigation gear, as required by year-round. paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, must perpendicular to the horizontal axis (x- (A) Snowy Grouper Wreck. Bounded be used to disengage any hooked or axis). The distance between the hook by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the entangled sea turtle as stated in point and the shank (i.e., the gap) on an following points: 33°25′ N. lat., paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section. This 18/0 circle hook must be no larger than 77°04.75′ W. long.; 33°34.75′ N. lat., mitigation gear should also be employed 1.13 inches (28.8 mm), and the gap on 76°51.3′ W. long.; 33°25.5′ N. lat., to disengage any hooked or entangled a 16/0 circle hook must be no larger 76°46.5′ W. long.; 33°15.75′ N. lat., species of prohibited sharks as listed than 1.01 inches (25.8 mm). The 77°00.0′ W. long.; 33°25′ N. lat., under heading D of Table 1 of appendix allowable offset is measured from the 77°04.75′ W. long. barbed end of the hook, and is relative (B) Northern South Carolina. A of this part, any hooked or entangled to the parallel plane of the eyed-end, or Bounded on the north by 32°53.5′ N. species of sharks that exceed the shank, of the hook when laid on its side. lat.; on the south by 32°48.5′ N. lat.; on retention limits as specified in The only allowable offset circle hooks the east by 78°04.75′ W. long.; and on § 635.24(a), and any hooked or are those that are offset by the hook the west by 78°16.75′ W. long. entangled smalltooth sawfish. In manufacturer. In the Gulf of Mexico, as (C) Edisto. Bounded on the north by addition, if a smalltooth sawfish is described at § 600.105(c) of this chapter, 32°24′ N. lat.; on the south by 32°18.5′ caught, the fish should be kept in the circle hooks also must be constructed of N. lat.; on the east by 78°54.0′ W. long.; water while maintaining water flow corrodible round wire stock that is no and on the west by 79°06.0′ W. long. over the gills and the fish should be larger than 3.65 mm in diameter. (D) Charleston Deep Artificial Reef. examined for research tags. All (ii) [Reserved] Bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in smalltooth sawfish must be released in (3) If green-stick gear, as defined at order, the following points: 32°04′ N. a manner that will ensure maximum § 635.2, is onboard, a vessel may possess lat., 79°12′ W. long.; 32°08.5′ N. lat., probability of survival, but without up to 20 J-hooks. J-hooks may be used 79°07.5′ W. long.; 32°06′ N. lat., 79°05′ removing the fish from the water or any only with green-stick gear, and no more W. long.; 32°01.5′ N. lat., 79°09.3′ W. research tags from the fish. than 10 hooks may be used at one time long.; 32°04′ N. lat., 79°12′ W. long. (3) If a vessel issued or required to be with each green-stick gear. J-hooks used (E) Georgia. Bounded by rhumb lines issued a permit under this part is in a with green-stick gear may be no smaller connecting, in order, the following closed area designated under paragraph than 1.5 inch (38.1 mm) when measured points: 31°43′ N. lat., 79°31′ W. long.; (d)(1) of this section and has pelagic in a straight line over the longest 31°43′ N. lat., 79°21′ W. long.; 31°34′ N. longline gear onboard, the vessel may distance from the eye to any other part lat., 79°29′ W. long.; 31°34′ N. lat., not, at any time, possess or land any of the hook. If green-stick gear is 79°39′ W. long; 31°43′ N. lat., 79°31′ W. demersal species listed in Table 3 of onboard, artificial bait may be long. Appendix A to this part in excess of 5 possessed, but may be used only with (F) North Florida. Bounded on the percent, by weight, of the total weight green-stick gear. north by 30°29′ N. lat.; on the south by of pelagic and demersal species (iv) Approval of sea turtle bycatch 30°19′ N. lat.; on the east by 80°02′ W. possessed or landed, that are listed in mitigation gear. NMFS will file with the long.; and on the west by 80°14′ W. Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix A to this Office of the Federal Register for long. part. publication an initial list of required sea (G) St. Lucie Hump. Bounded on the (e) Purse seine—(1) Mesh size. A turtle bycatch mitigation gear that north by 27°08′ N. lat.; on the south by purse seine used in directed fishing for NMFS has approved as meeting the 27°04′ N. lat.; on the east by 79°58′ W. bluefin tuna must have a mesh size minimum design standards specified long.; and on the west by 80°00′ W. equal to or smaller than 4.5 inches (11.4 under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. long. cm) in the main body (stretched when

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71601

wet) and must have at least 24-count removed from the water while being ■ 13. In § 635.23, the section heading thread throughout the net. removed from the net. and paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) are (2) Inspection of purse seine vessels. (h) Buoy gear. Vessels utilizing buoy revised to read as follows: Persons that own or operate an Atlantic gear may not possess or deploy more Tunas purse seine vessel must have § 635.23 Retention limits for bluefin tuna. than 35 floatation devices, and may not their fishing gear inspected for mesh * * * * * deploy more than 35 individual buoy size by an enforcement agent of NMFS (d) Harpoon category. Persons aboard gears per vessel. Buoy gear must be prior to commencing fishing for the a vessel permitted in the Atlantic Tunas constructed and deployed so that the season in any fishery that may result in Harpoon category may retain, possess, hooks and/or gangions are attached to the harvest of Atlantic tunas. Such or land an unlimited number of giant persons must request such inspection at the vertical portion of the mainline. bluefin tuna per day. An incidental least 24 hours before commencement of Floatation devices may be attached to catch of two large medium bluefin tuna the first fishing trip of the season. If one but not both ends of the mainline, per vessel per day may be retained, NMFS does not inspect the vessel and no hooks or gangions may be possessed, or landed, unless the within 24 hours of such notification, the attached to any floatation device or retention limits is increased by NMFS inspection requirement is waived. In horizontal portion of the mainline. If through an inseason adjustment to addition, at least 24 hours before more than one floatation device is three, or a maximum of four, large commencement of offloading any attached to a buoy gear, no hook or medium bluefin tuna per vessel per day, bluefin tuna after a fishing trip, such gangion may be attached to the mainline based upon the criteria under persons must request an inspection of between them. Individual buoy gears § 635.27(a)(8). NMFS will implement an the vessel and catch by notifying NMFS. may not be linked, clipped, or adjustment via publication in the If, after notification by the vessel, NMFS connected together in any way. Buoy Federal Register. If adjusted upwards to does not arrange to inspect the vessel gears must be released and retrieved by three or four large medium bluefin tuna and catch at offloading, the inspection hand. All deployed buoy gear must have per vessel per day, NMFS may requirement is waived. some type of monitoring equipment subsequently decrease the retention (f) Rod and reel. Persons who have affixed to it including, but not limited limit down to the default level of two, been issued or are required to be issued to, radar reflectors, beeper devices, based on the criteria under a permit under this part and who are lights, or reflective tape. If only § 635.27(a)(8). participating in a ‘‘tournament,’’ as reflective tape is affixed, the vessel (e) Purse Seine category. Persons defined in § 635.2, that bestows points, deploying the buoy gear must possess aboard a vessel permitted in the Atlantic prizes, or awards for Atlantic billfish on board an operable spotlight capable Tunas Purse Seine category may retain must deploy only non-offset circle of illuminating deployed floatation giant bluefin tuna (81 inches and larger), hooks when using natural bait or natural devices. If a gear monitoring device is and smaller bluefin, as restricted by bait/artificial lure combinations, and positively buoyant, and rigged to be paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, may not deploy a J-hook or an offset attached to a fishing gear, it is included up to the amount of individual quota circle hook in combination with natural in the 35 floatation device vessel limit allocated under § 635.27(a)(4)(ii). Purse bait or a natural bait/artificial lure and must be marked appropriately. seine vessel owners who, through combination. (i) Speargun fishing gear. Speargun landing and/or leasing, have no (g) Gillnet. (1) Persons fishing with fishing gear may only be utilized when remaining bluefin tuna quota allocation gillnet gear must comply with the recreational fishing for Atlantic BAYS may not use their permitted vessels in provisions implementing the Atlantic tunas and only from vessels issued any fishery in which Atlantic bluefin Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, the either a valid HMS Angling or valid tuna might be caught, regardless of Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction HMS Charter/Headboat permit. Persons whether bluefin tuna are retained, Plan, the Harbor Porpoise Take fishing for Atlantic BAYS tunas using unless such vessel owners lease Reduction Plan, and any other relevant speargun gear, as specified in § 635.19, additional allocation through the Take Reduction Plan set forth in must be physically in the water when Individual Bluefin Quota Allocation §§ 229.32 through 229.35 of this title. If the speargun is fired or discharged, and Leasing Program, under § 635.15(c). a listed whale is taken, the vessel may freedive, use SCUBA, or other Persons aboard a vessel permitted in the operator must cease fishing operations underwater breathing devices. Only Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category, immediately and contact NOAA (1) May retain, possess, land, or sell free-swimming BAYS tunas, not those Fisheries as required under part 229 of large medium bluefin in amounts not restricted by fishing lines or other this title. exceeding 15 percent, by weight, of the means, may be taken by speargun (2) While fishing with a gillnet for or total amount of giant bluefin landed fishing gear. ‘‘Powerheads,’’ as defined in possession of any of the large coastal, during that fishing year. small coastal, and pelagic sharks listed at § 600.10 of this chapter, or any other (2) May retain, possess, or land in section A, B, and/or C of table 1 of explosive devices, may not be used to bluefin smaller than the large medium appendix A of this part, the gillnet must harvest or fish for BAYS tunas with size class that are taken incidentally remain attached to at least one vessel at speargun fishing gear. when fishing for skipjack tuna in an one end, except during net checks. (j) Green-stick gear. Green-stick gear amount not exceeding 1 percent, by (3) Vessel operators fishing with may only be utilized when fishing from weight, of the skipjack tuna and gillnet for, or in possession of, any of vessels issued a valid Atlantic Tunas yellowfin tuna landed on that trip. the large coastal, small coastal, and General, Swordfish General Landings of bluefin smaller than the pelagic sharks listed in sections A, B, Commercial, HMS Charter/Headboat, or large medium size class may not be sold and/or C of table 1 of appendix A of this Atlantic Tunas Longline category and are counted against the Purse Seine part are required to conduct net checks permit. The gear must be attached to the category bluefin quota allocated to that every 0.5 to 2 hours to look for and vessel, actively trolled with the vessel. remove any sea turtles, marine mainline at or above the water’s surface, (3) May fish for yellowfin, bigeye, mammals, or smalltooth sawfish. and may not be deployed with more albacore, or skipjack tuna at any time; Smalltooth sawfish should not be than 10 hooks or gangions attached. however, landings of bluefin tuna taken

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71602 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

incidental to fisheries targeting other remaining quota is divided among the 30 time period to the September time Atlantic tunas or in any fishery in categories according to the following period. This inseason adjustment may which bluefin tuna might be caught will percentages: General—47.1 percent (403 occur prior to the start of that year. In be deducted from the individual vessel’s mt ww); Angling—19.7 percent (168.6 other words, although subject to the quota. mt ww), which includes the school inseason criteria under paragraph (a)(8) (f) Longline category. Persons aboard bluefin tuna held in reserve as described of this section, the adjustment could a vessel permitted in the Atlantic Tunas under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section; occur prior to the start of the fishing Longline category are subject to the Harpoon—3.9 percent (33.4 mt ww); year. For example, an inseason action bluefin tuna retention restrictions in Purse Seine—18.6 percent (159.1 mt transferring the 2016 December 1 paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. ww); Longline—8.1 percent (69.3 mt through December 31 time period (1) A vessel fishing with pelagic ww) plus the 68 mt ww allocation subquota to the 2016 January 1 time longline gear may retain, possess, land (137.3 mt ww total not including 25 mt period subquota could be filed in 2015. and sell large medium and giant bluefin ww allocation from paragraph (a)(3)); (iii) When the General category tuna taken incidentally when fishing for Trap—0.1 percent (0.9 mt ww); and fishery has been closed in any quota other species if in compliance with all Reserve—2.5 percent (21.4, mt ww). period specified under paragraph the IBQ requirements of § 635.15, NMFS may make inseason and annual (a)(1)(i) of this section, NMFS will including the requirement that a vessel adjustments to quotas as specified in publish a closure action as specified in may not declare into or depart on a paragraphs (a)(9) and (10) of this § 635.28. The subsequent time-period fishing trip with pelagic longline section, including quota adjustments as subquota will automatically open in onboard unless it has the required a result of the annual reallocation of accordance with the dates specified minimum bluefin tuna IBQ allocation Purse Seine quota described under under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. required for the region where fishing paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. (2) Angling category quota. In activity will occur. Bluefin tuna quotas are specified in accordance with the framework (2) A vessel with pelagic longline gear whole weight. procedures of the Consolidated HMS onboard must retain all dead bluefin (1) General category quota. (i) Catches FMP, prior to each fishing year, or as tuna that are 73 inches or greater CFL. from vessels for which General category early as feasible, NMFS will establish Atlantic Tunas permits have been the Angling category daily retention * * * * * issued, catches from vessels issued an limits. In accordance with paragraph (a) ■ 14. In § 635.27: Atlantic Tunas Longline permit fishing of this section, the total amount of ■ a. Paragraphs (a) introductory text, under the provisions of bluefin tuna that may be caught, (a)(1) through (3), and (a)(4)(i) through § 635.21(c)(3)(vi)(B), and certain catches retained, possessed, and landed by (iv) are revised; from vessels for which an HMS Charter/ anglers aboard vessels for which an ■ b. Paragraph (a)(4)(v) is added; Headboat permit has been issued are HMS Angling permit or an HMS ■ c. Paragraphs (a)(5) and (6), (a)(7) counted against the General category Charter/Headboat permit has been heading, and (a)(7)(i) are revised; quota in accordance with § 635.23(c)(3). issued is 168.6 mt ww. No more than ■ d. Paragraphs (a)(8)(x) through (xiv) Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, 2.3 percent (3.9 mt ww) of the annual are added; the amount of large medium and giant Angling category quota may be large ■ e. Paragraphs (a)(9), and (a)(10)(i) bluefin tuna that may be caught, medium or giant bluefin tuna. In through (iii) are revised; and retained, possessed, landed, or sold addition, over each 2-consecutive-year ■ f. Paragraph (e) is added. under the General category quota is 403 period (starting in 2011, inclusive), no The revisions and additions read as mt ww, and is apportioned as follows, more than 10 percent of the annual U.S. follows: unless modified as described under bluefin tuna quota, inclusive of the allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) § 635.27 Quotas. paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section: (A) January 1 through the effective of this section, may be school bluefin (a) Bluefin tuna. Consistent with date of a closure notice filed by NMFS tuna (i.e., 94.9 mt ww). The Angling ICCAT recommendations, and with announcing that the January subquota is category quota includes the amount of paragraph (a)(10)(iv) of this section, reached, or projected to be reached school bluefin tuna held in reserve NMFS may subtract the most recent, under § 635.28(a)(1), or until March 31, under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section. complete, and available estimate of dead whichever comes first—5.3 percent The size class subquotas for bluefin tuna discards from the annual U.S. bluefin (21.4 mt ww); are further subdivided as follows: tuna quota, and make the remainder (B) June 1 through August 31—50 (i) After adjustment for the school available to be retained, possessed, or percent (201.5 mt ww); bluefin tuna quota held in reserve landed by persons and vessels subject to (C) September 1 through September (under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this U.S. jurisdiction. The remaining 30—26.5 percent (106.8 mt ww); section), 52.8 percent (40.8 mt ww) of baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota (D) October 1 through November 30— the school bluefin tuna Angling category will be allocated among the General, 13 percent (52.4 mt ww); and quota may be caught, retained, Angling, Harpoon, Purse Seine, (E) December 1 through December possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. Longline, Trap, and Reserve categories, 31—5.2 percent (21 mt ww). lat. The remaining school bluefin tuna as described in this section. The (ii) NMFS may adjust each period’s Angling category quota (36.5 mt ww) baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota apportionment based on overharvest or may be caught, retained, possessed or is 923.7 mt ww, not including an underharvest in the prior period, and landed north of 39°18′ N. lat. additional annual 25 mt ww allocation may transfer subquota from one time (ii) An amount equal to 52.8 percent provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this period to another time period, earlier in (36.9 mt ww) of the large school/small section. The bluefin quota for the quota the year, through inseason action or medium bluefin tuna Angling category categories is calculated through the annual specifications. For example, quota may be caught, retained, following process. First, 68 mt ww is subquota could be transferred from the possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. subtracted from the baseline annual U.S. December 1 through December 31 time lat. The remaining large school/small bluefin tuna quota and allocated to the period to the January time period; or medium bluefin tuna Angling category Longline category quota. Second, the from the October 1 through November quota (32.9 mt ww) may be caught,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71603

retained, possessed or landed north of Allocations of individual bluefin quota participant’s catch in year one is greater 39°18′ N. lat. to individual Purse Seine participants than 70 percent of his/her individual (iii) One third (1.3 mt ww) of the large may only be transferred through leasing baseline quota allocation, that Purse medium and giant bluefin tuna Angling in accordance with procedures and Seine category participant would be category quota may be caught retained, requirements at § 635.15(c) and other allocated 100 percent of his/her possessed, or landed, in each of the requirements under this paragraph individual baseline quota allocation in three following geographic areas: North (a)(4). year two, and no quota would be of 39°18′ N. lat.; south of 39°18′ N. lat., (iii) Duration. Bluefin tuna quota transferred to the Reserve category for and outside of the Gulf of Mexico; and allocation issued under this section is that year. These criteria would apply in the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes valid for the relevant fishing year unless following the same pattern in years two of this section, the Gulf of Mexico it is revoked, suspended, or modified or and beyond. region includes all waters of the U.S. unless the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine (B) Purse Seine category participants EEZ west and north of the boundary category quota is closed per § 635.28(a). may only lease to eligible IBQ stipulated at 50 CFR 600.105(c). (iv) Unused bluefin allocation. Any participants allocated quota available to (3) Longline category quota. Pursuant quota allocation that is unused at the them that year, consistent with the to paragraph (a) of this section, the total end of the fishing year may not be purse seine allocation availability amount of large medium and giant carried forward by a Purse Seine provisions in this section. For example, bluefin tuna that may be caught, participant to the following year, but if a Purse Seine category participant was discarded dead, or retained, possessed, would remain associated with the Purse allocated 50 percent of his/her baseline or landed by vessels that possess Seine category as a whole, and subject quota, he/she would be able to catch Atlantic Tunas Longline category to the quota regulations under § 635.27, and/or lease that allocation to an permits is 137.3 mt ww. In addition, 25 including annual quota adjustments. eligible IBQ participant. The individual mt ww shall be allocated for incidental (v) Annual reallocation of Atlantic participant’s remaining baseline quota catch by pelagic longline vessels fishing Tunas Purse Seine category quota. (A) would not be available to lease but in the Northeast Distant gear restricted By the end of each year, NMFS will would be transferred to the Reserve area, and subject to the restrictions determine the amount of quota available category. Allocation of less than 100% under § 635.15(b)(8). to each Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine of a participant’s baseline quota (i.e., 25 (4) * * * category participant for the upcoming percent, 50 percent, or 75 percent) does (i) Baseline Purse Seine quota. fishing year, based on his/her bluefin not preclude the participant from Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, catch (landings and dead discards). leasing additional quota, as needed, the baseline amount of large medium Specifically, NMFS will allocate each consistent with § 635.15(c). and giant bluefin tuna that may be Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category (C) NMFS will inform each Atlantic caught, retained, possessed, or landed participant either 100 percent, 75 Tunas Purse Seine category participant by vessels that possess Atlantic Tunas percent, 50 percent, or 25 percent of his/ annually of its determination regarding Purse Seine category permits is 159.1 mt her individual baseline quota allocation, the amount of individual quota ww, unless adjusted as a result of described in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this allocated for the subsequent year inseason and/or annual adjustments to section, according to the following through the electronic IBQ system quotas as specified in paragraphs (a)(9) criteria: if the Purse Seine participant’s established under § 635.15 and in and (10) of this section; or adjusted catch in year one ranges from 0 to 20 writing via a permit holder letter, when (prior to allocation to individual percent of his/her individual baseline NMFS has the complete catch data for participants) based on the previous quota allocation, as described under the Purse Seine fishery. year’s catch as described under paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, the (5) Harpoon category quota. The total paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. Purse Seine category participant would amount of large medium and giant Annually, NMFS will make a be allocated 25 percent of his/her bluefin tuna that may be caught, determination when the Purse Seine individual baseline quota allocation in retained, possessed, landed, or sold by fishery will start, based on variations in year two, and 75 percent of his/her vessels that possess Harpoon category seasonal distribution, abundance or individual allocation would be Atlantic Tunas permits is 33.4 mt ww. migration patterns of bluefin tuna, reallocated to the Reserve category for The Harpoon category fishery cumulative and projected landings in that year. Similarly, if the Purse Seine commences on June 1 of each year, and other commercial fishing categories, the participant’s catch in year one is from closes on November 15 of each year. potential for gear conflicts on the fishing greater than 20 percent up to 45 percent (6) Trap category quota. The total grounds, or market impacts due to of his/her individual baseline quota amount of large medium and giant oversupply. NMFS will start the bluefin allocation, that Purse Seine category bluefin tuna that may be caught, tuna purse seine season between June 1 participant would be allocated 50 retained, possessed, or landed by and August 15, by filing an action with percent of his/her individual baseline vessels that possess Trap category the Office of the Federal Register, and quota allocation in year two, and 50 Atlantic Tunas permits is 0.9 mt ww. notifying the public. The Purse Seine percent of his/her individual allocation (7) Reserve category quota. (i) The category fishery closes on December 31 would be reallocated to the Reserve total amount of bluefin tuna that is held of each year. category for that year. If the Purse Seine in reserve for inseason or annual (ii) Allocation of bluefin quota to participant’s catch in year one is from adjustments and research using quota or Purse Seine category participants. greater than 45 percent up to 70 percent subquotas is 21.4 mt ww, which may be Annually, NMFS will make equal of his/her individual baseline quota augmented by allowable underharvest allocations of the baseline Purse Seine allocation, that Purse Seine category from the previous year, or annual category quota described under participant would be allocated 75 reallocation of Purse Seine category paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section to percent of his/her individual baseline quota as described under paragraph individual Purse Seine participants (i.e., quota allocation in year two, and 25 (a)(4)(v) of this section. Consistent with 38.1 mt each), then make further percent of his/her individual allocation paragraphs (a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(10) of determinations regarding the allocations would be transferred to the Reserve this section, NMFS may allocate any per paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. category for that year. If the Purse Seine portion of the Reserve category quota for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71604 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

inseason or annual adjustments to any consistent with the determination migration patterns of bluefin, or the fishing category quota. criteria specified in paragraph (a)(8) of catch rate in one area, precludes * * * * * this section. participants in another area from a (8) * * * (iii) Regardless of the estimated reasonable opportunity to harvest any (x) Optimize fishing opportunity. landings in any year, NMFS may adjust allocated domestic category quota, as (xi) Account for dead discards. the annual school bluefin quota to stated in § 635.27(a), NMFS may close (xii) Facilitate quota accounting. ensure that the average take of school all or part of the fishery under that (xiii) Support other fishing bluefin over each ICCAT-recommended category. NMFS may reopen the fishery monitoring programs through quota balancing period does not exceed 10 at a later date if NMFS determines that allocations and/or generation of percent by weight of the total annual reasonable fishing opportunities are revenue. U.S. bluefin quota, inclusive of the available, e.g., bluefin have migrated (xiv) Support research through quota allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) into the area or weather is conducive for allocations and/or generation of of this section (NED), for that period, fishing. In determining the need for any revenue. consistent with ICCAT such interim closure or area closure, (9) Inseason adjustments. To be recommendations. NMFS will also take into consideration effective for all, or a part of a fishing * * * * * the criteria specified in § 635.27(a)(8). year, NMFS may transfer quotas (e) Northern albacore tuna—(1) (3) When the Atlantic Tunas Longline specified under this section, among Annual quota. Consistent with ICCAT category quota is reached, projected to fishing categories or, as appropriate, recommendations and domestic be reached, or exceeded, or when there subcategories, based on the criteria in management objectives, the total is high uncertainty regarding the paragraph (a)(8) of this section. baseline annual fishery quota is 527 mt estimated or documented levels of (10) Annual adjustments. (i) ww. The total quota, after any bluefin tuna catch, NMFS will file a Adjustments to category quotas adjustments made per paragraph (e)(2) closure action with the Office of the specified under paragraphs (a) (1) of this section, is the fishing year’s total Federal Register for publication. On and through (7) of this section may be made amount of northern albacore tuna that after the effective date and time of such in accordance with the restrictions of may be landed by persons and vessels action, for the remainder of the fishing this paragraph and ICCAT subject to U.S. jurisdiction. year or for a specified period as recommendations. Based on landing, (2) Annual adjustments. Consistent indicated in the closure action, vessels catch statistics, other available with ICCAT recommendations and that have been issued or are required to information, and in consideration of the domestic management objectives, and have a limited access permit under criteria in paragraph (a)(8) of this based on landings statistics and other § 635.4 and that have pelagic longline section, if NMFS determines that a information as appropriate, if for a gear onboard are prohibited from bluefin quota for any category or, as particular year the total landings are leaving port, regardless of the amount of appropriate, subcategory has been above or below the annual quota for that bluefin tuna quota allocation remaining exceeded (overharvest), NMFS may year, the difference between the annual to each vessel or the amount of fishery subtract all or a portion of the quota and the landings will be quota remaining for other species. In overharvest from that quota category or subtracted from, or added to, the addition to providing notice in the subcategory for the following fishing following year’s quota, respectively, or Federal Register, NMFS will also notify year. If NMFS determines that a bluefin subtracted or added through a delayed, vessels of any closures and their timing quota for any category or, as or multi-year adjustment. Carryover via VMS and may use other electronic appropriate, subcategory has not been adjustments shall be limited to 25 methods, such as email. Vessels would reached (underharvest), NMFS may add percent of the baseline quota allocation be required to return to port prior to the all or a portion of the underharvest to, for that year. NMFS will file with the closure date/time. When considering that quota category or subcategory, and/ Office of the Federal Register for whether to close or reopen the Longline or the Reserve category for the following publication any adjustment or category quota, NMFS may consider the fishing year. The underharvest that is apportionment made under this following factors: carried forward may not exceed 100 paragraph (e)(2). (i) Total estimated bluefin tuna catch (landings and dead discards) in relation percent of each category’s baseline ■ 15. In § 635.28, paragraph (a) is allocation specified in paragraph (a) of to the quota; revised; and paragraphs (b)(6), (c)(3), (ii) The estimated amount by which this section, and the total of the adjusted and (d) are added to read as follows: the bluefin tuna quota might be fishing category quotas and the Reserve § 635.28 Fishery closures. exceeded; category quota are consistent with (iii) The usefulness of data relevant to ICCAT recommendations. Although (a) Bluefin tuna. (1) When a bluefin monitoring the quota; quota may be carried over for the tuna quota specified in § 635.27(a), is (iv) The uncertainty in the Longline or Purse Seine categories as a reached, or is projected to be reached, documented or estimated dead discards whole (at the category level), individual NMFS will file a closure action with the or landings of bluefin tuna; fishery participants that have been Office of the Federal Register for (v) The amount of bluefin tuna allocated individual quota may not publication. On and after the effective landings or dead discards within a short carry over such quota from one year to date and time of such action, for the time; the next, as specified under remainder of the fishing year or for a (vi) The effects of continued fishing § 635.15(b)(6) and (7) for the pelagic specified period as indicated in the on bluefin tuna rebuilding and longline fishery, and under paragraph notice, fishing for, retaining, possessing, overfishing; (a)(4)(iv) of this section for the purse or landing bluefin tuna under that quota (vii) The provision of reasonable seine fishery. is prohibited until the opening of the opportunity for pelagic longline vessels (ii) NMFS may allocate any quota subsequent quota period or until such to pursue the target species; remaining in the Reserve category at the date as specified in the notice. (viii) The variations in seasonal end of a fishing year to any fishing (2) If NMFS determines that variations distribution, abundance or migration category, provided such allocation is in seasonal distribution, abundance, or patterns of bluefin tuna; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71605

(viii) Other relevant factors. category and the appropriate category who have submitted reports to NMFS (b) * * * has not been closed, as specified at according to reporting requirements at (6) If the Atlantic Tunas Longline § 635.28(a). § 635.5(b)(1)(ii) may first receive a shark category quota is closed as specified in (i) Dealers may purchase Atlantic from an owner or operator of a vessel paragraph (a)(4) of this section, vessels bluefin tuna only from a vessel that has that has, or is required to have, a valid that have pelagic longline gear on board a valid Federal commercial permit for federal Atlantic commercial shark cannot possess or land sharks. Atlantic tunas issued under this part in permit issued under this part. Atlantic * * * * * the appropriate category. Vessel owners shark dealers may purchase, trade for, (c) * * * and operators of vessels that have been barter for, or receive a shark from an (3) Bluefin tuna Longline category issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline owner or operator of a vessel who does closure. If the Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit can sell bluefin tuna not have a federal Atlantic commercial category quota is closed as specified in and dealers can purchase bluefin tuna shark permit if that vessel fishes paragraph (a)(4) of this section, vessels from such vessels only if the Longline exclusively in state waters. Atlantic that have pelagic longline gear on board category is open, per § 635.28(a) and if: shark dealers may first receive a sandbar cannot possess or land any North (A) The vessel has met the minimum shark only from an owner or operator of Atlantic swordfish or bluefin tuna. quota allocation and accounting a vessel who has a valid shark research (d) Northern albacore tuna—When requirements at § 635.15(b)(4) and (5) permit and who had a NMFS-approved the annual fishery quota specified in for vessels departing on a trip with observer on board the vessel for the trip § 635.27(e) is reached, or is projected to pelagic longline gear aboard, and in which the sandbar shark was be reached, NMFS will file a closure (B) The dealer and vessel have met collected. Atlantic shark dealers may action with the Office of the Federal the IBQ program participant first receive a shark from an owner or Register for publication. When the requirements at § 635.15(a)(2). operator of a fishing vessel who has a fishery for northern albacore tuna is (ii) Dealers may first receive BAYS valid commercial shark permit issued closed, northern albacore tuna may not tunas only if they have submitted under this part only when the fishery be retained. If the Atlantic Tunas reports to NMFS according to reporting for that species, management group, Longline category quota is closed as requirements at § 635.5(b)(1)(ii), and and/or region has not been closed, as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this only from a vessel that has a valid specified in § 635.28(b). Atlantic shark section, vessels that have pelagic Federal commercial permit for Atlantic dealers may first receive a shark from a longline gear on board cannot possess or tunas issued under this part in the vessel that has pelagic longline gear land any northern albacore tuna. appropriate category. Vessel owners and onboard only if the Atlantic Tunas ■ 16. In § 635.31, paragraphs (a)(1) and operators of vessels that have been Longline category has not been closed, (2), (c)(1) and (4), and (d)(1) and (2) are issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline as specified in § 635.28(a). revised to read as follows: category permit can sell BAYS tunas * * * * * and dealers can purchase BAYS tunas § 635.31 Restrictions on sale and (d) * * * purchase. from such vessels only if the Longline category is open per § 635.28(a). (1) Persons that own or operate a (a) * * * (1) A person that owns or operates a Individuals issued a valid HMS vessel on which a swordfish in or from vessel from which an Atlantic tuna is Commercial Caribbean Small Boat the Atlantic Ocean is possessed may sell landed or offloaded may sell such permit, and operating in the U.S. such swordfish only if the vessel has a Atlantic tuna only if that vessel has a Caribbean as defined at § 622.2 of this valid commercial permit for swordfish valid HMS Charter/Headboat permit; a chapter, may sell their trip limits of issued under this part. Persons may valid General, Harpoon, Longline, Purse BAYS tunas, codified at § 635.24(c), to offload such swordfish only to a dealer Seine, or Trap category permit for dealers and non-dealers. Persons may who has a valid permit for swordfish Atlantic tunas; or a valid HMS only sell albacore tuna and dealers may issued under this part; except that Commercial Caribbean Small Boat only first receive albacore tuna if the individuals issued a valid HMS permit issued under this part and the northern albacore tuna fishery has not Commercial Caribbean Small Boat appropriate category has not been been closed as specified at § 635.28 (d). permit, and operating in the U.S. closed, as specified at § 635.28(a). * * * * * Caribbean as defined at § 622.2 of this However, no person may sell a bluefin (c) * * * chapter, may sell swordfish, as specified tuna smaller than the large medium size (1) Persons that own or operate a at § 635.24(b)(3), to non-dealers. Persons class. Also, no large medium or giant vessel that possesses a shark from the that own or operate a vessel that has bluefin tuna taken by a person aboard a management unit may sell such shark pelagic longline gear onboard can only vessel with an Atlantic HMS Charter/ only if the vessel has a valid commercial possess and sell a swordfish if the Headboat permit fishing in the Gulf of shark permit issued under this part. Atlantic Tunas Longline category has Mexico at any time, or fishing outside Persons may possess and sell a shark not been closed, as specified in the Gulf of Mexico when the fishery only to a federally-permitted dealer and § 635.28(a)(4). under the General category has been only when the fishery for that species, (2) Atlantic swordfish dealers may closed, may be sold (see § 635.23(c)). A management group, and/or region has first receive a swordfish harvested from person may sell Atlantic bluefin tuna not been closed, as specified in the Atlantic Ocean only from an owner only to a dealer that has a valid permit § 635.28(b). Persons that own or operate or operator of a fishing vessel that has for purchasing Atlantic bluefin tuna a vessel that has pelagic longline gear a valid commercial permit for swordfish issued under this part. A person may onboard can only possess and sell a issued under this part, and only if the not sell or purchase Atlantic tunas shark if the Atlantic Tunas Longline dealer has submitted reports to NMFS harvested with speargun fishing gear. category has not been closed, as according to reporting requirements of (2) Dealers may purchase Atlantic specified in § 635.28(a). § 635.5(b)(1)(ii). Atlantic swordfish tunas only from a vessel that has a valid * * * * * dealers may first receive a swordfish commercial permit for Atlantic tunas (4) Only dealers who have a valid a from a vessel that has pelagic longline issued under this part in the appropriate Federal Atlantic shark dealer permit and gear onboard only if the Atlantic Tunas

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71606 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Longline category has not been closed, protected species, prohibited HMS, or Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category as specified in § 635.28(a)(4). non-target species both within the permit. ■ 17. In § 635.34, paragraphs (a), (b) and specified or potential closure area(s) and * * * * * (d) are revised to read as follows: throughout the fishery; bycatch rates (e) * * * and post-release mortality rates of § 635.34 Adjustment of management (4) Bluefin tuna and fishing effort bycatch species associated with reporting requirements for vessels measures. different gear types; new or updated (a) NMFS may adjust the IBQ shares fishing either with pelagic longline gear landings, bycatch, and fishing effort or purse seine gear—(i) Pelagic longline or resultant allocations for bluefin tuna, data; evidence or research indicating as specified in § 635.15; catch limits for gear. The vessel owner or operator of a that changes to fishing gear and/or vessel that has pelagic longline gear on bluefin tuna, as specified in § 635.23; fishing practices can significantly the quotas for bluefin tuna, shark, board must report to NMFS using the reduce bycatch; social and economic attached VMS terminal, or using an swordfish, and northern albacore tuna, impacts; and the practicability of as specified in § 635.27; the regional alternative method specified by NMFS implementing new or modified closures as follows: For each set, as instructed by retention limits for Swordfish General compared to other bycatch reduction Commercial permit holders, as specified NMFS, the date and area of the set, the options. If the species is an ICCAT number of hooks and the length of all at § 635.24; the marlin landing limit, as managed species, NMFS will also specified in § 635.27(d); and the bluefin retained (actual), and the length consider the overall effect of the U.S.’s of all bluefin tuna discarded dead or minimum sizes for Atlantic blue marlin, catch on that species before white marlin, and roundscale spearfish, alive (approximate), must be reported implementing time/area closures, gear within 12 hours of the completion each as specified in § 635.20. restricted areas, or access to closed (b) In accordance with the framework pelagic longline haul-back. areas. procedures in the 2006 Consolidated (ii) Purse Seine gear. The vessel HMS FMP, NMFS may establish or ■ 18. In § 635.69, paragraph (a) owner or operator of a vessel that has modify for species or species groups of introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) purse seine gear on board must report to Atlantic HMS the following and (4) are revised; and paragraph (e)(4) NMFS using the attached VMS terminal, management measures: Maximum is added to read as follows: or using an alternative method specified sustainable yield or optimum yield § 635.69 Vessel monitoring systems. by NMFS as follows: For each purse based on the latest stock assessment or seine set, as instructed by NMFS, the updates in the SAFE report; domestic (a) Applicability. To facilitate date and area of the set, and the length quotas; recreational and commercial enforcement of time/area and fishery of all bluefin retained (actual), and the retention limits, including target catch closures, enhance reporting, and length of all bluefin tuna discarded dead requirements; size limits; fishing years support the IBQ Program (§ 635.15), an or alive (approximate), must be reported or fishing seasons; shark fishing regions owner or operator of a commercial within 12 hours of the completion of the or regional quotas; species in the vessel permitted, or required to be retrieval of each set. permitted, to fish for Atlantic HMS management unit and the specification * * * * * of the species groups to which they under § 635.4 and that fishes with ■ 19. In § 635.71: belong; species in the prohibited shark pelagic or bottom longline, gillnet, or ■ a. Paragraphs (a)(14), (a)(19), (a)(23), species group; classification system purse seine gear, is required to install a within shark species groups; permitting NMFS-approved enhanced mobile (a)(31), (a)(33), (a)(34), and (a)(40) are and reporting requirements; workshop transmitting unit (E–MTU) vessel revised; ■ requirements; the IBQ shares or monitoring system (VMS) on board the b. Paragraphs (a)(57) through (60) are resultant allocations for bluefin tuna; vessel and operate the VMS unit under added; administration of the IBQ Program the circumstances listed in paragraphs ■ c. Paragraphs (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8), (including but not limited to (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section. For (b)(13), (b)(17), (b)(23), (b)(36), and requirements pertaining to leasing of purposes of this section, a NMFS- (b)(38) are revised; IBQ allocations, regional or minimum approved E–MTU VMS is one that has ■ d. Paragraphs (b)(41) through (59) are IBQ share requirements, IBQ share caps been approved by NMFS as satisfying its added; and (individual or by category), permanent type approval listing for E–MTU VMS ■ e. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (7), (d)(12) sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.); units. Those requirements are published and (13), and (e)(8), (e)(11), (e)(16) and time/area restrictions; allocations among in the Federal Register and may be (e)(18) are revised. user groups; gear prohibitions, updated periodically. The revisions and additions read as modifications, or use restriction; effort (1) Whenever the vessel has pelagic follows: restrictions; observer coverage longline or purse seine gear on board; § 635.71 Prohibitions requirements; EM requirements; * * * * * essential fish habitat; and actions to (4) A vessel is considered to have * * * * * implement ICCAT recommendations, as pelagic or bottom longline gear on (a) * * * appropriate. board, for the purposes of this section, (14) Fail to install, activate, repair, or * * * * * when the gear components as specified replace a NMFS-approved E–MTU (d) When considering a framework at § 635.2 are on board. A vessel is vessel monitoring system prior to adjustment to add, change, or modify considered to have gillnet gear on board, leaving port with pelagic longline gear, time/area closures and/or gear restricted for the purposes of this section, when bottom longline gear, gillnet gear, or areas, NMFS will consider, consistent gillnet, as defined in § 600.10 of this purse seine gear on board the vessel as with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens chapter, is on board a vessel that has specified in § 635.69. Act and other applicable law, but is not been issued a shark LAP. A vessel is * * * * * limited to the following criteria: Any considered to have purse seine gear on (19) Utilize secondary gears as Endangered Species Act related issues, board, for the purposes of this section, specified in § 635.19(a) to capture, or concerns, or requirements, including when the gear as defined at § 600.10 is attempt to capture, any undersized or applicable BiOps; bycatch rates of onboard a vessel that has been issued an free swimming Atlantic HMS, or fail to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71607

release a captured Atlantic HMS in the vessel or to have such gear on board (44) Buy, purchase, trade, or barter for manner specified in § 635.21(a). when in possession of a bluefin tuna, as albacore tuna when the fishery is * * * * * specified in § 635.19(b). closed, as specified in § 635.31(a)(2)(ii). (23) Fail to comply with the (8) Fail to request an inspection of a (45) Fail to comply with landing restrictions on use of pelagic longline, purse seine vessel, as specified in report requirements, as specified under bottom longline, gillnet, buoy gear, § 635.21(e)(2). § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A). speargun gear, or green-stick gear as * * * * * (46) Deploy or fish with any fishing specified in § 635.21. (13) As a vessel with an Atlantic gear from a vessel with a pelagic * * * * * Tunas General category permit, fail to longline on board that does not have an (31) Deploy or fish with any fishing immediately cease fishing and approved and working EM system as gear from a vessel with a pelagic immediately return to port after specified in § 635.9; tamper with, or fail longline on board in any closed or gear catching the applicable limit of large to install, operate or maintain one or restricted areas during the time period medium or giant bluefin tuna on a more components of the EM system; specified at § 635.21(c), except under commercial fishing day, as specified in obstruct the view of the camera(s); or the conditions listed at § 635.21 (c)(3). § 635.23(a)(3). fail to handle bluefin tuna in a manner that allows the camera to record the * * * * * * * * * * fish; as specified in § 635.9. (33) Deploy or fish with any fishing (17) As a vessel with an Atlantic (47) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy gear from a vessel with pelagic or Tunas Purse Seine category permit, or fish with any fishing gear from a bottom longline gear on board without catch, possess, retain, or land bluefin in vessel with a pelagic longline on board carrying the required sea turtle bycatch excess of its allocation of the Purse without a minimum amount of IBQ mitigation gear, as specified at Seine category quota as specified in allocation available for that vessel, as § 635.21(c)(5)(i) for pelagic longline gear § 635.23(e), or fish for bluefin under that specified in § 635.15(b)(3), as and § 635.21(d)(2) for bottom longline allocation prior to the commencement applicable. gear. This equipment must be utilized in date of the directed bluefin purse seine (48) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy accordance with § 635.21(c)(5)(ii) and fishery as specified in § 635.27(a)(4). or fish with any fishing gear from a (d)(2) for pelagic and bottom longline * * * * * vessel with a pelagic longline on board gear, respectively. (23) Fish for, catch, possess, or retain without accounting for bluefin caught (34) Fail to disengage any hooked or a bluefin tuna, except as specified under on a previous trip as specified in entangled sea turtle with the least harm § 635.23(f), or if taken incidental to § 635.15(b)(4)(ii). possible to the sea turtle as specified at recreational fishing for other species (49) Lease bluefin quota allocation to § 635.21 (c)(5) or (d)(2). and retained in accordance with or from the owner of a vessel not issued * * * * * § 635.23(b) and (c). a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline permit (40) Deploy or fish with any fishing * * * * * or not an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine gear, from a vessel with bottom longline participant as specified under gear on board, without carrying a (36) Possess J-hooks onboard a vessel that has pelagic longline gear onboard, § 635.15(c)(1). dipnet, line clipper, and dehooking (50) Fish in the Gulf of Mexico with device as specified at § 635.21(d)(2). and that has been issued, or is required to have, a limited access swordfish, pelagic longline gear on board if the * * * * * shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline vessel has only designated Atlantic IBQ (57) Fail to appropriately stow category permit for use in the Atlantic allocation, as specified under longline gear when transiting a closed or Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and § 635.15(b)(2). gear restricted area, as specified in the Gulf of Mexico, except when green- (51) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy § 635.21(b)(2). stick gear is onboard, as specified at or fish with any fishing gear from a (58) Fish with pelagic longline gear in § 635.21(c)(2)(vii)(A) and (c)(5)(iii)(C)(3). vessel with a pelagic longline on board the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted area if * * * * * in the Gulf of Mexico, without a not determined by NMFS to be minimum amount of designated GOM (38) Possess more than 20 J-hooks ‘‘qualified’’ under § 635.21(c)(3). IBQ allocation available for that vessel, onboard a vessel that has been issued, (59) Fish for, retain, possess, or land as specified in § 635.15(b)(3). or is required to have, a limited access any HMS from a vessel with a pelagic (52) If leasing IBQ allocation, fail to swordfish, shark, or tuna Longline longline on board when the Atlantic provide all required information on the category permit for use in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category fishery is application, as specified under Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and closed, as specified in § 635.28(a)(3), § 635.15(c)(2). the Gulf of Mexico, when possessing (b)(6), (c)(3), and (d). (53) Lease IBQ allocation in an onboard both pelagic longline gear and (60) Buy, trade, or barter for any HMS amount that exceeds the amount of IBQ green-stick gear as defined at § 635.2. from a vessel with pelagic longline gear allocation associated with the lessor, as is on board when the Atlantic Tunas * * * * * specified under § 635.15(c)(2). Longline category fishery is closed, as (41) Fail to report bluefin catch by (54) Sell quota share, as specified specified in § 635.31(a)(2), (c), and (d). pelagic longline or purse seine gear, under § 635.15(d). (b) * * * through VMS as specified at (55) Fail to provide bluefin tuna (5) Fail to report a large medium or § 635.69(e)(4). landings and dead discard information giant bluefin tuna that is not sold, as (42) Fail to report all dead discards or as specified at § 635.15(b)(4)(iii). specified in § 635.5(a)(3), or fail to landings of bluefin through the NMFS (56) Fish with or have pelagic report a bluefin tuna that is sold, as electronic catch reporting system within longline gear on board if any trip level specified in § 635.5(a)(4). 24 hours of landing or the end of the quota debt associated with the vessel * * * * * trip as specified at § 635.5(a)(4). from a preceding trip has not been (7) Fish for, catch, retain, or possess (43) Fish for, retain, possess, or land settled, as specified at § 635.15(b)(5)(i). a bluefin tuna with gear not authorized albacore tuna when the fishery is (57) Lease IBQ allocation during the for the category permit issued to the closed, as specified in § 635.28(d). period from 6 p.m. December 31 to 2

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 71608 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

p.m. January 1 (Eastern Time) as tournament for, or including, Atlantic Commercial Caribbean Small Boat specified at § 635.15(c)(3)(iv). billfish, as specified in § 635.21(f). permit and utilizing buoy gear, to (58) Lease IBQ allocation if the * * * * * possess or deploy more than 35 conditions of paragraph § 635.15(c)(2) (d) * * * individual floatation devices, to deploy are not met. (12) Fish for Atlantic sharks with more than 35 individual buoy gears per (59) Fish with or have pelagic unauthorized gear or possess Atlantic vessel, or to deploy buoy gear without longline gear on board if any annual sharks on board a vessel with affixed monitoring equipment, as level quota debt associated with the unauthorized gear on board as specified specified at § 635.21(h). vessel from a preceding year has not in § 635.19(d). * * * * * (13) Fish for Atlantic sharks with a been settled, as specified at (16) Possess any HMS, other than § 635.15(b)(5)(ii). gillnet or possess Atlantic sharks on board a vessel with a gillnet on board, Atlantic swordfish, harvested with buoy (c) * * * except as specified in § 635.21(g). gear as specified at § 635.19 unless (1) As specified in § 635.19(c), retain issued a valid HMS Commercial * * * * * Caribbean Small Boat permit and a billfish harvested by gear other than (e) * * * rod and reel, or retain a billfish on board (8) Fish for North Atlantic swordfish operating within the U.S. Caribbean as a vessel unless that vessel has been from, possess North Atlantic swordfish defined at § 622.2 of this chapter. issued an Atlantic HMS Angling or on board, or land North Atlantic * * * * * Charter/Headboat permit or has been swordfish from a vessel using or having (18) As the owner of a vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas General on board gear other than pelagic permitted, or required to be permitted, category permit and is participating in longline, green-stick gear, or handgear, in the Swordfish General Commercial a tournament in compliance with except as specified at § 635.19(e). permit category, possess North Atlantic § 635.4(c). * * * * * swordfish taken from its management * * * * * (11) As the owner of a vessel unit by any gear other than rod and reel, (7) Deploy a J-hook or an offset circle permitted, or required to be permitted, handline, bandit gear, green-stick, or hook in combination with natural bait in the swordfish directed, swordfish harpoon gear, as specified in § 635.19(e). or a natural bait/artificial lure handgear limited access permit [FR Doc. 2014–28064 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] combination when participating in a category, or issued a valid HMS BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2 rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2