Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Electronic Dealer Reporting Requirements, 47303-47318 [2012-19457]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR
8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in
accordance with the ‘‘Attorney
General’s Supplemental Guidelines for
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under
the Executive Order. This rule does not
impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this document and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
action will be effective August 8, 2012.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Hazardous waste, Indian lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 2, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012–19324 Filed 8–7–12; 8:45 am]
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 110208116–2233–02]
RIN 0648–BA75
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Electronic Dealer Reporting
Requirements
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule will require
that Federal Atlantic swordfish, shark,
and tuna dealers report receipt of
Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and bigeye,
albacore, skipjack, and yellowfin
(BAYS) tunas to NMFS through an
electronic reporting system on a weekly
basis. At this time, Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species (HMS) dealers will
not be required to report bluefin tuna
through this electronic reporting system,
as a separate reporting system is
currently in place for this species. This
final rule changes the current definition
of who is considered an Atlantic HMS
dealer and will require Atlantic HMS
dealers to submit dealer reports to
NMFS in a timely manner in order to be
able to purchase commerciallyharvested Atlantic sharks, swordfish,
and BAYS tunas. Any delinquent
reports will need to be submitted by the
dealer and received by NMFS before a
dealer can purchase commerciallyharvested Atlantic sharks, swordfish,
and BAYS tunas from a fishing vessel.
These measures are necessary to ensure
timely and accurate reporting, which is
critical for quota monitoring and
management of these species.
DATES: Effective January 1, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Highly Migratory Species
Management Division, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Copies of the supporting documents,
including a Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR), Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA), and small entity
compliance guide, are available online
at the HMS Management Division Web
site at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/
hms/. Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this final rule
may be submitted to Delisse Ortiz with
the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Management Division and by email to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47303
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax
to 202–395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Delisse Ortiz or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at
301–427–8541, or Jackie Wilson at 240–
338–3936.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Atlantic HMS are managed under the
dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and
the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act
(ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. Under the
MSA, NMFS must ensure consistency
with the National Standards and
manage fisheries to maintain optimum
yield, rebuild overfished fisheries, and
prevent overfishing. Under the ATCA,
the Secretary of Commerce is required
to promulgate regulations, as may be
necessary and appropriate, to
implement the recommendations
adopted by the International
Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The authority
to issue regulations under MSA and
ATCA has been delegated from the
Secretary to the Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, NOAA (AA). The
implementing regulations for Atlantic
HMS are at 50 CFR part 635.
Background
On June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37750),
NMFS published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register to require that Federal
Atlantic swordfish, shark, and tunas
dealers report receipts of Atlantic
sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas to
NMFS through an electronic reporting
system. The proposed rule also included
flexible reporting regimes, which would
allow NMFS to collect more frequent
dealer reports when key Atlantic shark
fisheries are open or as quotas become
filled in the Atlantic swordfish and
BAYS tunas fisheries, and addressed
two additional topics: the definition of
an Atlantic HMS dealer and the timely
submission of Atlantic HMS dealer
reports. The proposed rule contained
additional details regarding the impacts
of the alternatives considered and a
brief summary of the recent
management history. Those details are
not repeated here.
This final rule implements the
requirement of electronic HMS dealer
reporting, and is necessary to ensure
timely and accurate reporting, which is
critical for quota monitoring and
management of these species. As
described below, based in part on public
comment, in this final rule, NMFS is
changing several aspects of the
proposed rule.
In the proposed rule, NMFS
considered and analyzed four
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47304
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
alternatives. In the preferred alternative
in the proposed rule, NMFS proposed to
increase the frequency of both positive
and negative dealer reporting for
Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS
tunas to better facilitate timely quota
monitoring. Specifically, NMFS
proposed to change the reporting
frequency depending on the available
quota, length of fishing season, and
species/species complexes when certain
triggers were met by the different
fisheries, as described in the proposed
rule. In addition, the rule also proposed
that all first receivers of Atlantic sharks,
swordfish, and BAYS tunas harvested
by federally-permitted U.S. vessels,
including entities that only shipped
HMS product, must obtain a
corresponding Federal Atlantic
swordfish, shark, and/or tunas dealer
permit and report such receipts to
NMFS through the electronic reporting
system so that NMFS can receive more
species- and vessel-specific information.
Finally, NMFS proposed that dealers
must submit reports by the required
deadline in order to be able to receive
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, or BAYS
tunas. Any delinquent reports would
need to be submitted by the dealer and
received by NMFS before a Federal
Atlantic HMS dealer could purchase
commercially-harvested Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas from
a fishing vessel.
In this final rule, NMFS implements
a requirement that dealers submit
reports on a weekly basis in order to be
able to purchase commerciallyharvested Atlantic swordfish, sharks,
and BAYS tunas from a fishing vessel.
NMFS recognizes that daily reporting
requirements for sharks, as proposed
under alternative A3 in the proposed
rule, would not allow dealers sufficient
time to gather accurate price
information for sharks and could have
resulted in a large reporting burden on
dealers. At the same time, NMFS
acknowledges that unlike some shark
fisheries, Atlantic swordfish and BAYS
tunas fisheries are currently not quota
limited and may not require more
frequent reporting than the current
biweekly reporting. However, NMFS
notes that other Federal dealer permits
currently require weekly reporting,
including all Northeast Regional Office
(NERO)-issued dealer permits. Many
HMS dealers also possess NERO-issued
permits and, therefore, are already
reporting on a weekly basis.
Additionally, many fisheries managed
by SERO are moving to weekly dealer
reporting and many HMS dealers also
possess permits for these fisheries.
Therefore, NMFS believes that weekly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
reporting balances the need for more
timely landings data and maintains
consistency in reporting requirements
for different dealer permits. In addition,
NMFS is integrating the HMS electronic
reporting requirements into existing
electronic reporting programs mainly to
ease the overall burden on dealers.
Thus, to better facilitate timely quota
monitoring, NMFS will implement
weekly reporting requirements for both
positive and negative dealer reporting of
Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS
tunas. Positive reports of all species on
a Federal dealer report through the
NMFS-approved electronic reporting
systems will fulfill reporting
requirements for BAYS tunas,
swordfish, and sharks purchased within
the required reporting timeframe as
required under § 635.5(b)(ii). A negative
report by the required deadline
indicates no receipt or purchase of any
species required to be reported. NMFS
may consider changing the reporting
frequency in a future rulemaking as
needed for management of Atlantic
BAYS tunas, sharks, and swordfish
fisheries.
In addition, during the comment
period, NMFS heard that requiring first
receivers to obtain dealer permits for
receiving Atlantic swordfish and BAYS
tunas would result in major disruptions
to HMS dealers, and their business
practices, especially in the Northeast.
NMFS also heard that transporters of
HMS product do not have the
knowledge, training, or necessary
equipment, such as scales for weighing
product, to act as dealers. NMFS heard
that Atlantic swordfish and BAYS tunas
dealers have fewer species to identify
compared to Atlantic shark dealers and
price differences between Atlantic
swordfish and BAYS tunas are greater
so that species-specific reporting is
more easily achieved for those fisheries.
NMFS also heard that although the
current definition of first receiver for
Atlantic sharks potentially includes
entities taking possession other than by
purchasing trading or bartering, that has
not been the practice in the industry.
Furthermore, because many first
receivers receive sharks, BAYS tunas,
and swordfish, NMFS believe it is
important to have one consistent
definition of first receiver across all
species. This one definition would
simplify the regulations and maintain
consistency with respect to who is
considered a first receiver across
species. Thus, NMFS will change the
definition of first receiver with regard to
which entity is required to have a dealer
permit for receiving Atlantic tunas,
sharks, and swordfish to make it more
consistent with current industry
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
practice and to simplify the regulations.
That is, a person who takes possession
for commercial purposes, any BAYS
tunas, swordfish, or shark or parts of
those species by purchasing, trading, or
bartering once it is offloaded from the
vessel owner or operator of a fishing
vessel will be required to obtain the
corresponding federal HMS dealer
permit.
NMFS proposed a range of
alternatives for the implementation date
of the electronic dealer reporting
requirements and associated
regulations, ranging from
implementation beginning within 30
days of the final rule to a delayed
implementation of three months. NMFS
received unanimous support for
delaying the implementation of the final
regulations to allow dealers additional
time to adjust their business practices,
receive training for the new reporting
system, and obtain capital for computer
equipment and internet service. As
such, this final rule will delay
implementation of the new electronic
dealer requirements until 2013, when
the reporting system will be available
and training workshops will have
occurred. The purpose of the training
workshops and webinars is to introduce
and train dealers in using the new
system in order to help ease the
transition from the paper format to the
new electronic reporting system. NMFS
intends to hold several training
workshops in appropriate locations
along the east coast and Gulf of Mexico.
During final implementation, NMFS
will provide all permitted dealers with
instructions on how to access the
system, information on the web browser
requirements, and instructions on how
to obtain login and password
information. This information will also
be provided for individuals applying for
a new dealer permit.
During the comment period, NMFS
also received some comments from
dealers who were concerned about what
would happen if they lost power, such
as during a hurricane, or if the system
went down. Specifically, these dealers
did not want to be penalized for not
reporting on time in such a situation.
NMFS has designed the regulations to
provide some Agency discretion, in
responding to reporting delays caused
by natural disasters or other nonpreventable events. The system itself
has backups and is not expected, in the
course of normal business operations, to
be down for long periods of time.
Response to Comments
During the proposed rule stage, NMFS
received nine written comments from
non-governmental organizations,
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
fishermen, dealers, and other interested
parties. NMFS also heard numerous
comments from constituents in
attendance at eight public hearings and
while conducting outreach during
phone calls. A summary of the major
comments received for each proposed
measure (electronic dealer reporting,
frequency of reporting, timely dealer
reporting and IRFA Alternatives) on the
proposed rule during the public
comment period is shown below with
NMFS’ responses. NMFS also received
comments on exempted fishing/display
permits, weak hooks, re-opening of
closed areas, the size of existing quotas,
and the stock status of sharks. However,
these comments were not considered in
the summary below as they were
outside the scope of this rulemaking. All
written comments submitted during the
comment period can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov/ by searching for
RIN 0648–BA75.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Electronic Dealer Reporting
Comment 1: NMFS should set up a
workshop to sit down with Agency and
industry representatives to design the
electronic reporting system so that
NMFS can receive feedback on the
practical aspects of how a dealer’s
business works.
Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS began
designing and building an electronic
reporting system when NMFS began
working on the proposed rule. The
system is based on similar systems such
as the Standard Atlantic Fisheries
Information System (SAFIS) and the
Southeast electronic Trip Ticket
reporting system. During this time,
NMFS asked some HMS dealers to test
the system and provide feedback. This
feedback resulted in many changes and
improvements to the system. NMFS also
had early versions of the system
available at the April 2011, September
2011, and March 2012 HMS Advisory
Panel meetings for review and
comment. In addition, as originally
proposed, the Agency will delay
implementation of the electronic dealer
reporting system until 2013 in order to
provide sufficient time for dealers to
adjust to implementation of the new
system and the additional requirements.
During this time, NMFS will conduct
outreach with industry representatives
and dealers as well as provide
additional outreach materials (e.g.,
System User Guide and Compliance
Guides) to improve understanding and
use of the new system. These outreach
materials will be free and available
through the new system and HMS Web
site (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/
hms/index.htm).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
Comment 2: NMFS received several
comments regarding the change to
electronic reporting, including: support
for the change to electronic reporting;
questions about why NMFS is
considering electronic reporting;
support for NMFS requiring paper or
electronic reporting, but not a mixture
of both; and concern that more timely
and efficient data collection is needed
for management as the lack of real-time
data is costing jobs. The Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)
also commented that electronic
reporting does not require specialized
equipment and dealers should be able to
comply.
Response: The current regulations and
infrastructure of the Atlantic HMS
quota-monitoring systems result in a
delay of several weeks to almost a
month before NMFS receives dealer
data. Once NMFS receives dealer data in
a paper format, the data need to be
transferred into the data systems and
quality checked before it is available for
use. This delay in the availability of
dealer data effects the management and
monitoring of small Atlantic HMS
quotas and short fishing seasons,
particularly for many of the shark
fisheries. As such, NMFS is requiring all
Federal Atlantic HMS dealers (except
for dealers reporting Atlantic bluefin
tuna) to report receipt of Atlantic
sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas to
NMFS through one centralized
electronic reporting system. The new
electronic reporting system will be
integrated within existing SAFIS and
Trip Tickets electronic reporting
programs, thus reducing the number of
places that dealers need to report. Under
this new system, dealers will submit
HMS data electronically instead of in a
paper format and include additional
information that is necessary for
management of HMS (e.g., vessel and
logbook information). The electronic
submission of data will eliminate the
delay associated with mailing in reports
to NMFS and transferring reported data
into electronic systems. In this manner,
HMS landings data will be submitted on
a more real-time basis, allowing for
timely and efficient collection and use
of data for management of Atlantic
HMS. Once the system is fully
operating, NMFS could consider
altering the 80-percent trigger limit for
closing the shark fishery to allow
fishermen to more fully utilize the
available quota.
Comment 3: NMFS received
comments in opposition to mandatory
electronic dealer reporting as some
dealers do not currently own a
computer and reporting on paper is
easier than getting the electronic system
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47305
up and running, which is often timeconsuming.
Response: While NMFS recognizes
that, in the short-term, the
implementation of an HMS electronic
dealer reporting system will change
business practices for dealers and, for
some, may result in some additional
costs associated with purchasing a
computer and internet service. In the
short-term, electronic reporting can lead
to more efficient fisheries and business
practices that could be more economical
in the long term (e.g., fishing seasons
being open longer, easier negative
reporting, etc.). As explained in the
response to Comment 2, the existing
regulations and infrastructure regarding
dealer reporting have created issues for
effective management and monitoring of
small Atlantic HMS quotas and short
fishing seasons. For instance, currently
there is a delay of 10 to 25 days in the
receipt of landings data received
through dealer reports in a paper format.
To reduce this delay, the Agency is
requiring all federally-permitted HMS
dealers to report receipt of swordfish,
sharks, and BAYS tunas on a weekly
basis to NMFS through the new HMS
electronic reporting system. However, as
previously mentioned in Comment 1,
the Agency will delay the
implementation of the new HMS
electronic reporting system for all
federally-permitted HMS dealers until
2013 to allow dealers more time to
adjust their business practices, train in
the new reporting system, and obtain
necessary equipment (e.g., computer
and internet service). NMFS is also
holding training workshops to assist
dealers in learning to use the new
system. Anyone who would like to
request a training workshop may contact
Delisse Ortiz or Karyl Brewster Geisz at
301–427–8503.
Comment 4: NMFS received a
comment questioning whether or not
the electronic dealer reporting system
would require a high-speed internet
connection. Some dealers also stated
that NMFS will need to help dealers in
getting the electronic reporting system
set up on their computers as well as
conduct outreach to inform dealers how
to use the new system.
Response: NMFS’ new HMS
electronic reporting system requires the
most basic internet connection to
support the new system. The electronic
reporting system will be available
through SAFIS, which requires data
entry through a Web site. The system
will also be available through Trip
Tickets, which is a program that is
downloaded to the dealer’s computer. In
the Trip Tickets system, dealers can
enter data as time allows, and then
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47306
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
connect to the internet and send the
data to NMFS, thereby eliminating the
need for a constant internet connection
during data entry, as is needed for data
entry into SAFIS. As mentioned in
Comment 1, in order to give sufficient
time for dealers to adjust to
implementation of the new system and
the additional requirements, NMFS will
also delay implementation of the new
HMS electronic reporting system for all
federally-permitted HMS dealers until
2013. In addition, NMFS will conduct
workshops to help dealers learn how to
use the new system and easily transition
from the current paper format to the
new HMS electronic reporting system.
Comment 5: NMFS needs to
streamline and simplify the reporting
requirements, especially between state
and Federal reporting requirements, and
ensure that the new electronic dealer
reporting requirements prevent
duplicative reporting. It is good that
NMFS is incorporating the electronic
reporting program into existing systems,
such as SAFIS and Trip Tickets; the
SAFIS program is a promising model for
this single reporting entity to meet
Federal and state requirements. NMFS
needs to make reporting as easy as
possible as the reporting requirements
are complex and confusing.
Response: NMFS is working with
state agencies to streamline data
collection to the extent possible to try to
avoid duplicative reporting. Such
coordination will also make the
reporting process as simple and
straightforward as possible. In addition,
by incorporating electronic HMS dealer
reporting requirements within SAFIS
and Trip Tickets, NMFS is ensuring that
in most cases dealers will only have to
report to one system instead of multiple
systems to meet their Federal and state
reporting requirements. However, as
mentioned below in Comment 40, some
states require separate reporting as
established by state law. NMFS also
recognizes that the terms of the Federal
permits may result in additional
mandatory Federal reporting
requirements beyond those required by
states. NMFS will continue to
coordinate with states to reduce
duplicative reporting, to the extent
possible.
Comment 6: NMFS received a
comment questioning how NMFS
monitors shark landings from the state
of Louisiana as shark fishing from this
state is a large problem.
Response: NMFS recognizes that
Louisiana state fishermen, and state
fishermen from other states, are major
participants in the shark fisheries. The
regulations implemented under this
rulemaking will not change how shark
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
landings are counted for quota
monitoring. Currently, NMFS receives
landings from all states and compares
those landings with the landings
reported by Federal dealers. Under the
electronic system, this comparison
could be easier depending on the extent
that state and Federal requirements
match, but the general concept for
monitoring shark landings from all state
and Federal fishermen will not change.
Comment 7: Dealers and first
receivers should not have to report
information where vessels fish as NMFS
already receives vessel monitoring
system (VMS) reports and daily
logbooks from the fishing vessels. NMFS
should use logbooks for quota
monitoring as they have more detailed
information than dealer reports.
Response: Logbooks, VMS, and dealer
reports provide the Agency with
different types of information, which are
all necessary for management. The
logbooks, which are required by most
HMS commercial fishermen, provide
information on fishing effort as well as
amount of catch and location of fishing.
Logbooks are submitted after each trip
but, because of the amount of data and
number of vessels involved, the data is
not available for use on a real-time
basis. VMS provides real-time
information to inform enforcement on
how and where a particular vessel is
fishing as well as where it is fishing, but
is not required on all HMS commercial
vessels. Dealer reports provide
information on landings as well as price
information, which is not available in
the logbook data or through VMS. In
addition, under the new HMS electronic
reporting system, NMFS will require
dealers to provide information on where
fish were caught to ensure proper quota
management, for example by
distinguishing between Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico non-sandbar LCS. In the
past, the geographical information used
in management of such quotas has been
based on the physical location of the
dealer, not where the sharks were
actually caught. Therefore, the Agency
requires different entities to submit
different types of reports to NMFS in
order to collect the necessary
information for management (i.e.,
information on fishing effort, location of
fishing, catch and landings information,
and price information).
Comment 8: NMFS needs to make
sure there is a way dealers can print a
copy of their report as dealers need to
keep a copy of submitted reports for
their files. Dealers need a way to verify
they submitted their reports
electronically.
Response: NMFS agrees. The new
HMS electronic reporting system will
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
allow all Federal HMS dealers to print
out a copy of each dealer report that is
electronically submitted and received
by NMFS. In addition, the new HMS
electronic reporting system will provide
dealers with a confirmation number
once the reports have been submitted
and received by NMFS, allowing dealers
to verify submission of their dealer
reports to NMFS.
Comment 9: NMFS should allow
dealers to report bluefin tuna through
the new electronic dealer reporting
system under daily reporting
requirements and get rid of the paper
and fax reporting system currently in
place. This change would allow
electronic reporting for all HMS.
Response: Due to the complexity of
the current Atlantic bluefin tuna
reporting system, Federal HMS dealers
reporting Atlantic bluefin tuna will
continue to follow the current reporting
requirements for this species at this
time. However, in the future, NMFS
could consider including Atlantic
bluefin tuna in the HMS electronic
dealer reporting system.
Comment 10: NMFS needs to develop
a backup plan, such as reporting via fax
or paper, for when the internet is down
so that dealers are not forced to be out
of compliance. This may be especially
important for dealers in the Caribbean if
there is a storm and the internet and
power are down for a long period of
time.
Response: The Agency recognizes that
there may be interruptions in electrical
power or internet service that are out of
the control of Federal HMS dealers, but
will impact dealers’ abilities to submit
reports to NMFS through the new HMS
electronic reporting system. Further,
given the changes to the reporting
timeframe from the proposed to the final
rule (i.e., from daily to weekly
reporting), NMFS does not expect late
reporting due to system disruptions to
be as much of an issue. NMFS
encourages dealers to contact the system
administrator for the HMS electronic
dealer reporting system when they
experience any type of interruption for
an extended period of time, and expects
dealers to resume reporting as soon as
possible once the disruption ends.
Comment 11: Many fishermen and
dealers do not encounter sharks and
tunas in Puerto Rico, therefore the
proposed changes would not affect
them. However, many of the dealers
speak Spanish and are not familiar with
computers, so they would need a second
person to help them submit reports.
Response: Due to limits on Agency
funding at this time, the new electronic
dealer reports will be available only in
English. The Agency may consider a
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Spanish or Vietnamese version in the
future. We have, however, translated
notices and outreach documents into
Spanish and will translate these notices
and documents in Vietnamese as well.
We have and will continue to conduct
workshops in Spanish. In addition, the
new electronic reporting system will be
tailored to include the landing ports and
vessels specific to all regions, including
the Caribbean. This tailoring should
allow non-English speaking dealers
from any region to more easily utilize
the new system once they are familiar
with it. For those non-English speaking
dealers who need additional assistance,
NMFS will establish a dedicated phone
number (301–427–8590) and email
address (HMS.DealerReports@noaa.gov)
to provide assistance in completing
reports. Finally, as previously
mentioned in Comment 1, the Agency is
delaying the implementation of the new
HMS electronic reporting system until
2013 to allow dealers more time to
adjust their business practices, obtain
the necessary equipment (e.g., computer
and internet service), and to allow
NMFS to conduct workshops in areas
like the Caribbean, which have not
experienced electronic reporting to date.
Frequency of Reporting
Comment 12: NMFS received several
comments stating that dealers operating
small businesses would have difficulty
reporting electronically on a more
frequent basis because they lack the staff
to support the current biweekly
reporting requirements; the reporting
requirements are complex and
confusing; and the increased reporting
frequency will result in a larger
reporting burden. Small businesses
would benefit from less frequent
reporting, and more frequent reporting
may result in dealers being late in their
submission, which could potentially
keep their permits from being renewed.
The proposed electronic dealer
reporting requirements are burdensome,
and dealers are becoming frustrated
with the increasing number of
regulations, which ultimately take time
away from ensuring product quality.
NMFS also received specific comments
regarding the reporting frequency for
tunas and swordfish, including: dealers
should report as soon as they receive
product; dealers should submit weekly
reports; dealers feel electronic reporting
of BAYS tunas and swordfish on a 21day to monthly timeframe would
suffice; dealers support the status quo or
biweekly reporting for BAYS tunas and
swordfish; and dealers support biweekly
reporting with reporting frequency
reflecting the average landing rate when
80 percent of the quota is filled. NMFS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
also received comments that dealers
were opposed to daily or weekly
reporting for pelagic non-porbeagle
sharks, BAYS tunas, or swordfish as
these fisheries are not in any danger of
experiencing overharvests. Daily
reporting for swordfish would be a
burden.
Response: Based on public comment,
NMFS will change the reporting
frequency that was originally proposed
for Atlantic swordfish, BAYS tunas, and
shark dealers in the proposed rule
published on June 28, 2011 (76 FR
37750) to simplify reporting
requirements as well as balance the
need for timely landings data while
avoiding excessive reporting burdens on
dealers. NMFS recognizes that daily
reporting requirements for sharks as
proposed in the proposed rule would
not allow dealers sufficient time to
gather accurate price information for
sharks and could have resulted in a
large reporting burden on dealers. At the
same time, NMFS acknowledges that
unlike some shark fisheries, Atlantic
swordfish and BAYS tunas fisheries are
currently not quota limited and may not
require more frequent reporting than the
currently biweekly reporting. However,
NMFS notes that some other Federal
dealer permits, such as all NERO-issued
dealer permits, require weekly
reporting. Many HMS dealers also
possess these NERO-issued permits and,
therefore, are already reporting on a
weekly basis. Additionally, many
fisheries managed by the SERO are
moving to weekly reporting and many
HMS dealers also possess permits for
these fisheries. NMFS believes that
weekly reporting balances the need for
more timely landings data and
maintains consistency in reporting
requirements for different dealer
permits. In addition, NMFS is
integrating the HMS electronic reporting
requirements into existing electronic
reporting programs, easing the overall
burden on dealers.
Comment 13: NMFS received several
comments regarding negative reports,
including: dealers do not understand
why they have to submit negative
reports to NMFS; submitting negative
reports should be as simple as replying
to an email that reminds the dealer of
a reporting deadline; NMFS should not
require negative reports to be submitted
on a daily basis; negative reports should
be done on a biweekly or a monthly
basis; submitting negative reports more
than once a month is unnecessary busy
work; and the submission of negative
reports should not be required. NMFS
also heard that there should be a way
dealers can indicate a block of time
when they will not be receiving
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47307
product, as some fisheries are seasonal
in nature.
Response: Negative reports submitted
by HMS dealers are an essential part of
quota monitoring. By submitting
negative reports, dealers inform NMFS
that they did not receive HMS product
during that reporting time period. These
reports allow NMFS to distinguish
between dealers who have not received
product during a reporting period and
dealers who have simply not reported to
NMFS during a given reporting period.
By being able to identify dealers who
have not reported versus those who
have not received product, and by
knowing the landings data historically
reported by particular dealers, NMFS
can better determine the potential status
of different quotas as well as which
dealers may have failed to report.
Without negative reports, NMFS runs a
greater risk keeping fisheries open
when, in fact, they should be closed to
prevent overharvest of the quota.
Negative reports must occur with the
same frequency as positive reports in
order to inform NMFS about which
dealers did not receive product during
a specific reporting period versus which
dealers have not reported. Receiving
negative reports on a less frequent
reporting basis than positive reports will
not allow NMFS to determine which
dealers have received product during a
given reporting period as described
above.
Finally, the electronic reporting
system will allow dealers to indicate
time periods when they will not be
accepting product for up to 90 days.
This should lessen the negative
reporting burden on dealers.
Comment 14: NMFS received a
comment stating that because most fish
are sold on consignment, with dealers
often having to wait 21 days for actual
price information, the proposed weekly
reporting frequency would result in
dealers having to submit and modify
every report, creating an unnecessary
burden on dealers. Therefore, NMFS
should consider a reporting frequency of
at least 21 days, so that dealers do not
have to enter data in multiple times for
a single transaction.
Response: Currently, the reporting
frequency for all HMS dealers is
biweekly. As outlined in the response to
Comment 12, based on public comment,
NMFS will require weekly reporting for
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS
tunas dealers.
Dealers will be able to update price
information on a past submitted report
for up to 30 days from the submission
of that report in order to provide NMFS
with the most accurate price
information available. This balances the
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47308
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
need for timely landings data with the
need for additional time to provide
NMFS with accurate price information.
Comment 15: Changing the reporting
frequency for swordfish from weekly to
daily when the quota reaches 80 percent
makes it seem like there is a problem
with the swordfish quota when the
United States will most likely not fill its
swordfish quota.
Response: As outlined in the response
to Comment 12, in this final rule, NMFS
has reconsidered the proposed reporting
frequencies for Atlantic HMS dealers to
simplify reporting requirements and
balance the need for timely landings
data while avoiding an excessive
reporting burden on dealers. NMFS will
require weekly reporting for Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas
dealers. NMFS may consider changing
the reporting frequency in a future
rulemaking as needed for management
of Atlantic BAYS tunas, sharks, and
swordfish fisheries. Allowing flexibility
in the required reporting frequency for
HMS dealers will allow NMFS to
require more frequent dealer reporting if
the swordfish fishery were to begin
achieving its allocated quota in the
future. It is not meant to indicate there
are any problems with the swordfish
fishery, rather, it will allow for more
timely reporting and quota monitoring if
the fishery were to ever become quota
limited in the future.
Comment 16: NMFS received several
comments regarding the reporting
frequency for sharks, including: support
for the proposed daily submission of
shark dealer reports as sharks are hard
to identify and are quota limited; NMFS
should require weekly reporting when
the shark season is open for nonsandbar LCS, non-blacknose SCS,
blacknose sharks, increase the reporting
frequency to daily when the quota
reaches 50 percent, and then decrease
the reporting frequency when the
seasons for these fisheries close; NMFS
should consider biweekly reporting for
sharks when non-sandbar LCS, nonblacknose SCS, and blacknose shark
fisheries are closed. NMFS also heard
that daily reporting of sharks is not
practical; closing the fishing season
early is a better alternative to daily
reporting; and NMFS should consider
keeping the current biweekly reporting
for sharks or consider monthly
reporting; and NMFS should only
consider daily reporting once the shark
quota reaches 80-percent.
Response: As outlined in the response
to Comment 12, based on public
comment, NMFS has reconsidered the
proposed reporting frequency for
Atlantic shark dealers and will require
Atlantic shark dealers to report on a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
weekly basis. This will simplify
reporting requirements, as well as
balance the need for timely shark
landings with more time for dealers to
report shark product unless NMFS
determines more frequent reporting is
required in the future. NMFS feels
monthly reporting of shark landings will
not provide timely enough data for
monitoring small quotas, and will
increase the probability of overharvests.
In addition, NMFS considered changing
the shark dealer reporting frequency as
the shark quotas filled (i.e., increasing
the reporting frequency to daily when
the quota reaches 50 percent, and then
decreasing the reporting frequency
when the seasons for these fisheries
close), but felt such a reporting regime
may be difficult for dealers to keep track
of and may hamper compliance with the
reporting requirements. Thus, NMFS is
trying to simplify the reporting
requirements while balancing the need
for more frequent data without over
burdening dealers or adding additional
complexity to the reporting
requirements for dealers.
Comment 17: NMFS should require
weekly electronic reporting of BAYS
tunas, swordfish and sharks so that all
HMS species have the same reporting
frequency; it is overly burdensome for
dealers to keep track of different
reporting frequencies for different
species, especially if those frequencies
change over time.
Response: NMFS agrees. The Agency
appreciates that it may be difficult for
dealers to keep track of different
reporting requirements for different
HMS. Therefore, to minimize the
reporting burden on dealers, NMFS
changed the proposed flexible reporting
requirements in the proposed rule and
is requiring Atlantic HMS swordfish,
sharks, and BAYS tunas dealers to
report on a weekly basis. NMFS believes
that weekly reporting balances the need
for more timely landings data and
maintains consistency in reporting
requirements for different dealer
permits. In addition, NMFS is
integrating the HMS electronic reporting
requirements into existing electronic
reporting programs, easing the overall
burden on dealers. The system will
accept reports more frequently if dealers
need to report HMS on a more frequent
basis.
Comment 18: The daily or weekly
reporting frequency would be difficult
given the time it takes for some dealers
to receive product that is being
transported from a fishing vessel or the
time it takes to process product when a
dealer is busy. In addition, some fish are
sold to different dealers before the
vessel is even offloaded, therefore,
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
dealers would not be able to report on
a daily or weekly basis as the fishing
trips are longer than required reporting
frequency.
Response: The timeframe associated
with dealer reporting requirements
applies once a dealer first receives HMS
product (i.e., it does not apply while the
fishing vessel is still at sea before the
product is offloaded). As outlined in the
response to Comment 12, NMFS will
maintain weekly reporting for Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas
dealers as it satisfies the need for more
timely landings data while maintaining
consistency in reporting requirements
for different dealer permits.
Comment 19: Dealers in the U.S.
Virgin Islands may be able to comply
with electronic dealer reporting;
however, due to frequent power and
internet outages, reporting more
frequently (i.e., daily or weekly) would
be an issue. Additionally, most
fishermen sell their HMS catch directly
to the public. If these individuals
obtained dealer permits in the future, as
most of them currently do not have
HMS dealer permits, they most likely
would not have access to computers for
electronic reporting. Therefore, NMFS
should obtain landings information
from the territorial trip tickets and not
through separate dealer reports.
Response: All entities that purchase
HMS from federally-permitted HMS
vessels are currently required to obtain
HMS dealers permits. Federallypermitted HMS dealers located in the
Caribbean region are also currently
required to submit paper reports to
NMFS on a biweekly basis. Based on
this final rule, federally-permitted HMS
dealers will be required to report
electronically via the HMS electronic
dealer reporting system. As explained in
the response to Comment 10, the
Agency recognizes that there may be
interruptions in electrical power or
internet service that are out of the
control of Federal HMS dealers, but will
impact how dealers submit reports to
NMFS through the new HMS electronic
reporting system. Further, given the
changes to the reporting timeframe from
the proposed to the final rule (i.e., from
daily to weekly reporting), NMFS does
not expect late reporting due to system
disruptions to be as much of an issue.
NMFS encourages dealers to contact the
system administrator for the HMS
electronic dealer reporting system when
they experience any type of interruption
for an extended period of time, and
expects dealers to resume reporting as
soon as possible once the disruption
ends. Finally, NMFS is currently
working on a rulemaking that may
consider collecting landings information
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
associated with any new HMS fishing
permits through territorial trip tickets.
First Receiver
Comment 20: If there are problems
with dealers accurately reporting
different shark species, then NMFS
should find a direct solution for speciesspecific reporting of sharks and not
unnecessarily burden non-shark HMS
dealers. NMFS has not provided any
discussion of widespread problems with
Atlantic HMS reporting and the
industry is not aware of
misidentification problems in HMS
swordfish or tunas dealer reports. First
receivers may need to be the dealer for
sharks, but species identification is not
a problem that the industry recognizes
for BAYS tunas or swordfish. First
receivers of BAYS tunas and swordfish
should not have to get a dealer permit.
Response: NMFS realizes that
swordfish and tuna fisheries operate
differently than shark fisheries, in part
due to the difference in prices
associated with swordfish and BAYS
tunas, and in part due to difficulties in
identifying sharks. Thus, because
species identification and speciesspecific reporting tend to be issues
related to HMS shark dealers, NMFS
will keep the status quo with regard to
which entity is required to have a dealer
permit for Atlantic tunas and swordfish.
That is, a person who takes possession
for commercial purposes, of any BAYS
tunas, swordfish, or shark or any parts
of those species by purchasing, trading,
or bartering for it from the fishing vessel
or owner of a fishing vessel, once it is
offloaded, will be required to obtain the
corresponding Federal HMS dealer
permit.
Comment 21: Since non-U.S. citizens
cannot obtain U.S. permits, the
proposed first receiver requirement
would not work for product that is
offloaded in Canada or other foreign
countries by first receivers who are not
U.S. citizens, and NMFS has no
jurisdiction to require reporting by
docks, shipping companies, and
transporters that are not U.S.
companies.
Response: Due, in part, to the
complexity of dealer transactions,
including fish being brought in from
foreign ports, and the importance of
having one consistent definition of first
receiver across all species, NMFS is
changing the definition of first receiver
with regard to which entity is required
to have a dealer permit for Atlantic
tunas, swordfish, and sharks to make it
more consistent with current industry
practice and to simplify regulations. As
such, a person who takes possession, for
commercial purposes, of any BAYS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
tunas, swordfish, or shark or any parts
of those species by purchasing, trading,
or bartering for it from the fishing vessel
or owner of a fishing vessel, once it is
offloaded, will be required to obtain the
corresponding Federal HMS dealer
permit.
Comment 22: Requiring the first
receiver to obtain a dealer permit will
result in duplicative reporting,
especially in the Northeast, as the
person who receives the product will be
required to have a dealer permit and
report to NMFS, and then the dealer
who ultimately purchases that product
from the fishing vessel will also be
required to report his entire purchase
through SAFIS. Identifying duplicate
reports will be difficult as most HMS
product is offloaded at a dock and goes
to multiple fish houses/dealers.
Response: As explained above, NMFS
will change the definition with regard to
which entity is required to have a dealer
permit in order to make it more
consistent with current industry
practice and to simply the regulations.
This should reduce the possibility for
duplicative reporting and should not
interrupt business practices as it will
not change the universe of permitted
dealers. In addition, dealers will be able
to report HMS through existing SAFIS
and Trip Tickets electronic systems,
which will keep dealers from having to
report in multiple systems.
Comment 23: In the Gulf of Mexico,
many dealers are the first receivers, and
fish are offloaded at a fish house that
weighs, packs, pays the vessel, and
reports the landings to NMFS. In
addition, dealers usually own their own
trucks, so the truck drivers would be
covered by the dealers’ permits. Pack
houses who receive fish also have the
dealer permits and report to NMFS.
NMFS needs to simplify it so that the
person who has product come across the
dock needs to report it to NMFS.
However, NMFS also heard that a first
receiver should be able to purchase
product from a fishing vessel without
necessarily owning the dock facility
where the product is landed as long as
they possess the proper permits, and the
first receiver should not need a dealer
permit unless they purchase product
from the fishing vessel.
Response: In the proposed rule,
NMFS proposed to have first receivers,
such as pack houses, be required to
obtain HMS dealer permits and report to
NMFS. However, based on public
comment that indicated this would
create a major disruption in business
practices, given that current regulations
appear to work for dealers in both the
Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions,
and the importance of having one
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47309
consistent definition of first receiver
across all species, NMFS is changing the
definition of first receiver with regard to
which entity is required to have a dealer
permit for Atlantic tunas, swordfish,
and sharks to make it more consistent
with current industry practice and to
simplify the regulations. As such, a
person who takes possession, for
commercial purposes of any BAYS
tunas, swordfish, or shark or any parts
of those species by purchasing, trading,
or bartering for it from the fishing vessel
or owner of a fishing vessel, once it is
offloaded, will be required to obtain the
corresponding Federal HMS dealer
permit.
Comment 24: NMFS received several
comments regarding first receivers of
HMS product having to obtain a dealer
permit, including: NMFS should keep
the current definition of dealer for
swordfish and BAYS tunas (i.e., the
entity that purchases the product from
the vessel should be considered the
dealer); the facilities where fish are
unloaded and packed in vats for
shipment do not know final weights or
prices; when fish are packed by a dock
for shipment, packing/saltwater ice is
not removed from fish in order to keep
fish cold, and tails are not cut to
preserve freshness of the fish; dealers
remove ice, cut tails, weigh the fish,
determine prices, and then repack the
fish in ice, which is a labor intensive
and costly process; the dealers’ weights
are more accurate than the shipping
weights and recording accurate weight
information is important not only for
economic reasons and domestic quota
management, but also for reporting to
ICCAT; and if a dealer pays a dockage
fee to have fish cross a remote dock, the
catch and vessel information is
forwarded to the dealer via fax or the
transporter so that the current dealers
have vessel-specific information that
can be reported to NMFS. NMFS also
heard that entities purchasing product
from fishing vessels are not going to
share price information with
transporters; therefore, NMFS will lose
price information by requiring first
receivers, such as transporters, to obtain
dealer permits and report to NMFS.
Response: Based on public comment,
NMFS understands that many entities
responsible for packing and shipping
fish do not have vessel or price
information that is required on dealer
reports. NMFS proposed that first
receivers, including transporters, of
non-BFT HMS product obtain an HMS
dealer permit to ensure species-specific
and vessel-specific information is
received from dealers and reported to
NMFS for quota monitoring. NMFS has
learned that many of these facilities and
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47310
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
transporters that first receive Atlantic
BAYS tunas and swordfish products do
not have final fish weights or price
information and lack the resources and
incentive to function as proper HMS
dealers. In addition, since requiring
transporters to obtain an HMS dealer
permit may disrupt business practices,
result in vessels not being able to land
in safe harbors/docks, or result in
vessels being unable to unload at
reliable dealers, NMFS will not require
transporters to obtain HMS dealer
permits at this time. If the current
universe of dealers has access to the
information required by NMFS for
reporting, including vessel-specific
information, NMFS agrees that requiring
first receivers of Atlantic BAYS tunas
and swordfish product to have dealer
permits and report to NMFS would not
be an efficient process. In addition,
having accurate price information is
critical for management and the analysis
of economic impacts. Thus, NMFS will
maintain the status quo with regard to
which entity is required to have a dealer
permit for Atlantic BAYS tunas and
swordfish.
Comment 25: NMFS heard that in
certain areas, such as in the Gulf of
Mexico region, the trucks used to
transport fish typically belong to the
dealer who is purchasing the product;
and individuals who transport fish
should be an extension of the dealers’
place of business to ensure that product
is properly stored and handled.
Response: Requiring transportation
companies to be owned by dealers is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) published regulations (December
18, 1995; 60 FR 65197) mandating the
application of the Hazardous Analysis
of Critical Control Point (HACCP)
principles to ensure the safe and
sanitary processing of seafood products.
Dealers are responsible for ensuring
product they purchase and sell is in
compliance with FDA HACCP
regulations.
Comment 26: NMFS received a
comment asking if a dealer located in a
region closed for a particular shark
fishery could accept shark product from
an area that is open for that fishery if the
dealer does not have a facility in that
open area.
Response: This final rule does not
change the regulations at 50 CFR
§ 635.28(b)(4). Under those regulations,
except for under certain conditions,
sharks dealers located in a region closed
to a specific species or complex are not
able to accept that species or complex
from an area that is open unless the
dealer has a facility in the open area and
can receive sharks at that facility.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
Comment 27: NMFS should consider
requiring fishermen to offload HMS
product to designated ports/fish houses
as is currently required in the reef fish
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Response: NMFS may consider this
requirement in future rulemakings,
especially for any HMS fisheries that
might be considering catch share
programs in the future, such as the
shark fishery.
Comment 28: Dealers in the U.S.V.I.
and Puerto Rico are usually the first
receivers.
Response: Given the current
definition of an HMS ‘‘dealer’’ under
§ 635.4, this should not change any
business practices of dealers in the U.S.
Caribbean as this action will change the
current definitions of a dealer to make
it more consistent with current industry
practice.
Timely Dealer Reporting
Comment 29: NMFS received several
comments regarding the proposed
regulations to encourage timely
reporting, including: support for the
proposed changes where dealers would
not be able to accept HMS product
unless they had submitted their reports
on time; NMFS should not punish all
dealers because of a small universe of
dealers that are not reporting on time;
and NMFS should have enforcement
actions against dealers who are not
reporting on time instead of
implementing new regulations.
Response: There have been several
issues of late reporting by Federal
Atlantic HMS dealers, particularly for a
number of the Atlantic shark dealers.
Efforts by the Agency to follow up on
dealer reports (i.e., phone calls; certified
correspondence regarding late reporting;
visits from local port agents and/or
agents with the NOAA Office of Law
Enforcement) drain scarce staff
resources. In addition, late reporting
negatively effects NMFS’ ability to
monitor the quota in a timely manner.
NMFS feels the actions taken in this
final rule, in regard to late reporting,
strengthens the Agency’s ability to take
enforcement action when appropriate
while not imposing any additional
requirements on dealers. As such, in
order to ensure timely reporting by all
Atlantic HMS dealers, the Agency will
require that a Federal Atlantic HMS
dealer will only be authorized to
purchase Atlantic swordfish, sharks,
and BAYS tunas if the dealers have
submitted all required reports to NMFS
by the required reporting deadline. Any
delinquent reports will need to be
submitted and received by NMFS before
a dealer could purchase commercially-
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
harvested Atlantic swordfish, sharks,
and BAYS tunas from a fishing vessel.
Failure to report Atlantic sharks,
swordfish, and BAYS tunas to NMFS
within the required reporting frequency
will result in dealers being ineligible to
purchase Atlantic sharks, swordfish,
and BAYS tunas. Although submission
of delinquent reports will allow a dealer
to legally purchase commerciallyharvested Atlantic swordfish, sharks,
and BAYS tunas from a fishing vessel,
late reporting will still be a violation of
the regulations and could result in
enforcement action.
Comment 30: Larger dealers may
accept product even if a report has not
been submitted on time due to different
people submitting reports and accepting
product. The scenario would not be
intentional, but it could happen. NMFS
should not deny a business the ability
to accept fish strictly on the basis of late
paperwork, and such a measure should
be seen as a last resort. NMFS needs to
be reasonable concerning penalties for
inadvertent paperwork omissions. We
have seen times when NMFS computers
go down, sometimes over an entire
weekend. NMFS should not apply
penalties if they cannot receive
information from dealers; therefore,
NMFS should drop the idea of penalties
for late reporting unless it becomes a
persistent problem. NMFS should allow
dealers to purchase product even if they
are late in reporting, as it is important
to revitalize HMS fisheries.
Response: As previously mentioned
in the response to Comment 29, late
reports from Federal HMS dealers effect
timely quota monitoring and require
staff resources to resolve. Under the new
HMS electronic reporting system, all
delinquent reports will need to be
submitted and received by NMFS before
a dealer could purchase commerciallyharvested Atlantic swordfish, sharks,
and BAYS tunas. A Federal Atlantic
HMS dealer who is receiving, and/or
purchasing HMS product without
having submitted all required report to
NMFS will be in violation and subject
to enforcement action for failing to
submit reports on time as well as
accepting non-BFT HMS product during
the time the dealer reports were
delinquent. This may require additional
coordination between persons who
receive fish and person who report to
NMFS to ensure all the necessary
reports have been submitted to NMFS
before new non-BFT HMS product is
accepted. In the event of a reporting
disruption due to a loss of power or
internet service, as with any instance of
regulatory non-compliance, the Agency
would exercise its enforcement
discretion in determining whether or
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
not to take enforcement action
considering all the circumstances, for
example, whether the outage or loss was
verified, and whether the dealer
submitted the report as soon as possible
once the outage ended. Further, given
the changes to the reporting timeframe
from the proposed to the final rule (i.e.,
from daily to weekly reporting), NMFS
does not expect late reporting due to
system disruptions to be as much of an
issue. NMFS encourages dealers to
contact the system administrator for the
HMS electronic dealer reporting system
when they experience any type of
interruption for an extended period of
time.
Comment 31: NMFS should have a
way to remind dealers of when their
reports are due to NMFS. NMFS should
provide adequate warning and
opportunity to provide reports before
having their livelihoods damaged just
for the convenience of NMFS.
Response: The Agency expects federal
HMS dealers to comply with all
applicable regulations without
prompting from the Agency. It is the
dealer’s responsibility to keep track of
reporting deadlines. In the final rule,
NMFS will require a weekly reporting
deadline for Atlantic swordfish, sharks,
and BAYS tunas dealers. NMFS expects
that the consistent reporting frequency
for all HMS dealer permits should make
it easier to remember when HMS reports
are due to NMFS. Additionally, the new
HMS electronic reporting system will
track the timing and submission of
Federal Atlantic HMS dealer reports and
automatically notify dealers and NMFS
(the HMS Management Division and
NOAA Office of Law Enforcement) via
email if reports are delinquent. The new
HMS electronic reporting system will
also notify dealers of the current
reporting deadlines.
Comment 32: NMFS needs to provide
incentives to dealers so they comply
with all of the dealer requirements (e.g.,
valid dealer permit, reporting deadline).
Response: The Agency limits the sale
of HMS product harvested from
federally permitted vessels to federallypermitted HMS dealers. This should
provide some incentive for federallypermitted HMS dealers to comply with
all applicable regulations. Federal HMS
dealers are required to submit dealer
data in a timely manner to NMFS. Such
timely submission is critical for accurate
quota monitoring and management of
HMS. Failure to comply with timely
submission will affect the dealer’s
ability to accept new HMS product and
will also make them subject to
enforcement action. In addition, failure
to submit timely dealer reports can lead
to overharvests of allocated quotas,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
which can decrease quotas and shorten
fishing seasons in subsequent fishing
years, which can negatively affect both
fishermen and dealers.
IRFA Alternatives
Comment 33: NMFS received a
comment supporting the delayed
implementation date of February 1,
2012. NMFS should give sufficient time
for dealers to prepare for the new
system’s implementation and learn how
to use it.
Response: NMFS agrees with this
comment and will delay
implementation of proposed electronic
weekly reporting requirements for all
federally-permitted HMS dealers for
Atlantic swordfish, BAYS tunas, and
shark dealers until January 2013.
Economic Concerns
Comment 34: NMFS has grossly under
estimated the time it will take dealers to
submit dealer reports and the cost
associated with hiring additional
personnel to be in compliance with the
additional paperwork.
Response: Based on public comments,
NMFS has reconsidered the proposed
reporting frequencies for Atlantic HMS
dealers to simplify reporting
requirements and satisfy the need for
timely landings data while avoiding an
excessive reporting burden on dealers.
NMFS recognizes that daily reporting
requirements for sharks as proposed
under alternative A3 in the proposed
rule would not allow dealers sufficient
time to gather accurate price
information for sharks and could have
resulted in a large reporting burden on
dealers. At the same time, NMFS
acknowledges that unlike some shark
fisheries, Atlantic swordfish and BAYS
tunas fisheries are currently not quota
limited and may not require more
frequent reporting than the current
biweekly reporting. However, NMFS
notes that other Federal dealer permits,
such as all NERO-issued dealer permits,
require weekly reporting. Many HMS
dealers also possess these NERO-issued
permits and, therefore, are already
reporting on a weekly basis.
Additionally, many fisheries managed
by the SERO are moving to weekly
reporting and many HMS dealers also
possess permits for these fisheries.
Therefore, NMFS believes that weekly
reporting balances the need for more
timely landings data and maintains
consistency in reporting requirements
for different dealer permits. In addition,
NMFS is integrating the HMS electronic
reporting requirements into existing
electronic reporting programs in large
part to ease the overall burden on
dealers.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47311
Comment 35: NMFS’s average cost of
internet service is incorrect and flawed.
My monthly high-speed internet service
is higher, around $110 a month.
Response: Based on public comment,
NMFS has revised the cost of internet
service from $50 per month used in the
analyses for the proposed rule to $110
per month. This $110 estimate was the
average cost for internet service
presented in the IRFA, based on public
comment, more accurately reflects the
cost of having monthly internet service.
Therefore, assuming dealers will need
the most basic internet connection to
support NMFS’ electronic reporting
system at a cost of $110 per month for
internet services, the average annual
cost to dealers will be $1,320 for
internet services ($110 * 12 months =
$1,320/year).
General
Comment 36: NMFS should have a
dedicated email for submitting
comments instead of having comments
submitted through the regulations.gov
Web site. The Councils provide an email
address for submission of comments.
Response: Current NMFS guidance
requires all public comments on
rulemakings to be submitted through
https://www.regulations.gov.
Regulations.gov is continually updating
its Web page based on public feedback.
Additionally, users can establish news
feeds for any Federal agency that
regularly publishes proposed and final
rules.
Comment 37: The ASMFC and others
commented that NMFS currently closes
the Atlantic shark fisheries when
landings in each fishery reach 80
percent of quota to avoid overages.
NMFS should consider increasing this
threshold with the implementation of
electronic dealer reporting as the
Agency will be receiving more timely
data.
Response: NMFS will consider
increasing the 80-percent threshold
used to close the shark fisheries in the
future based on timely receipt of state
data and timely reporting by dealers.
Comment 38: Currently, the Gulf reef
fish fishery requires fishing vessels to
get a confirmation number for their
catch before a vessel can offload. This
ensures that the Agency can account for
all landings under the IFQ system for
Gulf reef fish. NMFS should consider a
similar system for HMS so that product
can be tracked and reported to NMFS.
Response: NMFS did not analyze the
impact of requiring a confirmation code
upon landing of HMS product in this
rulemaking. However, NMFS may
consider this requirement in a future
rulemaking, as appropriate.
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47312
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Comment 39: NMFS should require
all state dealers to get Federal dealer
permits in the Gulf of Mexico. It would
make the collection of data more
coordinated between state and Federal
agencies.
Response: NMFS agrees that the
coordination of data collection between
state and Federal agencies would make
data collection more efficient and
timely. To that end, NMFS is
appreciative of the efforts of ASMFC in
implementing such a requirement in the
Atlantic states under its jurisdiction.
However, NMFS cannot require all
states to implement such regulations.
Rather, NMFS is working with state
agencies in the Gulf of Mexico and
Caribbean to streamline data collection,
to the extent possible.
Comment 40: NMFS should ensure
that dealers and brokers are not
subjected to duplicative reporting and
out of state dealer licensing requirement
that presently occurs in South Carolina.
Response: As mentioned in the
response to Comment 41, NMFS tries to
streamline data collection, to the extent
possible. However, NMFS does not have
jurisdiction over what states can request
for reporting under state law. While
NMFS continues to coordinate with
states to reduce duplicative reporting to
the extent possible, because NMFS
mandates reporting of HMS for
federally-permitted dealers in all states
from Maine through Texas and the
Caribbean, there will be cases where
NMFS requests data that is duplicative
of some state requirements. NMFS feels
that implementation of this electronic
dealer system, because of the efforts to
coordinate with states, ACCSP, SAFIS,
and other electronic reporting systems,
should remove some, but not all, of
these duplicative requirements.
Comment 41: NMFS should consider
electronic logbooks for commercial
fishing, and NMFS should specify the
collections methods being considered
for recreational data.
Response: NMFS is currently working
on electronic logbooks in some fisheries.
For instance, in the Northeast region,
fishermen can submit electronic vessel
trip reports (VTRs). HMS fisheries may
consider electronic logbooks in the
future, and the Agency is continually
working towards more timely data
collection from both fishermen and
dealers. In terms of recreational fishing
data, NMFS collects recreational catch
and effort information through the
Marine Recreational Information
Program (MRIP). MRIP is a new way
NMFS is counting and reporting marine
recreational catch and effort and
replaces the Marine Recreational
Fisheries Statistics Survey, or MRFSS,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
which had been in place since the
1970s. More information on MRIP can
be found at https://
www.countmyfish.noaa.gov/.
Changes From the Proposed Rule (76
FR 37750, June 28, 2011)
In addition to minor corrections
throughout, NMFS has made several
changes to the proposed rule. These
changes are outlined below.
1. In § 635.2, the definitions of ‘‘first
receiver’’ was removed and ‘‘first
receive’’ was clarified and revised to
mean ‘‘to take possession for
commercial purpose of any fish or any
part thereof by purchasing, trading or
bartering for it from the fish vessel
owner or operator or operator once it is
offloaded from the vessel, where the
owner or operator has been issued, or
should have been issued, a valid permit
under this part. First receive does not
mean to take possession solely for
transport.’’ In addition, the definition of
‘‘reporting week’’ was added to mean
‘‘the period of time beginning at 0001
local time on Sunday and ending at
2400 hours local time the following
Saturday.’’
2. Modifications made to § 635.4(g)
under the proposed rule were removed
in the final rule. Specifically,
§ 635.4(g)(1)(i), which stipulated
different permitting requirements for
Atlantic tunas dealers that received
Atlantic bluefin, was removed. In
addition, § 635.4(g)(1)(ii), which would
have required first receivers of Atlantic
BAYS tunas to obtain a dealer permits,
was removed. Changes to sections
§ 635.4(g)(1)–(3), which stipulated
different dealer permit requirements for
BAYS tunas, sharks, and swordfish in
the current regulations, respectively,
were modified based on public
comment. In addition, changes were
made to maintain consistency with the
‘‘dealer’’ definition under § 600.10 and
changes to the ‘‘first receive’’ definition
under § 635.2 in this final rule.
3. In § 635.5(b)(1)(i)–(iii), NMFS made
various modifications and clarifications
based, in part, on public comment.
Specifically, as described above, the
reporting frequencies that apply to
Atlantic swordfish, BAYS tunas, and
shark dealers were modified based on
public comment to satisfy the need for
timely landings data while avoiding an
excessive reporting burden on dealers.
In addition, it was clarified that dealers
must report through a NMFS-approved
electronic reporting system no later than
midnight, local time, of the first
Tuesday following the end of the
reporting week unless the dealer is
otherwise notified by NMFS, and can
make modifications to their dealer
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reports not more than 30 days from
when the report is submitted and
received by NMFS.
4. NMFS made various changes
throughout § 635.31(a) and (c). Most
were minor changes to the language in
order to be consistent with the language
in other sections of the final rule.
Regarding § 635.31(a)(1)(i), NMFS
determined that the proposed change
was not needed and decided to keep the
existing regulatory text. Regarding
§ 635.31(c)(6), this regulatory text was
not proposed in the proposed rule as it
has been implemented in a recent final
rule (August 29, 2011, 76 FR 53652),
which was implemented after the
publication of the proposed rule of this
action (June 28, 2011, 76 FR 37550). In
this final rule, NMFS replaces the word
‘‘purchase’’ with ‘‘first receive’’ to be
consistent with the other changes made
in this final rule. Regarding
§ 635.31(d)(1), the proposed rule
stipulated that fishermen could only
offload Atlantic swordfish to dealers as
all entities that first received Atlantic
swordfish (i.e., not just entities which
bought fish from fishermen) would have
needed a dealer permit under the
proposed rule. As a result of public
comments, NMFS is not making that a
requirement in this final rule. As such,
NMFS is maintaining the existing
language in § 635.31(d)(1).
5. In § 635.71, NMFS simplified
paragraph (a)(3). NMFS also decided
that due, in part, to the changes made
as a result of public comments, the
changes proposed in paragraphs (a)(4),
(a)(55), and (e)(1) were not needed at
this time. Therefore, NMFS kept the
existing language for paragraphs (a)(4)
and (e)(1) and moved the proposed
paragraph (a)(56) to paragraph (a)(55).
Classification
The NMFS Assistant Administrator
has determined that this final action is
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its
amendments, ATCA, and other
applicable law.
This final rule modifies a collectionof-information requirement associated
with dealer reporting for Atlantic HMS
dealers subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) which has been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under control
number 0648–0040. The modifications
were approved by OMB on July 31,
2012. The public reporting burden is
associated with Atlantic HMS dealers
having to report receipt of Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas to
NMFS electronically (15 minutes per
positive report and 5 minutes per
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
negative report). NMFS will establish a
weekly reporting frequency and may
increase the reporting frequency via
another regulatory action in the future
for all HMS species if more frequent
reporting is necessary to monitor the
available quota. NMFS does not expect
to do so in the near future for BAYS
tunas, sharks, or swordfish.
Public reporting burden for Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas will
be one hour per month (15 minutes per
report each week 7×4 weeks/month) or
12 hours per year. Based on the number
of Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and tunas
dealer permits (that deal with BAYS
tunas) in 2011 (or 916 total permits),
this will result in an estimated total
annual burden of 10,992 hours.
Negative reports will require less of a
reporting burden as negative reports are
estimated to only take 5 minutes to
complete and send to NMFS. Finally, all
916 permit holders affected by this final
rule are considered respondents.
Send comments on this or any other
aspects of the collection-of-information
to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by email
to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or
fax to (202) 395–7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, and no person shall be
subject to penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection-of-information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection-of-information displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
This rule has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866.
Ecological impacts, outside of those
that have been previously analyzed for
Atlantic shark dealer reporting
requirements in Amendment 2 to the
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and
categorically excluded for Atlantic
swordfish and BAYS tunas, are not
expected as a result of this final rule.
This action will not directly affect
fishing effort, quotas, fishing gear,
authorized species, interactions with
threatened or endangered species, or
other relevant parameters. This final
rule is exempt from the requirement to
prepare an Environmental Assessment
in accordance with NAO 216–6 because
it will not have significant, additional
impacts on the human environment, or
any environmental consequences that
have not been previously analyzed or
are categorically excluded in accordance
with Sections 5.05b and Section
6.03.c.3(i) of NOAA’s Administrative
Order (NAO) 216–6. However, social
and economic impacts are expected as
a result of this final action.
A FRFA was prepared, as required by
5 U.S.C. Section 604 of the Regulatory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
Flexibility Act (RFA). The FRFA
incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the
significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, and
NMFS responses to those comments,
and a summary of the analyses
completed to support the action. A
summary of the analysis follows. A copy
of this analysis is available from NMFS
(see ADDRESSES).
Section 604(a)(1) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act requires that the Agency
describe the need for, and objectives of,
the final rule. The purpose of this final
rule is, consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP and its amendments, to aid
NMFS in monitoring and enforcing
fisheries regulations, including those
implemented at 50 CFR part 635.
Specifically, this final action will
change the current regulations and
infrastructure of the Atlantic HMS
quota-monitoring system by requiring
all federally-permitted Atlantic HMS
dealers to report receipt of Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas to
NMFS through an electronic dealer
reporting system on a weekly basis and,
delinquent reports to be submitted by
dealers and received by NMFS before a
dealer could purchase commerciallyharvested Atlantic swordfish, sharks,
and BAYS tunas. These actions are
necessary to ensure timely and accurate
reporting, which is critical for quota
monitoring and management of these
species.
Section 604(a)(2) requires a summary
of the significant issues raised by the
public comments in response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) and a statement of any changes
made in the proposed rule as a result of
such comments. The Agency received
comments concerning the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis stating
that the Agency’s estimate of monthly
internet service of $50 per month was
not appropriate (see comment 35 above).
As a result, the estimate of monthly
internet costs associated with this final
action has increased to $110 per month,
based on public comment. Estimates of
the economic impacts of compliance
with the final regulations have been
updated in the FRFA and final rule.
Comments were also received on the
delayed implementation date discussed
in the IRFA and proposed rule (see
comment 33 above). The Agency
proposed a delayed implementation
date of 3 months, and the public was in
support of such a delay. Therefore,
NMFS plans to delay the
implementation of the final action for
this rule to provide dealers with
approximately four to five months to
learn about the electronic dealer
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47313
reporting system before its use is
required.
Finally, comments also indicated that
it would take dealers additional time to
submit more frequent dealer reports and
that there would be additional costs
associated with hiring personnel to be
in compliance with the proposed
reporting frequencies (see comments 12,
16, and 34 above). Based on public
comments, NMFS has reconsidered the
proposed reporting frequencies for
Atlantic HMS dealers to simplify
reporting requirements and satisfy the
need for timely landings data while
avoiding an excessive reporting burden
on dealers. NMFS recognizes that daily
reporting requirements for sharks as
preferred in the proposed rule would
not allow dealers sufficient time to
gather accurate price information for
sharks and could have resulted in a
large reporting burden on dealers. At the
same time, NMFS acknowledges that
unlike some shark fisheries, Atlantic
swordfish and BAYS tunas fisheries are
currently not quota limited and may not
require more frequent reporting than the
current biweekly reporting. However,
NMFS notes that other Federal dealer
permits currently require weekly
reporting, including all Northeast
Regional Office (NERO)-issued dealer
permits. Many HMS dealers also possess
NERO-issued permits and, therefore, are
already reporting on a weekly basis.
Additionally, many fisheries managed
by SERO are moving to weekly dealer
reporting and many HMS dealers also
possess permits for these fisheries.
Therefore, NMFS believes that weekly
reporting balances the need for more
timely landings data and maintains
consistency in reporting requirements
for different dealer permits. In addition,
NMFS is integrating the HMS electronic
reporting requirements into existing
electronic reporting programs, in part to
ease the overall burden on dealers.
Thus, NMFS feels the final action
satisfies the need for timely reporting
and avoids being overly burdensome on
dealers with regard to reporting.
Under Section 604(a)(3), Federal
agencies must provide an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the
rule would apply. The Small Business
Administration (SBA) standards for a
‘‘small’’ versus ‘‘large’’ business entity
are entities that have average annual
receipts less than $4.0 million for fishharvesting; average annual receipts less
than $6.5 million for charter/party
boats; 100 or fewer employees for
wholesale dealers; or 500 or fewer
employees for seafood processors.
Under these standards, NMFS considers
all HMS permit holders subject to this
rulemaking to be small entities. This
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47314
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
action would apply to all 916 Federal
Atlantic HMS dealer permit holders (in
2011), of which 183 had Atlantic shark,
350 had Atlantic swordfish, and 383
had Atlantic tunas (bigeye, albacore,
yellowfin, and skipjack) dealer permits.
Under Section 604(a)(4), Federal
agencies must provide a description of
the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of
the rule. The final action requires
Federal Atlantic HMS dealers to report
receipt of Atlantic sharks, swordfish,
and BAYS tunas to NMFS through an
electronic reporting system on a weekly
basis. Under the final rule, the HMS
dealer permit will continue to require
the same application and fees (i.e., $50
to $75) that are currently in place. The
information collected through the
electronic dealer system will include
additional data fields, including vessel
and location of catch information;
however, many new fields will be autopopulated or selected from data fields in
a drop down menu in the electronic
system. In addition, failure to report
Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS
tunas to NMFS within the required
reporting frequency will result in
dealers being ineligible to first receive
Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS
tunas. This final rule will not conflict,
duplicate, or overlap with other relevant
Federal rules. Fishermen, dealers, and
managers in these fisheries must comply
with a number of international
agreements, domestic laws, and other
FMPs. These include, but are not
limited to, the MSA, the ATCA, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and the
Paperwork Reduction Act. NMFS does
not believe that the new regulations
proposed to be implemented will
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any
relevant regulations, Federal or
otherwise.
Under section 604(a)(5), agencies are
required to describe any alternatives to
the rule which accomplish the stated
objectives and which minimize any
significant economic impacts. These
impacts are discussed below.
Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C.
603(c)(1)–(4)) lists four general
categories of ‘‘significant’’ alternatives
that will assist an agency in the
development of significant alternatives.
These categories of alternatives are:
1. Establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities;
2. Clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule
for such small entities;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
3. Use of performance rather than
design standards; and
4. Exemptions from coverage of the
rule for small entities.
In order to meet the objectives of this
final rule, consistent with the MSA,
NMFS cannot exempt small entities or
change the reporting requirements only
for small entities because all of the
participants in Atlantic HMS fisheries
are considered small entities. All
federally-permitted HMS dealers will
submit weekly reports of all HMS
received. Similarly, the application
process for the dealer permit will be the
same as the process that is required
under the current regulations. The
majority of the information required to
report in the new reporting system will
be the same as what is currently
required. However, the final rule will
require federally-permitted dealers to
report information to NMFS weekly
about Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and
BAYS tunas received, in an electronic
format rather than on paper.
NMFS considered and analyzed four
alternatives to ensure more timely,
efficient, and accurate dealer reporting
and subsequent quota monitoring of
Atlantic HMS. NMFS considered the
following alternatives: Alternative A1—
Status quo; Alternative A2—Establish
new flexible reporting requirements for
all federally-permitted HMS dealers
effective 30 days after publication of the
final rule; Alternative A3—Establish
new flexible reporting requirements for
all federally-permitted HMS dealers and
delay implementation; and Alternative
A4—Establish new weekly reporting
requirements for all federally-permitted
HMS dealers and delay implementation.
Alternative A1, the no action
alternative, would maintain existing
reporting requirements for federallypermitted HMS dealers. There is no
monetary cost associated with the
required reporting as NMFS provides
pre-paid envelopes for dealers to mail in
their reports to the SEFSC. However,
HMS dealers must renew their openaccess dealer permit each year, and the
total cost associated with obtaining a
dealer permit, on an annual basis, is
between $50 to $75 per dealer,
depending on their participation in each
of the HMS fisheries. With 916 dealers
in the HMS fishery (as specified in
section 2.3), the total annual cost for
maintaining the dealer permits under
the current paper format is from $45,800
(916 dealers * $50 for dealer permits) to
$68,700 (916 dealers * $75 for dealer
permits).
Alternative A2, A3, and A4 would
require all federally-permitted Atlantic
HMS dealers to report receipt of
Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
tunas to NMFS through an electronic
dealer reporting system. As such, all of
these alternatives would have similar
direct economic impacts to dealers in
terms of purchasing a computer and/or
internet service (if they have not already
done so) to comply with the final
electronic reporting measures under
alternative A2, A3, and A4. According
to the Small Business Administration,
Office of Advocacy (2010)
approximately 94 percent of businesses
own computers. Therefore, NMFS
estimates that 861 dealers (916 * 0.94)
already have a computer. Of businesses
with computers, 95 percent or 817
dealers (861 dealers * 0.95) have
Internet service. Using these estimates,
approximately between 44 (861 ¥ 817
= 44 dealers with computers, but
without Internet) to 55 (916 ¥ 861 = 55
without computer and Internet) dealers
would have to purchase computer and/
or Internet services under this
alternative. The total amount of costs
associated with dealers reporting
through the new dealer electronic
system is estimated to be $58,080 (44
dealers * $1,320 for Internet service) for
those dealers with a computer, but
without Internet service and $106,425
(55 dealers * $1,935 for computer and
Internet service) for those dealers
without a computer and Internet
service. Therefore, the additional
aggregate cost for electronic reporting
under any of the alternatives is
approximately $164,505 ($58,080 +
$106,425) in the first year. The
cumulative cost for electronic reporting
and permitting would be approximately
$210,305 ($164,505 + $45,800) to
$233,205 ($164,505 + $68,700) in the
first year, depending on the number of
dealer permits obtained by each dealer.
Alternative A2 and A3 would have
increased social and economic impacts
based on reporting frequency and the
requirement that all first receivers of
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS
tunas, including transporters, obtain
dealer permits. The increase in the
reporting frequency could result in
dealers having to hire additional
personnel to comply with the increase
number of dealer reports. The annual
burden of reporting through the new
system would depend on the species
under alternative A2 and A3. For
Atlantic swordfish and BAYS tunas, this
would be an extra 0.5 hours per month
(15 minutes per report each week × 4
weeks; dealers are currently required to
report to NMFS twice a month) or 12
hours per year. Based on the number of
Atlantic swordfish and tunas dealer
permits (that deal with BAYS tunas) in
2011 (or 733 total permits), this would
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
result in an estimated total annual
burden of 8,796 hours. If these fisheries
reached 80 percent of any codified
quotas, then the reporting burden would
increase from weekly to daily reporting
for positive or negative reports for any
of the associated fisheries, however,
NMFS does not anticipate that this
would occur at this time.
Atlantic sharks dealers would have to
report more often while the non-sandbar
LCS, blacknose sharks, and nonblacknose SCS fishing seasons were
open. Atlantic shark dealers would
spend approximately 7.5 hours/month
reporting to NMFS (15 minutes per
report each day × 30 days; currently
dealers spend 0.5 hours reporting each
month) while the non-sandbar LCS,
blacknose sharks, and non-blacknose
SCS fishing seasons were open, and
approximately 1 hour per month (15
minutes per report each week × 4
weeks/month) when the fishing seasons
for these fisheries were closed. In 2010,
the non-sandbar LCS, blacknose, or nonblacknose SCS fisheries were open for
33 weeks. In 2011, however, the
blacknose and non-blacknose SCS were
open all year round or for 52 weeks. A
similar range of season lengths in
subsequent years would result in 57.75
to 91.00 hours of reporting by the
federal shark dealer to NMFS while
these fisheries were open. However, the
non-sandbar LCS, blacknose, or nonblacknose SCS fisheries were closed for
20 weeks during 2010, which would
result in 5 hours of reporting by the
federal shark dealer to NMFS under
similar fishing seasons. Based on the
number of Atlantic shark dealer permits
in 2011 (or 183 total permits), this
would result in an estimated total
annual burden of 11,483 hours.
In addition, during the comment
period on the proposed rule, NMFS
heard that requiring all first receivers of
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS
tunas, including transporters, to obtain
dealer permits would result in changes
to dealer business practices. While the
absolute number of entities that would
be affected by this alternative was not
quantified, the information provided
through public comment indicated that
there would be negative social and
economic impacts by requiring all first
receivers, including transporters, of
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS
tunas product to obtain dealers permits.
Alternative A4, the final action, will
simplify dealer reporting on dealers
compared to the proposed alternative
(i.e., alternative A3), and will change the
current definition of who is considered
an Atlantic HMS dealer in order to
simplify the regulations and maintain
consistency with respect to who is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
considered a first receiver across
species. In addition, alternative A4 will
only allow Atlantic HMS dealer to
purchase commercially-harvested
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS
tunas if the dealer has submitted timely
reports to NMFS.
Under the final action, the cost
associated with alternative A4 would be
the additional reporting burden on
dealers by requiring weekly reporting
frequency for Atlantic swordfish,
sharks, and BAYS tunas dealers. The
amount of time it would take dealers to
report through the electronic system is
estimated to be the same amount of time
HMS dealers currently take to report in
a paper format (i.e., 15 minutes per
report); however, dealers would be
reporting twice as frequently as they do
under the current regulations (i.e., they
will be required to report weekly
instead of twice a month). Thus, for
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS
tunas, dealers would spend one hour
per month (15 minutes per report each
week × 4 weeks/month) or 12 hours per
year reporting to NMFS. Based on the
number of Atlantic swordfish, shark,
and tuna dealer permits (that deal with
BAYS tunas) in 2011 (or 916 total
permits), this would result in an
estimated total annual burden of 10,992
hours. Negative reports would require
less of a reporting burden as negative
reports are estimated to only take 5
minutes to complete and submit to
NMFS. NMFS assumes that this
reduction in the proposed reporting
frequency should balance the need for
timely data in quota limited fisheries
while minimizing reporting burdens on
HMS dealers.
Section 212 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 states that, for each rule or group
of related rules for which an agency is
required to prepare a FRFA, the agency
shall publish one or more guides to
assist small entities in complying with
the rule, and shall designate such
publications as ‘‘small entity
compliance guides.’’ The agency shall
explain the actions a small entity is
required to take to comply with a rule
or group of rules. As part of this
rulemaking process, a letter to permit
holders that also serves as small entity
compliance guide (the guide) was
prepared. Copies of the final rule are
available from the HMS Management
Division, and the guide (i.e., permit
holder letter) will be sent to all HMS
dealers. The guide and this final rule
will be available upon request.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels,
Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties,
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47315
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Treaties.
Dated: August 3, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
Performing the Functions and Duties of the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For reasons set out in the preamble,
50 CFR part 635 is amended as follows:
PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY
MIGRATORY SPECIES
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.
2. In § 635.2, the definition for ‘‘First
receiver’’ is removed and the definitions
for ‘‘First receive’’ and ‘‘Reporting
week’’ are added in alphabetical order
to read as follows:
■
§ 635.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
First receive means to take possession
for commercial purposes of any fish or
any part thereof by purchasing, trading
or bartering for it from the fishing vessel
owner or operator once it is offloaded,
where the vessel has been issued, or
should have been issued, a valid permit
under this part. First receive does not
mean to take possession solely for
transport.
*
*
*
*
*
Reporting week means the period of
time beginning at 0001 local time on
Sunday and ending at 2400 hours local
time the following Saturday.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 635.4, paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2)
and (g)(3) are revised to read as follows:
§ 635.4
Permit and fees.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) Atlantic tunas. A dealer, as
defined under § 600.10 of this chapter,
must possess a valid federal Atlantic
tunas dealer permit to purchase, trade,
or barter any Atlantic tunas.
(2) Shark. A dealer, as defined in
§ 600.10 of this chapter, must possess a
valid federal Atlantic shark dealer
permit to purchase, trade, or barter any
Atlantic shark listed in Table 1 of
Appendix A of this part.
(3) Swordfish. A dealer, as defined
under § 600.10 of this chapter, must
possess a valid federal Atlantic
swordfish dealer permit to purchase,
trade, or barter any Atlantic swordfish.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 635.5, paragraph (b)(1)(iv) is
removed and paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
47316
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
through (iii) are revised to read as
follows:
§ 635.5
Recordkeeping and reporting.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Dealers that have been issued or
should have been issued a Federal
Atlantic BAYS tunas, swordfish, and/or
shark dealer permit under § 635.4 must
submit to NMFS all reports required
under this section within the timeframe
specified under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of
this section. BAYS tunas, swordfish,
and sharks commercially-harvested by a
vessel can only be first received by
dealers that have been issued or should
have been issued an Atlantic tunas,
swordfish, and/or shark dealer permit
under § 635.4. All federal Atlantic HMS
dealers must provide a detailed report of
all fish first received to NMFS within
the period specified under paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) of this section. All reports must
be species-specific and must include the
required information about all,
swordfish, and sharks received by the
dealer, including the required vessel
information, regardless of where the fish
were harvested or whether the
harvesting vessel is permitted under
§ 635.4. For sharks, each report must
specify the total weight of the
carcass(es) without the fins for each
species, and the total fin weight by
grade for all sharks combined. Dealers
are also required to submit ‘‘negative’’
reports, indicating no receipt of any
species, within the timeframe specified
under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section
if they did not first receive any fish
during the reporting period . As stated
in § 635.4(a)(6), failure to comply with
these recordkeeping and reporting
requirements may result in existing
dealer permit(s) being revoked,
suspended, or modified, and in the
denial of any permit applications.
(ii) Reports of any Atlantic BAYS
tunas, sharks, and/or swordfish first
received by dealers from a vessel must
be submitted electronically on a weekly
basis through a NMFS-approved
electronic reporting system by the
dealer and received by NMFS no later
than midnight, local time, of the first
Tuesday following the end of the
reporting week unless the dealer is
otherwise notified by NMFS. Reports of
BAYS tunas, sharks, and/or swordfish
may be modified for not more than 30
days from when the dealer report is
submitted to NMFS. NMFS will require
BAYS tunas, swordfish, and shark
dealers to submit dealer reports to
NMFS on a weekly basis. Atlantic BAYS
tunas, sharks, and swordfish dealers
must submit electronic negative reports
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
stating that no BAYS tunas, sharks, and/
or swordfish were first received when
they received no fish of these species,
and no parts thereof, during the
reporting period. Reporting
requirements for bluefin tuna are
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section. The negative reporting
requirement does not apply for bluefin
tuna.
(iii) Atlantic HMS dealers are not
authorized to first receive Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and/or BAYS tunas if
the required reports have not been
submitted and received by NMFS
according to reporting requirements
under this section. Delinquent reports
automatically result in an Atlantic HMS
dealer becoming ineligible to first
receive Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and/
or BAYS tunas. Atlantic HMS dealers
who become ineligible to first receive
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and/or
BAYS tunas due to delinquent reports
are authorized to first receive Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and/or BAYS tunas
only once all required and delinquent
reports have been completed, submitted
by the dealer, and received by NMFS.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 635.8, paragraphs (b)(4)
through (6), and paragraph (c)(4) are
revised to read as follows:
§ 635.8
Workshops.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Only dealers issued a valid shark
dealer permit may send a proxy to the
Atlantic shark identification workshops.
If a dealer opts to send a proxy, the
dealer must designate at least one proxy
from each place of business listed on the
dealer permit, issued pursuant to
§ 635.4(g)(2), which first receives
Atlantic shark. The proxy must be a
person who is currently employed by a
place of business covered by the dealer’s
permit; is a primary participant in the
identification, weighing, and/or first
receipt of fish as they are received; and
fills out dealer reports as required under
§ 635.5. Only one certificate will be
issued to each proxy. If a proxy is no
longer employed by a place of business
covered by the dealer’s permit, the
dealer or another proxy must be
certified as having completed a
workshop pursuant to this section. At
least one individual from each place of
business listed on the dealer permit
which first receives Atlantic sharks
must possess a valid Atlantic shark
identification workshop certificate.
(5) An Atlantic shark dealer issued or
required to be issued a shark dealer
permit pursuant to § 635.4(g)(2) must
possess and make available for
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
inspection a valid dealer or proxy
Atlantic shark identification workshop
certificate issued to the dealer or proxy
at each place of business listed on the
dealer permit which first receives
Atlantic sharks. For the purposes of this
part, trucks or other conveyances of a
dealer’s place of business are considered
to be extensions of a dealer’s place of
business and must possess a copy of a
valid dealer or proxy Atlantic shark
identification workshop certificate
issued to a place of business covered by
the dealer permit. A copy of a valid
Atlantic shark identification workshop
certificate must be included in the
dealer’s application package to obtain or
renew an Atlantic shark dealer permit.
If multiple businesses are authorized to
first receive Atlantic sharks under the
Atlantic shark dealer’s permit, a copy of
the Atlantic shark identification
workshop certificate for each place of
business listed on the Atlantic shark
dealer permit which first receives
Atlantic sharks must be included in the
Atlantic shark dealer permit renewal
application package.
(6) Persons holding an expired
Atlantic shark dealer permit and
persons who intend to apply for a new
Atlantic shark dealer permit will be
issued a participant certificate in their
name upon successful completion of the
Atlantic shark identification workshop.
A participant certificate issued to such
persons may be used only to apply for
an Atlantic shark dealer permit.
Pursuant to § 635.8(c)(4), an Atlantic
shark dealer may not first receive
Atlantic shark without a valid dealer or
proxy Atlantic shark identification
workshop certificate issued to the dealer
or proxy. After an Atlantic shark dealer
permit is issued to a person using an
Atlantic shark identification workshop
participant certificate, such person may
obtain an Atlantic shark identification
workshop dealer certificate for each
location which first receives Atlantic
sharks by contacting NMFS at an
address designated by NMFS.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) An Atlantic shark dealer may not
first receive Atlantic shark without a
valid dealer or proxy Atlantic shark
identification workshop certificate
issued to the dealer or proxy. A valid
dealer or proxy Atlantic shark
identification workshop certificate
issued to the dealer or proxy must be
maintained on the premises of each
place of business listed on the dealer
permit which first receives Atlantic
sharks. An Atlantic shark dealer may
not renew a Federal dealer permit
issued pursuant to § 635.4(g)(2) unless a
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic
shark identification workshop certificate
issued to the dealer or proxy has been
submitted with the permit renewal
application. If the dealer is not certified
and opts to send a proxy or proxies to
a workshop, the dealer must submit a
copy of a valid proxy certificate for each
place of business listed on the dealer
permit which first receives Atlantic
sharks.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 635.27, paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C)
is revised to read as follows:
§ 635.27
Quotas.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * *
(C) Except for non-sandbar LCS
landed by vessels issued a valid shark
research permit with a NMFS-approved
observer onboard, any non-sandbar LCS
reported as harvested in the Florida
Keys areas or in the Gulf of Mexico will
be counted against the non-sandbar LCS
Gulf of Mexico regional quota. Except
for non-sandbar LCS landed by vessels
issued a valid shark research permit
with a NMFS-approved observer
onboard, any non-sandbar LCS reported
as harvested in the Atlantic region will
be counted against the non-sandbar LCS
Atlantic regional quota. Non-sandbar
LCS landed by a vessel issued a valid
shark research permit with a NMFSapproved observer onboard will be
counted against the non-sandbar LCS
research fishery quota using scientific
observer reports.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. In § 635.28, paragraph (b)(4) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 635.28
Closures.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) When the fishery for a shark
species group and/or region is closed, a
fishing vessel, issued a Federal Atlantic
commercial shark permit pursuant to
§ 635.4, may not possess or sell a shark
of that species group and/or region,
except under the conditions specified in
§ 635.22(a) and (c) or if the vessel
possesses a valid shark research permit
under § 635.32 and a NMFS-approved
observer is on board. During the closure
period, an Atlantic shark dealer, issued
a permit pursuant to § 635.4, may not
first receive a shark of that species
group and/or region from a vessel issued
a Federal Atlantic commercial shark
permit, except that a permitted Atlantic
shark dealer or processor may possess
sharks that were harvested, offloaded,
and sold, traded, or bartered, prior to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
the effective date of the closure and
were held in storage. Under a closure for
a shark species group, an Atlantic shark
dealer, issued a permit pursuant to
§ 635.4 may, in accordance with State
regulations, purchase, trade for, barter
for, or receive a shark of that species
group if the sharks were harvested,
offloaded, and sold, traded, or bartered
from a vessel that fishes only in State
waters and that has not been issued a
federal Atlantic commercial shark
permit, HMS Angling permit, or HMS
Charter/Headboat permit pursuant to
§ 635.4. Additionally, under a closure
for a shark species group and/or
regional closure, an Atlantic shark
dealer, issued a permit pursuant to
§ 635.4, may first receive a shark of that
species group if the sharks were
harvested, offloaded, and sold, traded,
or bartered from a vessel issued a valid
shark research permit (per § 635.32) that
had a NMFS-approved observer on
board during the trip sharks were
collected.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. In § 635.31, paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(a)(2)(ii) are added and paragraphs
(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), (d)(1), and
(d)(2) are revised to read as follows:
§ 635.31 Restrictions on sale and
purchase.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Dealers may purchase Atlantic
bluefin tuna only from a vessel that has
a valid Federal commercial permit for
Atlantic tunas issued under this part in
the appropriate category.
(ii) Dealers may first receive BAYS
tunas only if they have submitted
reports to NMFS according to reporting
requirements of § 635.5(b)(1)(ii) and
only from a vessel that has a valid
Federal commercial permit for Atlantic
tunas issued under this part in the
appropriate category.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Persons that own or operate a
vessel for which a valid Federal Atlantic
commercial shark permit has been
issued and on which a shark from the
management unit is possessed, may sell,
barter or trade such shark only to a
dealer that has a valid permit for shark
issued under this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Only dealers that have a valid a
Federal Atlantic shark dealer permit and
who have submitted reports to NMFS
according to reporting requirements of
§ 635.5(b)(1)(ii) may first receive a shark
from an owner or operator of a vessel
that has, or is required to have, a valid
federal Atlantic commercial shark
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47317
permit issued under this part, except
that Atlantic shark dealers may
purchase, trade for, barter for, or receive
a shark from an owner or operator of a
vessel that does not have a federal
Atlantic commercial shark permit if that
vessel fishes exclusively in state waters.
Atlantic shark dealers may first receive
a sandbar shark only from an owner or
operator of a vessel who has a valid
shark research permit and who had a
NMFS-approved observer on board the
vessel for the trip in which the sandbar
shark was collected. Atlantic shark
dealers may first receive a shark from an
owner or operator of a fishing vessel
that has a permit issued under this part
only when the fishery for that species
group and/or region has not been
closed, as specified in § 635.28(b).
(5) An Atlantic shark dealer issued a
permit under this part may first receive
shark fins from an owner or operator of
a fishing vessel only if the shark fins
were harvested in accordance with the
regulations found at part 600, subpart N,
of this chapter and in § 635.30(c).
(6) A dealer issued a permit under
this part may not first receive oceanic
whitetip sharks or scalloped, smooth, or
great hammerhead sharks from an
owner or operator of a fishing vessel
with pelagic longline gear on board, or
from the owner of a fishing vessel
issued both a HMS Charter/Headboat
permit and a commercial shark permit
when tuna, swordfish or billfish are on
board the vessel, offloaded from the
vessel, or being offloaded from the
vessel.
(d) * * *
(1) Persons that own or operate a
vessel on which a swordfish in or from
the Atlantic Ocean is possessed may sell
or trade such swordfish only if the
vessel has a valid commercial permit for
swordfish issued under this part.
Persons may offload such swordfish
only to a dealer who has a valid permit
for swordfish issued under this part.
(2) Atlantic swordfish dealers may
first receive a swordfish harvested from
the Atlantic Ocean only from an owner
or operator of a fishing vessel that has
a valid commercial permit for swordfish
issued under this part and only if the
dealer has submitted reports to NMFS
according to reporting requirements of
§ 635.5(b)(1)(ii).
■ 9. In § 635.71, paragraph (a)(55) is
added and paragraphs (a)(3), (d)(11),
(d)(14), and (d)(16) are revised to read
as follows:
§ 635.71
Prohibitions.
(a) * * *
(3) Purchase, receive, or transfer or
attempt to purchase, receive, or transfer,
for commercial purposes, Atlantic
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47318
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
bluefin tuna landed by owners of
vessels not permitted to do so under
§ 635.4, or purchase, receive, or transfer,
or attempt to purchase, receive, or
transfer Atlantic bluefin tuna without
the appropriate valid Federal Atlantic
tunas dealer permit issued under
§ 635.4. Purchase, receive, or transfer or
attempt to purchase, receive, or transfer,
for commercial purposes, other than
solely for transport, any BAYS tunas,
swordfish, or sharks landed by owners
of vessels not permitted to do so under
§ 635.4, or purchase, receive, or transfer,
or attempt to purchase, receive, or
transfer, for commercial purposes, other
than solely for transport, any BAYS
tunas, swordfish, or sharks without the
appropriate valid dealer permit issued
under § 635.4 or submission of reports
by dealers to NMFS according to
reporting requirements specified in
§ 635.5. This prohibition does not apply
to a shark harvested from a vessel that
has not been issued a permit under this
part and that fishes exclusively within
the waters under the jurisdiction of any
state.
*
*
*
*
*
(55) Fail to electronically submit an
Atlantic HMS dealer report through the
HMS electronic dealer reporting system
to report BAYS tunas, swordfish, and
sharks to NMFS in accordance with
§ 635.5, if issued, or required to be
issued, a Federal Atlantic HMS dealer
permit pursuant to § 635.4.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(11) First receive or attempt to first
receive Atlantic sharks without a valid
Federal Atlantic shark dealer or proxy
Atlantic shark identification workshop
certificate issued to the dealer or proxy
or fail to be certified for completion of
a NMFS Atlantic shark identification
workshop in violation of § 635.8.
*
*
*
*
*
(14) First receive or attempt to first
receive Atlantic sharks without making
available for inspection, at each of the
dealer’s places of business listed on the
dealer permit which first receives
Atlantic sharks, an original, valid dealer
or proxy Atlantic shark identification
workshop certificate issued by NMFS to
the dealer or proxy in violation of
§ 635.8(b), except that trucks or other
conveyances of the business must
possess a copy of such certificate.
*
*
*
*
*
(16) First receive or attempt to first
receive a shark or sharks or part of a
shark or sharks landed in excess of the
retention limits specified in § 635.24(a).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–19457 Filed 8–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:48 Aug 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 120312182–2239–02]
RIN 0648–XA882
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries;
Annual Specifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
NMFS issues this final rule to
implement the annual catch limit (ACL),
harvest guideline (HG), and associated
annual reference points for Pacific
sardine in the U.S. exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast for the
fishing season of January 1, 2012,
through December 31, 2012. These
specifications were determined
according to the Coastal Pelagic Species
(CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP).
The 2012 maximum HG for Pacific
sardine is 109,409 metric tons (mt). The
initial overall commercial fishing HG,
that is to be allocated across the three
allocation periods for sardine
management, is 97,409 mt. This amount
has been divided across the three
seasonal allocation periods for the
directed fishery the following way:
January 1–June 30—33,093 mt; July 1–
September 14—37,964 mt; and
September 15–December 31—23,352 mt
with an incidental set-aside of 1,000 mt
for each of the three periods. This rule
is intended to conserve and manage the
Pacific sardine stock off the U.S. West
Coast.
DATES: Effective August 8, 2012 through
December 31, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region,
NMFS, (562) 980–4034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the
Pacific Fishery Management Council’s
(Council) annual public meetings, the
NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science
Center presents the estimated biomass
for Pacific sardine to the Council’s CPS
Management Team (Team), the
Council’s CPS Advisory Subpanel
(Subpanel), the Council’s Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC) and the
Council. After the biomass and the
status of the fisheries are reviewed and
discussed, the SSC and other advisory
bodies then provide the calculated
overfishing limit (OFL), available
biological catch (ABC), ACL and ACT
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(and/or HG) recommendations.
Following review by the Council and
after considering public comment, the
Council adopts a biomass estimate and
makes its catch level recommendations
to NMFS.
After review of the Council’s
recommendations from the November
2011 Council meeting, NMFS
implements in this rule the 2012 ACL,
HG and other annual catch reference
points, including an OFL and an ABC
that takes into consideration uncertainty
surrounding the current estimate of
biomass for Pacific sardine in the U.S.
EEZ off the Pacific coast. The CPS FMP
and its implementing regulations
require NMFS to set these annual catch
levels for the Pacific sardine fishery
based on the annual specification
framework in the FMP. This framework
includes a harvest control rule that
determines the maximum HG, the
primary management target for the
fishery, for the current fishing season.
This level is reduced from the
Maximum Sustainable Yield/OFL level
for economic and ecological
considerations. The HG is based, in
large part, on the current estimate of
stock biomass for the northern
subpopulation of Pacific sardine. The
harvest control rule in the CPS FMP is
HG = [(Biomass¥Cutoff) * Fraction *
Distribution] with the parameters
described as follows:
1. Biomass. The estimated stock
biomass of Pacific sardine age one and
above for the 2012 management season
is 988,385 mt.
2. Cutoff. This is the biomass level
below which no commercial fishery is
allowed. The FMP established this level
at 150,000 mt.
3. Distribution. The portion of the
northern subpopulation of the Pacific
sardine biomass estimated in the EEZ
off the Pacific coast is 87 percent. This
parameter is used to prorate the biomass
used to calculate the target harvest level
to account for the transboundary nature
of the resource.
4. Fraction. The harvest fraction is the
percentage of the biomass above 150,000
mt that may be harvested.
At the November 2011 Council
meeting, the Council adopted the 2012
assessment of the Pacific sardine
resource and a Pacific sardine biomass
estimate of 988,385 mt. Based on
recommendations from its SSC and
other advisory bodies, the Council
recommended, and NMFS is
implementing, an overfishing limit of
154,781 mt, an acceptable biological
catch (ABC) of 141,289 mt, an annual
catch limit of 141,289 mt (equal to the
ABC) and a maximum harvest guideline
(HG) (HGs under the CPS FMP are
E:\FR\FM\08AUR1.SGM
08AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47303-47318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19457]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 110208116-2233-02]
RIN 0648-BA75
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Electronic Dealer Reporting
Requirements
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule will require that Federal Atlantic swordfish,
shark, and tuna dealers report receipt of Atlantic sharks, swordfish,
and bigeye, albacore, skipjack, and yellowfin (BAYS) tunas to NMFS
through an electronic reporting system on a weekly basis. At this time,
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) dealers will not be required to
report bluefin tuna through this electronic reporting system, as a
separate reporting system is currently in place for this species. This
final rule changes the current definition of who is considered an
Atlantic HMS dealer and will require Atlantic HMS dealers to submit
dealer reports to NMFS in a timely manner in order to be able to
purchase commercially-harvested Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS
tunas. Any delinquent reports will need to be submitted by the dealer
and received by NMFS before a dealer can purchase commercially-
harvested Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas from a fishing
vessel. These measures are necessary to ensure timely and accurate
reporting, which is critical for quota monitoring and management of
these species.
DATES: Effective January 1, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Copies of the supporting documents,
including a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and small entity compliance guide, are
available online at the HMS Management Division Web site at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. Written comments regarding the burden-hour
estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to Delisse
Ortiz with the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management Division
and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Delisse Ortiz or Karyl Brewster-Geisz
at 301-427-8541, or Jackie Wilson at 240-338-3936.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Atlantic HMS are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq., and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 971 et
seq. Under the MSA, NMFS must ensure consistency with the National
Standards and manage fisheries to maintain optimum yield, rebuild
overfished fisheries, and prevent overfishing. Under the ATCA, the
Secretary of Commerce is required to promulgate regulations, as may be
necessary and appropriate, to implement the recommendations adopted by
the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT). The authority to issue regulations under MSA and ATCA has been
delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NOAA (AA). The implementing regulations for Atlantic HMS are
at 50 CFR part 635.
Background
On June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37750), NMFS published a proposed rule in
the Federal Register to require that Federal Atlantic swordfish, shark,
and tunas dealers report receipts of Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and
BAYS tunas to NMFS through an electronic reporting system. The proposed
rule also included flexible reporting regimes, which would allow NMFS
to collect more frequent dealer reports when key Atlantic shark
fisheries are open or as quotas become filled in the Atlantic swordfish
and BAYS tunas fisheries, and addressed two additional topics: the
definition of an Atlantic HMS dealer and the timely submission of
Atlantic HMS dealer reports. The proposed rule contained additional
details regarding the impacts of the alternatives considered and a
brief summary of the recent management history. Those details are not
repeated here.
This final rule implements the requirement of electronic HMS dealer
reporting, and is necessary to ensure timely and accurate reporting,
which is critical for quota monitoring and management of these species.
As described below, based in part on public comment, in this final
rule, NMFS is changing several aspects of the proposed rule.
In the proposed rule, NMFS considered and analyzed four
[[Page 47304]]
alternatives. In the preferred alternative in the proposed rule, NMFS
proposed to increase the frequency of both positive and negative dealer
reporting for Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas to better
facilitate timely quota monitoring. Specifically, NMFS proposed to
change the reporting frequency depending on the available quota, length
of fishing season, and species/species complexes when certain triggers
were met by the different fisheries, as described in the proposed rule.
In addition, the rule also proposed that all first receivers of
Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas harvested by federally-
permitted U.S. vessels, including entities that only shipped HMS
product, must obtain a corresponding Federal Atlantic swordfish, shark,
and/or tunas dealer permit and report such receipts to NMFS through the
electronic reporting system so that NMFS can receive more species- and
vessel-specific information. Finally, NMFS proposed that dealers must
submit reports by the required deadline in order to be able to receive
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, or BAYS tunas. Any delinquent reports would
need to be submitted by the dealer and received by NMFS before a
Federal Atlantic HMS dealer could purchase commercially-harvested
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas from a fishing vessel.
In this final rule, NMFS implements a requirement that dealers
submit reports on a weekly basis in order to be able to purchase
commercially-harvested Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas from
a fishing vessel. NMFS recognizes that daily reporting requirements for
sharks, as proposed under alternative A3 in the proposed rule, would
not allow dealers sufficient time to gather accurate price information
for sharks and could have resulted in a large reporting burden on
dealers. At the same time, NMFS acknowledges that unlike some shark
fisheries, Atlantic swordfish and BAYS tunas fisheries are currently
not quota limited and may not require more frequent reporting than the
current biweekly reporting. However, NMFS notes that other Federal
dealer permits currently require weekly reporting, including all
Northeast Regional Office (NERO)-issued dealer permits. Many HMS
dealers also possess NERO-issued permits and, therefore, are already
reporting on a weekly basis. Additionally, many fisheries managed by
SERO are moving to weekly dealer reporting and many HMS dealers also
possess permits for these fisheries. Therefore, NMFS believes that
weekly reporting balances the need for more timely landings data and
maintains consistency in reporting requirements for different dealer
permits. In addition, NMFS is integrating the HMS electronic reporting
requirements into existing electronic reporting programs mainly to ease
the overall burden on dealers.
Thus, to better facilitate timely quota monitoring, NMFS will
implement weekly reporting requirements for both positive and negative
dealer reporting of Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas.
Positive reports of all species on a Federal dealer report through the
NMFS-approved electronic reporting systems will fulfill reporting
requirements for BAYS tunas, swordfish, and sharks purchased within the
required reporting timeframe as required under Sec. 635.5(b)(ii). A
negative report by the required deadline indicates no receipt or
purchase of any species required to be reported. NMFS may consider
changing the reporting frequency in a future rulemaking as needed for
management of Atlantic BAYS tunas, sharks, and swordfish fisheries.
In addition, during the comment period, NMFS heard that requiring
first receivers to obtain dealer permits for receiving Atlantic
swordfish and BAYS tunas would result in major disruptions to HMS
dealers, and their business practices, especially in the Northeast.
NMFS also heard that transporters of HMS product do not have the
knowledge, training, or necessary equipment, such as scales for
weighing product, to act as dealers. NMFS heard that Atlantic swordfish
and BAYS tunas dealers have fewer species to identify compared to
Atlantic shark dealers and price differences between Atlantic swordfish
and BAYS tunas are greater so that species-specific reporting is more
easily achieved for those fisheries. NMFS also heard that although the
current definition of first receiver for Atlantic sharks potentially
includes entities taking possession other than by purchasing trading or
bartering, that has not been the practice in the industry. Furthermore,
because many first receivers receive sharks, BAYS tunas, and swordfish,
NMFS believe it is important to have one consistent definition of first
receiver across all species. This one definition would simplify the
regulations and maintain consistency with respect to who is considered
a first receiver across species. Thus, NMFS will change the definition
of first receiver with regard to which entity is required to have a
dealer permit for receiving Atlantic tunas, sharks, and swordfish to
make it more consistent with current industry practice and to simplify
the regulations. That is, a person who takes possession for commercial
purposes, any BAYS tunas, swordfish, or shark or parts of those species
by purchasing, trading, or bartering once it is offloaded from the
vessel owner or operator of a fishing vessel will be required to obtain
the corresponding federal HMS dealer permit.
NMFS proposed a range of alternatives for the implementation date
of the electronic dealer reporting requirements and associated
regulations, ranging from implementation beginning within 30 days of
the final rule to a delayed implementation of three months. NMFS
received unanimous support for delaying the implementation of the final
regulations to allow dealers additional time to adjust their business
practices, receive training for the new reporting system, and obtain
capital for computer equipment and internet service. As such, this
final rule will delay implementation of the new electronic dealer
requirements until 2013, when the reporting system will be available
and training workshops will have occurred. The purpose of the training
workshops and webinars is to introduce and train dealers in using the
new system in order to help ease the transition from the paper format
to the new electronic reporting system. NMFS intends to hold several
training workshops in appropriate locations along the east coast and
Gulf of Mexico. During final implementation, NMFS will provide all
permitted dealers with instructions on how to access the system,
information on the web browser requirements, and instructions on how to
obtain login and password information. This information will also be
provided for individuals applying for a new dealer permit.
During the comment period, NMFS also received some comments from
dealers who were concerned about what would happen if they lost power,
such as during a hurricane, or if the system went down. Specifically,
these dealers did not want to be penalized for not reporting on time in
such a situation. NMFS has designed the regulations to provide some
Agency discretion, in responding to reporting delays caused by natural
disasters or other non-preventable events. The system itself has
backups and is not expected, in the course of normal business
operations, to be down for long periods of time.
Response to Comments
During the proposed rule stage, NMFS received nine written comments
from non-governmental organizations,
[[Page 47305]]
fishermen, dealers, and other interested parties. NMFS also heard
numerous comments from constituents in attendance at eight public
hearings and while conducting outreach during phone calls. A summary of
the major comments received for each proposed measure (electronic
dealer reporting, frequency of reporting, timely dealer reporting and
IRFA Alternatives) on the proposed rule during the public comment
period is shown below with NMFS' responses. NMFS also received comments
on exempted fishing/display permits, weak hooks, re-opening of closed
areas, the size of existing quotas, and the stock status of sharks.
However, these comments were not considered in the summary below as
they were outside the scope of this rulemaking. All written comments
submitted during the comment period can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/ by searching for RIN 0648-BA75.
Electronic Dealer Reporting
Comment 1: NMFS should set up a workshop to sit down with Agency
and industry representatives to design the electronic reporting system
so that NMFS can receive feedback on the practical aspects of how a
dealer's business works.
Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS began designing and building an
electronic reporting system when NMFS began working on the proposed
rule. The system is based on similar systems such as the Standard
Atlantic Fisheries Information System (SAFIS) and the Southeast
electronic Trip Ticket reporting system. During this time, NMFS asked
some HMS dealers to test the system and provide feedback. This feedback
resulted in many changes and improvements to the system. NMFS also had
early versions of the system available at the April 2011, September
2011, and March 2012 HMS Advisory Panel meetings for review and
comment. In addition, as originally proposed, the Agency will delay
implementation of the electronic dealer reporting system until 2013 in
order to provide sufficient time for dealers to adjust to
implementation of the new system and the additional requirements.
During this time, NMFS will conduct outreach with industry
representatives and dealers as well as provide additional outreach
materials (e.g., System User Guide and Compliance Guides) to improve
understanding and use of the new system. These outreach materials will
be free and available through the new system and HMS Web site (https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/index.htm).
Comment 2: NMFS received several comments regarding the change to
electronic reporting, including: support for the change to electronic
reporting; questions about why NMFS is considering electronic
reporting; support for NMFS requiring paper or electronic reporting,
but not a mixture of both; and concern that more timely and efficient
data collection is needed for management as the lack of real-time data
is costing jobs. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC) also commented that electronic reporting does not require
specialized equipment and dealers should be able to comply.
Response: The current regulations and infrastructure of the
Atlantic HMS quota-monitoring systems result in a delay of several
weeks to almost a month before NMFS receives dealer data. Once NMFS
receives dealer data in a paper format, the data need to be transferred
into the data systems and quality checked before it is available for
use. This delay in the availability of dealer data effects the
management and monitoring of small Atlantic HMS quotas and short
fishing seasons, particularly for many of the shark fisheries. As such,
NMFS is requiring all Federal Atlantic HMS dealers (except for dealers
reporting Atlantic bluefin tuna) to report receipt of Atlantic sharks,
swordfish, and BAYS tunas to NMFS through one centralized electronic
reporting system. The new electronic reporting system will be
integrated within existing SAFIS and Trip Tickets electronic reporting
programs, thus reducing the number of places that dealers need to
report. Under this new system, dealers will submit HMS data
electronically instead of in a paper format and include additional
information that is necessary for management of HMS (e.g., vessel and
logbook information). The electronic submission of data will eliminate
the delay associated with mailing in reports to NMFS and transferring
reported data into electronic systems. In this manner, HMS landings
data will be submitted on a more real-time basis, allowing for timely
and efficient collection and use of data for management of Atlantic
HMS. Once the system is fully operating, NMFS could consider altering
the 80-percent trigger limit for closing the shark fishery to allow
fishermen to more fully utilize the available quota.
Comment 3: NMFS received comments in opposition to mandatory
electronic dealer reporting as some dealers do not currently own a
computer and reporting on paper is easier than getting the electronic
system up and running, which is often time-consuming.
Response: While NMFS recognizes that, in the short-term, the
implementation of an HMS electronic dealer reporting system will change
business practices for dealers and, for some, may result in some
additional costs associated with purchasing a computer and internet
service. In the short-term, electronic reporting can lead to more
efficient fisheries and business practices that could be more
economical in the long term (e.g., fishing seasons being open longer,
easier negative reporting, etc.). As explained in the response to
Comment 2, the existing regulations and infrastructure regarding dealer
reporting have created issues for effective management and monitoring
of small Atlantic HMS quotas and short fishing seasons. For instance,
currently there is a delay of 10 to 25 days in the receipt of landings
data received through dealer reports in a paper format. To reduce this
delay, the Agency is requiring all federally-permitted HMS dealers to
report receipt of swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas on a weekly basis
to NMFS through the new HMS electronic reporting system. However, as
previously mentioned in Comment 1, the Agency will delay the
implementation of the new HMS electronic reporting system for all
federally-permitted HMS dealers until 2013 to allow dealers more time
to adjust their business practices, train in the new reporting system,
and obtain necessary equipment (e.g., computer and internet service).
NMFS is also holding training workshops to assist dealers in learning
to use the new system. Anyone who would like to request a training
workshop may contact Delisse Ortiz or Karyl Brewster Geisz at 301-427-
8503.
Comment 4: NMFS received a comment questioning whether or not the
electronic dealer reporting system would require a high-speed internet
connection. Some dealers also stated that NMFS will need to help
dealers in getting the electronic reporting system set up on their
computers as well as conduct outreach to inform dealers how to use the
new system.
Response: NMFS' new HMS electronic reporting system requires the
most basic internet connection to support the new system. The
electronic reporting system will be available through SAFIS, which
requires data entry through a Web site. The system will also be
available through Trip Tickets, which is a program that is downloaded
to the dealer's computer. In the Trip Tickets system, dealers can enter
data as time allows, and then
[[Page 47306]]
connect to the internet and send the data to NMFS, thereby eliminating
the need for a constant internet connection during data entry, as is
needed for data entry into SAFIS. As mentioned in Comment 1, in order
to give sufficient time for dealers to adjust to implementation of the
new system and the additional requirements, NMFS will also delay
implementation of the new HMS electronic reporting system for all
federally-permitted HMS dealers until 2013. In addition, NMFS will
conduct workshops to help dealers learn how to use the new system and
easily transition from the current paper format to the new HMS
electronic reporting system.
Comment 5: NMFS needs to streamline and simplify the reporting
requirements, especially between state and Federal reporting
requirements, and ensure that the new electronic dealer reporting
requirements prevent duplicative reporting. It is good that NMFS is
incorporating the electronic reporting program into existing systems,
such as SAFIS and Trip Tickets; the SAFIS program is a promising model
for this single reporting entity to meet Federal and state
requirements. NMFS needs to make reporting as easy as possible as the
reporting requirements are complex and confusing.
Response: NMFS is working with state agencies to streamline data
collection to the extent possible to try to avoid duplicative
reporting. Such coordination will also make the reporting process as
simple and straightforward as possible. In addition, by incorporating
electronic HMS dealer reporting requirements within SAFIS and Trip
Tickets, NMFS is ensuring that in most cases dealers will only have to
report to one system instead of multiple systems to meet their Federal
and state reporting requirements. However, as mentioned below in
Comment 40, some states require separate reporting as established by
state law. NMFS also recognizes that the terms of the Federal permits
may result in additional mandatory Federal reporting requirements
beyond those required by states. NMFS will continue to coordinate with
states to reduce duplicative reporting, to the extent possible.
Comment 6: NMFS received a comment questioning how NMFS monitors
shark landings from the state of Louisiana as shark fishing from this
state is a large problem.
Response: NMFS recognizes that Louisiana state fishermen, and state
fishermen from other states, are major participants in the shark
fisheries. The regulations implemented under this rulemaking will not
change how shark landings are counted for quota monitoring. Currently,
NMFS receives landings from all states and compares those landings with
the landings reported by Federal dealers. Under the electronic system,
this comparison could be easier depending on the extent that state and
Federal requirements match, but the general concept for monitoring
shark landings from all state and Federal fishermen will not change.
Comment 7: Dealers and first receivers should not have to report
information where vessels fish as NMFS already receives vessel
monitoring system (VMS) reports and daily logbooks from the fishing
vessels. NMFS should use logbooks for quota monitoring as they have
more detailed information than dealer reports.
Response: Logbooks, VMS, and dealer reports provide the Agency with
different types of information, which are all necessary for management.
The logbooks, which are required by most HMS commercial fishermen,
provide information on fishing effort as well as amount of catch and
location of fishing. Logbooks are submitted after each trip but,
because of the amount of data and number of vessels involved, the data
is not available for use on a real-time basis. VMS provides real-time
information to inform enforcement on how and where a particular vessel
is fishing as well as where it is fishing, but is not required on all
HMS commercial vessels. Dealer reports provide information on landings
as well as price information, which is not available in the logbook
data or through VMS. In addition, under the new HMS electronic
reporting system, NMFS will require dealers to provide information on
where fish were caught to ensure proper quota management, for example
by distinguishing between Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico non-sandbar LCS.
In the past, the geographical information used in management of such
quotas has been based on the physical location of the dealer, not where
the sharks were actually caught. Therefore, the Agency requires
different entities to submit different types of reports to NMFS in
order to collect the necessary information for management (i.e.,
information on fishing effort, location of fishing, catch and landings
information, and price information).
Comment 8: NMFS needs to make sure there is a way dealers can print
a copy of their report as dealers need to keep a copy of submitted
reports for their files. Dealers need a way to verify they submitted
their reports electronically.
Response: NMFS agrees. The new HMS electronic reporting system will
allow all Federal HMS dealers to print out a copy of each dealer report
that is electronically submitted and received by NMFS. In addition, the
new HMS electronic reporting system will provide dealers with a
confirmation number once the reports have been submitted and received
by NMFS, allowing dealers to verify submission of their dealer reports
to NMFS.
Comment 9: NMFS should allow dealers to report bluefin tuna through
the new electronic dealer reporting system under daily reporting
requirements and get rid of the paper and fax reporting system
currently in place. This change would allow electronic reporting for
all HMS.
Response: Due to the complexity of the current Atlantic bluefin
tuna reporting system, Federal HMS dealers reporting Atlantic bluefin
tuna will continue to follow the current reporting requirements for
this species at this time. However, in the future, NMFS could consider
including Atlantic bluefin tuna in the HMS electronic dealer reporting
system.
Comment 10: NMFS needs to develop a backup plan, such as reporting
via fax or paper, for when the internet is down so that dealers are not
forced to be out of compliance. This may be especially important for
dealers in the Caribbean if there is a storm and the internet and power
are down for a long period of time.
Response: The Agency recognizes that there may be interruptions in
electrical power or internet service that are out of the control of
Federal HMS dealers, but will impact dealers' abilities to submit
reports to NMFS through the new HMS electronic reporting system.
Further, given the changes to the reporting timeframe from the proposed
to the final rule (i.e., from daily to weekly reporting), NMFS does not
expect late reporting due to system disruptions to be as much of an
issue. NMFS encourages dealers to contact the system administrator for
the HMS electronic dealer reporting system when they experience any
type of interruption for an extended period of time, and expects
dealers to resume reporting as soon as possible once the disruption
ends.
Comment 11: Many fishermen and dealers do not encounter sharks and
tunas in Puerto Rico, therefore the proposed changes would not affect
them. However, many of the dealers speak Spanish and are not familiar
with computers, so they would need a second person to help them submit
reports.
Response: Due to limits on Agency funding at this time, the new
electronic dealer reports will be available only in English. The Agency
may consider a
[[Page 47307]]
Spanish or Vietnamese version in the future. We have, however,
translated notices and outreach documents into Spanish and will
translate these notices and documents in Vietnamese as well. We have
and will continue to conduct workshops in Spanish. In addition, the new
electronic reporting system will be tailored to include the landing
ports and vessels specific to all regions, including the Caribbean.
This tailoring should allow non-English speaking dealers from any
region to more easily utilize the new system once they are familiar
with it. For those non-English speaking dealers who need additional
assistance, NMFS will establish a dedicated phone number (301-427-8590)
and email address (HMS.DealerReports@noaa.gov) to provide assistance in
completing reports. Finally, as previously mentioned in Comment 1, the
Agency is delaying the implementation of the new HMS electronic
reporting system until 2013 to allow dealers more time to adjust their
business practices, obtain the necessary equipment (e.g., computer and
internet service), and to allow NMFS to conduct workshops in areas like
the Caribbean, which have not experienced electronic reporting to date.
Frequency of Reporting
Comment 12: NMFS received several comments stating that dealers
operating small businesses would have difficulty reporting
electronically on a more frequent basis because they lack the staff to
support the current biweekly reporting requirements; the reporting
requirements are complex and confusing; and the increased reporting
frequency will result in a larger reporting burden. Small businesses
would benefit from less frequent reporting, and more frequent reporting
may result in dealers being late in their submission, which could
potentially keep their permits from being renewed. The proposed
electronic dealer reporting requirements are burdensome, and dealers
are becoming frustrated with the increasing number of regulations,
which ultimately take time away from ensuring product quality. NMFS
also received specific comments regarding the reporting frequency for
tunas and swordfish, including: dealers should report as soon as they
receive product; dealers should submit weekly reports; dealers feel
electronic reporting of BAYS tunas and swordfish on a 21-day to monthly
timeframe would suffice; dealers support the status quo or biweekly
reporting for BAYS tunas and swordfish; and dealers support biweekly
reporting with reporting frequency reflecting the average landing rate
when 80 percent of the quota is filled. NMFS also received comments
that dealers were opposed to daily or weekly reporting for pelagic non-
porbeagle sharks, BAYS tunas, or swordfish as these fisheries are not
in any danger of experiencing overharvests. Daily reporting for
swordfish would be a burden.
Response: Based on public comment, NMFS will change the reporting
frequency that was originally proposed for Atlantic swordfish, BAYS
tunas, and shark dealers in the proposed rule published on June 28,
2011 (76 FR 37750) to simplify reporting requirements as well as
balance the need for timely landings data while avoiding excessive
reporting burdens on dealers. NMFS recognizes that daily reporting
requirements for sharks as proposed in the proposed rule would not
allow dealers sufficient time to gather accurate price information for
sharks and could have resulted in a large reporting burden on dealers.
At the same time, NMFS acknowledges that unlike some shark fisheries,
Atlantic swordfish and BAYS tunas fisheries are currently not quota
limited and may not require more frequent reporting than the currently
biweekly reporting. However, NMFS notes that some other Federal dealer
permits, such as all NERO-issued dealer permits, require weekly
reporting. Many HMS dealers also possess these NERO-issued permits and,
therefore, are already reporting on a weekly basis. Additionally, many
fisheries managed by the SERO are moving to weekly reporting and many
HMS dealers also possess permits for these fisheries. NMFS believes
that weekly reporting balances the need for more timely landings data
and maintains consistency in reporting requirements for different
dealer permits. In addition, NMFS is integrating the HMS electronic
reporting requirements into existing electronic reporting programs,
easing the overall burden on dealers.
Comment 13: NMFS received several comments regarding negative
reports, including: dealers do not understand why they have to submit
negative reports to NMFS; submitting negative reports should be as
simple as replying to an email that reminds the dealer of a reporting
deadline; NMFS should not require negative reports to be submitted on a
daily basis; negative reports should be done on a biweekly or a monthly
basis; submitting negative reports more than once a month is
unnecessary busy work; and the submission of negative reports should
not be required. NMFS also heard that there should be a way dealers can
indicate a block of time when they will not be receiving product, as
some fisheries are seasonal in nature.
Response: Negative reports submitted by HMS dealers are an
essential part of quota monitoring. By submitting negative reports,
dealers inform NMFS that they did not receive HMS product during that
reporting time period. These reports allow NMFS to distinguish between
dealers who have not received product during a reporting period and
dealers who have simply not reported to NMFS during a given reporting
period. By being able to identify dealers who have not reported versus
those who have not received product, and by knowing the landings data
historically reported by particular dealers, NMFS can better determine
the potential status of different quotas as well as which dealers may
have failed to report. Without negative reports, NMFS runs a greater
risk keeping fisheries open when, in fact, they should be closed to
prevent overharvest of the quota.
Negative reports must occur with the same frequency as positive
reports in order to inform NMFS about which dealers did not receive
product during a specific reporting period versus which dealers have
not reported. Receiving negative reports on a less frequent reporting
basis than positive reports will not allow NMFS to determine which
dealers have received product during a given reporting period as
described above.
Finally, the electronic reporting system will allow dealers to
indicate time periods when they will not be accepting product for up to
90 days. This should lessen the negative reporting burden on dealers.
Comment 14: NMFS received a comment stating that because most fish
are sold on consignment, with dealers often having to wait 21 days for
actual price information, the proposed weekly reporting frequency would
result in dealers having to submit and modify every report, creating an
unnecessary burden on dealers. Therefore, NMFS should consider a
reporting frequency of at least 21 days, so that dealers do not have to
enter data in multiple times for a single transaction.
Response: Currently, the reporting frequency for all HMS dealers is
biweekly. As outlined in the response to Comment 12, based on public
comment, NMFS will require weekly reporting for Atlantic swordfish,
sharks, and BAYS tunas dealers.
Dealers will be able to update price information on a past
submitted report for up to 30 days from the submission of that report
in order to provide NMFS with the most accurate price information
available. This balances the
[[Page 47308]]
need for timely landings data with the need for additional time to
provide NMFS with accurate price information.
Comment 15: Changing the reporting frequency for swordfish from
weekly to daily when the quota reaches 80 percent makes it seem like
there is a problem with the swordfish quota when the United States will
most likely not fill its swordfish quota.
Response: As outlined in the response to Comment 12, in this final
rule, NMFS has reconsidered the proposed reporting frequencies for
Atlantic HMS dealers to simplify reporting requirements and balance the
need for timely landings data while avoiding an excessive reporting
burden on dealers. NMFS will require weekly reporting for Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas dealers. NMFS may consider changing
the reporting frequency in a future rulemaking as needed for management
of Atlantic BAYS tunas, sharks, and swordfish fisheries. Allowing
flexibility in the required reporting frequency for HMS dealers will
allow NMFS to require more frequent dealer reporting if the swordfish
fishery were to begin achieving its allocated quota in the future. It
is not meant to indicate there are any problems with the swordfish
fishery, rather, it will allow for more timely reporting and quota
monitoring if the fishery were to ever become quota limited in the
future.
Comment 16: NMFS received several comments regarding the reporting
frequency for sharks, including: support for the proposed daily
submission of shark dealer reports as sharks are hard to identify and
are quota limited; NMFS should require weekly reporting when the shark
season is open for non-sandbar LCS, non-blacknose SCS, blacknose
sharks, increase the reporting frequency to daily when the quota
reaches 50 percent, and then decrease the reporting frequency when the
seasons for these fisheries close; NMFS should consider biweekly
reporting for sharks when non-sandbar LCS, non-blacknose SCS, and
blacknose shark fisheries are closed. NMFS also heard that daily
reporting of sharks is not practical; closing the fishing season early
is a better alternative to daily reporting; and NMFS should consider
keeping the current biweekly reporting for sharks or consider monthly
reporting; and NMFS should only consider daily reporting once the shark
quota reaches 80-percent.
Response: As outlined in the response to Comment 12, based on
public comment, NMFS has reconsidered the proposed reporting frequency
for Atlantic shark dealers and will require Atlantic shark dealers to
report on a weekly basis. This will simplify reporting requirements, as
well as balance the need for timely shark landings with more time for
dealers to report shark product unless NMFS determines more frequent
reporting is required in the future. NMFS feels monthly reporting of
shark landings will not provide timely enough data for monitoring small
quotas, and will increase the probability of overharvests. In addition,
NMFS considered changing the shark dealer reporting frequency as the
shark quotas filled (i.e., increasing the reporting frequency to daily
when the quota reaches 50 percent, and then decreasing the reporting
frequency when the seasons for these fisheries close), but felt such a
reporting regime may be difficult for dealers to keep track of and may
hamper compliance with the reporting requirements. Thus, NMFS is trying
to simplify the reporting requirements while balancing the need for
more frequent data without over burdening dealers or adding additional
complexity to the reporting requirements for dealers.
Comment 17: NMFS should require weekly electronic reporting of BAYS
tunas, swordfish and sharks so that all HMS species have the same
reporting frequency; it is overly burdensome for dealers to keep track
of different reporting frequencies for different species, especially if
those frequencies change over time.
Response: NMFS agrees. The Agency appreciates that it may be
difficult for dealers to keep track of different reporting requirements
for different HMS. Therefore, to minimize the reporting burden on
dealers, NMFS changed the proposed flexible reporting requirements in
the proposed rule and is requiring Atlantic HMS swordfish, sharks, and
BAYS tunas dealers to report on a weekly basis. NMFS believes that
weekly reporting balances the need for more timely landings data and
maintains consistency in reporting requirements for different dealer
permits. In addition, NMFS is integrating the HMS electronic reporting
requirements into existing electronic reporting programs, easing the
overall burden on dealers. The system will accept reports more
frequently if dealers need to report HMS on a more frequent basis.
Comment 18: The daily or weekly reporting frequency would be
difficult given the time it takes for some dealers to receive product
that is being transported from a fishing vessel or the time it takes to
process product when a dealer is busy. In addition, some fish are sold
to different dealers before the vessel is even offloaded, therefore,
dealers would not be able to report on a daily or weekly basis as the
fishing trips are longer than required reporting frequency.
Response: The timeframe associated with dealer reporting
requirements applies once a dealer first receives HMS product (i.e., it
does not apply while the fishing vessel is still at sea before the
product is offloaded). As outlined in the response to Comment 12, NMFS
will maintain weekly reporting for Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS
tunas dealers as it satisfies the need for more timely landings data
while maintaining consistency in reporting requirements for different
dealer permits.
Comment 19: Dealers in the U.S. Virgin Islands may be able to
comply with electronic dealer reporting; however, due to frequent power
and internet outages, reporting more frequently (i.e., daily or weekly)
would be an issue. Additionally, most fishermen sell their HMS catch
directly to the public. If these individuals obtained dealer permits in
the future, as most of them currently do not have HMS dealer permits,
they most likely would not have access to computers for electronic
reporting. Therefore, NMFS should obtain landings information from the
territorial trip tickets and not through separate dealer reports.
Response: All entities that purchase HMS from federally-permitted
HMS vessels are currently required to obtain HMS dealers permits.
Federally-permitted HMS dealers located in the Caribbean region are
also currently required to submit paper reports to NMFS on a biweekly
basis. Based on this final rule, federally-permitted HMS dealers will
be required to report electronically via the HMS electronic dealer
reporting system. As explained in the response to Comment 10, the
Agency recognizes that there may be interruptions in electrical power
or internet service that are out of the control of Federal HMS dealers,
but will impact how dealers submit reports to NMFS through the new HMS
electronic reporting system. Further, given the changes to the
reporting timeframe from the proposed to the final rule (i.e., from
daily to weekly reporting), NMFS does not expect late reporting due to
system disruptions to be as much of an issue. NMFS encourages dealers
to contact the system administrator for the HMS electronic dealer
reporting system when they experience any type of interruption for an
extended period of time, and expects dealers to resume reporting as
soon as possible once the disruption ends. Finally, NMFS is currently
working on a rulemaking that may consider collecting landings
information
[[Page 47309]]
associated with any new HMS fishing permits through territorial trip
tickets.
First Receiver
Comment 20: If there are problems with dealers accurately reporting
different shark species, then NMFS should find a direct solution for
species-specific reporting of sharks and not unnecessarily burden non-
shark HMS dealers. NMFS has not provided any discussion of widespread
problems with Atlantic HMS reporting and the industry is not aware of
misidentification problems in HMS swordfish or tunas dealer reports.
First receivers may need to be the dealer for sharks, but species
identification is not a problem that the industry recognizes for BAYS
tunas or swordfish. First receivers of BAYS tunas and swordfish should
not have to get a dealer permit.
Response: NMFS realizes that swordfish and tuna fisheries operate
differently than shark fisheries, in part due to the difference in
prices associated with swordfish and BAYS tunas, and in part due to
difficulties in identifying sharks. Thus, because species
identification and species-specific reporting tend to be issues related
to HMS shark dealers, NMFS will keep the status quo with regard to
which entity is required to have a dealer permit for Atlantic tunas and
swordfish. That is, a person who takes possession for commercial
purposes, of any BAYS tunas, swordfish, or shark or any parts of those
species by purchasing, trading, or bartering for it from the fishing
vessel or owner of a fishing vessel, once it is offloaded, will be
required to obtain the corresponding Federal HMS dealer permit.
Comment 21: Since non-U.S. citizens cannot obtain U.S. permits, the
proposed first receiver requirement would not work for product that is
offloaded in Canada or other foreign countries by first receivers who
are not U.S. citizens, and NMFS has no jurisdiction to require
reporting by docks, shipping companies, and transporters that are not
U.S. companies.
Response: Due, in part, to the complexity of dealer transactions,
including fish being brought in from foreign ports, and the importance
of having one consistent definition of first receiver across all
species, NMFS is changing the definition of first receiver with regard
to which entity is required to have a dealer permit for Atlantic tunas,
swordfish, and sharks to make it more consistent with current industry
practice and to simplify regulations. As such, a person who takes
possession, for commercial purposes, of any BAYS tunas, swordfish, or
shark or any parts of those species by purchasing, trading, or
bartering for it from the fishing vessel or owner of a fishing vessel,
once it is offloaded, will be required to obtain the corresponding
Federal HMS dealer permit.
Comment 22: Requiring the first receiver to obtain a dealer permit
will result in duplicative reporting, especially in the Northeast, as
the person who receives the product will be required to have a dealer
permit and report to NMFS, and then the dealer who ultimately purchases
that product from the fishing vessel will also be required to report
his entire purchase through SAFIS. Identifying duplicate reports will
be difficult as most HMS product is offloaded at a dock and goes to
multiple fish houses/dealers.
Response: As explained above, NMFS will change the definition with
regard to which entity is required to have a dealer permit in order to
make it more consistent with current industry practice and to simply
the regulations. This should reduce the possibility for duplicative
reporting and should not interrupt business practices as it will not
change the universe of permitted dealers. In addition, dealers will be
able to report HMS through existing SAFIS and Trip Tickets electronic
systems, which will keep dealers from having to report in multiple
systems.
Comment 23: In the Gulf of Mexico, many dealers are the first
receivers, and fish are offloaded at a fish house that weighs, packs,
pays the vessel, and reports the landings to NMFS. In addition, dealers
usually own their own trucks, so the truck drivers would be covered by
the dealers' permits. Pack houses who receive fish also have the dealer
permits and report to NMFS. NMFS needs to simplify it so that the
person who has product come across the dock needs to report it to NMFS.
However, NMFS also heard that a first receiver should be able to
purchase product from a fishing vessel without necessarily owning the
dock facility where the product is landed as long as they possess the
proper permits, and the first receiver should not need a dealer permit
unless they purchase product from the fishing vessel.
Response: In the proposed rule, NMFS proposed to have first
receivers, such as pack houses, be required to obtain HMS dealer
permits and report to NMFS. However, based on public comment that
indicated this would create a major disruption in business practices,
given that current regulations appear to work for dealers in both the
Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions, and the importance of having one
consistent definition of first receiver across all species, NMFS is
changing the definition of first receiver with regard to which entity
is required to have a dealer permit for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and
sharks to make it more consistent with current industry practice and to
simplify the regulations. As such, a person who takes possession, for
commercial purposes of any BAYS tunas, swordfish, or shark or any parts
of those species by purchasing, trading, or bartering for it from the
fishing vessel or owner of a fishing vessel, once it is offloaded, will
be required to obtain the corresponding Federal HMS dealer permit.
Comment 24: NMFS received several comments regarding first
receivers of HMS product having to obtain a dealer permit, including:
NMFS should keep the current definition of dealer for swordfish and
BAYS tunas (i.e., the entity that purchases the product from the vessel
should be considered the dealer); the facilities where fish are
unloaded and packed in vats for shipment do not know final weights or
prices; when fish are packed by a dock for shipment, packing/saltwater
ice is not removed from fish in order to keep fish cold, and tails are
not cut to preserve freshness of the fish; dealers remove ice, cut
tails, weigh the fish, determine prices, and then repack the fish in
ice, which is a labor intensive and costly process; the dealers'
weights are more accurate than the shipping weights and recording
accurate weight information is important not only for economic reasons
and domestic quota management, but also for reporting to ICCAT; and if
a dealer pays a dockage fee to have fish cross a remote dock, the catch
and vessel information is forwarded to the dealer via fax or the
transporter so that the current dealers have vessel-specific
information that can be reported to NMFS. NMFS also heard that entities
purchasing product from fishing vessels are not going to share price
information with transporters; therefore, NMFS will lose price
information by requiring first receivers, such as transporters, to
obtain dealer permits and report to NMFS.
Response: Based on public comment, NMFS understands that many
entities responsible for packing and shipping fish do not have vessel
or price information that is required on dealer reports. NMFS proposed
that first receivers, including transporters, of non-BFT HMS product
obtain an HMS dealer permit to ensure species-specific and vessel-
specific information is received from dealers and reported to NMFS for
quota monitoring. NMFS has learned that many of these facilities and
[[Page 47310]]
transporters that first receive Atlantic BAYS tunas and swordfish
products do not have final fish weights or price information and lack
the resources and incentive to function as proper HMS dealers. In
addition, since requiring transporters to obtain an HMS dealer permit
may disrupt business practices, result in vessels not being able to
land in safe harbors/docks, or result in vessels being unable to unload
at reliable dealers, NMFS will not require transporters to obtain HMS
dealer permits at this time. If the current universe of dealers has
access to the information required by NMFS for reporting, including
vessel-specific information, NMFS agrees that requiring first receivers
of Atlantic BAYS tunas and swordfish product to have dealer permits and
report to NMFS would not be an efficient process. In addition, having
accurate price information is critical for management and the analysis
of economic impacts. Thus, NMFS will maintain the status quo with
regard to which entity is required to have a dealer permit for Atlantic
BAYS tunas and swordfish.
Comment 25: NMFS heard that in certain areas, such as in the Gulf
of Mexico region, the trucks used to transport fish typically belong to
the dealer who is purchasing the product; and individuals who transport
fish should be an extension of the dealers' place of business to ensure
that product is properly stored and handled.
Response: Requiring transportation companies to be owned by dealers
is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) published regulations (December 18, 1995; 60 FR
65197) mandating the application of the Hazardous Analysis of Critical
Control Point (HACCP) principles to ensure the safe and sanitary
processing of seafood products. Dealers are responsible for ensuring
product they purchase and sell is in compliance with FDA HACCP
regulations.
Comment 26: NMFS received a comment asking if a dealer located in a
region closed for a particular shark fishery could accept shark product
from an area that is open for that fishery if the dealer does not have
a facility in that open area.
Response: This final rule does not change the regulations at 50 CFR
Sec. 635.28(b)(4). Under those regulations, except for under certain
conditions, sharks dealers located in a region closed to a specific
species or complex are not able to accept that species or complex from
an area that is open unless the dealer has a facility in the open area
and can receive sharks at that facility.
Comment 27: NMFS should consider requiring fishermen to offload HMS
product to designated ports/fish houses as is currently required in the
reef fish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program in the Gulf of Mexico.
Response: NMFS may consider this requirement in future rulemakings,
especially for any HMS fisheries that might be considering catch share
programs in the future, such as the shark fishery.
Comment 28: Dealers in the U.S.V.I. and Puerto Rico are usually the
first receivers.
Response: Given the current definition of an HMS ``dealer'' under
Sec. 635.4, this should not change any business practices of dealers
in the U.S. Caribbean as this action will change the current
definitions of a dealer to make it more consistent with current
industry practice.
Timely Dealer Reporting
Comment 29: NMFS received several comments regarding the proposed
regulations to encourage timely reporting, including: support for the
proposed changes where dealers would not be able to accept HMS product
unless they had submitted their reports on time; NMFS should not punish
all dealers because of a small universe of dealers that are not
reporting on time; and NMFS should have enforcement actions against
dealers who are not reporting on time instead of implementing new
regulations.
Response: There have been several issues of late reporting by
Federal Atlantic HMS dealers, particularly for a number of the Atlantic
shark dealers. Efforts by the Agency to follow up on dealer reports
(i.e., phone calls; certified correspondence regarding late reporting;
visits from local port agents and/or agents with the NOAA Office of Law
Enforcement) drain scarce staff resources. In addition, late reporting
negatively effects NMFS' ability to monitor the quota in a timely
manner. NMFS feels the actions taken in this final rule, in regard to
late reporting, strengthens the Agency's ability to take enforcement
action when appropriate while not imposing any additional requirements
on dealers. As such, in order to ensure timely reporting by all
Atlantic HMS dealers, the Agency will require that a Federal Atlantic
HMS dealer will only be authorized to purchase Atlantic swordfish,
sharks, and BAYS tunas if the dealers have submitted all required
reports to NMFS by the required reporting deadline. Any delinquent
reports will need to be submitted and received by NMFS before a dealer
could purchase commercially-harvested Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and
BAYS tunas from a fishing vessel. Failure to report Atlantic sharks,
swordfish, and BAYS tunas to NMFS within the required reporting
frequency will result in dealers being ineligible to purchase Atlantic
sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas. Although submission of delinquent
reports will allow a dealer to legally purchase commercially- harvested
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas from a fishing vessel, late
reporting will still be a violation of the regulations and could result
in enforcement action.
Comment 30: Larger dealers may accept product even if a report has
not been submitted on time due to different people submitting reports
and accepting product. The scenario would not be intentional, but it
could happen. NMFS should not deny a business the ability to accept
fish strictly on the basis of late paperwork, and such a measure should
be seen as a last resort. NMFS needs to be reasonable concerning
penalties for inadvertent paperwork omissions. We have seen times when
NMFS computers go down, sometimes over an entire weekend. NMFS should
not apply penalties if they cannot receive information from dealers;
therefore, NMFS should drop the idea of penalties for late reporting
unless it becomes a persistent problem. NMFS should allow dealers to
purchase product even if they are late in reporting, as it is important
to revitalize HMS fisheries.
Response: As previously mentioned in the response to Comment 29,
late reports from Federal HMS dealers effect timely quota monitoring
and require staff resources to resolve. Under the new HMS electronic
reporting system, all delinquent reports will need to be submitted and
received by NMFS before a dealer could purchase commercially-harvested
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas. A Federal Atlantic HMS
dealer who is receiving, and/or purchasing HMS product without having
submitted all required report to NMFS will be in violation and subject
to enforcement action for failing to submit reports on time as well as
accepting non-BFT HMS product during the time the dealer reports were
delinquent. This may require additional coordination between persons
who receive fish and person who report to NMFS to ensure all the
necessary reports have been submitted to NMFS before new non-BFT HMS
product is accepted. In the event of a reporting disruption due to a
loss of power or internet service, as with any instance of regulatory
non-compliance, the Agency would exercise its enforcement discretion in
determining whether or
[[Page 47311]]
not to take enforcement action considering all the circumstances, for
example, whether the outage or loss was verified, and whether the
dealer submitted the report as soon as possible once the outage ended.
Further, given the changes to the reporting timeframe from the proposed
to the final rule (i.e., from daily to weekly reporting), NMFS does not
expect late reporting due to system disruptions to be as much of an
issue. NMFS encourages dealers to contact the system administrator for
the HMS electronic dealer reporting system when they experience any
type of interruption for an extended period of time.
Comment 31: NMFS should have a way to remind dealers of when their
reports are due to NMFS. NMFS should provide adequate warning and
opportunity to provide reports before having their livelihoods damaged
just for the convenience of NMFS.
Response: The Agency expects federal HMS dealers to comply with all
applicable regulations without prompting from the Agency. It is the
dealer's responsibility to keep track of reporting deadlines. In the
final rule, NMFS will require a weekly reporting deadline for Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas dealers. NMFS expects that the
consistent reporting frequency for all HMS dealer permits should make
it easier to remember when HMS reports are due to NMFS. Additionally,
the new HMS electronic reporting system will track the timing and
submission of Federal Atlantic HMS dealer reports and automatically
notify dealers and NMFS (the HMS Management Division and NOAA Office of
Law Enforcement) via email if reports are delinquent. The new HMS
electronic reporting system will also notify dealers of the current
reporting deadlines.
Comment 32: NMFS needs to provide incentives to dealers so they
comply with all of the dealer requirements (e.g., valid dealer permit,
reporting deadline).
Response: The Agency limits the sale of HMS product harvested from
federally permitted vessels to federally-permitted HMS dealers. This
should provide some incentive for federally-permitted HMS dealers to
comply with all applicable regulations. Federal HMS dealers are
required to submit dealer data in a timely manner to NMFS. Such timely
submission is critical for accurate quota monitoring and management of
HMS. Failure to comply with timely submission will affect the dealer's
ability to accept new HMS product and will also make them subject to
enforcement action. In addition, failure to submit timely dealer
reports can lead to overharvests of allocated quotas, which can
decrease quotas and shorten fishing seasons in subsequent fishing
years, which can negatively affect both fishermen and dealers.
IRFA Alternatives
Comment 33: NMFS received a comment supporting the delayed
implementation date of February 1, 2012. NMFS should give sufficient
time for dealers to prepare for the new system's implementation and
learn how to use it.
Response: NMFS agrees with this comment and will delay
implementation of proposed electronic weekly reporting requirements for
all federally-permitted HMS dealers for Atlantic swordfish, BAYS tunas,
and shark dealers until January 2013.
Economic Concerns
Comment 34: NMFS has grossly under estimated the time it will take
dealers to submit dealer reports and the cost associated with hiring
additional personnel to be in compliance with the additional paperwork.
Response: Based on public comments, NMFS has reconsidered the
proposed reporting frequencies for Atlantic HMS dealers to simplify
reporting requirements and satisfy the need for timely landings data
while avoiding an excessive reporting burden on dealers. NMFS
recognizes that daily reporting requirements for sharks as proposed
under alternative A3 in the proposed rule would not allow dealers
sufficient time to gather accurate price information for sharks and
could have resulted in a large reporting burden on dealers. At the same
time, NMFS acknowledges that unlike some shark fisheries, Atlantic
swordfish and BAYS tunas fisheries are currently not quota limited and
may not require more frequent reporting than the current biweekly
reporting. However, NMFS notes that other Federal dealer permits, such
as all NERO-issued dealer permits, require weekly reporting. Many HMS
dealers also possess these NERO-issued permits and, therefore, are
already reporting on a weekly basis. Additionally, many fisheries
managed by the SERO are moving to weekly reporting and many HMS dealers
also possess permits for these fisheries. Therefore, NMFS believes that
weekly reporting balances the need for more timely landings data and
maintains consistency in reporting requirements for different dealer
permits. In addition, NMFS is integrating the HMS electronic reporting
requirements into existing electronic reporting programs in large part
to ease the overall burden on dealers.
Comment 35: NMFS's average cost of internet service is incorrect
and flawed. My monthly high-speed internet service is higher, around
$110 a month.
Response: Based on public comment, NMFS has revised the cost of
internet service from $50 per month used in the analyses for the
proposed rule to $110 per month. This $110 estimate was the average
cost for internet service presented in the IRFA, based on public
comment, more accurately reflects the cost of having monthly internet
service. Therefore, assuming dealers will need the most basic internet
connection to support NMFS' electronic reporting system at a cost of
$110 per month for internet services, the average annual cost to
dealers will be $1,320 for internet services ($110 * 12 months =
$1,320/year).
General
Comment 36: NMFS should have a dedicated email for submitting
comments instead of having comments submitted through the
regulations.gov Web site. The Councils provide an email address for
submission of comments.
Response: Current NMFS guidance requires all public comments on
rulemakings to be submitted through https://www.regulations.gov.
Regulations.gov is continually updating its Web page based on public
feedback. Additionally, users can establish news feeds for any Federal
agency that regularly publishes proposed and final rules.
Comment 37: The ASMFC and others commented that NMFS currently
closes the Atlantic shark fisheries when landings in each fishery reach
80 percent of quota to avoid overages. NMFS should consider increasing
this threshold with the implementation of electronic dealer reporting
as the Agency will be receiving more timely data.
Response: NMFS will consider increasing the 80-percent threshold
used to close the shark fisheries in the future based on timely receipt
of state data and timely reporting by dealers.
Comment 38: Currently, the Gulf reef fish fishery requires fishing
vessels to get a confirmation number for their catch before a vessel
can offload. This ensures that the Agency can account for all landings
under the IFQ system for Gulf reef fish. NMFS should consider a similar
system for HMS so that product can be tracked and reported to NMFS.
Response: NMFS did not analyze the impact of requiring a
confirmation code upon landing of HMS product in this rulemaking.
However, NMFS may consider this requirement in a future rulemaking, as
appropriate.
[[Page 47312]]
Comment 39: NMFS should require all state dealers to get Federal
dealer permits in the Gulf of Mexico. It would make the collection of
data more coordinated between state and Federal agencies.
Response: NMFS agrees that the coordination of data collection
between state and Federal agencies would make data collection more
efficient and timely. To that end, NMFS is appreciative of the efforts
of ASMFC in implementing such a requirement in the Atlantic states
under its jurisdiction. However, NMFS cannot require all states to
implement such regulations. Rather, NMFS is working with state agencies
in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean to streamline data collection, to
the extent possible.
Comment 40: NMFS should ensure that dealers and brokers are not
subjected to duplicative reporting and out of state dealer licensing
requirement that presently occurs in South Carolina.
Response: As mentioned in the response to Comment 41, NMFS tries to
streamline data collection, to the extent possible. However, NMFS does
not have jurisdiction over what states can request for reporting under
state law. While NMFS continues to coordinate with states to reduce
duplicative reporting to the extent possible, because NMFS mandates
reporting of HMS for federally-permitted dealers in all states from
Maine through Texas and the Caribbean, there will be cases where NMFS
requests data that is duplicative of some state requirements. NMFS
feels that implementation of this electronic dealer system, because of
the efforts to coordinate with states, ACCSP, SAFIS, and other
electronic reporting systems, should remove some, but not all, of these
duplicative requirements.
Comment 41: NMFS should consider electronic logbooks for commercial
fishing, and NMFS should specify the collections methods being
considered for recreational data.
Response: NMFS is currently working on electronic logbooks in some
fisheries. For instance, in the Northeast region, fishermen can submit
electronic vessel trip reports (VTRs). HMS fisheries may consider
electronic logbooks in the future, and the Agency is continually
working towards more timely data collection from both fishermen and
dealers. In terms of recreational fishing data, NMFS collects
recreational catch and effort information through the Marine
Recreational Information Program (MRIP). MRIP is a new way NMFS is
counting and reporting marine recreational catch and effort and
replaces the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, or MRFSS,
which had been in place since the 1970s. More information on MRIP can
be found at https://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov/.
Changes From the Proposed Rule (76 FR 37750, June 28, 2011)
In addition to minor corrections throughout, NMFS has made several
changes to the proposed rule. These changes are outlined below.
1. In Sec. 635.2, the definitions of ``first receiver'' was
removed and ``first receive'' was clarified and revised to mean ``to
take possession for commercial purpose of any fish or any part thereof
by purchasing, trading or bartering for it from the fish vessel owner
or operator or operator once it is offloaded from the vessel, where the
owner or operator has been issued, or should have been issued, a valid
permit under this part. First receive does not mean to take possession
solely for transport.'' In addition, the definition of ``reporting
week'' was added to mean ``the period of time beginning at 0001 local
time on Sunday and ending at 2400 hours local time the following
Saturday.''
2. Modifications made to Sec. 635.4(g) under the proposed rule
were removed in the final rule. Specifically, Sec. 635.4(g)(1)(i),
which stipulated different permitting requirements for Atlantic tunas
dealers that received Atlantic bluefin, was removed. In addition, Sec.
635.4(g)(1)(ii), which would have required first receivers of Atlantic
BAYS tunas to obtain a dealer permits, was removed. Changes to sections
Sec. 635.4(g)(1)-(3), which stipulated different dealer permit
requirements for BAYS tunas, sharks, and swordfish in the current
regulations, respectively, were modified based on public comment. In
addition, changes were made to maintain consistency with the ``dealer''
definition under Sec. 600.10 and changes to the ``first receive''
definition under Sec. 635.2 in this final rule.
3. In Sec. 635.5(b)(1)(i)-(iii), NMFS made various modifications
and clarifications based, in part, on public comment. Specifically, as
described above, the reporting frequencies that apply to Atlantic
swordfish, BAYS tunas, and shark dealers were modified based on public
comment to satisfy the need for timely landings data while avoiding an
excessive reporting burden on dealers. In addition, it was clarified
that dealers must report through a NMFS-approved electronic reporting
system no later than midnight, local time, of the first Tuesday
following the end of the reporting week unless the dealer is otherwise
notified by NMFS, and can make modifications to their dealer reports
not more than 30 days from when the report is submitted and received by
NMFS.
4. NMFS made various changes throughout Sec. 635.31(a) and (c).
Most were minor changes to the language in order to be consistent with
the language in other sections of the final rule. Regarding Sec.
635.31(a)(1)(i), NMFS determined that the proposed change was not
needed and decided to keep the existing regulatory text. Regarding
Sec. 635.31(c)(6), this regulatory text was not proposed in the
proposed rule as it has been implemented in a recent final rule (August
29, 2011, 76 FR 53652), which was implemented after the publication of
the proposed rule of this action (June 28, 2011, 76 FR 37550). In this
final rule, NMFS replaces the word ``purchase'' with ``first receive''
to be consistent with the other changes made in this final rule.
Regarding Sec. 635.31(d)(1), the proposed rule stipulated that
fishermen could only offload Atlantic swordfish to dealers as all
entities that first received Atlantic swordfish (i.e., not just
entities which bought fish from fishermen) would have needed a dealer
permit under the proposed rule. As a result of public comments, NMFS is
not making that a requirement in this final rule. As such, NMFS is
maintaining the existing language in Sec. 635.31(d)(1).
5. In Sec. 635.71, NMFS simplified paragraph (a)(3). NMFS also
decided that due, in part, to the changes made as a result of public
comments, the changes proposed in paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(55), and
(e)(1) were not needed at this time. Therefore, NMFS kept the existing
language for paragraphs (a)(4) and (e)(1) and moved the proposed
paragraph (a)(56) to paragraph (a)(55).
Classification
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final
action is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 2006 Consolidated
Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments, ATCA,
and other applicable law.
This final rule modifies a collection-of-information requirement
associated with dealer reporting for Atlantic HMS dealers subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which has been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0648-0040. The
modifications were approved by OMB on July 31, 2012. The public
reporting burden is associated with Atlantic HMS dealers having to
report receipt of Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas to NMFS
electronically (15 minutes per positive report and 5 minutes per
[[Page 47313]]
negative report). NMFS will establish a weekly reporting frequency and
may increase the reporting frequency via another regulatory action in
the future for all HMS species if more frequent reporting is necessary
to monitor the available quota. NMFS does not expect to do so in the
near future for BAYS tunas, sharks, or swordfish.
Public reporting burden for Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS
tunas will be one hour per month (15 minutes per report each week 7x4
weeks/month) or 12 hours per year. Based on the number of Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and tunas dealer permits (that deal with BAYS tunas)
in 2011 (or 916 total permits), this will result in an estimated total
annual burden of 10,992 hours.
Negative reports will require less of a reporting burden as
negative reports are estimated to only take 5 minutes to complete and
send to NMFS. Finally, all 916 permit holders affected by this final
rule are considered respondents.
Send comments on this or any other aspects of the collection-of-
information to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
Ecological impacts, outside of those that have been previously
analyzed for Atlantic shark dealer reporting requirements in Amendment
2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and categorically excluded for
Atlantic swordfish and BAYS tunas, are not expected as a result of this
final rule. This action will not directly affect fishing effort,
quotas, fishing gear, authorized species, interactions with threatened
or endangered species, or other relevant parameters. This final rule is
exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment in
accordance with NAO 216-6 because it will not have significant,
additional impacts on the human environment, or any environmental
consequences that have not been previously analyzed or are
categorically excluded in accordance with Sections 5.05b and Section
6.03.c.3(i) of NOAA's Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6. However, social
and economic impacts are expected as a result of this final action.
A FRFA was prepared, as required by 5 U.S.C. Section 604 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a
summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in
response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments, and a
summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A summary of
the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS
(see ADDRESSES).
Section 604(a)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that
the Agency describe the need for, and objectives of, the final rule.
The purpose of this final rule is, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, to aid NMFS
in monitoring and enforcing fisheries regulations, including those
implemented at 50 CFR part 635. Specifically, this final action will
change the current regulations and infrastructure of the Atlantic HMS
quota-monitoring system by requiring all federally-permitted Atlantic
HMS dealers to report receipt of Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS
tunas to NMFS through an electronic dealer reporting system on a weekly
basis and, delinquent reports to be submitted by dealers and received
by NMFS before a dealer could purchase commercially-harvested Atlantic
swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas. These actions are necessary to
ensure timely and accurate reporting, which is critical for quota
monitoring and management of these species.
Section 604(a)(2) requires a summary of the significant issues
raised by the public comments in response to the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and a statement of any changes made in the
proposed rule as a result of such comments. The Agency received
comments concerning the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis stating
that the Agency's estimate of monthly internet service of $50 per month
was not appropriate (see comment 35 above). As a result, the estimate
of monthly internet costs associated with this final action has
increased to $110 per month, based on public comment. Estimates of the
economic impacts of compliance with the final regulations have been
updated in the FRFA and final rule.
Comments were also received on the delayed implementation date
discussed in the IRFA and proposed rule (see comment 33 above). The
Agency proposed a delayed implementation date of 3 months, and the
public was in support of such a delay. Therefore, NMFS plans to delay
the implementation of the final action for this rule to provide dealers
with approximately four to five months to learn about the electronic
dealer reporting system before its use is required.
Finally, comments also indicated that it would take dealers
additional time to submit more frequent dealer reports and that there
would be additional costs associated with hiring personnel to be in
compliance with the proposed reporting frequencies (see comments 12,
16, and 34 above). Based on public comments, NMFS has reconsidered the
proposed reporting frequencies for Atlantic HMS dealers to simplify
reporting requirements and satisfy the need for timely landings data
while avoiding an excessive reporting burden on dealers. NMFS
recognizes that daily reporting requirements for sharks as preferred in
the proposed rule would not allow dealers sufficient time to gather
accurate price information for sharks and could have resulted in a
large reporting burden on dealers. At the same time, NMFS acknowledges
that unlike some shark fisheries, Atlantic swordfish and BAYS tunas
fisheries are currently not quota limited and may not require more
frequent reporting than the current biweekly reporting. However, NMFS
notes that other Federal dealer permits currently require weekly
reporting, including all Northeast Regional Office (NERO)-issued dealer
permits. Many HMS dealers also possess NERO-issued permits and,
therefore, are already reporting on a weekly basis. Additionally, many
fisheries managed by SERO are moving to weekly dealer reporting and
many HMS dealers also possess permits for these fisheries. Therefore,
NMFS believes that weekly reporting balances the need for more timely
landings data and maintains consistency in reporting requirements for
different dealer permits. In addition, NMFS is integrating the HMS
electronic reporting requirements into existing electronic reporting
programs, in part to ease the overall burden on dealers. Thus, NMFS
feels the final action satisfies the need for timely reporting and
avoids being overly burdensome on dealers with regard to reporting.
Under Section 604(a)(3), Federal agencies must provide an estimate
of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The
Small Business Administration (SBA) standards for a ``small'' versus
``large'' business entity are entities that have average annual
receipts less than $4.0 million for fish-harvesting; average annual
receipts less than $6.5 million for charter/party boats; 100 or fewer
employees for wholesale dealers; or 500 or fewer employees for seafood
processors. Under these standards, NMFS considers all HMS permit
holders subject to this rulemaking to be small entities. This
[[Page 47314]]
action would apply to all 916 Federal Atlantic HMS dealer permit
holders (in 2011), of which 183 had Atlantic shark, 350 had Atlantic
swordfish, and 383 had Atlantic tunas (bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and
skipjack) dealer permits.
Under Section 604(a)(4), Federal agencies must provide a
description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the rule. The final action requires Federal
Atlantic HMS dealers to report receipt of Atlantic sharks, swordfish,
and BAYS tunas to NMFS through an electronic reporting system on a
weekly basis. Under the final rule, the HMS dealer permit will continue
to require the same application and fees (i.e., $50 to $75) that are
currently in place. The information collected through the electronic
dealer system will include additional data fields, including vessel and
location of catch information; however, many new fields will be auto-
populated or selected from data fields in a drop down menu in the
electronic system. In addition, failure to report Atlantic sharks,
swordfish, and BAYS tunas to NMFS within the required reporting
frequency will result in dealers being ineligible to first receive
Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas. This final rule will not
conflict, duplicate, or overlap with other relevant Federal rules.
Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a
number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs.
These include, but are not limited to, the MSA, the ATCA, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act. NMFS does
not believe that the new regulations proposed to be implemented will
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any relevant regulations, Federal
or otherwise.
Under section 604(a)(5), agencies are required to describe any
alternatives to the rule which accomplish the stated objectives and
which minimize any significant economic impacts. These impacts are
discussed below. Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists
four general categories of ``significant'' alternatives that will
assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These
categories of alternatives are:
1. Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements
or timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities;
2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;
3. Use of performance rather than design standards; and
4. Exemptions from coverage of the rule for small entities.
In order to meet the objectives of this final rule, consistent with
the MSA, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting
requirements only for small entities because all of the participants in
Atlantic HMS fisheries are considered small entities. All federally-
permitted HMS dealers will submit weekly reports of all HMS received.
Similarly, the application process for the dealer permit will be the
same as the process that is required under the current regulations. The
majority of the information required to report in the new reporting
system will be the same as what is currently required. However, the
final rule will require federally-permitted dealers to report
information to NMFS weekly about Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS
tunas received, in an electronic format rather than on paper.
NMFS considered and analyzed four alternatives to ensure more
timely, efficient, and accurate dealer reporting and subsequent quota
monitoring of Atlantic HMS. NMFS considered the following alternatives:
Alternative A1--Status quo; Alternative A2--Establish new flexible
reporting requirements for all federally-permitted HMS dealers
effective 30 days after publication of the final rule; Alternative A3--
Establish new flexible reporting requirements for all federally-
permitted HMS dealers and delay implementation; and Alternative A4--
Establish new weekly reporting requirements for all federally-permitted
HMS dealers and delay implementation.
Alternative A1, the no action alternative, would maintain existing
reporting requirements for federally-permitted HMS dealers. There is no
monetary cost associated with the required reporting as NMFS provides
pre-paid envelopes for dealers to mail in their reports to the SEFSC.
However, HMS dealers must renew their open-access dealer permit each
year, and the total cost associated with obtaining a dealer permit, on
an annual basis, is between $50 to $75 per dealer, depending on their
participation in each of the HMS fisheries. With 916 dealers in the HMS
fishery (as specified in section 2.3), the total annual cost for
maintaining the dealer permits under the current paper format is from
$45,800 (916 dealers * $50 for dealer permits) to $68,700 (916 dealers
* $75 for dealer permits).
Alternative A2, A3, and A4 would require all federally-permitted
Atlantic HMS dealers to report receipt of Atlantic sharks, swordfish,
and BAYS tunas to NMFS through an electronic dealer reporting system.
As such, all of these alternatives would have similar direct economic
impacts to dealers in terms of purchasing a computer and/or internet
service (if they have not already done so) to comply with the final
electronic reporting measures under alternative A2, A3, and A4.
According to the Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy
(2010) approximately 94 percent of businesses own computers. Therefore,
NMFS estimates that 861 dealers (916 * 0.94) already have a computer.
Of businesses with computers, 95 percent or 817 dealers (861 dealers *
0.95) have Internet service. Using these estimates, approximately
between 44 (861 - 817 = 44 dealers with computers, but without
Internet) to 55 (916 - 861 = 55 without computer and Internet) dealers
would have to purchase computer and/or Internet services under this
alternative. The total amount of costs associated with dealers
reporting through the new dealer electronic system is estimated to be
$58,080 (44 dealers * $1,320 for Internet service) for those dealers
with a computer, but without Internet service and $106,425 (55 dealers
* $1,935 for computer and Internet service) for those dealers without a
computer and Internet service. Therefore, the additional aggregate cost
for electronic reporting under any of the alternatives is approximately
$164,505 ($58,080 + $106,425) in the first year. The cumulative cost
for electronic reporting and permitting would be approximately $210,305
($164,505 + $45,800) to $233,205 ($164,505 + $68,700) in the first
year, depending on the number of dealer permits obtained by each
dealer.
Alternative A2 and A3 would have increased social and economic
impacts based on reporting frequency and the requirement that all first
receivers of Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas, including
transporters, obtain dealer permits. The increase in the reporting
frequency could result in dealers having to hire additional personnel
to comply with the increase number of dealer reports. The annual burden
of reporting through the new system would depend on the species under
alternative A2 and A3. For Atlantic swordfish and BAYS tunas, this
would be an extra 0.5 hours per month (15 minutes per report each week
x 4 weeks; dealers are currently required to report to NMFS twice a
month) or 12 hours per year. Based on the number of Atlantic swordfish
and tunas dealer permits (that deal with BAYS tunas) in 2011 (or 733
total permits), this would
[[Page 47315]]
result in an estimated total annual burden of 8,796 hours. If these
fisheries reached 80 percent of any codified quotas, then the reporting
burden would increase from weekly to daily reporting for positive or
negative reports for any of the associated fisheries, however, NMFS
does not anticipate that this would occur at this time.
Atlantic sharks dealers would have to report more often while the
non-sandbar LCS, blacknose sharks, and non-blacknose SCS fishing
seasons were open. Atlantic shark dealers would spend approximately 7.5
hours/month reporting to NMFS (15 minutes per report each day x 30
days; currently dealers spend 0.5 hours reporting each month) while the
non-sandbar LCS, blacknose sharks, and non-blacknose SCS fishing
seasons were open, and approximately 1 hour per month (15 minutes per
report each week x 4 weeks/month) when the fishing seasons for these
fisheries were closed. In 2010, the non-sandbar LCS, blacknose, or non-
blacknose SCS fisheries were open for 33 weeks. In 2011, however, the
blacknose and non-blacknose SCS were open all year round or for 52
weeks. A similar range of season lengths in subsequent years would
result in 57.75 to 91.00 hours of reporting by the federal shark dealer
to NMFS while these fisheries were open. However, the non-sandbar LCS,
blacknose, or non-blacknose SCS fisheries were closed for 20 weeks
during 2010, which would result in 5 hours of reporting by the federal
shark dealer to NMFS under similar fishing seasons. Based on the number
of Atlantic shark dealer permits in 2011 (or 183 total permits), this
would result in an estimated total annual burden of 11,483 hours.
In addition, during the comment period on the proposed rule, NMFS
heard that requiring all first receivers of Atlantic swordfish, sharks,
and BAYS tunas, including transporters, to obtain dealer permits would
result in changes to dealer business practices. While the absolute
number of entities that would be affected by this alternative was not
quantified, the information provided through public comment indicated
that there would be negative social and economic impacts by requiring
all first receivers, including transporters, of Atlantic swordfish,
sharks, and BAYS tunas product to obtain dealers permits.
Alternative A4, the final action, will simplify dealer reporting on
dealers compared to the proposed alternative (i.e., alternative A3),
and will change the current definition of who is considered an Atlantic
HMS dealer in order to simplify the regulations and maintain
consistency with respect to who is considered a first receiver across
species. In addition, alternative A4 will only allow Atlantic HMS
dealer to purchase commercially-harvested Atlantic swordfish, sharks,
and BAYS tunas if the dealer has submitted timely reports to NMFS.
Under the final action, the cost associated with alternative A4
would be the additional reporting burden on dealers by requiring weekly
reporting frequency for Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and BAYS tunas
dealers. The amount of time it would take dealers to report through the
electronic system is estimated to be the same amount of time HMS
dealers currently take to report in a paper format (i.e., 15 minutes
per report); however, dealers would be reporting twice as frequently as
they do under the current regulations (i.e., they will be required to
report weekly instead of twice a month). Thus, for Atlantic swordfish,
sharks, and BAYS tunas, dealers would spend one hour per month (15
minutes per report each week x 4 weeks/month) or 12 hours per year
reporting to NMFS. Based on the number of Atlantic swordfish, shark,
and tuna dealer permits (that deal with BAYS tunas) in 2011 (or 916
total permits), this would result in an estimated total annual burden
of 10,992 hours. Negative reports would require less of a reporting
burden as negative reports are estimated to only take 5 minutes to
complete and submit to NMFS. NMFS assumes that this reduction in the
proposed reporting frequency should balance the need for timely data in
quota limited fisheries while minimizing reporting burdens on HMS
dealers.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule,
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of
this rulemaking process, a letter to permit holders that also serves as
small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of the
final rule are available from the HMS Management Division, and the
guide (i.e., permit holder letter) will be sent to all HMS dealers. The
guide and this final rule will be available upon request.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
Dated: August 3, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Performing the Functions and
Duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
For 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. 635.2, the definition for ``First receiver'' is removed and
the definitions for ``First receive'' and ``Reporting week'' are added
in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 635.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
First receive means to take possession for commercial purposes of
any fish or any part thereof by purchasing, trading or bartering for it
from the fishing vessel owner or operator once it is offloaded, where
the vessel has been issued, or should have been issued, a valid permit
under this part. First receive does not mean to take possession solely
for transport.
* * * * *
Reporting week means the period of time beginning at 0001 local
time on Sunday and ending at 2400 hours local time the following
Saturday.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 635.4, paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2) and (g)(3) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 635.4 Permit and fees.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Atlantic tunas. A dealer, as defined under Sec. 600.10 of this
chapter, must possess a valid federal Atlantic tunas dealer permit to
purchase, trade, or barter any Atlantic tunas.
(2) Shark. A dealer, as defined in Sec. 600.10 of this chapter,
must possess a valid federal Atlantic shark dealer permit to purchase,
trade, or barter any Atlantic shark listed in Table 1 of Appendix A of
this part.
(3) Swordfish. A dealer, as defined under Sec. 600.10 of this
chapter, must possess a valid federal Atlantic swordfish dealer permit
to purchase, trade, or barter any Atlantic swordfish.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 635.5, paragraph (b)(1)(iv) is removed and paragraphs
(b)(1)(i)
[[Page 47316]]
through (iii) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 635.5 Recordkeeping and reporting.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Dealers that have been issued or should have been issued a
Federal Atlantic BAYS tunas, swordfish, and/or shark dealer permit
under Sec. 635.4 must submit to NMFS all reports required under this
section within the timeframe specified under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of
this section. BAYS tunas, swordfish, and sharks commercially-harvested
by a vessel can only be first received by dealers that have been issued
or should have been issued an Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and/or shark
dealer permit under Sec. 635.4. All federal Atlantic HMS dealers must
provide a detailed report of all fish first received to NMFS within the
period specified under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. All
reports must be species-specific and must include the required
information about all, swordfish, and sharks received by the dealer,
including the required vessel information, regardless of where the fish
were harvested or whether the harvesting vessel is permitted under
Sec. 635.4. For sharks, each report must specify the total weight of
the carcass(es) without the fins for each species, and the total fin
weight by grade for all sharks combined. Dealers are also required to
submit ``negative'' reports, indicating no receipt of any species,
within the timeframe specified under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section if they did not first receive any fish during the reporting
period . As stated in Sec. 635.4(a)(6), failure to comply with these
recordkeeping and reporting requirements may result in existing dealer
permit(s) being revoked, suspended, or modified, and in the denial of
any permit applications.
(ii) Reports of any Atlantic BAYS tunas, sharks, and/or swordfish
first received by dealers from a vessel must be submitted
electronically on a weekly basis through a NMFS-approved electronic
reporting system by the dealer and received by NMFS no later than
midnight, local time, of the first Tuesday following the end of the
reporting week unless the dealer is otherwise notified by NMFS. Reports
of BAYS tunas, sharks, and/or swordfish may be modified for not more
than 30 days from when the dealer report is submitted to NMFS. NMFS
will require BAYS tunas, swordfish, and shark dealers to submit dealer
reports to NMFS on a weekly basis. Atlantic BAYS tunas, sharks, and
swordfish dealers must submit electronic negative reports stating that
no BAYS tunas, sharks, and/or swordfish were first received when they
received no fish of these species, and no parts thereof, during the
reporting period. Reporting requirements for bluefin tuna are specified
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The negative reporting requirement
does not apply for bluefin tuna.
(iii) Atlantic HMS dealers are not authorized to first receive
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and/or BAYS tunas if the required reports
have not been submitted and received by NMFS according to reporting
requirements under this section. Delinquent reports automatically
result in an Atlantic HMS dealer becoming ineligible to first receive
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and/or BAYS tunas. Atlantic HMS dealers who
become ineligible to first receive Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and/or
BAYS tunas due to delinquent reports are authorized to first receive
Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and/or BAYS tunas only once all required
and delinquent reports have been completed, submitted by the dealer,
and received by NMFS.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 635.8, paragraphs (b)(4) through (6), and paragraph (c)(4)
are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 635.8 Workshops.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Only dealers issued a valid shark dealer permit may send a
proxy to the Atlantic shark identification workshops. If a dealer opts
to send a proxy, the dealer must designate at least one proxy from each
place of business listed on the dealer permit, issued pursuant to Sec.
635.4(g)(2), which first receives Atlantic shark. The proxy must be a
person who is currently employed by a place of business covered by the
dealer's permit; is a primary participant in the identification,
weighing, and/or first receipt of fish as they are received; and fills
out dealer reports as required under Sec. 635.5. Only one certificate
will be issued to each proxy. If a proxy is no longer employed by a
place of business covered by the dealer's permit, the dealer or another
proxy must be certified as having completed a workshop pursuant to this
section. At least one individual from each place of business listed on
the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks must possess a
valid Atlantic shark identification workshop certificate.
(5) An Atlantic shark dealer issued or required to be issued a
shark dealer permit pursuant to Sec. 635.4(g)(2) must possess and make
available for inspection a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic shark
identification workshop certificate issued to the dealer or proxy at
each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives
Atlantic sharks. For the purposes of this part, trucks or other
conveyances of a dealer's place of business are considered to be
extensions of a dealer's place of business and must possess a copy of a
valid dealer or proxy Atlantic shark identification workshop
certificate issued to a place of business covered by the dealer permit.
A copy of a valid Atlantic shark identification workshop certificate
must be included in the dealer's application package to obtain or renew
an Atlantic shark dealer permit. If multiple businesses are authorized
to first receive Atlantic sharks under the Atlantic shark dealer's
permit, a copy of the Atlantic shark identification workshop
certificate for each place of business listed on the Atlantic shark
dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks must be included in
the Atlantic shark dealer permit renewal application package.
(6) Persons holding an expired Atlantic shark dealer permit and
persons who intend to apply for a new Atlantic shark dealer permit will
be issued a participant certificate in their name upon successful
completion of the Atlantic shark identification workshop. A participant
certificate issued to such persons may be used only to apply for an
Atlantic shark dealer permit. Pursuant to Sec. 635.8(c)(4), an
Atlantic shark dealer may not first receive Atlantic shark without a
valid dealer or proxy Atlantic shark identification workshop
certificate issued to the dealer or proxy. After an Atlantic shark
dealer permit is issued to a person using an Atlantic shark
identification workshop participant certificate, such person may obtain
an Atlantic shark identification workshop dealer certificate for each
location which first receives Atlantic sharks by contacting NMFS at an
address designated by NMFS.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) An Atlantic shark dealer may not first receive Atlantic shark
without a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic shark identification workshop
certificate issued to the dealer or proxy. A valid dealer or proxy
Atlantic shark identification workshop certificate issued to the dealer
or proxy must be maintained on the premises of each place of business
listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks. An
Atlantic shark dealer may not renew a Federal dealer permit issued
pursuant to Sec. 635.4(g)(2) unless a
[[Page 47317]]
copy of a valid dealer or proxy Atlantic shark identification workshop
certificate issued to the dealer or proxy has been submitted with the
permit renewal application. If the dealer is not certified and opts to
send a proxy or proxies to a workshop, the dealer must submit a copy of
a valid proxy certificate for each place of business listed on the
dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 635.27, paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(C) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 635.27 Quotas.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * *
(C) Except for non-sandbar LCS landed by vessels issued a valid
shark research permit with a NMFS-approved observer onboard, any non-
sandbar LCS reported as harvested in the Florida Keys areas or in the
Gulf of Mexico will be counted against the non-sandbar LCS Gulf of
Mexico regional quota. Except for non-sandbar LCS landed by vessels
issued a valid shark research permit with a NMFS-approved observer
onboard, any non-sandbar LCS reported as harvested in the Atlantic
region will be counted against the non-sandbar LCS Atlantic regional
quota. Non-sandbar LCS landed by a vessel issued a valid shark research
permit with a NMFS-approved observer onboard will be counted against
the non-sandbar LCS research fishery quota using scientific observer
reports.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 635.28, paragraph (b)(4) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 635.28 Closures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) When the fishery for a shark species group and/or region is
closed, a fishing vessel, issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark
permit pursuant to Sec. 635.4, may not possess or sell a shark of that
species group and/or region, except under the conditions specified in
Sec. 635.22(a) and (c) or if the vessel possesses a valid shark
research permit under Sec. 635.32 and a NMFS-approved observer is on
board. During the closure period, an Atlantic shark dealer, issued a
permit pursuant to Sec. 635.4, may not first receive a shark of that
species group and/or region from a vessel issued a Federal Atlantic
commercial shark permit, except that a permitted Atlantic shark dealer
or processor may possess sharks that were harvested, offloaded, and
sold, traded, or bartered, prior to the effective date of the closure
and were held in storage. Under a closure for a shark species group, an
Atlantic shark dealer, issued a permit pursuant to Sec. 635.4 may, in
accordance with State regulations, purchase, trade for, barter for, or
receive a shark of that species group if the sharks were harvested,
offloaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel that fishes only
in State waters and that has not been issued a federal Atlantic
commercial shark permit, HMS Angling permit, or HMS Charter/Headboat
permit pursuant to Sec. 635.4. Additionally, under a closure for a
shark species group and/or regional closure, an Atlantic shark dealer,
issued a permit pursuant to Sec. 635.4, may first receive a shark of
that species group if the sharks were harvested, offloaded, and sold,
traded, or bartered from a vessel issued a valid shark research permit
(per Sec. 635.32) that had a NMFS-approved observer on board during
the trip sharks were collected.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 635.31, paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) are added and
paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), (d)(1), and (d)(2) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 635.31 Restrictions on sale and purchase.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Dealers may purchase Atlantic bluefin tuna only from a vessel
that has a valid Federal commercial permit for Atlantic tunas issued
under this part in the appropriate category.
(ii) Dealers may first receive BAYS tunas only if they have
submitted reports to NMFS according to reporting requirements of Sec.
635.5(b)(1)(ii) and only from a vessel that has a valid Federal
commercial permit for Atlantic tunas issued under this part in the
appropriate category.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Persons that own or operate a vessel for which a valid Federal
Atlantic commercial shark permit has been issued and on which a shark
from the management unit is possessed, may sell, barter or trade such
shark only to a dealer that has a valid permit for shark issued under
this part.
* * * * *
(4) Only dealers that have a valid a Federal Atlantic shark dealer
permit and who have submitted reports to NMFS according to reporting
requirements of Sec. 635.5(b)(1)(ii) may first receive a shark from an
owner or operator of a vessel that has, or is required to have, a valid
federal Atlantic commercial shark permit issued under this part, except
that Atlantic shark dealers may purchase, trade for, barter for, or
receive a shark from an owner or operator of a vessel that does not
have a federal Atlantic commercial shark permit if that vessel fishes
exclusively in state waters. Atlantic shark dealers may first receive a
sandbar shark only from an owner or operator of a vessel who has a
valid shark research permit and who had a NMFS-approved observer on
board the vessel for the trip in which the sandbar shark was collected.
Atlantic shark dealers may first receive a shark from an owner or
operator of a fishing vessel that has a permit issued under this part
only when the fishery for that species group and/or region has not been
closed, as specified in Sec. 635.28(b).
(5) An Atlantic shark dealer issued a permit under this part may
first receive shark fins from an owner or operator of a fishing vessel
only if the shark fins were harvested in accordance with the
regulations found at part 600, subpart N, of this chapter and in Sec.
635.30(c).
(6) A dealer issued a permit under this part may not first receive
oceanic whitetip sharks or scalloped, smooth, or great hammerhead
sharks from an owner or operator of a fishing vessel with pelagic
longline gear on board, or from the owner of a fishing vessel issued
both a HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a commercial shark permit when
tuna, swordfish or billfish are on board the vessel, offloaded from the
vessel, or being offloaded from the vessel.
(d) * * *
(1) Persons that own or operate a vessel on which a swordfish in or
from the Atlantic Ocean is possessed may sell or trade such swordfish
only if the vessel has a valid commercial permit for swordfish issued
under this part. Persons may offload such swordfish only to a dealer
who has a valid permit for swordfish issued under this part.
(2) Atlantic swordfish dealers may first receive a swordfish
harvested from the Atlantic Ocean only from an owner or operator of a
fishing vessel that has a valid commercial permit for swordfish issued
under this part and only if the dealer has submitted reports to NMFS
according to reporting requirements of Sec. 635.5(b)(1)(ii).
0
9. In Sec. 635.71, paragraph (a)(55) is added and paragraphs (a)(3),
(d)(11), (d)(14), and (d)(16) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 635.71 Prohibitions.
(a) * * *
(3) Purchase, receive, or transfer or attempt to purchase, receive,
or transfer, for commercial purposes, Atlantic
[[Page 47318]]
bluefin tuna landed by owners of vessels not permitted to do so under
Sec. 635.4, or purchase, receive, or transfer, or attempt to purchase,
receive, or transfer Atlantic bluefin tuna without the appropriate
valid Federal Atlantic tunas dealer permit issued under Sec. 635.4.
Purchase, receive, or transfer or attempt to purchase, receive, or
transfer, for commercial purposes, other than solely for transport, any
BAYS tunas, swordfish, or sharks landed by owners of vessels not
permitted to do so under Sec. 635.4, or purchase, receive, or
transfer, or attempt to purchase, receive, or transfer, for commercial
purposes, other than solely for transport, any BAYS tunas, swordfish,
or sharks without the appropriate valid dealer permit issued under
Sec. 635.4 or submission of reports by dealers to NMFS according to
reporting requirements specified in Sec. 635.5. This prohibition does
not apply to a shark harvested from a vessel that has not been issued a
permit under this part and that fishes exclusively within the waters
under the jurisdiction of any state.
* * * * *
(55) Fail to electronically submit an Atlantic HMS dealer report
through the HMS electronic dealer reporting system to report BAYS
tunas, swordfish, and sharks to NMFS in accordance with Sec. 635.5, if
issued, or required to be issued, a Federal Atlantic HMS dealer permit
pursuant to Sec. 635.4.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(11) First receive or attempt to first receive Atlantic sharks
without a valid Federal Atlantic shark dealer or proxy Atlantic shark
identification workshop certificate issued to the dealer or proxy or
fail to be certified for completion of a NMFS Atlantic shark
identification workshop in violation of Sec. 635.8.
* * * * *
(14) First receive or attempt to first receive Atlantic sharks
without making available for inspection, at each of the dealer's places
of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic
sharks, an original, valid dealer or proxy Atlantic shark
identification workshop certificate issued by NMFS to the dealer or
proxy in violation of Sec. 635.8(b), except that trucks or other
conveyances of the business must possess a copy of such certificate.
* * * * *
(16) First receive or attempt to first receive a shark or sharks or
part of a shark or sharks landed in excess of the retention limits
specified in Sec. 635.24(a).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-19457 Filed 8-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P