Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Swordfish Quotas, 29087-29089 [06-4693]
Download as PDF
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
consumable items required for
maintenance support of all equipment,
excluding medical-peculiar repair parts;
and
(ii) Are being shipped to any of the
following locations:
(A) Defense Distribution Depot,
Susquehanna, PA: DoDAAC W25G1U or
SW3124.
(B) Defense Distribution Depot, San
Joaquin, CA: DoDAAC W62G2T or
SW3224.
(C) Defense Distribution Depot,
Albany, GA: DoDAAC SW3121.
(D) Defense Distribution Depot,
Anniston, AL: DoDAAC W31G1Z or
SW3120.
(E) Defense Distribution Depot,
Barstow, CA: DoDAAC SW3215.
(F) Defense Distribution Depot, Cherry
Point, NC: DoDAAC SW3113.
(G) Defense Distribution Depot,
Columbus, OH: DoDAAC SW0700.
(H) Defense Distribution Depot,
Corpus Christi, TX: DoDAAC W45H08
or SW3222.
(I) Defense Distribution Depot, Hill,
UT: DoDAAC SW3210.
(J) Defense Distribution Depot,
Jacksonville, FL: DoDAAC SW3122.
(K) Defense Distribution Depot,
Oklahoma City, OK: DoDAAC SW3211.
(L) Defense Distribution Depot,
Norfolk, VA: DoDAAC SW3117.
(M) Defense Distribution Depot, Puget
Sound, WA: DoDAAC SW3216.
(N) Defense Distribution Depot, Red
River, TX: DoDAAC W45G19 or
SW3227.
(O) Defense Distribution Depot,
Richmond, VA: DoDAAC SW0400.
(P) Defense Distribution Depot, San
Diego, CA: DoDAAC SW3218.
(Q) Defense Distribution Depot,
Tobyhanna, PA: DoDAAC W25G1W or
SW3114.
(R) Defense Distribution Depot,
Warner Robins, GA: DoDAAC SW3119.
(S) Air Mobility Command Terminal,
Charleston Air Force Base, Charleston,
SC: Air Terminal Identifier Code CHS.
(T) Air Mobility Command Terminal,
Naval Air Station, Norfolk, VA: Air
Terminal Identifier Code NGU.
(U) Air Mobility Command Terminal,
Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, CA: Air
Terminal Identifier Code SUU.
(2) Bulk commodities are excluded
from the requirements of paragraph
(b)(1) of this clause.
(c) The Contractor shall ensure that—
(1) The data encoded on each passive
RFID tag are unique (i.e., the binary
number is never repeated on any and all
contracts) and conforms to the
requirements in paragraph (d) of this
clause;
(2) Each passive tag is readable; and
(3) The passive tag is affixed at the
appropriate location on the specific
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:33 May 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
level of packaging, in accordance with
MIL–STD–129 (Section 4.9.2) tag
placement specifications.
(d) Data syntax and standards. The
Contractor shall encode an approved
RFID tag using the instructions provided
in the most recent EPCTM Tag Data
Standards document, available at https://
www.epcglobalinc.org/
standards_technology/
specifications.html.
(1) If the Contractor is an EPCglobalTM
subscriber and possesses a unique
EPCTM company prefix, the Contractor
may use any of the identity types and
encoding instructions described in the
most recent EPCTM Tag Data Standards
document to encode tags.
(2) If the Contractor chooses to
employ the DoD Identity Type, the
Contractor shall use its previously
assigned Commercial and Government
Entity (CAGE) Code and shall encode
the tags in accordance with the tag
identity type details located at https://
www.acq.osd.mil/log/rfid/tag_data.htm.
If the Contractor uses a third party
packaging house to encode its tags, the
CAGE code of the third party packaging
house is acceptable.
(3) Regardless of the selected
encoding scheme, the Contractor is
responsible for ensuring that each tag
contains a globally unique identifier.
(e) Receiving report. The Contractor
shall electronically submit advance
shipment notice(s) with the RFID tag
identification (specified in paragraph (d)
of this clause) in advance of the
shipment in accordance with the
procedures at https://www.acq.osd.mil/
log/rfid/advance_shipment_ntc.htm.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–4682 Filed 5–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 060201021–6124–02; I.D.
100405C]
RIN 0648–AT73
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Atlantic Swordfish Quotas
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS amends the regulations
governing the North and South Atlantic
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
29087
swordfish fisheries to modify the North
and South Atlantic Swordfish quotas for
the 2005 fishing year (Junej 1, 2005,
through May 31, 2006) to account for
updated landings information from the
2003 and 2004 fishing years. This action
is necessary to ensure that current
quotas are based on the most recent
landings information and account for
any underharvest from previous fishing
years, consistent with the regulations at
50 CFR part 635. Additionally, this
action implements a subsequent
recommendation by the International
Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tuna
(ICCAT)(Recommendation 04–02) to
extend the 2005 North Atlantic
swordfish management measures.
DATES: Effective June 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: For copies of this rule, write
to Highly Migratory Species
Management Division (F/SF1), 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910. Copies are also available on the
internet at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
sfa/hms.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Megan Caldwell, by phone: 301–713–
2347; by fax: 301–713–1917; or by
email: Megan.Caldwell@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed
under the 1999 Fishery Management
Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
Sharks (FMP). Implementing regulations
at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq. and the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act (ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 971
et seq. The ATCA authorizes the
promulgation of regulations as may be
necessary and appropriate to carry out
ICCAT recommendations. Details
regarding 2005 North and South
Atlantic swordfish commercial quotas
and the extension of the 2005 North
Atlantic swordfish management
measures were provided in the
proposed rule (71 FR 7499, February 16,
2006) and are not repeated in this final
rule.
Response to Comments
Comments on the proposed rule
received during the public comment
period are summarized below, together
with NMFS’ responses.
Comment 1: I am opposed to any
increase in catch of swordfish due to the
status of the North Atlantic swordfish
stock.
Response: North Atlantic swordfish is
currently managed under an
international rebuilding program to
rebuild the stock by 2009. As long as the
E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM
19MYR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
29088
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
catch levels established by this
rebuilding program are not exceeded,
the swordfish stock is projected to
continue rebuilding and meet the
biomass target by 2009. The rebuilding
target is based on the biomass needed to
produce maximum sustainable yield
(Bmsy), which would be 14,340 mt.
Atlantic swordfish was last assessed by
the Standing Committee on Research
and Statistics (SCRS) in 2002. The 2002
North Atlantic swordfish stock
assessment results indicated that the
biomass had improved due to strong
recruitment since 1997 and a reduction
in catch. The biomass had improved
such that it was estimated to be at 94
percent of Bmsy. The biomass was
projected to continue progressing
towards MSY; therefore, the SCRS
recommended an increased total
allowable catch (TAC) for 2003–2005.
This action does not increase the
annual base quota recommended by
ICCAT, rather it extends that base quota
until a new recommendation for the
U.S. quota is available. This action also
provides for the use of unused quota
from the previous fishing year. The
overall North and South Atlantic
swordfish TAC has not been exceeded
during the rebuilding period. In fact, the
U.S. catch continues to be under the
allowable level for Atlantic swordfish
under its rebuilding plan. A new stock
assessment for Atlantic swordfish is
expected to be conducted and reviewed
in September 2006.
Comment 2: If the biomass is 94
percent of that needed to produce
maximum sustainable yield, why was
there a time/area closure for swordfish
in the first place?
Response: The North Atlantic
swordfish biomass was only 65 percent
of MSY when the East Florida Coast
(EFC) closure was implemented in 2001.
The closure was implemented in part to
reduce undersized swordfish mortality,
as well as the bycatch of other HMS in
the pelagic longline fishery.
Management measures were needed to
reduce bycatch, in general. Since the
EFC closure was implemented, the stock
status of North Atlantic swordfish has
improved, but has not yet been rebuilt.
The 2006 North Atlantic swordfish
stock assessment will have the most
updated information on the current
status of this stock. Because the EFC
time/area closure was implemented for
several stocks, including swordfish,
NMFS will consider the most current
stock status information for all HMS and
bycatch species, the impact to the
fishery, as well as other factors, when
examining the impact and need for a
time/area closure.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:33 May 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
Comment 3: Has the average
harvested swordfish weight declined so
dramatically that it is below the typical
weight for a swordfish of reproductive
age? It seems rigorous quotas are
needed, not just matching catches from
the previous year or two to be
completely rebuilt.
Response: While the average weight of
the U.S. landings are below the average
swordfish weight at reproductive age,
U.S. swordfish landings do not indicate
that the average swordfish weight has
declined in recent years. U.S. landings
are below the average swordfish weight
at reproductive age because the ICCAT
minimum size limits are set below this
size. Additionally, the 2004 SCRS
Report to ICCAT provided an update on
the status of the North Atlantic
swordfish stock and stated that the
number of small fish reported in the
catch has not increased despite
increased recruitment in recent years.
The U.S. swordfish quota is
established by an ICCAT
recommendation, which is then
implemented domestically according to
the ATCA. ICCAT’s recommended
quotas are based on projections that the
stock will rebuild if harvest (based on
weight) is maintained at a particular
level. In 2002, ICCAT established North
Atlantic swordfish baseline quotas for
2003, 2004, and 2005 fishing years and
the South Atlantic swordfish baseline
quotas for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
The 2004 ICCAT recommendation
extended the 2005 North Atlantic
swordfish baseline quota because an
updated assessment, the basis for a
quota recommendations, was not
completed prior to the 2006 fishing
year.
Swordfish were last assessed in 2002,
and will be assessed again later this
year. At that time, SCRS will have more
information about the current status of
this stock, providing the basis for new
ICCAT recommendation(s), which may
include new TACs.
Comment 4: Swordfish boats should
switch to harpoons to reduce bycatch.
Harpoons can be more selective
allowing the juvenile swordfish to
escape and grow to a reproductive age.
A new market needs to be developed for
harpooned fish. The fish are not in the
water for long periods of time so the
meat tastes better and stays fresh.
Response: NMFS agrees fishermen
can be selective with harpoon gear and
that harpoons have low bycatch rates.
Harpoons are an authorized gear type
for the commercial swordfish fishery.
Comment 5: The status of swordfish
has improved dramatically and bycatch
limits for incidental permit holders are
being exceeded, especially for displaced
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
fishermen targeting tunas with pelagic
longline due to the shark closed area off
North Carolina. To reduce dead discards
and provide U.S. fishermen with more
opportunities, NMFS should increase
the incidental limit to 15 swordfish.
Response: NMFS did not consider an
increase to the incidental catch limits in
this action because a more current stock
assessment is not yet available to
evaluate the potential implications of
increasing catch limit on the North
Atlantic swordfish stock. The North
Atlantic swordfish stock is scheduled to
be assessed in September 2006. Upon
completion, ICCAT would then review
the assessment and consider new
recommendations in November 2006.
ICCAT’s recommendations and the
stock assessment will provide the basis
for considering changes to the
incidental catch limit in a future
rulemaking.
Comment 6: The swordfish
underharvest is a testament that HMS
management is not working. There is
something wrong when there is so much
quota and the fishery cannot harvest it.
With 40 nations at ICCAT and almost
every one of them asking for quota,
leading by example through
conservation does nothing to maintain
the U.S. quota.
Response: During the public comment
period for the Consolidated HMS FMP,
NMFS received many comments stating
the need to revitalize the swordfish
fishery. As NMFS gathers information
regarding catches, catch rates of target
species and bycatch species with circle
hooks, NMFS will continue to evaluate
the need for all current regulations with
regard to the effect on harvest rates and
will work with fishermen to preserve
the U.S. quota share while ensuring
consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, ATCA, and other applicable
domestic laws. Any action would be in
a future rulemaking and will depend, in
part, on results from the upcoming
swordfish stock assessment and ICCAT
recommendation(s).
Changes From the Proposed Rule
There are no changes from the
proposed rule (71 FR 7499, February 16,
2006).
Classification
This final rule is published under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and ATCA, 16
U.S.C. 971 et seq. The Assistant
Administrator (AA) for Fisheries,
NOAA, has determined that the
regulations contained in this rule are
consistent with conservation goals of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the
1999 FMP, and other applicable laws.
E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM
19MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
NMFS prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for this final rule, and
the AA has concluded that there would
be no significant impact on the human
environment. The EA presents analyses
of the anticipated impacts of these final
actions and the alternatives considered.
A copy of the EA, and other analytical
documents prepared for this rule, are
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of
the Department of Commerce certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration during
the proposed rule stage that this action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for the
certification was published in the
proposed rule and is not repeated here.
As a result of this certification, a
regulatory flexibility analysis was not
required and none was prepared. No
comments were received that would
alter the determination to certify this
rule, but two comments were submitted
that indirectly relate to economic
impacts on the swordfish commercial
fishery. These two comments suggest
altering the current swordfish
management program to enable the
fishery to harvest the available quota.
Modifying the swordfish management
program could have economic impacts
to the fishery, but was beyond the scope
of measures considered for this action.
The purpose of this action was to
implement ICCAT recommendations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:33 May 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
pursuant to ATCA. Once the new
assessment is complete and has been
reviewed by ICCAT, the Agency may
consider modifications to the swordfish
management program based on the
assessment results and any future
recommendations from ICCAT.
NMFS determined that these
regulations will be implemented in a
manner consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with the enforceable
policies of those Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico, and Caribbean coastal states
that have approved coastal zone
management programs. This
determination was submitted for review
by the responsible state agencies on
January 31, 2006, when the proposed
rule was filed with the Federal Register,
under section 307 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act. New Hampshire,
Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi concur
with the Agency’s consistency
determination for this action. The
remaining states have provided no
response; therefore, consistency has
been presumed.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Management,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Treaties.
Dated: May 15,2006.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY
MIGRATORY SPECIES
1. The authority citation for part 635
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.
2. In § 635.27, paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) is
revised to read as follows:
I
§ 635.27
Quotas.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) A swordfish from the North
Atlantic stock caught prior to the
directed fishery closure by a vessel for
which a directed fishery permit, or a
handgear permit for swordfish, has been
issued is counted against the directed
fishery quota. The annual fishery quota,
not adjusted for over- or underharvests,
is 2,937.6 mt dw for each fishing year
beginning June 1, 2004. The annual
quota is subdivided into two equal
semiannual quotas of 1,468.8 mt dw:
one for June 1 through November 30,
and the other for December 1 through
May 31 of the following year.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–4693 Filed 5–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended
as follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
29089
E:\FR\FM\19MYR1.SGM
19MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29087-29089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4693]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 060201021-6124-02; I.D. 100405C]
RIN 0648-AT73
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Swordfish Quotas
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS amends the regulations governing the North and South
Atlantic swordfish fisheries to modify the North and South Atlantic
Swordfish quotas for the 2005 fishing year (Junej 1, 2005, through May
31, 2006) to account for updated landings information from the 2003 and
2004 fishing years. This action is necessary to ensure that current
quotas are based on the most recent landings information and account
for any underharvest from previous fishing years, consistent with the
regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Additionally, this action implements a
subsequent recommendation by the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT)(Recommendation 04-02) to extend
the 2005 North Atlantic swordfish management measures.
DATES: Effective June 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: For copies of this rule, write to Highly Migratory Species
Management Division (F/SF1), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910. Copies are also available on the internet at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Caldwell, by phone: 301-713-
2347; by fax: 301-713-1917; or by email: Megan.Caldwell@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is
managed under the 1999 Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,
Swordfish, and Sharks (FMP). Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part
635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq. and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 971 et
seq. The ATCA authorizes the promulgation of regulations as may be
necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT recommendations. Details
regarding 2005 North and South Atlantic swordfish commercial quotas and
the extension of the 2005 North Atlantic swordfish management measures
were provided in the proposed rule (71 FR 7499, February 16, 2006) and
are not repeated in this final rule.
Response to Comments
Comments on the proposed rule received during the public comment
period are summarized below, together with NMFS' responses.
Comment 1: I am opposed to any increase in catch of swordfish due
to the status of the North Atlantic swordfish stock.
Response: North Atlantic swordfish is currently managed under an
international rebuilding program to rebuild the stock by 2009. As long
as the
[[Page 29088]]
catch levels established by this rebuilding program are not exceeded,
the swordfish stock is projected to continue rebuilding and meet the
biomass target by 2009. The rebuilding target is based on the biomass
needed to produce maximum sustainable yield (Bmsy), which would be
14,340 mt. Atlantic swordfish was last assessed by the Standing
Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) in 2002. The 2002 North
Atlantic swordfish stock assessment results indicated that the biomass
had improved due to strong recruitment since 1997 and a reduction in
catch. The biomass had improved such that it was estimated to be at 94
percent of Bmsy. The biomass was projected to continue progressing
towards MSY; therefore, the SCRS recommended an increased total
allowable catch (TAC) for 2003-2005.
This action does not increase the annual base quota recommended by
ICCAT, rather it extends that base quota until a new recommendation for
the U.S. quota is available. This action also provides for the use of
unused quota from the previous fishing year. The overall North and
South Atlantic swordfish TAC has not been exceeded during the
rebuilding period. In fact, the U.S. catch continues to be under the
allowable level for Atlantic swordfish under its rebuilding plan. A new
stock assessment for Atlantic swordfish is expected to be conducted and
reviewed in September 2006.
Comment 2: If the biomass is 94 percent of that needed to produce
maximum sustainable yield, why was there a time/area closure for
swordfish in the first place?
Response: The North Atlantic swordfish biomass was only 65 percent
of MSY when the East Florida Coast (EFC) closure was implemented in
2001. The closure was implemented in part to reduce undersized
swordfish mortality, as well as the bycatch of other HMS in the pelagic
longline fishery. Management measures were needed to reduce bycatch, in
general. Since the EFC closure was implemented, the stock status of
North Atlantic swordfish has improved, but has not yet been rebuilt.
The 2006 North Atlantic swordfish stock assessment will have the most
updated information on the current status of this stock. Because the
EFC time/area closure was implemented for several stocks, including
swordfish, NMFS will consider the most current stock status information
for all HMS and bycatch species, the impact to the fishery, as well as
other factors, when examining the impact and need for a time/area
closure.
Comment 3: Has the average harvested swordfish weight declined so
dramatically that it is below the typical weight for a swordfish of
reproductive age? It seems rigorous quotas are needed, not just
matching catches from the previous year or two to be completely
rebuilt.
Response: While the average weight of the U.S. landings are below
the average swordfish weight at reproductive age, U.S. swordfish
landings do not indicate that the average swordfish weight has declined
in recent years. U.S. landings are below the average swordfish weight
at reproductive age because the ICCAT minimum size limits are set below
this size. Additionally, the 2004 SCRS Report to ICCAT provided an
update on the status of the North Atlantic swordfish stock and stated
that the number of small fish reported in the catch has not increased
despite increased recruitment in recent years.
The U.S. swordfish quota is established by an ICCAT recommendation,
which is then implemented domestically according to the ATCA. ICCAT's
recommended quotas are based on projections that the stock will rebuild
if harvest (based on weight) is maintained at a particular level. In
2002, ICCAT established North Atlantic swordfish baseline quotas for
2003, 2004, and 2005 fishing years and the South Atlantic swordfish
baseline quotas for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. The 2004 ICCAT
recommendation extended the 2005 North Atlantic swordfish baseline
quota because an updated assessment, the basis for a quota
recommendations, was not completed prior to the 2006 fishing year.
Swordfish were last assessed in 2002, and will be assessed again
later this year. At that time, SCRS will have more information about
the current status of this stock, providing the basis for new ICCAT
recommendation(s), which may include new TACs.
Comment 4: Swordfish boats should switch to harpoons to reduce
bycatch. Harpoons can be more selective allowing the juvenile swordfish
to escape and grow to a reproductive age. A new market needs to be
developed for harpooned fish. The fish are not in the water for long
periods of time so the meat tastes better and stays fresh.
Response: NMFS agrees fishermen can be selective with harpoon gear
and that harpoons have low bycatch rates. Harpoons are an authorized
gear type for the commercial swordfish fishery.
Comment 5: The status of swordfish has improved dramatically and
bycatch limits for incidental permit holders are being exceeded,
especially for displaced fishermen targeting tunas with pelagic
longline due to the shark closed area off North Carolina. To reduce
dead discards and provide U.S. fishermen with more opportunities, NMFS
should increase the incidental limit to 15 swordfish.
Response: NMFS did not consider an increase to the incidental catch
limits in this action because a more current stock assessment is not
yet available to evaluate the potential implications of increasing
catch limit on the North Atlantic swordfish stock. The North Atlantic
swordfish stock is scheduled to be assessed in September 2006. Upon
completion, ICCAT would then review the assessment and consider new
recommendations in November 2006. ICCAT's recommendations and the stock
assessment will provide the basis for considering changes to the
incidental catch limit in a future rulemaking.
Comment 6: The swordfish underharvest is a testament that HMS
management is not working. There is something wrong when there is so
much quota and the fishery cannot harvest it. With 40 nations at ICCAT
and almost every one of them asking for quota, leading by example
through conservation does nothing to maintain the U.S. quota.
Response: During the public comment period for the Consolidated HMS
FMP, NMFS received many comments stating the need to revitalize the
swordfish fishery. As NMFS gathers information regarding catches, catch
rates of target species and bycatch species with circle hooks, NMFS
will continue to evaluate the need for all current regulations with
regard to the effect on harvest rates and will work with fishermen to
preserve the U.S. quota share while ensuring consistency with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable domestic laws. Any
action would be in a future rulemaking and will depend, in part, on
results from the upcoming swordfish stock assessment and ICCAT
recommendation(s).
Changes From the Proposed Rule
There are no changes from the proposed rule (71 FR 7499, February
16, 2006).
Classification
This final rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.
The Assistant Administrator (AA) for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined
that the regulations contained in this rule are consistent with
conservation goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the 1999 FMP, and
other applicable laws.
[[Page 29089]]
NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this final rule,
and the AA has concluded that there would be no significant impact on
the human environment. The EA presents analyses of the anticipated
impacts of these final actions and the alternatives considered. A copy
of the EA, and other analytical documents prepared for this rule, are
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the
proposed rule and is not repeated here. As a result of this
certification, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and
none was prepared. No comments were received that would alter the
determination to certify this rule, but two comments were submitted
that indirectly relate to economic impacts on the swordfish commercial
fishery. These two comments suggest altering the current swordfish
management program to enable the fishery to harvest the available
quota. Modifying the swordfish management program could have economic
impacts to the fishery, but was beyond the scope of measures considered
for this action. The purpose of this action was to implement ICCAT
recommendations pursuant to ATCA. Once the new assessment is complete
and has been reviewed by ICCAT, the Agency may consider modifications
to the swordfish management program based on the assessment results and
any future recommendations from ICCAT.
NMFS determined that these regulations will be implemented in a
manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
enforceable policies of those Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean
coastal states that have approved coastal zone management programs.
This determination was submitted for review by the responsible state
agencies on January 31, 2006, when the proposed rule was filed with the
Federal Register, under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
New Hampshire, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
and Mississippi concur with the Agency's consistency determination for
this action. The remaining states have provided no response; therefore,
consistency has been presumed.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Management, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Treaties.
Dated: May 15,2006.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended as
follows:
PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 635.27, paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 635.27 Quotas.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) A swordfish from the North Atlantic stock caught prior to the
directed fishery closure by a vessel for which a directed fishery
permit, or a handgear permit for swordfish, has been issued is counted
against the directed fishery quota. The annual fishery quota, not
adjusted for over- or underharvests, is 2,937.6 mt dw for each fishing
year beginning June 1, 2004. The annual quota is subdivided into two
equal semiannual quotas of 1,468.8 mt dw: one for June 1 through
November 30, and the other for December 1 through May 31 of the
following year.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-4693 Filed 5-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S